Kentucky city clerk Kim Davis is receiving notoriety for standing up for her sincerely held religious convictions by abstaining from issuing same sex marriage lisences. As a result she has since been jailed. This morning I awoke to social media thick with people coming to her defense. I get it. The optics suggest she is being targeted for her Christian convictions that marriage is truly defined as being between one man and one woman. I don’t disagree. She has that correct. However, that’s not actually the full story, and she is not making as noble a stand as it’s be purported.
First let me clear some things up. Davis is being jailed for contempt of court, not her religious convictions. Though the two are correlated, it’s not exactly the same. I understand her protest. I can even sympathize. She is correct, and morally correct when she says she has an obligation to obey God’s standards and not man’s. But she is wrong for how she’s choosing to cash that out.
She had an option to allow other clerks in the office to issue the lisences. However, she prevented anyone from issuing the lisences. That was her first mistake. She wouldn’t be in this position if she had simply made the conscientious objection, but didn’t stand in the way. This avenue would not have violated her commitment to her religious convictions.
Those who stand in opposition to Davis served the ultimatum: issue or resign. But this does speak to where her allegiances reside. Once the courts failed to grant her the accommodation — even though I believe she would have been accommodated had she allowed the other office personnel to issue the lisences — she had a duty, as an elected public official, to ensure all legal marriage lisence applications were issued.
I’m not one to support handing down an ultimatum like that. But it does show what is important to her. She was dedicated enough to be sent to jail on a contempt of court charge, but not dedicated enough to forgo her salary as a county clerk. In this day and age, in this economy, it’s hard to find fault in not wanting to relinquish a well paying job. But it’s a sign that although she has an allegiance to God, that allegiance apparently has a financial contingency.
It’s an unfortunate situation, but it Davis mishandled it wrongly by making herself a political martyr. If the Christian community wants to make Davis’ circumstance their cause, more power to them. But it’s important to represent all the details fairly.
Sifting Reality 
If I’m not mistaken, she heads that department. That is, she IS the county clerk and all others are extensions of her as her subordinates. Thus, to simply allow other clerks to issue the licenses would be no different than had she done it herself. If she only worked for the county clerk, as opposed to being the county clerk, then recusing herself from issuing a license on behalf of the county clerk’s office would be good enough for her. Again, I could be mistaken about her exact position, but if I am right, then merely passing the job off to a subordinate doesn’t actually relieve her of accountability. It’s like saying, “I won’t shoot you, my guy will shoot you.”
I also disagree with the notion that not quitting her job means that she’s only thinking of the pay. That would make her whole resistance a total sham. I don’t believe there’s justification for that speculation. Also, how one choice affects the culture compared to another choice is an important consideration as well for someone in Davis’ position. Wintery Knight put it this way:
Now, if you can get a conscientious objection that allows you to recuse yourself from duties that conflict with your duty to Christ, that is a good enough compromise. Because then you keep your influence in government (which is important!). But if there is no opt-out, then just let them fire you. I would say that you can resign, but in this case it’s better to resist and let it become a news story. That way, in the next election, people will remember where the fascists stand on religious liberty. Maybe some of the fake Christians will actually vote the right way.”
Then again, maybe they won’t. But Davis’ action aligns much better with Edmund Burke’s statement: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” It’s a matter of peer pressure and influence. Davis’ consistent refusal to acknowledge an illicit SCOTUS ruling speaks far more loudly than would her quitting her job. It draws more attention to the conflict of the bad ruling versus already enumerated rights of religious expression. It draws attention to the notion of opposing bad law, evil orders and the like. To that point, Stan addresses it rather well.
Then there is Glenn’s perspective, with which I have some issues. His angle regarding Davis upholding the laws of her state, as is her duty as county clerk, is probably something that she should have pronounced as impacting her refusal as well, if not more so than her religious conviction. I personally find them of equal value and importance. The judiciary is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. These days, they are like gods in how their “opinions” are regarded by the other two branches. No state, whose people and/or legislatures supported in their laws the real definition of marriage should ever have let any court of any level of government dictate that they change their laws to accommodate their rulings…especially rulings like these that have no basis in law, history or reason.
