Kim Davis is not a hero.
At best, she is a spoiled brat who is throwing a temper tantrum because
she did not get her way. At worst, she
is a traitor to the Constitution and to our Country.
Whether you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision on gay
marriage or not, the fact is that the court DID rule on this issue, and it is
now the law of the land. If you do not agree with the Supreme Court’s decision
on this issue, you have two options available to you:
ONE: You can ask the
Court to reconsider their opinion. Although
rare, the Supreme Court has reversed itself on numerous occasions.
TWO: You can Amend the Constitution. An Amendment can be proposed by either a 2/3
vote in the House AND the Senate, or an Amendment can be proposed at a Constitutional
Convention called by a vote of the legislature of at least 2/3 of the States. Once proposed, the Amendment must be
ratified by the a vote of ¾ of the States.
But you DO NOT HAVE
THE OPTION TO REFUSE TO FOLLOW THE COURT’S RULING. Just because you do not like or agree with a
law does not give you the right to disobey it.
This is a simple truth, and applies to everyone. No one is above the law.
This is especially true for those whose position as a government
official gives them control over others. When you hold such a position, whether you are a police officer, a court
officer, or a judge, you are acting as an agent of the government. When you are doing your job, you are not
acting on your own behalf, you are acting on the government’s behalf. In other words, you ARE the government. Your
personal rights do not come into play when you are acting as the government.
If your personal beliefs do not allow you to perform the
duties of your job, you have the absolute right to resign your elected position
and go to work at Pete’s Pool Hall (assuming Pete would hire you). On the other
hand, if you are in need of a government license, you must go to the government
to get that license. One in need of a
license does not have the option to go to Pete’s Pool Hall to get that license.
Look at it this way: Kim Davis CHOSE to go into her office and put her rights above those of
others who did not have a choice in the matter. Kim Davis could have chosen to stay home and
enjoy her rights without infringement, and the rights of those wanting marriage
licenses would not have been infringed, either. It was entirely HER choice.
When Kim Davis accepted her position, she took an oath “that I will not knowingly or willingly
commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my
office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.” How can refusing to grant services to
specific individuals not be a direct violation of that oath?
Wake up, people! There are a lot of issues we are faced with today that have no easy
answers. This is not one of them.
