Friday, September 4, 2015

Here's What's Wrong with the Kim Davis Incarceration

There are so many things wrong with the Kim Davis incarceration that it is mind-boggling.

1) There shouldn't have been a Supreme Court ruling for same-sex marriage in the first place because the Constitution simply does not say anything at all about marriage. The 5 justices in the majority opinion just made it up because they wanted it to be true. Everybody knows that, including the leftists.

2) Just because 5 justices on the Supreme Court say something is Constitutional doesn't make it Constitutional. We all need to get away from the idea that they are the final authority on what is and is not Constitutional. The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of us.

Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the matter:

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps....
Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

3) Even if marriage were a matter that mankind could decide for themselves (instead of a God-ordained institution), the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide marriage policy for the states since that power has never been granted to the federal government. The Constitution clearly states that all powers not granted specifically to the federal government are held by the states or by the people. The people grant government its power. The real power lies with the people. And until the people formally and specifically grant a power to the federal government, the federal government has no power in that area. This is definitely the case with marriage. The federal government has never been granted the power to define marriage by the people and thus it has no jurisdiction. For the federal government to try to seize that power by judicial fiat is unconstitutional and tyrannical.

4) Because the Supreme Court cannot legislate, no ruling of theirs is a law. Thus, Kim Davis has broken no law by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On the contrary, she has upheld the actual law, which in her case is the Constitution of Kentucky, which defines marriage as the union of a man and woman. Even the people who agree with Kim are saying she broke the law for good reason. Pay attention, people. She didn't break any laws. She followed the law. It's all the other county clerks in the state who are not following the law out of a misguided belief that the Supreme Court has the right to make law and to dictate to the states what they will do in a matter on which the federal government has no jurisdiction.

5) So, for the reasons above, Kim Davis should be lauded as the one person actually following the law. She certainly shouldn't be punished in any way. But even if she were failing in her duties as a public servant, putting her in jail is not the proper response. The proper response is to impeach her. She is an elected official, and when elected officials fail to uphold their duties, the people should impeach them or vote them out. It's not like she broke some actual law by stealing or murdering that has written law against it that defines the penalty for the crime. So by what statute is she being placed in jail? None whatsoever. Her only "crime" if there was one, was in being bad at her job and that is something that would properly be corrected (if there were a flaw) by removing her from office. There is no basis whatsoever for imprisoning her.

6) Even if Kim Davis had broken a law and was rightfully imprisoned, there is absolutely no reason to deny her bail. She's not accused of any kind of violence. And even suspected murderers and rapists get out on bail. It's not like she's so wealthy or well-connected that they fear she's a flight risk and will go somewhere she can't be extradited. So there's no reason whatsoever to deny bail. It's pure animus. It's persecution of one society sees as unworthy of equal rights solely for her unpopular views.

The points above are just some of the more blatant problems with the case. If any one of the items above had been properly understood and properly handled, this wouldn't be happening. The fact that it is happening is evidence that we have greatly lost our way as a country, that we the people are not holding government properly accountable, that most people do not understand the basis for just government, and that we have allowed persecution of an individual and violation of her rights because her views and actions are not politically-correct. May God have mercy on us. And may the people learn from this case, rise up, and never let it happen again.


  1. You really have no grasp of the law do you? Nor of the constitution, or your own bible, or even common sense.

    1. Any idiot can claim I don't know what I'm talking about. If you have a substantial criticism, please articulate it. If not, please avoid empty claims that I'm wrong just because you don't like what I say.

    2. Great response! You articulate a common problem in that too many people willing to comment do not understand the basic elements of an argument.

    3. The commenter Bobbie McMillan is behaving like an obvious internet troll:

      1. Made up name.
      2. No traceable identity (active website, social media account, etc)
      3. Inflammatory language intended to deflect from the actual content and/or waste time
      4. No reasonable evidence or proof offered
      5. Disappears when confronted (or continues to throw up ridiculous content)

      The best way to deal with such is to ignore them or moderate comments. They show no interest in promoting free speech or open dialogue. Rather, they are the enemies of discussion and work to destroy it by poisoning the atmosphere.


