Er det nyttig og nødvendig for samvittighetens skyld, kan man vel legge til. Jeg ble stilt spørsmål om dette av en amerikaner for et par dager siden, og svarte at det syntes jeg ikke. Skulle man gå med på å registrere en persons 10. ekteskap, men ikke homofile ekteskap? Kirkene har sine regler, men arbeider man for en stat, må man vel godta å følge statens regler i nesten alle saker.
Mercatornet vurderer det på samme måte, redaktør Carolyn Moynihan skriver:
Kim Davis, an elected county clerk from Kentucky, is in jail today for contempt of court. Her name is making headlines around the world for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples – or, indeed, to any couples for the time being. I admire Mrs Davis for taking a stand that requires a lot of courage but, as I explain in my piece on the subject, I think she goes too far. …
… The new marriage law means that same-sex couples have the right to obtain marriage licenses. Mrs Davis doesn’t have to, and should not have to, issue them personally, but she can and should allow any of her assistants who are willing (and some are) to issue them. Instead, she put a stop to the issuing of all marriage licenses whatsoever by anyone on her office. It seems that she thought in this way to avoid the charge of discrimination. …
… That is not quite the right way to go about conscientious objection to the new marriage law, according to Ryan T. Anderson, whose objections to same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court’s role in it are well known. He says that there are ways to accommodate conscientious objection without denying people what they have a right to under the law. North Carolina provides a great example. The state legislature earlier this year passed a law that protects magistrates who object to performing solemnizing ceremonies for same-sex marriages and clerks who object to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. It also makes clear that no one can be denied a marriage license, but magistrates or clerks could recuse themselves from the process behind the scenes should they have sincere objections to same-sex marriage.
Hos First Things derimot blir hun støttet av redaktør R. R. Reno:
I’m sympathetic to Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who has stopped signing marriage licenses. In her position, I’d do the same.
Her decision was straightforward, it seems. After Obergefell, the Supreme Court decision mandating a national right to same-sex marriage, Davis decided that she could not affix her signature to documents perpetuating the falsehood that husbands can have husbands and wives have wives. To do so would be to act in a way contrary to her conscience as formed by her Christian faith. With admirable consistency, she decided to stop signing marriage licenses altogether, not wanting to discriminate against gay couples. …
Kirkerettseksperten Edward Peters støtter Renos artikkel (over) – se her.
Peters skriver også et ganske lang innlegg til støtte for Kim Davis. Det ser ut fra dette argumentet ut til å være i orden å gi homofile en slags partnerskapsavtale (som vi hadde i Norge fra tidlig 90-tall), men altså ikke en tillatelse til å gifte seg. Men hva hvis man sier at samfunnets og Kirkens forståelse av ekteskap er to svært forskjellige ting, vil ikke da en kristen statsansatt kunne gi tillatelse til ekteskap for to av samme kjønn, slik staten forstår ekteskapet?