If I had a penny every time I heard a Christian say about Kim Davis' situation something to the effect of:
"When we make laws, we will expect them to be followed. Supporting those who break the law is setting up a spiral in which breaking the law becomes accepted. Then the law has no force and is not good for anything. We can make all the laws we want if half the people refuse to follow them at any given time and it will not do any good. Laws become meaningless."This is half correct and all wrong at the same time.
The only standard of right and wrong is the scripture. The only authority which civil magistrates (e.g. county clerks, senators, governors, judges, and presidents) have is what God has given them. Their responsibility is to obey their superiors, or the governing documents which constituted their offices unless doing so would require them to disobey God. Then they must obey God rather than man.
(John 19:9-11 - And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.No she cannot make her own law. But neither can the governor or the AG can make law. Only the legislature can enact laws. Until the legislature changes the law, she is duty bound to obey the law. SCOTUS can not make federal law and they most definitely cannot make state law. They can only apply the law to cases that properly come before them. Their rulings, such as their Obergafell decision, only apply to the specific parties in a case. Even if they rule that a person is innocent of breaking the law because the body making the law did not have constitutional authority to make that particular law, that doesn't change the law.
So what about the arguments in the linked article?
- LOGIC–Imagine you worked at a restaurant, and you believed that God thought drinking alcohol was a sin.
Daniel is an example of a civil magistrate who refused to obey the law of the land and refused to resign his office as 2nd in command next to the king. He also refused to privatize his obedience of God and disobedience of the king's decree, opening praying by an open window in full view of people. God honored Daniel for his disobedience of the pagan king's civil command and his example of obedience to God has been honored by the Christian church ever since. Kim Davis' case in terms of facts and law is even stronger than Daniel's situation. Daniel disobeyed the clear law of the land. Kim Davis has broken no laws - she has only defied the order of a judge commanding her to break state law. Since she was not a party to any SCOTUS case, she is therefore not legally bound to comply with the SCOTUS opinion.
- HYPOCRISY–Refusing to issue a marriage license to a couple because you believe the Bible condemns their union is a difficult position for a County Clerk to take without turning into a giant hypocrite. The Bible actually says nothing whatsoever about same-sex marriage. It does say quite a bit about the issue of divorce.
- CONFUSION–Kim Davis and her supporters are arguing that forcing her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples amounts to “Religious Persecution.”
- INTEGRITY–Staying on in a position for which you are refusing to perform the duties you were hired to perform–all while continuing to take a salary–is far from a “Christian” thing to do.
I appreciate Kim Davis' stand but regret the grandstanding of some people associating themselves with her and leveraging her plight to promote themselves.