County Clerk Defies Federal, Appeals, And Scotus Court Orders Against Her, Invoking Her Faith And Religious Freedom

[Daniel2]

I can appreciate those of you who have expressed some level of sympathy with Ms. Davis’ conundrum, given that she ran for an office with a set of civil expectations and responsibilities, was elected to that office with a promise to uphold its duties, relies on the income, and now faces a difficult choice of having to step down from that office since law has acknowledged that same-sex couples have an equal constitutional claim to the right of civil marriage.  I am sure it would be hard to be faced with losing one’s livelihood, in the face of change.  But government officials are (or should be) aware that their job descriptions may change with new laws—from the ACLU:

 

In explaining the ACLU’s decision to file suit on the couples’ behalf, ACLU of Kentucky Cooperating Attorney Laura Landenwich stated, “Ms. Davis has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs.”

 

Commenting on the suit, the ACLU of Kentucky Executive Director Michael Aldridge stated, “When our laws are updated or changed, government officials have a duty and a responsibility to impartially administer those laws.”

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/04/1398752/-ACLU-Files-Class-Action-Suit-Against-Rowan-County-Clerk-In-KY-For-Marriage-Licenses-Refusal

 

Unfortunately for her, it appears that if she doesn’t comply, she could loose both her job, and face stiff fines for her defiance, instead of a choice to step down.  The ACLU, who is suing her for misconduct, has made it clear in their filing this morning that no one wants to see Ms. Davis incarcerated.  Rather, the consensus is that the best way to move forward would be to focus on the fines associated with insubordination:

 

The ACLU has filed a federal motion asking that Kim Davis be cited for contempt of court. The motion declares that the ACLU is not seeking to have Davis arrested. From the motion:

 

 

Plaintiffs have established a prima facia case, in that they have shown by sufficient evidence that Defendant Davis, in refusing to grant Plaintiffs Miller and Roberts a marriage license following the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of her most recent (and final) attempt to stay the August 12, 2015, preliminary injunction, has, in fact, violated a definite and specific order of this Court. Because Davis cannot show either that she is unable to comply with the August 12, 2015, order or that she has taken all reasonable steps to comply, this Court is left with no choice but to hold her in contempt. Plaintiffs do not seek to compel Davis’ compliance through incarceration. Since Defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform, Plaintiffs urge the the Court to impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous to compel Davis’ immediate compliance without further delay.

 

 

So far, the consensus of the answers posted seem to agree that while one may sympathize with Ms. Davis’ plight, as a government official, her constitutionally-protected “religious freedoms” do not extend to refusing to issue civil marriage licenses as required by her position.

 

The following editorial, which takes a similar stance (albeit with appeals to both logic and emotion), resonated with me--especially his discussion of The Liberty Counsel:

 

Gay Dad Sounds Off On Kentucky Clerk's Refusal To Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gay-dad-kim-davis_55e0b515e4b0aec9f3533664

 

By Rob Watson

Posted: 08/30/2015 08:30 AM EDT

 

Along the metaphorical highway on the journey to LGBT civil rights, there are many collisions. These are when willful ignorance runs headlong into justice. Few of these are as fascinating as the wreck taking place in Rowan County Kentucky. It seems we in the American public cannot help ourselves to rubber neck and gawk as a group of cold hearted counter people, led by a county clerk, deny a gay couple their marriage license.

 

A small melodrama has unfolded. The “good guys” are a couple of Davids — Moore and Ermold, who want to get married. After decades of LGBT progress, it is exactly in their legal rights to do so. The “villain” of the piece is a woman named Kim Davis who refuses to issue them a marriage license. She had denied the same to a second couple, James Yates and William Smith Jr.

 

The governor of the state has told her to comply with the request, as has a federal judge.

 

Her representation, the right wing Liberty Counsel, has told her to refuse as they create a high profile scene climbing the judicial appeal process. She calls her own homophobia “religious freedom,” the Liberty Counsel may call it a number of things, but what it really is to them is… profit.

 

As a gay dad, Ms. Davis’s behavior bothers me on multiple levels. I look at the messages not just to me, but to my kids and their counterparts in LGBT families across the nation. First and foremost is her attempt to disparage families such as mine and declare us invalid due to her own belief system. Her treatment of two prospective families is humiliating and demeaning. Kids who are in LGBT families, and kids who are LGBT themselves should not be sent this message that a government official would rather they simply not exist.

 

Second, however, is in her behavior. I am teaching my kids principles of responsibility and citizenship. Ms. Davis violates that principle at every turn.

