Late last week an old friend of mine either liked or linked to a post by some woman named Kay Hooper on Facebook. The subject was Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in violation of a court order demanding that she do so. I engaged on the topic because I have serious issues with the thought process that went in to this woman being jailed. Which, of course, put me at odds with one Kay Hooper.
It turns out, as my friend excitedly explained, that Kay Hooper is a NY Times best selling author of more than 60 novels. I googled her this morning. It appears that she writes fiction. Which is wholly consistent with her Facebook posts on political matters. After a day or two of appealing to authority, pigeonholing, and arguing about legal matters from a “fairness” perspective, she ran out of talking point memos. She resorted to the tactic every liberal I have ever debated eventually reverts to, which is impugning the character and motives of their opponent, name calling, and jumping to the conclusion that they are right because someone else agrees with them.
Ms. Hooper apparently does not understand that truth is not decided by committee.
I walked away from the conversation because in the end it is fruitless. Liberals want their religion promoted from the highest levels of government, backed by the force of law, and enforced without exception. Liberalism being a liberal’s religion. And so the people who cry out for tolerance, display none. Those who champion mercy for illegal immigrants can find none for a county court clerk. The same people who think that giving a child a failing grade in school is horrible because it can negatively impact their self-esteem, and abhor bullying, publicly squeal with delight at the suffering of any individual that does not share their core beliefs. And they believe themselves consistent, reasoned, and rational. Amazing…
But enough about some author I’ve never heard of. Let’s move on to the crux of the issue shall we? I will attempt to highlight here several key points about this case. Hopefully my readers will be smarter than Mrs. Hooper and her readers, and able to understand some basic facts.
- If we are going to jail a county court clerk for violating federal “law”, why are we not jailing the mayors and town councils of “Sanctuary Cities” for violating federal law? Why have we not jailed Hillary Clinton for violating federal law? Why have we not jailed Obama for violating a federal judge’s orders?
- The Supreme Court does not make laws, it interprets the constitutionality of laws. Mrs. Davis is in fact in contempt of court. Outside of that, she has broken no laws. Because there is no law in her state allowing the marriage of gay couples. As a consistent person who believes in the rule of law I believe that people held in contempt of court should be punished according to the law. But then let us ask ourselves how it is that Bill Clinton perjured himself and faced no jail time, as the law demands. How is it that liberals were not howling for that law to be enforced?
- Mrs. Davis asked for, and was denied, a “reasonable accommodation”. She simply asked that her name be removed from the marriage licenses. She was perfectly willing to allow her office to issue the licenses in question so long as her name was not on them. Thus, the agenda here is not to fairly apply the law to all, and allow gay couples to marry. It is to beat a dissenter into submission with threats and intimidation, and force compliance with the imperial federal government and their “Men in Black”.
- Would the people who are shouting that the Supreme Court has ruled and therefore that settles the issue be saying the same thing if the court had ruled 5-4 against same sex marriage? Honestly? I think we all know the answer to that question.
- Marriage is not a civil right. It is a civil union. It is a contract between two individuals, and it is governed by the laws of the locality, or municipality, and in the end the State in which it takes place. No activity for which you must be licensed is a civil right. You do not have a civil right to a hunting license, a fishing license, a drivers license, or a marriage license. All of these things have qualifiers and standards you must meet prior to being issued the license. Those standards are set by the State. Marriage is not the purview of the federal government. No ceremony in recorded history has ever concluded with the words, “By the power vested in me by the federal government, I now pronounce you…”
- For the love of god…you have a right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by a Constitutional Amendment, and states and municipalities have been restricting that right in numerous ways for decades. How can you be consistent in applying the Constitution and say that states cannot set standards for issuing marriage licenses, but they can set standards for issuing firearms licenses?
I am not at all concerned with gay people getting married. I couldn’t care less what they do. I am not approaching this issue from a moral position or a religious one. I do not subscribe to any particular set of religious values, and I do not think gay people getting married negatively impacts heterosexual marriage in any way. That said…
I do think that the citizens of a society have the right to determine what that society recognizes as a “marriage”. As Ms. Hooper pointed out (and then blindly failed to see) 38 states have wrangled with this issue. State constitutions have been amended, state laws have been passed, state Supreme Courts have weighed in. This is the process as it should be. The circumvention of this process by the federal government is an assault on our system of government, our way of life, and a threat to the future of this nation.
Ask yourself this question. What exactly is the point of having State constitutions, or even states for that matter? If the federal government can come along and demand that every state in the union do exactly the same thing, exactly the same way, what’s the point in having individual states and state governments? What is the difference between living in Georgia and living in Maine, if the people of those states are not free to set the policies, practices, traditions and standards of their respective states?
People make a comparison to the civil rights movement of the 60’s. They compare the struggle for “marriage equality” with the struggle of black Americans for simple equality. This is a false comparison, put forward by mental midgets, attempting to hijack an argument and shame people who disagree with them. Rather than being a proponent of state’s rights and limited government, you are framed as a bigot out to deny basic human rights to a segment of the population. It’s cheap, poorly thought out, and utterly predictable (as are most liberal positions).
The simple fact is that our Declaration of Independence states that as a living human being you have certain inalienable rights. Our Constitution exists to further codify those rights and protect them. In the period prior to and leading up to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60’s black people were being denied basic human rights. Food, shelter, access to public accommodations, transportation, employment, etc. These were clear violations of both the spirit and the letter of the original intent of the Founders. Nevertheless it took the passage of a number of laws, including the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, to formally reverse these things as a matter of policy.
In the case before us now there has been no law passed by the people’s duly elected representatives. There has been no denial of a fundamental, inalienable right. (Please note that you can be denied a marriage license for a number of reasons, all based on the state law governing the issuance of said license.) What there has been instead is a political agenda, pushed by what is supposed to be an apolitical body (SCOTUS) in the absence of a spine on the part of the legislature. And so what we wind up with is judicial activism, legislation from the bench, and the imposition of the will of 5 people on the culture of a nation of over 300 million.
Those willing and eager to see this sort of governance when the ruling is in favor of a view they hold had best take care. Pendulums swing both ways. What you will countenance with regard to overreach and judicial activism sets a precedent for future courts and governments to follow. What you may not have considered is that people who agree with you may not always be in power.
Sadly, I believe we have already reached the point of no return in this nation. We have a permanent ruling class that is accountable to no one. We have a corrupt court attempting to make law rather than adjudicate it. We have an overreaching executive whose precedent will be expanded upon by future leaders. We have a corrupt legislature, for sale to the highest bidder. And worst of all, we have a lazy, self-serving populace, content to see their personal views imposed on their neighbors by any means necessary.
When your children and grandchildren ask you what happened to the America they read about in history books (assuming future government even allow history books that contain actual history) you need only look in the mirror to find the answer you must provide. If you sat here grinning while your neighbor was carted off to jail for what they believe…don’t be surprised, or expect any tears shed on your behalf, when the powers that be arrive at your door one day.
Orwell was a prophet. He just got the year wrong…