Gay Marriage And The Civil Rights Movement

She upholds that her religion as an Apostolic Christian prevents her from supporting same-sex nuptials. “This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” she said. “This is a fight worth fighting.” (Starnes, 2015) Public-order advocates maintain the idea that an elected official has a duty to uphold to the law. Individual-rights advocates continue to support Davis, such as Liberty Counsel Attorney, Mat Staver, who said “if this country has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for their religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty.” (Starnes, 2015) The lack of tolerance for gay marriage has also been seen in Oregon where a bakery was sued for “emotional suffering” (The Guardian, 2015) because the bakery owner refused to make a cake for a gay couple. “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal,” Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian said in the final order.” (The Guardian, 2015) Anna Harmon, one of the attorneys for the couple “said Avakian’s order is unconstitutional, because “the right to speak freely, to think uniquely, and to live according to our faith is the bedrock of this country.” (The Guardian,

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June declaring a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Ms. Davis, due to her religious beliefs, has been refusing to issue marriage licenses to not only gay couples, but straight couples as well.

In this article, “Kentucky Clerk Ordered to Jail for Refusing to Issue Gay Marriage License” the author James Higdon focuses on the recent topic of gay marriage. Higdon’s story relates to a Kentucky woman named Kim Davis. Davis was arrested September 3, 2015 because she refused to issue marriage license to a gay couple. “Under questioning from her attorney, Davis went on to express her opposition to same-sex marriage, which she said was ‘not of God’ and contrary to natural law and therefore not something that she could condone” (Higdon). This quote shows that Davis refused to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs. Davis’s religious beliefs are so strong that she continued to fight with the law and the court judge

As a county clerk, part of your job is to sign marriage licenses, for anyone that needs one. Now that the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal, they also have the right to get a license. “How can you promise to “uphold the Constitution” if you have already admitted that it has a loophole big enough for Davis to fit through?” (Source C) Kim Davis is said to have broken the law. By refusing the LGBT community of marriage licenses, she is breaking a federal law. The Supreme Court made it a law in all 50 states to allow same-sex marriage, so if refusing to give a license to a couple is now against the law; no matter what your religious beliefs are. Kim Davis, however, refused them of the licenses. She stopped giving heterosexual couples licenses too because she was afraid they were getting them for someone else. This issue is also said to be an issue or separation of church and state. She is pushing her religion and beliefs on others by refusing them of a

County Clerk Kim Davis, of Rowan County, Kentucky, is in a difficult situation because she refuses to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson have written an article about why they think she is doing the right thing not just religiously, but Constitutionally as well. They outline the reasons why the stand she is taking is her only option as a Christian and as an elected official of the United States.

The United States Supreme court a while ago made same sex marriages legal in all the 50 states of the nation. However, a clerk from the Kentucky state marriage office Kim Davis has come under the spot light. She had refused to grant a marriage licence to a gay couple, and was as a result incarcerated. A federal court order brings consequences with it if one breaches the same. Miss Davis managed to overlook this aspect or preferred jail over a marriage licence to a gay duo.

Davis is one of the few clerks across the country to deny gay marriage licenses after the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage in June. However, Davis is one of the first to be sued even as her attorneys vowed to keep fighting the legal battle in the face of strong resistance from experts likening the issue to interracial marriage five decades ago.

Kim Davis has sparked the interests of thousands all over the country, and even some all over the world. In getting everyone’s attention, Kim Davis has managed to stir up quite an argument as well. Although this dispute has gotten a bit messy, underneath the crossfire of conflicting opinions, there are the underlying truths of the story. Kim Davis is a citizen of the United States, and as a U.S. citizen, Davis’s personal beliefs, and the freedom to express them, are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (US Const. amend. I). Proponents of Davis argue that not only does she have the freedom to believe what she wants, but she has the freedom to express her beliefs as well. Though Kim Davis’s beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, the right for same-sex couples to marry is protected by section one of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, “ No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

When I began to read on this and really found out about this issue of Kim Davis I knew right then how things would go for her. Kim Davis is like every human being on this earth she has choices and some choices causes us to be in a uncomfortable position and some causes us to deal with things that starts conflict especially if the goverment is involved. Now as fellow Americans we know that in later history religon has always got most in trouble behind it simple because that was what people were known to stand by and believe in becuase it was only right. Now recently all around the world homesexuality has come up and now they are now not those people but regualr people of America that have a right to do possibly any hetrosexual person can do for example, marry, adopt, and vote and all sorts of things just to name a few.

Kim Davis was elected from the people to do a job as the county clerk. And when of the people changed the constitution for same sex marriage this got in the way of her religious beliefs prevented her from caring out her duties. But at the same time in The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 in some people’s eyes she is just expressing one of her constitutional rights. If the constitution was written only based on Christian beliefs then we would be breaking other religious rights as well.

On the issue of one’s religious practices versus the law it can be a complicated issue. In the Kim Davis situation, she had held a position within government that complicated the matter with that of her own beliefs versus her duties and obligations to her job. Kim Davis while serving had decided that due to her beliefs she would be unable follow through with giving out same-sex licenses to marriage couples, however, her decision to do is not fair as her personal opinion on the issue conflicts with what could be in the law books. For example, it is normal for Kim Davis to personally not believe in same-sex marriage and condemn it, but to use her views in denying people potential legal rights that they have while occupying a legal position herself

The law was passed months after Rowan county clerk Kim Davis spent five days in jail for refusing to issue marriage license to gay couples, in defiance of court orders. She had turned away same-sex couples saying that issuing licences with her name on them is same as giving her personal acceptance to the same-sex union, which was against her deeply-held religious beliefs.

When Kim Davis was sent to jail on a Thursday, judge David Bunning had found her in contempt for refusing to issue the same-sex marriage license to gay and lesbian couples. According to Kim Davis, promoting these same-sex license to gay and lesbian couples would violate her beliefs of God’s definition of marriage which states that one man and one women belong together, married

Kim Davis has people who support her saying that she has the right to follow her faith. According to source B, Ms. Davis concluded that her beliefs meant her office could not issue licenses to same-sex couples. Soon after the office stopped issuing the licences for all couples. People believe that America has always been about the right to your own belief and Kim Davis has the right to practise her Christian faith. Also

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice