Is a right invented by a judge the same as the law of the land?

We hear from Hillary Clinton about upholding the law.  She wants the clerks in Kentucky to obey the law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  (By the way, did Hillary Clinton call on President Obama to uphold the law when he refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, a real law passed by a real legislature and signed by President Clinton?)

But what law are we talking about today?  What legislature passed this law?  What executive signed it in a fancy ceremony?

Did President Obama ask Congress to send him a bill making marriage equality the law of the land?  Frankly, I missed it if he did.  I guess that I'm still watching that YouTube video from 2008 where he agrees with Kim Davis about marriage. 

Again, what law is Kim Davis violating?

Same-sex marriage, or marriage equality, as some like to call it, was arrived at by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that denied the American people the opportunity to debate the issue in the political arena.  (Ironically, the public debate was trending in favor of same-sex marriage before Justice Kennedy pulled the plug.)

Like Roe v. Wade, it is the opinion of a judge who found something in the U.S. Constitution that isn't there.  Also, there were deep divisions in the Court about creating this right. 

Should we create rights this way?  Do the happy supporters of same-sex marriage understand how dangerous it is for judges to invent rights? 

As Ed Streaker posted here yesterday, the U.S. Constitution does not say anything about regulating marriage.  This is why my marriage license was issued in Dallas County and not the United States.

As Governor Huckabee said:  

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law[.] ... They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.

The "tolerant" left will demonize Kim Davis and call her every name under the sun.  She will soon appear in placards dressed like Hitler and mocked by the PC culture. 

However, Kim Davis is forcing us to think about something: what law is she violating?  

Are judges now going to settle every complicated issue that the left does not want to debate in the political arena?  Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created three equal branches?

As many wrote a few months ago, we'd be in a much better place today if Justice Kennedy had joined the dissent and sent this issue back to the states and the people.  Such a decision would have forced legislatures to debate same-sex marriage and to pass laws the way that the Founding Fathers intended.

So what law is Kim Davis violating?  I can't find one, unless we are now a nation governed by justices who invent rights not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

We hear from Hillary Clinton about upholding the law.  She wants the clerks in Kentucky to obey the law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  (By the way, did Hillary Clinton call on President Obama to uphold the law when he refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, a real law passed by a real legislature and signed by President Clinton?)

But what law are we talking about today?  What legislature passed this law?  What executive signed it in a fancy ceremony?

Did President Obama ask Congress to send him a bill making marriage equality the law of the land?  Frankly, I missed it if he did.  I guess that I'm still watching that YouTube video from 2008 where he agrees with Kim Davis about marriage. 

Again, what law is Kim Davis violating?

Same-sex marriage, or marriage equality, as some like to call it, was arrived at by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that denied the American people the opportunity to debate the issue in the political arena.  (Ironically, the public debate was trending in favor of same-sex marriage before Justice Kennedy pulled the plug.)

Like Roe v. Wade, it is the opinion of a judge who found something in the U.S. Constitution that isn't there.  Also, there were deep divisions in the Court about creating this right. 

Should we create rights this way?  Do the happy supporters of same-sex marriage understand how dangerous it is for judges to invent rights? 

As Ed Streaker posted here yesterday, the U.S. Constitution does not say anything about regulating marriage.  This is why my marriage license was issued in Dallas County and not the United States.

As Governor Huckabee said:  

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law[.] ... They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.

The "tolerant" left will demonize Kim Davis and call her every name under the sun.  She will soon appear in placards dressed like Hitler and mocked by the PC culture. 

However, Kim Davis is forcing us to think about something: what law is she violating?  

Are judges now going to settle every complicated issue that the left does not want to debate in the political arena?  Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created three equal branches?

As many wrote a few months ago, we'd be in a much better place today if Justice Kennedy had joined the dissent and sent this issue back to the states and the people.  Such a decision would have forced legislatures to debate same-sex marriage and to pass laws the way that the Founding Fathers intended.

So what law is Kim Davis violating?  I can't find one, unless we are now a nation governed by justices who invent rights not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.