Guest Post by Patrick J. Buchanan
“If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot.”
Charles Dickens gave that line to Mr. Bumble in “Oliver Twist.”
And it sums up the judgment of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis about the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, which said the 14th Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.
Davis refused to provide marriage licenses to gay couples lined up at her clerk’s office and was sent to jail for five days by a federal judge for contempt of court.
Good for her. We need more like her.
For behind her defiance are more authoritative sources than the five justices who gave us Obergefell: the Old and New Testaments, Natural Law, two millennia of Christian teaching and tradition, and the entire body of U.S. federal and state law up to Y2K.
Moreover, Kentucky never enacted a law authorizing same-sex marriage. Nor did the Congress of the United States.
Whence, then, did this “law” come?
Answer: This is a creation of a Supreme Court that has usurped the legislative power to impose a secularist anti-Christian ideology on a nation, much of which still rejects it, but has no recourse against it.
A right to same-sex marriage was no more in the Constitution as written or amended than was a woman’s right to have an abortion.
The Court has lately been declaring to be constitutional rights that used to regarded as shameful crimes. This is judicial tyranny. And Kim Davis’ defiance is as old as the republic.
Recall, we were born in a rebellion against the tyrannical acts of a king and Parliament we did not elect.
President Jefferson ordered the release of all those convicted under the Sedition Act, declared that he would no longer enforce that Federalist-enacted law, and pronounced it a nullity.
When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared slaves were property and could not become citizens, Harriet Tubman ignored his Dred Scott decision, defied the fugitive slave laws, and helped slaves escape from her native Maryland.
Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs defied the Espionage Act of 1917 and spoke out against World War I. Convicted of sedition, he was sent to prison for 10 years under Woodrow Wilson, but freed by President Harding.
Throughout American history, industrial workers, civil rights and anti-war activists, and political dissenters have defied laws, ignored court orders, and gone to jail for contempt.
Rosa Parks broke the law in Montgomery, Alabama, by refusing to move to the back of the bus.
Martin Luther King, a disciple of Gandhi, preached and practiced civil disobedience his entire life. Now there is a statue on the mall and a holiday for King and talk of putting Tubman or Parks on America’s currency.
They are honored because their defiance of court orders and law-breaking were done in the cause of social progress.
But Kim Davis’ defiance of a court order was done because that is what God told her to do, and she wanted to be faithful to the beliefs she had embraced as an Apostolic Christian.
Yes, Virginia, there is a double standard.
In the 20th century, if you were breaking the law or violating a court order to protest segregation, Vietnam, or apartheid in South Africa, you got an indulgent press.
But if you were defying a court order to stop blocking integration at the University of Alabama or Little Rock High, or stop protesting too close to the local abortion mill, you got lectures on the “rule of law.”
Some conservatives say that Kim Davis as a public official has to carry out court orders, even those she believes to be immoral, or quit.
Yet the course she took has undeniably advanced her cause in our unending culture war.
For she rallied and inspired many with her witness, defiance and willingness to go to jail. She set an example of nonviolent resistance. She treated same-sex marriage not as some great social leap forward, but as a moral abomination. Many among the silent majority were surely nodding in approval.
She has also exposed the breadth and depth of the division in the country between an older Christian America and new Secular America.
Once, the Supreme Court could rely upon a residual respect for its proceedings, grounded in a belief that ours is a good government whose actions, even if we disagree, are rooted in principle and merit respect.
That reservoir of trust and good will is about gone.
Almost all of the civil and uncivil disobedience of the last half-century, from campus uprisings to urban riots to political protests, came from the left. But as an anti-Christian secularism becomes ascendant, dominant and imperious, rumbles are coming from right.
Indeed, from the raw politics of the Summer of Trump, it seems clear that Middle America has come to believe it has been had, and that the state that rules the nation is hostile to the country they love, and needs to be resisted and defied.
We are headed for interesting times.
.So you be okay if your wife died because she was refused a blood transfusion by a doctor because it was against their religion?
Would you be okay if the piece of shit Kym wouldn’t give marriage licences to hetro couples that had been divorced.
your not for free speech you’re for your views being forced on others. sad little christ-stain boy hiding under your bed with gun between you legs for comfort cause mummy took you from the teat to early.
Shut the fuck up, you faggot piece of degenerate dog shit.
It’s got fuck-all to do with the Red Herrings you just puked up to distract and derail.
It’s got everything to do with activist judges circumventing the legislative process and the legislative branch entirely by reading shit into the Constitution that ain’t fuckin’ there..
And since when do the opinions of non-Americans count for any-fucking-thing in America?
Go back to sucking dick and taking it up the ass, you degenerate…
Hate to say it…Well said Billy!!!
Pat’s right, it has everything to do with Judicial tyranny. Maybe why she did it wasn’t the correct reason, but it sure has brought this bullshit to the forefront, and people are talking, which is good.
Mike, why do you hate to say it?
An aussie talking shit. What in the serious fuck? Why dont you tell us about how white aussies treat the native aboriginal population before you talk shit around here. The word genocide comes to mind. Or about how you pussies just gave up your gun rights. Embrace faggotry and enjoy. Fucking moron.
AnAussie,
You fail to understand the issue.
One of those cases where you’re better off saying nothing and being thought a fool than saying something and proving it.
Worse, your hypothetical situation isn’t even one that would or could occur in the real world, you need a ridiculous fantasy to make your also ridiculous point.
@AnAussie
“So you be okay if your wife died because she was refused a blood transfusion by a doctor because it was against their religion?”
Obviously not, as unlike gay marriage, denying to perform this service results in death, the act of violating a human being’s right to life.
“Would you be okay if the piece of shit Kym wouldn’t give marriage licences to hetro couples that had been divorced.”
Again no, because this too would violate a human being’s right to life. How, you ask?
Define “life” AnAussie.
Go ahead, we’ll wait. Look it up. You will find within any clear and accurate definition of it, “the ability for reproduction.”
Two members of the same sex can try all they want (….never mind) but would be trying until the stars burn out to succeed at it.
The constitutional right to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” means just this, the right to life, which implies the right to seek a union resulting in reproduction. From a biological perspective this need not involve marriage. People were reproducing long before “marriage” laws came onto the books (and unfortunately still are). The right to choose a mate, therefore, is an “inalienable” right, granted to you by virtue of simply being born. With whom you choose to hook-up, regardless of how misguided it may or may not be, is your business. Marriage, on the other hand, is a societal function made to support two people exercising their fundamental right to life, namely reproduction (and by the way, reproduction means the transference of one’s genes.) It is one of only five contracts in US contract law that MUST be in writing. Society recognized that it’s very existence is determined by continuation of its species, and therefore sanctified the union of “marriage” in order to give precedence and support to those seeking to fulfill this role.
Just because two people capable of reproducing choose not to doesn’t invalidate their “inalienable” right to be united in marriage potentially seeking reproduction, (if biologically able), but it also doesn’t mean two members of the same sex incapable of reproduction should have the same right to marriage under the “”life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” clause of the constitution…unless, of course, we’re focusing on the “pursuit of happiness” part of it?”
Is this the case, AnAussie?
Because if so, I’ve got a list of grievances about a mile long I want rectified. And damn it, people better get with the program and meet them because (setting aside the fact that the constitution doesn’t say “guaranteed to the attainment of happiness”…) I’m entitled to my happiness RIGHT NOW!
So there.
if I was a Clerk of the Court
and Davis came before me to get married AGAIN (husband #5)
I’d have to send her packing
according to the Bible which she so proudly pounds
she is a serial adulterer
and by me granting her a marriage license I would be condoning her sin
If you dig through the political and historical life of Ms. Davis you will see that she is a hardcore democrat and has made life choices that contradict with her proclaimed Christian values. We currently have democrats in elected and appointed positions that have snubbed their noses at the rule of law. With mayors in “sanctuary cities”, a president who circumvents laws with executive orders, a past Sec of State that broke all national security rules with a private e-mail server, an IRS executive who targeted conservative non-profit groups, and a Secretary of the Dept of Justice refusing to enforce laws he disagreed with, Ms. Davis thought she could follow suit and only obey the laws she agreed with. I believe that she used religion as an excuse and in today’s anti-Christian environment that defense did not work.
I personally do not agree with homosexual marriage and I also do not agree with divorce but that is my personal beliefs. I also believe that what adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business but it needs to stay in the bedroom and not be flaunted in the worlds face. I also believe in the “rule of law” and it’s enforcement to ALL citizens and non-citizens.
OATHKEEPERS STATEMENT BY STEWART RHODES:
We believe Federal District Court Judge David Bunning grossly overstepped his bounds and violated Mrs Davis’ due process rights, and in particular her right to a jury trial. This judge has assumed unto himself not just the powers of all three branches of government, but has also taken on the powers of judge, jury, and “executioner.” What matters to us is not whether you agree with her position on gay marriage or her decision to not issue marriage licenses. What matters is that the judge is violating the Constitution in his anger and desire to punish her for going against his will. We are already being subjected to an unconstitutional imperial presidency, that grew exponentially under both Bush and Obama, expanding the claimed war powers of the president to swallow up our Bill of Rights and circumvent jury trial. The result is an executive branch that claims the absurd power to declare any American an “unlawful combatant” on the say-so of the president alone.
Now we see the rise of an imperial judiciary that not only legislates from the bench but is attempting to expand their “contempt” power to likewise swallow up our Bill of Rights and circumvent jury trial. Both methods are used to allow the powerful office holder to merely point his finger and have his opponent thrown behind bars without a grand jury indictment and without being found guilty by a jury of their peers. No innocent until proven guilty before a jury. Just “guilty” because the leader says so. That is a dictatorship, whether done by a president or by a judge. No one man should have that kind of power in his hands alone to decide guilt and impose a sentence of indefinite detention. Under our Constitution, that dictatorial power does not exist. We must stand against this. And so we will protect her and prevent it from happening again. – Stewart Rhodes
There is no law authorizing homosexual marriage, it is a judicial decree based on the will of the justices involved, not on the law created by the people. In fact it overrules the laws passed by the people.
As for me, what someone keeps to themselves is not my business, but what someone forces on me -particularly through the power of the State- is.
There is no “right to meddle”, and the sooner this becomes mainstream (again; cf. B. Franklin wanted “Mind Your Business” for a national motto instead of “E. Pluribus Unum”) the better for all living here, and even those overseas whom our meddling has ruined previously.
Just follow the orders…just like the good Nazi we should all be. That would be a good answer to St Pete when asked why. Oh wait, I forgot, that has already been tried.