DONATE

The Kim Davis standoff: Can there be religious freedom without a cultural counter-revolution?

She’s out of jail -- for now.

POSTED: Sept 20 2015

Kim Davis is out of jail and back at work.

But have her heroic efforts been diminished by the limited “religious freedom” goals our movement is pursuing? We think so. And it brings to light – once again -- a fatal flaw in our movement’s approach.

Just to make sure: State police come to the office when Kim Davis returns to work.

Jailed for following her conscience

As we've reported, earlier this month Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis was sent to jail by a federal judge because she refused to allow anyone in her office to issue “gay marriage” licenses (which have her name printed on them), a decision which she said was rooted in her strong Christian faith.

And while she sat in jail, five of her six deputy clerks shamelessly abided by the judge’s wishes and issued “gay marriage” licenses. (The one holdout was her son.) According to news reports, they did it quite cheerfully, even shaking the hands of the homosexual couples. At the same time Kim Davis was also being pummeled with several frivolous lawsuits from the homosexual lobby.

Released from jail

After five days the judge decided to release her and see if she would relent. She walked out of the jail with great fanfare, before a crowd of supporters that included Mike Huckabee and other pro-family luminaries. But she gave no indication of what she would do when she returned to her office. It seemed that millions of people were behind her. Many of us expected that she would again deny “gay marriage” licenses and land back in jail.

Back at work with a (hopeful) “religious freedom” compromise

When Kim Davis came back to her office last Monday, everyone was ready for some fireworks. But there were none. She did not personally issue any “gay marriage” licenses, but she allowed her (turncoat) deputy clerks to continue doing it while the licenses were altered so her name was not on them. This was the legalistic religious freedom compromise that the pro-family movement devised for her.

Davis had filed a federal lawsuit against the Governor saying he improperly instructed Kentucky clerks to follow the Obergefell ruling and issue "gay marriage" licenses, but on Tuesday the court refused a stay to delay issuing licenses.

Since “gay marriage” licenses are being issued by her office, the judge has been allowing this scenario. But on Friday, Sept. 18, one of the deputy clerks filed a notice with the federal judge questioning whether this caused them to be invalid. According to reports, the ACLU is also preparing to file a suit to force her name back on it. So this saga is not over.

At least one national pro-family group has been calling on the Governor of Kentucky to have county clerks’ names taken off all licenses in the state, to make it easier for other county clerks to act as Davis did if they have sincere religious beliefs regarding this issue. The Governor has indicated he has no interest in doing that right now.

After Kim Davis returns to work, a deputy clerk agrees to follow the judge's orders and issue a marriage license to a lesbian couple.

Similar "religious freedom" strategies around the country

Various legal opt-out methods for individual religious freedom on this issue are popping up around the country. The North Carolina legislature voted to allow state officials to be exempt from issuing “gay marriage” licenses if they have “sincerely held religious beliefs” against it. There is a move in Alabama to stop issuing all marriage licenses. Some individual state officials in other states are opting-out by refusing to issue any type of marriage license at all. Individual judges are refusing to officiate at “gay marriages.”

But the well-funded LGBT movement is not resting. For them, even letting individuals dissent must not be allowed! A judge in Oregon who has refused to perform same-sex marriages is being hauled before the state’s Commission on Judicial Fitness.

From the govt: a punitive hammer against Christian belief

Our side is much more comfortable dealing with this as a “legal issue.” But the other side sees it as an outright war. The jailing of Kim Davis was done punitively and aggressively. It was done by a political and legal system that despises Christian belief with a passion most of us don’t appreciate and don’t even want to think about.

In jailing her, Federal Judge David Bunning was adamant that “religious freedom” had no place when it came to “gay marriage.” The judge even made a point to refute Martin Luther King’s admonition in his famous “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.” In it, King restated St. Augustine’s dictum that a law “is no law at all” if it is not rooted in natural law, a point which Kim Davis brought up. But Judge Bunning told Davis at her hearing, “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.”

