“I would prefer not to.”
Kim Davis, echoing Herman Melville’s, “Bartleby, the Scrivener,” is the county clerk who has refused to perform a significant part of her job in Rowan County, Kentucky, because she has decided to defy a court order requiring her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June.
Bartleby, a 19th century copyist in New York, responsible for copying legal documents, frustrates his employer with his preference not to comply when asked to complete tasks. Yet rather than quit, Bartleby continues to show up for work each day. Melville leaves Bartleby’s motivations open to reader interpretation.
Davis, at least, is clearer about her reasons for refusing to do her job.
A member of an apostolic church, Davis said she would be in violation of her beliefs as a Christian if she issued a marriage license to a gay or lesbian couple.
“I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage,” she said in a statement.
Even before the landmark Supreme Court ruling that opened marriage to same-sex couples in all 50 states, the religious liberties of some were clashing with the civil rights of others.
A Richland florist, who had refused to provide floral arrangements for a gay couple’s wedding, was fined $1,000 for violating the state’s anti-discrimination law and ordered to provide services for same-sex weddings in the future. Barronelle Stutzman, 70, has appealed to the state Supreme Court and maintains, like Davis, she’s being asked to do something in defiance of her faith.
In April, Indiana adopted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Although its governor denied it was not meant to give businesses the right to discriminate against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, many in Indiana, including a pizza parlor, said they considered the law the legal authority to refuse service based on a customer’s sexual identity.
At the time, asking for some respect of religious beliefs, we wrote: “Unless health or safety are involved or a service isn’t readily available from another more appreciative source, then the florists, bakers and pizzeria owners who object should be left to do without that customer’s patronage.”
The same standard does not apply to Davis and to other government officials like her who refuse to do their duty as public servants. They have taken oaths to uphold state and federal laws. They cannot pick and choose which laws they will recognize and which they will ignore. In this case, it means the law that opened the right to marry to all, straight and gay couples alike. Where Davis’ religious beliefs conflict with the law — and we’re not convinced that issuing a marriage license implies personal approval and sanction of the marriage — then she has a choice to either comply with the law or quit.
Like Bartleby, Davis may prefer not to. Unlike Bartleby, under her sworn duty as a clerk, she doesn’t have the option.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
