Grugore

Roger Severino

Rowan County, Ky., is a lesson for America in how not to resolve social conflict. The local head clerk is sitting in jail, and a judge has ordered her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her absence.

When the Supreme Court redefined marriage for the nation in an activist decision this June, it took the issue out of the democratic process and made it much harder for citizens to navigate our differences on this fundamental institution. Both sides of the debate knew the decision would have significant social effects. For civil servants like clerks who issue marriage licenses, the implications were also immediately personal.

Rowan County clerk Kim Davis could not, as a matter of religious conviction, issue same-sex marriage licenses. Davis’ further dilemma is the fact that her name is attached to every county marriage license, and she believes issuing them to same-sex couples would constitute precisely the kind of endorsement of same-sex unions her faith forbids. Because of that, her office stopped issuing all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court decision.

A lawsuit followed and a federal court on August 12 ordered her to issue licenses despite her faith-based objections. She did not comply with the order, and at a hearing Thursday the judge sent Davis to jail for contempt of court, even though the plaintiffs had specifically asked she be given fines instead of jail time. The judge ordered the deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses or also face contempt of court and five out of six said they would comply. Meanwhile, the judge has told Davis she will stay in jail because she will not comply with his orders.


This situation could have been avoided. This problem would not have even existed in Kentucky and many other parts of the country had the Supreme Court allowed states to deal with the marriage question democratically—with the give-and-take that naturally leads to compromises, the balancing of competing interests, and a diversity of solutions over time. Instead the Supreme Court redefined the institution for the entire country in one fell swoop but did not say how our constitutional guarantee of religious liberty would be reconciled with the new order of things.

>>>For more on this, see Ryan T. Anderson’s new book, “The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.”

Conflicts have been warned about for years, and all four dissenters to the Supreme Court’s marriage decision predicted dire consequences for religious freedom.

Given the inevitable challenges to this fundamental freedom, it is imperative that we seek solutions to navigate the complex road ahead. In this particular case, there are a number of potential ways forward so that same-sex couples can get licenses as required by the courts and Kim Davis can be released from jail without having to agree to resign or violate her conscience.

One help in finding the way forward is Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires the government to avoid substantially burdening religious expression absent a compelling government interest. There is no compelling government interest in keeping Kim Davis’s name on the licenses instead of the name of the deputy clerks who are willing to issue them. If it’s “just a little form”—as Davis’ critics would like to suggest—then change the form, not the beliefs.

There are a number of other possible accommodations that could be adopted by the legislature, courts, or executive agencies in the state. Davis is not interested in stopping all same-sex marriages in her county. She is only asking that she not be forced to participate in them in a way that violates her beliefs.

Opt-out systems like this work in many walks of life. In fact, we already have examples of such options being adopted in the marriage licensing context. For example, North Carolina allows objecting clerks to choose to not get involved with marriage licensing at all, and the state will guarantee that someone will take their place if needed. Hawaii has an online registration system for marriage licensing that gets rid of many of these concerns.

Wh**ever the method, people of good will want a solution that leads to better outcomes than the impasse in Rowan County this week. Reaching such a solution in Kentucky is still feasible—and desirable, to respect the legally protected interests of the plaintiffs and the religious conscience of Kim Davis.

Grugore

Since there is a way to resolve this issue without violating the Supreme Court ruling, or trampling ones religious beliefs, I can only conclude that this judges ruling is an attack on religious freedom. That is the only conclusion I can reach. He should be removed, and maybe even prosecuted for violating her Constitutional right to freely practice her religious beliefs. If one is not free to follow their conscience, then are they really free?

Ricko Loc: Florida

Grugore-morally and from a religious standpoint, you are correct. However, since SCOTUS has ruled Ms. Davis either complies with the law or she does not. If you want this resolved, you need to request removal of SCOTUS not a lower court judge. if Ms. Davis' conscience will not allow her to do her government job, she needs to resign. (Separation of Church and State) She should have taken a cue from the couple who refused to bake a wedding cake for gays-they lost. Unfortunately, the only way in which people could really practice total religious freedom is if they were financially independent and not have any responsibilities that would deter them from doing what they want at any given time or being self employed with flexible hours. A simple resolution would be to convince the license applicants to go to a different county to get their license. If I were a member of the Davis family, I would arrange t***sportation for them and pay their license fees to get my relative out of jail. However, it should not end there as Ms. Davis has to decide whether she is prepared to serve all of her constituents or just the ones she agrees with. Good Luck America !!!

Kevyn

There is a simple opt out for her, if it is against her beliefs and part of her duties as an elected official she should resign. This is no different than if a PETA member was an elected official and refused to sell or issue hunting licenses.

Grugore

That makes no sense. Why the hell would someone from PETA have a job issuing hunting licenses? What we have here is an unconstitutional decision by the SCOTUS redefining marriage. That is the cause of all of these problems we're having. Government has no business interfering in marriage anyway. If it would just stick to doing it's job, as outlined in the Constitution, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. There are certain powers granted to the Federal government. Everything else is left to the States. Marriage falls under the latter's authority.

Kevyn

Not so, everything from tax code and inheritance rights to child adoption is effected by marriage. If marriage was not given any notice by the government you would be right it would just be a matter between church, mosque, synagogue or temple and their followers. The states and federal government are involved in marriage in a multitude of ways and because of this everyone is entitled to equil protection under the law as guaranteed in our constitution, civil marriage is realy nothing more than a recognized contract. It may have spiritual and religious meaning to couples who are married but this is not the business of the government.

Grugore

I see your point, but I don't have to like it. The problem I have is that the Supreme Court overstepped it's authority when it redefined marriage. The Constitution is clear about the duties and responsibilities of the federal government, of which the SCOTUS is a part of. Everything else is reserved for the states. I believe that marriage falls under that category. The federal government should have no say about it.

Gracesandagato

The states need to be allowedto do their job without interference from supreme court. To much interference from other enities.

Gracesandagato

The only reason for a liscense is more money.

Kevyn

Doesn't the federal government as one of its most basic duties have an obligation to insure citizens equal protection under the law?

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

FAIL! Not everyone is equally protected,...if so the Clerk would NOT be in jail. Her religious beliefs are as to be protected as the q***rs desires to marry. The Court has shown they do not support religious beliefs plain and simple....thus rendering the rights to worship, null and void which clearly violated the Constitution.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

They failed at that duty to protect the Clerk......you can twist that any way you maggot c****es do....but equal would have allowed the Clerk to NOT have to be prosecuted for her exercising her beliefs.

The entire MARRIAGE ordeal is totally not Constitutional by how the Courts ruled on it. It was and never should be a COURT to decide what is or is not a MARRIAGE!

boofhead

I agree, the courts do not make the law or change it if needed, they can only rule on the status of the law and it is up to the legislature to make those changes. In this case there was no law applying to marriage, it has been custom for thousands of years. Issuing a marriage license has been a State procedure based on State law. In Kentucky the State law defines marriage as between one woman and one man thus it would be illegal to issue a license to two men until such time as the State changes the law to agree with the court. If they so wanted to do, and I would suggest that such a change should go before the people before any changes were made.

What we are seeing here is rule by proclamation and not rule of law. The courts are showing us clearly that we have no real rights and are just serfs. The Republic is no more, this cannot be more clear. Only the d*****ts and Democrats (is that two words with the same meaning?) could possibly be happy with what is occurring in our poor, besieged Nation.

jaydee

Good job. The best propaganda I've heard in a while & I didn't even read it all. Same old liberal blah blah blah. Stupid c*******t.