For backstory, the first incident in this case occurred back in 2015, when the county clerk of Louisville, Kentucky halted the issue of all marriage licenses. The clerk’s name was Kim Davis, and the stalling of all licenses stemmed from her initial refusal to issue marriage licenses to numerous same-sex couples. Davis reported that her deeply held Christian beliefs held her back from feeling comfortable enabling homosexual marriage. An important note here is that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legally permitted same-sex marriage in the same manner as opposite-sex couples in the United States, passed in a 5-4 decision back in June of 2015; the verdict from this court case came a few months before Davis v. Ermold. As a result of her refusal, Davis was ordered by a judge to unpause her distribution of licenses, sued by two of the gay couples, and later spent 5 days in jail, after defying a court order against her. After this, she lost her re-election bid in 2018 to the democratic candidate. Most recently, the Supreme Court decided unanimously on Monday (October 5) that they would not hear her case, but they would let the lower court orders against her proceed. Conservative judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito took the time to express their concerns on the impacts of the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, stating that, “those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul”. Additionally, they agreed with the court’s decision to keep Davis’ case in the lower courts, expressing that it did not “cleanly present” the key issues at stake.
In light of the 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, Davis’ actions back in 2015 were a problematic distinction between belief and action. Before that decision, the issue of whether homosexual marriage should be allowed or not was more of a human rights opinion, since there was no legal regulations for it. Then, when the law passed, it became a topic with actual legal backing. Many situations similar to Davis’ arose as a result of this law passing; while the law suddenly viewed homosexual marriage the same as heterosexual, religious groups such as Christianity, did not. This goes back to the recently expressed concerns of judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, which conveyed that the legalization of gay marriage was certain to put specific religious individuals in uncomfortable situations. Here lies the crux of the issue: the distinction between belief and action. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment “embraces two concepts—freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.” In other words, Davis is absolutely allowed to hold the personal, religious belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, she is not permitted to take said value and impose it on others through different forms of action, such as using her position of power as a county clerk to deny same-sex couples the acquisition of a marriage license. Another example of distinction between belief and action is seen with religious groups who believe in polygamy; while they are free to think that a man should have multiple wives, as long as they are in America, they will not be permitted to marry multiple women at once. The bottom line is that Americans are allowed to believe whatever they please, yet, if they act on beliefs that have been deemed illegal in a court of law, they will run into trouble, just like Kim Davis did.
Though I am a Christian, it did not take the 2015 decision from Obergefell v. Hodges to convince me that same-sex marriage should be legalized. That being said, I want to look at the 2015 incident and 2020 decision through a legal lens. I agree that Davis refusing to distribute marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the basis of her personal beliefs was an abuse of power. During my research, I watched the video of the 2015 confrontal of Davis by one of the same-sex couples. Halfway through the argument, an individual in the back yells, “You’re forcing your religion on other people!” and someone else says “Do your job!”; I agree with both of these statements. When Davis clocks into work, she becomes a representative of Rowan County. Her job is to administer marriage licenses to couples who apply and meet the criteria; due to the decision of Obergefell v. Hodges a few months prior, distributing marriage licenses to same-sex couples was now part of her job. This being said, if Davis no longer felt as though she could uphold the duties of her job, she should have stepped down. Thinking of the 2020 decision, on one hand, I understand their reasoning for keeping the Davis case in the lower courts. On the other hand, I feel that even though the case was not a perfect example for them to make, it still would have had a good chance of passing against her on the basis of the Free Exercise Clause, her failure to complete her job requirements, and her disregard for a newly-passed law. If the case had been before 2015, similar to the Colorado baker who refused to make a same-sex couple a wedding cake in 2012, this would be a completely different case; yet this is not the case with Davis.
What do you think? Should this case have been moved into the Supreme Court? Do you recognize other analytical categories that the Davis case applies to? I look forward to reading your viewpoint on the topic, in order to further mine.
