The predictable reactions to the news that Pope Francis met with Kim Davis have served only to confuse what should be an easy situation to understand. And with that, those reactions have exacerbated a bogus claim of constitutional protection.
The First Amendment guarantees all Americans freedom of religion and speech, but nothing in it guarantees anyone the right to impose personal beliefs on others or on a government office. And there is no constitutional right to be a county clerk.
Davis, of course, is the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, citing her religious belief that to do so would be wrong. She is certainly entitled to that belief.
As, of course, Francis is to his. But the public reaction to his meeting with Davis is political. It need not be.
Pope Francis is roundly and respectfully described as pastoral. For him to meet someone on the periphery of his flock, ask her to pray for him and give her a rosary is perfectly in character. And as head of the Catholic church, he can hardly be condemned for meeting someone claiming to defend a position in line with church doctrine.
It is Davis’ and her supporters’ assertion of a nonexistent right that is at issue. Refusing to issue marriage licenses as county clerk put her on the wrong side of the law. The Supreme Court has ruled that same sex couples have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples. And after a federal judge ordered Davis to issue the licenses, both a federal appeals court and the Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal.
When Davis still refused the Supreme Court’s order, a federal judge jailed her. An arrangement was reached whereby five of her deputies would issue the licenses – over Davis’ objection. The judge said that the clerk’s office was therefore in compliance and released her. Davis asked to get her name and title off the licenses, but was denied. She then resorted to altering the licenses physically, which she says invalidates them. State attorneys disagree and her legal woes are likely not over.
At this point, that is her problem. What is playing out in the public square is the claim by pundits and foes of gay marriage that Davis is a defender of freedom of religion.
But freedom of religion is not at issue. At no time did anyone say Davis personally had to issue licenses to same-sex couples. No one ever denied she has the right to her religious beliefs and to disapprove of homosexuality. The First Amendment clearly guarantees her the right to believe whatever she thinks is right about God, his teachings or how she is supposed to act. And it equally guarantees her the right to express those beliefs.
But nothing in the Constitution guarantees Davis the right to be county clerk, let alone to use that position to make others adhere to the tenets of her faith. And in accepting that job, she presumably swore to uphold the law.
If her faith is that demanding, when the law came into conflict with her beliefs Davis should have resigned. At the least, she should have stepped down when her appeal was denied. To continue to fight now is political grandstanding and nothing more.
Kim Davis’ constitutional rights were never infringed. And the right she says she is standing up for never existed.
