Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Judging Kim Davis
I’ve spent the past few hours reading up a bit on the Kim Davis controversy (I highly recommend Eugene Volokh’s primer). My overwhelming feeling toward Davis is empathy. While many people — myself included, initially — responded with some variation of “If you don’t like the job, you can quit,” the simple fact of the matter is that the terms of the office Davis was elected to were changed on her, and in a way that most of us find deplorable and indefensible. Obergefell was a terrible decision, and many who’ve hailed it as the new Loving will one day come to see how it’s more like the new Roe.
Second, Davis has become the latest victim of the left’s scorched earth tactics. Rather than simply accommodate Davis’s objections by driving to another of Kentucky’s innumerable and relatively tiny counties — all of which can issue marriage licenses to any state resident — the couples suing Davis have decided to use their marriages to make a point at someone else’s expense. Moreover, Davis’s recent conversion and previous marriages have been treated as the butt of jokes, rather than celebrated as someone learning from her mistakes and changing her life for the better.
Lastly, it appears that Judge Bunning took the simple-if-inflammatory option of jailing Davis for contempt when other options were open to him. As much as one plays Bartleby with a federal judge at one’s own risk, Bunning’s wrath seems excessive.
All that said, Davis’s case leaves me with the same feeling I used to have about George W. Bush: her defenders make her case better than she does. She has not argued, as David French has, that the government is abusing its legitimate authority — via a poorly-argued SCOTUS decision based on little more than Anthony Kennedy’s deepest feelings — but that any such redefinition of marriage would be illegitimate from any source. Indeed, Davis’s arguments give the impression that she would have responded identically had same-sex marriage been instituted by state constitutional amendment with the votes of 100% of Rowan County’s residents. Under those circumstances, it would seem that resignation would be the honorable way to go.
Of course, that’s not what happened. Davis might want to refine her language and sharpen her points, but she’s not the bad guy here.
Published in Law, Marriage
This is the core of the contention, and I have nothing to argue other than it was nice, and probably much better, when it was the old way.
That in itself is a political assessment. If you think so then convince your fellow citizens to elect people who will do something to correct the situation.
Personally, as I said, I think both that they were wrong and that they overreached. However, we do have legitimate and reasonable remedies for that: legislation, constitutional amendment, impeachment, better appointments, a different decision next time.
The bar is low for misbehavior, but the corrective action has a disproportionately high bar to accomplish.
Much in the same way that a single case of forcing the baker or photographer to work the gay wedding feels like tyranny. It doesn’t have to happen much, at first, to start down the wrong road.
You misunderstand me. Of course, it matters to me, a great deal. I can think of few things about our government that matter more. I mean that it doesn’t matter to the case at hand.
I think that’s a good thing too (that the bar is high). It’s just one more way that the 51% will have a harder time being tyrannical with the 49%.
Otherwise I disagree that the bar is low. The electorate can tug on the leash whenever it wants. Perhaps they disagree that this counts as misbehavior that needs correcting. In which case your task is the same: convince your fellow citizens of the reason of your position.
According to the local papers gay couples from San Francisco are coming to her county to get a license or be turned down so they can be part of the historic event and strike a blow for gay rights. Somebody is making a point for sure.
The amendment to the Kentucky constitution (passed by 75% in 2004) makes it illegal for the state to perform same sex marriages or civil unions. That is still on the books. It seems that the legal system needs to process the shock given to it by the supreme court before people are jailed for following Kentucky law.
Let’s just be clear: “Obama did bad stuff too”is not a legitimate argument.
I think the two are more closely related than you think, but my own view is the hatred of Christians is more important than their disapproval of dissent. They don’t try to put people in jail who complain about the welfare state.
(Not that it matters, but I say this as an agnostic who has no dog in this in fight other than I would like to preserve what is good about this country for my children, but I fear it is already too late for that. We were a proud nation once, but no more.)
5/6 that are willing to issue them after they saw what happened to her. This is old Mafia style politics. You ask a person a question, you do not like the answer so you knock them off in front of others. You then ask the next person the question. Don’t like the answer do the same. Does not take long before everybody gives the answer you want. Yeah!! you won by merit of your argument.
Not sure why I called that Mafia style politics. It is really just politics.
Your assertion cannot stand by itself. It needs some support.
No, but inconsistent punishment of government officials who refuse to follow the law is valid point for discussion (which is different than being an argument). If the left is so convinced that any government official who refuses to follow the law belongs in jail, Kim Davis is WAY down on the list.
