Times Examiner Facebook Logo

Sunday, May 19, 2024 - 09:48 PM


First Published in 1994


I am amazed at the volume and viciousness of the nonsense being generated by the illegal and unconstitutional incarceration of Kim Davis in Rowan County, Kentucky. If you don’t understand what is going on (as opposed to what should be going on) please be sure to read Mike Scruggs’ article in the 9/9/15 issue of The Times Examiner. He did a fantastic job of exposing the legal fallacies of those who think Kim did something wrong and should be jailed, fined, and fired. I beg your indulgence for a few seconds while I expose their logical fallacies.

They claim to base their arguments on Amendment XIV of the U. S. Constitution, which says (in part) “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Therefore (they claim) all Americans are under the equal protection of the laws, and homosexual couples must be allowed to obtain marriage licenses and get married the same way heterosexual couples do. “It is the law of the land because five Supreme Court Judges said so.”

First, Kim Davis did not abridge the privileges of anybody. The U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions of all 50 states nowhere grant the privilege of marriage to a man who wants to marry his sister, daughter, mother, cousin, a child, more than one woman at a time, or another man. These privileges do not exist. You cannot abridge a privilege that does not exist.

Second, Kim Davis did not deny liberty to anybody. Our Declaration of Independence affirms that we are basing our country on a recognition of and compliance with the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. These laws do not grant the liberty to steal, bear false witness, murder, or commit adultery (to name a few things deliberately omitted from the American definition of liberty). Any detailed definition of adultery must include any and all abnormal sexual activities.

Third, to assert that homosexuals must be granted marriage licenses under the equal protection of the laws clause implies that if you don’t have a marriage license your life and/or property is in danger. What nonsense! If we follow that logic we will have to start granting marriage licenses to babies still in the womb, so they will be protected.

What this debate plainly shows is that we have five Supreme Court Justices who are not qualified by reason of intelligence and rational capacity to be judges, and we have many ordinary Citizens who do not know the difference between an opinion and a law, nor how laws are made in the United States. We must get atier our Legislators to never allow the Chief Executive to appoint men or women who are so pathetically unqualified.