Pro-Con Analysis: The Obligation Of Gay Marriage

1456 Words6 Pages
Pro-Con Analysis Paper Nicole Mills University of West Florida A Kentucky clerk’s office turned away a gay couple seeking a marriage license on Thursday, defying a federal judge’s order that dismissed her argument involving religious freedom. Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis’ office turned away David Moore and David Ermold just hours after a U.S. district judge ordered her to do the opposite. Kim Davis has argued that her deeply held Christian beliefs prevent her from issuing licenses to same-sex couples. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional, Davis stopped issuing licenses to any couple, gay or straight. He wrote that her refusal “likely violated the constitutional rights of her constituents.” In…show more content…
Kim was right in her actions in that she was following the commandments and in a since the bible. She has repeatedly said that her religious beliefs go against that of gay marriage, which in turn she cannot do her job. No matter the situation she uses this guide as a tool for her life. Kim Davis used Emmanuel’s Levinas (Johannesen, 2008, p.123) ethics of the direct and indirect encounter of “I”. She heard and acted on the government’s decision to make gay marriage legal, however his ethical obligations didn’t agree, so she acted in a way against that of what was expected of her. The never stated how she had to act, just that she do. Golden Mean by Aristotle (Johannesen, 2008, p. 4) is to do the greatest good for the greatest about of people, she was right in that she was doing what she believed and she did it without thinking of how this will change the world or just being spiteful of the couple. This isn’t something that was done once, it has happened multiple times and she will continue to do it because she believes she is ethical. And she stands her ground in her decision and…show more content…
Her actions do not have to reflect those of others. Kim Davis responded to how she perceived the “call’ toward her. Kim Davis did just that in the Golden Mean, which was asked of her. She didn’t go above and beyond for agreeing to issue the marriage license, and she didn’t out right say that they couldn’t get married period. She simple choose to not issue the marriage licenses herself. She was doing the moral character thing for her character. Not wanting to hurt anyone or anything in the process, just being safe, in not fully endorsing the topic and not just saying no to it either. She just wanted no part in it what so ever. Conclusion In final, if I were judging Kim Davis for her actions ethical, I would say she is being unethical because she is not using Joseph Fletchers Christian Situation Ethics because she is not doing or seeing anyone with love. From Gods teaching he wants us all to love one another, well-being a devout Christian as she claims, she isn’t doing so. She is using hate and selfishness to worry about herself. References Johannesen, R. (2008). Ethics in Human Communication (6th ed. pp. 1,39,75,86,
Open Document