Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis has recently come into the news for, essentially, refusing to do her job. One of Davis’ duties as a clerk is to issue marriage licenses. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in June that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses. Davis was then jailed Thursday after defying a federal court order to issue licenses. Davis defended her actions saying she had “God’s authority.”
The issues of civil disobedience and morality are no strangers in American history. They have incited change at a fundamental level in the United States, going so far as to help shape our very constitution. Before going any further, we should reflect on what the constitution truly is. The constitution is often called the supreme law of the land. That is only to say that it is the highest form of law in the United States - it does not imply that the law is perfect or even moral, and this is all the more evident upon seeing that the constitution has been amended multiple times throughout history.
Two notable amendments, Amendment XV and Amendment XIX, changed history by allowing people of all races and sexes to vote. It would be hard to deny the role of the civil rights movement and the women’s rights movement in enacting change, and these movements undeniably used civil disobedience. These movements and the changes that followed were a matter of freedom and morality, as resolute activists disobeyed the law to ensure that the law was changed.
With Davis now in jail, practicing civil disobedience, some are reminded of these activists. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, for example, referenced Martin Luther King Jr.'s letter from Birmingham jail in comparing King’s civil disobedience with Davis’.
It would be unfair to believe this comparison. Though both King and Davis are Christian, there are fundamental differences between Davis and King. King sought equality and freedom, while Davis seeks to impose her will on others and to limit freedom. King was a Baptist minister, while Davis is a government employee. King fought to end discrimination, while Davis fights to continue discrimination.
Refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples is akin to refusing to let someone of a different race eat at your restaurant. Almost to Davis’ credit, Davis refused to issue licenses to all couples, gay and straight, after the Supreme Court decision. That, however, is little to cheer for. She is simply disrupting more citizens’ lives as she draws attention to the fact that she fundamentally disagrees with gay marriage and thus refuses to uphold the law.
Certain political ideologies, such as branches of libertarianism, certainly defend private establishments being able to work as they see fit, even going so far as to allow them to refuse service to whoever they wish for any reason they wish. Yet no matter how it is phrased or defended, it remains the right to discriminate. More problematic still, Davis is not working at a private establishment. Davis is a government official. As a government official, Davis was entrusted to uphold the law, and as a government official, if she would seek to change the law, she should do so in a legal fashion. It should also come as no surprise that she was jailed, even if her convictions are genuine, because the law applies regardless.
One concession for Davis is that her convictions do seem genuine, as opposed to a fabricated political tool. However, if Davis’ convictions truly run so deep that she feels she cannot do her job, then she should admit it and stop doing her job. It’s true, she should stop doing her job, but not in the way she has. In short, she should quit. If she cannot perform her duties and cannot uphold the law as is expected of her, then she is not qualified for the position. This is true for any job, but should especially be true for a government job where there is a separation of church and state. Just as orthodox Jews may refuse to become pig ranchers, Davis should refuse to be a clerk and find something more suitable to her.
Perhaps the most frustrating defense of Davis’ actions is that she in some way is less free or unable to practice her religion because of the court’s decision. She is actually still able to practice her religion privately in any way she wishes, just as anyone else is able to. Perhaps she is less free in that she cannot discriminate who to issue marriage licenses to, but that has never been her decision to begin with; that has always lied with the courts. It should also be self-evident that gay marriage does not limit private individuals’ freedom, but rather, it gives freedom to gay couples who in the past could never enjoy the benefits bestowed to most American citizens.
If there is one good thing that should come from Davis’ actions, it is that we should remember not to follow the law blindly. We should encourage those who follow their moral convictions to seek justice by trying to change the law to ensure others’ freedom. We should not, however, defend going above the law to deny others’ freedom under the guise of protecting freedom, which is what Davis has done.