Here’s a confession. I’m not sure what to think about Kim Davis.
I know. How can someone not know what to think about Kim Davis, right? You’re supposed to have an opinion ready to go for a case like this, especially one that’s been in the news for as long as Davis’ defiance has. But it’s actually a fairly complicated issue that requires a fair amount of thought to parse through, and I’m not done parsing.
One thread of thought worth considering is whether Davis has been the victim of religious persecution. Christian blogger Renée Schafer Horton has some thoughts on that:
There absolutely are Christians being persecuted for their faith throughout the world. They are tortured and killed for nothing more than believing that Jesus Christ was who he said he was.
U.S. Christians are often treated in a manner that can make one feel persecuted… However, feeling persecuted in these ways in no way compares to the aforementioned actual persecution of Christians…
People of faith often feel that a secular world gone amok is being crammed down their throats. Violent and dehumanizing music lyrics, abortion on demand, websites that encourage and enable adultery, the sexualization of childhood, the latest Jack Black movie – all of this can be frustrating. I’m certain Kim Davis feels frustrated, or perhaps her personal history and subsequent religious conversion made her feel the need to take a stand.
But because – praise the Lord – we do not live in a theocracy, frustration doesn’t mean you get to stop following the law of the land. If you disagree with that law, you can go through appropriate channels to try to change it. You cannot, however, hang onto your elected position while refusing to carry out the duties of that elected office and claim that act is Christian. Because, it is not.
Horton’s argument works in a laboratory where all else is equal. However, as The Blaze’s Matt Walsh points out in a provocative column supportive of Davis, all is not equal. Walsh writes:
progressives can never be taken seriously when they lecture about the “rule of law.” They couldn’t possibly care less about it. If they want “the law” to be obeyed, then why are they crucifying some clerk in some county in Kentucky while celebrating sanctuary cities? And why are they cheering her imprisonment for not signing her name to a piece of paper, yet remaining silent on the multiple felonies committed by Hillary Clinton? Why do they throw stones at a clerk who inconvenienced a few homosexuals, but defend a secretary of state who put our national security at risk by conducting classified business using a private server stored in a bathroom closet?
… I wonder how many of these solemn believers in “law” were the same ones making excuses for riots a few months ago? How many are offended by a woman refusing to file paperwork, but were sympathetic to barbarians who burned half a city to the ground?
Perhaps, if the law were applied equally in all circumstances, the Davis-should-resign argument would carry more weight. As it stands, her civil disobedience remains a noteworthy protest in a time when the rule of law has already broken down.