I don't always get things right. Just ask anyone who knows me. I can have blank spaces in my thinking which when realized are quite embarrassing. But if I stay with something long enough, the blank spaces get filled in. Sometimes however, there are situations that keep me wondering where the truth of the matter really lies, if indeed that can be determined. Like the situation of the Kentucky clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses to anyone because her religious conviction is that marriage is between a man and a women only, but if she issued licenses only to them it would discriminate against the man/man and women/women applicants. Does anyone have some aspirin?
Add to this that her main defender says it's actually Kentucky law and that the law has to change before she is obligated to follow the Supreme Court ruling. This apparently is how the constitution works but so few understand it that way. This Kentucky clerk is apparently one of the few. But also her defender says that this Kentucky clerk has the conviction of her beliefs, natural law and the law of God that overrides any Supreme Court decision and that she might be the first Christian (in the modern era I assume) to go to jail for standing up for what she believes. I guess Martin Luther King was just there for a visit.
So, is it a matter of constitutional law, standing against what is morally wrong like slavery, or convoluted politics wrapped in religious zeal? Just so I won't be completely wrong, I'm going to say all three.
Constitutional law isn't that constitutional when it varies according to which justices happen to be on the court at the time. But there are ways to change Supreme Court rulings. One is by amendment, but that is quite the process so replacing the justices who will overturn or change the law to something you like better seems to be the more direct approach.
Standing against what you believe to be morally wrong is not only a right, it's a duty. The problem is that this duty is shared by everyone else. There are several options here. Be in a position in order to enforce or impose your beliefs. Be in position to argue for your beliefs. Be in position to do peaceful protest ...or violent if you're really angry. Be in position to support politicians that agree with you or at least say they do. Be in position to use Second Amendment solutions as needed, unless of course you are a Muslim.
The church and state relationship seems to be something that's used when it's convenient and not used when it's not convenient. Whatever way it's currently taken, it's that way for all "churches." But some argue that a majority church can have priority. I'm not sure why that's necessary if the majority church votes as it should. They would win by the sheer reality of numbers. But maybe this is the problem. The majority church doesn't vote as it should because there's not an agreement as to what is right for a nation of many voices. Must be that's harder than it looks.
It will be interesting to see what all comes from further legal, religious and political involvement. But if I were this clerk in Kentucky, I'd think about getting a job at Hobby Lobby or Chic-fil-A. ...But for sure, it would be out of practicality more than anything else.
