Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html
Date: Sunday, October 11, 2015
Summary: Kim Davis, a county clerk from Kentucky, was detained after refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses after the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges allowed same-sex marriage throughout the United States. She was sued by couples backed up by the ACLU in Miller v. Davis and the district court ordered her to comply with court orders. Davis refused to comply because she believed it violated her First Amendment right of freedom of religion and claimed that she would not "violate her conscious". Davis decided to stay in jail rather than issuing the licenses. She was released five days later and was ordered to not interfere with the distribution of any marriage license. Davis drew large public attention to religious rights and tested how people would react to the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis had many supporters including the Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, and these demonstrations proved equality for everyone is still not embedded in society. Did Davis have the right to refuse to distribute same-sex marriage licenses on the grounds that it infringed upon her freedom of religion? Do you think the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will be carried out throughout the country and do you think most people will accept this decision, or act in defiance like Davis and many of her supporters did?
Many would argue that Davis was simply exercising her rights of free speech and free religion, but what she did was unconstitutional and illegal. Her job was to issue marriage licenses, whether it was to same-sex couples or not. Therefore, Davis did not have the right to refuse to distribute same-sex marriage licenses on the grounds that it infringed upon her freedom of religion. I think the Obergefell v. Hodges will be more accepted by democrats than republicans, and I'm sure there will be some defiance similar to Davis because although what she did was unconstitutional, she considered it free speech. Many other people would use that same excuse as an act of defiance.
ReplyDeleteDavis did not have the right to refuse distribution of same-sex marriage licenses. Although she was abiding by the first amendment through the idea of freedom of religion, her words were restricting people of the law. I believe the decision that resulted from the Obergefell v. Hodges will prevent such cases from reoccurring in the future. I think many people will still be opposed to this decision, but will realize that acting out will not end well.
ReplyDeleteAmazing if you think back to 2008, when California passed prop 8. Now, same sex marriage is popular nation wide. Davis & Huckabee are fighting a losing battle nationally, but in the Bible Belt, they are likely somewhat popular.
ReplyDeleteShe didn't have the right to refuse to give the marriage license to the same sex couple. As mentioned in other comments, it was her job to give out the licenses to couples that could get married based off of law. The law will not prevent someone from exercising their rights and this case didn't. It's understandable to believe the ruling was unconditional because you may believe she was exercising her 1st amendment right of free speech, but she is discriminating against a person which is violating their civil rights (or liberties).
ReplyDeleteAlthough Davis has the right to her religious beliefs, she cannot act upon them if they infringe upon the rights of others. By not issuing a marriage license, she did not allow two people to maintain their basic right of marriage. Although I believe that many people in the country are against the results of the Oberefell v. Hodges case, they can do little about the results. Acting upon them would cause more unneeded nationwide chaos, and most likely result in a similar situation as Davis.
ReplyDeleteDavis has the right to have religious beliefs, but religion cannot take rights away from others. Her license was given to her to allow people to officially marry by the state. The state must follow federal decisions and Davis must follow the law as well. She has the right to say her beliefs due to free speech, however, she must not discriminate under the law. The Oberefell v Hodges case is opposed by many but if the case is ignored or changed, there will be a lot of conflict within the country. The case should be accepted whether people dislike it or not.
ReplyDeleteDavis has the right to have religious beliefs, but religion cannot take rights away from others. Her license was given to her to allow people to officially marry by the state. The state must follow federal decisions and Davis must follow the law as well. She has the right to say her beliefs due to free speech, however, she must not discriminate under the law. The Oberefell v Hodges case is opposed by many but if the case is ignored or changed, there will be a lot of conflict within the country. The case should be accepted whether people dislike it or not.
ReplyDeleteDavis was clearly out of her authority to deny the licenses. It was not a statement of religion, but the law as stated by Obergerfell to give them the marriage licenses. She can belive it is wrong, but she cannot deny these licenses, she is not posing as a religious figure she is doing it for her own personal gain, not for the happiness of others. Obergefell v. Hodges will be a controversial topic, and many in American will not like it because they will continue to have conservative views, but it will stay. It is what is right, and as time goes on more people will accept it. This case is right.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDavis does not have the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses just because of her homophobia. She is entitled to her own opinion, but she can't force her will on others when working for the federal government. The law reigns supreme over an individuals personal feelings and if Davis doesn't want to issue marriage licenses, she can quit her job and potentially start a petition.
ReplyDeleteDavis does not have the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses just because of her homophobia. She is entitled to her own opinion, but she can't force her will on others when working for the federal government. The law reigns supreme over an individuals personal feelings and if Davis doesn't want to issue marriage licenses, she can quit her job and potentially start a petition.
