Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

A Gun Owners Take on Embattled Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis

By now, if you have been paying attention you have either heard of the name Kim Davis or at least about a Kentucky County Clerk who refuses to issue same sex marriage licenses.

Davis, until about a week ago a registered Democrat, has refused to issue marriage license to homosexual couples in direct opposition to judicial rulings on the matter.

Davis has been so committed to her beliefs that she has gone to jail for contempt of court instead of issuing the licenses that she so disagrees with.

I respect Kim Davis’ commitment to her beliefs and the lengths she is willing to go to in order to follow them.

Now she needs to be fired.

WHAT!?!?!?!

You heard me right.  Whether I agree with her stance or not is irrelevant.  She is a civil servant who is paid by the taxpayers to do a job.  If she refuses to do her job then she needs to be fired.  Let her make her stand for her beliefs by taking the brave step of walking away from her position and salary.

Some of you may find this an interesting opinion coming from a member site of the Liberty Alliance.  I can understand that.

But let me ask you this: What if a taxpayer funded employee of the government was a religiously based pacifist who didn’t believe in the use of firearms?  What if, based off that religious belief, they refused to issue any concealed carry permits or refused to transfer gun purchases?

I would be saying the EXACT same thing.  Its nice that you are all a pacifist and all but DO YOUR DAMN JOB!!!

And if that official refused to I would be calling for their head because they are denying me my 2nd Amendment rights.

Now, is marriage a right like the 2nd Amendment?  No, I don’t believe it is.  In fact I don’t think the government has any right to play any role in the institution to begin with.  BUT, we know find ourselves in a land where same sex marriages are legal.  If Kim Davis’ beliefs stop her from doing her job as a public servant then I admire her commitment to those beliefs and will do moreso when she steps down from her position.

I will not be a hypocrite on this matter and say that some public servants can do whatever they want while others MUST obey the law.

I mean, we have this trouble all ready with gun controllers breaking the law in order to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights.  Its not right for some bureaucrat to decide which laws they wish to follow and which ones they don’t.

By championing Kim Davis to stand by her beliefs WHILE keeping her job is a dangerous precedent and one gun owners should be wary of endorsing…less they find themselves denied a license using the same argument.

 

  • BlueEyedAl

    Oliva, Kentucky does not allow same sex marriages! The Governor said to issue them, but that does not change the law. The Governor does have the authority ti change law. Kim Davis did her job according to Kentucky law. Get you head out of your rear!

    • Bullets First

      The US Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26th 2015 struck down Kentucky’s statutory and constitutional bans on gay marriage.

      Are we not adhering to the Supreme Court anymore?

      Maybe you should get your head out of your 4th point of contact Al.

      • BlueEyedAl

        The Supreme Court ruling was not a ruling but a law. The Supreme Court can not make laws only Congress can. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage that means marriage is controlled by the states, not the Supreme Court or the Federal Government.

        • Bullets First

          You are half right, the Supreme Court can’t MAKE laws, but they can eliminate them. And while I agree that states SHOULD control this matter, it hasn’t shaken out that way. As such, if Kim Davis doesn’t want to do her job she needs to be replaced by someone who will, either willingly or with personal objections that wont interfere with the execution of her duties.

          • BlueEyedAl

            We have not seen the end of this.

          • rev_dave

            Technically SCOTUS cannot ‘eliminate’ a law either. That would be ‘repeal’ and only Congress can do that. What SCOTUS can do is declare a law unconstitutional, after which nobody will enforce it because they would lose in court. Congress might then repeal it, but I suspect most of those laws are still on the books – like slave laws and anti-miscegenation laws. Congress does not keep their house clean.

          • morsextenebris

            Exactly, it is up to the state legislature to repeal or change the law. The courts have been making rulings and everyone has been accepting them as law. The lower courts and the SCOTUS can only rule if a law is Constitutional or not, thereby it would be up to the Congress or state legislatures to do something about it. The only one following the law was Kim Davis and the judge was out of step and authority to do what he did. Contempt of court is a very loose term used by rogue and activist judges when they want to impose their will even if it is out of step with the Constitution. I think we can all agree that there is no federal law about homosexual marriage, therefore if no law exists, Mrs. Davis was following Kentucky law and did her job. The FEDS need to stay out of the marriage issue and a great many other things…yes?

          • AmusedAgain

            The issue here is that individual rights are being violated. Kim Davis was sued for that. If Rowan County and the State of Kentucky also denied gays their individual rights, they too could be sued in Federal court.

            Taxpayers would then end up paying for her decision to flout federal law. The Constitution is pretty clear on this: Article IV says in part:

            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

            Supreme. Law. Of. The. Land. Kentucky’s law is unconstitutional under the US Constitution (per SCOTUS). You can argue that that’s not SCOTUS’ job, but it’s an established part of the US legal system since 1803. Read John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v Madison for the rationale behind SCOTUS’ role here.

      • TheBitterClinger1

        No we need to take other action and end this Extra Judicial/Regulatory rule of the self important.
        Ceaser crossed the Rubicon; Napoleon escaped Elb, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act. Now what do honest people do?

  • usncb

    You are two faced, she did do her job! She obeyed KY. law as no law was changed, the law stands.

    • Bullets First

      Kentucky Law? You mean the law that the Supreme Court tossed out?

      This further strengthens my point. Gun controllers like to turn a blind eye to Heller and MacDonald and say the Supreme Court got it “wrong”. The high court ruled in Obergefell v Hodges on June 26th of this year striking down kentuckys ban on same sex marriages.

      As such, there is no legal Kentucky Law that supports Kim Davis.

      The law was changed…it went from being a law to not being a law due to the Supreme Court.

      How knowing how the branches of our government work and the US Constitution makes me “two faced” is beyond me usncb.

      • davidkachel

        There seems to be an awful lot of ignorance proudly displayed in these pages. The Supreme Court CANNOT make law! When they try to do so anyway, the result is automatically unconstitutional.

        • AmusedAgain

          David, I strongly suggest you do some reading on the significance of Marbury v Madison (1803). It’s a cornerstone of American law.

          The argument that John Marshall laid out for the court’s judicial review turned on the constitutionality of the Judicial Act of 1789, in which Congress gave the Courts jurisdiction over the Executive.

          SCOTUS threw out that part of the act, citing the logic that Congress didn’t have the constitutional authority to grant the courts that jurisdiction, saving separation of powers and the supremacy of the Constitution.

          Here are two of the penultimate paragraphs of the opinion…the whole argument is elegant and too long to copy here.

          “It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

          “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

          The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, according to Article IV of the Constitution:

          “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

  • Crotalus Maxximus

    The double edge sword of “only following orders” resulted in millions of Jews being murdered. When. Yes, when not if a left wing mono-political system results in the law requiring confiscation of all private weapons we must all pray that those paid to enforce that law put principle before paycheck

    • TheBitterClinger1

      Barack Hussein Obama associated with William Ayers AFTER Ayers calls for the death of 25 MILLION Unrepentant Capitalist; Barack Hussein Obama got 70 MILLION votes; the American holocaust is coming.
      Hitler/Stalin and Mussolini are
      being rehabilitated.

  • TheBitterClinger1

    I have pretty much reached the opinion that honest people must STOP taking an oath to this government or any of the political sub divisions. The contempt our elected and appointed officials have for CONSTITUTIONAL law is stunning. Mrs. Davis should resign and take other action.

    • AmusedAgain

      I agree that Mrs. Davis should resign.

      Ironically, you are showing total contempt for the Constitution of the United States. Article IV in part:

      The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive [NB. KIM DAVIS IS AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY] and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

  • C.R.

    Sodomy is very different than God given second amendment rights. No one has a right to be a Sodomite–individuals have the right to oppose Sodomy. No one has a right to circumvent the second amendment. The author clearly does not understand these issues–and shouldn’t be writing about them. Those who support Sodomy and fraudulent Sodomite marriage–are working to undermine the entire US constitution.

    • rev_dave

      Refresh my memory please. What part of the Constitution says anything at all about sodomy? I must have a copy with a missing page.

      • C.R.

        No where can anyone honestly find support for Sodomy in the US constitution. Anymore than they can find support for rape, pedophilia and murder.

        • rev_dave

          So it doesn’t say it’s illegal either?

          • morsextenebris

            No, it is unnatural and immoral in the eyes of God & those that hold to his precepts. That is why the general government should stay out of this issue and those that would like to do what they will behind closed doors, is up to them and nobody is preventing them from joining together if they so desire. Do not try to force the rest into accepting or aiding something they do not agree with.

          • AmusedAgain

            May I ask which acts of sodomy has Kim Davis been asked to aid or accept?

            And may I also ask how a woman who ought to be stoned to death for adultery and divorce, according to the same God as expressed in the same book of the Old Testament, knows which of God’s orders she’s allowed to enforce on others?

            Some acts (murder, child molestation, and rape, for instance) are both immoral and illegal.

            Some acts are only illegal (jaywalking, speeding, violating noise norms, parking in front of a yellow curb.)

            And some acts are only immoral. (Adultery. Spreading rumors. Lying outside the context of perjury. So is violating an oath. Sex in some forms, to people who believe same.)

            Immoral in the eyes of God is between an individual and his Creator, and so is adultery.

            Illegal is between an individual and the laws.

            You answer in this world for illegal, and that’s where the government belongs, IF it’s not a violation of the Constitution. You answer in the next one for immoral.

            As an agent of GOVERNMENT, Kim Davis needs to do her job. As a CHRISTIAN INDIVIDUAL, she’s entitled to decide how she wishes to worship and honor her God.

            Her religion is guaranteed by the Constitution. Her use of her government job (a government of laws) to enforce her religious views ON OTHERS is a violation of the law and her oath to the government. She is being allowed to decide on her own whether she can reconcile her job with her beliefs.

            If she can’t, she will need to leave her job.

  • Muleman Jack

    First, Kim Davis was elected to her position, therefore, it might be a legal and procedural thing that must be followed. Second, Matthew, Chapter 22, Verse 21, “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.” Kim works in the realm of Caesar, therefore she shall do what is expected of her under the law. If she disagrees, she can resign. If she does that, I will respect her for being a devout Christian, for that truly would show her sincerity.

  • davidkachel

    So, the uniformed Germans paid to do the sorting at the train stations should have been fired if they refused to sort? What an ass!

    • They would have been shot. That’s why they all followed orders and tried in vain to use that as a defense at Nuremberg.

    • Bullets First

      To echo what Crimson Pirate said, “they would have been shot.”

      At what point did people start becoming so soft that they don’t think that their actions have consequences…even morally correct actions…ESPECIALLY morally correct actions.

      Just because you do what is right, or what you believe is right doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay the consequences of what doing so.

      And what do you say davidkachel, to the gun controller clerk who believe that by refusing to issue gun permits she is saving lives? Are you going to let her do that while your taxpayer dollars fund her defiance?

  • Jan Stepka

    She can’t be fired. Otherwise I’m sure she would be. She’s an elected official.A recall election is probably necessary to remove her from office.
    I don’t have any issues with gay marriage. It hurts me not at all. But don’t compare the right to marriage created out of the imaginations of the court to the right to keep and bear arms cleary enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

    • Bullets First

      Wasn’t a comparison of the real right to keep and bear arms to the political correct created right to gay marriage. I was using it as an example of why condoning public officials doing whatever they feel like is a slippery slope and can turn on you in a profound way.

      And a recall is only one way she can be removed from office. Continually breaking the law and not doing her job is another way with Frankfort getting involved.

  • James Raymond Lane

    She is ALSO following the law. There is NO national law giving sodomites the right to marry. There are a number of states that do according to their STATES RIGHTS. The Kentucky Legislature has decided AGAINST sodomite marriage and they have a law AGAINST it. It is ILLEGAL for same sex people to marry in Kentucky. She IS doing the job she was elected to. The Supreme Court DOES NOT MAKE LAW. Only Congress has that power and so far they haven’t passed a national same sex law. This is not simply about her religious convictions. She is upholding her oath of office to the Constitution of Kentucky.

    • Marriage is a contract between individuals. No license should be required and no level of government should have any control. As usual supposed liberty advocates are having the wrong fight. By merely arguing over which level of government should control it you are ceding power over an issue that may one day be usex against you.

      • Bullets First

        That’s my view too Crimson Pirate. Government should have no purview on the matter of marriage. The fact they do is what has created this whole issue in the first place. If marriage was left to the church then it would still be between a man and a woman.

        Gay people would have commitment ceremonies or “marriages” and that’s fine, but the government wouldn’t be condoning either, hence people could live their lives without the government trying to brainwash an entire nation into believing that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality.