I don’t see any moral issue with her stepping aside and letting another clerk handle the lisence. Looking at the big picture, I don’t think God would say to her, you should have held up the entire office and everyone’s lisence hostage. In the end, sinners are going to sin. And for that matter, refusing and forcing everyone to go to a different county is just a long way of letting someone else “shoot them”.
The problem is that she held the whole county hostage. Wouldn’t allow anyone to get lisenced.
Well, that’s where I depart from her action. I don’t think she should have stopped issuing licenses for real marriages, only for SSMs, because as Glenn points out, she’d have also been in compliance with state law and not obliged. I believe that argument would have served her better, with the religious objection an addendum rather than the primary objection.
Also, I wasn’t weighing the option in terms of morality, though the option of issuing licenses to homosexuals wasn’t an option on the list anyway and would clearly be immoral. No, it was a matter, to me anyway, of which action provides the best band for the buck in terms of influencing the culture back toward morality. A firm stand as she took, altered by denying licenses only to those for whom the law did not include as eligible, as well as highlighting that she is not required to act against existing Kentucky law, even by judicial order, would have been the best course to serve that end.
Sure, the homos moving to another county might provide them what they want, but it really isn’t passing the buck, as her buck only goes as far as the borders of her county. She’s only beholden to her county, not the entire state or nation, as far as her job responsibilities.
However, she would then be accused of discrimination and hating- obviously. “PC” minions are attacking her as we speak… orchestrated event to discredit her and demonize any who oppose this evil agenda. IMHO
Well, that’s the current way things are done: disagreement=hate.
I think the point in denying all licenses was to avoid being accused of discrimination in the form of a civil rights violation. Equal Denial.
I also think Marshal is right in that having a proxy issue the license doesn’t solve the problem of tacit approval. She may as well issue them herself if she’s going to sit idly by and do nothing.
And who among us would recognize the name Kim Davis had she resigned in protest and snuck out the back door? Nobody. It wouldn’t be a story, and thus the now apparent threat to religious liberty would still be but a rumor. She sacrificed herself, and is something akin to a martyr in my opinion. We Christians need to view this through the optic of opportunity, and seize it by defending her religious liberty vociferously.
Many others in her position have resigned, and they didn’t “sneak out the back door,” rather they made their point and have been in the news making that point. I’m not saying she should have done nothing, I just say she took the wrong tact by claiming discrimination against her faith, by claiming martyrdom when no one was forcing her to do anything that she couldn’t have gotten out of doing by resigning. I also pointed out that she could have made just as grand a stand by sticking to the fact that she took an oath to uphold KY law, and KY law hasn’t changed regardless of a judicial opinion.
I respect those people, Glenn. It’s extraordinary anytime Christians possess the courage of their convictions. But resignations lack shock value. Being imprisoned for upholding your Christian beliefs? Lots of shock value.
Liberals are winning the culture war because they understand how the game is played. They understand, for instance, that “victimhood” is a powerful thing in America. If conservatives have any chance of narrowing the gap, let alone winning the war, they’d better learn quick. And honestly, if we’re not playing to win then what the hell are we all doing?
God Bless Kim Davis.
T, I think that’s a particularly keen way to look at it. I hadn’t thought about it like that.
Even if she’s in the wrong, it has the social and political potential value to help our side in the culture war.
I don’t think they lack shock value, as long as they still get in the media the reasons for their actions.
HOWEVER, my point was that with her only reasoning being her faith not allowing it she really had no option but to resign — otherwise she VOLUNTARILY placed herself in the position of being forced to issue the licenses.
