In his 28-page order, Bunning considered and dismissed every argument Davis has raised in her defense and in a related lawsuit she filed last week against Beshear, alleging that he violated her religious liberties by directing county clerks to comply with the Supreme Court decision.
On Davis' argument that she can't in good conscience "authorize" a same-sex marriage, given her beliefs as an Apostolic Christian, Bunning said she was not being asked to authorize marriages. Kentucky's marriage license paperwork requires clerks only to acknowledge that a couple has provided accurate biographical information and is legally permitted to wed, Bunning wrote. And whether or not Davis likes it, same-sex couples now are legally permitted to wed, he wrote.
On Davis' argument that same-sex couples could drive to another county where the clerk is willing to serve them, Bunning said she did not take into account the difficulty of travel for her poorer constituents or the likelihood that other clerks would seek the same religious exemption she demands, so that "approximately half of the state" could declare itself off-limits to gay couples seeking a license.
Beyond all that, Bunning wrote, "she fails to address the one question that lingers in the court's mind. Even if plaintiffs are able to obtain licenses elsewhere, why should they be required to? ... They live, work, socialize, pay taxes and conduct other business in and around Morehead. Quite simply, Rowan County is their home."
"Davis has arguably (violated the First Amendment) by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others," Bunning wrote.
"Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions, regardless of our personal opinions," Bunning wrote. "Davis is certainly free to disagree with the court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent."
