The great country of the United States of America was built on an idea of ​​total religious freedom. With this idea of ​​religious freedom, it was also decided that America was a nation without an official religion determining any law in the land. This has been called the separation of church and state. The idea behind this is that no religious faith will interfere with the law of the land. Although this is the legal status of the United States, in reality there has been little real separation between church and state as Christianity and Catholicism have dominated politics for centuries. The topic I will talk about – same-sex marriage – is said in the Bible not to be a real marriage. In the eyes of the Bible, marriage is between a man and a woman, end of story. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The fight for same-sex marriage primarily began in 1993, when the Hawaii Supreme Court voted 3-1 that the state could not ban it. sexual marriage without a “compelling reason” to do so, before sending it back to the lower courts. Before the courts could rule on the issue, voters passed a law called the Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) that banned same-sex marriage. Although no same-sex marriage had ever taken place, this issue still prompted over 40 states to pass the same DOMAs in subsequent years. Ultimately, President Bill Clinton signed the act into law with nationwide federal effect. Below, this article will detail 3 distinct viewpoints regarding the controversy surrounding Kim Davis. Starting in 1999, states began to recognize that same-sex couples deserved the same rights as opposite-sex couples and began to establish "civil unions" that effectively gave them the same rights, without being called “ marriage". As of September 2010, 30 US states had achieved state-level bans on same-sex marriage. In the years between 2003 and 2011, several states began supporting and legalizing same-sex marriage. Beginning in 2011, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue by announcing that it would debate a bill to repeal DOMA. On May 9, 2012, President Barrack Obama publicly announced his support for same-sex marriage, becoming the first sitting president to do so. Several hearings were held in 2013 and 2014 that, on a case-by-case basis, overturned the law. Finally, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized marriage for same-sex couples by a vote of 5 to 4 in all 50 states. As of June 26, 2015, 19 of the world's 194 countries currently allow same-sex marriage. This vote led to a political explosion between people who support same-sex marriage and those who do not support same-sex marriage. It seemed to have succeeded in further dividing the nation into two distinct groups, which is the trigger for my topic of interest. Despite the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage, about 40% of the country still strongly opposes same-sex and same-sex marriage. sexual couples in general. One of the most publicized cases of public employees refusing to issue marriage licenses involves a woman named Kim Davis. Davis, a Democrat, belonged to Rowan CountyKentucky and was elected county clerk in January 2015, succeeding her mother. After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses to anyone in Rowan County, Kentucky. Kim Davis was forced to attend a court hearing over her refusal to issue marriage licenses, where she was told she must comply with national law and continue issuing marriage licenses or at least allow other deputies into her office to sign marriage certificates without his name. Due to her refusal to accept these terms, she was held in contempt for 5 days before being released and agreed to allow her deputies to grant licenses to all couples and state that she will not interfere, but will not have her name on certificates. He did not expect to become such a well-known figure, he was simply following his religious beliefs, claiming that his Christian beliefs came before his work; “My voters elected me. But the main authority that governs my life is the Lord.” Marriage licenses issued by Rowan County no longer bear Davis' name. The documents say they were issued “pursuant to a federal court order.” ABC News is a very reliable news source known for its typically very moderate point of view. ABC News' Paula Faris met with Kim Davis and interviewed her about her decision to suspend marriage licenses in her county. Davis explained his thought pattern to Faris; “I can't put my name on a license that doesn't represent what God ordained marriage to be.” He further explained that he has strong religious beliefs and continues to believe that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. ABC explains that while the main publicity Davis has received has been negative, he has also received hundreds of gifts and messages of support such as cards, crosses and prayer shawls for his personal beliefs in his Christianity. This article informs the reader of both sides of the story while maintaining a primarily unbiased point of view. In turn, the reader is now able to form their own opinion about Kim Davis, her actions, and how she feels about the same-sex marriage debate as a whole. In contrast, Fox News, a historically conservative source, presents a clearly more distorted description of the events surrounding Kim Davis. While Fox News outlines the basic facts of everything that happened, the source then endorses bias in its description of the issue. Fox News explains that Davis' reasons for her actions were justified by her belief in Christianity. However, the source agreed with Davis' defense, explaining that her actions were "protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment." The source attempts to use this amendment as a way to persuade the reader to believe that this is a justifiable action under the rights protected by law. Another example of their political bias was the opinion of the author, Andrew Napolitano, who stated that “The court correctly interpreted its duties under the Constitution, but was wrong to imprison her.” A normal impartial party would simply have said that the court interpreted its duty within the Constitution, and would not have expressed an opinion on whether it was right or wrong to imprison her. When analyzing this Fox News article, it is evident that the author is attempting to persuade the reader to believe that Kim Davis was justified in her actions. On the other.