Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan, Kentucky, recently defied a court order to issue marriage licenses to any eligible person(s). She based her position on the concept that she was responding to a “higher power,” and therefore would not issue the licenses.
The oath of office, as developed by the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, in pertinent part says: “… I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasants of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.” Ms. Davis has stated that the last phrase allows her to refuse to honor the oath, but nonetheless remain in office—a truly tortured analysis. This phrase could not reasonably be construed as anything other than seeking assistance from God in carrying out the duties—not the right to subjectively apply one’s moral principles.
Ms. Davis would be well-served to have studied the actions of honorable conscientious objectors to military service throughout our history. There have been several Medal of Honor winners who refused to carry a weapon, or to kill, but served as medics.
Ms. Davis, on the other hand, refused to carry out her duties, and ignored the biblical quotation attributed to Jesus to “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
These actions by Ms. Davis rely on her subjective interpretation of the Bible, and that is always dangerous when one person can take the rule of law and focus it on his or her interpretation of some religious belief. This is the path to tyranny, as experienced by many who fled Europe and came to America, whether they be the early settlers from England, the Irish, or current immigrants who are persecuted at home for religious beliefs.
How would Ms. Davis, or those who support her, respond to a military conscientious objector, or Gandhi, Rosa Parks, or my former colleague, Representative John Lewis? My suspicion is, given their rabid view of their righteousness; they would reject the conscientious objector, most likely using words like “coward,” and also reject Gandhi, Rosa Parks and John Lewis as “un-American.” This is a completely inconsistent and illogical understanding of individual rights—not, as Ms. Davis would purport, an expansion of them.
Governor Kasich clearly understands the issue and took a bold stance by stating that gay marriage is the law of the land and that Ms. Davis should resign if unable to carry out her duties. Maybe she needs the paycheck?
If Ms. Davis were a conscientious objector, she would have stated her case, gone to jail—both of which she did—and then resign in protest. The latter is where she fails not only the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion, but our society as a whole. Resignation would, in my view, be the proper approach, as it would honor her religious beliefs and the Constitution.
This article was published in The Hill on September 21st, 2015.
Mr. Owens is a former member of Congress representing the New York 23rd, a strategic advisor at Dentons out of its Washington, DC, office, and a partner in the firm of Stafford, Owens, Piller, Murnane, Kelleher & Trombley, PLLC, in Plattsburgh, New York.
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.