I think the only problem is that everyone is looking at this issue from too many places at the same time. Which is why I isolated the different aspects of the case to point out how her initial reasoning was wrong. And I think why so many who are agreeing that it was wrong is because it set a very bad precedent for Davis to say she couldn’t do that job because it would force her to act against God, and yet refuse to take an available out which even the secular world saw.
Scripture is very clear that we are to obey the laws of the land unless they conflict with God’s law, and then we have to be willing to accept the consequences of that disobedience of the law – sort of like Daniel facing the consequences of rebelling and ending being stuck with a lion.
But we aren’t always forced to go against God’s law if we are able to remove ourselves from the situation, and that was my point about her original statements. Looking back at all the stuff going back and forth, I think she really didn’t understand what she was saying and the ramifications behind it if she wanted to use her faith, and only her faith, as her reason. She sought accommodation and was refused, so without using the legal process (which was never mentioned for the first couple of days), she really had only ONE biblical recourse and that was to resign, because by staying in the position she voluntarily remained under the authority which only forced her IF she remained under that authority. And that was my point all along; she chose the wrong defense all the while not taking the available out for THAT defense. And I never suggested she take that out unless she wanted to stick by her original defense. (Placing her faith as a reason to not violate her oath doesn’t give her resignation as her only recourse, because now she has pointed to her faith as to why she must honor God by honoring her oath to a law which is still on the books!)
And too many Christians accepted her first defense as right and proper, not understanding that God never said we have to stay under that authority if we can leave it. Too many people also think it would have been a “cut and run”, but even then there is nothing wrong with “cut and run” if that is all that is available to you.
AH, but she had other options even while citing her faith, as I have noted, but none of which were stated until after she was arrested. NOW they are making right calls on the issue.
I firmly stand behind her under the right calls. But when you narrow you claim to a singular biblical position for which you are able to solve, then you are wrong to not take the out which is available under that claim.
Glenn,
Christians opposition to same-sex marriage is well-known among everyone who doesn’t live under a rock. Thus, it isn’t very shocking when a Christian resigns rather than support same-sex marriage. It’s noble. But shocking? Minimally, if at all.
Of course, the reverse IS shocking. I remember the outrage after Brendan Eich of Mozilla was fired for supporting Prop. 8 in California. His removal sent a clear message: “Christians Need Not Apply,” at least if they intend on actually living according to their faith.
But Kim Davis’ situation is unique. She cannot easily be fired nor is she willing to resign. So what’s the government to do with this rabble rouser? Will they figure out a way to accommodate her beliefs? Clearly the best and fairest option for all parties involved. Or, will they impose a hefty fine to make her comply? No. Instead, they usurp Kim Davis’ constitutional right to practice her religion AND throw her in jail like a common criminal. It’s outrageous.
This is America. Christians shouldn’t have to sacrifice their careers or beliefs in this country. But that seems to be a choice many on the Right wish Kim Davis would’ve made. To me it is unconscionable. It’s sickening that Christians, in AMERICA OF ALL PLACES, are being forced to choose between their careers and their beliefs. Disgusting.
And I don’t look at this issue as a Christian necessarily. I look at this as a lover of liberty and a true believer in the United States Constitution. If we allow this injustice then we are on the road to tyranny. And lest anyone think that tyranny can never grip a democratic nation such as ours, know that Hitler was democratically elected. And why shouldn’t he have been? He promised to return Germany to its former glory, to erase the humiliation suffered at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles…Come to think of it, Hitler promised Hope and Change.
We’re living in a New America. The Democrat Party is infested with liberals hellbent on destroying the Constitution because it impedes their ability to implement their radical socialist agenda. Moderates are a dying breed. Radicals are taking over. So any chance conservatives get to slow the decay of Western society, or perhaps reverse the trend, then they need to jump on it. Kim Davis is a martyr, a victim, and we need to take advantage of it and spread the message. It’s time to give liberals a dose of their own medicine…
Viva La Revolution!
Terrance, you are missing my whole point.
