Practically everyone has heard about Kim Davis, the marriage licence clerk who refused to give licenses to married couples who were gay. The story goes that Davis who lives in Rowan County, Kentucky was jailed last week after refusing to issue marriage licenses for gay couples. Davis who willingly neglected to follow the U.S Supreme Court’s ruling that demands that same-sex couples be granted marriage licences, did so while in her place of work.

The ruling issued this summer came down to the premise that the United States Constitution guarantees equal citizenship — this extends to the personal matters regarding who can marry.  

Being that she held a position as a  county clerk, it is in her job description to issue such licenses. Now, I am not here to poke at her religious convictions or tell you where to stand on the issue. But the question I have on my mind is, did she have a right to refuse to issue such licenses when her job requires she uphold the Constitution and its court order?

My personal opinion is that  Davis is not a victim. She made an oath to serve and hold her job responsibilities as a clerk. And under that oath,  part of those responsibilities mean issuing licenses within her community.

My pushback is if Davis felt she could not adequately perform those duties, given her Christian beliefs, she could have humbly stepped down. My point is no one said she had to stay or work on gay couples that came for licenses.

Her resignation could have happened at any time. Her arrest was a global spectacle not because she was defending her faith, but because she imposed her faith on a job that remains separate from personal religious bias.

Davis willingly ignored a local judge’s court orders where her appeal was overturned, and only after continually refusing these licenses was she arrested. Due to her refusal to follow direct court orders,  she was placed “in contempt of court” and jailed for five days.

I believe we live in a country that is not only a melting pot of identities, races, religions, but also orientations.

Religion is a beautiful thing, in which people have their right to hold and express. But in the words of famous Star Trek star George Takei, Davis “broke her oath to uphold the Constitution and defied a court order so she could deny government services to couples who are legally entitled to be married. She is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to hold those beliefs on others.”

While I commend her efforts for standing to what she upholds to be true,  I find the measures in which she used to be fallible. I also find that there is tension in our country revolving around this issue, and we should find ways to find a better ground of solving differences.  

This specific instance in my mind doesn’t help either stance.

I may be wrong, and I am always open to discussion if you disagree with me.  So feel free to share your perspective with me.

Was Davis right in her actions, and in the way she handled the recent Supreme Court Rulings?

Amina Chinnell-Mateen is an opinion writer for The Dakota Student. She can be reached at [email protected]