Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue gay "marriage" licenses, is now in jail. She was summonsed to court and thrown behind bars until she agrees to issue them.

Welcome to America.

I admit that my own perspective on this situation has, as Barack Obama might say, evolved over the past couple of days. I've always of course known that Kim Davis is right for refusing to sign her name to the evil of gay "marriage," but I wasn't always convinced that the right path was to stay in office rather than resign in protest. I've come to appreciate and greatly admire her decision, and that revelation occurred when I understood both that Kim Davis is an elected official — meaning she exercises the will of the people, or else she can be impeached or voted out of office — and that she converted to Christianity only four years ago. That last point is very important, at least in my view, and I'll explain why. I also read this fantastic article by Doug Wilson, and it helped me put some of this in perspective. Finally, I prayed about the matter, which is something I should have done before I said anything to begin with.

[mattwalsh-social-instory]

So I want to take you through my thought process. My opinions are still kind of jumbled, but as far as I can tell, there are five points we should keep in mind while we reflect on what's happening in Kentucky today:

First, 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 mean, the rule of law? THE RULE OF LAW? Sorry for screaming, but I'm afraid my head might explode if I see or hear one more leftist use that term. Where were these progressive proponents of "law" when Barack Obama was illegally enacting the DREAM Act? Where were they when this administration unilaterally and illegally changed Obamacare repeatedly and without congressional consent? Where were they when the IRS was targeting conservative groups? Or when the Department of Justice was prosecuting journalists? Or when Obama was assassinating American citizens?

As a matter of fact, forget all of this, where were they — where was anyone — when this government was running weapons to Syrian terrorists through the consulate in Libya, which led directly to the assassination of an American diplomat, which the administration then lied about in front of the American people? We don't even talk about that, do we? No, we're too preoccupied with our mission to hunt down rogue pencil-pushers.

And 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?

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, right, talks with David Moore following her office's refusal to issue marriage licenses at the Rowan County Courthouse in Morehead, Ky., Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2015. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley)

The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering. These pious little preachers of "law" couldn't actually give less of a damn about the law. This is about dogma. It always has been.

Second, speaking of which, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision had absolutely nothing to do with the law. Gay "marriage" was forced upon the states by five human beings in black robes sitting in a big stone temple in D.C. The Constitution, which clearly says nothing about gay "marriage," was ignored. The consent of the people — many of whom live in states, like Kentucky, where the Constitution expressly defines marriage as between a man a woman — was not respected or even considered. If Kim Davis is a government official making up her own laws as she goes along, she's only following the precedent of the federal government. The only difference is that her "made-up" law is the one that existed before a handful of federal judges made up a new one. So who is the lawless anarchist here?

Gay "marriage" is itself nothing but the will of the elites. It is as much a legal abomination as a moral one. Many people have said, "Well, gay 'marriage' is the law of the land, so that's that," but what they mean is, "Well, five people in Washington support gay 'marriage,' so that's that." No, that isn't that. That's tyranny. That's injustice. That's illegal. It might be true that the Supreme Court has, over time, seized the power to write laws and reshape ancient human institutions according to their radical liberal ideologies, but that doesn't make it law. It might be "law," but it isn't law. Just as gay "marriage" might be "marriage," but it can never be marriage. The whole thing is a travesty, a sham, an outrage.

So are we morally obligated to cooperate with the evil agendas and the rampant tyrannies of the federal government? Is a clerk in Kentucky, elected by the people of her county and subject to the Constitution of her state, morally required to respect the drunken dictates of judicial activists in Washington? Kim Davis says no. And I think it might be time for the rest of us to come to that same conclusion.

Third, Kim Davis is not preventing anyone from getting married. For one thing, they can just hop in the car and head on down to the next county. It will take a few minutes, but I suspect they'll survive. Any gay couples waiting around for this Davis situation to be settled are obviously just trying to make a statement, which is probably why the showed up at the clerk's office with a camera crew.

But for another thing, gay "marriage," even if it's legitimized with the obligatory paperwork, still cannot exist. Gay "marriage" is an impossibility, a non sequitur. It has been not only illegally imposed on us, but impossibly. No matter what the Supreme Court says, or what anyone says, men and women will still be different. And it is that difference that defines marriage, that breathes life into it, that gives it a purpose, that makes it integral to society.

We have, then, two different things. On the one hand, we have the relationship between a man and a woman. On the other, the relationship between men and men or women and women. Say what you want about these groups, but you certainly cannot say they are the same. Since the beginning of human civilization up until about 87 seconds ago, all societies have recognized that the man-woman relationship is special and powerful. This bond gives birth to new people, and this new collection of people are what we call "families," and these families serve as the very bedrock and foundation of humanity. There are other reasons for marriage, but procreation is a primary and defining reason. A relationship that is, in principle (not through deformity or disease or old age or whatever), lacking in this immense and mysterious power cannot be considered its equal. This is not just a moral judgment, but a logical and biological one.