ReplyDeleteAmereicans in the south are known for being stubborn when it comes to religion and tradition. Lke the confederate flag case not that long ago, we see a women who is denying people their natural rights to marriage. While she was violting their rights, i do not believe that she was acting within her religion. Is it no ok to discrimiate no matter what religion you come from if you live in American. While i think that many people will change their viewes on this topic, many others will start to resist this new precedent and more gender fights will insue.
ReplyDeleteAmereicans in the south are known for being stubborn when it comes to religion and tradition. Lke the confederate flag case not that long ago, we see a women who is denying people their natural rights to marriage. While she was violting their rights, i do not believe that she was acting within her religion. Is it no ok to discrimiate no matter what religion you come from if you live in American. While i think that many people will change their viewes on this topic, many others will start to resist this new precedent and more gender fights will insue.
ReplyDeleteDavis did not have the right to refuse same-sex licenses because the United States Supreme Court had made a ruling that same-sex was nationally legal. Many people are against the Oberefell v. Hodges ruling, however, they cannot go against the ruling since it is now a national law. I think most people will try to act in defiance, but they need to accept it because it will not be changed.
ReplyDeleteDavis did not have the right to refuse same-sex licenses because the United States Supreme Court had made a ruling that same-sex was nationally legal. Many people are against the Oberefell v. Hodges ruling, however, they cannot go against the ruling since it is now a national law. I think most people will try to act in defiance, but they need to accept it because it will not be changed.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Davis was obviously wrong in denying to issue marriage licenses. Freedom of religion means that she is allowed to practice her relilgion in her own life, not forcing it on other people and making them adhere to the same conservative standards that she holds herself to. If people acted with the same logic that she used, people could try to implement their religion in her life. Not only does she seem to not understand that her religion only applies to her life, but she seems to miss the idea of rights in general. The idea that your rights end when they start interfering with others, and that is excatly what she was doing; interfering with others. I believe that in many liberal areas the court decision allowing gay marriage nationwide will be uphekd, but in other ares it will not be upheld. There are many extremely conservative and tradiotional areas that do not accept gay marriage, and will try to refuse implemeting this chnage.
ReplyDeleteClerk have no rights to refuse same-sex marriage licenses because the Supreme Court already made a decision about same-sex marriage legal nation wide in Oberefell v. Hodges. There are many people against the result of Oberefell v. hodges, but they could not change the fact that this is a national law now.
ReplyDeleteDavis has no right to refuse to issue marriage licenses. The marriage of others does not effect her right to exercise her religion. Because she is an employee of the government, she must follow the laws of the government. She has no legal right to refuse to marry people. This one action by one ignorant county clerk will certainly no cause a domino effect. I cannot see any other clerk doing the same thing as Davis. Her actions to stop gay marriage will prove to be unsuccessful and no other non-gay-marriage-supporter would try an unsucessful tactic in restricting the rights of gay people.
ReplyDeleteIf one's religion interferes with their whole job like this, they should not have the job. That's like a Hindu individual working at a slaughterhouse, but refusing to kill cows, or a devout catholic priest suddenly becoming a doctor, but refusing to touch male genitals. Although some priests are okay with that. She obviously should of given the liscense. I don't think this decision is going to change anything, because no matter how much we try to provide marrige equality, there will be some bad apples like this lovely lady in question.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Davis was wrong in refusing the right of a marriage licenses and that she clearly violated rights of the couples liberties. Even though Obergefell v. Hodges just got recently passed, the case take time to be fully in effect. Over time people will be more accepting of the holistic sense of equality, but there will be individuals who will have prejudices. I believe that Obergefell v. Hodges will be set as a precedent in future cases.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Davis was wrong in refusing the right of a marriage licenses and that she clearly violated rights of the couples liberties. Even though Obergefell v. Hodges just got recently passed, the case take time to be fully in effect. Over time people will be more accepting of the holistic sense of equality, but there will be individuals who will have prejudices. I believe that Obergefell v. Hodges will be set as a precedent in future cases.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Davis argues that she was upholding her right to free speech and religion, her actions interfered with the ability for others to claim their rights. The idea of freedom of religion does not also give an individual the right to extend their religious views into the life of others. In doing so, Davis is obstructing others from claiming their rights. A true expression of freedom of religion could be Davis voluntarily ending her service as an elected civil servant.
ReplyDeleteI believe that others like Davis will continue doing everything they can to prevent gay marriage, despite the ruling on Obergefell v Hodges. Over time, however, the American public will probably become more accepting of gay marriage.
In my opinion, Davis does not have the right to refuse same-sex licenses due to the recent United States Supreme court ruling that made same-sex marriages legal in all of the United States. I think that the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling is not liked by many, however, this ruling is now a national law so there is nothing people can do about it. I feel that there will be a good amount of people who will try to protest it and act in defiance but there is nothing more these protestors can do.
ReplyDelete