Christian Jailed in US

I like Kim Davis. Last week a federal judge ordered Davis to jail following her refusal to comply with a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The county clerk has sought a religious liberty exemption, stating that it would violate her Christian beliefs to affix her name to a license for same-sex couples.

Davis’s lawyer, Roger Gannam with the Liberty Counsel, said following Judge David Bunning’s decision to imprison his client: “Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and she’s been ordered to stay there until she’s willing to change her mind, until she’s willing to change her conscience about what that belief is. This is unprecedented in American law.”

According to Kim Davis, “I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. I’m just a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place.” She added: “I’m no different than any other Christian. It was my appointed time to stand, and their time will come.”

Judge David Bunning, who ruled against Davis, argued his case compellingly. He said: "Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the US Supreme Court's decisions regardless of our personal opinions. Davis is certainly free to disagree with the court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent."

In addition, Judge Bunning contends, "Davis repeatedly states that the act of issuing these licenses requires her to 'authorize' same-sex marriage. The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. It simply asks the clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law. Davis' religious convictions have no bearing on this purely legal inquiry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval."

In other words, Davis was not asked to solemnize something with which she disagreed – she was not employed as a Minister of Religion. What if her job required her to certify legal entities like gambling establishments or night clubs? Would certifying such activities violate her Christian beliefs or conscience?

However, according to Davis, “God’s moral law conflicts with my job duties.” The clerk currently has a case in federal court seeking a religious liberty exemption, allowing her not to have to affix her name to same-sex marriage licenses. 

The First Amendment to our US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In America, the citizen has the freedom of religion; the state should not institute an atmosphere of freedom from religion.

For me, some questions must be answered, was Kim Davis imprisoned for the exercise of her religious views? Did the government create an atmosphere that would limit or prohibit Davis from practicing her religion?

The Religious Freedom Restoration ACT (RFRA), passed by Congress in 1993, establishes the principle that when someone complains that a federal law burdens his religious conscience, the government has an obligation to demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in applying the law.

Could “a compelling interest” be determined in Davis’ case? For Davis, this is a matter of religious liberty which is protected under the First Amendment. America’s history is filled with accommodations for people's religious freedom and conscience.

For example, the Supreme Court's much-debated Hobby Lobby ruling exempts private businesses from issuing health insurance that offers contraception services to employees if that violates the religious conscience of their owners. 

Was Davis offered exemptions that accommodated her First Amendment rights? According to Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, “Kentucky accommodates conscientious objectors for other types of licensing.” Why weren’t these “other types of licensing” extended to Davis?

Mat Staver, Head of the Liberty Counsel said “Davis has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and that’s what should have been done.

Furthermore, I think it’s reprehensible that she’s in jail for this when a simple fix could have been easily handled.”

Kentucky Govenor Steve Beshear could issue an executive order and correct the problem, but he would not. Also, the legislature could pass a law removing clerks' names from the licenses, but it won't be in session until January. In the meantime, Kim Davis is languishing in jail. 

This case reminds me of a few lines in Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail: “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him [or her] is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.” 

Like Esther, Kim Davis believes she was elected as Clerk of Court “for such a time as this.” Esther requested of the Jews that they should fast while she prepared herself to stand before the king. In like fashion, we need to stand with Kim Davis. Rightly or wrongly, she is taking a stand for everyone who cherishes religious liberty against judicial tyranny.