{"id":1947,"date":"2015-09-07T11:24:37","date_gmt":"2015-09-07T16:24:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/?p=1947"},"modified":"2015-09-07T11:56:58","modified_gmt":"2015-09-07T16:56:58","slug":"kim-davis-unwanted-witness-to-the-truth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/?p=1947","title":{"rendered":"Kim Davis, Unwanted Witness to the Truth"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
\n

A brief commentary is offered by\u00a0 David French, September 3, 2015, in National Review<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Kentucky federal judge David Bunning has ordered Rowan County clerk Kim Davis to jail, holding her in contempt of court for failing to affix her signature to gay-marriage licenses. Here\u2019s Judge Bunning justifying his decision:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,\u201d Judge Bunning said. \u201cIf you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that\u2019s what potentially causes problems.\u201d<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t make me laugh. Some people will call this ruling a triumph for the rule of law, a matter of harsh but necessary justice. It is no such thing. As I wrote in a piece earlier this week, the rule of law requires both lawful enactment and lawful enforcement. Justice Kennedy\u2019s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges<\/em> is nothing more and nothing less than the establishment of Justice Kennedy\u2019s world view as a new state religion \u2014 a religion with teeth. As I noted on the day Obergefell<\/em> was decided:<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t constitutional law, it\u2019s theology \u2014 a secular theology of self-actualization \u2014 crafted in such a way that its adherents will no doubt ask, \u201cWhat decent person can disagree?\u201d This is about love, and the law can\u2019t fight love. Justice Kennedy\u2019s opinion was nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that). And that\u2019s what makes it so dangerous for religious liberty and free speech. Practitioners of constitutional law know that there is no such thing as an \u201cabsolute\u201d right to free speech or religious freedom in any context \u2014 virtually all cases involve balancing the asserted right against the asserted state interest, with \u201ccompelling\u201d state interests typically trumping even the strongest assertions of First Amendment rights. And what is more compelling than this ode to love?<\/p>\n

In my initial piece about Davis, I described the unfolding drama as a case of competing revolutions \u2014 with Kim Davis defying Justice Kennedy\u2019s revolutionary act with a revolutionary act of her own. We knew from the beginning which revolutionary held more power, and we also know that the worst revolutionaries show no mercy to dissenters. There were many options short of imprisonment for Davis (how many leftist legislators are in jail for lawless \u201csanctuary city\u201d policies that actually cost lives?), but the court was apparently in no mood for moderation. So off she goes to prison. Judge Bunning\u2019s decision is a means of control It is a means of maintaining order. It is the selective application of law to advance a particular radical ideology. But spare me any talk of justice. There is no justice today in Judge Bunning\u2019s court.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.nationalreview.com\/corner\/423642\/immigration-debate-and-racism-charge-reihan-salam<\/a><\/p>\n

See Michael Perouka, Esq. on Kim Davis here:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=otxuM6RdvvM<\/a>\u00a0(7 minutes)<\/p>\n

See her husband of simple, down-home style here –\u00a0the Christian Faith, as basic as it gets:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=go9MHJu8kKw<\/a>\u00a0 (7 Minutes)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A brief commentary is offered by\u00a0 David French, September 3, 2015, in National Review: Kentucky federal judge David Bunning has ordered Rowan County clerk Kim Davis to jail, holding her in contempt of court for failing to affix her signature to gay-marriage licenses. Here\u2019s Judge Bunning justifying his decision: \u201cThe court cannot condone the willful […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,33,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-apostasy-cowardice-or-buffoonery","category-civil-disobedience","category-defending-the-defenders"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1947","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1947"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1947\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1953,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1947\/revisions\/1953"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}