  2. Excellent article! Thanks for this. I agree with every single thing you said here.

  3. Your article is just plain wrong from the very first item in the list. That's true, the Constitution says nothing about marriage. Nobody says it does. The Supreme Court justices who ruled against marriage discrimination didn't say it does. Anybody (you, for example) who thinks that the justices based their ruling on a mistaken belief that the Constitution says anything about marriage is discussing the situation without having the slightest idea what the situation IS.

    As I said, you are correct that the Constitution says nothing about marriage. ONE of the things that it doesn't say about marriage is that there's any kind of EXCEPTION for it when it comes to the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection. Because the Constitution does not make such an exception for marriage, the states may not violate those guarantees in their marriage laws any more than they may violate them in any other context. You see, the states (and Congress) were acting as though the Constitution allowed them to pretend that due process and equal protection doesn't apply to marriage. But it doesn't allow them to do that. THAT is the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling.

    Because we find from the very beginning of the article that you know nothing about the legal context to the whole question that your article is about, there is nothing of value to be gained from reading your article.

    1. "Anybody (you, for example) who thinks that the justices based their ruling on a mistaken belief that the Constitution says anything about marriage is discussing the situation without having the slightest idea what the situation IS."

      It's not just that the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, but that there is no right to redefine marriage (which is what same-sex "marriage" would be - a redefinition of marriage, not applying marriage to a new group of people). The Constitution does not say anything at all about a right to marriage and there is no such thing. SCOTUS did not make their ruling based on what the Constitution said or what it means. They completely made up the "right" to marry whoever one wants. There has never been such a right.

      "ONE of the things that it doesn't say about marriage is that there's any kind of EXCEPTION for it when it comes to the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection."

      Keeping a legal definition of marriage as a man and a woman in no way makes an exception to the 14th Amendment's due process or equal protection guarantees. Everyone - gay or straight - has equal access to marriage. In order to marry, one must find an unmarried person of the opposite sex who is of legal age and not a close relative and who consents to marry you. This is true no matter what your sexual orientation is. There was no discrimination. Marriage was already equally accessible to everyone. If someone wishes not to marry a person of the opposite sex, they therefore do not wish to marry.

      Someone might wish to form a permanently committed sexual and romantic relationship with a person of the same sex. And if two people wish to engage in that relationship, I think that is their choice and they should not be prohibited from engaging in that consensual relationship. However, they don't have a right to force everyone else to call that relationship "marriage" by government force. That's what they're trying to do, but they don't have a right to do that. They can't redefine marriage for everyone. The Constitution has never acknowledged a right for one group of people to redefine public institutions to suit their views and force others to agree with them. Thus, there was no Constitutional basis for the SCOTUS ruling.

    2. If you want to talk about Redefining Marriage, history does not support ONE man and ONE woman. Monogamy was something unique that developed in Greece which Christianity and eventually Judaism adopted.

    3. No, monogamy was always what God planned for marriage, as seen in the beginning with God creating one man and one woman. Polygamy was never God's plan, but was allowed and regulated to protect women from being left without a husband to care for them. But the Bible always looked down on polygamy and never promoted it.

    4. Hi Lindsay,

      Please read my comment above. One of the mark of troll-like behavior is the desire of the troll to waste your time.

      What kind of honest person would say something to anyone they respect like this, Your article is just plain wrong from the very first item in the list.

      This person is either extremely ill-mannered, and should be taken to task for that, or, more likely, is completely insincere. In either case, how can reasonable discussion take place?



    That is someone other then me.

    1. The argument against legal same-sex marriage has nothing to do with such unions being immoral. I agree that government may legally recognize marriages that are immoral, such as between previously divorced individuals. However, government should not call things that are not marriage, marriage. Government should not erase the cultural understanding that a union of husband and wife is the best environment for children and that children have a right, not just to 2 nebulous parents, but a father and a mother.



    2. Christians shouldn't care what the Government does on Marriage PERIOD.

      And while the New Testament may not approve of Monogamy, as long as the Old Testament is there you can't say the definition of Marriage is only Monogamy.

    3. I meant "may only approve", not "may not approve".