There are, of course, cases where civil disobedience is morally obligatory, where “disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God.” But they’re very few and far between, and they represent cases of last resort. Otherwise, the rule of law is threatened, and anarchy will prove worse than all but the most severe and extreme oppression.
Kim Davis is, you may recall, an Evangelical government official for Rowan County, Kentucky, who’s sitting in jail right now for her refusal to grant same-sex marriage licenses.
There’s been a deafening public outcry — I believe somebody may once have asked, anyway — demanding to hear what I think about this matter, so here are a few quick thoughts:
1.
As some very careful readers of this blog may have noticed, I’m opposed to same-sex marriage and believe that the Supreme Court exceeded its authority in several ways by setting out fundamentally to redefine an institution that is logically and chronologically prior to the State.
Nevertheless, as an officer of the government, Kim Davis’s duty is to carry out the law — or, if she can’t do so in good conscience, to step aside. That probably means resignation, unless some way can be found by which others in the office take over the issuing of such licenses while she attends to her other clerkly responsibilities.
She doesn’t have the liberty, as a government official, to pick and choose which laws she will enforce or obey.
2.
Those on the Left who are incensed at Kim Davis’s failure to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in violation of the law, should probably be asked to explain why they weren’t similarly incensed when Gavin Newsom, while serving as mayor of San Francisco — he’s currently lieutenant governor of the formerly great state of California — performed, or allowed to be performed, 6000 same-sex marriages in violation of what was then the law.
And why aren’t they bothered by the Obama administration’s selective enforcement of immigration law, by the existence of “sanctuary cities” where Federal immigration law is (for all practical purposes) suspended, and by the Obama Justice Department’s past refusal to carry out its mandated government role by defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?
Selective outrage loses much of its moral force, and flagrant inconsistency lowers the credibility of those expressing indignation.
3.
Obliging government officials to act in ways that violate their most fundamental beliefs is, or should be seen as, rather problematic. Creating a situation in which, potentially at least, several large sectors of American public office are effectively off-limits to citizens who are committed Evangelical Christians, believing Latter-day Saints, orthodox Jews, and the like, unless they’re ready to assist in acts that outrage their consciences, seems intuitively but obviously wrong to me. At least, it’s something that should be minimized. It’s a path to social strife and fragmentation, and isn’t remotely healthy.
But, of course, there are not a few people on the secular Left who would be entirely at peace with just such a situation. They don’t particularly welcome the involvement of conservative religious believers in public life
As a white Evangelical from Appalachia, Kim Davis belongs to what may well be the demographic sector that America’s cultural elites most despise. (You may have heard the Austrian-American sociologist Peter Berger’s quip in which, having contrasted secular Sweden with religious India, he described the United States as a nation of Indians governed by Swedes.)
4.
It’s possible that some compromise could have been worked out, or could yet be worked out. What the law in such cases calls “a reasonable accommodation.” And I’m talking about compromise on both sides, at least potentially. There’s a case in the news right now of a Muslim flight attendant who’s been fired for refusing to serve alcohol to passengers. She had functioned for at least two months by having other flight attendants serve requested alcoholic drinks, and now the matter is going to the courts, to see whether an accommodation can be established.
Mormon flight attendants routinely serve alcohol, coffee, and tea, but some interpretations of Islamic law prohibit Muslims from serving food and drink that contravene its principles.
I’m not sure — given the triumphant intolerance that I’ve been observing among supporters of same-sex marriage — that those who despise Kim Davis and her ilk would be willing to allow a compromise with her. They’ve been giving no quarter since long before Obergefell v. Hodges came down.
5.
Some on the Left seem, for the reason that I suggested above, to take positive glee in Kim Davis’s being sent to jail. But having her languish in a jail cell seems ridiculously excessive to me. Is she really a menace to society, such that she has to be physically locked up? Aren’t our prisons supposed to be overly full?
And, I’m told, she was imprisoned without bail.
I haven’t checked his facts and I’m not a wildly enthusiastic fan, but, if he’s right, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee made a really acute observation a day or two ago when he pointed out that even famous serial killers have historically gotten bail: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mike-huckabee-serial-killers-kim-davis
Couldn’t she have simply been fired? Or, as the relevant expression in this case goes, impeached? Couldn’t she have been placed on administrative leave until the situation was worked out?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In