10) She has been married four separate times while claiming to be such a devout follower of the Bible.
Davis has long-identified the moment of her “religious awakening” as occurring in 2011, when her mother was on her death bed, after she re-married her last husband in 2009. It is not legitimate to go back to before someone became religious to condemn them as a hypocrite for former indiscretions.
9) The underlying problem here is religious zealots trying to push their beliefs on others.
Kim Davis not wanting her name on state-issued marriage licenses to homosexuals (something her religion would see as a hell-worthy trespass) is not forcing anything on anyone. No homosexual couple was denied their ability to get married. They were only denied their ability to force an unwilling Christian to participate. Couples seeking marriage licenses in Kentucky can go to any clerk’s office in any county, as confirmed by US Marriage Laws.com.
The actual underlying problem here is government even being involved in marriage to begin with. Every president from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln was married without a license. Marriage licenses were introduced in the mid-19th century by Democrats seeking to prevent interracial marriage (they have always been the party of inequality and still are to this day).
8) She broke the law.
No law was ever passed legalizing homosexual marriage. In fact, the Defense of Marriage Act (which Obama blatantly ignored with zero consequences) specifically banned the Federal Government from re-defining marriage and barred federal courts from even hearing cases on the subject (yes, that is a power Congress retains under the Constitution). It is the Supreme Court that violated the law here, not Kim Davis. Defying unconstitutional laws enacted by courts that have no such authority under the Constitution is defending the rule of law, not violating it.
7) She discriminated against homosexuals.
Davis actually shut down the issuing of all marriage licenses from her office to avoid having to violate her religious beliefs. Giving no one a license (which other couples responded to by simply going to another office) is actually the opposite of discrimination. Additionally, it would still not be discrimination to only apply marriage licenses to people who meet our society’s Judeo-Christian criteria for marriage (the same criteria that produced our laws against polygamy).
6) She took a job doing something she knew she was opposed to, so it is her own fault that she is now in jail.
Davis was sworn into office in January of this year, before the Supreme Court illegally invented this “right” out of thin air (which happened in June) that forces Christians to violate their religious beliefs and turns them into second-class citizens.
5) She is a modern-day George Wallace.
The Washington Post’s biased assertion here might actually make sense if anything about allowing blacks into white schools were a violation of George Wallace’s right to free religious exercise. Or if being black were a lifestyle that contradicted our society’s definition of education. Or if Wallace in no way violated anyone’s rights. It is those entertaining the delusional, self-righteous fantasy of themselves as modern-day civil rights leaders—for criminalizing and persecuting Christianity—who are acting like bigoted extremists here.
4) She violated the rights of homosexual couples.
There is no such thing as a right to force others to endorse your lifestyle or to participate in your life decisions. By definition, a right is something that cannot be legitimately taken away from you (like free religious exercise, freedom of speech, etc.), not something that others must provide to you. No one prevented any homosexual couple from getting married. Kim Davis simply refused to personally be a part of it. In a free country, this is how it works…much to the left’s dismay.
Again, these homosexual activists could have gone to any clerk’s office in any county to get their marriage licenses. They deliberately sought out this particular office, specifically to stage a public circus and force an unwilling Christian to endorse their way of life or be personally destroyed. As usual with liberals, this case has zero to do with actual civil rights, and everything to do with power-tripping “victims” tyrannically abusing the system to silence dissent.
3) She should have just quit her job when she realized that she could no longer comply with its requirements.
This is like saying Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the bus. If the Supreme Court invented some bogus right out of thin air that forced Muslims to choose between violating their faith and being fired/imprisoned, liberals would be the first ones to point out how many parts of the Constitution had been violated (although they would badly butcher the analysis) and to call for open civil disobedience.
As Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, when government becomes adversarial to our rights and interests, we have not only the right, but also the responsibility to rise up and “alter or abolish” that government. Put another way, when injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.
2) Public officials don’t get to pick and choose which laws they follow.
Like when Democrats refused to prosecute the New Black Panther party for armed voter intimidation at the polls on election day in 2008? Like sanctuary cities and Obama’s unilateral “Dream Act?” Like Obama selectively enforcing and arbitrarily re-writing parts of Obamacare at every turn without Congress? Like Obama disregarding the orders of federal judges with total impunity? Like the IRS singling out administration opponents during a major national election? Like Hillary Clinton not being prosecuted for violations a hundred times more egregious than the ones that destroyed General Petraeus’s career?
And again, what law? There is no law to be violated here. There is only a blatantly unconstitutional (and therefore, invalid) edict from a handful of activist judges in Washington.
1) Anything the Supreme Court says is infallible gospel and enforceable law.
The Supreme Court legitimized slavery, Japanese internment during WWII, and segregation. They tear the Constitution to shreds more than almost anyone, and have repeatedly been on the wrong side of history. Liberals count on these un-elected, unaccountable tyrants to work around the will of The People, and to illegally nationalize all the power in this country away from the individual and into the hands of the few in Washington.
Alexander Hamilton once assured us that this judiciary we were creating would always be the “weakest” branch with the least capacity to “injure and annoy” our rights. How could any reasoning human being possibly manage to see that as even remotely compatible with the all-powerful dictatorial role liberals now insist the Supreme Court was always intended to have? To mindlessly accept whatever this “weakest” branch says as irrefutable truth and irreversible law flies directly in the face of everything the Founders designed this country to be.