Quite a few people have begun to trot out military analogies to explain or justify the jailing of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis.\u00a0 For some, they may have seen the effectiveness of using the military as a means to promote agendas over the past few years.\u00a0 For others, the “clean cut” black\/white nature of the military simply makes\u00a0a convenient argument.<\/p>\n
The general argument goes that because a military officer wouldn’t be able to refuse to do his job, then Davis shouldn’t either.<\/p>\n
From Bryan Fulwider<\/a> of the Interfaith Council of Florida:\u00a0 <\/p>\n Similarly, a four-star general may suddenly become a pacifist. Indeed, that is his or her religious right. But if, because of those pacifist beliefs, the general refuses to order military attacks, his or her employment should cease. In no sense, in such a case, is the general a victim of religious persecution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That’s an interesting story that really has nothing to do with Kim Davis, even in analogy.\u00a0 The military is an organization whose purpose is to wage war.\u00a0 If a military officer objected to that purpose, he would be opposing the primary duty of his position.\u00a0 By contrast, the organizational purpose of the Rowan County Clerk is not<\/em> to issue marriage licenses.\u00a0 In fact, that role could be removed from the office altogether and the County Clerk would still have functional purpose.<\/p>\n In addition, were a General Officer to suddenly become a pacifist, he would have a deputy who could act in the stead of the office<\/em> — apart from the person<\/em> of the General.\u00a0 The problem with the Rowan County Clerk office is that even the deputies can only act for the person<\/em> — not the position<\/em> — of the clerk, because the laws currently require her personal signature. (Reportedly, the deputies are now issuing altered licenses without her signature. Though the law hasn’t changed, the Kentucky Attorney General seems to think that’s permissible.)<\/p>\n Others have also tried to use the conscientious objector comparison<\/a> to assert Davis has the right to resign<\/em> but not the right to serve<\/em>. The analogy fails for two reasons:<\/p>\n