- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Kim Davis and the Rise of Right-Wing Civil Disobedience

“If the law supposes that, the law is a ass—a idiot.” Charles Dickens gave that line to Mr. Bumble in “Oliver Twist.”

And it sums up the judgment of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis about the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, which said the 14th Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.

Davis refused to provide marriage licenses to gay couples lined up at her clerk’s office and was sent to jail for five days by a federal judge for contempt of court. Good for her. We need more like her.

For behind her defiance are more authoritative sources than the five justices who gave us Obergefell: the Old and New Testaments, Natural Law, two millennia of Christian teaching and tradition, and the entire body of U.S. federal and state law up to Y2K. Moreover, Kentucky never enacted a law authorizing same-sex marriage. Nor did the Congress of the United States. Whence, then, did this “law” come?

Answer: This is a creation of a Supreme Court that has usurped the legislative power to impose a secularist anti-Christian ideology on a nation, much of which still rejects it, but has no recourse against it.

A right to same-sex marriage was no more in the Constitution as written or amended than was a woman’s right to have an abortion. The Court has lately been declaring to be constitutional rights that used to regarded as shameful crimes. This is judicial tyranny. And Kim Davis’ defiance is as old as the republic.

Recall, we were born in a rebellion against the tyrannical acts of a king and Parliament we did not elect. President Jefferson ordered the release of all those convicted under the Sedition Act, declared that he would no longer enforce that Federalist-enacted law, and pronounced it a nullity.

When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared slaves were property and could not become citizens, Harriet Tubman ignored his Dred Scott decision, defied the fugitive slave laws, and helped slaves escape from her native Maryland.

Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs defied the Espionage Act of 1917 and spoke out against World War I. Convicted of sedition, he was sent to prison for 10 years under Woodrow Wilson, but freed by President Harding.

Throughout American history, industrial workers, civil rights and anti-war activists, and political dissenters have defied laws, ignored court orders, and gone to jail for contempt.

Rosa Parks broke the law in Montgomery, Alabama, by refusing to move to the back of the bus. Martin Luther King, a disciple of Gandhi, preached and practiced civil disobedience his entire life. Now there is a statue on the mall and a holiday for King and talk of putting Tubman or Parks on America’s currency.

They are honored because their defiance of court orders and law-breaking were done in the cause of social progress. But Kim Davis’ defiance of a court order was done because that is what God told her to do, and she wanted to be faithful to the beliefs she had embraced as an Apostolic Christian.

Yes, Virginia, there is a double standard. In the 20th century, if you were breaking the law or violating a court order to protest segregation, Vietnam, or apartheid in South Africa, you got an indulgent press.

But if you were defying a court order to stop blocking integration at the University of Alabama or Little Rock High, or stop protesting too close to the local abortion mill, you got lectures on the “rule of law.”

Some conservatives say that Kim Davis as a public official has to carry out court orders, even those she believes to be immoral, or quit. Yet the course she took has undeniably advanced her cause in our unending culture war.

For she rallied and inspired many with her witness, defiance, and willingness to go to jail. She set an example of nonviolent resistance. She treated same-sex marriage not as some great social leap forward, but as a moral abomination. Many among the silent majority were surely nodding in approval.

She has also exposed the breadth and depth of the division in the country between an older Christian America and new Secular America.

Once, the Supreme Court could rely upon a residual respect for its proceedings, grounded in a belief that ours is a good government whose actions, even if we disagree, are rooted in principle and merit respect. That reservoir of trust and good will is about gone.

Almost all of the civil and uncivil disobedience of the last half-century, from campus uprisings to urban riots to political protests, came from the left. But as an anti-Christian secularism becomes ascendant, dominant and imperious, rumbles are coming from right.

Indeed, from the raw politics of the Summer of Trump, it seems clear that Middle America has come to believe it has been had, and that the state that rules the nation is hostile to the country they love, and needs to be resisted and defied.

We are headed for interesting times.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. [1] Copyright 2015 Creators.com.

40 Comments (Open | Close)

40 Comments To "Kim Davis and the Rise of Right-Wing Civil Disobedience"

#1 Comment By Fran Macadam On September 11, 2015 @ 1:23 am

Rod Dreher mistakes government (no matter who comes to control it) as the source of our rights, because he now believes after opposing it, that sodomite marriage, just because it has been approved by five unelected and unaccountable old legal tyrants thus becomes a right. Also, he’s worried about bad “optics,” that will discredit Christians to the point that the LGBTQ cabal won’t bargain with Christians to allow them a dhimmi servitude carve-out in New Sodom.

