Posts

Kim Davis Shows Supreme Court Wears No Robes

Kentucky’s Kim Davis has disrobed the five members of our Supreme Court, exposing the lawlessness of its decision that state laws conforming to natural marriage were unconstitutional. Let’s hope our state legislatures don’t become complicit in the Court’s lawlessness.

Most news stories so far have focused on the religious liberty issue Ms. Davis raised when she said that she could not issue a marriage license to couples of the same sex because in doing so she would be violating the higher law of God which says marriage is only between a man and a woman.

What Law Is Ms. Davis Violating?

But Ms. Davis’ refusal to issue a license raises a very practical legal problem as well, namely, what law authorizes her to issue a license to two people of the same sex? Clearly, Ms. Davis has no inherent authority to decide who she can and cannot issue a marriage license to.

To understand the practical problem Ms. Davis’ refusal creates, we need to appreciate that there are two kinds of statutory laws, positive and negative. The first, “positive laws,” direct someone to do something. The second, “negative laws,” forbid someone from doing something. This limitation on the types of laws presents a problem for Supreme Court Justices who want to require someone to do something the law doesn’t authorize them to do.

For example, if the law requires a clerk to issue a marriage license to two people of the opposite sex, and the clerk refuses, then the Court, exercising judgment, can direct the clerk to follow the positive law.

And the opposite is also true. The law prohibits incestuous marriage. If a clerk begins to issue licenses to mothers and her children, the Court, exercising judgment, can direct the clerk to stop violating the negative law.

But in the marriage case, we have a positive law directing Ms. David to issue a marriage license to two people if they are of the opposite sex. The Supreme Court, exercising judgment, could direct her to issue those licenses if she refuses to follow the law. Likewise, the Supreme Court could direct her not to issue licenses to those in an incestuous relationship if she was violating that law.

But what law is there that the Court can direct her to follow or prohibit her from violating when it comes to same-sex couples? There isn’t one!1

Does the Supreme Court Judge the Law or Make the Law?

Some would say she has to comply with the Supreme Court’s order, but that’s the problem. A court, by definition, can only exercise what our Founding Fathers called “judgment.” It cannot exercise what they called “will,” by which they meant that it could not make law.

So, the Supreme Court has created a problem. The five black robed legislator-jurists did not say it was unconstitutional for a clerk to issue a marriage license to two people of the opposite sex. That law is still good. But the Court can’t “pass” a law that authorizes a clerk to issue licenses to two people of the same sex (or three or four people, for that matter—this issue will come up again!).

It seems to me that Kim Davis’ best legal argument is that there is no law for her to follow, to apply, that would authorize her to issue a license to two people of the same sex, and the legislature has not passed a new law authorizing her to do so.

So, when asked by the press by what authority she is refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, she should ask her inquisitors by what statutory authority she is supposed to issue them licenses.

Will Legislators Do the Supreme Court’s Dirty Work?

That argument, as opposed to the religious liberty one, raises a very interesting legal question if the Kentucky legislature never passes a law that essentially codifies what the Supreme Court said. If legislatures do enact those laws, then they will have been suckered into doing for the Supreme Court that which it had no power to do—pass a law.

I have a feeling a showdown is coming if Ms. Davis holds the line and Kentucky (and hopefully Tennessee) doesn’t do the Supreme Court’s legislative work for them.

In sum, I thank you, Ms. Davis, for helping us see that the only truly lawless folks in America in relation to the same-sex marriage issue are Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer. You’ve helped us see that they are not wearing judicial robes, just suits like those worn by every other politician.

____________________
NOTES
1Some will say Ms. Davis is violating the “negative” law that banned same-sex “marriages,” but there was no law banning such marriages, like there is a law banning incestuous marriages. That is why you never heard me refer to our law defining marriage as a “ban” on anything. If our law was a “ban” on same-sex “marriage,” then it arguably was a ban on anything and everything someone might dream up and want to call a marriage, not just same-sex “marriages”! The press (and, unfortunately, many conservatives), in referring to our marriage law as a ban, helped create this confusion. Words matter!


David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event

Calm and Curfews Aren’t Enough

I don’t know all the facts about the shooting incident in Ferguson, Missouri, that prompted the ongoing civil unrest. But looking at the totality of the situation from the thirty-thousand-foot level, I see a problem that curfews and calls for calm can’t solve.

At first, it is easy to focus on who was at fault in the shooting, the police or the deceased. Fault does need to be determined, and justice does need to be done. That’s what trials are for.

But there is a bigger issue that we can and should ponder: What really fueled and sustained the violence that flowed from the initial incident? And is that “thing” something unique to Ferguson? What if that “thing” is lying dormant in the soil of every American city, like a seed ready to sprout as soon as the environment is right?

As we think about the “root cause” of the violence that sprouted, I’d like to suggest something that I’ve not heard anyone say yet, or at least not say it this way—it is a lack of love.

Reading that, my conservative friends will think I’ve gone soft, that I’ve turned liberal on them. But hear me out. I’m talking about the kind of love our society wants nothing to do with anymore.

The kind of love about which I’m speaking is that found in Matthew 24:12, which records Jesus as saying, “And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.” The word “lawlessness” is from a root word that literally translated means “not law.”

Of course, the law to which Jesus referred was not civil law. He wasn’t saying that love will grow cold and society will become “loveless” if there aren’t a lot of civil laws on the books. He wasn’t saying “big government” is a precursor to or condition for a loving society. To the contrary, we have big civil government because we lack the kind of law Jesus was referring to.

The kind of law to which Jesus was referring is law in a real, ultimate, and final sense, the law by which God has ordered all of His creation, including human beings. When mankind wants to pretend there is no moral law by which we must conform our conduct in order for us, individually and corporately, to prosper, then love will grow cold.

In that kind of “lawless” environment, which is our current national environment, love must grow cold because in the absence of such a God-ordained and imposed law, every man is a law unto himself. And that breeds a self-centered, egotistical human being. For that person, there is nothing and no law higher than himself. He wants what he wants when he wants it, and whatever gets in his way is wrong and must go.

Sadly, lawless love has infected the church, which is why our society continues down this path of fomenting anger and violence. I tire of the preachers who today call us to just “love God” and “love our neighbor” but never bother to remind those whom they so exhort that those “calls to love” were summations of what it meant to live out the Ten Commandments, the law of God.

What is happening in Ferguson truly makes my heart heavy not just for those who live there, but for my country. What happened in that community is bound to happen at some point in every community where lawlessness is allowed to abound.

And faced with that possibility, let’s hope the church will do more than join the calls for calm and curfews.


David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.
Learn more about all our RSS options.