Hypocrisy in the acts of Kim Davis
Re “Clerk in gay marriage fight freed from jail” (Page 9A, Sept. 9): Kim Davis portrays herself as a staunch defender of religious liberty. But what of her deputy clerks?
Suppose their beliefs do not coincide with hers. She has ordered them not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, thereby denying to her deputies the very rights she claims for herself. Davis and her supporters might argue that the deputies must follow her instructions in spite of their beliefs because she is the boss, yet Davis has no problem defying her boss; i.e., the laws she swore to uphold upon taking office. In short, Davis is a hypocrite.
Margaret Wells, Roseville
Never miss a local story.
Law of the land, religious liberty
I oppose same-sex marriage; however, it is now the law of the land. As an elected civic servant, Kim Davis has an obligation to uphold the law of the land or resign.
I felt the same when former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Attorney General Jerry Brown and former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom refused to uphold and defend Proposition 8 as civil servants.
As citizens, we depend on civil servants to act according to the law at all times, along all party lines and personal opinions.
It is unfortunate that the law of the land does not reflect the popular vote of its citizens and that it is affecting the ability of its citizens to enjoy their constitutional right to freedom of religion. This dangerous reality cannot be ignored.
Tiffany Coleman, Roseville
Board mostly right about Kim Davis
Re “Kim Davis is no religious martyr” (Editorials, Sept. 9): The Sacramento Bee’s editorial board correctly faults Kim Davis for not following her legal obligations as a public official sworn to uphold the law. I wish, though, the board had not tried to distinguish Gavin Newsom’s actions in allowing marriage licenses while the issue was pending judicial decision. He stopped when the court ordered him to stop, but he should have known the court had jurisdiction, and he should have awaited the judicial decision.
Also, the editorial board unfortunately muddies the water by referring to the “same law she (Davis) was sworn to uphold.” Davis argues correctly that the law changed after her election and then argues incorrectly that she has no duty to follow the new law.
Regardless, we are a nation of laws, passed by legislative bodies and interpreted by the courts. As a public servant, Davis wrongly tried to impose her own religious beliefs on others.
Dennis Coupe, Granite Bay
When you think you’ve seen it all
Re “Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks” (Viewpoints, Sept. 8): No kidding. It’s fascinating that the antagonists, Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee, whom I used to respect, invoked the Constitution (what provision?) and the Bible in the same breath.
As Michael Gerson points out, if she has a problem with her job, then she should quit. Reportedly, she doesn’t have a problem with other clerks doing their jobs, she just won’t do it but expects to get paid. I don’t think a pacifist who joins the SEAL team gets to say, “Sorry, sir, go forward, but I won’t shoot anyone.” Ridiculous.
Huckabee, Cruz hypocrites?
Re “Muslim flight attendant claims bias over booze” (Business, Sept. 9): The Muslim flight attendant cited her religious beliefs for refusing to serve alcohol to passengers, and she was fired. I am sure that Mike Huckabee and Sen. Ted Cruz will gather a big rally and schedule a news conference with Charee Stanley pretty soon.
They will most certainly want to protect her religious freedom! If not, they will show themselves for who they really are … a couple of opportunistic hypocrites.
Katy Pridy, Jackson
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.