IF she was relying only on her faith, claiming that her faith did not allow her to do said job, then biblically speaking she had but one alternative and that was to resign her position. Otherwise she would be voluntarily remaining in a position where she would be forced to do the job — but then she couldn’t say she was forced because she always had an out. GOD does NOT say we must remain under the authority that Rom.13 and 1 Pet 2:13. So IF she relied only on that reason for refusing to do her job, she had no alternative but to resign, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.
However, because of her particular job she had legal recourse due to the oath she took to the state for KY to uphold their laws. But that wasn’t the original publicized reason.
Again, I agree with her standing firm with the proper reasoning. But with the previous reason given originally (at least through the media) she had only one biblical recourse. It is not about keeping one’s job in that instance, since her stated goal was to only honor God. Don’t get confused by mixing the issues.
And you are wrong – it doesn’t matter that people know we are against fake marriage, it STILL hits the media when this happens EVEN if it is just a resignation. Again, before her there were several in similar positions who resigned and they were all over media, and yet you think that doesn’t have an effect?!?!
I have to say that the more I think on this story, the more I continue to favor Davis’ choice of action. She wasn’t hired, she was elected, and by that election she was the choice of the people. The people thought she could do the job. Thus, to simply quit is to insult those who voted for her. They wanted her in that job as opposed to others who sought to get it. The people of her county have the right to have the person they elected serve in that capacity.
I also feel it necessary to say that I don’t have a problem with her reason. I just think it wasn’t the best to make the point. But it was HER reason and why should she have to have any other? We can provide an answer to that question, but it still comes down to HER reason for HER refusal to comply with the illicit ruling by the SCOTUS.
As to others in that position, I just saw an article that states 30 judges have stepped down rather than preside over same-sex mirages (thanx, Stan!). I didn’t read the article, but it wasn’t a huge one and I doubt they listed all thirty. Perhaps each got a paragraph or two in their local papers, but who knows about it other than those who have read of their “retirement” and made a note of it? But Kim Davis? Far more people are aware of her than of any of the others BECAUSE of her incarceration after her repeated refusals to “do her job”.
The simple “I quit” might be satisfying, but how many will be needed before it has any real effect on the culture? “Making a stink” in the manner of a Kim Davis will do much more. I would prefer the biggest bang for the buck before this sexual immorality can metastasize any further. I really don’t want to see the national comfort level with this LGBT crap deepen.
Glenn,
I specifically stated that I don’t look at this issue as a Christian. So while I understand your argument well, and think it’s valid from a Christian perspective, it is outside the scope of my concern. My concern rests with the First Amendment and the right of religious freedom.
If you thought I was criticizing your view then please accept my apology. It wasn’t my intention.
I think that voluntary resignations have a minimal effect, because as Marshal points out, 30 judges have resigned over this issue and almost nobody knows their names. Their names do not trend on social media, appear in the headlines of major newspapers, or infiltrate households through television. It is no doubt a local effect.
We can use those judges and other Christians who have resigned in a peripheral or tangential way, but Kim Davis, having been stripped of her constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion and imprisoned, must be the focal point. “Victimhood,” as I said, is a powerful state of being in the United States of America, and Kim Davis is the most obvious victim. We need to jump on this bandwagon as quickly as possible and ride it as far as we can. It’s the same thing that liberals do and that is why they are winning the culture war.
I am sick and tired of waking up everyday knowing that almost 2,000 children a day are slaughtered and their parts are sold to the highest bidder. I am sick and tired of hearing about Christian kids being told that they cannot pray in school while boys are allowed to use the girls locker room because they “feel” girly. I am sick and tired of traditional families being styled as an “alternative lifestyle” by know-nothing scholars who are paid to poison young minds. I am sick and tired of people waving an American flag being viewed as extremist while homosexuals march half naked in the streets are viewed as heroes!
If we lose, we lose. But let’s at least suit up for the damn game! That is my point.
Terrance,
The problem is that we HAVE to look at this case as Christians, because Kim Davis is fighting it as a Christian. And the way she is doing it is WRONG biblically. I did a new post explaining the options she had and why, with HER reasoning, as a Christian she MUST resign or she is in violation of Rom.13 and 1 Pet. 2. She can’t just pick and choose how to apply her faith (which is actually heretical because she is a modalist.)
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-christians-duty-in-regard-to-law.html
If she had taken – or if she will take – the proper path as I note, then she would do more for the situation than anyone so far, because she would be bringing into the media that the judicial opinions have no standing because they are not law. But all she is doing is claiming her religious rights, which no one is stepping on because the law doesn’t recognize sin. Her right to obey her faith stops when she violates what the Bible commands. She can’t follow her faith improperly and then claim persecution.
Glenn,
Whether Kim Davis handled the situation biblically is again outside the scope of libertarian concern. The SCOTUS unlawfully pushed same-sex marriage on the entire country and demanded that officials recognize these marriages and aide in their fruition, apparently regardless any religious objection. Again, this is simply unconstitutional.
Terrance, I understand that. BUT, this post is about Kim Davis and her actions. If she wasn’t a Christian, then it wouldn’t matter what course she took as long as she got the attention.
Glenn
Do you think that a greater good could come by making a spectacle of the incicent? To use Terrances example, there have been a few dozen judges who’ve resigned, quietly. In doing so they’ve done nothing to help the cause of religious conscientious objection. They simply let the ungodly win. By standing firm, even if she could have gone about it differently, maybe even more biblically, she has brought to the nation’s attention that religious freedom is being infringed upon. That there is a line of demarcation that people didn’t realize was being drawn.
I am seeing this as more of a lying Rahab, rather than a disobedient Christian. Does that make sense?
John,
NO it doesn’t. Because she is a Christian (or at least claims to be) her situation has to be handled from a Christian worldview. Therefore, she needs to be directed to the PROPER route to take rather than the stance she keeps taking. As long as she’s taking the stance she is taking, then she MUST step down or violate the teachings of the faith she claims to uphold.
What she is doing is misrepresenting Christianity in the same way any false teacher does, bringing disgrace to the name of Christ. She is setting a bad example for Christians. This is much more important to the Christian faith than any stink she brings out about the lawlessness of the judges.
Yesterday in an interview she claimed to believe that if she issued such licenses she would go to hell! This is why the “gays” are having a field day mocking Christians, because of people like her.
Great Article!
Glenn,
I understand. But I think that Christians should at least recognize and take advantage of the opportunity Kim Davis’ situation presents. She may not have handled the situation biblically, but it’s still useful for Christians who wish to change for the better our corrupt society.
Taking advantage of the situation by learning from it!
It’s clear that Christians have a responsibility to resist evil and only good governments are to be obeyed. Daniel disobeyed Darius. Rahab lied. Moses was hidden from the Pharaohs. God commanded Jesus’ parents to hide him from King Herod. Jesus Himself disobeyed authority and so did Paul. Knowing all this, how could anyone abuse Romans 13 so blatantly by suggesting that resisting all authority is a sin?
John, if you read my article, you’d see that there is RIGHTEOUS disobedience when the laws conflict with God’s laws (Acts 5:29). But there is a proper way of operating under this rule, and Davis is not doing it properly.
She didn’t even need to disobey any conflicting law because there was no conflicting law if she just took the proper legal recourse!! But the stand she is taking only gives one proper recourse and that is to resign because she is not being forced to remain under the authority. Someone needs to give her good Christian counsel and good legal counsel for the proper approach to this situation. Read my article and understand – I detail the problem.
But who could learn from it if no one knows about it?
Isn’t the bible full of believers disobeying government and not simply quitting and shrinking back into society? What should we learn from them?
John, everyone heard about it. And if she had done it right they still would have heard about it. The fact that she’s playing the thing wrong only brings disgrace to the faith; and we learn from her error by DOING IT RIGHT!
