Kim Davis, along with a few presidential candidates, have a strange notion that their religious actions of going against the Supreme Court is protected by the First Amendment.
Kim Davis, known for denying a government order to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples, was recently released from jail and into the welcoming arms of presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, to “Eye of the Tiger.” Why was that the song of choice? I have no idea. I don’t think “risin’ up to the challenge of our rival” as a reference was a well-thought-out move by Davis’s supporters considering her rival is the Supreme Court and the challenge was an official law passed this June.
This notion that her religion is above the laws is absolutely absurd. The First Amendment does not support imposing one’s beliefs onto another; George Takei, an actor and gay rights activist, summed it up quite well:
“The First Amendment has two clauses that are relevant here. One is the Establishment Clause, and the other is the Prohibition Clause. Congress may not prohibit free worship, and that is what so many claim, wrongly, is being violated. But it is also not empowered to establish any religion, nor to enact any laws favoring one religion over the other."
Permitting a state employee to foist her religion upon others, denying them a fundamental right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, would be to give government, through this agent, the power to impose religious doctrine and viewpoint. That it cannot do. Ms. Davis is in effect establishing religion by using her governmental powers to impose her religious views.”
What is even more ridiculous than her lack of understanding the First Amendment and Supremacy Clause, which establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as the supreme law of the land, is that we have candidates actually fighting over who gets to show support for Kim Davis.
An aide to the Republican candidate, Huckabee, blocked fellow Republican, Ted Cruz, from being able to discuss with the media his support of the religion-fanatic. Prospective leaders of this nation are showing support for someone who blatantly ignored the law and acted on her own terms.
{{tncms-asset app="editorial" id="773b6e8e-5802-11e5-9564-a750c5fae998"}}
The three of them, and many more, are completely overlooking that when the Constitution speaks about religion, it means all religions. I am Agnostic, so what beliefs apply to Christians may not apply to me. As I see it, laws cannot be made solely in favor of one religion, they have to acknowledge the different opinions, such as marriage being a basic, human right for same-sex couples.
The Kentucky clerk’s government job is to give out marriage licenses. If Davis is unable to put her religion aside to do her job, then she needs to find other work. We live in a democracy; the people of the U.S. wanted marriage to be legal for same-sex couples, and after years of debate, the Supreme Court finally passed the law in June.
People, like Davis, Cruz and Huckabee, whose religions are against this need to get over this new law. Someone else’s religion, or lack of, supports marriage equality and that is what the First Amendment is for: religious freedom, not the empowering of one religion to suppress all others.
Elizabeth Chidlow is a sophomore studying journalism. What do you think are the most important social issues facing the Ohio University community? Email her at ec629914@ohio.edu.
