Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Schlafly: jailing of Kim Davis is unconstitutional and illegal

Phyllis Schlafly:
David Bunning... has wrongly sent Kim Davis to jail for her beliefs, without respecting or accommodating her sincere Christian beliefs.
Local officials are required to support the laws of the United States, but no federal law requires every county official to issue marriage licenses, which are available in many other offices throughout Kentucky. Even Judge Bunning admitted that “plaintiffs have one feasible avenue for obtaining their marriage licenses” by traveling to another county, so the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling was not violated by the clerk’s decision to suspend all licenses while she seeks accommodation under the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Judge David Bunning previously came to national attention when he required the students and staff of the public schools in neighboring Boyd County to attend mandatory diversity training, “a significant portion of which would be devoted to issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment.” Bunning, who also ruled against a law banning partial-birth abortion, was nominated for his lifetime job at the age of only 34, and was confirmed because his father was a Senator, despite having inadequate legal experience and an “unqualified” rating from the American Bar Association.
As an elected public official, Kim Davis should not have been sent to jail by an unelected federal judge who can cite no federal law that she ever violated. Her imprisonment is the result of a judicial supremacy unrestrained by the checks and balances that apply to all other branches of government...
A federal court has imprisoned a county official to force her to change the way she does her job, without any federal statute to justify such an order.
It is not “rule of law” to imprison someone based on judge-made law; it is “rule by judges.” Kim Davis is not committing civil disobedience, because she has not violated any law. She was arrested, humiliated with a mug shot and imprisoned, merely for abiding by state law and the Bible...
If San Francisco can be a sanctuary city, let's allow Rowan County, Kentucky to be a “sanctuary county” where the Biblical view of marriage continues to be honored and respected.
The government has a legal and constitutional obligation to accommodate Davis' religious beliefs. Davis is complying with the law--there is not a single law she has violated. Bunning's order to jail her is illegal--he has not cited a single federal law that Davis has violated.

Davis has complied with all laws. She, not Judge Bunning, is enforcing Kentucky law, which prohibits SSM. She is under no obligation to obey an illegal order by an unqualified federal judge who is fabricating law based on an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling.   


  1. "The government has a legal and constitutional obligation to accommodate Davis' religious beliefs."

    Which the judge made every effort to do. He proposed a solution that would not require her to issue any licenses to same sex couples. Her deputy clerks could do it. That sounds like a very reasonable accommodation to me. But she refused to agree not to interfere with her deputies issuing these licenses. Her signature did not even have to appear on the license; her deputies already have that authority.

    All she wanted to do was to interfere with a homosexual couples legal rights. You can cry, scream and call people who disagree with you all the names in the book, but the facts are not on your side. But you have already shown that you will not allow facts to get in the way of your bigoted opinions.

  2. I like this person's take on the Kim Davis thing.


    "If You Don't Think MLK is Like Kim Davis, Your Probably Don't Know MLK"

    I'm not a lawyer so I can't really evaluate Schlafly's assertion that a federal judge like Bunning can't enforce state law. Schlafly is a lawyer, of course, but so are a lot of people.

    This whole mess could have been avoided if the will of the people of Kentucky (and most other states) had been honored. But of course the judges had to make up another right, based on an amendment passed in 1865 that was never intended to change the definition of marriage to suit perverts.



    1. "based on an amendment passed in 1865 that was never intended to change the definition of marriage to suit perverts"

      Succinct and true.