It would seem that Kim Davis, the county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, has been stopped in her tracks.
Yesterday, Davis, who has been making headlines lately because of her resistance to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, was jailed for contempt of court. Davis argues that she has an inherent right to freedom of religion as granted by the U.S. Constitution, and that granting same-sex marriage licenses would be a violation of that right.
Davis absolutely has a right to practice her religion freely. However, when you choose to work for the United States justice system, you are either explicitly or implicitly taking an oath to uphold the law of the land — the law of God isn’t the same, freedom of religion or not.
In other words, as a government employee, Davis has a duty to the American people. She has a duty to help those in need. She has a duty to comply with the law. Once Davis took on that responsibility, she forfeited her license to infringe on the rights of others in the name of religious freedom. If Davis no longer wished to accept her duties as a government employee, she simply should have quit.
Some may question the fact that Davis was jailed instead of simply fired from her position. However, Davis reportedly had multiple chances to change her stance and grant the marriage licenses. Even still, she was in clear violation of the law. This is plain and simple. If a mailman steals your letters for an entire year and is fired, he still must be put on trial for his crimes. He can’t simply walk away from the fact that he stole those letters because the government decided to remove him from his position. The same goes for Davis. Whether or not she was fired, she still must face the penalty for her crimes.
Perhaps if Davis were a church minister tasked with marrying a same-sex couple, or a private bakery owner who was asked to create a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, the outcome here would be different. Neither the minister nor the baker are bound by a legal oath or contract to serve the people in the name of the U.S. government. Contrarily, it is in Davis’ job description as a county clerk to serve others in the name of the law.
This issue raises a significant question in the vein of religion in the workplace. If Davis isn’t allowed to practice her beliefs in her government position, should other religious practices be prohibited as well? Can Muslim women still wear their hijabs to work at the DMV? Can Jewish men still wear a yarmulke to their job at the post office?
Clearly, the line separating church and state is blurred. But as the law currently stands, these government employees have a right to practice their religion freely in ways that don’t directly infringe on the people they are supposed to be helping. The United States tends to protect the religious beliefs of the collective, rather than the individual.
Davis is free to wear a cross necklace, or pray before she has a meal. No one is taking away her right to be a Christian. Hypocrisy only arises when Davis’ inherent devotion to Christianity affects the lives of others. Her bigotry won’t be at all affected as she signs a marriage license for a gay couple. But the gay couple will be affected greatly by her resistance to grant them permission to enjoy the privileges that come with marriage, as granted by the law in the United States of America.
What Davis must realize is that these marriage licenses are government-issued. They are marriages under law, not marriages under God. A marriage performed in a courthouse isn’t legally the same as a marriage performed in a church. By choosing a government job, Davis has sacrificed her right to express her religious views in a way that outwardly affects others’ actually-legal rights.
Perhaps this woman is attempting to achieve some sort of martyrdom. Even after insisting she wasn’t intending to become a spokesperson for her cause, Davis has become just that. It is safe to say that a generous amount of the Kentucky population will come out in support of Davis’ cause, just as quite a few of the 2016 Republican presidential candidates have.
There is a precedent to be set here. After all, this is a first for the U.S. government: no other federal employee has been arrested for contempt of the court since the June 26 Supreme Court ruling in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. It would seem that many U.S. citizens are still fuming over the decision, and it is for this reason that some are so quick to support Davis.
The lesson we can learn from Davis’s case is actually quite simple: the Supreme Court’s decision is reigning prominently in the government. If a government employee attempts to stifle this cause with outward bigotry and a distinct resistance to helping same-sex couples, they will be arrested and given a fair trial. The government isn’t messing around.
She is not a government employee, she is an elected official.
And as an elected official she took an oath to upload the constitution. She cannot decide based on her religious belief to deny someone any right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. And by the way, elected officials are considered employees of the government. The are paid an income and receive benefits like any other employee.
“If Davis isn’t allowed to practice her beliefs in her government position, should other religious practices be prohibited as well? Can Muslim women still wear their hijabs to work at the DMV? Can Jewish men still wear a yarmulke to their job at the post office?”
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Here are fair comparisons:
Is Davis allowed to wear a cross? Yes.
Can a Muslim who works at the DMV refuse to issue driver’s licenses to women if her religious beliefs don’t allow women to drive? Can Jewish men who work for the post office refuse to serve women if their religion beliefs don’t allow them to have any contact with women who aren’t their wives/mothers/daughters?
No.
I’m sirry, but you are greatly mistaken and evidently quite biased in your editorial comments. First of all, there is not a single federal law on the books granting same sex couples the right to marry. There is a court decision. Which court by the way in 1857 ruled that black.pee were oroperty, and not entitled to rights granted under the constitution. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. The 10th amendment specifically states that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the ststes. There has never been a federal marriage license. It is a state license. Secondly the clerk is not a federal employer, she is a state employee. Finaklt, yoyr choice of the term bigoted in referencing her shows your true colors. “If you don’t believe like me you are a bigot, a racist or whatever other term the liberals chose to use at the time. You and they want one way tolerance. You need to study up on constitutional law and maybe read the Constitution.
Have you read your comment? Please fix, my eyes hurt.
First of all the lady is as servant of God and the state have employed her to serve the US.
