This is probably going to be wildly unpopular here:
<copypasta'ed from my Facebook page, which I wrote earlier and edited for this forum.>
I realized after a period of thought on what my problem with Ms. Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk's situation is with the whole licensing of same-sex marriages are.
Without going into the whys and wherefores of how I feel about the state licensing marriages, This is a fallout of judicially-made policy and case law into matters that the court should not have to decide on.
Having read the decision and the dissents recently, I am finding myself more and more agreeing with Justice Roberts in the lead dissent's opening paragraphs when he said:
Quote"Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social
policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that
same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex
couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the
past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and
the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow
marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex
marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.
Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what
the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified
the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither
force nor will but merely judgment." The Federalist No.
78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitaliza
tion altered)." Obergfell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct, 2584 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting)
So now we have a court decision and an order from the Supreme Court for something that it really should have had no business in. When Proposition 8 passed in California, I said then that the people who want same-sex marriage need to double down and get that amendment repealed. Instead, they went to the courts, and somehow got a constitutional amendment overturned. This stoked the fire that brought two new methods of political and social change: 1) The legislature is no longer important, as the Court will now impose policy, and 2) The tyranny of the majority has become the tyranny of the minority. Personally, I don't think Proposition 8 would have survived a single election cycle, and if brought to a proposition the next election, it would have been repealed.
So where does that put us with Ms. Davis? Now, she has been imprisoned, indefinitely, without trial, charges, or any other due process, for "contempt of court". She has been essentially treated as a criminal for violating no statute, no regulation, nothing except a judicial policy. She will remain in a cage without a trial, and without any due process until such time as she decides to comply with a new law not passed by any constitutional means. This bothers me as it smacks of tyranny.
I am sure that many people will and have crowed about "her getting what she deserved." because they happen to support the end-result of the decision. However, what happens when the court issues an order that >YOU< do not agree with? Will you go to jail, and be put in a cage indefinitely, without trial, until you comply? Even if the decision in your heart of hearts believe was wrong?
We are at a precipice of history, where we look past the procedures that made this country great in lieu of the quick-fix and "object oriented judging." This is dangerous. It might be wise to read the dissents in Obergfell v. Hodges.
----
Yes, I know that she "controls her destiny" and can "get out of jail any time she wishes", but the idea that fining her so heavily that the taxpayers of Rowan county recall her didn't cross his mind?
This is really a no-win situation for anyone involved.
