Four Reasons Christians Should Support Kim Davis

What is accommodation is the Kim Davis case?

A. She doesn’t sign the same-sex marriage licenses, but some else in the office can approve them.

B. She doesn’t allow any marriage licenses to be issued from her office to same-sex couples because she religiously objects to them.

Mark, again you are simply incorrect. If you read the stories, there are a number of easy accommodations that could be made that she and her attorney have suggested. Taking her name off the license was one thart they suggested and it was refused. The state legislature could have acted as other states did, but they refused. The governor could have acted but didn’t. There were very easy solutions that were rejected.

Others in the office can approve the license but her name would still be on them and that is her objection. The judge who jailed her could have removed her name from all licenses. Why didn’t he? He instead pursued a course of government coercion that rejected easier solutions.

Regarding the legality of it, it is correct that there is currently no law in Kentucky under which same sex marriage licenses can be issued. SCOTUS declared certain laws unconstituiona (violating is own reasoning). But they did not replace those laws. I think there is a case to be made that now, there is no law that says anything about ssm. But same sex couples do not meet the conditions under which

marriage licenses can be issued in Kentucky until the law is changed. Remember SCOTUS is not s legislative body.

Sure, you can argue that way, but think about it: Traditional marriage lost the political battle. Fact.

Why? Because the country has noticeably moved away from believing almost anything about the gospel. They marry what they want and when they want. That is the current political situation. If you think that Kentucky is ever going to be able to not approve ssm, you are dead wrong. Politically the battle is lost.

So, you can say, like Huckabee, that there are no laws in Kentucky approving ssm. True. But there are no laws preventing it either, because the SCOTUS decision declared all of those unconstitutional.

Now, as for accommodation. Think rationally about this with all of its full implications. If you are the county clerk, you are the official secretary for that county. Marriages is one of the things that counties are charged by states to handle through licenses. Does it make any sense that a clerk not have their name on the licenses for that county? No it doesn’t. If you can’t approve of everything legal that the county does, you need to step out of the way, imho. Otherwise, a liberal government official could reject things that YOU LIKE…all because of their “conscience”. That is a dangerous road to move down.

It is one thing to allow a private business owner want a religious objection, it is another for a primary government elected official like a county clerk. I have looked at the accommodations that Kim’s lawyer requested, and imho they are pretty extensive. Basically, she wants the document it self to not mention her OR the Rowan County Clerk position in any way. Instead, she wants something like “state of Kentucky” and then a judge to sign it. That is a lot for one person’s “objections”.

Is preaching the gospel, and changing the hearts and minds of people. It is not arguing to get your name removed from some document, and in the process make yourself seem even more unreasonable.

Traditional marriage lost the political battle. Fact.

You are correct, but you are once again completing missing the point. This is not about traditional marriage or SSM. It’s about religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Whether she is right or wrong on the issue, she has the right to conscientious objection, and it is incumbent on the government to accommodate that with reasonable steps. That was not done. Period. End of discussion.

Does it make any sense that a clerk not have their name on the licenses for that county?

I think it make a lot of sense actually. Why does it need to be on there? Why not a judge? Or someone else? Or the state of Kentucky? Or Secretary of State?

If you can’t approve of everything legal that the county does, you need to step out of the way, imho.

Why? And why should someone else bow to your opinion on this? Does someone give up their constitutional rights simply because they were elected to a position? I don’t think so. I doubt you think so.

Otherwise, a liberal government official could reject things that YOU LIKE…all because of their “conscience”. That is a dangerous road to move down.

Exactly my point. You think it’s dangerous that a person with a religious conscience lives by that. I think the danger is the opposite—that government can coerce a person to violate their conscience in order to maintain their job. I think a liberla or conservative or anyone can object to things I like, and there should be other steps to honor their conscience while achieving the outcome. If the government can coerce conscience, then they have violated the very thing the constitution and multiple laws and court decisions have protected for a very long time. A liberal or athiest or agnostic or any one else should not be required to violate their conscience. Reasonable accommodations should be made.