Who should she serve – providentially, placed there by God she is serving the UK and Kentucky. If she is dismissed or sent to Jail then the US must face the consequences. She is a good witness for the Lord Jesus Christ and the gospel. May many people learn from this. It is better to obey God than do foolishly and follow the way of men who defy the living God. Remember the 3 Hebrew children, Shardack, Mesheck and Abednigo they were commended for their actions of refusing to carry our the order of the King who ordered them to worship an image, on pain of being burned in the fiery furnace. They were cast into the furnace for disobeying the authority but the lord stood by them, as He will this girl Kim and others. It was good for me to see her in action.
Daniel
16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+3&version=KJV
First of all the lady is as servant of God and then secondarily the state, who have employed her to serve the US. She is serving the state whilst she serves the Lord.
Who should she serve first, if there is a conflict ? – providentially she was placed there by God she is serving Kentucky.
If she is dismissed, or sent to Jail, then the US must face the consequences.
She is a good witness for the Lord Jesus Christ and the gospel.
May many people learn from this. It is better to obey God than do foolishly and follow the ways of men, who have defied the living God.
Remember the 3 Hebrew children, Shardach, Meshech and Abednego (Daniel 3 16) they were commended, in the bible, for their actions of refusing to carry our the order of the King who ordered them to worship an image, on pain of being burned in the fiery furnace.
They were cast into the furnace for disobeying the authority but the lord stood by them, as He will this girl Kim and others. It was good for me to see her in action.
Daniel 3
16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+3&version=KJV
First of all the lady is a servant of God and then secondarily the state, who have employed her to serve the US. She is serving the state whilst she serves the Lord.
Who should she serve first, if there is a conflict ? – providentially she was placed there by God she is serving Kentucky.
If she is dismissed, or sent to Jail, then the US must face the consequences.
She is a good witness for the Lord Jesus Christ and the gospel.
May many people learn from this. It is better to obey God than do foolishly and follow the ways of men, who have defied the living God.
Remember the 3 Hebrew children, Shardach, Meshech and Abednego (Daniel 3 16) they were commended, in the bible, for their actions of refusing to carry our the order of the King who ordered them to worship an image, on pain of being burned in the fiery furnace.
They were cast into the furnace for disobeying the authority but the lord stood by them, as He will this girl Kim and others. It was good for me to see her in action.
Daniel 3
16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+3&version=KJV
With corrections
When publications, even publications with a limited and targeted circulation seek to influence community and institutional values by advocating one side of a controversial issue through an editorial, the writers should be held to a standard of avoiding intermingling opinion and fact in so that the latter seems to lend credibility to the former. Sadly, your piece “Kim Davis and the separation of church and state” with a byline of “Editors” does the opposite. The widespread sharing on social media appears to have expanded exposure many-fold over it’s probable intended audience. Therefore, I am compelled to direct attention to the clarification of the facts to the exclusion of insinuated coupling with your opinion.
In the third paragraph of the piece, you correctly assert that Kim Davis as an elected official -( she did not “choose to work” for Rowan County, she was elected with 53% of of the vote) must uphold “the law of the land”. District Court orders and a 1 vote margin in a SCOTUS ruling are NOT the law of the land! Only legislative bodies, in the case of a Federal Law, Congress and only Congress can enact “the law of the land”.
In paragraph 12, you write that “no other federal employee —-“. Kim Davis is IN NO WAY a federal employee.
She was elected by her fellow Rowan County residents, most likely because she shares their values, as do
(as you suggest) most Kentuckians and many 2016 POTUS candidates. Both of these disinformation citations,
as well as suggesting that Davis must pay the penalty for her “crimes” ,(paragraph 5), and that “the government isn’t messing around”, (last paragraph), and in the very telling paragraph 8, suggests that the US
protect the beliefs of “the collective” over those of the individual. Not only is that just an opinion, it is untrue. If one defines the collective as the majority, most surveys indicate that the majority of US citizens identify with Christianity, and do not consider themselves as a “collective”.
You assert in paragraph 8, that a blurred line separates church and state. However this is only partially true, and most of the blurring is intentional, (as in “spin”) action by factions with agendas. There is NO LINE separating the moral values of the Church and the State, because they have become one and the same by unilateral decree of the State and acquiescence by a complacent plurality of obedient American citizenry.
Americans will soon learn that all of the controversy surrounding moral issues is simply a tool being used
to further establish “The Collective” as the ideal society, and an all powerful Central Government as the Ultimate Authority in all matters. History teaches that ALL past civilizations following such paths have suffered long periods of oppressive tyranny. The US is no exception. A group of strong individuals make a
Strong people. A group of dependent and obedient individuals is just that, and no more.
The Supreme Court’s rulings are the law of the land, contrary to what some comments are suggesting. Please see Citizens United, the recent decision on the Voting Rights Act, and the last few hundred years of US history. If you don’t like their rulings you can elecft officials to put in to place new laws.
Ms. Davis is a government employee just like the president is a government employee just like any elected official is a government employee.
Separation of church and state. If you swear to uphold the consitution it comes before the bible, the torah, the koran, or whatever else you believe. You can move to a country where religion and government are combined if you don’t like it. Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan may be a good place for you to look into moving.
first of all, there is a seperation of church and state. If her religion is getting in the way of making decisions she is wrong. If this ever gets allowed, christians and every other faith is in jeopardy. Leave it alone or we are all in trouble. The law is the law. Abide by it or evryone will suffer. Religion has no place in Government. She needs to be impeached or resign. She can go work for the church she so much loves. Not all Americans believe in her faith and should not be controld by it. If this is also the case, then all religions will have the power in government to make rules which is not what we want in this country.
IMPEACH THIS IDEOLOGY Witch.
Enough is enough