 

I have written her a letter:

 

Dear Ms. Davis,

 

Over the past few months, I have been watching your reaction to the Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality for families such as mine. Your stance has been in equal parts disappointing and confusing.

 

I understand that you are angry that the fight for marriage equality did not go the way you had hoped. While I am pretty sure I will not be able to persuade you into liking the decision, as a public servant, I do expect you to respect it.

 

Respect is the key issue at hand, for you, and for the gay couples of whom you refuse to help. You are demanding a respect of your beliefs far beyond what is reasonable, and they are demanding respect for their ability to self-determine the course of their own lives. Unlike yours, their demands are not just reasonable; they are the way things should be.

 

Your demand that the terms of your job adhere to your own standards rather than the objective standards of law reminds me of how my 12-year old son would like rules applied. He would like for his brother, who is 13, and him to be able to go to the local pool unattended. The pool’s rule for unattended kids is 14 and older. Jesse applies his logic this way: “Dad. If you add both Jason’s and my ages, together we are 25. That’s the same thing.” (Imagine them trying that logic at the local dance bar.)

 

His logic and the rules are not the same thing. Neither is your desire and the rule you want to break on behalf of “your beliefs.”

 

I have to admit right up front that as a Christian myself; I do not understand the religious system you claim to have. Nowhere in the Bible does it demand that you impede the family of a same-sex couple. It does not imply that you should. The key principle of the golden rule, to do unto others as you would have do unto you, and Christ’s second great commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself,” absolutely are counter to your current behavior.

 

Much has been made of the fact that your own marriage license indicates you have been married multiple times. There are, theoretically, county clerks who would find your requests for re-marriage counter to Jesus’s directive on divorce. Would you react to them deeming YOU as “unmarryable” acceptable?

 

I wouldn’t, and I would defend you. I embrace Christ. I feel He has given us the awareness to understand that His directive in the discussion on divorce was to a specific time and place. His purpose was not to saddle people like you into hopeless permanent unions, but to protect women from destitution.

 

Even though I am confused as to your exact motivation, I ask that you reconsider your choices for a whole other reason. You set a horrendous example for young people, like my sons, who should be learning how to effectively co-exist with others in our society.

 

Your behavior reminds me of Jesse’s. He has a high sense of what he considers right and wrong just as he did about the pool, and when confronted by a situation holds his stand to the bitter end. Many times his stand it the correct and appropriate one. We get into trouble when it is not.

 

In those situations, he, like you, will want to only do what he wants, when he wants. It has taken many discussions and his growing maturity to understand that by being part of a team, a village, a country and by agreeing up front to the terms of engagement, he does not get to violate rules just because he wants to.  It is a lesson I wish you, too, would learn.

 

You also seem to share the need for life lessons around choosing with whom you associate. When Jesse is putting his foot down on something he needs to do, but doesn’t want to, he calls in his allies for credibility or support. “My friends don’t think that is fair!” Invariably those he calls upon to do the wrong thing have a vested interest. They want him to take the action, not for his well being, but because it serves their interests.

 

Such is your relationship with Liberty Counsel. As the Lexington Herald-Leader observes, the Liberty Counsel “describes itself as a nonprofit that provides pro bono legal representation related to “religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family,” funded by tax-deductible donations and grants. In 2012 those gifts reached just over $3.5 million and in 2013 topped $4.1 million, according to IRS filings.” They further point out that the group’s involvement with you is not because they even believe they can bring you satisfaction, but that “Liberty’s attorneys know they can’t win the case in Rowan County.

 

Same-sex marriage is legal since the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision and it’s Davis’ job to issue marriage licenses. So, why is Liberty Counsel marching alongside Davis in this losing cause? It takes a lot to keep that marketing machine humming and those executives paid, and the only way to keep those donations coming is to stay in the news. For that purpose a losing cause is just as good as, perhaps better than, a winning one.”

 

Liberty Counsel seeks to attract emotionally charged hate money from those wanting to harm all gay families, from those who would wish to criminalize homosexuality, from those who see gay marriage and abortion with equal passion. Just because they have rallied to your cause, they are not your friends either however. What they are doing to you is worse than what they will actually be able to affect towards LGBT families.

 

My wish is for you to take a deep look into what would make you the better person. Your “friends,” who themselves will reap millions, are telling you to hang out until the end where you will be potentially unemployed, and perceived globally as a selfish intolerant hypocrite who was cruel to her neighbors. If you succeed on your current plan at the behest of Liberty Counsel, they will make a lot of money and in a paradoxical way, you will be the loser.

