The ongoing controversy involving Kentucky County Clerks Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples can be framed in ways that apply to both 2305 and 2306.
For 2305:
The controversy allows us to look at a conflict embedded with the Constitution (there are many such conflicts). In this case it is the free exercise of religious belief on the one hand and the guarantee to be protected equally by the laws on the other. Think of it this way, while you may wish to be treated equally before the law - and you can point to a clause in the 14th Amendment that guarantees it - someone else may have a religious objection to some characteristic about you, and wish to deny you a service as a result.
I want you to consider the extent of such objections and ask whether people can use any religious objection to deny a person equal protection, or whether there are some limits on them. Perhaps religious objections are acceptable in some cases, but not others. If this is the case - explain the argument that justifies it. Or perhaps you wish to make the case that no religious belief can be used to deny equal protection of the laws. If that is the case, explain why this value is superior to the freedom against restrictions on the free exercise of religion.
For 2306:
The twist in this case is the fact that the person denying equal protection is a government official, albeit one at the local level - but a position directly impacted by the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision. This means that we can look at the case under the lens of federalism. The general idea is that the manner in which the law is implemented in the United States ought to be consistent, but this isn't always the case. Plenty of policies in the United States vary from state to state - some argue that this is a benefit of a federal system.
What I want you to consider is why this policy - gay marriage - is to be applied equally across the states, while others are not. What makes this one distinct? When you consider your answer, I want you to consider it in terms of the Kentucky County Clerk. Obviously the Supreme Court is arguing that a government official has to comply with the court's decision - though I have a hunch this will itself wind up in the Supreme Court. Why do county clerks have to comply with this type of ruling when they are allowed to implement other laws - voting rules for example.
For info:
- Regarding Kin Davis.
- Wikipedia: Miller v. Davis.
I'll add content and links soon, and let me know what questions you have, but start thinking about this. And keep in mind that unlike last week's rant, this is to be an objective, analytical work.