Those people in the Bible who disobeyed the government did so the RIGHT way. Did you read my post explaining what she did wrong, and why it was wrong, and what she should have done instead?
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-christians-duty-in-regard-to-law.html
It is very important that we obey the proper way of disobedience as Christians; we can’t just do what we want and expect kudos when even the secular world knows what is wrong.
From a Christian standpoint, we should all be more focused on whether we are obeying God rather than whether we are martyrs for a cause.
Glenn,
I read the post and I have to say I’m a bit confused. You seem to be making several arguments that conflict with each other. You imply that Davis’ “only out” was to resign her office. You wax:
Davis really had only one recourse and that would be to resign and remove herself from under the authority which was compelling her to go against God’s law.”
But as I continued reading I came across this tidbit:
Since judicial opinions and decisions in regards to laws don’t actually change the laws, Davis would not be bound by such decisions, rather she would have to wait until the legislature actually changed the laws. Otherwise she would be violating her oath of duty to the law. So she would be righteously disobeying the judges and the governor who ordered her to issue the licenses. Because she had this other option she did not need to resign in order to solve the situation with proper legal authority.
It cannot be both.
You also say:
“BUT, our stand for God is to glorify God and to not bring glory to ourselves for our martyrdom.”
Since I can’t look into Kim Davis’ heart then I won’t question her motives. You’re assuming facts not in evidence.
You end with the following:
I do have one final thought where Davis, in my opinion, acted wrongly if she is going by her oath of office. She refused to issue ANY marriage licenses so as to not be accused of discrimination. However, since the law recognizes real marriage, she should have continued to issue those licenses all the while refusing same-sex licenses based not on her claims of what God does or does not allow, but on what the law she took an oath to uphold allowed!
Your argument can be summed it in a single sentence: [D]avis should’ve issued traditional marriage licenses and disgraced her faith by not doing so. Fine. But you’ve not demonstrated this in anyway. It’s a lot of opinion but nothing substantial to support it.
Let’s look at this issue logically. If Christians are obligated to play by the government’s rules, as YOU SUGGEST, then what did Kim Davis do wrong? Our government considers homosexuals to be a protected class and believes that refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples constitutes an equal protection violation. See 14th Amendment. So by refusing to issue ANY marriage licenses then Kim Davis’ cannot be accused of violating the equal protection clause.
Consider: Following the Obergefell decision, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) sent a letter to all county clerks. It said: “Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act.” And since the Obergefell decision revolved ENTIRELY around the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, Davis’ actions were in line with the conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court, i.e., issuing traditional licenses and not same-sex licenses is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Kim Davis refused to endorse sin and did so by using the government’s own rules against itself. You want her to play by the government’s rules and then ridicule her for doing EXACTLY that. Senseless. And using the Obergefell decision was certainly proper since that decision invalidated the State’s ban on SS-M whether people realize it or not.
Christians should focus their efforts on changing the federal government rather than nitpicking Kim Davis’ actions for impropriety which, let’s be honest, pale in comparison to the overall dissolution of Christian morality by the federal government. All this focus on Kim Davis’ actions reminds me of the guy standing atop a cliff five miles in the air and says, “Oh, I can’t jump. If I do I’ll drown in that pond!”
It’s the fall that’s gonna kill ya…
Terrance,
You don’t read too closely do you?
First, my point is that she is using the wrong reason for refusing to issue the license and that is only claiming that it is a sin, that she will go to hell, that God disapproves, etc. Without pointing to the passage, the implication is that she is applying Rom 13/1 Pet 2 vs Acts 5:29 defense. With this defense there are two things to consider:
1. Can one get out from under the authority?
2. Is the person unable to get out from under the authority?
If 1, then resign, because God doe NOT require us to stay under an authority, rather we are only commanded to obey the authority over us.
If 2, then refuse to obey because there is no other alternative.
Therefor IF (read how many times I used this word) that is her only defense, IF that is the route she wants to take, then her only real recourse is to resign, because she is NOT required to stay under that authority!!
Then I pointed out that she actually had another option and that was the legal route, but she refuses to take it. If she refuses to take the legal option, then the only option she has by her defense is resignation.
The legal option is what I described — she took an oath to uphold KY law and that law is still valid so any judicial opinions are invalid, etc.
And I didn’t judge her motives, rather my point was all those who demand she not resign because they want to make media headlines, etc, are the ones who are using martyrdom as personal promotion.
And how is it disgracing her faith by issuing real marriage licenses? She took an oath to uphold the law. The law says she can issue real marriage licenses, not fake licenses. By denying real licenses she was violating her oath!!!
Try reading comprehension.
Glenn,
I think I read closely enough.
Are you saying that it’s a sin NOT to detail with Scripture her reason for denying same-sex marriages? And how is she applying any of those Scriptures?
And of course this is factually wrong. Under U.S. law, the United States Constitution, and by extension its interpretation by the SCOTUS, supersedes all State and Local laws. KY Law was therefore invalidated and therefore irrelevant.
I didn’t say that.
She used the SCOTUS decision against itself. She operated within the confines of the law.
It’s not my fault that you’re post was muddled so that the point was totally lost. And if you cannot debate without leveling insults then don’t debate.
Terrance,
Are you saying that it’s a sin NOT to detail with Scripture her reason for denying same-sex marriages? And how is she applying any of those Scriptures?
HUH?!?!?! Where did you come up with that? I just said she didn’t specifically cite any passages, but the implication was appealing to Acts 5:29 in that she doesn’t have to obey a law contradicting God’s law. Her reasoning for not obeying the law was because she would be acting against God’s law.
And of course this is factually wrong. Under U.S. law, the United States Constitution, and by extension its interpretation by the SCOTUS, supersedes all State and Local laws. KY Law was therefore invalidated and therefore irrelevant.
Wrong. Americans have been brainwashed to think this. A judicial decision is NOT law. Only the legislatures can make the laws. Until the law in KY is changed, she must uphold the law as it is.
She used the SCOTUS decision against itself. She operated within the confines of the law.
Actually, she didn’t use SCOTUS against itself. She didn’t use the decision at all except to say that she won’t follow it.
It’s not my fault that you’re post was muddled so that the point was totally lost. And if you cannot debate without leveling insults then don’t debate..
Well, I spelled it out pretty clearly in a step-by-step progression demonstrating what her defense was, and what the proper defense was, and why with her defense her only recourse was to step down while if she used the legal defense she could refuse to issued same-sex licenses until the law was changed, all the while issuing real licenses in accordance with the law. Not a bit muddled except for someone who is so staunch in their own bias that the truth eludes them.
Oh, and it’s “your” vs “you’re”
Glenn,
She would’ve been going against God’s law…So, your point is what exactly?
And yes the SCOTUS decision invalidated KY Law. You can dispute this all you want but it’s true. If not then we wouldn’t be talking about Kim Davis now would we?
And indeed she used the SCOTUS decision against itself. Try to keep up, ‘eh? The basis of that ruling is that denial of same-sex licenses is an equal protection violation. So by not issuing any licenses she is not favoring one group over another, and thus there is no equal protection violation.
And really your post was muddled. You jumped around a bit too much and the point, if there was one, got lost.
And thanks for pointing out my phones evil auto correct! You must have one too! Or, did you purposely write “she could refuse to issued”? 😜
Terrance,
YOU are wrong on the legality of judicial opinions. And you refuse to accept that fact. And no one else seems to have trouble understanding my VERY clear post, so I guess it is futile to continue this conversation.
Glenn,
Not sure anyone hear really understood it. But if you say so. but more than your post, I’m quite interested to hear the proof regarding judicial opinions and their uselessness.
