Gavin Newsom acted illegally homosexual marriages
 |
| Lieutenant Governor of California Gavin Newsom (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Flashback: the year is 2004, and
same sex marriage is illegal in California (by a law approved by voters in 2000
and affirmed by the State Legislature—this was the “everything but marriage”
approach to the SSM issue, allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as
married couples, just without the word “marriage”). San Francisco mayor, Gavin
Newsom, ordered the county clerk to illegally start issuing marriage licenses
to same sex couples. The California Supreme Court stepped in, ordering the
process stopped. Eventually the Federal Courts stepped in and ordered the
process started again, under the ridiculous legal reasoning that sense that
county clerk had allowed licenses to begin with, there was no rational reason
to stop the process.
Present Day: Unlike California,
Rowan County, Kentucky elects their county clerks. Before running for clerk
herself, Kim Davis (a democrat) had worked in the clerk’s office for twenty-six
years. In fact, her mother was clerk before her, and she had been the clerk for
40 years.
But forty years ago, the
implementation of gay-marriage was not an issue. In fact, even recently he
issue was not even likely in Kentucky where there were all kinds of laws
against recognizing SSM. There were prohibitions passed by the legislature, by
ballot, and finally even a state constitutional amendment. In fact, Kentucky is
one of the few states whose laws actually survived Federal Court Challenges,
eventually upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals two days after Davis
was elected county clerk.
Then…
Eight months later, the US Supreme Court ruled that every state needed to recognize same sex
marriage, and that they needed to do so immediately. Some governors paused,
saying they needed more time before deciding if the decision mandated their
compliance. Eventually even those governors just punted on the decision, and are
allowing each county clerk to figure out what to do. Their lack of leadership
has made this an issue to be settled by every county clerk.
Such is the case in Kentucky. There,
four different counties refuse SSM licenses (there are several other counties in
other states that also are refusing to follow the Supreme Court’s opinion on
marriage). But what makes Rowan County different is the rational used. Other
counties have refused to issue SSM licenses, but Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses. She has said that
her reading of the Supreme Court opinion bans discrimination based on sexual
preference, and since she does not want her name on a SSM license, she has
simply stopped the issuing of marriage licenses all together.
Let me explain why I think Davis is
in the right to refuse: As a Christian, she believes SSM to be sinful, and she
does not want to support something that is sinful. And in this case, it is not
tacit support but she is being asked to literally sign off on the license. She,
as the clerk, must sing the certificate saying, “Yep, this is a legit wedding,
and I approve.”
That doesn’t mean that a county
clerk’s signature is an endorsement of every wedding. She doesn’t ask about
their compatibility, or premarital counseling. But it does mean that she is
vouching that the marriage is not incestuous, bigamous, or polygamous (because
those things are immoral). Basically that she is affixing her name, saying this
couple meets the legal requirements for marriage, and she is putting her name
on the license.
This is exactly what she will not
do. She does not want to be a Romans 1:32 kind of
person (or a Psalm 49:11-13 kind of person, or a Lamentations 3:36 kind of person, etc.)
And here is a really important
point. In fact, I’ll bold it so you realize this is the main thing I’m trying
to say: you might not think it should go against
her conscience to sign a SSM license. But you should not tell another
Christian to go against their conscience, especially when going against it
would mean vouching for something that is obviously immoral (cf. 1 Cor 8, 10).
Imagine that Davis comes to you and
asks for your more seasoned Christian advice–after all, she has only been a
Christian for four years. What do you tell her? Do you tell to stop hiding
behind God, and instead make an argument from Federalism (Federal Courts should
not invalidate state constitutions, or something like that)? Do you explain to
her why it really shouldn’t be against her conscience to approve a SSM, and
explain to her the nuances of the Kentucky clerk system (keep in mind the
combined nearly 60 years her family has worked in that office)?
Well, whatever you do, for goodness
sakes’ don’t tell her, as your sister in the Lord, to just get over her
conscience and sign off SSM all ready.
If she came to me and asked me what
she should do, I would answer her in song:
Rise up, O County Clerks!
Have done with lesser things!
Give heart and mind and soul
to serve the king of kings!
Have done with lesser things!
Give heart and mind and soul
to serve the king of kings!
Rise up of County Clerks!
The Kingdom tarries long.
Bring in the day of clerkhood
And end the night of wrong.
The Kingdom tarries long.
Bring in the day of clerkhood
And end the night of wrong.
Rise up O County Clerks
The church for you doth wait.
Her strength unequal to the task
Rise up and make her great!
The church for you doth wait.
Her strength unequal to the task
Rise up and make her great!
What would happen if our leaders,
judges, or governors had the courage of this clerks conviction? But they don’t.
They are (mostly) silent. They say things like, “I am opposed to SSM, and I
would never sign off on one myslef of course, but tsk, tsk, this woman needs to
just do her job.”
Sigh.
In the short-term this will end in
one of a few ways. Either A). Davis relents and changes her mind, B). she gets
thrown in jail, or C.) the state removes her from office. I submit to you that
all three would be a step back for biblical ethics.
In the long-term, this will end
either with A). Christians caving on SSM, B). deciding that government jobs are
for those without consciences, or (hopefully) C.) a renewed sense of resolve
that the government cannot compel us to act against our consciences.
Christians should be supportive of
other believers in complex situations trying to do what is morally right in
complex times. And it deeply bothers me how many people who just a few months
ago were so dogmatic that “the Supreme Court can’t tell me what marriage is!”
are now telling Davis to get over herself. We don’t have to choose to be on
Davis’ side or on the SSM side. But we do need to be on the side of
righteousness, and opposed to sin. In this situation, it should be obvious where the lines are drawn.
