Clerk defying gay marriage mandate jailed in violation of 10th and 13th Amendments

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, a Democrat, was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals, citing her deep religious beliefs in objection.  But since five justices of the Supreme Court have decided that homosexual marriage will be the law of the land, Davis has been jailed for her refusal to obey.

Davis has been portrayed as an obstructionist and a lawbreaker.  Many Republican candidates like Ted Cruz have come out in support of her.  Some who are against her, like Carly Fiorina, have said unsympathetically that Davis must either officiate gay marriages or resign.

But is Davis really breaking the law, or is it the Supreme Court who has violated the law?  The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution makes no direct references to giving the federal government the right to regulate marriage.  The 14th Amendment states that people shall not be denied "equal protection of the law," but the 14th Amendment was about race, not sexual orientation.  Therefore, the Constitution says nothing about the federal government regulating marriage in regards to sexual orientation.  Since that is so, under the 10th Amendment the federal government has no authority to legalize gay marriage and no authority to compel Ms. Davis to issue marriage certificates to homosexuals.

Now let's talk about the 13th Amendment, which outlaws involuntary servitude.  In other words, the government cannot force people to take specific actions.  There are exceptions, for things like paying taxes, community service, and the draft, but generally speaking, the government cannot compel people to commit acts – it's too much like slavery.  Furthermore:

In more recent cases, the Supreme Court has defined involuntary servitude broadly to forbid work forced by the use or threat of physical restraint or injury or through law. 

In other words, people generally cannot be forced to do something through threat of incarceration.  That's exactly what's been done to Ms. Davis.  The courts are violating the 13th Amendment to the Constitution by incarcerating her, to support their own made up right to homosexual marriage.

Liberals (and Republicans like Carly Fiorina) say that we have to comply with the "law," but it is the courts that have become lawless.  The courts are hardly infallible, having enforced slavery in the Dred Scott case, approved the internment of Japanese-Americans in prison camps, and approved other actions not permitted by the Constitution.  It is important that we not fall for the liberal propaganda and clearly identify who the lawless are and aren't.

Right now, it is Ms. Davis who is following the Constitution, and right now she is being persecuted for her religious beliefs.  But because she is a Christian, she is being attacked.  If she were Muslim, perhaps the media would be more sympathetic to her.

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, a Democrat, was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals, citing her deep religious beliefs in objection.  But since five justices of the Supreme Court have decided that homosexual marriage will be the law of the land, Davis has been jailed for her refusal to obey.

Davis has been portrayed as an obstructionist and a lawbreaker.  Many Republican candidates like Ted Cruz have come out in support of her.  Some who are against her, like Carly Fiorina, have said unsympathetically that Davis must either officiate gay marriages or resign.

But is Davis really breaking the law, or is it the Supreme Court who has violated the law?  The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution makes no direct references to giving the federal government the right to regulate marriage.  The 14th Amendment states that people shall not be denied "equal protection of the law," but the 14th Amendment was about race, not sexual orientation.  Therefore, the Constitution says nothing about the federal government regulating marriage in regards to sexual orientation.  Since that is so, under the 10th Amendment the federal government has no authority to legalize gay marriage and no authority to compel Ms. Davis to issue marriage certificates to homosexuals.

Now let's talk about the 13th Amendment, which outlaws involuntary servitude.  In other words, the government cannot force people to take specific actions.  There are exceptions, for things like paying taxes, community service, and the draft, but generally speaking, the government cannot compel people to commit acts – it's too much like slavery.  Furthermore:

In more recent cases, the Supreme Court has defined involuntary servitude broadly to forbid work forced by the use or threat of physical restraint or injury or through law. 

In other words, people generally cannot be forced to do something through threat of incarceration.  That's exactly what's been done to Ms. Davis.  The courts are violating the 13th Amendment to the Constitution by incarcerating her, to support their own made up right to homosexual marriage.

Liberals (and Republicans like Carly Fiorina) say that we have to comply with the "law," but it is the courts that have become lawless.  The courts are hardly infallible, having enforced slavery in the Dred Scott case, approved the internment of Japanese-Americans in prison camps, and approved other actions not permitted by the Constitution.  It is important that we not fall for the liberal propaganda and clearly identify who the lawless are and aren't.

Right now, it is Ms. Davis who is following the Constitution, and right now she is being persecuted for her religious beliefs.  But because she is a Christian, she is being attacked.  If she were Muslim, perhaps the media would be more sympathetic to her.

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.