Hooray for Kim Davis for getting her five minutes of fame and recognition in the papers, online media and television as well as being grossly misguided in her stance. Kim Davis being ordered to jail should not be seen as shocking or stirring to us. Her attempt at martyrdom here is no more impressive than her attempts at moral suasion. It is a laughable fail.
What Kim Davis lacks here is moral realism and by a large margin in fact. Her refusal to perform tasks that obligate her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples which culminated into not issuing any marriage licenses at all is reprehensible. The argument that her Christian faith mandates that she defy a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples is indicative of why we have separation of church and state.
This concept escapes her and many others as we can’t assume any elected official, self-ordained as a moral compass, would wake up from a (day or night) dream that God is speaking through them to carry out some faith act, let alone be persuaded that this is cognitively plausible and in good context. More importantly, Davis and her ethics should come into question here as she has subsequently perjured herself when she took the state of Kentucky oath for her position as the state’s County Circuit Court Clerk.
“I, ….., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of ………….. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”
I wouldn’t get hung up on that last sentence either as the “so help me God” part is optional, it is simply to emphasis the degree of seriousness, and with great care, that you wish to stand by your obligations in your duties under state. Therefore she is in contempt of court and her moral reasoning is speculative at best as it is not practical. Such moral belief is injurious to others, both gay and non-gay persons, therefore having such morals is hence contradictory. What if she has more moral issues about other forms of orientation that she finds detestable by her faith.
I see no real clash or major bitter tensions of world views unraveling into an epic battle of sexual orientation mounting over this. There is no diabolical threat stemming from being gay or not being gay. The threat I see here is zealotry in framing political and religious piety to mask strong cognitive biases.