One of the many challenges that conservatives face today is combating the picture that the liberal media paints of us. Very few more recent examples of this exist than with the case of Kim Davis.
Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis made headlines last summer when she refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her story made headlines following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed the marriage rights to same-sex couples by the loosely interpreted Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A viral video filmed by a same-sex couple, showing the county clerk refusing to issue them a marriage license, caught the attention of millions and caused international outrage against Davis’s actions.
Recently, Davis received national notoriety again when she attended President Obama’s final State of the Union Address earlier this month as a guest of Representative Jim Jordan – a Republican out of Ohio.
Politicians often also find themselves being mindful of who or what they choose to endorse, including Jim Jordan, who is slated to speak at CPAC this March. Jim Jordan represents Ohio’s fourth district, serving as the House Freedom Caucus Chariman. Jordan claimed that his guest ticket for the State of the Union Address was intended to be given to The Family Research Council, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, but ultimately ended up in the hands of the controversial Kim Davis, sliding in at an opportune moment.
Here’s the kicker, however: Kim Davis both identified and ran as a Democrat in the Rowan County Clerk general election in 2014. It wasn’t until September 25, 2015, that Reuters news agency reported that Davis had switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Additionally, in early September as Davis left jail, a Washington Post / ABC News survey found that 45 percent of Republicans respondents felt that Davis should to do her job or quit.
Here’s my question: why didn’t Jim Jordan (or the Family Research Council) do a better job vetting Davis before the State of the Union? With this history, why was she allowed to represent conservative values?
Kim Davis brings to mind the term “carpetbagger,” which refers to those northerners who fled to the south following the civil war during Reconstruction. We as conservatives must be diligent in distancing our party from political flip-floppers and those with intentions to take advantage of party weaknesses, and Kim Davis looks like just such a person.
She may not be a conservative but she had enough guts to stand up to a federal judge trying to bully her into giving up her beliefs which should have been protected under 1st A of US Constitution. How many conservatives have done the same? I think it was a nice gesture of the FRC to give her that ticket.
Can’t Democrats be conservatives? That being said I am 100% not impressed with Republicans as conservative champions. Every Congress, in accordance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, has to fulfill this:
“That subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof ‘$______________’.’’, with the blank being filled with a dollar limitation equal to the appropriate level of the public debt set forth pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.”
Is $1 trillion appropriate? $10 trillion appropriate? $18 trillion appropriate? We are coming up on $19 trillion; is that appropriate? Appropriate is a conservative value. Republicans certainly don’t have any intention on reining in the debt. Out entire monetary system is based on the capability to fund our endeavors off of debt.
What Kim Davis did was appropriate. Homosexuality, I can’t believe I have to say this, does not survive. It does not create progeny. I don’t know what business Government has in the relationship of two people, in this case marriage, in the first place. It is poetic justice that those who want big government by sticking their nose in on marriage in the first place now have to talk about homosexuals wanting to get married…that totally exemplifies their ability to engage in statecraft…they deserve to talk about homosexuals.
And just one little critique, I would think the word “fled” in reference to the carpetbaggers places an errant property to the historical impetus…the carpetbaggers “wanted” to go to the South because their was significant opportunity to increase their wealth and power…therefore a better word would be “flocked”. Kim Davis may have “fled” the Democrats or she may have “flocked” to the Republicans…but since she did a valueable thing…I don’t think the door to being called a Conservative should be slammed outright in her face.