Kim Davis

Thoughts on the Kentucky clerk who went to jail for not issuing marriage licences to any homosexual couple and refusing to let anyone under her issue any either.

I think she was "set up: as the gay couple came from a different county and the media ran with the story. And I could go on.

Isn’t that entrapment?

Ideally she should be fired. But since it is an elected office, she either can be arrested or impeached should she try at it again. I’m sympathetic if it is a private business, but a public entity should enforce the laws as they have been officially interpreted.

The gay couple did not come from a different county. There were eight plaintiffs in this case-2 same sex couples and 2 opposite sex couples. (Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to anyone, gay or straight, after the SC ruling.) ALL 8 plaintiffs were residents of Rowan County.

Still confused. I see liitle from USCCB or the Pope on this. Where do we draw the line? Are Catholics banned from public service? Remember assisted suicide is looming. Will a Catholic doctor at a county hospital have to choose?
Disappointed that Kim is out of jail. This must go to court.

I find it interesting that elected officials often don’t get jailed for not doing their job - yet Kim is jailed for not doing her job.

There’s plenty of elected who don’t follow and enforce canibis laws and immigration laws for example.

At the surface it appears Davis erroneously violated America’s sacrosanct (pun intended) separation between Church and State. Reading just headlines from a religious point of view, it would seem that she also muddled the Two Kingdoms, and abused her office by ignoring [repeated] orders from the State. But the simplistic narrative we see in the press ignores the fact that “We, the People,” are the State and that, in her elected capacity, she is the State.

But the biggest “ah-ha” moment comes when we read more about this case. We find that this not a Church/State issue at all; this is an issue of conscience. She’s not targeting LGBT folks; she’s halting all marriage licenses. She says she’ll happily give out marriage certificates to anyone – if she can remove her name from the certificate. That’s all she wants. While her personal reason is rooted in her religious convictions, that’s only tangential. She cannot in good conscience condone gay marriage. Having her name on the certificate is, to her conscience, tantamount to condoning the act. That is something that even the Supreme Court ruled she needn’t do:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.” – Majority Opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges

People do not suddenly lose the right to live their faith when they step outside their church/mosque/synagogue. Or as the Supreme Court even admits, they can’t just excise the “principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations” from the inmost being each time they go to work. A Christian is a Christian at home and at work. A Muslim is a Muslim on a train or in a plane. A Buddhist is a Buddhist sitting down or walking about. A Humanist is a Humanist whether talking or listening. These paradigms, religious or otherwise, inform our decisions. They are the reason we have a Bill of Rights.

Conscience is so vital to a free society that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that people cannot be forced to act against their consciences when there is no compelling interest for the government to make them. Even when a compelling interest exists, the government must provide reasonable accommodation where possible, or else show that no other means exists. For example: conscientious objectors to war cannot be drafted. Muslim workers at American Eagle are permitted to wear the hijab, against company policy. Sikh taxi drivers may refuse to transport alcohol. What’s wrong with providing a reasonable accommodation to Kim Davis? Why do the certificates have to have her signature? She wants to do the job, and she did it just fine before the laws (and her job description) changed. All it would take is, what? A quick amendment of a state statute? Easy-peasey. But it’s more politically expedient to drag this out: Democrats can bash the meanie traditionalists for their “homophobia” (never mind that Davis herself is a Democrat), and Republicans can score election points against the fascist hippies for jailing a martyr (never mind that they’d do the same if they still had any social capital). Cannibals. And Christians are the meal.

So long as the First Amendment is part of the Constitution, conscience should remain supreme. But I am not confident it will. There is a progressive militancy that looks to abandon the Supreme Court’s ‘be-Progressive-but-still-play-nice’ decision in Obergefell. Calls have gone up to tax churches and schools. Anti-Christian polemics already circulate on Facebook and Buzzfeed (their recent video suggests the only “good” Christian is either a liberal “cafeteria Christian,” or a silent one). Christian groups are required to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients in their insurance plans. Catholics have already given up their adoption agency because they’d be forced to serve those who don’t share their views.

Basically, the Zeitgeist’s order for Christians is: conform or shut up, especially if you work a government job. Essentially, no traditionalist may be a county clerk. That’s got a legal name. It’s called a discriminatory test. It’s like making voters take a “literacy test” at the polls, or teachers swear an oath to the party and the Fuhrer. I fear traditionalists, including the religious, Classical Liberals, and others will become second-class, sub-citizens to the ruling Progressive Machine.

Of course, there’s so much more that I haven’t even touched on. Kim’s supporters range from the thoughtful and measured, to the sophomoric theocrats, to the flat-out bigoted. Same for her opponents. It’s a complex situation and too many parties are riding the wave to cash in.

That’s correct. Though a gay couple from San Francisco did travel to her offices to get married. They wanted to to make a statement, and I’m sure they won’t be the last. Folks like that are prowling for a lawsuit.

I find it insanely ironic that she refuses to issue the licenses because of her beliefs…and then she turns around and prevents others in her office to issue licenses as per their own beliefs.

Sometimes jobs change and evolve; hers is not the first one.

If you can no longer do the job or worse–refuse to do it, you should leave it.


The point, from Kim Davis’ point of view, is that SHE is the county clerk–not those who work for her. HER name is going to be on the license as the clerk who issued the license, whether it was her or someone from her office acting under her authority. If she allowed her subordinates to issue the licenses instead, the license still bears Davis’ name as the person who issued it.

All she is asking for is for the licenses to be changed so that the clerk’s name does not appear on the license. That seems like a reasonable accommodation to ease someone’s conscience. She shouldn’t have to quit her job (which is an elected office) when the issue can be easily resolved.

Ahhh, her name. Still there.

But for the document to be legal, you need the name of an issuing clerk on it, right?
Too bad they can’t put the names of the others in the office.

She’s in the wrong job for her personal beliefs.

She ran for the job only 7 months ago so she should have known full well the good possibility of same-sex marriage becoming legal in her state.
The majority of states had already legalized SS-marriage at that point, especially in the two years leading up to the moment she threw her hat in the ring.
She really should have taken closer note as to what the job would entail in the very near future–it would have been quite obvious to many others.


She’s a hero. The tears of the pro-homosexual movement are delicious. :cool:

Face it — the progressive/liberal movement wants to punish and silence her into submission. And anyone else who doesn’t believe in the gay agenda. (Yes, there is an agenda.)

and pro-life doctors and nurses should find another line of work. right. :shrug:

I always just say…What would Jesus say to Kim Davis? What would Mary say? I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be protesting her and hating her.

So if a Muslim who see Islam as not allowing women to drive he should be able to deny women who apply at his DMV a drivers license?

No they should just not seek employment in abortion clinics. She can always run for a different office that doesn’t deal in marriage.

The honorable thing for her to do would be resign, but then she’d lose 80,000 dollars a year. I bet that goes a loooonnng way in KY.

Is working at the DMV and elected position? If not, this isn’t a comparable analogy. But it wouldn’t be difficult to have an exemption for the Muslim worker, so long as another worker was available to perform the task. Accommodation is not difficult.

In Canada, pro-life doctors cannot refuse abortion or, recently, euthanasia to patients who ask for it. If the doctor refuses to personally do it, he must write a recommendation for a doctor who will. There is no freedom of conscience there. Are they just supposed to close heir practices? How many Christian doctors would be left?

Don’t you see that this is simply a way to discourage Christians from holding office? Inaction is tacit acceptance.There is no honor in permitting evil.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit