(UPDATE: Kim Davis was released from jail on Tuesday with the judge’s warning that she must not attempt to influence her co-workers who agreed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This blog was posted prior to Tuesday’s ruling)
It cannot be expected that national Democratic leaders, given their politics, might be inclined to feel sympathy for Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed several days ago for her refusal to issue licenses for same-sex marriages. More telling, however, are the mixed responses of Republican presidential candidates, who one might suspect would be more sensitive to freedom of religion issues.
Strong stands in favor of Davis’ religious liberty rights were taken by Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. Others, most notably Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham and John Kasich, took the easy way out, either appearing to dismiss the seriousness of the question by appealing to settled law or by talking from both sides of their mouths. The Supreme Court has ruled (5 to 4) for same-sex marriage, they stressed. What the Supreme Court says is … wait for it … “the law of the land.”
I always find it disappointing when politicians punt on important divisive issues, and religious liberty issues are as important as they get. This country was founded on the principle that courts should attempt to find accommodation for individuals with sincerely-held religious convictions, and there is no doubt that the judge who sentenced Davis to jail time could have found accommodation had he chosen to do so. As for those politicians who find religious liberty too troublesome to confront squarely, their mealy-mouthed statements should be duly noted by those of us who believe this country sorely needs a man or woman of courage and conviction to become the next president.
Law of the land? What does that mean? Is the “law of the land” now just a convenient excuse to crawl into an intellectual foxhole? Would those same Republican presidential candidates, had they lived 160 years ago, have deferred on the slavery question because the Supreme Court had upheld it as the “law of the land?”
The point is not, of course, that slavery and same-sex marriage are comparable issues. But no one can suggest that the Supreme Court is infallible.
Those presidential wannabes who fear mixing it up in the arena of public opinion might do well to hear the words of Rev. Martin Luther King, who once said, “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him 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 the law … if today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.”
Kim Davis has willingly accepted a punishment that many argue should not have been demanded of her. Her only encouragement now might be that her incarceration may come to be seen as so unreasonable that her cause will become more appreciated.
But not, obviously, by everyone.
I wonder if I were to approach one of those weak-kneed presidential candidates and asked them how important, really, is religious liberty to them, if they would respond by saying, “I don’t know. Let me go ask the Supreme Court.”