Kim Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court of the United States created a right for same-sex couples to marry in all 50 states (and at this point refuses to issue any marriage licenses at all). The reason? It violates her conscience and Christian faith. She was sued and lost. A request for a stay on the decision was even sent to the U.S. Supreme Court and denied. As an elected official, she can’t be fired. But she can be impeached, fined, and even jailed for her refusal to carry out her state-mandated duties.
I must say that I am amazed Kim Davis is standing alone on this issue. Surely there are thousands of Christians employed across our nation to perform the same job as Kim Davis, and yet Kim Davis is the only person who has the courage to stand by her convictions. Perhaps others quit in protest, but I imagine that most Christians just went along with the program.
Of course, this invites a critical question: Do Christians have a moral obligation to refrain from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Does issuing a license make one complicit in their moral crime? I’m not sure where I fall on this, but I tend to think not. As I see it, the moral crime is in the homosex, not the legal identification of their relationship as a “marriage.” Since the marriage license is not connected to their homosex (surely the couple has been engaging in homosexual relations prior to their anticipated “marriage”), I don’t see how issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple is morally relevant.
This assumes that the marriage itself is not a moral issue. This is where Christians will disagree. My current thinking on the matter is that marriage, by nature, is a male-female institution. Same-sex relationships can never be marriages. Same-sex marriage is just a legal fiction. The law can consider two people of the same-sex to be “married,” but they do not have a real marriage. It would be similar to the law recognizing adults who self-identify as babies rather than adults. If the government calls them a “baby” or considers them a baby for legal purposes, this does nothing to change the fact that they are adults, not babies. A clerk who signed their “baby certificate” may get a good laugh from their self-deception, but there is no moral wrong involved. Similarly, while the law may call the same-sex relationship a “marriage,” it is not a marriage. It is a legal fiction. I don’t see how it is morally wrong to issue a government warrant for creating a legal fiction. The nature of the same-sex relationship does not change just because they receive a marriage license. It never becomes a marriage. While the government should not sanction same-sex relationships by creating the legal fiction of same-sex marriage, I don’t see how a clerk giving them a license for this legal fiction is complicit in any moral wrong. The only potential wrong I can see is that it would be perceived as the clerk’s endorsement of the relationship, which a Christian cannot do. But this is a weak argument. When opposite-sex couples apply for a marriage license and the clerk issues it, the couple doesn’t walk out of the office thinking, “Wow, I’m so glad that clerk approves of our marriage. Perhaps we should invite her to the wedding.” It’s understood that the clerk is just doing her job. She is not offering her approval of the marriage. If you disagree, and think that it is morally wrong for Christians to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, I would like to hear your case.
For me, the more important issue is the issue of conscience. Even if one is not morally required to refrain from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, if they cannot do so in good conscience, they should not be required to do so. I am appalled that the state can force someone to violate their conscience or lose their job. What happened to religious exemptions and conscientious objections? It is a scary thing to see the trajectory we are headed in. The rights of people of faith and conscience are being denied. Religious liberty is diminishing quickly in this country.
September 3, 2015 at 10:21 am
Jason:
BREAKING NEWS: 10:14, 03SEP2015
The judge has just ordered Kim Davis to be taken into custody.
I understand that one of the arguments Kim Davis objects to is because the marriage license actually shows her name on the license but of course as you correctly point out that it is merely a designated part of the issuance process and has no moral implications to her beliefs. To have the Clerk’s name affixed to the marriage license is the same process of currency notes to bear the signature of the Treasurer as part of the process regardless of what they use the money to buy that may or may not be for illicit purchases.
Now regarding religious liberty and conscience; it is worth noting that a grocery clerk after being hired as a Costco cashier refused to check out customers with pork products and alcohol because of the cashier’s religious belief.
source:
http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/muslim-costco-employee-refuses-to-touch-pork-sues-after-getting-transferred-to-different-department.html/
LikeLike
September 3, 2015 at 11:09 am
When it comes to religious liberty and religious conscience, most people in our country know little to nothing about what is actually taking place in the USA, but same sex marriage licenses are the least of the USA worries in my estimation.
A WORDPRESS video on religious conscience violations taking place on a silent but large, USA Government funded religious resettlement program.
LikeLike
September 3, 2015 at 4:07 pm
If it’s not morally wrong , then why should their conscience bother them ? Shouldn’t a pastor or older christian counsel them , and show them how it’s not immoral to issue the paperwork . That way they don’t regret losing a good job .
