Should the rule of God overrule the rule of law?
From the New York Times, comes another rehashing of the gal who would rather go to jail, than issue a marriage license to a same sex couple:
A county clerk who, through her defiance of a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, became a national symbol of religious opposition to same-sex marriage was jailed Thursday after a federal judge here declared her in contempt of court.
The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., was ordered detained and later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release.
Instead, on a day when Ms. Davis’s lawyer said she would not retreat from or modify her stand despite a Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Judge David L. Bunning of United States District Court secured commitments from five of Ms. Davis’s deputies to begin providing the licenses.
Here in South Dakota, our Attorney General has weighed in on the issue himself:
Attorney General Marty Jackley says if a county employee in South Dakota has religious objections to gay marriage they can have another employee issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
Jackley said Thursday that the constitutional right to marry that’s now guaranteed to same-sex couples must coexist with the constitutional right of freedom of religion for county employees.
So, here’s the conundrum. Like the gal who found god amidst her multiple divorces, if someone has a religious objection, should they be able to say “nah” to a same sex couple?
The phrase from the bible that comes to mind is “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” – which gives rise to a wide disparity of opinion as to how we should submit to earthly authority versus that of the good book.
Should the rule of God’s law supersede the laws of men?