As I said earlier in post #8, I’m ok with all of them being in jail, but I’m not OK with the left throwing Christians in jail for being Christians while worshiping the law-breaking of Obama and Lois Lerner.
I think it’s worth noting that certain illegal activities by bureaucrats and elected officials are sanctioned and unpunished because they meet with approval from all the right people. As always, anyone else’s mileage may vary.
It’s also worth noting that the root of this issue is a decision where a Supreme Court Justice (Scalia, for the record) said in his dissent:
“And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
That is a Supreme Court Justice intimating that it would be justifiable for people to take up arms against the government over Obergefell and what it represents.
This again brings to mind Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural,
This really is part of a much larger issue involving the role of the Court in a republic and the idea of judicial supremacy.
Because, unless one fulfills even unjust laws in one’s civil service capacity, one forgoes the defense, “Auchtung! I was just following orders.”
And why didn’t Rosa Parks pick herself up and give her seat to a man who was legally entitled to it? And why didn’t Martin Luther King just keep his mouth shut in Birmingham after the state issued an injunction against his protests? He could have found some other city to protest in.
I can’t answer for any of these three, but they all intentionally broke laws the felt were unjust.
Utterly ridiculous. I’m sure there are thousands of Christians who would gladly take that job and hand out the licenses. This is a certain segment of Christianity for which this particular issue is paramount and they would best be served by finding other employment. Similar to how pacifists probably shouldn’t join the military and Vegans probably shouldn’t go work for a meat packing company.
Really? You’re going to Godwin the thread on page 3? [redacted for CoC]
Because Rosa Parks wasn’t a public servant with a duty to the public that’s why.
I remember when I was a boy the only cranks and busybodies like this we had to deal with were on the right: some old spinster or the Catholic Decency League writing the FCC about Lenny Bruce or a “racy” TV show… back then everybody understood that just participating in such events proved you were an oddball with too much time on your hands to understand the mentality of normal people. Now the tables have turned, troublemaking has become a cottage industry on the left from Black Lives Matter to these “activists.” I think it’s very sad.
Her objection was that — with the current way the system worked — the licenses would appear to be granted under her authority, something she considered against her conscience. On the other hand, he’s been very persnickety about what she wants.
Now, I’m generally skeptical of government agents demanding freedom of conscience protections in doing their duties and I think Davis should be subject to repercussions (as Mike Hubbard said, you play Antigone, you’re opening yourself up to Creon). On the other hand, there was no emergency here — the licenses were available elsewhere — and a number of other remedies were available to deal with Davis’ intransigence short of federal court.
There have been a few commenters on this thread making a version of the argument:
“Well Obama doesn’t uphold the law in [insert lawless Obama action here]”
Conservatives rightly castigate Obama when he does something lawless with which they disagree. They should apply same logic to Ms. Davis.
A public that voted more than 2-1 against what Anthony Kennedy demands.
When I had my cheese company the processing area were 70 or so people worked was kept a 55 degree temperature. This was for health department reasons. It was year around. About every six months I would get a delegation of employees asking to have it raised to 70 degrees. I would explain that it was not negotiable and it was easy to prepare clothes for the situation. Some would get irritated. My last word was that they should seek a job were the temperature suited them but it would not be here.
But as King said, if one is going to break the law in protest he must willingly accept his punishment.
The county can fire Davis. The fact that they haven’t might say something about what they think of having their democratically passed laws overruled by judicial fiat.
Actually, they can’t. Her clerkship is an elected office.
Sure they had just causes. However, they also didn’t reject the punishment of the system. They didn’t take hostages or initiate a shootout to evade arrest or incite rebellion. They accepted the consequences in order to highlight the systematic injustice and as a means of persuasion.
If injustice was done to Kim Davis then perhaps her arrest will similarly serve to highlight the fault and cause people to fix the situation. As I say, while I think the court was wrong and the consequences will be larger than people expect, I don’t think changing what counts as civil marriage is an injustice or illegitimate. Civil marriage is not the same as sacramental marriage; her rights to practice her faith are not being impeded any more than having to issue a prostitution license in Nevada would be an impediment.
I agree the law has to be enforced, but I think the Judge didn’t really think out his role in this guerrilla theater – by jailing her he confirms her martyr status and keeps the ball rolling. A much better resolution would have been to find her in contempt and then confiscate her salary until she decided to see the light or resign.
From the beginning, could she not have closed her office of dropped issuing marriage licenses at all?