  • Juli Adcock

    The founders valued the rights of conscience highly and made provisions for religious or conscience accommodation. Where do you think “conscientious objector” status came from in the military(which is a taxpayer funded job). There have been many occurrences of religious accommodation on a whole host of issues. I find it curious that ONLY WHEN IT COMES TO “GAY MARRIAGE” there is no allowances for religious accommodation. Funny how that is and how sad that people that are supposed to be for liberty apparently really aren’t! If we citizens do not have rights of conscience, be they based on Christianity or not, we have NOTHING LEFT TO DEFEND with the 2nd amendment!

  • Wheels

    What a ridiculous and thoughtless article. This is not the will of the people of Kentucky. She is bravely standing against tyranny. Please don’t allow your foolish thoughts to dishearten those who recognize the need to stand up against tyrannical judges. Who proofreads your articles anyway? You don’t speak for conservatives. Instead you sound like a true establishment minded individual.

    • Bullets First

      What a ridiculous and thoughtless post. Just because im not going to blindly rubber stamp what Kim Davis is doing im some “establishment minded individual”? Have you read ANY other article on this site? Im as libertarian as the day is long but that doesn’t mean im just going to turn a blind eye and cheer on someone who i think is in the wrong. Not in her beliefs but in her actions. She doesn’t want to issue marriage licenses? Fine, Kim Davis of Kentucky shouldn’t be forced to. But Clerk of Kentucky better because that’s her job. If Kim Davis wants to make a stand, im all for it. She shouldn’t be getting a paycheck while ignoring her job.

      Should we pay cops who don’t think drug laws are right and as such will not arrest drug dealers?

      I would be just as vehement in this belief if it was some gun controller refuse to issue CCW’s and LTCF’s because of their “beliefs.”

      Because I’m not a hypocrite Wheels, does not mean im an establishment lackey.

  • Lyn Morris

    …I think this is correct….much as I hate it, we can’t pick and choose what we will support, just because it may agree with our beliefs. I have (had) a work associate that give up all beliefs just to keep her job, but that would mean she stood for NOTHING. If Kim Davis really was a devout Christian, she would leave her job and go work for a private company that supported her Christian values. The State, nor the Feds….will ever be Christian.

  • Reloader54

    Then if we go by your explanation of this. Then might we also say that Obama also needs to resign for the same things as well. Because he seems to be running this country on his beliefs rather than laws of this country as well. And he also if he doesn’t agree with a law then he either ignores it or he writes an Executive Order that changes it to one that he wants with out going through Congress with has the job of making laws. Which Obama took an oath of office to make sure they are enforced. So by what you’re saying then Obama should also resign from office as well.

    • Lyn Morris

      ….that would work for me! :-))

    • Bullets First

      Yeah…pretty much :o)

  • The author is missing an important piece of information. She was following state law by NOT issuing the licenses. She is required to follow STATE law, not federal law when they contradict each other. She is not a federal employee.

    • Bullets First

      Bob, unfortunately it is not federal law that she is being forced to follow but rather a judicial reading of the Constitution. Much like if a state passed a law reestablishing slavery wouldn’t be constitutional, the US Supreme court has also ruled that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

      Not agreeing (and yes the slavery example is a bit of overkill but i use it to easily make my point) but that is what the court ruled. You can’t enforce an unconstitutional law.

      And no one is forcing KIM DAVIS to accept gay marriage as being right. But they are requiring the Clerk of Kentucky to do her job.

      Much like gun controllers who have to issue gun permits. They might not like it but if they don’t want to do it they best quit their jobs because that it is what is required of them.

  • Marie Lynette Johnson

    The issue also compares with the situation of a public servant, a sheriff, refusing to enforce laws against gun owners.
    And it’s true that religious beliefs are honored if it is anything other than gay marriage – or male circumcision.
    Property rights are honored only if it is anti-smoking. If you own a business, it is yours to declare no smoking. You do not get to say yes to smoking – suddenly your business is a public place.
    BulletsFirst’s analogy is difficult to follow because he’s lining up the Supreme Court ruling against a scenario where the state legislature passed an act. It’s kind of weird to compare lack of marriage licenses to slavery.
    Come to think of it, courts have ruled in favor of slavery. They have commanded people to work for gays. Gay people can be choosy about customers. You can choose not to serve someone against gay marriage, but you can’t choose not to serve someone **pro-**gay marriage.

Send this to friend