Jailed Christian Clerk Kim Davis – A Hero, Not a Villain
Before this summer, I couldnt point out Rowan County on a map. I hadnt even heard of the place.Yet it is now the central battleground for religious freedom in America, where clerk Kim Davis is being threatened with contempt of court charges for standing for conscience and religious rights by not giving marriage licenses to gay couples. And shes doing it practically by herself.According to hoards of citizens, her own governor, multiple courts, the ACLU, and at least three presidential candidates, Davis should check her First Amendment rights at the door -- as well as rights protected by the Kentucky Constitution and her states Religious Freedom Restoration Act.That is appalling, but not surprising or new. Two thousand years ago, the apostles were ordered to stop preaching Christ, but like Davis they refused to obey mans law over Gods, despite the threat of punishment.What is new, however, is the shameful abandonment of Davis by so many Christians and conservatives. One of Americas bravest Christians is being thrown under the bus for simply following the example of Christs original followers.Almost as disturbing are conservatives who are pressing Davis to capitulate -- suggesting or demanding that Davis hand out homosexual marriage licenses or resign. Such a position shows little appreciation for religious freedom and the rights of conscience.According to her detractors, Davis is violating her states Constitution. However, according to that document, No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.Likewise, what part of not restricting the free exercise of religion are we not getting from the First Amendment?And Kentuckys Religious Freedom Restoration Act specifically says that The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.What compelling reason can there be when gay activists targeting Davis can get a marriage license at any of the 129 other locations in the state?Davis own statement shows that she is in the right. I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage, she said. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/john-henry-westen/jailed-christian-clerk-kim-davis-hero-not-villain
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
Kevin Williamson sums it up:
But maintaining that rule of law is a broader imperative, and Daviss transgressions are trivial next to the entrenched criminality of the government that Judge Bunning serves: The Internal Revenue Service under the Obama administration was converted into a crime syndicate; Hillary Rodham Clinton is a rolling crime wave; the Justice Department is an enabler and protector of felons in high places; our law-enforcement agencies have been made into instruments of political intimidation, as in the matter of the ATFs persecution of Jay Dobyns. There are many honorable men in the federal government, but there are no honorable federal officials, because one cannot honorably serve a dishonorable government. We may call Judge Bunning His Honor, but that is purely vestigial.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, Thoreau reasoned, the true place for a just man is also a prison. That we breathe the same free air as Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is a testament against us, that we may have a finer understanding of the distinctions necessary to republican self-government but lack the conviction necessary to act on it.
Read more at:
Kim Davis is no hero, she's just a less iconic Hazel Massery.
For those that don't remember Ms. Massery is the young women in the back, " standing up for her beliefs " and expressing what she thinks about the young Ms.Eckford trying toexercise " her right " to equal treatment under the law by just walking into a public school.
First of all, I object to same sex marriage but I think the Davis case highlights a basic misunderstanding of constitutional rights and public employment. People have a right to use their religious beliefs as a basis for how they vote, whether as individuals or as legislators. However, freedom of religion under the First Amendment has now clashed with (a court created) freedom of homosexuals to marry under the 14th Amendment. When rights clash, the court doesn't just arbitrarily pick a side but rather tries to balance interests under the circumstances of each case. For instance, in private employment for a religious school, the state will have a higher hurdle in showing that the school must employ an openly homosexual teacher if the school's religion teaches its students that homosexuality is an abomination before God. Employing a homosexual in that instance clearly interferes with the school's right of religious freedom. However, in public employment where church and state are separate, the hurdle is much lower because the employee has no right to impose his/her religious beliefs on anyone else and the state can show a compelling interest in ensuring that its services are non-discriminatory. After all, Davis only certifies that the marriage complies with law and applicable regulations . . . she is not certifying that it pleases her or God so, to me, her religious freedom is not impacted at all.
Davis had alternatives to forcing a fight that she can't win. She could have let others sign the licenses or signed the license with her name and the statement "as directed by the Court" or "under protest" or "God forgive me" or some other qualifier but she really can't use the first amendment to negate the law. The judge jailed her for contempt and, in my opinion, he was right. She essentially has the keys to the jail house door because she can leave at any time after agreeing to comply with the law.
This fight over same-sex marriage can continue but should not be shouldered solely by people like Davis. States can resist in ways that individual employees cannot just as they have done with sanctuary cities but they'll have to be creative. Conservatives can push states to put the brakes on any attempt to include homosexuality in anti-discrimination laws and avoid compounding the problem. Where states have included homosexuality in anti-discrimination laws, push to remove it. Plus, conservatives have the nuclear option of removing same-sex marriage from the jurisdiction of the federal courts (which is within the power of Congress). You really can't complain about a train running over you when you saw it coming yet continued to stand on the track.
What scripture is that ?
Thanks Hal.
I chose that iconic image, (even though I realize that the contemptuous actions of Kim Davis are more akin to George Wallace's "stand in the school house doors"), because in that unguarded moment one sees in Hazel Bryan's face the truth of what's really going on with those who try to claim, Its about State's Rights" &/or Religious Freedom", as they fight to exclude others from equality under the law.
I think Davis is legally wrong and the judge is legally correct. However, civil disobedience is the recourse when the law itself is wrong. So if homosexuals and their supporters can equate sin to race (when race is not a behavior) and see themselves as a black girl just trying to go to school, then Christians can view the Supreme Court's legalization of a biblical abomination as an oppressive judicial tyranny that threatens to erode the moral bedrock on which both the law and their faith is based. In that sense, defying the law all by herself makes Davis heroic.
Hero - villan, she is neither.
Mrs. Davis was elected to do the job of Clerk.
Since her election, job requirements have changed.
She should resign her position being unable to reconcile her faith and the law.
Being a person of faith myself, I wonder why she cannot trust God will provide a more suitable job. She could have made her faith statement and moved on, yet she has chosen this course of action...curious.
I was thinking that she is neither hero, nor villain, but an idiot...
Where's your cheer-leading for the muslim flight attendant who seeks a religious workplace exemption ?
you're dreaming.
It doesn't work that way for flight attendants. With staffing being what it is on most flights all flight attendants have to share all of the duties of everything. There is no way for her NOT to be called upon to do her fair share of the work and serve alcohol.