 

This “Good Samaritan” friend is telling you to do the opposite: do your job, respect the people making their own life choices, and trust the God you profess to believe in that love will prevail in the end.

 

If you do that instead, the couples you are denying will get the licenses they wish. They will walk away with the thousands of protections they deserve.

 

You will walk away with dignity. History will not regard you as a hate filled martyr, but a woman who changed her mind, evolved and chose the path of compassion.

 

The Liberty Counsel won’t be able to use you for fund raising.

 

You won’t just cease to be a pawn by those seeking to profit from your disgruntled feelings. You will be the real winner.

 

A few years later, you will be walking down the street of your town. You will see a gloriously happy little girl holding the hand of her dad. She will smile at you, and give a little wink. As that visual “butterfly kiss” warms your heart, you will look to her father and realize that you know him. He is one of the men you originally tried to deny a marriage license. Your eyes will dart immediately back to the little girl… who will still be beaming at you.

 

In that moment, you will know without a doubt that you ultimately did the right thing.

 

 

Rob Watson is a writer for The Next Family and lives in Santa Cruz, California with his sons. 

 

Edited September 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

I've been accused of such before.  I expect it will happen again.  

 

I am socially libertarian at the core.  Despite my adherence to a personal standard that is very conservative, I allow others to govern themselves.

 

My greatest distaste is reserved for those who insist their personal beliefs be codified as public policy.  That allows me to disdain social conservatives and progressive socialists equally.

 

In my personal life I'm about as conservative as they come. But see the need for some means(Like good locks) to help honest people stay honest.

 

Just depends on what those personal beliefs are. We can't claim personal belief to violate the law. To do so on a wide spread basis results in nothing less than anarchy.

[Kenngo1969]

Since she is a government official, she is bound to follow state law whether she agrees with it or not (her personal convictions notwithstanding).  The same would be true if a police officer who has a libertarian bent had reservations about enforcing laws that criminalize marijuana sale, possession or use, or that criminalize prostitution.  He's entitled to his personal convictions, but he is bound to enforce the law as written whether he personally (dis)agrees with it or not.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Spammer]

God isn't her employer.  She's an elected official, working for the people of Kentucky and subject to federal law.  If she wants her employment to be governed by God's law then she should work for a church, not a secular arm of government over which somebody's private interpretation of God's law has no authority.  She should resign.

[CA Steve]

For anyone who thinks she has the right to refuse licenses based on her religious beliefs, would you hold the same opinion if her religious beliefs conflicted with your own? Say for example she thought polygamy should be legal because God commanded it. Would you support her decision if she was issuing licenses to polygamous couples?

 

She is a civil servant. She should be required to comply with the law regardless of her personal beliefs.

[ERayR]

In my personal life I'm about as conservative as they come. But see the need for some means(Like good locks) to help honest people stay honest.

 

Just depends on what those personal beliefs are. We can't claim personal belief to violate the law. To do so on a wide spread basis results in nothing less than anarchy.

 

We can but we have to accept the consequences.  It is an approach used by Ghandi.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am sorry what is there to discuss? She is wrong. Everyone knows that and so does she. She has no case and will be held in contempt.

[halconero]

I'm going to share a personal anecdote, and hope that the message I'm trying to convey is understood properly.

 

I was in an environmental ethics class this past summer, taught by a professor who not only teaches, but is quite involved with animal rights and environmental advocacy. He not only holds a sign, but has participated in illegal blockades of logging company roads, has sat down in front of the entrance to slaughter houses, and has been arrested numerous times. When addressing the action of protesting in one lecture he related his own personal views on illegal actions. I'll do my best to paraphrase him here:

"Of course I know what I'm doing is illegal, and I know that I'll be arrested. If I keep that inevitability in mind, it does me no good to resist, scream, or act surprised when the police come to remove me from what I'm doing. I believe that there is powerful symbolism in what I'm doing, powerful symbolism in being arrested, and powerful symbolism in letting it pacifically happen. Because of this, I actually have a very good relationship with the police officers in Toronto. They know who I am. They know I'm not going to resist violently, or get up in their face. We banter together when they come to pick me and my associates up, and even a few have converted to veganism because of my actions. I've never had a criminal arrest because my actions have generally been that of misdemeanors. In the one instance where I was roughed up quite a bit while being arrested, several police officers came to my defense at court because of their past experiences with me. That's the key to illegally speaking your piece, and expressing your thought: don't act surprised when you get arrested, don't get p****d off at the cops for doing so, and understand that you've done your part."

