When rights and liberties collide.
- Click here for the opinion.
Kim Davis, a former county clerk in the Commonwealth
of Kentucky, was responsible for authorizing marriage licenses. Davis is also a devout Christian. When she began
her tenure as clerk, Davis’ sincerely held religious beliefs—
that marriage exists between one man and one woman—
corresponded with the definition of marriage under Kentucky law. See Ky. Rev. Stat. §402.005 (1998); Ky. Const.
§233A (2004). Within weeks of this Court granting certiorari in Obergefell, Davis began lobbying for amendments to
Kentucky law that would protect the free exercise rights of
those who had religious objections to same-sex marriage.
But those efforts were cut short by this Court’s decision in
Obergefell.
As a result of this Court’s alteration of the Constitution,
Davis found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job. When she chose to follow her
faith, and without any statutory protection of her religious
beliefs, she was sued almost immediately for violating the
constitutional rights of same-sex couples.
Davis may have been one of the first victims of this
Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last. Due to Obergefell, those
with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage
will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society
without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other
antidiscrimination laws. It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted
through the democratic process, with the people deciding
not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law.* But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation
of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.