Gay couples cannot produce families. They cannot produce anything. They serve no practical purpose to society. Two men love each other, fine, but there is no reason to officially recognize that love or give it a name. And if we do give it a name, it is absurd to give it the same name when it is so vastly different. The correct name is the one scripture gives it: sin.

Anthony Carroill of Flat Woods, Ky., waits for the arrival of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis at the Carl D. Perkins Federal building in Ashland, Ky., Thursday, Sept. 3, 2015. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley)

Marriage has a nature. Gay "marriages" do not have that same nature, and so they are not the same thing. This is why I don't consider Kim Davis' stance to be a necessarily religious one. I realize she is citing her First Amendment rights, and there is a compelling case to be made there, but I'm afraid we play into the progressive hand when we say "traditional" marriage is a uniquely Christian construction. It isn't. Yes, the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality. Yes, the Bible is the word of God and all that it says is true. But it's also true that every civilization — Christian or otherwise — has recognized that marriage is between men and woman, and none, until about yesterday, have proposed that men can somehow be "married" to each other.

That's because the truth of marriage is innate. It is part of the Natural Law. It is universal. Marriage is between a man and a woman like water is wet, like squares have four sides, like the Earth orbits the sun. It's accurate to say Kim Davis doesn't want to participate in something that is immoral, but I think it's more accurate to say Kim Davis doesn't want to participate in something that is untrue. So this is a religious rights issue, but even more than that, it's a what is right issue.

Fourth, I was at first frustrated when I heard that Davis has been divorced three times and conceived children through adultery. It's despicable and gross that the media is pouring through this woman's past, vetting her more extensively than they've ever vetted a Democratic presidential candidate, but we knew that would happen, just as we knew she'd receive violent death threats and so on. And anyway, it's out there now. She doesn't deny it.

My first reaction, because of this revelation, was to urge for Davis to resign rather than continue the public demonstration. My reasoning was simple: her protest is valuable mostly as symbolism. And in that regard, it could be very valuable. We Christians need to see people who are willing to stand up and say, "No, I will not comply," even if it means jeopardizing their own safety and freedom. Of course, if she'd just stepped down and let someone else sign the licenses, nobody outside of Rowan County ever would have heard about it, and we would be deprived of the inspiration and motivation of seeing someone willing to put it all on the line for the sake of truth.

But I thought that the symbolic value of this statement was severely compromised by the divorces. Now, divorced or not, she's still right about gay "marriage." The truth is the truth is the truth, no matter the sins of the person speaking it. Yet if she justifies her sins against the sanctity of marriage while pretending to stand for the sanctity of marriage at the same time, then she is guilty of hypocrisy. And I do not feel that the cause or the faith are helped by yet another Christian feigning principles they clearly do not believe or practice. The enemies of God are itching for any chance to parade the phonies around and say, "See? These people don't care about marriage — they just hate gays!" and it pains me that we Christians are often so generous as to provide those opportunities.

Only, we find out, that's not the case with Kim Davis. In a statement, she owned up to her sins and explained that she just came to Christ four years ago. She didn't justify or rationalize the divorces, thus she is not guilty of hypocrisy. She is merely guilty of being a sinner, as are we all. In an interview yesterday, she spoke very profoundly about her own faults, saying she had "created a pit of sin with her own hands." Those do not sound like the words of a woman looking to paint her own evil as different or better than anyone else's. She is far from a hypocrite, it turns out. She is someone willing to suffer the embarrassment of having her past exposed in front of the world. I get the impression that she sees this as part of her penance, and she will not let the humiliation prevent her from standing while so many others slink away in fear.

This is heroism, and I'm sorry I didn't see that at first.

Unfortunately, all of these nuances to Kim Davis' story will be irrelevant to the forces set on destroying her.

Fifth, so here we are. Kim Davis sits in jail. Gay "marriage" has been illegally imposed on the people. The government is operating outside the bounds of the Constitution, morality and Natural Law. Christians in government are being locked in chains while thugs and crooks run the country. Babies are being murdered and sold for parts, and all with the approval and funding of our leaders in Washington. Cops are being hunted down and murdered in the street while race hustlers openly egg on the killers and the president does nothing to stop it.

America is ruled by the whims of petty despots. America is a lawless country. They will make a sacrifice of Kim Davis, but make no mistake that she is standing against lawlessness, not for it. And now the rest of us have to decide if we will do the same.

This is a nation that has rejected truth, constitutional law and God's law. Our culture is floating untethered in the abyss, besieged by confusion and moral chaos. If we think we can restore peace and truth by "following the law," I believe we are in for a rude awakening. The law is dead. We are left with two choices: follow truth, or obey the dictates of our culture and the godless tyrants who lead it.

Kim Davis took door No. 1, and it landed her behind bars.

Where will it take us if we open it?

I think we will soon find out.

Contact Matt for speaking engagement requests at contact@TheMattWalshBlog.com. For general comments, use MattWalsh@TheMattWalshBlog.com.

—

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.