As a lot of my readers have been doing, I have watched this political circus taking place in Kentucky over marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The story of Ms. Kim Davis, the deeply religious County Clerk in Rowen County, Kentucky, who has refused to issue any marriage licenses since the Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriages are legal and must be respected now in all of our states, including the ones whose governors and legislators have opposed it.
Kim Davis speaks to co-workers at the County Clerks Office on Sept. 2, 2015 in Morehead, Kentucky.
I cannot find fault with Ms. Davis’s apparently deeply-felt conviction that homosexual relationships are immoral and a breach of her religious beliefs. However, we live in a country that was founded on the principal of separation of church and state. This means, among other things, that the state shall not establish any religion to be imposed on its citizens.
It means also that everyone is free to practice his or her chosen religion and to live their lives according to those religious beliefs. But this does not mean that citizens are free to pick and choose which laws they will obey based on their declared religious beliefs. (We would not accept the right of a religious sect to sacrifice human victims because their religion requires such sacrifices, would we?) Freedom of religion does not mean that we can impose our religious beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs nor does it mean that we can deny others their legal rights.
This is the critical point in this issue of Kim Davis as to whether the State (or government if you prefer) is violating her rights and religious liberties. Some conservative politicians, particularly those now running for the Republican presidential nomination, have sided with Ms. Davis by saying that the federal government (in the person of Judge David L. Bunning, US District Court Judge and son of former conservative Republican senator from Kentucky and former major league pitcher inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1996) was overreaching and somehow violating their religious liberties. For an impartial explanation of the concept of religious liberty, check this article of September 4 in Vox at http://www.vox.com/2015/9/4/9261449/kim-davis-religious-freedom. (More about what politicians have been saying about this in a later post.)
I cannot agree with this assertion that religious liberties permit anyone to ignore a law they disagree with and do as they please in pursuance of their religious beliefs. Ms. Davis is violating her oath of office to “faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor.” by selectively denying public services to same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs. She is violating the law of the land established and confirmed by our highest legal authority, the Supreme Court. No one forced her to run for office as County Clerk and no one is forcing her to defy the Supreme Court and to order her staff to act illegally..
What I believe that Ms. Davis should have done to obey her conscience was to resign her post as Country Clerk and seek some other line of work that would not require her to violate her religious beliefs. I agree that people should not be forced to act against their conscience, but in this case Ms. Davis was not forced to do so. In fact, in the negotiations with the federal authorities before Judge Bunning, she was offered several alternatives that would have allowed her to continue to work as County Clerk without violating her religion, but she refused all such offers.
We are all legally and morally obligated to obey the law and in this case there is no issue of religious liberty. Ms. Davis was obligated to obey the oath she took when she assumed the office of County Clerk but she chose to violate it as well as the law. This is not the first time that the conservative movement has sought to use the shield of religious liberties to justify violating laws that it does not agree with. A cake-maker in Colorado tried to justify refusing to make a cake for a celebration of a same-sex wedding. When Obamacare was passed one company sought an exemption from the provisions relating to providing birth-control services to its employees and in fact won an exemption, which I cannot agree with.
Using religion as a justification for discrimination and intolerance is offensive to me and should not be allowed. I do not believe that our Christian religions of all faiths and churches provide such a basis for hurting other people, no matter how much we may disagree with their personal choices. My religion and its moral principles that I learned as a teenager taught me to be tolerant and generous of spirit, loving my fellow man and respecting his principles and convictions even when they do no coincide with my own.
I believe that Ms. Davis has violated these principles and that she cannot be allowed to continue to practice discrimination against those she disagrees with. She has several reasonable options available to resolve her moral dilemma and avoid violating her religious convictions. She should take one of them to resolve her legal situation and to return to her work and family.
Reflections on our Times 