The only way I can see it differently would be if she felt God wanted her to do what she’s doing, even though it’s not wrong , but just that God had a specific purpose for her. Yet Christians in General could issue the license with Gods approval. Otherwise why should your conscience bother you if your not doing anything immoral. Could it be that Christian leaders have taught against same sex marriage in such a way as to misinform the members . So they think they are standing up for the truth by not issuing a license , yet God doesn’t really care about a states marriage contract. I hope she doesn’t regret her actions 6 months from now. Then again if God is specifically directing her then she will be fine, for obeying .
LikeLike
September 3, 2015 at 4:39 pm
Jason , Not clear on your position. You ask where are all the other Christians that should be standing with her, then say they probably just went along with the program. This seems to imply that they are wrong for doing so. This sounds like your supporting Kim Davis actions, then you go on to say that what the state is requiring her to do ( the issuing of license’s ) is not morally wrong, which would support those Christians who went along with the program and are not standing with her, and that Kim Davis is not acting reasonably.
Then end by saying it’s ok to take a stand not based on biblical truth, but based on your conscience . So your for her stand even though she is not being asked to do something morally wrong, or biblically wrong.
If it’s not morally wrong why does it bother your conscience , perhaps a better understanding of the bible would help her to understand the situation more clearly.
LikeLike
September 3, 2015 at 5:10 pm
Any Christians upset that your tax dollars go to support planned parenthood, and to Israel which has one of the largest pro Gay parades in world, and promotes itself as a safe haven for gays and good vacation spot for gays. How many Christians pay their taxes and buy products from companies that produce pornography and support gay rights and abortion? Support NFL teams that support gay issues. Yet you got your nickers in a twist over the issuing of paperwork. It’s simply a state contract, has nothing to do with a biblical marriage. Might want to investigate all the immoral companies your supporting.
LikeLike
September 3, 2015 at 7:46 pm
Let’s draw an analogy. A biochemist researcher is assigned by her employers at the CDC to work on developing a vaccine for a deadly disease such as Leishmaniasis. She’s thoroughly competent in her work. But when she realizes that among her duties in the course of this work shall be to personally terminate the lives of the rodents used in her experiments using well- established, procedural, medical protocols she balks claiming this violates her conscience and religious practices against cruelty to animals. Should she be allowed to refuse this part of her assignment but remain on the job resulting in the CDC needing to add additional personnel at additional cost to accommodate her? Or should the CDC terminate her employment finding her deficient in performance; then secure a qualified replacement who fulfills all required job tasks associated with this assignment? We’re speaking basically about a contractual arrangement here. An employee agrees to perform certain prescribed tasks in return for monetary compensation plus associated benefits. Either party violates the agreement upon failure to fulfill all terms of the contract which can cause termination of the relationship. In this case and the one involving Ms. Davis the deficiency in performance stems from the religious conviction of the employee. Ms. Davis seeks First Amendment protection to allow her to remain on the job while decidedly refusing to complete all her assigned tasks rather than voluntarily removing herself from this position asserting that it violates her conscience and dedication as she puts it to the Word of God.
* “The correct understanding of the First Amendment is not that it forbids contact – and even voluntary cooperation – between church and state. Rather, it protects private religious liberty, but does so in two complimentary ways. In a nutshell, government may neither compel nor prohibit religious exercise. The Establishment Clause side of the coin says that government may not prescribe religious exercise; the Free Exercise side says that government may not proscribe, disfavor or otherwise punish or prevent religious exercise voluntarily chosen by the people. But the two phrases are two sides of the same coin. It is little wonder, then, that the Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor ‘separation of church and state.’ It simply does not help explain the true meaning of the First Amendment.
‘The different understanding makes a difference in results. Under a separation view, government must discriminate against religion, reject school choice ‘voucher’ plans that include religious options, and extirpate religious references and symbols from public discourse. Under the original meaning of the Constitution, government must protect religious choices and include religious persons, groups, and speakers on an equal basis. It may recognize and accommodate religion, AS LONG AS (emphasis added) it does not in effect compel persons to engage in religious exercises or practices against their will – the hallmark of what an “establishment of religion” was understood to mean at the time the framers wrote the First Amendment.'”
As of now it looks like Ms. Davis will have her day in court.
* Excerpt from:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1920/
LikeLike
September 3, 2015 at 9:08 pm
Marriage is not a thing , but rather a verb .Marriage is not something that you get but instead something you do .This is the manner by which you cherish your companion consistently. www[dot]samb[dot]at/HckEQ
LikeLike
September 3, 2015 at 10:25 pm
JTG,
Paul addresses this in Romans 14. There are people whose conscience is weak. For Paul, his concern was not whether they were right or wrong, but that they do not violate their conscience.
I agree that they should be counseled, but ultimately, the issue here is not whether or not their conscience is properly informed, but whether they should be able to act according to their conscience.
I can see how that was confusing. I am presuming that many other Christians agree with Kim Davis that signing these licenses is wrong, but they are doing so anyway. That’s what I find shocking – that they are willing to violate their conscience, even if their conscience is misinformed in my opinion.
Jason
LikeLike
September 3, 2015 at 10:25 pm
Julia,
It’s true that marriage is something you do, but that does not mean it’s not a thing. A marriage is an agreement. The “doing” part is the keeping of that agreement.
Jason
LikeLike
September 3, 2015 at 10:34 pm
Frank, the freedom of religion and the liberty of conscience is a basic, natural right. And our country has historically protected that right except in the most extreme cases with more-than-sufficient justification. When abortion was legalized, doctors were not told that they must either perform abortions or get out of the industry. They were allowed to opt out based on religious and conscientious objections because we prized religious freedom and freedom of conscience. We found a happy medium that allowed those who wanted abortions to get them, but not to get them from any and every doctor. So why can’t the same be done with county clerks? Out of every 100 marriage licenses they issue, only 2-3 will be for same-sex couples. Why can’t they say that if a county clerk does not want to issue such licenses because it violates their faith/conscience, they do not have to do so, but the county must provide an alternative means of issuing the license (having another person in the office who is authorized to do so, or having another county office issue it)? They aren’t accommodating in this way because they don’t want to. They don’t care about religious freedom and the liberty of conscience. What they care about is forcing everyone to comply with their vision or else. And that is what I object to. There’s a way to accommodate both same-sex couples and conscientious objectors, but they choose not to do so.
Jason
LikeLike
September 3, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Ok, I understand your view more clearly now. I would say my concern is whether or not her pastor is giving her good advise ( since her view represents the conscience of a weaker believer) or rather if he is encouraging her to fight a fight that doesn’t need to be fought in this manner. Is she truly being led or is FB and other media from Christians that support her, influencing her. We can think we are championing a righteous cause but be mistaken . I pray her spiritual influences are not just some unwise cheerleaders.
LikeLike
September 4, 2015 at 5:32 am
Jason,
I am a little confused with the consistency of your logic.
Firstly, from the baker story a while back, you seemed to be adamant that writing a message on a cake supporting same-sex marriage should be refused as it suggests endorsement, but now, having your name on the legal document doesn’t have the same connotations?
Or have I missed something?
Your comment to JTG side-steps the issue entirely and would be the easiest thing for the law to do, but then the enemy (Satan for those wondering) is at work isn’t he?
LikeLike
September 4, 2015 at 8:53 am
Jason,
Compromise often proves fruitful and might even be considered commendable. Surely, American society and American jurisprudence provide ample demonstrations. Although it can be a bitter pill one is forced to swallow. I do agree that the God of the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman but as the Bible also teaches we are to recognize and adhere to human government as well while still understanding because it’s composed of humanity it can be sinful. Thankfully our society does have workable mechanisms at least to attempt to resolve such differences as those presented by this matter. We order civil society, God judges & forgives sin. Matthew 22:15-22
– Frank
LikeLike
September 4, 2015 at 9:51 am
JTG:
“The only way I can see it differently would be if she felt God wanted her to do what she’s doing, even though it’s not wrong , but just that God had a specific purpose for her.”
I don’t know why this would make her position any different since she would still only be acting on a “belief”. I mean justified true belief is still a belief nonetheless, not knowledge, unverifiable by any means and while rain dances, chants and prayers persist, these are still beliefs and ‘no hour of
meditation in a music-throbbing chapel’ ever ended a drought and only food mitigates hunger.
Said Mahatma Gandhi: ‘There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.’
LikeLike
September 5, 2015 at 4:44 pm
Did Kim Davis refuse marriage licenses to those men and women who were on their 2nd marriages? Should a Christian building inspector refuse to issue a building permit for a strip club? If Kim Davis wants to make a moral stand, she must resign.
I think you are right about this Jason. Christians are told to be moral, but I don’t see Scriptural support for requiring others to follow our beliefs about morality.
