Denying Gay Marriage Licenses Is a Human Right According to the Pope
Pope Francis has added to his list of pronouncements against same-sex marriage
this week by telling reporters that conscientious objectors to gay
marriage should not face repercussions for their refusal to follow the
law because to do so takes away their “human right” to object.
In a conversation with reporters on Monday while on board the papal plane after his historic visit to the United States and Cuba, Pope Francis was asked whether he supported individuals, including people acting in a governmental capacity, who refuse to follow the law on issues where they have a moral objection. Issuing same-sex marriage licenses was reportedly specifically mentioned in that question, suggesting the reporter was referring to Rowan county clerk Kim Davis who was sent to prison for a short time for being in contempt of court after refusing to comply with a judge’s order that she must issue licenses to same-sex couples.
The Pope is quoted as replying: “I can’t have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection … but yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.”
He went on: ”Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying, ‘this right that has merit, this one does not.’”
When asked to clarify whether this applies to a person acting in a government role, the Pope reportedly said: ”It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.”
It should be stressed that this was a translation provided by a person that was on board the plane relaying the message to reporters and is not considered an “official” translation in the same way that a speech or written comments issued by the Vatican might be considered official. However, the Vatican has not moved to issue a retraction or clarification of these widely reported remarks and therefore they are being taken as an accurate representation of the Pope’s stance. They also fall in line with his prior statements surrounding this issue.
As such, the Pope’s comments will likely embolden Kim Davis’ supporters. Davis has become a martyr for the Christian right-wing who say she is an example of how Christian freedoms–because they never seem to mention religious freedom for Buddhists or Muslims–are being taken away. She has even been given awards by far right hate groups, with the Family Research Council giving her its “Cost of Discipleship Award,” and has been touted as an example of Republican strength of character after switching her allegiance from the Democrats to the Republicans.
For her part, Davis continues her crusade to prevent same-sex couples being able to obtain marriage licenses. The terms of her release from prison are that she is not allowed to prevent same-sex couples from getting such licenses at her office, however she appears to have done everything but directly prevent that; she is still refusing to issue those licenses with her signature, altering them so their validity became a question for legal groups to determine, and she is also taking steps to further fight in court to be allowed to deny same-sex couples those licenses.
The Pope’s words will likely serve to embolden her cause. However, they shouldn’t.
What the Pope may have failed to properly grasp, or may even have ignored in this case, is that Davis’ religious right to object extends only so far. She should never be compelled to do something against her moral conscience with no alternative open to her. That of course would be wrong. However, she does have an option, she just doesn’t like it: she may resign from her position as an elected government official.
Furthermore, there is a question as to why she is forcing her religious beliefs to come into play here at all. As an official in a government capacity she must carry out her duty. Part of that is to give out marriage licenses. Never before has Davis made her religion an issue despite the fact that she has probably served hundreds of straight couples, some of whom likely had sex outside of marriage, would go on to get divorced, would have affairs or may have been committing any number of so-called sins. Yet she has chosen to make a value judgement about whom she will and wont serve based on their sexual orientation. Through this, she has gone to pains to make her religion an issue when before she hadn’t bothered to introduce it as such.
The Pope isn’t therefore defending Davis’ human right to conscientious objection; whether meaning to or not he appears to be advocating for a special right for the religious to simply ignore secular law and apply their cherry-picked religious morality as and when they choose, and at the cost of other people’s civil rights. That’s precisely the kind of act that the United States system of separation of powers and deliberate separation of church and state is supposed to guard against.
Meanwhile, same-sex couples in Kentucky are now demanding that Davis’ office be made to issue standard licenses and not the amended ones her staff have been using. As Davis will no doubt refuse to put her signature on those licenses, this will likely return to court in the coming few weeks.
In a conversation with reporters on Monday while on board the papal plane after his historic visit to the United States and Cuba, Pope Francis was asked whether he supported individuals, including people acting in a governmental capacity, who refuse to follow the law on issues where they have a moral objection. Issuing same-sex marriage licenses was reportedly specifically mentioned in that question, suggesting the reporter was referring to Rowan county clerk Kim Davis who was sent to prison for a short time for being in contempt of court after refusing to comply with a judge’s order that she must issue licenses to same-sex couples.
The Pope is quoted as replying: “I can’t have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection … but yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.”
He went on: ”Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying, ‘this right that has merit, this one does not.’”
When asked to clarify whether this applies to a person acting in a government role, the Pope reportedly said: ”It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.”
It should be stressed that this was a translation provided by a person that was on board the plane relaying the message to reporters and is not considered an “official” translation in the same way that a speech or written comments issued by the Vatican might be considered official. However, the Vatican has not moved to issue a retraction or clarification of these widely reported remarks and therefore they are being taken as an accurate representation of the Pope’s stance. They also fall in line with his prior statements surrounding this issue.
As such, the Pope’s comments will likely embolden Kim Davis’ supporters. Davis has become a martyr for the Christian right-wing who say she is an example of how Christian freedoms–because they never seem to mention religious freedom for Buddhists or Muslims–are being taken away. She has even been given awards by far right hate groups, with the Family Research Council giving her its “Cost of Discipleship Award,” and has been touted as an example of Republican strength of character after switching her allegiance from the Democrats to the Republicans.
For her part, Davis continues her crusade to prevent same-sex couples being able to obtain marriage licenses. The terms of her release from prison are that she is not allowed to prevent same-sex couples from getting such licenses at her office, however she appears to have done everything but directly prevent that; she is still refusing to issue those licenses with her signature, altering them so their validity became a question for legal groups to determine, and she is also taking steps to further fight in court to be allowed to deny same-sex couples those licenses.
The Pope’s words will likely serve to embolden her cause. However, they shouldn’t.
What the Pope may have failed to properly grasp, or may even have ignored in this case, is that Davis’ religious right to object extends only so far. She should never be compelled to do something against her moral conscience with no alternative open to her. That of course would be wrong. However, she does have an option, she just doesn’t like it: she may resign from her position as an elected government official.
Furthermore, there is a question as to why she is forcing her religious beliefs to come into play here at all. As an official in a government capacity she must carry out her duty. Part of that is to give out marriage licenses. Never before has Davis made her religion an issue despite the fact that she has probably served hundreds of straight couples, some of whom likely had sex outside of marriage, would go on to get divorced, would have affairs or may have been committing any number of so-called sins. Yet she has chosen to make a value judgement about whom she will and wont serve based on their sexual orientation. Through this, she has gone to pains to make her religion an issue when before she hadn’t bothered to introduce it as such.
The Pope isn’t therefore defending Davis’ human right to conscientious objection; whether meaning to or not he appears to be advocating for a special right for the religious to simply ignore secular law and apply their cherry-picked religious morality as and when they choose, and at the cost of other people’s civil rights. That’s precisely the kind of act that the United States system of separation of powers and deliberate separation of church and state is supposed to guard against.
Meanwhile, same-sex couples in Kentucky are now demanding that Davis’ office be made to issue standard licenses and not the amended ones her staff have been using. As Davis will no doubt refuse to put her signature on those licenses, this will likely return to court in the coming few weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment