With great delight, I learned of Kim Davis’ release from prison yesterday. You know, my dear readers, for a while I too felt like Kim Davis should have resigned her position. After all, resignation is the usual protest people resort to when coerced into following unjust orders. Fortunately, Phyllis Schlafly’s article set me straight on the matter. Davis’ imprisonment had not even the vestige of justice: she had not broken a single state or federal statute nor had the state of Kentucky passed necessary laws to deal with situations like this which were sure to occur. What is law is the following:
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A “burden” shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
–Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Act
What would have happened should Kim Davis had resigned in the face of persecution rather than hold out? There are many judges across the country who have opted out of issuing marriage licenses altogether because they want neither to act contrary to their Christian beliefs nor to be accused of discrimination. Kim Davis, despite the media’s focus on gay couples, has acted in the same way–issuing no licenses since the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. If the left had been able to force Davis to resign, they should have moved onto another clerk and then onto judges. We complain about activist judges now. Imagine a United States where conservative Christians, strict constructionists as a rule, had effectively been removed from the courts? With a Republican party which bears too many resemblances to the Democratic party, where should people find a shield against legal tyranny?
At this point, I want to remind my dear readers of something essential: progressives only care about power and the illusion of progress which comes from denying our American and Western heritage. When the case United States v. Windsor was heard, the court–also a 5-4 decision–declared section three of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, offering the principles of federalism and the equal protection clause as reasons for their decision. In other words, the federal government had no right to interfere in a state’s marriage laws. In Obergefell v. Hodges, that principle was cast out of the window for the sake of legalizing gay marriage across the country. I have expressed my ire on this decision before. To be sure, there exist decent persons on the left who cling to their ideology because they think it reasonable and just. But, never forget that the power of the progressive movement, the tip of the spear, resides in people for whom the ends justify the means.