Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. 
 
 Pope Francis appeared to weigh in on the side of anti-gay-marriage clerk Kim Davis, saying government workers have a "human right" to refuse to carry out a duty if they have a “conscientious objection.” 
 
 While returning from his visit to the U.S., the pontiff told reporters aboard the papal plane Monday that anyone who prevents others from exercising their religious freedom is denying them a human right. 
 
 His comments are likely to be seized upon by backers of Kentucky-based Davis, whose refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling — has turned into her into a folk hero among some on the religious right. 
 
 The pontiff was asked: “Do you … support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example when issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples?” 
 
 He did not refer specifically to Davis in his reply, saying: “I can’t have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection … but yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.” 
 
 Francis added: “Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying, 'this right that has merit, this one does not.'” ||||| Every parent has been there. You tell your child to do something—Clean your room! Go to bed! Do your homework!—and your child just refuses. So you escalate. You may yell or take away privileges or even make a threat so extreme that you hope you never have to carry it out. These parent-child standoffs become spectacles of authority and submission—and they’re counterproductive. The drama typically delays the completion of the assigned task, and while the child might eventually learn the lesson that you best not cross your parents, the reasons why we asked the child to act in the first place often get lost. 
 
 Judges are guilty of this, too, and recently we have seen two prime examples: the depiction, in David Simon’s HBO miniseries Show Me a Hero, of federal District Judge Leonard Sand’s efforts to enforce housing desegregation in Yonkers, New York, in the 1980s and 1990s; and federal District Judge David Bunning’s punishment of Kim Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed last week for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, then released on Tuesday. In each case, the judge’s focus on demanding a show of submission likely delayed compliance with the underlying principle of equal protection of the laws, and diverted attention from that basic principle to a claim of judicial authority. 
 
 When the Supreme Court ruled this summer that the Fourteenth Amendment demands that same-sex couples have the same right to marry as a state affords opposite-sex couples, that ruling rested firmly on the Constitution’s foundational guarantee of equal citizenship, particularly as regards such fundamental personal matters as the decision of whom to marry. If Davis does not feel that she can, in good conscience, comply with that ruling, she should resign from her job. Davis is no private citizen, and this is not a matter of private conscience. As the elected clerk of her county—the office that has responsibility, under Kentucky law, for issuing marriage licenses—she has a constitutional obligation to issue those licenses on an equal basis to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Her religious objection to same-sex marriage affords her no more legal or moral basis to hold office as clerk but refuse to do her job than would a religious objection to interracial marriage. 
 
 So Davis is in the wrong. But once she refused to comply with the court’s order to issue marriage licenses equally, the question became what to do about it. Like many district judges in his position, Judge Bunning chose to initiate the authority-submission cycle. He found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to jail until she agreed to comply with his original order (or resign). Notably, the plaintiffs in the case—same-sex couples who want to get a marriage license in their home county, as is their right—specifically disavowed any desire to have Davis placed in jail as a contempt sanction. They asked the court to impose financial penalties instead, on the premise that those penalties would eventually encourage Davis to comply with the court’s original order without, presumably, making her into a martyr. 
 
 Bunning concluded, quite reasonably given Davis’s expressed obstinacy, that financial penalties would not ensure her compliance. But did he have to hold her in contempt in the first place? No. To the contrary, Bunning had powerful tools available to ensure that the plaintiffs and other same-sex couples could get their marriage licenses in Rowan County without demanding that Davis sign those licenses. 
 
 Many members of the public—and even lawyers and judges—assume that contempt is the only power that federal judges have to enforce their orders. That is not true. The Supreme Court has long held that when a defendant fails to comply with an injunction, the court has the power to issue a further order imposing broader obligations, even outside of the contempt process, to ensure compliance. In Rowan County, Bunning could have simply ordered that, if Davis would not carry out her constitutional obligation to issue marriage licenses on an equal basis, she would be forbidden to issue marriage licenses at all. Under Kentucky law, the responsibility for issuing marriage licenses would then devolve onto Rowan County Judge/Executive Walter “Doc” Blevins, who had expressed willingness to issue the licenses on an equal basis. To ensure that Davis did not reap a windfall from that decision, Bunning could have ordered the county to withhold whatever portion of Davis’s salary was attributable to her marriage-license duties and to use that money to reimburse the judge/executive’s office. And she can still be held personally liable for compensatory and even punitive damages for refusing, after the Supreme Court’s decision, to perform her duties because she did not wish to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 
 
 Had Bunning followed such a course, he would have ensured that same-sex couples could exercise their constitutional rights to marriage equality. And he would plausibly have achieved that result more quickly—and would certainly have done so with less drama—than by sending Davis to jail for contempt. Once Davis was in jail, her deputies issued marriage licenses to which she had refused to attach her name. Bunning released Davis from jail Tuesday after all of the plaintiffs received their licenses from the deputy clerks, but there remains a dispute over the legal status of licenses signed by the deputies. Judge Bunning could have resolved any question about the legal status of the couples’ marriages, without sending anyone to jail, simply by barring Davis from issuing any marriage licenses and letting the judge/executive do it. 
 
 Same goes for the Yonkers case depicted in Show Me a Hero. After finding that the city had engaged in a longstanding practice of intentional racial segregation in housing by directing subsidized housing to the areas of Yonkers that were already predominantly populated by minorities, Judge Sand entered a consent decree ordering the city to adopt an affordable housing ordinance. As the Supreme Court summarized it, that ordinance would condition “the construction of all multifamily housing on the inclusion of at least 20 percent assisted units, granting tax abatements and density bonuses to developers, and providing for zoning changes to allow the placement of housing developments.” 
 
