Kim Davis Research Paper

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.

Hundreds of protestors are gathering outside of the courthouse either protesting or supporting a Christian woman’s beliefs and actions. Many hold up signs or scream louder than others to declare their personal point of view. Kim Davis is a county clerk in Ashland, Kentucky; has denied numerous marriage licenses for multiple same-sex and straight couples (Smith). This has become a very controversial issue for many and everyone has a different opinion as well. Kim Davis' trial is an influential trial by challenging many of the essential American principles such as morality or ethicality, upholding constitutional rights, and separation of church and state.

Alice Brown Davis- lived all of her life serving the Seminole Nation, in the early nineteenth century. She mostly taught, but she ran a trading post called Arbeka. She also built a ranch, was in charge of other local Native American currency, and was the superintendent of the Seminole girls' school. Not to mention she was a law interpreter, and even traveled to Palm beach, Florida to act as an interpreter a murder trial involving a Seminole man. In 1922 she became chief by President Warren G. Harding. Here, she became the first women to lead the Seminole Nation. Though, she was elected by the president, not by her tribe. Her tribe found her to be “well thought of and well respected and the people were happy with having her as Chief. “

In “Texas clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.” (2015), Lauren Gambino states that Texas clerks can refuse to issue marriage license to same sex couples, they can justify their refusal on the grounds of religious liberty. Gambino supports her claim by providing factual evidence--including quotes from Texas clerks, which makes her more ethical, because she provides a neutral informative article on this matter. Gambino hopes to inform US citizens of what is going on in Texas, following the same sex marriage legalization by the Supreme Court, while enticing anger

The United States Constitution protects certain liberties in the Bill of Rights and rights deemed “fundamental” that are “traditionally protected by our society.” (Michael H. v. Gerald D.). The liberty at issue in this case is the right to marry, which has been deemed fundamental by this Court in Loving v. Virginia, where we stated that “[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” (Loving v. Virginia). The petitioners in the case at bar seek that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages be equal to traditional, opposite-sex couples.

On June 4, 2008, the plaintiffs in this case include fifteen same-sex couples who wish to marry in California and support groups for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Californians. They were denied many times; however, now before the California Supreme Court, they argue that “California has long led the nation in recognizing that constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection, privacy, due process and freedom of association and expression require that lesbian and gay people, like all people, be treated fairly under the law.” Nonetheless these protections, California has denied same-sex couples the right to marry. That denial, they argue, violates the California Constitution.

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

Danielle Davis married the love of her life back in 2010. They had a picture-perfect life for seven months, but tragedy struck in July 2011. Danielle received a phone call saying that Matt had been involved in a serious car accident in Savannah, Georgia. Doctors did not think that Matt would survive. They put him in a medically-induced coma, which he stayed in for three years.

“The old age is no place for sissies.” That is one of Bette Davis most famous quotes ever (bd)! Do you ever wonder about, or why she is so important? it‘s because of the way she lived her life.

Sarah Davis is fourteen years old and she is in the 9th grade. She live with her mom Karen and two little sisters Alexis and Taylor in Montgomery, Alabama. Her father died when she was 8 years old so it was just her, her mom, and her sisters. One of her favorite thing to do with her family was bake. It was their family traditions to bake different sweets and watch movies on Friday nights. Sarah started to realize that her mother wasn’t around for their family tradition and she wanted to know what was going on.

The biggest component fueling the backlash is religion and the rights bestowed onto it via the constitution and peoples own religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. Both at a state and private level, opponents to the decision reached would knowingly deny service to same sex couples due to religious beliefs. Wolf (2016) stated that “Some states, led by Mississippi and North Carolina, have enacted laws intended to protect those who deny services to gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender people because of religious objections. Tennessee and Kansas have passed less sweeping religious exemption laws.” Some states who oppose the ruling believe that they have a fundamental right to enact laws protecting those who deny service to people who share beliefs that go against the religion’s beliefs of the service provider. They believe that the freedom of religion deems their actions in the right, but they are sadly mistaken. Although I highly support all rights within the constitution I can clearly see that the freedom of religion doesn’t grant people the right to segregate others who simply hold different beliefs than others who follow religious beliefs that sate otherwise. The freedom of religion protects one’s ability to practice their religion for themselves, not to force it on others whom share differing opinions than that of their religion. Universities and colleges have also been a topic post ruling, before the ruling, universities were implementing rules to house couples but not homosexual couples in their housing programs. When discussing how this ruling will affect not only religious sanctions whom marry people, but also religious affiliated universities, Masci (2015) asks “And what about a religiously affiliated institution, like a university, that offers married heterosexual students housing but refuses such accommodation for married gay and lesbian students?” the ruling by the Supreme Court, in my

It wasn’t until October 12, 2007, that governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill approved by state law makers that would legalize gay marriage. On May 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution protects a fundamental “right to marry” that would also extend to same sex marriage. The people were outraged saying that same sex marriages went against their religion on their views of a traditional marriage. People also argued that gay marriage went against the constitution as well because people could no longer have free exercise of religion. According to the Huffington Post, gay marriage, “Protects the free expression of religion, as supporters of Proposition 8 were worried that Gay Rights advocates were not affording them the same courtesy-to live and believe as they please-as the Gay and Lesbian community was/is demanding.” All these events eventually lead to picketing against gay marriage and the voice of the American people was starting to be heard on this

never voted for same-sex marriage, that their rights should not be granted. They also argued that the LGBT community should not be allowed to redefine marriage. As a result, the backer of Prop. 8 urged the gay community to take the issue to a ballot. Instead of allegedly conspiring with the judges to rule in their favor, which goes against the will of the people.

Countless persons are against same sex marriage but in some ways support it. Many same sex marriage adversaries differ centered only on the use of the word marriage. Those adversaries to same sex marriage feel that the term marriage is defined by the public or religious beliefs and should be in some degree limited to only a relationship between man and woman. There is a discussion over what to call same sex marriage however it falls into account the true nature of what gays seek and opponents oppose. Gays seek full marriage equality in every way not the separate but equal status. Since marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, the state should not interfere with same gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment.