This is all about bigotry…She doesn’t have to marry gays, but she doesn’t have to have a job marrying people. If she wants that job, she has to follow the law…If that’s her religious belief, then she ought to stay in prison.
– Alan Dershowitz, Prof. Emeritus, Harvard Law School

I stand with Kim Davis…I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.
– Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator (R, Texas)

There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts.
– Mahatma Gandhi

Kim Davis clearly cannot be a hero to many Americans today. She doesn’t look young, or at least have had a facelift. She is overweight, not rail-thin. She has an unfashionable hairstyle, not long blond extensions that fall past her shoulders and cover half her face. She wears unfashionable clothes as her religion requires, not a low-cut, sleeveless gown more suitable for a nightclub than an office. She doesn’t look anything like the “news reporters” we see every night on TV.
Even worse, she is from Kentucky – where’s that, fly-over country? Worst of all, she expressed a conservative opinion. That means she is evil and must be silenced and forced from her job. Everybody knows the Constitution states that a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman. It’s right there in black and white, next to “separation of church and state.” Kim Davis must be a moron not to know that.
“It’s the law.”
The only federal law applicable is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton. It defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. So there is no federal law for Kim Davis to violate. Kentucky law defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Davis obeyed that law.
If “the law” is something passed by the legislative branch and approved by the executive branch, Davis followed the law. But if “the law” is something decreed by a bare majority of the Supreme Court, she broke the law. That is, a “law” is what furthers the liberal agenda.
When the mayor of San Francisco issued same-sex marriage licenses in violation of federal and state law, he was hailed as a hero, not jailed. When officials of San Francisco and Los Angeles proclaim “sanctuary cities” and refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, they are hailed as heroes, not jailed. When states “legalize” marijuana despite the fact that it is illegal under federal law, officials are hailed as heroes, not jailed. But when Kim Davis refuses to comply with a court decision, she is condemned as a bigot and jailed. This is called “equal justice under law.”

“She swore to uphold the Constitution.”
The Constitution does not mention marriage. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriages. Read the scathing dissents by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
The Constitution that Kim Davis swore to uphold when she was elected to office was the one in effect at that time. The Constitution changed on June 26, 2015. No, it hadn’t been amended by the process it prescribes. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures had not approved an amendment.
Instead, five unelected judges with lifetime jobs changed the Constitution that Davis had sworn to uphold into a different constitution, one to which she has profound religious objections. But whose fault was that? Had she sworn a false oath? Or had the five judges sworn false oaths? They had betrayed their obligation not to confuse their personal preferences with “the Constitution.” They had short-circuited the amendment process and acted unconstitutionally.
“She should be fired.”
No one can fire her. She holds an elective office. They only ways to remove her are to vote her out of office at the next election, or for the Kentucky legislature to impeach her, both of which seem unlikely. When the people vote someone into office, politicians are hesitant to place themselves above the people and remove her.
“It’s a settled question.”
Settled by whom? The Court could have side-stepped the issue and let the states work things out by themselves, as the authors of the Constitution intended. If the Constitution is silent on an issue, the federal government should have no power over it, and the states should be free to act as they see fit.
So the basic question is: Who decides?

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves.
– Thomas Jefferson

Marriage has been defined worldwide as between men and women since the beginning of civilization. If this millennia-old principle is to be trashed, surely such a momentous change should be:

● Carefully considered, with the input of religious and secular scholars.

● Discussed by the people until a consensus is reached.

● Voted upon by the people’s representatives, or by the people themselves.

If this process had been followed for abortion, there would be much less bitterness today. But the Supreme Court decided the matter. Having learned nothing, courts continue to short-circuit the decision-making process. Courts decide, often by slim margins, the weightiest matters, then cram their decision down the throats of the legislature, the executive, and the people. As long as the decision agrees with your beliefs, you see no problem.
But what if courts decide to impose their whims on you, and you don’t agree?

● What if courts force us to recognize polygamous marriages, which is already in progress?

● What if courts force us to recognize marriages between 14-year-olds, or between close relatives?

● What if courts order that people over age 70 be denied expensive care? Think of the money Social Security and Medicare would save.

● What if the Supreme Court rules 5-4 that all Muslims be sent to internment camps? Japanese were interned during World War II, and the court approved – twice. Note that this happened under liberal icons President Franklin Roosevelt and California Attorney General Earl Warren. Who says it can’t happen again?

And if it does, we will depend on people like Kim Davis to say no! Such people are very bad at following arbitrary orders. Most of those who rescued Jews during the Holocaust were devout Christians. If you doubt this, look up Corrie ten Boom. Better still, watch “The Hiding Place.” Then talk to me about “separation of church and state.” Then talk to me about how we must all obey “the law.” But please, never tell me, “I was only following orders.” Doing what government officials order, regardless of ethical considerations, can be extremely dangerous to your health – and everyone else’s.

But, you say, we’re protected by the Constitution. Really? The Constitution mentions the death penalty four times, but doesn’t mention abortion at all. Yet judges insist that the Constitution contains a right to abortion, but they repeatedly block executions.
What’s there they can’t find, but what isn’t there they do find. “Law” that is unpredictable and arbitrary isn’t law at all, but a series of dictatorial decrees. It loses any moral claim to be respected.
This is worse than having no Constitution. If we had no Constitution, laws would be made by legislators. If we disagreed, we could vote them out at the next election. But a “living” Constitution is like James Bond’s double-0 license, empowering judges to do whatever they please – and we can do nothing about it.
A dictator is still a dictator, whether he wears a brown uniform or a black robe. What will you do when your favorite right disappears? How will you react when you’re ordered to do what violates your deepest beliefs? But then it will be too late.
Is Kim Davis a bigot? I can’t see into her heart, so I don’t know. Is she a martyr? Enemies of religious liberty are doing their best to make her one. But of one thing I am certain: She is a portent of things to come.
One of the U.S. Marshals who arrested Davis remarked that this is the first time he arrested someone who had not committed a crime. But it won’t be the last. Judicial tyranny will produce more prisoners of conscience – assuming we have a conscience.
So let me see if I’ve got things straight. It is unconstitutional for an official – for the first time in human history – to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But it is constitutional to send the official to jail – for an indefinite term – without an indictment, without a trial, without a jury, and without bail. That must be a really interesting constitution. It clearly bears little resemblance to the U.S. Constitution, but I would like to read it. Of course I cannot, because it exists only in the minds of activist judges, and may change from day to day.

●

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com