Kim Davis Research Paper
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, thereby requiring all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples” (“Same-Sex Marriage Laws”). Laws are rules of a country or community that need to be followed or there will be a punishment if broken and ethics are moral that influence a person’s decisions. Laws and ethics have two different meanings. Kim Davis is the county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. Davis refused to issue a same-sex marriage licenses. She made this decision based on ethics that conflict with United States laws. Kim Davis makes a strong ethical argument because she successfully explains the reason why she cannot issue a same-sex marriage licenses. According to Davis ethical principles,
…show more content…
She notes that she is “protected under the the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and [under] the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (“Davis Releases”). Considering that Davis uses reputable laws to support her belief it makes her point convincing. Davis clearly explains that since there is legal precedence that should support her reasoning for not issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Even though Davis manipulated the legal system she made it clear why she went around the law. Davis thought that her ethical principles were the law because the swore that religious freedom would be protected. Kim Davis does not address her opposition. Davis did not address another side, but her own. She only looked at her own belief rather than looking at others view points. For her argument to be effective she should have addressed the other side. Davis should have looked at the couples side and how they would be effected by the decision she made. Kim Davis’s had a good ethical argument. Davis’s statement was very clear about why she would not issue a same-sex marriage licenses. Despite missing some important support her argument was clear. Some people hold different beliefs and standards, Kim Davis should have understood this. I think she should have been more understanding to both sides and considered how other people think. This whole debate could have been avoided if she realized that she manipulated the United States
She notes that she is “protected under the the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and [under] the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (“Davis Releases”). Considering that Davis uses reputable laws to support her belief it makes her point convincing. Davis clearly explains that since there is legal precedence that should support her reasoning for not issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Even though Davis manipulated the legal system she made it clear why she went around the law. Davis thought that her ethical principles were the law because the swore that religious freedom would be protected. Kim Davis does not address her opposition. Davis did not address another side, but her own. She only looked at her own belief rather than looking at others view points. For her argument to be effective she should have addressed the other side. Davis should have looked at the couples side and how they would be effected by the decision she made. Kim Davis’s had a good ethical argument. Davis’s statement was very clear about why she would not issue a same-sex marriage licenses. Despite missing some important support her argument was clear. Some people hold different beliefs and standards, Kim Davis should have understood this. I think she should have been more understanding to both sides and considered how other people think. This whole debate could have been avoided if she realized that she manipulated the United States