Individual Rights Advocate Analysis

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.

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.

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

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

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

Kim Davis is a Kentucky county clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis has also ordered the deputies in her office not to issue them either; she was arrested and ordered to jail for her refusal. Some say she has the right to religious freedom while others argue that she is breaking the law.

I personally identify with the public-order perspective because I think public safety is most important. Without public-order our country would be much less organized and wouldn’t be as safe for us to live in. I do believe every person is entitled to their individual rights until the safety of the community is at risk. There are many examples of how public-order keeps the community safe, here are just a couple examples.

1 Civil Rights Vs. Civil Liberties As a citizen of the United States, one is granted many protections under law. 2 These protections consist of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Varying based on the person, these rights are very valuable and ensure that an individual free of harm for certain situations. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties have evolved over the years as our country continues to further its development. They allow for the diminishing of injustice and a sense of security when it comes to the law system. The importance of Civil Rights and Liberties may not be very well known to all, but continue to play a role in every citizen’s

In today’s America, it is a constant debate: Do we have true equal rights? The obvious answer to most people is no, and we probably never will. Though some people seem to live in ignorant bliss, thinking that everything is going well and everyone is being treated fairly, they are wrong. The theme of not having adequate human rights is commonly shown through the unjustness in documents one, three, and five.

Civil Liberties In America, today there is a lot of controversy over human’s rights. This is not true of just today, however, this fight for people 's rights has been going on for ages. There are two basic types of rights. 2 There are Civil Rights and there are Civil Liberties. Civil Liberties are a broader topic, such as the right to vote or the right to bear arms, they can be directly from the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. While Civil Rights are more specific, for example, employers cannot be ageist or sexist and woman should have the same chance for a promotion than any man. Civil Rights protect everyone from any type of discrimination. While Civil

Civil Rights In the U.S. most use the terms Civil Liberties and Civil Rights interchangeably; although they both protect the freedom of citizens they do this in different ways. 2 Civil Liberties are limitations placed on the government. These are things the government is restricted to do, by the constitution. Things that could interfere with personal freedom. 3 For example, the 1st amendment says that no law can be made establishing a set religion. (Course, 2015) Therefore no laws can be made pertaining to a set religion. Civil liberties can be seen as broader laws, placed against the government. 2 Whereas Civil Rights are almost like curbs

Civil liberties and civil rights are very commonly used statements, which can be carelessly misused. Both statements are similar to some degree, but do hold different meanings. These statements may seem exactly the same, but by true definitions, the difference between both is unmistakable. Civil liberties are the protections against government actions. Civil rights, however, is positive actions of government should take to create equal conditions for all Americans.

There is a difference between civil liberties and civil rights in relation to the government. Civil liberties refer to an individual’s unalienable freedoms that cannot be taken away by political intervention. On the other hand, civil rights are provided by the government in order to promote equality. This ideology was introduced to the founders of the nation by John Locke, who believed in natural rights. Locke stated that these natural rights are to be protected and secured by the government. The question that should be raised now is whether the government truly does protect our civil rights and have the citizens’ best interest in mind.

Every human being deserves to have Individual rights and they are a very important part of the justice system. Without individual rights things would be chaotic therefore, public order is brought into the system so that everyone’s individual rights are in place for each individual to use as a backbone for guidelines of what is acceptable and what is not. Although, there are disadvantages and advantages of both individual rights and public order they are still very essential to maintain order.