County clerk Kim Davis violated separation of church and state as an elected official.

Once Kim Davis became an elected official she became a representative of the state which in effect made her bound to carry out the laws of the state as well as uphold the constitution, specifically the separation of church and state. Part of her job is the issuing of marriage licenses. After the supreme court ruling in favor of allowing same sex marriages issuing same sex marriage license then became part of her job. In refusing to issue licences in opposition of that ruling she overstepped the separation of church and state. Con argued in round 1 that she has religious freedom, I believe con and I can agree on this. However as an elected official she swore an oath to carry out the laws of the state. Allowing her to decide which laws she finds acceptable sets a dangerous precedent. In round one Con argued how homosexual marriages are against Christianity. However the united states clearly has separation of church and state and is not a theocracy. Con has argued in round 2 how the United States has a special relationship with the Christian faith yet also acknowledges the national does not favor faith. He references the founding fathers and "in god we trust" as well as one nation "under god". A good few of the founding fathers actually were "deists" and didn't subscribe to the Christian faith. "In god we trust" was actually later added to the money in 1957 after a Christian majority ruled congress. In 1954 the phrase "under god" was added to the pledge once again long after the founding. Thus showing this nation didn't always have such a "special relationship" with Christianity. The only relationship it does seem to hold is that a majority is Christian, and with the US being a democratic republic having the majority doesn't simply grant the Christian faith the right to tyranny of the minority. Thus separation of church and state stands. In round 2 Con believes that the decision to allow same sex marriage was a result of liberal judges with an agenda. Along with the same judge that held Kim Davis in contempt of court. This is a very bold claim that Con will need to provide sufficient evidence for otherwise it is merely conjecture. Supreme court judges are hand picked for their rational wisdom and legal prowess. To simply reduce any decision made by them to mere political agenda is rather insulting. In fact one of the leading arguments in the court case that resulted in the legalization of gay marriage was whether the supreme court should take away the state's right to decide, and whether or not they should simply stay and allow. The gay marriage side argued that with the denial of equal access to the legal and financial benefits of marriage made the supreme court supporting unequal access to these benefits. And should they continue to allow this there must be sufficient evidence and cause. The same sex marriage side failed to present sufficient cause for the court to continue unequal access. They failed to show how allowing same sex marriages impacted same sex couples negatively, thus failing to meet their burden of proof they lost the case. This doesn't sound like liberal agenda, this sounds like a fair ruling. If you recall from round 2 I argued the judge that sentenced Ms. Davis showed fairness by allowing her to have her deputies to issue the licences in her place. Kim Davis didn't want any access to gay marriage licenses and thus refused this offer. This is further proof that the judge wasn't simply acting out of bias. Rather this is proof Kim Davis was acting out of bias. Con has made claims of religious freedom and fairness with the acts of Kim Davis, but this remains to be seen. Fairness by most standard definitions equates to equal access not denial due to personal belief. Kim Davis allowed her personal bias and belief get in the way of her job duties as an elected official overstepping the separation of church and state. We cannot stand for such behavior less we begin throwing away all court orders. She doesn't get special treatment to decide which laws to uphold and which ones to ignore simply because she is a Christian with strong beliefs, no one should and that kind of tyranny isn't what this country was founded upon.