Kim Davis: Hero or Villain? When the Supreme Court decided to recognize the various marriages of same-sex couples nationwide on June 26, 2015, not everyone was applauding the significant event. While thousands of people across America flooded the streets with joy there were still those who believed allowing such marriages was against “God’s law,” and of those people was Kim Davis. Davis, a county clerk in Rowan, Kentucky, decided to “uphold “God’s law” by denying same-sex couples (and now all couples) marriage licenses.”(Moodie-Mills, 2015, para.6). Some say that Davis is a new civil rights hero, while others claim that she is no star for justice. Although the argument that expands on her fight for religious liberty holds sound logic, the
…show more content…
The court has since tried to force Davis to give out licenses to all eligible couples, but she has responded to this by not letting out a single license from her office in Rowan. Some of her supporters have been portraying her as a present-day civil rights leader, however, Danielle Moodie-Mills, a government affairs specialist from NBC news, reasonably argues that “Kim Davis is no Martin Luther King, Jr…” (Moodie-Mills, 2015, para. 8). She backs up this claim with a discussion of the cases of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Fannie Lou Hamer. These people may have broken various state and local laws, but each did this because those laws prevented citizens from accessing their constitutional rights (Moodie-Mills, 2015). The author is able to accurately portray the inconsistency in Davis’s logic behind her motives by stating that her specific actions do not “paint her in the image of abolitionists, suffragists, freedom fighters or any other activists,” but instead display her need to fight for the equal rights of those who have the same beliefs as her, not the nation as a whole (Moodie-Mills, 2015, para. …show more content…
She deliberately turned down same-sex couples’ marriage licenses for the benefit of her own religious freedom. The main issue with this argument is not that she broke the law, but that some have been comparing her to civil rights leaders in the way she broke the law. However, her intentions for breaking the law differ greatly from those leaders. Moodie-Mills argues that Davis is “fighting a losing battle to preserve equality and justice for a few,” (Moodie-Mills, 2015, para.16). Therefore, this argument cannot be logically used because it deliberately displays the fact that Davis was the only clerk who decided to break the law and it shows that she did this to support her own individual
The court has since tried to force Davis to give out licenses to all eligible couples, but she has responded to this by not letting out a single license from her office in Rowan. Some of her supporters have been portraying her as a present-day civil rights leader, however, Danielle Moodie-Mills, a government affairs specialist from NBC news, reasonably argues that “Kim Davis is no Martin Luther King, Jr…” (Moodie-Mills, 2015, para. 8). She backs up this claim with a discussion of the cases of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Fannie Lou Hamer. These people may have broken various state and local laws, but each did this because those laws prevented citizens from accessing their constitutional rights (Moodie-Mills, 2015). The author is able to accurately portray the inconsistency in Davis’s logic behind her motives by stating that her specific actions do not “paint her in the image of abolitionists, suffragists, freedom fighters or any other activists,” but instead display her need to fight for the equal rights of those who have the same beliefs as her, not the nation as a whole (Moodie-Mills, 2015, para. …show more content…
She deliberately turned down same-sex couples’ marriage licenses for the benefit of her own religious freedom. The main issue with this argument is not that she broke the law, but that some have been comparing her to civil rights leaders in the way she broke the law. However, her intentions for breaking the law differ greatly from those leaders. Moodie-Mills argues that Davis is “fighting a losing battle to preserve equality and justice for a few,” (Moodie-Mills, 2015, para.16). Therefore, this argument cannot be logically used because it deliberately displays the fact that Davis was the only clerk who decided to break the law and it shows that she did this to support her own individual