I went to go visit one of his protest actions as part of an assignment (we could either right 5 2-page film responses, or 1 2-page response on a protest action...I'm lazy) and saw this in action. They formed a human chain in front of a slaughter house when trucks delivering chickens came and refused to move for it. When the police eventually arrived several protesters got angry at them, got up in their face, and started screaming at them as "pigs." My professor and a few of his associates calmly greeted them, smiled, called them by name, and assumed a position to facilitate their arrest. You could see the difference in effect and symbolism, and it was this latter action that had a greater impact on me than anything.

 

Now, with regards to lady. Nobody is denying her those 1st amendment rights to speak her mind. However, her job now entails a legal obligation to give out licences. To refuse to do so now involves an illegal protest, which I'm actually okay with occurring. Where I've lost respect for her is that she has mostly been hiding in her office, going out and yelling at those asking for a licence, and generally behaving like a child. She needs to realize that her position is untenable, and that she will 1) lose her job for her continued actions and 2) probably be indicted and/or fined. If she were to acknowledge that possibility publicly, leave her office and state that she acknowledges the reality of the court decision and that she cannot act in accordance with it due to her conscience, and then hold strong till she got fired, I would actually have some more respect for her. By allowing herself to be fired she becomes a symbol for her cause. I believe that such symbolism is diluted by her current actions and petulant attitude. 

[Ahab]

As an elected official she can't be fired, but it would seem to me that means she can't change her job either. It is either do it, step down, or be fined. Voters can kick her out or keep her in next election.

"An hour later Davis and her deputy clerks were notified to appear at an 11 a.m. Thursday hearing at U.S. District Court in Ashland, Ky., about an hour to the east. As an elected official, Davis can’t be fired, but a judge can impose steep fines and jail time. She could be impeached but the state Legislature is not in session and many lawmakers support her position.

She won the office in November, running as a Democrat, and succeeded her mother who served as county clerk for 37 years, according to The Morehead News."

USA Today bombed before got link.

I'd be interested in seeing the official rules she is expected to follow. Surely it involves more complexity than simply issuing a marriage license to whoever asks her for one.

If her state and county officials approve of what she is doing this could be a state vs federal court issue with her deciding to go with what her boss tells her is okay. She doesn't work for the federal government. She is a government official for her state.

[Calm]

The Governor doesn't seem to be willing to takethe hit with her.

[ERayR]

The Governor doesn't seem to be willing to takethe hit with her.

 

Can you blame him.  It is expensive to get the governors chair.

[Daniel2]

I'd be interested in seeing the official rules she is expected to follow. Surely it involves more complexity than simply issuing a marriage license to whoever asks her for one.

If her state and county officials approve of what she is doing this could be a state vs federal court issue with her deciding to go with what her boss tells her is okay. She doesn't work for the federal government. She is a government official for her state.

 

The Governor has directed all his state clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or resign.  This is not an issue of state vs. federal. 

 

As for expense... her refusal to act is and will continue to cause taxpayers money because they will have to pay legal fees to prosecute their own employee.  She may end up being charged to personally pay for the fees, in the end.

 

Of course, I imagine there will be a Facebook or some gofundme-type page dedicated to donations by those who support her cause... and there'll be speaking engagements, book deals, etc ...

Edited September 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Bernard Gui]

However on this one she is a government official and she must obey the law.

I would agree only if the rest of our government were held to the same standard.

[Bernard Gui]

No, she has a choice.  She can either stay and do her job (which now includes issuing marriage licenses to SS couples) or she can ask for a transfer or she can seek a job elsewhere.

Or she can be a martyr for her cause.

[Bernard Gui]

The Governor has directed all his state clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or warned them they would face prosecution.  This is not an issue of state vs. federal. 

 

As for expense... her refusal to act is and will continue to cause taxpayers money because they will have to pay legal fees to prosecute their own employee.  She may end up being charged to personally pay for the fees, in the end.

 

Of course, I imagine there will be a Facebook or some gofundme-type page dedicated to donations by those who support her cause... and there'll be speaking engagements, book deals, etc ...

Why face prosecution? Simply fire them.

[bluebell]

I would agree only if the rest of our government were held to the same standard.

 

That's a pretty good point.

[Bernard Gui]

There is an expectation that businesses and governments change practices over time, and thus requirements for jobs change as well. No one would expect a secretary who refused to leran how to use a computer to be able to keep his job, a nurse who refused to learn a better technique, a policeman who refused to memorize and use language required by his job to ensure legalities were satisfied.

