Although landmark Supreme Court case Obergefell vs. Hodges gave same-sex couples the legal right to marry across the U.S. in June of this year, the problem of clerks not issuing marriage licenses is occurring across the nation.
Kim Davis has become famous for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky based upon her religious belief to obey “God’s authority.”
Davis is by far the most vocal and defiant clerk refusing to administer licenses, but giving her all the media attention regarding a much larger movement is obscuring the real problem — whether or not religious objection to issuing marriage licenses is constitutional.
This refusal of service by clerks all over the country, particularly in Alabama and North Carolina, has led to magistrates traveling to other counties in order to perform marriages.
Religious objection is causing other clerks to work more and longer hours, all on the taxpayer’s dime. Not only is this trend a misappropriation of government funds, it also means these clerks are breaking the law.
Columbia Law School professor Katherine Franke told the Guardian that the actions of these states, “gives a special privilege to those that hold certain religious beliefs, which crosses the line into making someone’s personal religious belief part of the state’s public policy.”
While I agree with Franke wholeheartedly, there should be a compromise for clerks who do not wish to burden their faith.
A new state law in Utah gives hesitant clerks a better option than not doing their job. The religious objection law permits clerks to stop solemnizing (performing a ceremony) marriages but still requires them to issue marriage licenses.
Ricky Hatch, a clerk in Utah, said the law necessitates him to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as a legal obligation but does allow him to abstain from officiating a ceremony he does not consciously advocate. Hatch said, “My decision does not prevent the marriage from taking place, but I am also not personally promoting the practice.”
Franke said, “Religious liberty rights end up shifting a cost to other parties, whether it’s the public or other public officials — that’s gone too far.”
Religious objection is allowing these clerks to free themselves of ethical turmoil, while simultaneously shifting the consequences to other clerks, taxpayers and same-sex couples.
These clerks took an oath when they came into office swearing to serve all the public.
It is not within the clerk’s discretion to decide who is included or excluded based upon their personal, moral or religious beliefs. It simply shouldn’t be this hard for same-sex couples to marry when same-sex marriage is now a constitutionally protected privilege.
An opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court states, “A judge may not decline to perform all marriages in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples based on his or her personal, moral or religious beliefs.”
I sincerely hope this issue is settled by the U.S. Supreme Court or by the supreme courts of each state wherein same-sex couples have such terrible access to marriage services.
Personal, moral and religious beliefs should not allow certain groups of people to refuse to obey the law, especially when it comes to discriminating against an already ostracized class.
rcm2@indiana.edu