Randy
LikeLike
September 6, 2015 at 12:31 pm
Anything can be moral or immoral on Divine Command Theory if that happens to be the scapegoat of convenient choice. Christians use it to assert their views and beliefs to absolve themselves and condemn others, Muslims use it to crush Christians and all infidels or non Muslims, Orthodox Judaism maintains that the Torah and Jewish law are divine in origin, eternal and unalterable, and that they should be strictly followed. Reform Judaism. A typical Reform position is that Jewish law should be viewed as a set of general guidelines rather than as a set of restrictions and obligations whose observance is required of all Jews.
Each Religion practices their own Brand of Absolute Certainty and for their religious adherence justify forsaking humanity.
Witness the European Migrant Crisis; some Christians argue against accepting migrants fleeing war-torn Muslim countries because Europe is a Christian community and the mostly Muslim migrants will dilute that aspect of European comfort. Imagine!
From where I sit, one thing is absolutely certain and that is “humanity” can unite humans, religion will not!
Humanity Unites Humans (HUH).
LikeLike
September 6, 2015 at 3:02 pm
By Emanuella Grinberg and Carma Hassan, CNN
Updated 4:07 PM ET, Sun September 6, 2015
A Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith.
In a bid to get her job back, Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.
She wants to do her job without serving alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith — just as she was doing before her suspension, her lawyer said.
“What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it’s incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely,” said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.
She approached her supervisor on June 1 and was told to work out an arrangement for someone to fulfill passenger requests for alcohol.
“It was at the direction of the airlines that she began coordinating with the other flight attendant on duty so that when a passenger requested alcohol, the other flight attendant would accommodate that request,” Masri said. “We know that this arrangement has worked beautifully and without incident and that it hasn’t caused any undue burden on the airline. After all, it was the suggestion of the airline.”
It seemed to be working out until another flight attendant filed a complaint against Stanley on August 2 claiming she was not fulfilling her duties by refusing to serve alcohol, Masri said. The employee complaint also said Stanley had a book with “foreign writings” and wore a headdress.
On August 25, the airline sent a letter to Stanley informing her that it was revoking its religious accommodation to exclude her from service of alcohol and placing her on administrative leave.
“They placed her on unpaid leave and they advised her that her employment may be terminated after 12 months,” Masri said. “We are requesting that her employment be reinstated and the accommodation of her religious beliefs be reinstated as well.”
A spokesman for ExpressJet declined to discuss Stanley’s complaint.
“At ExpressJet, we embrace and respect the values of all of our team members. We are an equal opportunity employer with a long history of diversity in our workforce. As Ms. Stanley is an employee, we are not able to comment on her personnel matters,” spokesman Jarek Beem said in an email.
Other flight attendants do not want to take on the extra workload to accommodate Stanley.
Sorry Ms Stanley ask CAIR for an Attendant job in a Muslim McDonalds in Dearborn, MI; Oh yeah, I forgot McDonalds dropped halal chicken products from their USA Menus including Dearborn after a Muslim employee sued McDonalds when McDonalds served normal chicken nuggets after they ran out of the halal nuggets. McDonalds paid a settlement of $700,000.00. The employee Ahmed who ratted out McDonalds got $20,000.00, the rest went to attorney fees and Muslim Charities.
Halal is the Muslim equivalent of Kosher, requiring that meat be prepared according to Islamic religious guidelines, such as reciting a prayer while the animal is cut. OMG.
LikeLike
September 12, 2015 at 10:16 pm
Hi Scottspeig, I don’t recall what I said about the baker, and I’m too lazy to go back and look. 🙂 Perhaps my views have changed. The only thing I remember being adamant about is attending same-sex weddings. I do think that is showing endorsement. In my opinion, the situation of bakers, photographers, and florists is not that lending their services for a same-sex wedding shows endorsement. The question is whether it makes them complicit in their immorality. Personally, I’m not convinced that it does. But I am convinced that those whose conscience does not allow them to do so because they think it does make them complicit, should be allowed to refuse their services.
Jason
LikeLike
September 13, 2015 at 12:16 pm
Re: Post # 17 —
She wants to do her job without serving alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith – just as she was doing before her suspension, her lawyer said.
“What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it’s incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely,” said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Ms. Masri and the rest of CAIR need to seriously re-evaluate their perspective. What about having to choose between your life and your God? Where’s their moral outrage over that? Or maybe they just can’t see the forest for the trees?
LikeLike
September 13, 2015 at 4:34 pm
POst 19:
LikeLike
September 13, 2015 at 4:35 pm
LikeLike
September 15, 2015 at 5:48 pm
Re: post # 20:
This is a long time coming —
LikeLike
September 15, 2015 at 6:55 pm
Re: post # 21 —
When you’re full of yourself all you’ve got is voodoo.
LikeLike