I have looked at the accommodations that Kim’s lawyer requested, and imho they are pretty extensive. Basically, she wants the document it self to not mention her OR the Rowan County Clerk position in any way. Instead, she wants something like “state of Kentucky” and then a judge to sign it. That is a lot for one person’s “objections”.

I am not sure you looked at the accommodations they want. They are not extensive at all. These accommodations have already been enacted in other states, and the judge could have very simply made that his decision rather than putting her in jail and subjecting us to this circus. But even what you describe is hardly a lot. You change the county name for the state name and the county clerk’s name for a judge’s name. I just typed that out in less than thirty seconds. Is thirty seconds really an overwhelming burden for religious liberty?

Where does the government’s power to coerce stop for you? At what point do you say a person of a religious belief (whatever it is) should stand up? Is there any line for you?

I think your problem is that you are focused on the religious aspect rather than the constitutional and liberty aspect. You are trying to make it about Christianity. It’s not. It’s about religious freedom.

There is the a 90 mile fastball to to the outside corner and Mark SMITH swings and hits it over the right field wall. Its a Grand Slam. No doubt about it.

Playing in a little league park? I don’t even think Mark has made a respectable attempt at an argument.

I don’t think it’s cut and dried one way or the other. As a whole, I wish Kim Davis would just go away. But she has raised a very important issue of religious liberty and since she has done the work of raising it, I think it’s time to press the issue. Put the pressure on the people to either confirm or deny their belief in religious freedom. Let us no longer allow people to play both sides of the fence. Let’s draw the line clearly. Either people have religious freedom to live by their conscience or they don’t. Which do you believe?

Before you say Kim Davis is a government employee and therefore must do her job, please find that part of the constitution that reserves religious freedom only for non-government employees. Before you say if she couldn’t do the job she shouldn’t have taken it, remember that she is willing to do the job she took.

So does a person have the consitutional freedom to live by their conscience without making that a test of employment?

One of my wife’s friends supports these fighters ie HUCKABEE and CRUZ, This friend essentially told me that the US government should be run by Christians and should carry the gospel of Christ. This friend also indicated I was in sin for not supporting this position.

Sounds like you need better friends.

OK, so a judge signs the license instead of the clerk. What if she objects? What if all judges object? Ok, so you send it to the Sec of State. What if he objects?

So now a person can’t do what the law allows, whether I approve or not, based on “religious accommodation”.

Does that sound reasonable?

Now, how about this? You are a church looking to build a new property. You go to the zoning planning board for approval. The chairman refuses to sign the approval because he religiously objects to your use… Sound good?

You call the police from your church office because hear a burglar. The only officer on duty refuses to respond because he is Catholic and doesn’t like Baptists. He has religious objection to them.

A child at your church gets hurt and needs a blood transfusion. The only doctor on duty is a JW. He doesn’t believe in blood transfusions, so he refuses to give one. The child dies. Hey… he had a religious objection.

Carry that on into a thousand things government officials do…

Is that really what we want to do civilly in this country?

Friday, I went to my county’s Register of Deeds to get a copy of my DD214 (my military discharge paperwork) that I had filed there when I was discharged. What if the register of deeds was a Quaker, a pacifist, who didn’t believe in the military. So, he refused me service because his conscience wouldn’t let him support the military?

To get into the county court house you have to pass through a metal detector and be inspected by the Highway Patrol. I have a key chain dangle that is a cut-out of a cross made of nails. The highway patrolman wanted to take another look at it to make sure it was safe. What if he was an atheist, and refused to tolerate looking at or inspecting Christian symbols so he refused to let me in?

What if a muslim federal meat inspector refused to inspect pork… What if a small county sheriff were Jewish and refused to work on Saturday, or let any other deputy work on Saturday lest his religious conscience be violated?

These examples I am giving might be silly, but the point is if you open the “conscience” box, you never know what might come flying out. It might be worse than what you were avoiding in the first place.

Remember, there are people of other religions than Christianity that can claim a “consciencous objection”.

Your examples “might” be silly? They passed that a long time ago. And there’s a major problem with all your scenarios, including the one with Kim Davis. You assume that there is only one person that can do said thing. That’s false. In Kentucky there were more than 100 places where these couples could have gotten a license. In fact, apparently one of the couples could have stayed in Ohio where they live instead of coming to Kentucky. Or things could have been changed so that they get it locally without burdening someone’s conscience. You keep ignoring these facts in pursuit of some strange point.

There are many judges who do object to performing same sex marriages and many progressive, forward thinking states have already passed laws that protect them. The question is why Kentucky didn’t do the same thing. It would have been simple.

You can make up all sorts of hypotheticals, none of which really make sense or are realistic.

Again, Mark, if you read the stories you see just how simple this is to solve to the satisfaction of all parties. There are a number of different ways to do it and it would have been quick and easy. It seems, at this point, that you are reaching for straws in an attempt to be obtuse about it.

Yes, if any of those people object to something on the basis of religious conscience that should be honored as it has historically by finding an alternate means so long as it provides no undue hardship to the employer. Mark, this is a long settled principle of conscience in our culture. No need to change it now to achieve some social experimental ends.

Let’s take your view. If the accommodations for Kim Davis are “long settled”, easy, and minor, why did the governor, legislature, judges, etc, not offer it to Kim?

Why then has Kim not filed a lawsuit seeking her accommodations if they are “long settled” and minor?

Larry, do you really think it is reasonable to make people in Rowan county go to another county to get a license, all because Kim can’t let the title “Rowan County Clerk” be on a same-sex marriage license?

Larry, as for your judges example in other states. What if a head judge in some district said not only is she not doing same-sex marriages, but no other judge is either? Has that happened? No, because it is ridiculous to claim that your personal religious convictions keep an entire office from acting. Yet, that is what Kim Davis is claiming.

Seriously here. If Christians are a majority in the USA, and want marriage laws to match that religion’s viewpoint, why can’t an atheist claim a religious accommodation to allow a same-sex marriage?

I suppose there are some who side with Mark Smith and some who side with Larry (which I do). Both think they have good arguments which negate the view of the other. In the end, I suspect it will be liberal politicians, enemies of the Constitution, and people who have no moral compass who will prevail, if we go by the trends. I suspect that Mark Smith will follow his conscience, governed by his view of the law. And Larry (and the rest of us) will follow our conscience by our view of the law. In the end, conscience will prevail as the arbiter, but in the process freedom of religion will suffer. Mark Smith may not see it, but imho, an important aspect of the American experiment may die with the Kim Davis case. We should all lament the loss.

If the accommodations for Kim Davis are “long settled”, easy, and minor, why did the governor, legislature, judges, etc, not offer it to Kim?

I don’t think the accommodations are long-settled. I don’t know why you would say that. I certainly didn’t say that. What is long-settled is the principle of conscience and religious objection and reasonable accommodations for it. There is a long history of how that is managed in our culture. It is true that the accommodations here are minor and easy. Why didn’t they do anything? Perhaps the governor wished to make a political point and so he didn’t call the legislature back into session. I think the legislature adjourned for the year long before this case was settled. The judge just messed up; that’s all there is to that one. Rather than seek a mediated position that could satisfy all parties, he instead is trying to force one. In that he violated the long-standing practices of the court system to accommodate religious beliefs.

Why then has Kim not filed a lawsuit seeking her accommodations if they are “long settled” and minor?

I think she has, but I am not sure of that exactly. I think she has requested accommodations before the judge, and requested a stay from the 6th circuit and from SCOTUS until she could resolve it through the courts. It was denied.

Larry, do you really think it is reasonable to make people in Rowan county go to another county to get a license, all because Kim can’t let the title “Rowan County Clerk” be on a same-sex marriage license?

Yes, I think that is very reasonable. I had to drive three hours to get mine. If you want to get married, that’s not a big deal. But I think there are also a number of other reasonable steps that could also have been taken. The question for you is why aren’t you willing to seek one of these simple accommodations? What price is religious freedom and conscience worth? Is a twenty mile drive too much? Or the changing of a signature? Is that really too much to ask to allow someone to live by their conscience?

if a head judge in some district said not only is she not doing same-sex marriages, but no other judge is either? Has that happened? No, because it is ridiculous to claim that your personal religious convictions keep an entire office from acting. Yet, that is what Kim Davis is claiming.

