The Release of Kim Davis

Kim_Davis_releasedKim Davis is now out of jail.

The County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, a Democrat, chose jail time over violating her sincerely held religious beliefs related to issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses. She was jailed two weeks ago. Last Tuesday, a judge ordered her to be released.

According to the local media:

Ted Cruz 2016


U.S. District Judge David Bunning, who jailed Kim Davis for contempt of court Thursday, ordered her freed from jail, saying he was satisfied her deputies have complied with his order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex and straight couples.

In a two-page order, Bunning ordered the U.S. Marshal Service to her release on the condition that she shall not “interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.

If she does, Bunning said, “appropriate sanctions” will be considered.

A few observations here.

So the new/old mantra from the Left/Progressives/DemoLibs (choose your poison) on the contentious issue related to the Supreme Court’s invention of a constitutional “right” to marry someone of the same gender now boils down to this: Obey your Oath of Office. Check your conscience at the door. Bring on the lions. Cuz if you thought government was hostile to people of faith before, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

But there’s good news. DemoLibs have suddenly discovered the Oath of Office! Why, it’s a two-fer: the Tolerance Thugs have not only re-invented a brand new version of “tolerance” – disagree with us, go to jail – they’ve also embraced a quaint little notion called the Rule of Law.

Oh, happy day!

That’s right, folks. Some of the very same people who didn’t give a rat’s behind for The Law prior to a Supreme Court ruling that went their way have suddenly morphed into religious zealots on the question. They are shocked – shocked! – by Davis’s alleged disregard for the law.

Notes Bobby Eberle:

The Supreme Court does not make laws. As it currently stands, Kentucky law is written as is, and in order for same-sex couples to marry, there has to be a new law. Until that time, Kim Davis is actually FOLLOWING the law, because marriage between same-sex couples does not exist in Kentucky.

No matter. The usual suspects are now screaming that our system of government is built on respect for the law, which should be applied evenly and equally across the board, regardless of the preferences of individuals.

Unless, of course, your last name is Lerner, Holder, Lynch, Clinton, or Obama?

That little irony is thick enough to choke a mule. Observes Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute of Washington:

Even Hillary Clinton got into the act this week tweeting that, “Marriage equality is the law of the land. Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law-end of story.”

Of course their point about the importance of the rule of law is a good one. But given the context of the Kim Davis controversy, it seems a brief lesson in the history of same-sex “marriage” is in order.

  • Once President Obama finished his evolution on marriage, the U.S. Department of Justice, whose job it is to defend the laws of the United States in Court, refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.
  • In 2013, D. Bruce Haines, an official in Montgomery County Pennsylvania, started issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses when the law did not permit it.

Aren’t you glad that progressives are suddenly passionate about strict adherence to marriage laws? Or any law, for that matter. Remember. These are some of the same folks who brought us Fast and Furious, Black Lives Matter, Obamacare, Solyndra, endless end-runs around Congress, Ms. “What Difference Does It Make?/I did not send or receive any emails marked classified,” and sanctuary cities.

To name a few.

Continues Backholm:

When the Supreme Court invented a constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender in Obergefell, they overturned their own precedent from Windsor less than two years previously when they said states had the right to define marriage for themselves.

Whatever that is, it’s not the rule of law.

It’s not just about marriage laws either. …

The Supreme Court did what they thought was the right thing to do despite what the law said and Kim Davis is doing the same. Kim Davis is no more lawless than half of Washington DC, she just has less powerful friends.

So DemoLibs, kindly spare us the sanctimonious sermonizing about “It’s the law.” That’s not much of a punch line. Even for you.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

A multi-published author and recovering Democrat, Kristine Lowder is a native Californian recently transplanted to the People's Republic of Washington State. She still refuses to cede her life, fortune, or sacred honor to liberal Nazgul or anyone else with poor eyesight. Kristine is a graduate of Biola University. You can find her online at: Kristine Lowder, Writer or at Conservelocity.
Kristine Lowder
View all articles by Kristine Lowder
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • DCM7

    To give a variation on something I like to say: If you can only support your position by appealing to “the law,” and you would only respect laws if you personally agree with them, then you’re really not appealing to anything higher than your own personal preferences. By this thinking, “right” is whatever you like and “wrong” is whatever you don’t like. Mature people don’t operate at that low level.