Mark Parent
Opinions Editor

As a conservative, let me make something very clear: Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who explicitly denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples, acted unprofessionally and broke the law.

Now, I know this must be news to just about every lefty on campus. After all, if anyone has been paying attention to the media coverage of this seemingly endless saga, it would seem as if all Republicans were rallying around Kim Davis and respecting her decision to blatantly violate the duties of her office.

Of course, this characterization is beyond inaccurate. First of all, Davis is a Democrat. That’s right, this is not a partisan issue; it’s a social one that is not exclusive to one political party. Certainly, there are plenty of democrats who agree with Kim Davis and a large segment of republicans who disagree with her methods.

So, when the media or some activist group on campus wants to put this issue in strictly partisan terms, they’re simply fulfilling their own political agenda and disregarding basic facts of the case.

And, now that this has been clearly established, it’s important to look into the facts of the case. Davis was elected to her position prior to the Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling this past summer that legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. This means that at the time of her election, she had no knowledge of any potential changes to the state’s marriage laws; this is especially clear when one considers the fact that Kentucky had a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions.

With this in mind, one cannot help but objectively understand Davis’ mindset at the time of this legal change. This attitude, however, does not excuse her subsequent actions.

As a public official, Davis took an oath to uphold and execute the law in an objective fashion. So, regardless of her personal feelings, she had a duty to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

This becomes increasingly clear when one examines the potential ramifications of such a precedent.

If Davis were able to abuse her position of power to selectively apply the law, then what would stop someone of a different belief system from taking the same course of action? Just imagine if an elected judge chose never to order psychiatric treatment for convicted criminals with a history of addiction or mental illness because he’s a scientologist.

You see, since scientology publicly opposes psychiatry, the judge would be abiding by his own religious faith, despite the opposing views and laws of society that see the issue in a very different light.

So, Davis’ actions really do represent a slippery slope. Now, the government should absolutely respect Christianity and allow it to function and even thrive within the boundaries of the law. Yet, in our country, a public official cannot selectively apply the law based on his or her own belief system.

And, it should be noted, if someone is truly unable to carry out duties in the public sphere due to religious beliefs, then he or she should resign from the post and dedicate him or herself to changing the hearts and minds of the opposition.

But, if we’re being honest with ourselves, this whole situation has nothing to do with a public official’s responsibility to apply the law. In fact, if that were the real issue, then there wouldn’t have been such an outpouring of support from evangelical Christians across the country.

So, what’s the big deal about Kim Davis?

Simply put, it’s a reaction of the religious community to a shifting culture that displaces faith in favor of political correctness. And, as someone who supports same-sex marriage, I recognize and understand their feelings toward the issue.

You see, in the minds of social conservatives, marriage is a religious institution between one man and one woman that was initiated by God and plays an integral role in the family structure.

Obviously, people on campus hate this viewpoint — actually, hate may not be a strong enough word. And, if these hard-core activists could do so, they would silence anyone who dared speak against their own viewpoint.

Frankly, this is madness. Social conservatives need to understand that the battle against same-sex marriage has been lost. And LGBT activists need to stop provoking social conservatives in a manner that only strengthens their respective biases.

Once again, as a conservative who supports same-sex marriage, I believe it is vital to have a thoughtful and understanding dialogue concerning this hot-button issue. This is mainly because when heated rhetoric enters the public forum, people of differing opinions retreat to their own political corners surrounded by like-minded thinkers. Of course, this type of relationship is not conducive to progress. At UNC-Greensboro, we’ve been blessed with a diverse student body that has the potential to discuss significant issues with one another in a civilized and respectful way. Certainly, many of us will disagree after having this dialogue; nevertheless, an open conversation that covers all viewpoints only humanizes the other side of a political debate and encourages understanding among all parties involved.

Currently, our campus is opposed to these kinds of discussions. Honestly, we live in a bubble where no one’s feelings can get hurt, morals are relative and everything that’s bad in the world is the fault of America and Christians — all of which are categorically false.

So, let’s all learn a lesson from the Kim Davis episode: avoid generalizations, understand and value opposing viewpoints, and, most importantly, don’t break the law if you’re a public official.