The South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance issued the following statement via email regarding the matter of the county clerk who was me who was jailed for refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple:
As most of you are very aware, the first individual to be jailed as a result of the Supreme Court’s epic overreach on same-sex marriage is now sitting behind bars. The public is safe from her for the time being. It seems that the promises of tolerance we consistently heard from those campaigning for the rights of same-sex couples were rather short lived. On top of her incarceration, County Clerk Kim Davis is now the object of a great deal of hostility and the subject of an ongoing merciless smear campaign.
The Family Heritage Alliance has prepared a simple statement which reads as follows:
Whereas the Family Heritage Alliance is gravely concerned about the health of the family and especially the cultural view of marriage, we do not consider the events in Kentucky where County Clerk Kim Davis was jailed, to be a marriage issue. We see this simply as one more in a long string of events that demonstrate the deterioration of religious freedom in our country. Religious liberty has been a birthright of every American from the very beginning of this nation. We are deeply saddened by the blatant judicial overreach and ongoing persecution of the Christian faith in this country. It is our hope that citizens everywhere, in all fifty states, can see the need for and be active in the defense of all religious freedom, regardless of the views of the person or persons in question.
Your thoughts?
A predictable childish response from the FHA. But it’s probably a good fundraiser for them.
While citizens – as citizens – enjoy freedom of religion, the government does NOT enjoy freedom of religion.
So when Ms. Davis or any other person who is an agent of the government is acting in the capacity as an agent of the government they must maintain the stance that the government does not enjoy freedom of religion. It’s really that simple, but is complicated by the fundraising opportunity presented to the FHA and other radical anti-government groups.
Just a few quick lessons from Ms. Davis’ experience:
1. The United States are not a theocracy. Never has been and never will be.
2. If a person is ordered by a federal judge to do something – or not do something – and then thumbs their nose at that judge, they will go to jail for contempt of court.
3. Ms. Davis is learning that her political martyrdom is worth a lot of money to her (other potential political martyrs are closely watching).
“The legitimacy of Davis’s protest is inseparable from the illegitimacy of the court opinion that made it necessary. And it is this very illegitimacy that means she should neither resign nor comply. Instead, she has chosen the proper response: resist.
“Resignation in response to the Court’s ruling would have represented an unacceptable surrender. Indeed, from the perspective of the ideologues, it would have provided them with a complete victory — with the twin benefit of changing the law and cleansing public service of the devout. Resignations hand over the lever of power to the truly lawless, to those who will engineer social change by any means necessary.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423579/kim-davis-jail-supreme-court-lawless
Were you sick the day they covered this in sixth grade civics?
The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter in this situation. It is the final stop for legitimacy and determination of constitutionality.
It doesn’t matter what FOX news says or the National Review. I can’t believe the hypocrisy I am reading from the radical right. They’re fine with Citizens United, but when the Supreme Court doesn’t make a decision they agree with, they’re all of a sudden illegitimate.
What a crock.
As you missed, Citizens United and Davis’s actions are both grounded in the same Constitution –actually, the SAME Amendment!
The US Sup Ct has frequently ruled that citizens’ sincerely held religious beliefs are grounds for non-cooperation with laws–for example, conscientious war objectors, taxes on properties used for religious purposes, compulsory recitations, Obamacare coverages, and on and on …
The US Sup Ct has NEVER ruled that a state or its official must issue a marriage license, or any other license for that matter.
Civics 101.
heisy old bean, i have to raise a question about your “quick lessons.” i understand where lessons one and two come from, i went to civics class in my far distant past. but w-i-t-h is with lesson three, that davis has somehow hit the sweet spot in her own career path by forcing a martyrdom, and that a whole cohort of like-minded social climbers see this as a way to stardom? the most widespread result of davis’ action has been the nationwide spread of a facebook meme where her pictures all bear dick cheney’s face.
If you want a good, cool drink of water, you gotta dig a little deeper in the well.
Just follow the money. There’s a big contingent of money givers out there who love actions like this. Are you saying you don’t think she will get any donations for being a “freedom fighter?”