Is there any law that protects religious practices from such changes?

If a medical research firm began doing research using embryonic cells, would a lab tech have a right to refuse to process the results because she felt such use was wrong based on religious beliefs? What if it was a small company and any available job was lower pay and she refused to accept the lower pay? Do they have a right to fire her and find someone else to do the work or are they required to support someone who is not contributing to the business' productivity?

If it makes sense for businesses, why wouldn't it be the same for government? Hard reality, but a business is going belly up if it supports workers for more than they are worth. Taxpayers foot the bill if it happens in government.

Of course. So why the circus? Fire her and get on with things.

[ERayR]

Why face prosecution? Simply fire them.

I think it isn't that easy to fire an elected official.

[Bernard Gui]

We never had signs for "girls" and "boys" coats in closets growing up in the 1950's and 60's. We had individual lockers from junior high on. We didn't line up by gender either. From kindergarten to about 3rd grade all girls had cooties.

The signs and lineup were simply for convenience, not sexist discrimination. I'm impressed that you can remember such details from the '50s. Except for the cooties....that's general knowledge. No lockers in our schools now. Omni-gender restrooms on the docket.

If one of her kiddies is named Bob but wants to be called Sally, she must call him Sally without question or a conference with parents or administration. Google Safe Schools. We have Safe Schools. At some point this becomes onerous. Then what do we do? Get prosecuted or find another job seem to be the going answers.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

I would agree only if the rest of our government were held to the same standard.

 

 

That's a pretty good point.

 

No, it's political commentary and relies upon the cynical notion that if all areas can't be fixed (i.e. held to the law), none should be.

[Bernard Gui]

No, it's political commentary and relies upon the cynical notion that if all areas can't be fixed (i.e. held to the law), none should be.

No. It's an observation that a poor schlub gets prosecuted and is in the international media microscope in an atmosphere of wide-spread winking at laws simply because it is a hot issue. It has nothing to do with "law and order." Fire her.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

No. It's an observation that a poor schlub gets prosecuted and is in the international media microscope in an atmosphere of wide-spread winking at laws simply because it is a hot issue.

 

Sounds pretty cynical to me.  Pretty sure you just proved my point.

[Bernard Gui]

Sounds pretty cynical to me.  Pretty sure you just proved my point.

You are probably right.

[Ahab]

The Governor has directed all his state clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or resign. This is not an issue of state vs. federal.

As for expense... her refusal to act is and will continue to cause taxpayers money because they will have to pay legal fees to prosecute their own employee. She may end up being charged to personally pay for the fees, in the end.

Of course, I imagine there will be a Facebook or some gofundme-type page dedicated to donations by those who support her cause... and there'll be speaking engagements, book deals, etc ...

I hadn't seen that before. Thank you for the info. Now I wonder if she in any way feels duty bound to do what any other government official tells her to do even if it would violate her own moral judgment. I'm still not sure she doesn't feel authorized to offer her services on her own terms as the one who was elected to that particular office.

Whatever we do we should feel that it is the right thing to do, otherwise we shouldn't do it. We shouldn't leave our own moral compass at the door when we choose to work for others, and I think most employers realize they are hiring people with their own personality and not a robot they can order to do something agsinst their own conscience.

[Russell C McGregor]

Forget about Football fans singing hymns... let's get real about the REAL legal ramifications of Scott's assertions about defiance of law due to allegations of religious liberty...

In the spirit of Scott’s “sister thread” “highlighting and applauding” “when a person or a group of people take a stand for religious liberty,” which is “relevant to this board” since “Latter-day Saints are being encouraged to safeguard religious liberty,” I submit the following case of defiance of a court order for “highlighting and applauding”:

And this morning, Ms. Davis defied SCOTUS:

So…. How’s about it, everyone ? (and Scott…)?

Should we be “applauding” Kim Davis as a modern day Daniel or Rosa Parks?

Or should Ms. Davis “obey, honor, and sustain the law"?

I wonder if those same sex couples chose her office in order to cause a scene?

Like the oh so terribly traumatised people who drove past several florists in order to pick one they knew was a believer in authentic marriage?

The imposition of immorality upon someone with a conscience is clearly far worse than imposing religious beliefs upon those who have none.

It ought to be possible for Ms Davis to find someone in her office who has no moral standards, and is therefore willing to sign off on a "same sex marriage."

The question is: would the SSM juggernaut be content with that?