The hate for Kim Davis continues to spew throughout social media. There seem to be three groups: those who stand with Kim Davis (bigots), those who do not stand with Kim Davis (statists), and those who simply think she is a hateful villain and regurgitate the same, already answered, slander again and again (parrots). It is rare to find anyone on social media who will have a cordial and open discussion on the real issues. It is the nature of the cyber beast; keyboard warriors will warry. In the number of exchanges that I have had regarding the subject, the same arguments are continually raised. Therefore, instead of having to keep repeating myself, I decided to create this list of rebuttals that I can simply refer people to. It is not an end all document, but for now it will do.
The Federal court has ruled, she must obey what is now the law of the land
Wrong. The Supreme Court cannot create laws, thus there is no law of the land. They gave a lawless opinion that state laws such as Kentucky’s are unconstitutional, yet the issue of marriage is nowhere addressed in the Constitution, thus it remains with the state.
Also, no one truly believes this. There are countless events in our history where people have spoken against the “law of the land,” many you would surely support, and rightly so.
The 14th amendment gives them equal protection
Nope. Here is why.
This is what Kim Davis agreed to do when she took the job
No, she agreed to issue marriage licenses between a man a woman, she did not sign up for what would be a redefinition of it. What happens if it is redefined again? What if it is an outlandish definition you do not like? In addition, Kentucky law strictly forbids homosexual marriage, and she has sworn to uphold Kentucky law.
Kentucky Constitution Section 233A
Valid or recognized marriage — Legal status of unmarried individuals.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Because of the Supremacy Clause Kentucky Law no longer matters
“The American people have been fed a fiction – that everyone must obey the Supreme Court because of the Supremacy Clause.
When you read the Supremacy Clause however – Article 6, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution – you see that the Supreme Court or federal courts are not even mentioned. Rather, what has supremacy is the U. S. Constitution itself and all laws or treaties made in accordance with the Constitution” (Matt Trewhella)
That is why we have separation of Church and State
First of all this was never a law, but a phrase found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptist clergymen, assuring them that the First Amendment guaranteed there would be no establishment of any one denomination over the other. This phrase has been used to justify an out of context interpretation of the First Amendment. Second, separation of Church and State is a biblical concept; yet an institutional separation, not a moral separation. God’s righteous standard of ethics applies to both. Church and religion are not synonymous; The First Amendment was not designed to separate religion from government, but church from government. All laws are by nature religious and ethical.
She is still breaking the law
Wrong. She is upholding the law. The Constitution does not address marriage, thus the Supreme Court’s opinion is unfounded. On the contrary, Kentucky law is absolutely clear on the definition of marriage. She is upholding the law that she has sworn by oath to uphold. In addition, she is standing as a lesser magistrate, exercising her authority to interpose between the lawless federal government and the state of Kentucky.
But doesn’t the Supreme Court have the authority to determine what the constitution says?
She has been married how many times???
This was all prior to her conversion. Remember, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). Also, she is being persecuted for her Christian belief. Her Christian authenticity is a secondary issue.
What if it was a Muslim that didn’t want to issue Christian licenses?
Sexual preference and placement is not a Religion.
I am a Christian and I think she still needs to do her job. If not, she should resign
Who instituted and defined marriage? When did this happen? In the words of Jesus, it is so, “from the beginning” (Matthew 19:4). Also, if the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it (Psalm 24), his creation is to subdue the earth including being fruitful and multiplying (Gen. 1:26-28; 9:6-7), and all authority in heaven on earth has now been given to Christ (Matthew 28:18-20), and his church is to disciple the nations, then do we really think that Christ does not also reign in the workplace. Is he sovereign only in some places? Since he instituted and defined marriage, can it be redefined by his creation?
She needs to leave her faith out of the workplace and do her job
No laws are neutral (punishment for rape, murder, theft). In addition all laws are ethical and thus religious. If you claim no religion then you are your own god (secular humanism). In addition consider the 1st amendment granting the exercise of religion, or how about protection under the Civil Rights Act Title VII. Most important we are to be salt and light to the culture, and that includes our workplace. Jesus said we are either for him or against him. There is no middle ground.
What about Romans 13?
Here are three proofs that Romans 13 does not teach unlimited obedience to the civil government.
We need to give to Caesar what is Caesar and God what is God’s
Have you carefully looked at the context of that passage?
That is all for now. Feel free to add to the list in the comments or simply just to tell me that I live in the stone ages and believe in fairy tales.