As most probably know by now, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis was arrested and jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, stating her Christian beliefs as a reason for her refusal. She has since been released from prison and has had multiple political figures come out in support of her, including some who proclaim to be or have libertarian views. These so-called libertarians give us all a bad rep, so I would like to get one thing straight; I am a card-carrying libertarian, and in no way do I support Kim Davis.
First and foremost, the official libertarian view on personal relationships is as follows:
"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage..."
Therefore it is very clear that according to the libertarian party's platform, two consenting adults regardless of their sexual orientation should be allowed to marry. The main argument I've heard made by libertarians in support of Kim Davis is that she was simply exercising her religious freedom. The problem with this is that while she exercised her religious freedom, she severely impeded on the civil rights of others.
Now some may say, "Well if you believe that, then that logic applies to places such as bakeries and churches that refuse to bake cakes for or wed same-sex couples." This case is very different. Kim Davis is a government official whose salary we pay with our taxes. Therefore, she works directly for the people. Unlike bakeries that refuse to bake cakes for same-sex couples, if Kim Davis was a business we would have no choice but to patronize her. Yes, there are other clerks one could go to, but the people of Kentucky are technically paying to be discriminated against. The fact that Kim Davis is not a private business owner makes this case entirely different from many of the other religious freedom cases. By working for the government, she is agreeing to carry out the laws that have been implemented and passed allowing same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.
What bothers me the most is that if Kim Davis was of a different religion, such as Islam, would she be receiving this much support from political figures proclaiming this a victory for religious freedom? If this was a Muslim man who worked at the DMV and stated that he didn't believe women should be able to drive, as many believe in Saudi Arabia, and refused to grant driver's licenses to women, would he be praised? This seems less like a case of religious freedom and more like a group of people acting out like small children because they didn't get their way with the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling. As a libertarian, I believe that government has no place in marriage. However, as long as it does have a hand in it, then everyone deserves the right to marry whomever they please.
