# Kim Davis and conscientious objection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072 "2015-09-30T19:41:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/101 "2015-10-02T19:25:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What? The Vatican nunciate knew who she was. The Pope himself didn’t. I doubt they would put him in the same room with such a politically volatile individual and not tell him ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/102 "2015-10-02T19:43:58Z")
“Politically volatile”? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/103 "2015-10-02T20:04:51Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > Which is silly when you think of it. Why does the current officeholder have to have their name, as opposed to the office? The Great Seal of the US doesn’t say “Barack Hussein Obama” on it, why should marriage certificates say “Kim Davis” on them? > > For that matter, why do I write my property taxes each year to the county tax assessor-collector as if they were a personal friend? Why the hell would I be writing multi-thousand dollar checks to “John Ames” instead of “Dallas County Tax Assessor-Collector’s Office.” I have this ludicrous picture of him spending his days frantically endorsing a million checks each year and pulling out his wallet over and over to show his ID at the bank. Then gleefully cackling as his balance dwarfs that of Jerry Jones or Mark Cuban for a few moments before he himself writes a check to Dallas County Treasury for billions. > > Just ridiculous. No individual’s names should be on state documents unless they’re the subject of the document. The only marriage license that should have Kim Davis’s name on it is the one she got when she married her husband. > > Enjoy, > Steven Whether by name or not, paperwork needs the official rubber stamp of the Person In Charge Of That Sort of Paperwork. It’s mostly symbolic these days obviously as the number of administered has long grown past the kind of numbers even the most local of administrators in charge can be personally aware of, nevermind personally check out - but it still Is Done. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/104 "2015-10-02T20:07:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > “Politically volatile”? lol ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/105 "2015-10-02T20:28:29Z")
[**More Breaking News**](http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/pope-gay-washington/): \*\*CNN Exclusive: Pope held private meeting with same-sex couple in U.S. \*\* The day before Pope Francis met anti-gay county clerk Kim Davis in Washington last week, he held a private meeting with a longtime friend from Argentina who has been in a same-sex relationship for 19 years. Yayo Grassi, an openly gay man, brought his partner, Iwan Bagus, as well several other friends to the Vatican Embassy on September 23 for a brief visit with the Pope. A video of the meeting shows Grassi and Francis greeting each other with a warm hug. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/106 "2015-10-02T21:17:54Z")
I’m curious about the chain of reasoning that leads from “I am a Christian and regard homosexual activity as sin” to “I must do everything in my power to prevent it being acknowledged that same-sex couples meet the requirements for civil marriage under current Kentucky law.” I don’t get the sense she disagrees that they meet the requirements; if she were a judicial review denialist or something and claimed that _Obergefell_ didn’t actually affect the law or its application I don’t think that would be characterized as a religious objection – she might, but people would be arguing the point, and I don’t see them doing so. Is it her position that simply existing around same-sex civil marriage is a violation of religious law, or is she professing confusion about her role (personal or _ex officio_) in the process? > [@running\_coach](#): > > The First Amendment does not allow you to force your religion on others under color of authority. > You’re taking away the other person’s right to practice their religion or lack thereof. > The Constitution overrides that religious freedom restoration act. > [@puddleglum](#): > > There is no religion where having Kim Davis’s signature on your marriage license is a duty. This is simply nonsensical. I don’t think it’s nonsensical. Poorly worded, perhaps; in the narrowest sense she’s not taking away the rights of the people in the couples to practice whatever religion(s) they practice, but she is standing in the way of their right not to live according to the tenets of her religion if they don’t wish to or feel required to. > [@Mtgman](#): > > No individual’s names should be on state documents unless they’re the subject of the document. The only marriage license that should have Kim Davis’s name on it is the one she got when she married her husband. So that’s, like, four :p. But yes, exactly. She’s not personally endorsing anything, there’s no real reason it needs her actual name on it. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/107 "2015-10-02T21:22:43Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > So that’s, like, four :p. But yes, exactly. She’s not personally endorsing anything, there’s no real reason it needs her actual name on it. The statutes currently require the name of the clerk (or deputy) and the county in which the license is issued ot be on the license - its part of the ‘record’. Its not an endorsement or an authorization - its a “yeah, I certify these folks meet the requirements”. A link to the statutes is somewhere in the pit thread. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/108 "2015-10-02T21:26:55Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > She’s not personally endorsing anything, there’s no real reason it needs her actual name on it. She’s the public official charged with issuing marriage licenses for the county. Her name has to be on it because there’s a statute that says so. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/109 "2015-10-02T21:29:11Z")
I understand why her name is on the licenses, but I don’t see a reason the law needed to have been written the way it was. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/110 "2015-10-02T21:35:57Z")
It probably didn’t _need_ to be written that way, but it’s a (weak) layer of protection against forgery, which would have been more important at the time the requirement was written into the statute. Besides, it’s traditional for government acts to be recorded under the name of the relevant presiding officer. That’s why bills have the governor’s signature on them and so forth. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2015, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/111 "2015-10-03T01:10:39Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > I understand why her name is on the licenses, but I don’t see a reason the law needed to have been written the way it was. When laws regarding governmental certificates were written (pre Citizens United), it was understood that authority rests with people, not organizations or entities which aren’t sentient beings. Rowan County, being a political designation, cannot authorize that Bob Snob and Joe Flow meet the statutory requirements for a marriage license, because the county can’t read or ask questions or examine documents. Kim Davis acting in her capacity as a duly elected official of Rowan County, can. These documents have human names attached because they reflect reality, not political fictions. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2015, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/112 "2015-10-03T04:02:11Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > I understand why her name is on the licenses, but I don’t see a reason the law needed to have been written the way it was. It doesn’t matter. That’s what the law was when she ran for election to take the job that her mother had before her. She didn’t have to run for this office. She could have resigned at any time. The problem is that she doesn’t believe in democracy. She believes that she is above the law. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2015, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/113 "2015-10-03T14:27:33Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > When laws regarding governmental certificates were written (pre Citizens United), it was understood that authority rests with people, not organizations or entities which aren’t sentient beings. Rowan County, being a political designation, cannot authorize that Bob Snob and Joe Flow meet the statutory requirements for a marriage license, because the county can’t read or ask questions or examine documents. Kim Davis acting in her capacity as a duly elected official of Rowan County, can. These documents have human names attached because they reflect reality, not political fictions. Well said and explained. Bravo. ---
**Author:** ![Futurist110](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Futurist110](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futurist110)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2015, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/114 "2015-10-04T06:49:27Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I am in full support of her right to quit her job and find another which she can perform with a clean conscience. Completely agreed. Indeed, if a job is something that you cannot perform with a clean conscience, then you should quit that job and get a new, different job which does not conflict which your conscience. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/115 "2015-11-06T19:20:45Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This is factually incorrect. All licenses issued in that county have her name on them as she is the county clerk. She felt that having her name on them was violating her religious beliefs and that is why she wanted her name off of them.It did not matter to her who signed them but that her name was on them. The Governor-elect of Kentucky, Matt Bevin reportedly will remove the requirement to have the clerk’s name on the marriage license. [Reuters reports](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/06/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0SV2FV20151106) he will do so by executive order. Should have been done a long time ago. We’ll seen if Davis continues with her complaining. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072.md?page=5)