Marriage was historically defined and practiced in Kentucky as being between a man and woman only, both by the legislature and by popular vote -- this was even incorporated into the state's constitution. Apparently no marriage licenses were issued to any same-sex couples by any Kentucky county in the entire history of the state. In 2013 and 2014 two suits were brought against Kentucky, attempting to force it and its residents to recognize and support same-sex marriage (SSM). Though these had some initial success, both were overturned in favor of the prior, default position.
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that SSM is protected under the federal Constitution of the United States. The fall-out in various states was a proliferation of laws making it such that one could not legally discriminate on the provision of goods or services on the basis of sexual orientation. Any person who did so might face dire consequences. What this means is that, if you offer a good or service to the public, you could not lawfully deny that same good or service to someone on the basis that he or she was homosexual. Many persons and agencies do not agree with the ruling, and do not believe that they can be rightly compelled to act in a way that violates their conscience, morals or religious beliefs. Such persons would be subject to a variety of possible penalties, though, for acting in a way that singled out homosexuals, at least in places where actual laws had been created that compelled such behavior. In a somewhat clever move, and to avoid being accused of discrimination, Davis' office in Rowan County stopped providing marriage licenses not just to same-sex couples, but to everyone. Several offices, judges and other public and private parties have made similar choices.
Obviously, this does not and did not prevent people from getting married, and nor can it be rightly claimed that it was illegal discrimination. All it stopped was county/state sanction (at least by Rowan County) of that union -- an act that is arguably superfluous in the first place. People seeking state recognition/sanction of their marriage (homosexual or heterosexual) could acquire this from many of the nearby counties, most of which are about a 15-to-30-minute drive away. (Of course, the obvious solution is for the state to get its nose out of the marriage business altogether and simply state that it will recognize any marriage otherwise performed -- the underlying problem, as is often the case, is the state's involvement in the first place.)
In response to Davis' move, the ACLU sued Davis and the county in federal court, arguing that she was violating citizens' rights so recently discovered in the federal constitution by SCOTUS. A federal district court ruled that Davis must offer licenses to homosexual couples. She refused to comply with the order, and was then fined and jailed for refusing to follow the court's order.
And then everyone lost their minds. Well, they were already pretty much gone. What this did was provide an opportunity for people to parade their lack of rationality for all to see... and cheer.
Davis' life was laid bare and dissected in the public square. She has been portrayed as physically repugnant, a hypocrite and a Christian fanatic who is attempting to impose her crazy, backward fundamentalist beliefs on others. She is practically a terrorist. But what is the reality? Here are some of the arguments, open and implied, that have been made:
If she didn't like it, why did she issue licenses before?
This is easily answered, and is clear to anyone interested in the truth. The prior stance for all of the state's history had been to issue only heterosexual marriage certificates. As these did not violate her personal, religious beliefs, she issued these papers.
She is unattractive.
This is, along with "you're dumb," the favorite response of those who have no better argument. This is the classic ad hominem fallacy, making the issue about some trait or characteristic of the person rather than focussing on the actual issue or facts.
It is interesting that, out of the probably-thousands of persons who are taking a similar stand, the media has chosen to focus on Davis. This is likely not an accident, but designed to associate a stance against SSM with being portrayed as an unattractive, somewhat-looney hypocrite. Speaking of which....
She is a hypocrite who has been divorced and remarried.
Various sources suggest that Davis is presently in her fourth marriage. Her last divorce was in 2008. Sometime around 2011 she apparently became involved in Apostolic Christianity -- the particular church is unclear. While the denomination discourages divorce, it doesn't appear to flatly forbid it. Same-sex marriage, however, is flatly forbidden.
Because Davis' divorces took place prior to her participation in the Apostolic Christian Church (and divorce is discouraged, not forbidden), the assertion of hypocrisy simply doesn't stick. We all change our beliefs over time, and it is entirely possible -- and the history seems to suggest -- that Davis had just such a change. Either way, there is a substantial difference between divorce and SSM, let alone actual homosexual behavior. One of these things is not like the other. To equate them is absurd.
Similar to trying to subtly incorporate Davis' appearance into the discussion, this smear of hypocrisy involving prior divorces is just another manifestation of an ad hominem fallacy, designed to confuse the discussion.
She is imposing her religious beliefs on others.
This is clearly false. Davis' action does not prevent any same-sex couple from getting married. Indeed, the reality is just the opposite (and reminiscent of Marx's instruction to "accuse others of what you do"). Specifically, the SSM proponents are attempting to force Davis to publicly endorse something which she opposes as a matter of religion and personal conscience. That is, they are attempting to impose their beliefs upon her, to force her to reject her religious beliefs and adopt the beliefs of the SSM proponents.
It is her job. If she doesn't want to do it, she should quit.
This actually isn't true. The job she ran and was elected for did not include issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Certain people have attempted to use the government and legal system to force her to do so (or force her out of her career) after-the-fact.
The Real Issue
The essence of the question is whether any person can be rightly forced to positively provide a good or service to another person.
The answer, of course, is no.
We might tell such a person, "I really think that you should," or "I won't be your friend if you don't," but what we have no right to do is to threaten them with harm. To claim that someone must provide a good or service to another person against his will is to assert that he is a kind of slave who must do as we command... or else.
At last check, Davis offered to allow the certificates to be issued from her office, as long as she was not required to sign her name to them, indicating her personal endorsement.
