Subscribe
First Look

Gov. removes Kim Davis' name from Ky. marriage licenses: fair compromise?

The new Kentucky governor has removed the names of clerks from marriage licenses so these public officials can fulfill their legal duty without appearing to sanction same-sex marriage over their religious beliefs.

  • close
    Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) speaks on the steps of the Kentucky Capitol, Dec. 8. Governor Bevin ordered the state to prepare new marriage licenses that do not include the names of county clerks in an attempt to protect the religious beliefs of clerk Kim Davis and other local elected officials Tuesday.
    Timothy D. Easley/AP/File
    View Caption
  • About video ads
    View Caption
of

The newly elected Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) did what his predecessor could not or would not do. He used an executive order – one of five he issued Tuesday – to remove the name of the county clerk from marriage licenses, thereby protecting Apostolic Christian Kim Davis from appearing to sanction same-sex marriage while continuing work in her elected post.

The former governor, Steve Beshear (D), had told Ms. Davis to do her job or resign, deferring to the state legislature when the county clerk requested relief and eventually went to jail over the issue. The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals had denied her request for a stay on a judge's order to issue the marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Davis' lawyer Mat Staver called Governor Bevin's move "a wonderful Christmas gift" for allowing Davis to celebrate the Christmas holiday without worrying about the conflict between her job and her religious beliefs. The appearance of her name on the marriage licenses had been an issue for Davis and the reason an initial compromise – she permitted her clerks to make marriage licenses without interfering – failed.

University of Minnesota law professor Brian Bix called the Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage "fairly unprecedented" in an interview with The Christian Science Monitor's Patrik Jonsson. It has ushered in a difficult transition for legislators and state governors to stitch in the proper accommodations for some without denying others the rights the US Supreme Court has granted them.

"People are allowed to have whatever moral principles they like, but if you sign up to do a job you have to do the job,” Professor Bix told the Monitor. “If the Kentucky clerk’s office wants to excuse someone from giving out these sorts of licenses, that might be possible, as long as another competent clerk can step in. But accommodations ... cannot be done in a way that forecloses citizens coming to get their legal entitlements."

Religious accommodations for laws are not a new idea. As Mr. Jonsson wrote:

The question of religious accommodation is not a new one and extends beyond the question of same-sex marriage. For example, a federal court in Washington State last [August] ruled that pharmacists who object to 'morning-after' birth control pills don’t have to fill such prescriptions, but someone else has to be on hand to give out the drugs. Perhaps the most high-profile decision in recent memory was the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision in 2014. In that case, the justices ruled 5-to-4 that family-owned corporations could not be compelled to purchase insurance coverage that included contraception for their employees under the Affordable Care Act.

Kentucky is not the only state taken by surprise with the June Supreme Court ruling, but some states with overturned bans on same-sex marriage have done a better job balancing the accommodations than others. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wasted no time after the Supreme Court decision in telling county clerks they could refuse to sign marriage licenses for religious reasons if they chose, but he added that unless they came up with an alternative they would be in legal trouble.

The key problem in Davis' case was how she took away others' ability to receive a same-sex marriage license because of her own beliefs, which the judge to whom she appealed said meant she actually violated the First Amendment.

"Davis has arguably [violated the First Amendment] by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others," US District Judge David Bunning wrote in August.

Although its impact on Davis' case is still unclear, the Kentucky governor's action may offer a third path to impasse in the state by maintaining rule of law for all while providing a way out for those whose religious convictions hinder their participation in same-sex marriage licenses.

This report contains material from Reuters.

About these ads
Sponsored Content by LockerDome
 
 
Make a Difference
Inspired? Here are some ways to make a difference on this issue.
FREE Newsletters
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.
 

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Save for later

Save
Cancel

Saved ( of items)

This item has been saved to read later from any device.
Access saved items through your user name at the top of the page.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You reached the limit of 20 saved items.
Please visit following link to manage you saved items.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You have already saved this item.

View Saved Items

OK