A court clerk in Kentucky has refused to issue marriage licenses to LGBTQA couples despite a US Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states. Along with photographers who refuse to work gay weddings, where does all this commercialized bigotry end?
Religious Preferences
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
15 Comments. Leave new
The biggest problem I have with that court clerk in Kentucky is that she is paid to do a government job and refuses to do it in accord with what the government dictates.
Try that in the private sector and see how far you get.
🙁
You got it – why are they taking her to court?
If you hired a Hindu as a cook, and he refused to cook meat, you’d fire him – right? That’s not religious discrimination, it’s “won’t do the job he was hired for”
She was taken to court by same-sex couples whose marriage license applications she refused to accept.
She asked the SCOTUS for, and was summarily denied, relief of a lower court order instructing her to follow the law of the land and issue the licenses.
She’s in jail on contempt of court.
Her crime was using her position in government to discriminate on the basis of religion.
I wouldn’t want to find out in an emergency room that the doctor attending me doesn’t believe blood transfusions are consistent with his religious beliefs.
Glenn, you – and others – may find it interesting to learn that here in Sweden, where abortions are legal and provided under the same medical care system that applies to other procedures, every so often the system is tested by someone who has graduated and been licensed as a midwife (which profession plays a vital role in gynaeological care in this country) and who claims that being required to perform/assist in abortions as part of her duties (hitherto all of the cases of which I am aware have been brought by women, who dominate the profession) violates her convictions and her religious freedom, at the same time that not being hired for such a position on grounds of not being able to perform an important part of her professional duties is discriminatory. So far – knock on wood, throw salt over your left shoulder, etc, etc, they have not prevailed in the courts, but one never knows….
Henri
She is an elected government official who cannot be fired.
She can be impeached but there is neither the will nor the votes in the Kentucky legislature to to that.
Elected? Okay, I didn’t know that.
Stupid (small r)epublican system of government!
@ falco –
From what I’ve read, the governor COULD fire her if it were not for the fact that current litigation prevents him from doing so, as it would violate certain perquisites. (I could be wrong — I ain’t no expert on Kentucky!)
@ falco –
I was afraid someone might ask me for a link. Of course, I didn’t bookmark it. And I could have misinterpreted the article — like you said, “One of them does refer to complications due to ongoing federal litigation but that was about the county attorney declaring a conflict about purs[u]ing local level official misconduct charges against Davis while representing the county in the federal suits.” That’s probably what was jumbled in my mind (which ain’t as retentive as it used to be).
The following link fully supports your summation:
http://www.newsweek.com/why-kim-davis-cant-be-fired-marriage-licenses-368902
I <3 government dictates!
To derleher:
Post a link to what you’ve read.
Neither am I an expert on Kentucky law. I’ve just been reading the articles of this sort: tinyurl.com/ol48jpc
One of them does refer to complications due to ongoing federal litigation but that was about the county attorney declaring a conflict about pursing local level official misconduct charges against Davis while representing the county in the federal suits. tinyurl.com/p5893jc
The possible official misconduct action has been referred to the state attorney general. A conviction of official misconduct would be an impeachable offense upon which the legislature could act.
I’m reminded of a really great movie, “A Man for All Seasons”, concerning the refusal of Sir Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor, to consent to the divorces of King Henry VIII. Believing that he had no fight to give this consent in the eyes of his God, he refused, and was eventually falsely accused and beheaded for his refusal.
But, if you’ve seen the movie, do you think More was right or wrong?
Further, if you think More was right, how do you explain considering that Kim Davis is wrong?
I’ve been wondering if both must be wrong, or both right. But, what really is moral responsibility? Ted, if you were a government official, and were told to do something that you believed was morally wrong, would you do it anyway?
I have a hard time believing you could be swayed into doing that which you believed was wrong.
Spiritual guidance was part of More’s job as Lord High Chancellor at the time. It was his job to act according to Catholic teachings, so therefore he did do “the right thing” by refusing to violate those principles. (I don’t consider it the right thing, but that’s beside the point – he was properly fulfilling his duties.)
But here in the US, we separate church and state. Kim Davis’ job is not to enforce church doctrine, but to hand out pieces of paper according to the law of the land. The law of the land includes the right of gays to marry, she is refusing to do her job and therefore is not doing the right thing.
Right on!
Governmental duties should not be conflated with church doctrine.