There have been millions of words written about the decision by a Kentucky county clerk not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, despite a U.S. Supreme Court edict and a federal judge's order to do so.

Kim Davis was held in contempt of court for defying a court order to issue the licenses. She said to do so violated her conscience and runs counter to her religious beliefs.Her decision to go to jail rather than follow the law brought thousands of supporters flocking to her side, along with the negative backlash from critics who branded her actions as reckless and unlawful. They also claim it is a significant assault on the First Amendment's separation of church and state principle.After five days in jail, Davis was released, went back to work but again refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Clerks in her office agreed to issue them, so business went on pretty much as usual.Davis wanted her name and office title removed from the marriage licenses, which could get her into hot water with the courts again, but she says she doesn't care. She says the law of God trumps the law of man.Lindsay Graham, the conservative senator from South Carolina, who is one of the 15 remaining Republican candidates for president, says Davis can't pick and choose which laws she will and will not obey. That goes for the rest of us, too, by the way.Federal Judge David Bunning was right in sending Davis to jail. He had no choice, because he must obey the law and so must she."In this country," Bunning told Davis, "we live in a society of laws."I am sure Davis and her supporters are sincere in their interpretation of Christian doctrine that homosexuality is a sin, and gay marriage is "an abomination." They are entitled to that belief, but they should not force those beliefs on us by refusing to carry out their sworn public duties.Davis was not jailed for her beliefs. She was put in jail for refusing a federal judge's order to obey the law.As an elected official, Davis took an oath to uphold the law. Based on this, she cannot use her power as an elected official to refuse to grant marriage licenses to couples the Supreme Court ruled is entitled to those licenses.Davis counters, saying that by her having said the words "so help me God" that she was swearing allegiance to a higher power.Interestingly enough, the oath of office prescribed in the U.S. Constitution (article 2, section 1) does not include the words "… so help me God." Our first President George Washington added them after taking the oath of office as president in 1793, and through tradition, every president after Washington has repeated the words.This holds true for oath-takers at the state and local levels, too.In the 1803 Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison decision that brought about the principle of Judicial Review, whereby the high court decides what is and what is not constitutional, Chief Justice John Marshall asked in his groundbreaking opinion whether we are a nation of laws rather than of men.If we were to allow public officials to pick and choose the laws they will follow based on their personal religious views it would lead to utter chaos.Just think of the possibilities: A Quaker sheriff refuses to issue gun permits because of his pacifist views; a Muslim supervisor at the Department of Motor Vehicles refuses to issue driver's licenses to women because he believes Islam opposes women having this right.Rather than uphold the Constitution, as the officials swore they would do, these elected officials would make decisions based on their personal and religious beliefs.It makes no sense and is a concept that would strike at the very foundation of our Constitution.BRUCE FRASSINELLI |

tneditor@tnonline.com