“… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” — Declaration of Independence
Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis is being hauled before a federal judge again for defying a court order by refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
After opening her office Tuesday, Davis refused to give a homosexual couple a marriage license.
When an angry gang of a couple of dozen homosexuals confronted Davis in her office and demanded by what authority she refused to indulge their perversion, she said very clearly, “Under God’s authority.”
Good for her.
Now Davis has been summoned to appear Thursday before the judge who issued the order for her to dole out licenses to every Tom, Dick and Harry — or Teresa, Dianne and Helen if you prefer.
Davis now faces fines almost certainly, and it’s an even bet whether she’ll get to cool her heels in jail for contempt of court.
Not that it’s difficult to hold our courts in contempt these days, especially when they just make it up as they go without any regards to tradition or existing law.
Ever since the Supreme Court manufactured a right to sodomy-based “marriage” in June, Davis has refused to issue any marriage licenses — to anybody.
So she’s fair and treating everybody equally.
If you thought the whole homosexual marriage fight was about “marriage equality,” this is yet further proof that it’s not.
Davis is an Apostolic Christian and apparently has decided that issuing marriage licenses to two men or two women would violate her religious beliefs. She would be the best judge of that, of course.
In cases like this, the pro-pervert crowd will often come back with a statement to the effect that if Davis can’t abandon her religious principles, then she shouldn’t be able to hold a government job.
That would constitute a religious test for a government position, which is — or used to be — against the law.
It should be noted that whenever liberals don’t like a law or any act of government, they have a tendency to riot, smash windows, burn cars and the like.
Seeing how that sort of behavior mostly gets a free pass these days, Davis’ rather subdued protest should clearly be protected as free speech and free exercise of religion.
But in the unnatural law of liberalism, what’s allowed and what is a right depend upon which way the wind is blowing.
At the moment, it’s blowing against people like Davis who take a stand in the face of government’s abuse of existing laws and increasing fascist tendencies.
Since government at most levels has ceased to listen to its constituents, what choice is left for the common citizen but civil disobedience?