Encouraged to see you disagree.

It’s absolutely no wonder that good sense has been lost on any number of issues whether in cultural wars or failed overseas wars of choice.

None of these dunderheaded policies, domestic or international, have produced any good results for most Americans.

As Pat says, Americans respect institutions worthy of respect, but not those which have become unhinged and derelict.

#2 Comment By Kurt Gayle On September 11, 2015 @ 2:04 am

“…Behind her defiance are more authoritative sources than the five justices who gave us Obergefell: the Old and New Testaments, Natural Law, two millennia of Christian teaching and tradition, and the entire body of U.S. federal and state law up to Y2K.”

From 2 Chronicles 16:

“At that time Hanani the seer came to King Asa [King of Judah] and told him, ‘…The eyes of the LORD search the whole earth in order to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. What a fool you have been! From now on you will be at war.’ Asa became so angry with Hanani for saying this that he threw him into prison and put him in stocks.”

#3 Comment By Mick On September 11, 2015 @ 5:56 am

Pat Buchanan lionizing Eugene Debs. I have lived to see everything. The only “minor” problems here Pat is that Kim Davis is a public employee and the Old Testament is not the organizing principle on which the US is based.

#4 Comment By Neal On September 11, 2015 @ 6:21 am

Americans love government. They love war, assassinations, spying, police brutality against minorities, and the continuation of rule by the super-rich elites running the show.

What they don’t seem to like are these trivial debates over “rights” for regular people who never hurt anyone. There is nothing civil about religious fanatics expressing their so-called liberty by trying to make miserable the lives of people they don’t even know. That’s not religious freedom, it is just being mean.

But we get that… religious liberty is the right to be a cruel and heartless human being because that’s what God wants. And as I write this on 9/11/2015, I am reminded just how dangerous people expressing their religious liberty can be.

When people use religion to justify hatred and oppression, they discredit both themselves and their faith. Don’t expect us to put up with it anymore. We know where religious fanaticism leads.

#5 Comment By Kent On September 11, 2015 @ 7:26 am

Delusional. A large majority of Americans either approve of gay marriage or have made their peace with it.

#6 Comment By Susan On September 11, 2015 @ 9:01 am

“…Behind her defiance are more authoritative sources than the five justices who gave us Obergefell: the Old and New Testaments, Natural Law, two millennia of Christian teaching and tradition, and the entire body of U.S. federal and state law up to Y2K.”

What a ridiculous article. The New Testament is more authoritative?

#7 Comment By Joe F On September 11, 2015 @ 9:23 am

Old and New Testament? I don’t believe any of it, so why should I accept it as a governing principle. Who is imposing what on who here Pat?

#8 Comment By long way home On September 11, 2015 @ 9:30 am

Right-wing civil disobedience is about denying equal treatment to minorities. Normal people generally disapprove.

#9 Comment By Roland Kayser On September 11, 2015 @ 9:33 am

Yes, “Middle America has come to believe it has been had”. That’s because what they used to get in wages now flows to the billionaire class, not because of same sex marriage, which a majority of Americans now support.

#10 Comment By bkh On September 11, 2015 @ 9:55 am

No human rule, law, emotion, feeling, opinion, majority, or armed forces changes or nullifies God’s Word. You either believe or you do not. Jesus himself said the “world” will hate (not get along with or compromise with) those who follow His Word. The world, not just the US, is in territory that has been seen before – the days of Noah. The Kim Davis drama is not about you or me, it is about God and a standard that is either believed in or it isn’t. What is sad is that instead of being happy about the grace and forgiveness that God has extended to her about her past, that past is continually brought up in a disparaging manner. The Bible talks about an Accuser, too. He is not so nice.

#11 Comment By Chris C. On September 11, 2015 @ 10:34 am

Defiance of the natural law will come at a severe price. God needn’t send lighting or thunderbolts. Simply allowing us to reap the natural consequence of what we’ve sown is enough. In the case of the monstrous but now deeply imbedded abortion rights regime we are reaping a demographic crisis, as well as a moral crisis in which we are indifferent to the suffering and destruction of the helpless innocent with the hardness of heart and deadening of spirit which such a mindset entails. Now we are taking that another giant step closer to the edge of the abyss. The final fall will come upon us quietly, and with all of us shaking our collective heads as to how and why such a woeful misfortune has overtaken us.

I agree with the commentator who noted the irony of Pat speaking praise albeit faint, or Eugene Debs. Indeed this is a time of irony; such as our obsession with rights, unhinged from any conception or knowledge of where they come from. Speaking of love and compassion while we butcher innocent children in the womb without a trace of national shame. Of seeking still to promote “Western values” whatever that means nowadays, to the rest of the world; ignoring the fact that we have all but lost sight of what or I should say who( hint- Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church), that brought those values to life in the first place.

To those who assume hateful motives on the part of Kim Davis, I ask; is it possible that you are projecting your own hatred upon her? There has been nothing that she has done or said indicative of the slightest hateful impulse, therefore it’s likely that whatever hatred you’re sensing is burrowed within each of you.

#12 Comment By Charles On September 11, 2015 @ 10:43 am

“Delusional. A large majority of Americans either approve of gay marriage or have made their peace with it.”

So remember, folks. Standing up for your beliefs is only legitimate when it’s a popular belief.

#13 Comment By Al On September 11, 2015 @ 10:49 am

“The Silent Majority”?

Is there really a silent majority anymore? And even when there was, what did they accomplish?

I think Kim Davis is entirely within her rights here, but her defiance will accomplish exactly nothing in the grand scheme of things. Political victories mean nothing unless they are supported by broad cultural movements as well. You are not. There is no “Silent Majority”. You’re just delaying the inevitable defeat.

And really it was always going to be this way, because, as one commenter pointed out above, our country is not founded on Christianity. This was written into the thing from the beginning, although almost no one saw it. Eventually the logic of our ideas asserts itself.

If we want to win this fight, we have to abandon the Enlightenment principles that brought us here.

#14 Comment By Kirk On September 11, 2015 @ 10:51 am

My daughter and I recently traveled to Kentucky to attend a wedding. She and I live in different cities so our stories are different yet similar.

She was delayed because the taxi driver refused to allow a single female to travel alone. It was against his Muslim religion. She had to call another taxi.

I was delayed because I tried to check my luggage which carried my pistol. The baggage agent refused to process the bag because he was a Quaker. His supervisor had to be called to process the bag. Then, when I got past security, I had just enough time to buy a BLT, but the lady behind the counter refused to sell it to me because she was Jewish, and, as she explained, pork is not an approved food in the Bible.

Once in Kentucky, Kim refused to grant a license to my gay nephew.

#15 Comment By AJ On September 11, 2015 @ 11:25 am

Excellent big picture view. I don’t have much good to say about either Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee and their political exploitation of Kim Davis’ courage, but I admire her guts to stand against a law that isn’t on the books anywhere.

#16 Comment By Ron Goodman On September 11, 2015 @ 12:14 pm

“So remember, folks. Standing up for your beliefs is only legitimate when it’s a popular belief.”

Stand up for your beliefs all you want, but don’t expect the rest of us to just roll over for you.

#17 Comment By robert nyc On September 11, 2015 @ 12:22 pm

Pat, the Bible ALSO gave us Slavery too.

Are you suggesting we re-instute that practice?

Let’s not even get started with the Leviticus crimes of mixed fabrics, stoning harlots – like the serial Adulterer Kim Davis – or all those dining on shellfish at Long John Silvers tonight.

#18 Comment By Magnum Nervus On September 11, 2015 @ 12:26 pm

If Pat had ever bothered to read up on the history of the Old and New Testaments, he wouldn’t call them authoritative. They are nothing but fables collected by semi-literate tribesmen.

#19 Comment By B On September 11, 2015 @ 12:28 pm

It is unfortunate that people use Christianity as an excuse to persecute homosexuals in our country. The bible, particularly the old testament, dictates a great many things that are clearly horrible, terrible, brutal and disgusting.

But, as a modern society, we simply choose to ignore these ghastly edicts and pretend they do no exist. We pick and choose what to pay attention to, and what not to pay attention to.

Jesus was an inspirational and transformative figure, who preached forgiveness and tolerance. Eventually, persecution of homosexuals will be just another on a long list of atrocities we choose to ignore, in service of the greater virtue of Jesus’ own words.

#20 Comment By bt On September 11, 2015 @ 12:43 pm

The problem with Kim Davis and other like here is that they confuse their own “Freedoms” with the freedoms of OTHER PEOPLE.

No one is forcing Kim Davis to get gay married. She is and remains free to not marry a woman. And no one stopped her from getting divorced, however much that runs against Christian teaching. (As we all know by now Jesus spoke forcefully against divorce but not really at all about the homosex.)

