Taking an unpopular stand requires courage

Bravery is heroism, an act of valor, while courage is the decision to act bravely even when one is afraid. Courage is taking a stand for something one believes in, even in the face of ridicule or persecution.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, has taken a stand.

She has stated that her decision was made on moral rather than legal grounds. She has openly expressed that her refusal to comply with the law is based upon the laws of God, and not of men.

Regardless of how one feels about the gay marriage issue, or Davis herself, this lady’s courage in the face of criticism, ridicule and unpopularity cannot be ignored. You can call it homophobia, bigotry, ignorance, narrow-minded stubbornness, however you want to slice it. But Davis’s decision—and her determination to stick with it—is undeniable, unmistakable, and admirable.

How many of us would be willing to stake our careers, our integrity, and our character for a belief, an idea that will cost us dearly?

Undoubtedly, Davis stands to lose her job. She’ll probably end up being removed from office, and her professional reputation tarnished. But, it seems she is prepared to live with those consequences. She has decided that she cannot live with the consequences of compromising her spiritual principles.

In this day and age, sacrificing one’s professional career for principles is generally frowned upon. We are told to follow the rules no matter what. We are advised to comply with policy even if we have deep disagreements with it.

But, as King Solomon wrote in the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is a time for everything, a season for every activity under the heavens. There is a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from it. There’s a time to keep and a time to throw away. There’s a time to be silent, and a time to speak.

Kim Davis has decided that there is also a time for following policy, and a time for turning away from it, too.

Eight years ago, I faced a similar dilemma on the job. I worked for a child welfare agency, and my employer’s strict policy was not to place hands on children, no matter how violent or out of control they would become. One day I decided that I needed to act against this policy for the health, safety and welfare of two youths who proved to be dangers to one another. I restrained and removed one boy—who threw the first punch—so that the other boy had no opportunity to hit back. This action, I felt, kept a violent situation from getting out of control and resulting in injuries. But it also violated policy.

I remember being interviewed—more like interrogated—by administration over the incident. I was asked repeatedly if I thought there was something else I could have done and I shook my head. I explained my decision, and I stuck with it. I staked my job on principle. In the end, I lost my job. But I retained my integrity and my dignity. I stood up for doing what I felt was right, and I refused to give in to the pressure to comply with a policy that I believed turned out to be wrong in that particular case.

Although Ms. Davis will likely be impeached and removed from her elected post, her dignity and her character will be preserved, because she chose to stand up for what she believed in and refused to compromise on a decision she firmly believes is the right one.

Mark my words: This is only the first of many cases in which the SCOTUS decision will come into conflict with peoples’ religious and spiritual beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage.

It is only the beginning of a string of controversies sure to develop. Can a judge or justice of the peace be jailed and ultimately removed from office because he or she refuses to officiate a civil ceremony for a gay couple? Based upon what is happening to Davis, I’d say yes. It can and it will eventually happen.

And, in fact, it has. Marion County, Oregon, Circuit Court Judge Vance Day has also decided not to perform any gay marriages on his own personal religious grounds, too. Oregon has allowed gay marriage since May 2014, and Judge Day since then has been steadfast in his refusal to preside over same-sex nuptials. His story is just now surfacing nationally, though, because of what is happening to Davis in Kentucky. Day is facing a judicial investigation which could well lead to his dismissal, disbarment and/or removal from the bench. All because he has chosen to put personal religious beliefs and values above the law of men.

If such things are happening to a county clerk and a circuit court judge nationwide, then it can and will happen to others who become directly involved in the gay marriage issue. The can of worms has been opened, and the slope is dangerously slippery.

Can a minister and his church be sued for refusing to preside over a gay wedding, or allow the use of the sanctuary? It’s not only plausible, but probable. Depending upon the church, and whether or not it embraces more socially left-wing ideas, the unfortunate cleric could find himself out of a job, cast out of the pulpit and excommunicated from the denomination.

How about a judge who refuses to sign off on the adoption of a child by a gay couple? Why couldn’t he or she be jailed, disbarred, and ultimately removed from the bench for refusing to do his or her job? Or maybe a social worker who refuses to facilitate the adoption process for gay parents? Could he or she be fired, arrested, sued, have his or her license revoked, or all of the above?

How about a surrogate mother who refuses to carry the child of a gay couple? Could she be sued for discrimination? And then there is the doctor, who may refuse to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple on religious grounds and end up facing a damages lawsuit, revocation of his or her license from the state medical board, and/or dismissal from the clinic or hospital at which he or she works.

The scenarios are broad, and seemingly endless.
 

Considering what is happening to Ms. Davis in Rowan County, Kentucky, I’d say anything goes. Any opposition at all toward gay marriage will face the might of not only one of America's most aggressive sociopolitical lobbies, but also the nation’s highest court.

The gay rights lobby finally has the legal muscle it has sought for decades to legitimize its homosexual lifestyle. It finally has the meat to enforce its will on others. Now, few things will be able to stand in its way. Intimidation of those who oppose the gay agenda will continue, and things can be expected to get worse.

Many people will allow themselves to get bullied into submission because of the SCOTUS ruling.

But, thankfully, not Ms. Davis. Hopefully, her courage will encourage others to take their stands for Biblical principles.

The gay lobby has the might of the Fourteenth Amendment behind it, the one about equal protection under the law. Ms. Davis has cited the First Amendment in support of her right to refuse the gay marriage license request on religious grounds.

Indeed, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In taking her stand, Ms. Davis has chosen to exercise her religious beliefs freely without fear of government interference, intrusion or prohibition.

But now she finds herself in jail, placed there by a judge who has said she will remain in jail until she decides to grant the request for the marriage license.

Right then and there, her right to freely exercise her religious beliefs has been violated and impeded by a man in a black robe who is trying to force her to do something she feels goes against her religion.

And then there is the Ninth Amendment, which states that the rights enumerated by the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people.

It seems as though that the right to equal protection under the law, per the Fourteenth Amendment, is being used to deny or disparage Ms. Davis’s right to follow her religious beliefs without fear of being compelled to go against them.

But where and when does one amendment trump another, how is that decided, and who gets to decide that? The nine black-robed justices of SCOTUS? Do they hold Ms. Davis’ fate in their hands, and that of others who will undoubtedly come to face similar dilemmas?

The incident involving Davis and the gay marriage license is but the first clash between the Fourteenth, First and Ninth Amendments. There will be more, and we must summon the courage to stand our ground on what we believe in.

Do you have the courage to stand your ground if or when you are called upon to do so? Can you do it at the risk of being unpopular? And, are you ready to accept the consequences of your decision?

Courage means standing your ground even when these questions cause you fear.

Ms. Davis has drawn her line in the sand. Are you ready to draw yours?