Poor Cynthia Davis. She’s no longer in elected office so perhaps it’s not fair to take potshots, but she’s still opinionating in public … and besides she’s such a fun target. It’s hard to believe anyone is as confused by logic as Davis (and bear in mind that, unless I remember incorrectly, this woman homeschools her children – which really underlines the fact that homeschooling in Missouri needs some serious regulating)
On the topic of Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis who won’t issue marriage licenses to folks she disapproves of on religious grounds, Missouri Davis is predictable in an oddly entertaining way. She thinks Kentucky Davis is being persecuted – defined by Missouri Davis as ” the infliction of pain, punishment or death upon others unjustly, particularly for adhering to a religious creed or mode of worship, either by way of penalty or for compelling them to renounce their principles” – for her religious beliefs.
So far as I know they didn’t waterboard Kentucky Davis or otherwise inflict pain on her, and last I heard she’s alive and kicking. She did go to jail, but it was because she wants to collect a $80,000 yearly salary while doing her job selectively. She wants to decide all by herself, based on her intuitions about the druthers of her personal Jesus, who deserves to get a civil marriage license. Note, a civil marriage license does not entitle anyone to a religious marriage ceremony. Nor, Missouri Davis, is Kentucky Davis being asked to renounce her religious beliefs. Kentucky Davis went to jail because she defied a court order that she carry out her duties to issue civil marriage licenses to those entitled legally entitled to receive them.
According to Davis, demands that Kim Davis perform the duties she swore to do, means that “the radical Left is trying to create a new country—one where the Christians are banished from all public offices.” Radical left? The loudest demand that Kentucky Davis do her job seems to have come from a ridiculously conservative Supreme Court and has the approval of many conservative legal authorities.
Oh, and while she’s at it, Missouri Davis should talk to all the Christian office holders who don’t have any problem exercising tolerance of those who are different, along with the few objectors who realize that they bear the onus to resign from government jobs they can’t see their way clear to perform. Didn’t Jesus, after all, say something to about not judging lest you be judged? Something for the thrice married Kentucky Davis to keep in mind – along with Missouri Davis who is so sure that Kentucky Davis is a deserving martyr.
Of course, Missouri Davis has to try get all constitutional on us – she became a member of the Constitutional Party, if I remember correctly, when the Republicans proved to squishy for her sensibilities, so talking about the constitution is probably understood to be mandatory. Unfortunately, she’s definitely not clear on the Supremacy Clause and what it means for state vs. federal law in case of conflict nor about the reach of Supreme Court rulings:
The US Supreme Court rendered an OPINION related to the facts of a different case in another state. While this Court has the power to declare a law unconstitutional, it does not have the power to make new laws. The OPINION states it is not illegal for homosexuals to put on the facade of marriage, but it doesn’t create new laws. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court OPINIONS are to replace the laws of our land. We cannot substitute litigation for legislation. It is up to each individual state to create. To do anything less is equivalent to abandoning our Republic to a dictatorial oligarchy.
Apart from the logical word salad, does the fact that Missouri Davis capitalizes the word “opinion” when referring to the Supreme Court ruling imply that while the Court may have its opinion, it has no more meaning than any other opinion? You know, you have your opinion and I have mine and the Supreme Court has another? If so, poor Missouri Davis is in for a rude awakening when she gets to the point where she schools her kids on civics and American government.
The Supreme Court doesn’t, as Missouri Davis affirms, create new law, but their decisions can invalidate unconstitutional laws and when they found prohibitions on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, their ruling (a.k.a. opinion) rendered all such laws, including Kentucky’s little exercise in bigotry, invalid. And no, Missouri Davis, it’s not necessary for “marriage” to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution for justices to rule against unequal application of laws, even laws that affect marriage. In the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges a state law that denies equal treatment in regard to marriage is unconstitutional no matter how hard you try to parse it to mean something else.
The best part of Missouri Davis’ efforts to take down those whom she perceives to be the persecutors of Kentucky Davis comes when she asks those pesky homosexuals just why they want to get married in the first place and make problems for good fanatics like Kentucky Davis. After all:
In case you weren’t aware of this. YOU DON’T NEED A LICENSE TO FORNICATE. So why would someone already living a perverted lifestyle need a license? Can a piece of paper take care of their consciences or alleviate the guilt that comes from being physically self-destructive? Is it possible for a man-made law to alter the reality of a natural law?
Quick, somebody tell this fool that the desire to marry rarely has much to do with fornication, or guilty consciences – except maybe in the imaginations of sexually repressed fundies – but about the advantages conferred on committed couples by a “man-made” marriage law. You know, all those things that we heterosexual couples can take for granted once we get married. Oh, and while you’re at it, explain to her that lots of us take exception to her conception of “natural law.”