7 comments:
I agree with you stance on Davis, she was a worker who was not doing her job correctly, therefore there were repercussions. It is in no way fair for a person who is representing the state to be able to use their own beliefs to run their agenda. If Davis were issuing marriage licenses through a church or private institution, she would have the total right to deny the requests from same sex marriage, but that is simply not the case when you are working for the state and getting paid with taxpayer dollars. I do not think that this case needs to be taken to the Supreme Court because it is so straight forward. I think the lower courts are more than capable of handling this case. If a person cannot do their job, they need to be replaced.
I agree with the opinion in this blog, especially due to the mention of Davis as a public figure and employee when she is on the job. As a person who is paid by the State to issue marriage licenses, Davis is in no position to refuse to abide by the law for religious purposes. The author of the post brought up the baker who refused to serve same-sex couples, and while I do not agree with that on a moral level, that individual is not paid by the State and thus has the right to discriminate.
I agree with the stance you took on Davis. As a public employee of the state, taking a paycheck from the state, Davis does not have the absolute right to act on her religion in this case. I believe the demand to unpause her distribution of licenses and punishment given to Davis was justified by the lower court, as they are following legal precedent set in Obergefell v Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage. This also did not completely infringe upon Davis's right to believe that homosexuality is a sin and goes against her religion. As for the freedom to act, that is not absolute, and in this case, Davis's practice of her religious beliefs meant she was not preforming the job she was hired to do. Whether it involved same-sex marriage or another issue, Davis was clearly not doing the job she was being paid by the state to do, and therefore should face the repercussions given to her.
I agree completely that Davis was insufficiently doing her job as an elected state employee. The difference between freedom to believe and freedom to act does come to the forefront in this case as Davis's actions were based on her own personal beliefs, so it is important to question whether her right to act was violated. The answer is obviously- no. Kim Davis was an elected public official of the state and as such, she is held to specific standards regarding how she acts in that position. Her income comes through taxpayer dollars and she was not doing the job she was hired to do and as such, her repercussions at the hands of the lower courts were justified.
I agree that Davis was rightfully fired for being incompetent in her position as a state employee, who used her own personal convictions as an excuse to stop performing work. Although she claims that there is a religious backing, the repercussions of her not abiding to the requirements of her job are compelling. I liked your comparison of conviction and action to polygamy; I thought this was useful in determining the separation between belief and action. I agree that the Supreme Court should not hear this case because in my understanding the case fails to address Davis' religious concern as the primary question but rather is a matter of Davis failing to do her job and consequently being fired. Furthermore, the precedent established by Obergefell v. Hodges (which was decided a few months beforehand) clearly define that the right to marry is fundamental right to marry is guarenteed for all same-sex couples under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court attempts to challenge the decision, in the future, considering Justice Thomas and Alito's statements.
While I would certainly agree that it can prove quite problematic when peoples personal views cloud their judgments on the part of the people they are elected to represent or are otherwise responsible for. However, I think an interesting point has been brought up by Justice Scalia in his decision on the Lambs Chapel v. Union School District. It was in this case that he suggested that it is quite strange that our constitution "which gives religion in general preferential treatment" also "forbids religion in general." While I understand this comment was made in reference to religious establishments, I think the sentiment being expressed is that the expectation that the operations of government can be completely divorced from religion is impossible. It should also be noted that when people cite Maddison and Jefferson and any of the more prominent founders, that the call too religious freedom is usually supported with religious principles. So all I would like to bring to your attention is that because the government is intertwined in a very special way with religion, that it is unreasonable to suggest that operatives in government do the same. That is not to say there cannot be any separation, but it is to say that that line isn't as clear as it seems you would like to suggest.
I agree with this opinion. When Kim Davis is on public payroll, she does not have the same rights to exercise her free exercise of religion as she does as a private citizen. As you analyzed, it brings up the contrast between religious beliefs and religious acts. As a public employee, Davis can believe whatever she wants but not act on it when carrying out government policies.
Post a Comment