Briona Hawkins
September 13, 2015
link to articel: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kentucky-anti-gay-marriage-clerk-kim-davis-back-square-one-n426656
The article I chose discusses the whole Kim Davis situation that has taken the world by storm. For those of you who may not be as knowledgeable about the situation here is a brief explanation of the situation. Kim Davis is a Kentucky marriage clerk who since the legalization of gay marriage has been denying to sign gay couples marriage licenses. She has stated that signing the licenses goes against her christian beliefs. Because of this action, she has went to federal court. The federal court arrested her for being in contempt of the law even after she had been warned of what not signing the marriage licenses would result in for her. After five days in jail, she was released and huge crowds of supporters welcomed her and played " Eye of the Tiger." Because she has a government job and cannot be fired, there is question as to whether she will resign or continue working and still deny marriage licenses to gay couples which will result in jail time.
While reading this article I couldn't help but relate this to our question on whether justice is relative. In class most people believed that it was and I think that this article is an example of why. Throughout this whole Kim Davis controversy there has been many mixed views. Some believe that the system is being unjust to Kim Davis because it is violating her religious freedom while others belief that the gay couples whose marriage licenses are being denied are the victims of injustice since it is now legal to marry as a gay couple and when Kim Davis signed her oath to office she vowed to sign for any marriage that was seen as legal in the state of Kentucky. This article also brings up the idea of whether or not people should be bound to the state. In my opinion starting with the first question on whether justice is relative I can without a doubt say yes. People have different views and these different views make people form different ideas on what is right and wrong morally. This is seen in the article as some people believe that religious freedom is more important than the actual law. However when it comes to the second question as to whether or not people should be bound by the state i guess I can say yes and no. In this case with Kim Davis, I think that she needs to be bound by the law. In my opinion religious freedom has to deal with someone being able to freely practice their religious beliefs without being jailed. Religious freedom has nothing to do with signing under oath that you will sign for marriages that are legal and not doing so. Kim Davis was jailed not for being a christian but for not following the rules of her job which she understood when she took them. I also believe her forcing her religious beliefs on other's marriages is a form of injustice as well. However, I also recognize that sometimes the law can be unjust and under these circumstances I believe no one should be bound by an unjust law. This idea is sketchy though being that justice is relative. What do you guys think?
I have to agree with you Briona, that even though Kim Davis's religion is what prompted her decision, she was bound by the law, which means she has to uphold her job as a Government employee. Kim Davis is allowed to practice her religion freely, however her religion cannot make her stop allowing same-sex marriage licenses, because she signed an oath as the article stated. I do understand your statement that sometimes laws are unjust and people should not be bound by an unjust law, but it is clearly stated that Same-sex marriage is legal, so if Kim Davis chooses to not do her job, then jail time is rightfully given to her. All in all your statement about your beliefs on Religious freedom seems correct to me, and i agree with you on the fact that religious freedom has nothing to do with this case, and Kim Davis's federal job.
ReplyDeleteBriona,
ReplyDeleteYou state that justice is relative as an empirical observation. For instance, what I think is just and what you think is just are not the same. However, SHOULD justice relative? SHOULD we have different standards for different people based on beliefs? Doesn't this stance come with some very major problems?
To answer your question professor, I do not believe that justice should be relative. I think having a relative justice system would be too messy and would lead to unfairness as people's morals and idea of what is just differs. Depending on who dealt with what case or crime the punishments may differ and this alone would be an unjust in society as there would be no set law regarding the punishments for every citizen. I'm sure if law was relative different people would have harsher punishments than others. Justice being relative would be quite chaotic and will lead to more division.
DeleteI agree that Kim Davis's actions were wrong. I think we all have different values and morals that all factor into how we view justice. However I think it is impossible to have a system where justice is relative and depends on each person. As Professor Shirk mentioned in his comment, this would bring up a whole new set of issues. If justice becomes seen as a relative idea then it would be necessary to judge each case on an individual basis. This would turn into a slippery slope. I believe Kim Davis was in the wrong because she went against the law, and denied marriage licenses to gay couples, who are now protected under the law. Here I guess the law sets what is just. It is just to follow the law, but unjust to not follow it. I support this because I agree with the law itself. However, I feel like if there was some other law that went against my morals, and I did not agree with it, I would not think it was unjust for someone to disobey the law. I guess I'm trying to figure out what the relationship between laws and justice is? Is something automatically unjust if it breaks the law? Or is it just to follow a law you do not believe in.? I'm sure Kim Davis thought she was just in breaking the law because it went against her morals.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Hyla that looking at justice as a relative concept can lead to many issues, especially legally. In response to Professor Shirk's questions, no justice should not be relative. Although America is generally viewed as an accepting and diverse nation where people have the right to practice different religions and have different beliefs in general there are still fundamental ideologies America has and they must be upheld. Kim Davis might not agree with same sex marriage but because it is a law it is her duty to follow it and respect it. The same goes for religion or people's morals, you may not agree with how someone acts or what they believes but you must respect it. Kim Davis should be separating her personal beliefs from her work. Her job is to sign marriage licenses and refusing to do her job because of personal belief instead of acting based on the law is unjust. Justice must be objective otherwise it leads to all sorts of loopholes and grey areas.
ReplyDeleteI think that this article and your commentary draws some really good points on what we discussed in class, especially about laws themselves being unjust and also about relative ideas of justice. Kim Davis was fully aware of what her job entailed and then chose to refuse the services that she was meant to offer. If everyone thought they could pick and choose which laws to follow based on whether or not they agreed with them, then these laws would no longer have any legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the fact that everyone has their own idea of what is just. I think that the law helps to frame those ideas we can see this by what people consider just and unjust in other cultures compared to our own, as well as looking at the laws of these countries. We all grew up thinking killing is wrong and bad, where in other cultures they have sacrifice killings regularly. I do agree that Kim Davis was being unjust, she claims the right to believe and feel and think however she wants and yet she refuses to allow anyone to believe different, which goes along with your point of her forcing her religious beliefs onto everyone. I do agree that we should have religious freedom and the freedom to believe, feel, and think however we want, but we should not have the freedom to deny others these basic human rights as well. I stand behind the golden rule of 'treat others the way you want to be treated', I think that if someone wants the freedom to practice their religion they should not try to restrict others from being able to do so as well.
ReplyDeleteLike previous commenters, I agree that everyone has their own idea of just, however, should that same idea apply to Kim Davis? Honestly, I think yes, but the question is, how will the laws see it? What I'm trying to say is, based on her religion she has her own ideas of just, and those ideas aren't always going to agree with the laws of society as a whole. What do we do about this?
ReplyDelete