Everyone in the United States has a right to practice whatever religion they choose to, and I absolutely defend someone’s right to do so.
When government and religion cross, however, things get much more complicated.
Same-sex marriage was officially legalized on June 26 — or rather, it became illegal for states to ban same-sex couples from marrying.
Kim Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, disagrees with the ruling.
She has begun to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples who come into her office and, in doing so, has come to national attention, with some defending her and others condemning her.
Davis gained national attention after David Moore and David Ermold, a gay couple filmed their first attempt to receive a marriage license in their country in July.
We can all easily point fingers and scream “homophobe” until our throats hurt.
But Davis has her reasons for refusing licenses, the big one being that same-sex marriage is against her religion and Christian views.
Arguing this from a totally rights-based standpoint and based upon her right to practice her religion freely, it is perfectly fine, and legal, for Davis to hold these views about same-sex marriage.
But based on that same argument, she is not within her rights to refuse marriage licenses to people in a government building, which is supposed to be neutral territory when beliefs conflict.
If she is against same-sex marriage, she should have stepped down from her position as a government clerk when the Supreme Court ruling was announced and worked in a private chapel or institution, which do have the right to refuse couples based on religious belief.
A chapel in Idaho was making national headlines in 2014 for refusing same-sex couples based on the same Christian principles under which Davis is evidently operating.
The same-sex marriage ruling is highly controversial and for good reason.
It is an acceptance of same-sex couples in the U.S., but many see it as an affront, an insult to their beliefs.
I don’t want this column to be a debate about same-sex marriage.
Instead, I want to focus on this confusion occurring between church and state.
As long as the same-sex marriage ruling is considered constitutional, Davis cannot legally refuse same-sex couples marriage licenses while she works in a government position in a government building.
It is law, and nothing else.
Davis has asked to be excused from issuing same-sex marriage licenses and she faces misconduct charges and a hearing to determine whether or not she is in contempt of the court.
She is not the only clerk that is attempting to refuse same-sex marriage licenses either.
But she is the one in the spotlight.
And I would like to use the opportunity she has presented us to define, very clearly, the lines that divide religion and government.
I would call on other officials to do the same.
Practicing religion is a protected right in this country.
But when the practice of religion determines that other humans are somehow less than yourself and do not deserve the same rights as you, it cannot cross into law.
ewenning@indiana.edu
