THOMAS F. BERTONNEAU writes:

I call attention to Jack Cashill’s article of today at The American Thinker, in which the author invokes a glaringly self-evident, but almost entirely unobserved, fact concerning the case of Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk whom U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning has jailed on a contempt citation for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Bunning asserts that Davis is in violation of her official duties and of his court for failing to comply with a law concerning “gay marriage.”  Cashill, citing Davis’ own remarks, points out that there is no such law.  Laws have effect under the Constitution only insofar as the House of Representatives has first written them and then submitted and enacted them by due process.  No Supreme Court ruling can make law.  Cashill writes: “One would think, though, that if the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards gays from suffering the ‘pain and humiliation’ of being denied marriage, the First Amendment should certainly protect practicing Christians, Muslims, and Jews from the pain and humiliation of being denied their very freedom.”

— Comments —

Terry Morris writes:

This is exactly where many of us (who understand the difference) get frustrated and ultimately throw our hands up. Further to Dr. Bertonneau’s point (as if it matters), the U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government carte blanche authority over the State and local governments on this and many other issues. The only actual law I personally know of which Kim Davis is bound by oath to follow in this instance, is Kentucky’s own law (supreme in the State of Kentucky) banning same-sex “marriage” within its borders. The person who ought to be in jail is the judge who circumvented duly enacted Kentucky law, thereby violating his oath to support the U.S. Constitution as written.

Please follow and like us: