In the text's case on the county clerk and marriage licenses, whatare the ethical issues involved? What are the conflicting ethical values and whichvalues were maximized/minimized?

The Case of the County Clerk and Marriage

Licenses When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 decreeing that same-sex couples are entitled to marriage equality, much of the nation cheered, rainbow flags flew, and wedding planners awaited a flood of business. But not wanting to issue licenses to same-sex couples, Kim Davis, then the county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, ordered subordinates to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether,11 a decision that resulted in her being sentenced to five nights in jail.

While this is an extreme case, those who work in public service take an oath to uphold the nation's laws. Ethical analysis that parses public administration into its managerial, political, and legal dimensions demonstrates competing considerations and shows that decisions are often complicated.

According to the Rowan County Clerk's website, the Clerk's office is responsible for providing clerical services of the county court to the people of Rowan County. The managerial lens suggests that Davis' subordinates should have done as she directed because she was the boss. Using the political lens, however, brings accountability to the public, representativeness, and responsiveness to the forefront and requires subordinates to defy an illegal order. Policy is delivered at the street-level, in this case at the county courthouse, and street-level officials are responsible for following the laws of the land. Using a legal lens makes this unambiguous: Davis' policy violated constitutional law. The legal approach considers substantive due process, procedural due process, and principles of social equity. Substantive due process refers to the fundamental liberties inherent in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which declares that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Substantive due process refers to the liberties in this clause. In the Obergefell decision, the Supreme Court extended these liberties to include "certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs." Marriage has long been included among fundamental rights and the Court held that the right to marriage extends to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples. Public managers are bound by constitutional law in their dealings with constituents. In the Rowan County case, Davis violated the fundamental rights of both samesex and opposite-sex couples when she refused to issue marriage licenses. Administrators have a duty to follow the law and they are also ethically bound to support citizens' rights.

Social equity is an essential element in public administration and administrators have a duty to promote it. It is defined as "the fair, just, and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract, and the fair, just and equitable distribution of public services, and implementation of public policy, and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy." While Davis' refusal to allow her subordinates to issue any marriage licenses was equal in that it denied both same-sex and opposite-sex couples the right to marry, equity is a more flexible concept that addresses less tangible rights, such as fairness. Thus, from the legal dimension of their work, Davis' subordinates acted both illegally and in violation of principles of social equity by following her policy.