Again, you are confused here. You are comparing two entirely dissimilar things. No judge has authority over another judge at the same level. Judges all over have said they won’t do same sex marriages and they refer them to other judges. And some have said they won’t do any marriages until same sex marriages are legal. No one seems to be complaining about that too much. I really don’t care one way or the other. Marriages are functional in terms of the legal status and the officiant of the wedding conveys no special grace to the ceremony.

No one has said that one person’s personal religious convictions should keep an entire office from acting. In fact, that’s the one thing that an accommodation cannot do. The issue here is that in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the clerk is the name that goes on all licenses. The deputy clerk’s names do not go on the licenses. Her office can continue to operate in other areas, and it could continue to operate here with very simple changes. Why aren’t you trumpeting that and insisting on that?

Mark, I seriously don’t understand your point here. You seem insistent that all religious rights and freedom of conscience be removed. You seem to have no room at all for those who disagree with you, and that is the very thing that the religious freedom issue was designed to prevent—people like you demanding that everyone else see it and do it their way. That was the things the courts were designed to stop. Here, they failed. They rather contributed to the problem.

For my dollar, I am fine if a particular person doesn’t want to do something for religious reasons. Let someone else do it, and that is exactly what should be done in Kentucky and everywhere else.

Again, I don’t really care about Kim Davis or the issue itself at this point. I care about the principle involved that the state must not coerce religious conscience of any kind. It must instead make reasonable accommodations for all citizens to live by their conscience.

In the end, I suspect it will be liberal politicians, enemies of the Constitution, and people who have no moral compass who will prevail, if we go by the trends. I suspect that Mark Smith will follow his conscience, governed by his view of the law. And Larry (and the rest of us) will follow our conscience by our view of the law. In the end, conscience will prevail as the arbiter, but in the process freedom of religion will suffer.

I agree with this, which leads to my follow up question. Does a believer have an scriptural mandate to refuse to perform their duties? To put it another way, must believers refuse to do their duties, whatever they are, or should they simply resign on the basis of conscience and take the higher ground in doing so?

I’m looking at a lot of Scripture on this subject and I’m not convinced that the most commonly cited examples in Daniel apply, simply because the options were literally ‘sin or die’. Not ‘sin or lose your job and then go find something else to do’. I’m thinking a lot about Joseph in Egypt and Daniel’s reply to King Belshazzar in Daniel 5. Those stories seem much more applicable than the golden image or the lion’s den stories.

Peter talks about Christ being our example in terms of suffering:

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. for you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

I started rereading Jesus’ response to Pilate in the gospels this morning, and I just don’t see a mandate to ‘stand and fight’ on this topic. If it was a matter of sign the form or be beheaded for Jesus, that makes it a lot different. But in 21st century America, we have the liberty to walk away.

In short - when we are told by authorities to do something explictly spelled out as sin in God’s word, that’s one thing. One could argue that Kim is simply an instrument by the secular government to show that they recognize a marriage as ‘legitimate’, which is a lot different from her personally approving marriages (if she were a justice of the peace or something like that).

You’re good my friend. You have some how warped my words to make me sound like some ogre out to crush Kim Davis’ rights. Well played.

No, that is not what I wrote.

I simply think that claiming “religious objection” as a civil servant is the wrong road to go down. I think it will set a dangerous precedent that other people will use to do things we don’t like. But, I don’t even think the argument will work in the present political climate.

I also think that Kim Davis is asking too much. She is a person filling the office of the Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. A marriage document originates in the county office you request the form in. So of course it refers to that Clerk’s office. It isn’t personal to her claiming she morally approves of anything (like you acknowledged above about judges by the way). I think Kim could have easily let others sign the form rather than insist the form not even refer to her office.

No, rather than scream at the top of our lungs to get our names off of legal documents, we should be praying and preaching the gospel even more.