The Undiscovered Country

My Thoughts on Kim Davis' Actions

As with everything that happens, people take one of two sides.

In this instance, people criticize Davis' defiance by saying she was elected to do a job, and to refuse to do it should result in her removal from office. Even though she claims religious objections to signing marriage licenses for gay couples, many Christians are frowning. They claim she's using her faith to get attention, and is not acting loving as Christ would. She's making it more about herself, and not Jesus.

Those who take her side, many of whom are also Christian, are doing so because they believe she's standing her ground on her faith, and that no government – state or federal – should compel her to go against her religion.

Part of my job description is to create and sign plats and surveys. I take data provided either through legal documents or surveys performed on the ground and create a new plat or description.

In calculating property boundaries, I use mathematical processes including significant digits. For those who don't remember, when calculating data, the end result can't show a greater accuracy than the least accurate number. For instance, if I have 34.5654 + 45.2, the end result must be 79.8, not 79.7654.

What does this have to do with Kim Davis? Keep reading, it'll all make sense shortly.

A client once asked our company to parcel out a piece of his property to sell. His original legal was described to the nearest foot. He didn't want an actual on-the-ground survey, but he did want the new parcel to be calculated to the nearest 10th of a foot.

I created the drawing, but I refused to sign it. My sense of ethics and correct usage of mathematics prevented me from putting my name on a document that was inaccurate and incorrect.

See where I'm going with this?

One of Kim Davis' objections was being forced to sign her name to a document that goes against her religious beliefs. Not only that, but when she was hired, the Kentucky State Constitution defined marriage as only between a man and a woman, and anything else is invalid (Section 233A). Still does, in fact, as it can only be changed or repealed via General Assembly.

What happened to her is similar to someone being hired as a bartender then told three months later that she must pole-dance naked. It wasn't originally part of her job description, so her objection is not unwarranted.

There's also the issue where Davis apparently prevented (or perhaps couldn't, legally) allow the deputies to sign the licenses, I didn't prevent another surveyor from within the company with signing the survey, which is what happened.

We also have to recognize that the SCOTUS decision created legal ambiguity with state laws and constitutions which will take time to rectify. I won't get into specifics, because the entry would be far too long. Nevertheless, the decision places people in untenable situations much like Davis where we have contradictory laws that make following one law without violating others near impossible.

It boils down to this: No government has the right to force or compel a person to sign a legal document that they find morally or ethically objectionable. By the same token, no individual has the right to force people to not sign a legal document they don't find morally or ethically objectionable.

Now for the religious component.

Davis' mistake (that could have been pushed on her due to national coverage which she may not have expected) was in digging in her heels and claiming (quite loudly) religious objections without first trying to find a legislative or legal solution. Her actions show less grace and more self-absorption, something too many – Christian or otherwise – are guilty of.

Adding to the controversy of religious objection in the workplace is the Muslim woman who is suing her employer for suspending her because she refused to serve alcohol:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/08/muslim-flight-atten...

In her case, she knew part of her job description is to serve alcohol. She had, after all, worked that job for two years before converting to Islam. Once she converted, she should have asked for reassignment where serving alcohol was not a requirement, or find different employment.

You could argue I'm picking and choosing my “outrage” (I place it in quotes, because I'm not outraged by either. This is a mere curiosity to me, but wanted to address it because it's on everyone's mind) based on the complainant – one being Christian, the other Muslim. But they are not entirely the same.

As I said above, the rules changed for Davis after she was elected, whereas none of Stanley's (the flight attendant) duties changed from the moment she took the job until she converted.

What would solve the dilemma with gay marriage in particular is quite simple: Marriage is a religious covenant with a specific meaning, so it should be relegated to churches. Governments should change the verbiage from"marriage" to “civil union” (as an example). The license signed and filed by the government would be nothing more than a legal contract between two people, and the gender of said couple no longer has relevance.