On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage would be allowed and recognized nationally. Kim Davis, a county clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky, denied several couples a marriage license just days after this ruling, claiming that it was against her personal religious beliefs. She was then ordered to start issuing these licenses in a lawsuit brought against her by the American Civil Liberties Union and was thrown in jail after she still refused. Davis has since been released.

Lori Klein, assistant professor of political science, said that the controversy begins in the struggle between state and federal governments.

“The 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution gives any power that wasn’t explicitly given to the federal government to the individual states, and the ability to issue marriage licenses and define marriage is one of these reserved powers,” Klein said. “However, The Supremacy Clause found in the Sixth Article makes federal law supreme. If any state law is found unconstitutional, then it is void.”

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment One defines marriage as “the union between one man and one woman,” which is the law Davis was used to operating under. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion on the aforementioned Supreme Court case, cited the 14th Amendment to prove that denying same-sex couples the ability to marry was unconstitutional and infringed upon their “equal protection under the law.” This means that Davis would be contractually obligated as a government employee to carry out this order.

Davis said that forcing her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples would infringe upon her First Amendment right to freely practice her religion.

Sophomore social work major Chloe Goodman said she disagrees with Davis on the account that everyone has the human right to happiness.

“That’s the thing about human rights; they’re indivisible and unalienable,” Goodman said. “Just because you’re trying to grant someone religious rights doesn’t mean that in the same stroke you can take away someone else’s human rights.”

Kraig Martin, professor of history and doctrine within the Bible Department, said that he drew upon the ideas from the Constitution Day chapel talks about mixing faith with politics.

“We can see both Simon the Zealot and Matthew the tax collector called by Jesus,” Martin said. “We can disagree politically but we are still brothers and sisters.”

Klein said there is a need for people to shift the way they think about religious rights.

“There are two elements of the freedom of religion we are guaranteed under the First Amendment: the first prohibits the establishment of a favored religion by the federal government and the second protects you in the free exercise of your chosen religion,” Klein said. “In modern society, we’ve come to view the whole ‘religious freedom’ debate through the lens of the first clause and not the second, but I think we need to include both in a balance. It’s difficult to get that balance right, but it’s very important that we do.”