Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Kim Davis and Faith in the Workplace
Kim Davis, the court clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples is going to jail for contempt of court. Her reasons for refusing to do so are because, in her own words, “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”
So quit your job, Kim. Problem solved.
I worked for ten years as a commercial/advertising photographer, and there were jobs I turned down on moral and religious grounds. I took a hit in the wallet for doing so, but I walked away with a clear conscience and good feeling knowing that there were just some things I would not do for money. Come to think of it, I’ve had moral qualms of one kind or another at just about every job I’ve had because I’m surrounded by people who don’t share my convictions. It’s not that I was asked to do anything illegal, but in every job, there are corners that can be cut and rules that can be bent. There were/are some lines I will not cross.
Yes, it’s more difficult to act like a Christian now than it was in, say, 1957 or thereabouts. However, how difficult was it for Paul, Barnabas, Aquila, Priscilla, et al., to live their lives in a culture and legal system that offered them no help whatsoever when it came to taking a stand for Christ? Despite that hostile environment, an environment in which thousands were killed for their beliefs, Christianity flourished and covered all of the Roman empire and the world. Maybe we need to take a long, hard look at the relationship between our faith, our culture, and our politics, and ask ourselves which of the three is truly most important in our lives.
Published in General
It’s Kim’s fault. She should have gotten advice from Jeh Johnson on how to avoid/evade contempt-of-court orders.
This only works when one works for President Obama.
its all marriages that she developed religious sensibilities against.
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Kentucky-clerks-object-to-ruling-halt-marriage-licenses-310716881.html
She is a elected Democrat politician. Since when did rules every apply to them? She must be truly bewildered. Year after year of working in the same position. A law unto herself as she stretches, ignore and enforce rules and laws to her own pleasure and whim. Then wham, here is a rule she must follow. Of course she did as she always did which is what most the Dems in office do, ignore it. Now she is in the center of the controversy, being sent to jail and trying to figure out how to spin it to her own political and financial betterment. It is always odd to watch the occasional Dem falling out of favor. It happens so seldom.
A couple unrelated points:
First, there has evidently been a change in this woman’s life. She’s a convert whose pre-conversion life did not match her new principles. All that stuff about her past divorces, etc? It’s irrelevant even to evaluating the sincerity of her convictions. People change, and evidently she has. That might explain how someone with her opinions is a Democrat, too. She probably started out as a more or less typical liberal.
Second, there are two separate issues which should not be conflated. The first one is whether the state of Kentucky should provide some accommodation to people like Kim Davis. I see absolutely no reason they cannot and strong reason why they should. It is neither expensive nor burdensome. It involves putting someone else’s name on a certificate. There are probably lengths the state can’t go, but this is straightforward. That’s the model we want businesses to follow as much as possible; it makes sense for the government to do it as well. The other question is what Kim Davis should do if the government won’t provide that accommodation. That decision affects primarily Kim Davis. I’m not in her shoes; I can’t say exactly what she should do.
But saying she should resign — and maybe she should — does not take away the point that Kentucky can and should accommodate her so that it does not reach that point.
Also remember when all these mayors were marring Gay couples and trying to make it official in their city? They never went to prison for contempt of court and one was the Mayor of San Francisco a city of a few hundred thousand. I never thought I would see the day were a Democrat has more moral courage than every single elected Republican official in the Republic.
I completely disagree, she is making the completely wrong argument for her stance but she is upholding the law therefore the rules. The Supreme court decisions itself is not the Law. The written law and especially state constitutions directly voted on by the people should always overrule common law.
Only one state Hawaii and maybe you can claim Massachusetts actually followed the laws of the land to make Gay marriage legal. Claiming there is a law by Judicial Fiat is the definition of lawlessness when you have a constitution that says otherwise.
This is what you don’t get Supreme court only has power because every other single elected officials are moral cowards and let them get away with it. They say look we can’t help it they 5 nu-elected lawyers said we are wrong even though the law passed per the currently written law in the Constitution says otherwise. The courts power is what they have given themselves and we the people have only given it to them be putting our heads in the sand not voting on it. Only a small portion of their power was every voted on and passed by the people (via there elected representatives).
I think it’s likely that, having been elected to the post, she feels the weight of support from a majority of constituents in her county, who would be socially conservative. Quitting could feel like letting them down. There could be more than just making a call on personal financial circumstances. Aside from that, quitting also usually has very negative implications when it comes time to ask for unemployment.
I almost want to ask why the aggrieved gay couples sued her, an individual, rather than the government department that was allowing their rights to be violated by keeping her in the position. It seems unfair to go after the weak link in the chain when the local government has some obvious culpability
Also, again, this is a separate issue from whether the state should be putting her in this position in the first place. My inclination is to think that very likely she should resign on principle (though I’m not convinced and there are other arguments — like yours) — but the question of what Kim Davis should do is comparatively irrelevant to most of us. What Kentucky should do is very relevant indeed.
Yo Frank – You aren’t quoting me here, you are quoting WC. Please fix your comment #119
She has been given an accommodation for her religious convictions (being that her deputy clerks are issuing the licenses and she is not compelled to do so).
Looks like the first victory for rights of conscience in this matter since the war opened via the battle of Elane Photography v Willock in 2006.
Would you care to reconsider your opinion?
I’ll bet President Hillary could make this work, too.
welcome to the new GOPe(tm). no courage, gonads and spine needed.
unknown – it isn’t like we are getting the unadulterated story from the legacy media. I know she is not compelled to issue them herself.
She commanded her staff not to issue them; five our of six were ready to do it; only her son refused.
Nepotism! Just like the Clintons.
Those who say she should resign if she can’t do her duty are Bad People.
Those who say she should resign if she can’t do her duty and then go and work hard to make sure that there is room for religion in society by supporting painful cutbacks in government spending so there will be plenty of jobs she can go to that are even better than the county clerk job are Good People.
It all depends on where you put the period.
Agreed, and if she had made this argument then I would have supported her (or at least recognized the legitimacy of her position). As it is, civil marriage is not religious marriage and issuing a SSM license neither impedes her religious practice nor forces others’ religion on her.
Most versions of Christian also view gambling as immoral. Should such a person also be exempted from issuing gambling licenses as duly authorized by the state legislature? No, the only position with any solidity is that her state legislature hasn’t issued new law.
They sued her because she was the government official denying them their (newly minted) constitutional rights. I don’t know who else they could have sued.