Kim
Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who prides herself as a Christian, insists
that she can refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay or lesbian couples on the
basis of her own religious beliefs. Yes, the First Amendment does provide that
every citizen can freely pursue his or her own religious beliefs and practices.
However, when a person becomes a public official and acts for the public, he or
she must act in the public spirit and is no longer free to act in the mode of a
private citizen. I presume that Kim Davis took some kind of oath of office in
which she actually promised to do that. The First Amendment also prohibits the
formation of a state religion, which means that the public spirit is secular.
As a public servant, Davis has no right to impose her private religious beliefs
on those that she serves.
Actually,
the relationship between these two aspects of the First Amendment is intimate
and essential. "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof." If
Congress had the right to establish a state religion, then individuals would
not have the right to freely exercise the religion of their own choice. In
other words, the public spirit is secular precisely so that individuals like
Kim Davis can hold their own private beliefs. If public servants like Davis are free to exercise their private religious beliefs in office then citizens are interfered with in the free exercise of their private beliefs.
We
would all be outraged if we elected a president who was Catholic and who then
proceeded to consult the Pope on all matters of state policy. What’s the
difference? Or what about a Muslim county clerk who refuses to issues driving
licenses to women?
What
is amazing to me is the pile up of Republican presidential candidates who are
now eager to defend Davis and who, in the process, are showing their complete
ignorance of the Constitution as well as demonstrating their complete lack of
respect for the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment