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

Photo: WKYT youtube page

BEHNA: FOUR Reasons Why I Stand With KY Clerk Kim Davis #StandWithKim

It has been known by now that conservatives and GOP presidential candidates have been split on their view of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, who was released from prison on Tuesday after defying the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling. I myself though have 4 reasons why I stand with Kim Davis.

1) Federal same-sex marriage is not really “the law.”

Anybody with knowledge of the separation of powers already knows this. Only Congress can create laws. Five judicial activists on the Supreme Court cannot create law. They can only INTERPRET given law. However, the law must be Constitutional, and the majority on the court claimed it is verified by the “Equal Protection Clause” under the 14th Amendment. But even this does not hold true, simply because the Constitution never mentions anything about marriage. The Clause has a very specific meaning and is not meant to be construed in a way that demands equality in every situation just because the words “Equal Protection” are mentioned. To put it simply marriage is not an entitlement, whether it’s traditional or same-sex marriage. What we witnessed on June 26th was nothing more than typical judicial activism.

2) Marriage decisions should be dealt with on the local level.

The rights of everyone, in this case, would be protected if the government did not get involved. Clerks who have religious objections to marriage licenses would have their 1st Amendment rights protected, along with the same-sex couples, who can simply go to another clerk’s office who will be willing to give the license, instead of having to travel across state lines. In this case, Kim Davis’s office should have discretion whether they want to give out the license. If so, great. If not, the same-sex couple can go to another office close by that will give them a license.

3) Her personal life is irrelevant.

Opponents are saying Kim Davis is a hypocrite for having religious objections to gay marriage, because she has been married 4 times, and had children out of wedlock. Okay, so what? The difference is that she isn’t demanding all of us to subsidize her 4 marriages and kids. However, the same-sex marriage proponents are demanding Kim Davis and everyone else to create marriage licenses against their will.

4) Crazy, hypothetical situations are irrelevant.

Opponents of Kim Davis are trying to devalue her credibility by comparing gay marriage to the 7 deadly sins.

Many on social media claimed that the problem with a religious objection to gay marriage is that it could be hypothetically possible for a fast food restaurant to deny a fat person due to objections of gluttony, one of the 7 deadly sins in Christianity.

At first, I admitted this seemed like a valid concern, but after some thinking, this does not hold up. This is the danger of playing the hypothetical game of situations that never occur. The fact is I never heard of any instance of a company denying a customer just because they were breaking one of the 7 deadly sins, so there is no need to worry over something that does not exist. These “what if” games are just a scare tactic used against those who have legit religious objections to giving a same-sex marriage license.

Also, keep in mind that it is same-sex marriage proponents from the 1950’s and 60’s who preemptively started pushing everyone to accept it. What we are seeing today in Kentucky is not an attack, but simply a defense against this coercive act of trying to make every person accept and tolerate same-sex marriage.

Now you will notice in my arguments, I did not use any theological reasons to support Kim Davis, and that is the point. For example, you will never convince an atheistic opponent of Kim Davis if all you say is “God created marriage” or “It says so in the Bible.” You can personally believe that, but you need to use the Constitution, logic, and legal reasons to persuade others why Kim Davis should have her rights protected as well. I explained how the rights of everyone can be protected, but since the government has gotten involved with picking sides in marriage, we are in this big mess right now. Not only should the rights of all couples be protected, but the rights of Kim Davis and all other law clerks with religious objections must be protected as well.

Where do you stand on Kim Davis? Share this on Facebook and Twitter.

About Mitch Behna

Mitch Behna is a Tea Party Conservative and is currently an editor and writer/contributor for Wayne Dupree.

Leave a comment ...

Trending Now on

Send this to a friend