The reason why this is important is because it has to deal with the essential principles of Justice. As Socrates stated justice complies with following the laws of the land but when the land clashes within itself, then what is a citizen to do? When the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights they included the freedom of religion and also the right to marry. But if you are clerk, like Kim Davis, whose religion strictly prohibits the condoning of homosexual activities, then can we as a people say she was being unjust? Even though she was upholding her first amendment as a U.S. Citizen? The questions this entire case brings up alone does not only show the inadequacies in the government but also arises questions in terms of Justice. Who deserves it? The woman upholding her right as a US Citizen? The same-sex couple who have been fighting to get married in their country? Is there a way to appease both, and if so, how?
Due to the fact that the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage as Constitutional, and Kim Davis is an elected official representing the Constitution, is it not reasonable to say that giving certificate of marriage to gay couples is the just action according to the Constitution?
ReplyDeleteSince Kim's religious beliefs interfered with the Constitution. Is it right or just to allow her to return to her work place if she has stated that she intends to resume banning marriage licenses for same sex couples when she resumes her occupation?
ReplyDeleteYes you are right, sometimes contradictory parts within the law and codes are really hard to handle. I think that is one reason that we always “update” our legal foundation by revising and publishing the amendments. However, in this case, can we perceive the free of religion that written in the Constitution in this way? You have the freedom and rights to believe anything that you have faith in, however, you cannot use your religious belief to interfere other's rights?
ReplyDeleteI don't think she was upholding her right, as it was a violation of a recent constitutional ruling. Although it is her right to believe in whatever she likes, under the modified Free Exercise Clause the government is allowed to interfere with religious practices. Going forward, should Kim Davis be allowed to maintain her job after the ruling? This raises the question of what does Freedom of Religious really mean in modern day times? In addition, does Separation of Church and State even still exist?
ReplyDelete