BY GAVIN MACKINTOSH
After a christian clerk who was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment over her refusal to license gay marriages and released 5 days ago, the issue that arises is how America moves forward. The argument from the government is that as an employee of the State and not the Church, she has an obligation to uphold the law of the State. Kim Davis, a democrat, said all she wanted was for her name to be removed completely from any such certificate. Her subsequent release was because those licenses were eventually issued by her colleagues in her absence. Whilst in jail, Kim Davis was hailed as a hero by christian supporters on the outside and compared to biblical characters who were jailed for their faith. She came out to a wide applause by Christian supporters as she sobbed and said ” I gave glory to God, you guys did it”.
Not only did Ms Davis refuse to issue gay licenses in accordance with the supreme ruling this year that gave legal weight to gay marriages, she also refused to allow anybody else issue those licenses on the grounds that it would imply her authorization of gay marriage. Her husband said she would not bow to the tyranny of those who think they can take our conscience away”.
However, the condition of her release by the judge was that she does nothing to interfere with her colleagues issuing those licenses, though the released clerk made it clear that no license issue is officially legitimate without her approval. Kim Davis was elected for her post through the electoral process, though it seems many of those who voted for her may not have been aware of her deeply held religious beliefs. America is dynamic country, extreme in everything. Extreme in religion, extreme in crime, extreme in the delivery of court verdicts many times. This lady has an issue with issuing gay marriage certificates,but she should have been fired and fined, not jailed. Equally, she should have resigned from her position and let somebody else do the job. But no, she wants to make a point! She was greeted to a heroes welcome on her release, but I bet she did not enjoy one single bit of it in jail. Mixing with all those criminals for her religious beliefs…hmm brave.
LEGALIZATION OF GAY MARRIAGE
Since the legalization of gay marriage by the US supreme court in June, controversy and dispute have accompanied that landmark ruling. Clerks and judges have been advised by the Christian law firm Liberty not to comply. Some even stopped issuing marriage licenses to any couple, gay or straight to escape the obvious issue of discrimination that would attend a decision to exclude the one category the courts have stipulated must be included.
Their prudent judgement may have helped them evade the harsh prosecution that has been meted out to Kim Davis, though it is more likely that no serious legal challenge was made against their collective stance. US District Judge, David Bunning, could have chosen to sack or fine her, but instead felt the need to hand out out a punishment that would serve as a deterrent to other Christians in official positions .
The reasoning that surrounds the legalization of gay marriage has long been controversial. There is the obvious pressing need to achieve equality of treatment across all sections of society, though when pitted against the right to religious beliefs, an obvious conflict of interest arises. People are entitled to believe what they believe, though the imposing of that view on others becomes unacceptable. If a gay couple are happily in love and not harming anybody else, what then is the problem? By the same token, a religious person is entitled to consider such a coming together contrary to their beliefs and opt out of supporting it; but the question is whether marrying two gay couples as part of your job means you are supporting homosexuality. I don’t think it does.
Arguably , one is merely fulfilling their obligation as a worker in the job, and an employee of the state, without necessarily supporting it privately. It could be likened unto a worker selling cigarettes to smokers despite not liking smoking at all- all they are doing is not standing as an obstacle in the way of people fulfilling the desires of their heart. Yet, it is understandable if a person feels their religious beliefs is more important than their job, but in that case they perhaps should step aside.
HARSH
The decision to jail the Clark was definitely too harsh and not proportionate to the perceived offence committed by any stretch of the imagination. It is doubtful that a worker would be jailed for refusing to serve a black person, hispanic, Irish, or Asian person. At worst, a sacking would be sufficient to get the message of the state’s intolerance to refusal to uphold the law.
Indefinite jail hardly seems a worthwhile price to pay for upholding one’s religious beliefs, because of the accompanying loss of earnings, deterioration of one’s well being, and pain caused to family and well wishers.
Such sacrifice is certainly akin to some of the biblical stories referred to, though no amount of heroic acclaim necessarily compensates for the pain and loss to follow. It also seems somehow futile to jail her indefinitely only to back track and release her 5 days later o the grounds her colleagues issued the licenses anyway. Did the judge not foresee that the other colleagues would issue the licenses to avoid jail? Senior politicians like republican, Mike Huckabee and senator Ted Cruz, rose to her defense for following her convictions, with Huckabee saying he would prepared to do 8 years for his beliefs too.
Standing for one’s beliefs is one thing, but serving jail time for it is quite another. The American government need to recognize that the idea of forcing religious people who are stuck in their ways, to adhere to the conventional principles of secular society is not the answer. The law can condition them by dishing out reasonable punishment, but coercion in the way of jail cannot really be justified. Jail is extreme, despite their need to enforce the law. An obvious problem with the law is the fact it is not the constitution of Kentucky. The law that allows religious conscience in America needs to be better defined in the context of the conflicting laws that legalize homosexuality. The contradiction reflects badly on the American system.
Individuals whose lives are immersed in religious doctrine should exercise their choice of not working for institutions where they have to execute duties that strongly contradict their faith. Unless they want to go to jail of course. Advocates of the Christian faith have stressed the right for Christians to be able to exercise their constitutional rights of freedom of religious conscience, but this will almost certainly make none sense of the legal approval of gay marriage by the State. If gay couples can be legally turned down for weddings based on religious convictions, then the law might as well be chucked in the bin! There is no way round this ugly dilemma for Christians as they cannot expect to practice their Christianity to the letter whilst holding government positions, or indeed any position of office.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council- an organisation that lobbies against gay marriage, told eye of media ” this woman has exhibited an admirable level of courage for which I am sure Christians all over the world are proud. The idea of criminalizing Christians for practicing their beliefs is utterly wrong and unacceptable. The government really needs to review its position on this, because it is arbitrary in principle. It could cause a back clash because courage breeds courage”.
And any such back clash will simply be because the right to freedom of religious conscience and the legality that accompanies gay marriage are an absolute contradiction when it comes to the professional domain. Both cannot really co-exist coherently. It is a surprise if the American courts don’t realize this.
