Via the conservative-leaning PJ Media news site:
Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin gave Kim Davis and all the other county clerks in the state a “wonderful Christmas gift” by protecting their religious rights and freedom.
Bevin issued an executive order two weeks after taking office that removes the names of all county clerks from marriage licenses issued in Kentucky. Staver said that will enable Davis and all other county clerks to do their jobs — issue marriage licenses to everyone, including same-sex couples — without compromising their religious principles.
Over at Instapundit (also part of PJ Media), the comments ranged from:
“Do we have a secular or sectarian society. While I respect Ms. Davis beliefs, rewriting law just for her was not the right [thing] to do.”
To:
“It wasn’t just for her, it was for everyone like her, and a very reasonable way to accommodate the rights of all parties.”
Another commenter said, “Removing the clerk’s name from the license is a very hollow victory,” and I tend to agree with the observation, although the commenter may have been lamenting that marriage licenses are being issued to same-sex couples at all.
Government officials are responsible for following the law of the land, even when doing so is at odds with their own religious beliefs. They are public servants, not private, self-employed service providers.
But it’s for the good if a small, symbolic action can defuse a contentious “culture war” face off and serve civility without diminishing individual rights, and I tend to see that happening here.
More. Scott Shackford, at reason.com’s Hit & Run blog, notes there have been other recent compromises:
The conflict with Davis was the most visible representation of resistance, but it’s not the only one. … In North Carolina, lawmakers passed legislation allowing county employees to opt out of duties performing marriages or issuing licenses if they have religious objections. But the county is also obligated to make sure magistrates or clerks are available to pick up the slack and that the county keeps regular hours.
In Alabama, state law gives county probate judges complete discretion as to whether to issue [any] marriage licenses at all. In response to the Obergefell decision, some judges have opted out entirely.
These responses, too, seem like reasonable ways to move beyond culture war confrontations without denying gay couples the right to wed.
8 Comments for “The Kentucky ‘Compromise’”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Two thoughts:
(1) The “Kentucky Compromise” does not meet the demands of Sainted Kim Davis, Christian Martyr. As you may recall, Davis refused to allow employees of her office to issue same-sex marriage licenses in their capacity of Deputy Clerk, requiring them instead to issue same-sex marriage licenses in their capacity of Notary Public.
(2) I wonder how the “Kentucky Compromise” squares with Kentucky Revised Statues Section 402.100(1), which requires:
The “Kentucky Compromise”, like the “Missouri Compromise” to which the tagline alludes, is both hollow and a useless attempt to paper over a structural crack. It won’t so much as slow down the so-called “Culture War”.
posted by Jorge on
I wonder how the “Kentucky Compromise” squares with Kentucky Revised Statues Section 402.100(1)…
It seems the Executive Order (counter-) game can be played by both sides as it strikes them.
Government officials are responsible for following the law of the land, even when doing so is at odds with their own religious beliefs. They are public servants, not private, self-employed service providers.
The law of the land is responsible for conforming to the Constitution of the United States then the former is at odds with the latter. The Constitution establishes a separation between church and state, not a unitarian religion, and certainly not a religion that privileges a belief in gay marriage over a rejection in gay marriage.
“Do we have a secular or sectarian society. While I respect Ms. Davis beliefs, rewriting law just for her was not the right [thing] to do.”
Hmm, that is incorrect. One person can file a lawsuit, and change the law in the entire country to require states to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. I didn’t think that was the right thing to do, and I gave the exact same reason. And I daresay there are more Christians who reject same sex marriage than there are same sex couples who seek marriage.
So having lost that battle, I take a rather dim view of people saying “we shouldn’t change the law just for one person.” The US Constitution prohibits certain laws, period, even if they only apply to one person.
In this situation, Kim Davis did file her lawsuit, and as a direct result of everything that happened in court, the law already was changed for her individual benefit alone. She was allowed to rewrite the marriage license form in her office in order to meet the needs of both the First Amendment’s religious protections on her behalf and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection provisions on behalf of gay couples.
Remember, Kim Davis argued that her office could not issue the marriage licenses without a her personal authorization because that was a violation of Kentucky law. This argument exposed a fatal flaw in Kentucky’s legal framework, and its endpoint was ignoring it.
So I consider the executive order nothing more than what was legally necessary after the precedent was set at the individual level. Anyone else could file the same lawsuit, and the exact same result would occur, only it would be another waste of time and money. I am not going to celebrate this twice.
I don’t think this does diddly squat on the culture war because both sides are ignoring the law as it suits them.
posted by Jorge on
The “Kentucky Compromise” does not meet the demands of Sainted Kim Davis, Christian Martyr.
For months I had a picture of her posted in a Joan of Arc costume–full plate armor.
I’m sure the outcome of Snyder v. Phelps didn’t meet the demands of the Phelps family, either.
If I compare Kim Davis to the Phelps family, I still can take what I want from them both.
posted by Houndentenor on
So long as the licenses are issued and legally valid, I have no craps to give about whose signature appears on the paper.
posted by Doug on
Just speaking from the heart, I would rather not have the signature of a known homophobic bigot on my marriage license.
posted by Houndentenor on
Agreed. And for that matter I would not want to eat food made by a bigot. I’ve said this before: I’d rather have a wedding reception with no cake than force someone to bake one. I understand why others feel differently about public accommodations laws, but that’s my own opinion. I’m ready to move forward. The religious right does not. I’m happy to let them stew in their own bigotry while we move on and live our lives.
posted by JohnInCA on
Y’know, I’d be a lot more willing to give bakers and florists and photographers (oh my!) a pass on relevant non-discrimination laws if they put up a nice big “No Gays Allowed” sign in their workplaces.
But whataya know… they seem entirely unwilling to do that. When a legislator suggested such a thing be added to a “right to discriminate” bill in Oklahoma it was attacked as an affront to religious liberty to be out of the closet regarding your intent to discriminate.
When some places in Mississippi started putting up “we don’t discriminate” stickers it was “anti-Christian bullying” and attacked mercilessly.
Quite simply, modern bigots aren’t as brave as the bigots of old. They want to refuse service but never be called out on it. I’d have a lot more respect for their views if they respected their own views enough to be upfront about them, instead of only springing them as a surprise.
Or, to put it another way… generally speaking, I have no interest in going where I’m not wanted. But when the places I’m not wanted refuse to admit such, I’ll probably blunder in, and then we’ll have a scene.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
So, are couples going to be able to get married, or is someone going to insist that the font on the marriage certificate not be “too gay” or not include any of the letters found in the clerks name? (Sigh)
Meanwhile, you can be married on a Friday….and fired from your job and evicted from your apartment on Monday.