Given how the news has crawled all over Kim Davis, the elected county clerk in KY who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, it seems like there’s nothing more to add to the furor. Still, I can’t help wondering if the following line of questioning has been pursued. I imagine her responses as that of a reasonable person who perhaps hasn’t quite followed through the reasoning …
Questioner: Mz. Davis, do you see your elective position as religious; that is, are you a religious official due to having been elected to the position of county clerk?
Mz. Davis: Why, no. The United States, while a Christian country, does not permit religion in government.
Questioner: So, Mz. Davis, when you issue a marriage license to a loving couple, are you blessing, or calling forth the blessing of a divinity, upon this marriage?
Mz. Davis: Of course not.
Questioner: Is it your duty, then, to ascertain that the couples presenting themselves have passed certain legal requirements, such as age, and upon satisfying yourself as to those requirements, to present a State sanctioned civil license of marriage to them?
Mz. Davis: Well, yes, but –
Questioner: So, as we have agreed, there is no presence of divinity, blessing, or any other religious association with this civil matter.
Mz. Davis: Yes, but –
Questioner: Mz. Davis, does religious marriage have a contingency on obtaining a civil license?
Mz. Davis: No!
Questioner: Nor does civil marriage have such a contingency on a religious marriage sanction; they are, in fact, separate and unrelated institutions. Mz. Davis, given the complete lack of religious association with your duties, how can you continue to refuse to issue civil licenses to gay couples?
This line of logical reasoning, illuminating certain facts, should be enough to quiet the storm. Still, I suspect Presidential candidates such as Huckabee will disagree. Western Journalism, provider of the Huckabee link, appears to be somewhat confused (as does the candidate) about how the law works, when they ask,
But more particularly Huckabee wants to know under exactly what law Davis is being commanded to issue marriage licenses to gay couples?
The main question is this: just what “law” did the Supreme Court make with its gay marriage decision? What statute was passed? What law written?
The answer is none.
The answer, of course, is that none is required. Absent any law denying the application, and assuming all applicable requirements are met (again, age, etc), the application must be granted – the clerk does not have personal discretion in the matter. Huckabee’s yapping about enabling legislation is just that.
To his credit, fellow GOP Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham has taken the opposite end of the spectrum, courtesy Towleroad:
Sen. Graham issued his comments on Hugh Hewitt’s conservative radio program this Tuesday saying that while he agrees with Davis’ ideals on marriage, she still has to comply with the law of the land:
“The rule of law is the rule of law. We are a rule of law nation.
“I appreciate her conviction, I support traditional marriage, but she’s accepted a job in which she has to apply the law to everyone.”
Sen. Graham ended his statement saying that if Davis doesn’t comply with the law then she needs to resign from her position.
RightWingWatch‘s coverage of the matter is here.