Of courser, Davis’ action are typical of Democrats–create a controversy, rally the troops, and use the crisis to raise money.
That’s what they do.
“1. The United States are not a theocracy. Never has been and never will be.”
Non sequitur.
“2. If a person is ordered by a federal judge to do something – or not do something – and then thumbs their nose at that judge, they will go to jail for contempt of court.”
No, there are plenty of other remedies for a court to employ.
“3. Ms. Davis is learning that her political martyrdom is worth a lot of money to her (other potential political martyrs are closely watching).”
Seems to be more like she’s a principled person being jailed for acting in accord with her conscience. It’s what the colonies, independent colonies, and the US were all founded upon. She’s a traditional , typical American.
How UNAmerican to call it otherwise.
Many Americans share this clerk’s religious conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Unfortunately, our government no longer takes this view. If this clerk’s conscience does not allow her to carry out the government policy, it is her moral obligation to resign from her position with the government.
Having said that, those on the left seem to overlook their hypocrisy in condemning this clerk.
President Obama doesn’t enforce the immigration laws because he disagrees with them. He issued an executive order that openly contradicts the law.
President Obama doesn’t enforce the federal prohibition on marijuana because he disagrees with it.
President Obama instructed his solicitor general not to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had been passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, because Obama disagreed with it. The solicitor general ignored his duty to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes.
The real question isn’t this clerk. She should resign her office, and if she stays in office and refuses to follow a court order, she should accept the consequences.
The question is – when will President Obama be asked to accept the consequences for doing the very same thing?
If she cannot fulfill her duty as an elected official and follow the law, then she should not be in office. If she took an oath of office, she likely swore – with her hand on a Bible – to execute her duties to the best of her ability, not execute her duties according to the Bible. Like it or not, same sex marriage is legal. Build a bridge, get over it and move on. There are far more important events happening in this country that should concern us all. Like citizens killing police.
It ‘s one thing when you have both sides of the political spectrum obeying a common set of rules, ie. the Constitution. It’s another, when we have leaders who flout the law and decide for themselves which ones they will enforce, or not enforce, or just enact by judicial fiat, then we are no longer a nation of laws.
Kentucky law does not allow homosexual marriage. Isn’t she abiding by the law of the State of Kentucky? Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Davis does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.
Progressives advocate a “Lliving Constitution,” so that the force of law can be used to advancef whatever goal they’re trying to achieve.
The complete lack of law and order is anarchy; the selective application of the law is tyranny.
William, the Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2015, that state laws banning same-sex marriages are unconstitutional and violated portions of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. And with a provision within DOMA overturned in 2013, is it necessary for Congress to pass a law allowing same-sex marriage? Because Congress would also need to pass a law allowing opposite-sex marriage. Where does it end?
William I’m waiting for Nudists to portray their God given skin around publicly in all its glorious different colors shapes and sizes without regard for constrictive archaic laws against such behavior.
What say you Supreme Court?
Apparently, you’ve never been to the San Francisco area.
The decision by the SCOUSA struck down state laws in 4 states including Ky. She is no different than Wallace standing in the school door. Did you support him to?
I am still wondering who, besides gays, can a public employee refuse to assist on the grounds of religious objection? I would like the Family Heritage Alliance to answer whether or not it is OK to turn away adulterers, atheists and divorced individuals? If the Bible is the measure, lets be consistent.
Jimmy, great points. But don’t expect anything that resembles consistency from the radical right – or left for that matter.
They are ego-involved in this matter, plus lacking any knowledge of Constitutional history, plus being completely misinformed by FOX news and other components of the radical right propaganda machine.
Mr. Beal pointing out that he thinks Kentucky law should supersede the US Constitution is a perfect example of that.
I used to be disgusted by that sort of thing, but now I’m just amused. It truly is a Clown Car.
for the record, the far radical right still gets most of their day-to-day marching orders from worldnetdaily.com and the mark levin show. fox news’ major sin is being the public relations department for the republican national committee and the party establishment in general.
this mirrors the similar sin on the part of most of the rest of the so-called mainstream media in being the public relations department for hillary clinton as she bottles up the democrat party and stand on their heads to reach for the white house. it is a tribute to her true unfitness and horribleness that the media who otherwise would be happy to cover for her no matter what, are now starting to smell her awful awful coffee and are waking up.
who will the next crook be to lead the democrat party? i can’t wait to find out. since we’re on hillary version 4.3 i expect a development period and the fresh rollout of hillary 5.0 sometime in mid october.
‘for the record, the far radical right still gets most of their day-to-day marching orders from worldnetdaily.com and the mark levin show.’
Ah, so that’s where you get cut and paste from. good to know.
actually, i watch a lot of cspan and pbs. i learn more by reverse engineering their political p-r output than i do by watching the gop echo chamber. fox bores me.
Thanks for clarifying where you get your information to copy and regurgitate.
The federal constitution supersedes the Kentucky state constitution?
No court has ever come to that absurd conclusion!
Anyone suggesting such a thing needs to return to civic class.
Actually – Brown v. Board of education overturned the Alabama State constitution requirements for racial segregation.
Racial Segregation is still written into the Alabama state constitution.
The statement was this:
“Mr. Beal pointing out that he thinks Kentucky law should supersede the US Constitution is a perfect example of that.”
A facially false statement.
Incorrect, perhaps poorly phrased on my part.
The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction on a matter that’s historically the jurisdiction of the States and Kennedy’s decision has created more conflict than he attempted to resolve (read the dissents).
Kim Davis is hardly the best “martyr for the cause,” but I simply expect States to object through the courts and more civil disobedience as a result of this decision.
The legitimacy and authority of any government is contingent on its acceptance of its citizens and when the court’s decisions not broadly supported, it risks losing it’s support.
This is likely the most divisive decision the SC has made since Roe v Wade, and that’s NOT a good thing.
If the clerk were a person of non-christian beliefs denying Constitutional rights to
(c)histian adulterers like Kim Davis because of their “deeply held religious belief” the clowns at FHA would again be whining about intolerance of of their religion.All these people would have supported the businesses and governments in the south in their discrimination and would have used the same arguments for that discrimination…I was there as a kid in Al. and heard Wallace and others saying exactly what we hear today about courts and religious freedom being denied to racists that believed their racism was the word of “their” god just as much as those like Davis believe their ignorance=fear=hate bigotry is the word of their god….Wallace stood in the school door for his claimed beliefs. How does history view him? The same way history will view those like Davis and her supporters
———————–
One persons “rights” religious or other end where another,s begin… That woman as an elected official was denying Constitutional rights to a segment of those paying her $80,000 salary…and these clowns support that? They then claim SHE is the victim? Notice how many conservatives are NOT supporting her, her support comes from the opportunistic fringers who tell the dim-wits they are victims of religious persecution and they are stupid enough to believe it.
This is an example of the civil disobedience that Dr Charles Murray spoke of in his most recent book, “By the People.”
http://www.amazon.com/People-Rebuilding-Liberty-Without-Permission-ebook/dp/B00N6PBGM2/ref=la_B000AP5UJQ_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441629257&sr=1-1
From the Amazon review: “Charles Murray shows us why we can no longer hope to roll back the power of the federal government through the normal political process. The Constitution is broken in ways that cannot be fixed even by a sympathetic Supreme Court. Our legal system is increasingly lawless, unmoored from traditional ideas of “the rule of law.” The legislative process has become systemically corrupt no matter which party is in control… Murray describes how civil disobedience backstopped by legal defense funds can make large portions of the 180,000-page Federal Code of Regulations unenforceable.”
it’s sad that we need reverse-alinsky to undo decades of casual neglect from the left’s alinskyism. if the message of this book is that we can’t scoop up everyone and drop them back 150 years in order to do a 20th century do-over, i agree.
if we are to revitalize the rugged individualism and rejection of rule by the elites that this nation practically invented, we probably do have to alinsky the crony mechanisms that funnel wealth to the elites and away from us, and we probably do have to alinsky the various new “collectives” they’re trying to drive us all into right now in the ever growing bureaucratic straighjacket we wear.