The federal court’s aggressive posture toward Davis is a huge contrast to how it deals with politically correct violators. For example, this same US Justice system routinely allows millions of illegal immigrants to flagrantly break a multitude of US laws. And lawless officials run numerous “sanctuary cities” that flout federal law continuously (all the way up to a president who defiantly follows only the laws he chooses).

And it’s on track to get much worse. Much has been written about this, but an article this past week by Steve Deace in Conservative Review titled “The Rainbow Jihad” is particularly worth reading.

And our side doesn’t fight back

MassResistance has long been opposed to the idea that we need new “religious freedom” laws on this issue. Why should only people with “sincere religious beliefs” be protected?  What about people who are not religious but still find homosexual behaviors repulsive? Or those who see the medical and psychological harm it causes? Why not protect everybody? We seem to be afraid to take on that larger battle.

Even worse, some proposed religious freedom laws only protect religious institutions such as churches or schools, not unaffiliated religious individuals.

But more important, when calling for religious freedom, our side pathetically refuses to make the case as to why “gay marriage” licenses are a religious problem. They mumble about opposition to homosexual “marriage.”  But what on earth does that mean?  The trouble is that we always seem to be afraid to actually say anything of substance, for fear that we might offend somebody. So we risk people not taking us seriously.

Among the things that haven’t been brought up:

• There have been no quotations from the Bible to back up their religious position. (God condemns homosexuality as an "abomination", etc.)
• There’s been no mention of “perversion”. Massachusetts General Law (Ch. 272, Sec 34) still describes homosexuality as “the abominable and detestable crime against nature . . .”  (This language has its roots in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.) This is how society universally recognized it for millennia. But there was none of that kind of talk in this “religious freedom” discussion.
• There was certainly nothing about the abundant medical and psychological dangers that homosexual behavior brings.

In addition, these critical points may have been mentioned in one of the legal briefs, but our side isn't emphasizing them:

• The Obergefell ruling was so patently ridiculous that even the Chief Justice wrote that it had no basis whatsoever in constitutional law.
• There is also solid legal scholarship challenging the idea that courts can constitutionally create or change laws (rather than just affecting the parties in the case). Abraham Lincoln was particularly eloquent on that subject regarding the Dred Scott decision. Roe v Wade is another example of pure judicial activism devoid of constitutional law. In Kentucky, the only marriage laws “on the books” are the state laws and the State Constitution.

Interestingly, this past week two Tennessee legislators have taken it into their own hands to confront that constitutional issue. They’ve filed a bold bill that states,  "Any court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including (a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision), is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect . . . Whereas, unlawful orders, no matter their source — whether from a military commander, a federal judge, or the United States Supreme Court — are and remain unlawful, and should be resisted." Yes!

Moving forward to the “counter-revolution” mindset

MassResistance wants to help our side internalize the mindset of counter-revolution. What does this mean? The sexual/Marxist/socialist revolution that is transforming our society and institutions, causing much misery and destruction, must be squarely confronted. This should be done with our own psychological warfare and frontline activism. That’s how pro-family victories will actually happen (and have happened before).

It’s not rocket science, but it takes some guts. The biggest step is to aggressively tell the truth, especially if it’s politically incorrect. It’s hard to overstate how disruptive that is to the other side. All totalitarian movements throughout history have been kept going by massive lies. As Pope John Paul II once observed, the fall of the huge Soviet Union happened when people were no longer afraid to tell the truth.

If our movement just started aggressively doing that kind of activism and refused to be silenced or intimidated, the effect would be enormous. You’d be surprised to discover what cowards the other side really becomes when seriously confronted.  (We’re going to be talking about this more in upcoming posts – along with opportunities for real activism,)

And the opposite is also true. As long as our side is willing to allow the lies to continue unabated, no amount of posturing and triangulating will have any long-term effect. This is at odds with the religious and conservative pro-family establishment who always seek to be moderate and non-aggressive. They are probably not going to change -- but we must change.

Kim Davis’ initial heroism was a great and very inspiring start. We must honor her efforts by taking the baton and running with it. Be counter-revolutionaries!