Kim Davis Is Not a Martyr

Kim Davis is a profoundly selfish woman. The Kentucky Court Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses the Monday after the Supreme Court gave its controversial 5-4 verdict on same-sex marriage. Four couples who were denied licenses promptly sued Davis. Federal Judge David Bunning ruled that Davis must issue or permit a clerk in her office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Both the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to hear her case. On September 3^rd, Judge Bunning held Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to jail.

Davis alleges that her Apostolic Christian beliefs prevents her from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Conservatives have argued that jailing Davis is a violation of her religious beliefs and is judicial tyranny. Davis testified in court that “You can’t be separated from something that’s in your heart and in your soul.” She strongly believes that marriage licenses with her name on those licenses to same-sex couples would be a violation of her religious beliefs.    

I believe it’s perfectly acceptable for any individual, Christian or otherwise, to express their religious views. That is a Constitutional right every individual in this country has under the 1^st Amendment. However, Davis cannot impose her views on others and she cannot use her office as an extension of her views. She is put in jail not because she disagrees with same-sex marriage, but because she openly refuses to obey the law. That is why she is rightfully held in contempt of court.

Davis Is Not Exercising Her Religious Beliefs

Many of Davis’s supporters have compared her to Marther Luther King Jr., who went to jail rather than conform to Jim Crow laws that were unjust. They allege that the Supreme Court’s ruling is unjust and therefore Davis has a right to resist an out of control judiciary.

The comparison is wrong. Dr. King had only two options: conform or go to jail. He made a political statement by going to prison. In contrast, Davis has other options besides conformity or jail sentence. She can delegate the task to a lower clerk and she would never personally have to interact with homosexuals. She can resign, and she would never have to put her name on a same-sex marriage license. Davis willingly declined reasonable offers to work with her beliefs. Davis does not seek to protect her religious beliefs; instead, she wishes that same-sex couples be denied their right to marriage under the 14^th amendment. Davis is no Dr. King.

The comparison between Jim Crow and the Supreme Court’s verdict on same-sex marriage is absurd. Jim Crow laws rendered African Americans second-class citizens. They were forced to the back of the bus, prohibited from holding public office, or even from voting. In contrast, there are multiple churches in every city across America, all of those churches are exempt from taxes, and every politician in the country is tripping over each other to declare their devotion to Jesus.

Christians are not being persecuted. Christians are not second-class citizens. In fact, Christians are the ruling class in the United States. Giving out marriage licenses to couples that certain Christians don’t like will barely make a change in this political reality.

County Clerk Tyranny

Judge Bunning explicitly asked Davis’s attorneys if she would permit clerks serving under her to issue marriage licenses so that she wouldn’t have to issue the licenses herself. Davis said no, that merely having her name on the licenses would be a violation of her beliefs. Given that Davis is an elected official and can only be terminated by impeachment, she could prevent any clerk in her office from issuing marriage licenses. According to Davis’s own statements in court, she would prohibit clerks from issuing licenses regardless of the clerk’s own views on same-sex marriage.

Of course, five of the six clerks in Davis’s office also share the same beliefs as their boss. The sixth clerk declined to state his religious beliefs. Although Davis has the right to express her religious beliefs, she cannot order others to do or not do something based on her religion. The fact that Davis would prevent the sixth clerk, or any other clerk, from issuing same-sex marriage licenses, even if those clerks fully supported same-sex marriage, shows that she only cares about her own beliefs. Davis has no regard for the beliefs of others. This is not a personality trait that our elected officials show hold.

Moreover, Davis acts as though she is the only public official to ever have a conflict with the law she swore to uphold. Every day, judges give out mandatory prison sentences for minor drug possession even though many judges feel such prison sentences are too harsh compared to prison sentences for child rape or terrorism. There are some judges who oppose the death penalty and yet will sentence a murderer to death based on a jury verdict. Judge Bunning himself is the son of a prominent Republican Senator and likely disagrees with the Supreme Court’s verdict on same-sex marriage himself.

Despite their disagreements, these judges are required to follow the law because they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Struggling with a conflict between personal views and public duty is normal for people in a position of power. If the burden becomes too much, public officials can take Justice Scalia’s advice and resign from office. But what these public officials cannot do is use their office as an extension of their personal views, regardless of whether those views are political or religious. Davis wants to keep her job and deny licenses to same-sex couples. If the conflict is too great, if Davis feels her office is separating her from “her heart and her soul,” then the proper course of action is to resign.