She has no right to tell OTHER PEOPLE what to do with their lives. And she has no right to enforce her religious views onto others. It’s really very un-American, Pat.

#21 Comment By John On September 11, 2015 @ 12:55 pm

Pat leaves out the most important detail. Not one of the people he cites above were denying rights to others- except Ms. Davis. There is a difference between civil disobedience to gain a denied right and using it to deny rights for others.

#22 Comment By Kurt Gayle On September 11, 2015 @ 1:14 pm

“Chris C.” writes about “our obsession with rights, unhinged from any conception or knowledge of where they come from.”

“Fran Macadam” writes on another thread that, indeed, we need to examine carefully “where rights come from. Are they merely subjective and transitory, determined by current opinion poll and then ordered upheld or done away by temporary government edict following this year’s majority vote; are they determined by a claque of near senescent unelected Yale and Harvard law elites examining the legal lint in their deep navels and pronouncing ‘it is so,’ unencumbered by democratic opinion; do right and wrong even exist objectively in a hierarchy of one thing being preferential over another or are they spoken into existence with no requisite reality, other than there be the power of assertion, and the means to punish those who disagree more than theoretically? Religious liberty is mostly the vehicle for anti-religion, the precepts of which religion are actively antithetical to and hostile towards Christianity.”

“bkh” says what all people of faith believe: “No human rule, law, emotion, feeling, opinion, majority, or armed forces changes or nullifies God’s Word. You either believe or you do not.”

Pat Buchanan says: “As an anti-Christian secularism becomes ascendant, dominant and imperious…it seems clear that Middle America has come to believe it has been had, and that the state that rules the nation is hostile to the country they love, and needs to be resisted and defied.”

Many of us who in defense of God’s Word have committed civil disobedience and been jailed before, stand ready to commit civil disobedience and be jailed again.

To paraphrase Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other. God help us. Amen.

#23 Comment By Russel On September 11, 2015 @ 3:05 pm

Our society is born out of Aristotle, not the Christian religion. There’s a reason why a tour of the National Mall looks like a stroll through Rome. Furthermore, how arrogant for anyone to say they understand the will of god. Don’t forget your religion is one of faith. That implies you CANT know for certain. If you “know” you can’t have true “faith”. You can only have “faith” that you “know”. So to say with any certainty that you know how god feels about something contradicts the nature of god and puts human reasoning on a pedistol. It’s especially ironic that Protestants use the “2000 years of Christian history” billy club when their version of the Bible is less than 1000 years old. The entire Protestant faith is built on the notion that nearly 1500 years of Christian theology before it had gotten it wrong. So why should anyone get to determine for the rest of us what the Bible does and doesn’t say? How can I be sure that the Southern Babtist interpret the Bible correctly? Remember, that’s the whole reason why Protestantism exist in the first place.

#24 Comment By Kent On September 11, 2015 @ 3:11 pm

I didn’t mean to suggest that standing up for one’s views is delusional. Insisting that “middle America” (whatever that means) stands in solidarity with Kim Davis is delusional.

#25 Comment By RINOVirus On September 11, 2015 @ 3:14 pm

I have a question to those of you like Fran Macadam. Why is it that many on the right think that they alone have the right to dictate what rights others have? How arrogant do you have to be to believe that your morals are the center of my universe? Many people call themselves conservative but they are nothing of the kind. Fran, Pat, and those like them need to be called out for what they really are: authoritarians.

#26 Comment By Russel On September 11, 2015 @ 3:27 pm

Also, it’s interesting one of the links above the comment section is to an article titled “Yes! The Supreme Court Says No to Warrentless GPS Tracking”. Interesting because the Court blocked GPS Tracking because of the Right to Privacy. A right that appears nowhere in the Constitution. Of course it does say a person has the right to “be secure in their persons and papers”, but according to the logic in this article the Supreme Court “invented” this right. After all GPS devices are not “persons and papers”. The reason they applied the Right to Privacy in this case is because there is case law on that subject that puts electronic communication in the same category as paper communication. If you agree to that, how can you argue that the SSM ruling was wrong? After all there is a constitutional right to due [legal] process, marriage is a legal process, therefore it is the burden of the Federal government to ensure all citizens have access to that right.

#27 Comment By Art On September 11, 2015 @ 4:31 pm

Gay marriage is a minor issue. I bet if Jesus was here he would be critical of Kim Davis as there are more important issues at stake like poverty. Paul though would disagree. Anyway civil disobedience should only be done if the issue threatens liberty.

#28 Comment By David Harrell On September 11, 2015 @ 5:18 pm

“This is a creation of a Supreme Court that has usurped the legislative power to impose a secularist anti-Christian ideology on a nation, much of which still rejects it, but has no recourse against it.”

I disagree. We have the recourse of depoliticizing marriage. Simply stop making marriage a subject of State licensure. We have to realize, the notion that States should dole our marriage licenses (and with it, several privileges) is a very recent notion. Marriage is a divine institution, not a State privilege.

#29 Comment By Boris On September 11, 2015 @ 6:04 pm

Kim Davis is free to leave her taxpayer funded, government job, which requires her to faithfully execute the law. In no way is she oppressed; her church, her personal safety, and her personal beliefs are not threatened. She herself is not being forced to “gay marry”, all she is required to do is certify that any couple that comes before her office meets the certification criteria for a marriage license.

The major difference between the cases Mr Buchanan cites as examples of earlier civil disobedience are all situations where injustices are imposed on people, and refusing to obey that law would correct the injustice. But the law Kim Davis refuses to obey is itself a correction of an injustice; she is therefore on the opposite side of the argument Buchanan is making.

She remains free to exercise her religion, to live in safety, to believe what her conscience dictates. She is, however, denying that very right to others. She is unfit to hold her office and needs to resign.

#30 Comment By JR On September 11, 2015 @ 6:42 pm

Those unelected robed “tyrants” are just as unelected whether you like their decisions or not.

This squabble is just more “culture war” on the cheap; defined as any moral grandstanding that costs the GOP nothing.

The only “sacred” principles the GOP holds are tax-cuts and mindless militarism. Nothing more. Nothing less.

#31 Comment By K. W. Jeter On September 11, 2015 @ 7:00 pm

I see no contradiction in Buchanan praising Debs. It’s not Debs’ socialism that Buchanan is in agreement with; it’s Deb’s opposition to pointless war that is entirely consistent with Buchanan’s own position.

#32 Comment By EliteCommInc. On September 11, 2015 @ 9:40 pm

“What a ridiculous article. The New Testament is more authoritative?”

On matters of faith — absolutely. I think there was room to hold to her conscience by allowing those on staff willing to issue licenses. But this is not my conscience. This is hers.

And barring any stray from scripture, she get my support as best as I can give it.

ANd i do so knowing full well that in 2002, she would not have supported my psoition. But my support is not yet tit for tat bound as has become common place.

aith, scripture over rues the Supreme Court every time.
In matters of f

#33 Comment By cecelia On September 12, 2015 @ 8:01 am

Seriously – the Old or New Testament is not the basis of law – and in a society where there a many religions that do not follow the Bible that is even more true.

My personal behavior can be guided by the Bible – but the behavior of the government is guided by the law.

The basis of a civil and stable society is the law not any religious document. The same people who think we should now use the Bible as a basis for social order would not like it very much if someone suggested that Sharia law be applied.

My religion says divorce is a sin – if I worked at a marriage license office – should I be able to refuse divorced people a license to marry? Should a Muslim who works at the DMV be able to refuse woman driver’s licenses? The path suggested by this article leads to chaos.

As a public official Kim Davis has no right to refuse to do her job.

#34 Comment By John On September 12, 2015 @ 11:09 am

Once, the Supreme Court could rely upon a residual respect for its proceedings, grounded in a belief that ours is a good government whose actions, even if we disagree, are rooted in principle and merit respect. That reservoir of trust and good will is about gone.

The same states which currently have a problem with same-sex marriage and women being offered reproductive health services of any kind are the same states where the notions of nullification and separate-but-equal flourished. The Supreme Court has managed to scrape by these past 220-odd years in spite of them.

#35 Comment By Smith Act On September 12, 2015 @ 1:25 pm

As i recall, Harriet Tubman was keen to keep her job with the North Carolina Slavery Ownership Board, and irritated that her anti-slavery beliefs and her refusal to ratify ownership docs according to her beliefs got her a contempt citation.

Eugene Debs ran the WW1 Nebraska Recruitment Office, didn’t he, in which position he refused to recruit anyone.

Oh hang on, no they didn’t. They stood outside the state and opposed it.

Kim Davis is welcome to do the same

#36 Comment By EliteCommInc. On September 12, 2015 @ 7:26 pm

On matters of faith the source of sgripture is certainly a higher authority than the Supreme Court.

When in conflict, scripture in its proper context supercedes, the courts. And should their come a time when that conflict is forced on Christians — well so be it.

———–

The beauty of living in the US ate least currently is that you don’t have to have any faith at all and your right as a citizen to practice as much is protected.

It would be nice if people accepted the saving grace of Christ, but it has never been mandated in this country that one does. However, that one’s lack of faith should be the point of gun for those who do violates the purpose of the country’s founding.

It is quite common to refrain, the country was not founded on christianity. Technically that is accurate. But it isnores a central reality. Christians of varying faiths, have forged its principles and standards of living that have made the state a success for christians as well as everyone else.

#37 Comment By Brendanyc On September 13, 2015 @ 6:04 pm

Chris C…”To those who assume hateful motives on the part of Kim Davis,..” i don’t know , none of us do, whether there is a lot of hate in her heart, her discrimination is calle d’hateful’ because of its hateful effects on her victims. It is not HER that is the point here. If she feels so strongly that marriage should be heterosexual only, then she should surely continue to marry only men. Not interfere with other people’s marriages.
She doesn’t, or shouldn’t, get to claim the title ‘martyr’ for her acts that sacrifice the rights of others. I had always before thought of ‘martyrdom’ as victimless (except that the martyr sacrifices herself). This idea that a martyr is someone who inflicts damage on others is the terrorists’ idea.
Not ‘Christian” at all. And yes, hateful–no matter what you think her motives are.

#38 Comment By philadelphialawyer On September 14, 2015 @ 4:29 pm

“I think Kim Davis is entirely within her rights here….”

“…our country is not founded on Christianity. This was written into the
thing from the beginning, although almost no one saw it. Eventually the logic of our ideas asserts itself.

“If we want to win this fight, we have to abandon the Enlightenment principles that brought us here.”

Um, if we “abandon Enlightenment principles,” then Kim Davis doesn’t have any “rights” to be “within.”

Amazing how the same folks who are so eager to “abandon” the Enlightenment and its principles want to shelter behind those very principles.

Pre Enlightenment, religious pluralism was the rare exception, and State religion was the rule. In other words, the Government could simply impose its religious views on everyone. And not merely in terms of making a low level, local, clerical official comply with rules which don’t actually impact her exercise of religion at all, but by requiring everyone to attend a certain church, swear to its doctrines (especially if they wanted to hold public office), follow its rules, and pay for its upkeep, and by forbidding them from following any other religion.

Perhaps, by “abandoning” the Enlightenment, the specific “fight” against gay marriage might be won, but the overall notion of “rights,” particularly the rights of minority religious view holders, and even more particularly their “right” to simultaneously hold government office and “object” on religious grounds to its rules, would be set at naught.

#39 Comment By Irene On September 19, 2015 @ 8:33 am

Many anti-gay Christians claim that they’re standing up for what the Bible says. But if so, then don’t they have to be against divorce/remarriage as well? (except in the case of adultery for divorce, and in the case of spouse’s death for remarriage…)

Why don’t we hear a strong outcry for banning divorce/remarriage from the same Christian crowd? (I’m a Christian but I am neither anti-gay, anti-divorce nor anti-remarriage. I’m not a Biblical inerrantist nor literalist.)

I’m not going to criticize Ms. Davis’s past, especially if she was not Christian then. We all make mistakes. We all sin. But if she sincerely believes everything in the Bible is the word of God, she should not issue a marriage license to a couple if either one of them is a divorcee. She couldn’t in good conscience facilitate divorcees yet commit another sin, as the Bible says “But if she does [divorces], she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.” (1 Cor. 7:11)… Am I wrong?

Let’s face it, if all government officials start doing what Ms. Davis did, at what point does it cease to be acceptable for a person to “deny legal rights to others” based on their religious beliefs?

Catholics can refuse to issue a license for remarriage, or certificate for divorce. Baptists can refuse to issue a liquor license. Muslims can refuse to issue a drivers license to women. Hey, Mormons can refuse to give Starbucks a business license… Where does it end?

If I get my own way, strip clubs shouldn’t exist. Should I be able to not grant business licenses to those types of places, and also book stores that carry Playboy magazine and the likes, if I was a city/county clerk?
We are not a theocracy. We don’t take away other people’s “legal rights” based on what the Bibles says, or anyone’s religious beliefs.

If she felt that she couldn’t in good conscience carry out her duties, the noble move would have been to give up her 80k salary and resign.

#40 Comment By Dan Brown On September 25, 2015 @ 5:11 pm

You guys really hate those “5 lawyers” except when they agree with your regressive desires.