Kim Davis is first political prisoner in same sex marriage licensing
Today federal Judge David L. Bunning of the United States District Court decided to put Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., in jail for refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses. SEE:
Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage
Judge Bunning said. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.” Unfortunately the Judge’s order was based upon a Supreme Court opinion that the 14th Amendment forbids distinctions in law based upon sex and thus, requires the various States to issue same sex marriage licenses. So, Judge Bunning decided to choose the Supreme Court’s opinion instead of the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment!
But the irrefutable fact is, the 14th Amendment does not prohibit by its text, nor was it intended by those who framed and ratified the amendment, to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex. The idea that it does prohibit distinctions based upon sex was invented by Justice Ginsburg who engaged in judicial tyranny in the Virginia Military Academy (VMI) case.
In delivering the Court’s opinion in the
Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and a court invented test unknown to our founding fathers or the 39th Congress, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an
"exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted,
“The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”
But to this day, neither Justice Ginsburg nor any Supreme Court Justice has ever established by the text of the 14th Amendment, nor its legislative intent as expressed during the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the amendment, that its purpose was to forbid distinctions based upon gender.
The unavoidable truth is, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this prohibition because time and again during the debates when the 14th Amendment was being framed the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and was only intended to apply in a very narrow area protecting the civil, not political rights, of Blacks:
“to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights. ” See the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883) for confirmation.
As a matter of fact one of the supporters of the 14th Amendment during the 39th Congress, summarized the very purpose of the amendment as stated by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases. He says:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
It should also be noted that Senator Bingham the Amendment's principal author, emphasized “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292
Bingham goes on to say:
“I have always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all the rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States. And so I still believe.”
The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex and intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination as the court falsely pretends today, falls flat on its face when reading the words of the 15th Amendment which was intended to enlarge the prohibition against race-based legislation __enlarging it to forbid discrimination at the voting booth based upon
“race, color, or previous condition of servitude“ ___ while the Constitution was still silent with regard to distinctions based upon gender and/or prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon sex.
The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state legislation which makes distinctions based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid sex discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”
If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination as we are today led to believe by certain members of our federal judiciary, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleged in the VMI Case and our Supreme Court recently alleged in the same sex marriage case, then why was it necessary for the above mentioned amendments [the 15th and 19th] to be added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?
Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleges in the VMI case?
The bottom line is, a number of our Supreme Court Justices have engaged in judicial tyranny and have supplanted their personal political whims and fancies as being the “rule of law” in spite of what the text and legislative intent of our Constitution commands. And now, we have an American citizen, Kim Davis of Rowan County sitting in jail as a political prisoner. Although her argument that her religious beliefs prevent her from issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple is without merit because she is free to quit her job and be true to her religious beliefs, she is still sitting in jail because five Justices on our Supreme Court used their office of public trust to impose their political beliefs upon the entire population of the United States, and for this they ought to be punished with no punishment left off the table.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