Well, I’ve been seeing it all over the internet from conservative commentators and legal people ever since the very first court said a state had to change their laws. The same statements have been made for almost every state capitulating to the oligarchy of activist judges.
Glenn,
Am I just drunk or are you appealing to majority right now?
Terrance,
NO, you’re just being obtuse. You demanded proof and I am only pointing out that for the past decade legal people and many solid conservative commentators have expounded on the law demonstrating conclusively that judicial opinions are not law because JUDGES DON’T MAKE LAWS! Legislatures make laws. Judges can only tell the legislatures whether the law is bad or good, but the legislatures have to change them.
And even if it was an appeal to the majority, that doesn’t make it a fallacy. After all, everyone appeals to the majority in SCOTUS decisions no matter how immoral and illegal and wrong they are.
Glenn,
You’re aware that my number one cause is abortion and that I’m a good apologist for the pro-life cause. Thus, I’m quite knowledgeable on the unconstitutional decisions of activist judges. Roe v. Wade, for example, invalidated every State ban on abortion prior to viability, and as a result 50 million children are dead. So you tell me again how Supreme Court decisions are useless.
You live in a dreamworld, Glenn. You’re talking about the way things SHOULD BE. What matters is the way THINGS ARE. Fact is, the SCOTUS decision invalidated Kentucky law under our current system. If we hope to affect any change then we must play by their rules, as Kim Davis did.
Um, Terrance
After the SCOTUS decision about abortion, the state legislatures changed their laws. Hasn’t been done yet for the current issue.
Glenn,
States changed their laws because Roe v. Wade invalidated their previous laws. Their laws were “deprived of legal force or efficacy; nullified.” It’s as though they didn’t exist.
Invalid. Meaningless. Null & Void. Negated. Revoked. Annulled. Abrogated. Whichever word you choose the reality remains the same. So let’s try operating in the real world since that’s where REAL change is affected. Not this right wing la-la-land in which you reside. Kim Davis did the right thing in denying all licenses, and your opinion on the matter is quite besides the point.
Again, La-la-land Terrance. This discussion is fruitless because of your bias and refusal to learn the truth rather than following the LEFTIST idea of judicial opinions being law. I’m out.
Glenn
The problem is there’s been too much power ceded to the judiciary. You’re right. The courts don’t make law, they can’t even nullify any law. The courts have no power, constitutionally, to do either. What they do is render opinions by interpreting, it’s then up to the legislatures and congress to act, or ignore.
However, we don’t live in the founding era where we actually follow the constitution. Too much ground has been given to the courts, to the point where, improperly, they do have power. Functionally they have more power than congress because they do create new laws and repeal laws with no citizen input.
It’s not that we disagree on the fundamental technically true facts. We disagree that those facts are recognized, observed, and heeded by anyone. The problem is that we now have to navigate through the circumstances we’re in, not the circumstances we should be in.
Whether or not our current culture heeds the legal facts or not does not negate the fact that Davis is obeying the law by uphold the KY law as written, and the law has not changed. How people want to react to that is irrelevant to the facts.
But if no one recognizes the true facts, how is it different that if they were correct? Functionally speaking.
Truth, being in the right. Functionally speaking, those who are against evolution are treated as idiots, but the truth is with them. It the stupid lawyers get on the ball across the nation then we will be able to demonstrate the tyranny of the judicial system.
I get that. But I’m suggesting that if in this circumstance, to make any headway, you have to operate in their system.
In otherwords, the only way to demonstrate judicial tyranny and activism, is to play in their field.
I agree and which is why I said Davis, by claiming only that she thinks it is a sin, is wrong in her approach, because BY her approach she only has ONE biblical alternative and that is to resign. Since she claims to be a Christian, activism has to come last and obeying God first. Since she isn’t claiming that the law hasn’t been changed, then she can’t play the legal game.
She can. Just as she did, that she can’t be compelled to violate her religious conscience.