Kentucky Clerk Jailed

[KeithE]

.

My solution to this issue is that she should be given status as a “conscientious objector” just like the military grants pacifists the right to avoid military service. Someone else in the office or in adjoining county offices can issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and she can continue to work granting opposite sex couples. No need for jail.

Simple and consistent with how the military handles faith issues.

[William Thornton]

Judge offered that alternative but she refused to grant the 4 out of 5 deputy clerks who were willing to grant licenses (clerk's son is the one who would not) authority to sign licenses; hence, jail.

For perspective, should a judge refuse to sign divorce decrees because he/she has a religious objection to the divorce that meets state law but does not meet his personal reigious test?

[KeithE]

Yeah I realized that the judge offered that out to Kim Davis (namely she could assign someone in her office do the same-sex licenses) and she refused that. But those in her office and/or nearby offices could (if authorized by higher authority) just do them themselves w/o her blessing and Kim could stand by her conscientious objector status. I hate to see anyone go to jail over a religious belief (that is not materially harming someone else - same-sex couples can go elsewhere).

I think she is wrong to not sign licenses, but religious liberty should be honored and can be with some creative thought in this case.

Your example (divorce) is a good one. I would think that any Christ-follower would be more apt to object to signing divorce decrees since Jesus spoke to that (not same-sex marriage or even homosexuality). There is a difference in my mind in being a Christ-follower or a Paul-follower or an OT law-follower. We know a judge here in Huntsville, who tenaciously fights granting divorce decrees.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]

With the Liberty University Law School providing legal representation and the Family Research Council providing funding, this is clearly a test case that has little to do with Mrs. Davis. She is being well-coached on her responses to provoke a legal challenge (and probably well-paid for her time in jail).

[Tim Bonney]

I don't see how it violates her religious convictions to sign a license. She isn't performing the wedding. She is just certifying by her signature that they are eligible to get married under KY law. She isn't certifying that she agrees with it, wants them to get married, or believes in same sex couples getting marriage.

There is no protection for her religion to trump the religion of the person getting the license. There is no protection for any of us to force our religious convictions on someone else.

What she is claiming as religious conviction is religious coercion on others. There is no protection for that and shouldn't be.

If she gets away with this then clerks who don't like black people getting married or mixed raced couples getting married would have the same right not to sign based on their "religious convictions."

[Sandy]

This almost looks like a set up to create an issue for the cameras, and to set up a platform for some of the GOP candidates from the Christian right to try and get some traction, and improve their pitiful polling numbers. This incident, and the Planned Parenthood issue, seem to be almost tailor made to get the right wingers moving. This isn't the only place in the country where a county clerk has refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds, but it seems there are contingency plans in place in other places. Turning this into political capital cheapens the issue itself. It's not religious freedom that the candidates value, it's the poll numbers.

I believe Kim Davis, as a public official, has the right to refuse to do something on the job that she feels violates her conscience, and her Christian beliefs. This isn't the only place in the country where county clerks feel granting marriage licenses to same sex couples violates their religious beliefs. She should have a means of exercising her religious beliefs without having to sacrifice her job or go to jail. But someone in her office should be able to issue marriage licenses according to the law.

We live in a pluralistic society, and one in which everyone has protected civil, constitutional rights. In this case, we have people proclaiming that Christian rights are superior to other rights, and that someone's strong and sincere belief in God should take precedence over those who do not believe. But the right not to believe is equally protected. It has to be. If those who are not Christians are not protected, it won't be long before Christians aren't either.

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy,

I'm glad there are workarounds for others in similar situations. But some times I think standing for your religious rights might me you resign a job you can't do rather than beg off and get paid for a job you aren't doing. If she doesn't want to sign wedding licenses then she ought to look for other gainful employment as long as that is part of the stated job of the county clerk.

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

I do think it is likely a publicity stunt and Davis is the patsy that some far right organization, candidate or group is using. She sits in jail while they egg her on.

Its quite a stretch to try to claim that someone is in my office signing a document I don't want to sign violates my religious freedom. Even a conservative GW Bush appointed judge didn't buy that.

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

I know that early in my engineering career I was asked to work on a project that was objectable to me both on the basis of the phyiscal effects on the targets and the cause/country where it was to be used ( US had no business in that country). I objected on the basis of my faith and was merely moved to another project. Some castigation but no loss in job, pay, and no jail.

I see no reason why Ms Davis could not be treated similarly.

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

Another point in Kim Davis’s favor.



She may get accolades from some quarters but she has received a lot of grief as well as jail.

Once again there are simple solutions.

[KeithE]

Well she has been released and can return to the job, because the deputy clerks are obeying the law (so says the judge who released her).

The marriage licenses that have occurred while she was in prison will remain valid.

IMO, future SSM marriage licenses out of the office should strike her name off of the license if she still objects. Reasonable accommodation while allowing the marriages to go forward.

It is that simple. But both sides want the media attention and that would be too dull. Huckabee/Cruz need airtime and CNN needs to fill the time and the Liberty Counsel/ ACLU all wants to make public statements.

[Tim Bonney]

I disagree Keith with removing the clerks name from forms in KY simply because one clerk in the state objects to a single law. She is way off base. Her signature or name never meant she approved of the marriage. It only meant that those getting the license were following the law. The entire system shouldn't change for one person who is refusing to do her job.

[William Thornton]

It is a simple and reasonable accommodation for the clerk's office to issue licenses but without her personal signature. All couples who meet the statutory requirements get their license. I can't see how anything or anyone is harmed.

[KeithE]