Democrat county clerk Kim Davis refused to approve marriage licenses for gay couples as a matter of religious conscience. The result? She has been found in contempt of court. By law, she should and has been detained.
Pro-gay-agenda water-carriers and their camp followers have taken to the internet to declare victory…for law and order. Really? Are you certain that you’d like to set a precedent for enforcing the law over rights of conscience? If true, a lot of people, including the President, are going to jail.
Before we proceed, if you think this is about sex or marriage, clear the webs from your head. This is about rule of law. If you are choosing to side with rule of law, you have to live by rule of law and all that comes with it.
For those unfamiliar with the concept, it’s this idea that no one is above the law. The law is the law and laws must be followed; the process for changing laws must be followed.
In the case at hand the Supreme Court vacated every state law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Kentucky Democrat Kim Davis religious beliefs prohibit her from giving this sanction, so she has refused to allow her clerks to provide marriage licenses to gay couples as a matter of conscience. Because she refuses to follow the law she has been found in contempt of court and carted away.
The law, agree or not, must be enforced or there is no law at all. That is the rule of law.
So what is the matter? The professional left, which dominates the gay-agenda coalition, and dominates the ‘Yeah, they arrested Kim Davis Crowd’, hates the rule of law…when it rules contrary to their desires.
They are hypocrites.
Not long ago, there were those who issued marriage licenses to gay couples (as a matter of conscience) even though it was against the law. No one in this coalition, to my knowledge, was calling for them to be arrested or jailed, as a matter of law.
A number of recent cases affirmed the right to self-defense and the personal ownership of firearms. The court struck down prohibitive ordinances that interfered with the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Liberal power-brokers have done everything they can to thwart that decision, slow its power, muddy the water, use taxes or fees to place legal possession out of reach, and deny people their constitutional right. No one on the left, to my knowledge, is calling for anyone to be arrested or jailed for this, as a matter of law.
The President of the United States has deliberately ignored immigration law and used the power of his office to require others to do the same. Ignoring immigration law is against the law, even if you disagree as a matter of conscience. Who in this coalition is calling for the President, his staff, advisers, or anyone who has followed his directives contrary to Federal law, to be arrested or jailed, as a matter of law?
Sanctuary cities violate Federal law, even if you disagree as a matter of conscience. Who in this coalition is calling for Mayors, City Councilors, or other officials to be arrested or jailed, as a matter of law?
Illegal aliens who commit other crimes are often let out of jail as a matter of policy, not law, break more laws, and are released again–because they are illegal aliens. Who in this coalition is calling for the local, state, or federal officials calling for release to be arrested or jailed, as a matter of law?
Members in this coalition root for cities and states that deregulate or decriminalize drug use. Regardless of what you believe the law should be or what rights you believe states have in this regard, this is a violation of federal law. If you believe it is acceptable to detain Kim Davis, why have we not heard your call for elected or public officials in these states to be arrested or jailed, as a matter of law?
The mayor of Baltimore told those charged with enforcing the law in her city to allow lawbreakers space to destroy property and lives. Where are your calls for her to be arrested or jailed, as a matter of law?
Make all the excuses you want but Hillary Clinton has violated Federal law. Where are the calls for her to be arrested or jailed, as a matter of law?
There are dozens if not hundreds of examples where elected officials, activists, or members of fabricated victim classes, (or their water carriers), have advocated breaking the law and lionized those who do so as a matter of conscience. Did you stand with conscience or the law? If the former, what gives you that right but not Kim Davis?
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air! offers some thoughts about religious liberty and rule of law you should take to heart. (H/T to Patterico for the link)
We’ve written plenty of posts defending religious freedom and the right to choose not to participate in private ceremonies, but this case is different. The other cases about which we have written involve private enterprise — bakers, photographers, venue owners — who do not exercise a monopoly on their markets. Operating a private business should not strip people of the right to free religious expression in all phases of their lives; other businesses can and do wish to participate in those events, and the free market should be free for all within it.
Government is not a free market, however; it is a monopoly backed up by force. If the law says these couples can apply for and receive a marriage license, then government has to abide by that law. They exercise a monopoly on marriage licenses; these couples cannot go anywhere else to get one. This is a denial of access to market by government force, essentially, a much different situation than with bakers, photographers, and so on.
One might sympathize with Davis on her religious objections to same-sex marriage, but that doesn’t give her the authority to deny it if it is lawful. A politician might object to alcohol purchases, perhaps even on religious grounds, but he can’t deny permits to liquor stores in a jurisdiction that allows them just because of his religious objections to alcohol consumption. That would be an abuse of power, the kind conservatives would protest in other circumstances.
Accepting office in government means upholding the law. If that conflicts with Davis’ religious beliefs, then she should resign and find other work.
And Ed is correct. Davis has a right to her beliefs but not in this application. A Constitutional Republic only works when rule of law is defended and the checks and balances, the process itself, are allowed to resolve conflicts of conscience with transparency before the public, when and as they occur. Anything else is a selective application of rules to give an unfair advantage over those who are following the law.
On a closing note, looking at this the other way, will you be the first to light up Facebook and Twitter when a devout Muslim County Clerk or public employee refuses anything of a gay person or a gay couple? Will you post memes making fun of the Muslims? Make jokes about their wives or their religious beliefs because they are contrary to the law? Or will you discover that they have an unequal right to religious expression that Kim Davis does not?
Will you dance on the head of the pin of the rule of law or will you be a pin head?
I’d go with the latter.
