Friday, September 04, 2015

Violating The Law Is Sacred....Depending

Didn't want to bring this up again so soon. It seems akin to beating a dead horse but, to stir the pot with our militant LGBT readers, I will.

Most of the commentary from Reason magazine on the Kentucky County Clerk case seems to follow my line of thinking. The first paragraph of this recent article is pretty much along the line of what I already wrote:

"Working for the government is not an inalienable right. So Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, was wrong to refuse same-sex couples marriage licenses in her office. If you're unwilling to enforce the law, you shouldn't be an officer of the state. After all, it's not a clerk's job to ascertain the constitutionality or practicality of a law. If it were, we'd have anarchy. There are hundreds of other vocations she is free to pursue if this one doesn't suit her."

The writer then points out something I hadn't really thought about in regards taking a stand against state or federal law. Depending on what side you're on, defying state or federal law is often celebrated: 

"Let's start with the prevailing hypocrisy surrounding the attacks on Davis, a Democrat, and what it tells us about the state of American political debate and policymaking in 2015—because as you may have noticed, the rule of law only seems to be sacred when it happens to comport with liberal values."

He goes on to point out other cases of public officials acting contrary to the law, yet they were applauded. Taking Gavin Newsom and his officiating gay marriages among others, as examples:

"When Californians approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, a number of officials refused to enforce the law. They were celebrated. I may even agree with the impulse. But not one elected official has been hauled off to jail for any of these stands."

He's got a point. I'm not sure she should be in jail, either. The bottom line is if the clerk doesn't want to carry out her functions under law, she should be removed from her position one way or the other. Then again, the author agrees with me on that.


At 5:26 PM, Blogger MOLA:42 said...

I agree putting this woman in jail was a bad idea: It just created a martyr for a community that worships martyrs in a big way.

But the system in Kentucky evidently leaves her in her position until the state legislature kicks her out of office... probably not something going to happen anytime soon. After all, what Kentucky politician wants to go to their gawd-fearin' constituency and tell them they impeached a fellow gawd-fearin' public servant?

The court thought fining the woman would do no good as far as changing her mind but perhaps there was a way to fine the county she works for? Otherwise, I haven't a clue as to what better move the court could have made.

As for your point about liberal official defiance going unpunished... perhaps you have a point there. I must consult my navel on that one.

At 5:58 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

"...perhaps there was a way to fine the county she works for"

I was thinking of a recall, but this is the Bible Belt. I suspect a recall would probably fail overwhelmingly.

At 6:57 PM, Blogger MOLA:42 said...

My understanding is that Kentucky law is different in that the recall option is not on the table like it is here. I could have it wrong of course.

I think you are right that the likelihood of a recall being successful there would be remote.

At 9:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm still confused as to what a militant LGBT reader is. Seems to me you post an awful lot of stuff about LGBT. Doesn't that kinda make you a militant LGBT reader?

And please don't offer the typical "they are shoving it down my throat" or "they are dangling it in my face". Those don't mean anything. No one is making anyone be gay. If you are too tempted by seeing gay people, that is YOUR issue. Face it.

At 9:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It might do you some good, Fred, to get to know a few non-straight people. Get to know them as people.

At 12:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whenever anyone mentions "gays shoving their lifestyle down other people's throats" and that sort of thing, I can't help thinking of this classic piece from the Onion:

At 12:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My 2cents.
The constitution is THE law of the land. It was written, formed, created to define our roles.
A. People are self governing. Nobody but the individual may govern another human's rights. Nobody.
B. The federal government was created by "A" above, for the SOLE purpose of handling FOREIGN issues, & those issues only.
C. States were given all other powers that do not have anything to do with either "A" or ""B" above.
D. Voting was created for "A" to decide Constitutional laws ONLY.

A license to marry is not constitutional. (Registry, constitutional).
A tax benefit is not constitutional. (Flat tax, constitutional.)

At 12:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A" should read: nobody has the right to govern others. Nobody.

At 12:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you think being inclusive is the same as having homosexuality shoved down your throat, you’re having the wrong kind of gay sex!


Post a Comment

<< Home