 The affordable housing ordinance became the focal point for massive political opposition in Yonkers, and the city council refused to adopt it. Sand found the city in contempt and ordered that it pay fines that would escalate each day until it adopted the ordinance. As for the individual councilmembers who voted against the ordinance—notably the demagogic ringleader Hank Spallone, played by Alfred Molina—Sand found them in contempt as well and ordered them to be fined and jailed until they changed their votes. Although the Supreme Court stayed, and ultimately overturned, the contempt sanctions against the individual councilmembers, it left the sanctions against the city in place. With Yonkers facing bankruptcy due to the escalating fines, a majority of councilmembers eventually voted for the affordable housing ordinance. 
 
 As in Rowan County, the defendants were clearly in the wrong. But was all the drama necessary? Once the council refused to adopt the affordable housing ordinance, Sand could have just ordered into place its essential components. He could have prohibited any developer from building multifamily housing in the city without including the required number of assisted units. And he could have mirrored the required tax abatements, density bonuses, and zoning changes by simply barring the city from collecting taxes from or enforcing its zoning code against developers to the extent they would be entitled to them. Such a course would have ensured quicker compliance without the spectacle of forcing the councilmembers to go back on their word to their constituents and adopt an ordinance they had opposed. 
 
 To many observers—and, one suspects, to judges Bunning and Sand—the drama is the point. By making a prominent example of those who obstinately refuse to comply with federal-court orders, they believe, we send a strong message that no individual is above the law. But what is the lesson courts are teaching in these cases: that the constitutional principle of equal citizenship is a basic commitment, or simply that judges are powerful people who, like parents, are not to be messed with? Sometimes, basic constitutional principles cannot be enforced without drama; without the 101st Airborne, the Little Rock schools would not have been desegregated. But federal judges should always be focused on vindicating the rights of those who invoke their jurisdiction. If the judges can vindicate those rights without demanding an ostentatious show of submission to their authority, they should do so. 
 
 Samuel Bagenstos is the Frank G. Millard Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. In the first term of the Obama Administration, he served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Justice. ||||| Pope also suggests Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed for refusing marriage licences to gay couples, was denied her right to religious freedom 
 
 Pope Francis on clerical abuse: 'I do not judge those who are not able to forgive' 
 
 Pope Francis has said he understands why some victims of clerical sex abuse and their families could not forgive the church for the suffering they faced, saying such abuse was “almost a sacrilege”. 
 
 In remarks during a 47-minute press conference on his flight back to Rome after a tour of the US, the pope also sought to clarify controversial remarks he made to American bishops, when he congratulated them on their “courageous” handling of the sex abuse crisis. 
 
 He said he wanted to “express my compassion to them because a terrible thing happened and many of them have suffered because they did not know and when it came out they suffered a great deal. 
 
 “It’s a terrible thing and the words of comfort were not to say: ‘Don’t worry that was nothing’ … no, no, no. But it was so bad that I imagine that you cried hard … that was the sense of what I meant,” he said, according to a transcript. 
 
 The pope also suggested a Kentucky clerk’s recent refusal on religious grounds to issue marriage licences to gay couples was a question of religious freedom, saying conscientious objection was a “human right”. Kim Davis’s act of defiance became national news, with some conservatives comparing her act to civil disobedience endorsed by Martin Luther King in the civil rights era. 
 
 Asked by a reporter whether he supported government officials who said they could not in good conscience issue same-sex marriage licences, Francis said: “I do not recall all specific cases of conscientious objection. But what I can say, is that conscientious objection is a human right. And if a person does not allow others to be conscientious objectors, then they deny them a right.” 
 
 He then made a reference to the Song of Roland, an epic poem that describes the death of Charlemagne’s nephew Roland at the battle of Roncevaux. 
 
 “It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font and they had to choose between the baptismal font or the sword. They had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It is a right, and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights,” he said. 
 
 The remarks about conscientious objectors seem to reflect Francis’s views on the importance of religious freedom, rather than gay marriage specifically. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis spent five days in jail for rejecting marriage licences for gay couples. Photograph: Chris Tilley/Reuters 
 
 The pope did not discuss in detail his views on gay marriage rights while he was in the US, even though it is an important issue for many conservative Catholics. The church is vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage, but Francis only referred obliquely to the issue, saying there were “unprecedented changes” occurring in the family. In discussions about family and church issues, Francis focused most of his comments on the need for the church to reach out and act in kindness and love. 
 
 The papal press conference on the return leg of the pope’s historic trip to the US touched on diverse topics, from the pope’s impressions of the country, the migrant crisis in Europe, new rules that simplify marriage annulments, his happiness about the Colombian agreement with Farc, and his hopes to visit and establish relations with China. 
 
 But his most expansive remarks were on the topic of abuse. He recalled once meeting an abuse survivor who told him that her mother swore at God when she discovered that her daughter had been abused, and became an atheist. 
 
 “I understand that woman,” Francis said. “And God, who is even more good, understands her … I do not judge those who are not able to forgive,” he said. 
 
 When asked to turn his focus to the plight of tens of thousands of migrants from Africa and the Middle East who are making their way to Europe for refuge, Francis said it was a crisis that was a long time in the making. 
 
 “When I think of Africa – perhaps this is a bit simplistic – I think of it as an exploited continent,” he said. “That is where they went to get slaves from, then they went for its great resources and, now, there are wars, tribal or not. But they have economic interests behind them,” he said. 
 
 Francis endorsed greater investment in Africa to spur job growth – a development that he said could have prevented the crisis. 
 
 Asked about countries erecting barbed wire fences to keep migrants out, he said: “You know what happens to all walls. All of them. All walls fall. Today, tomorrow or in 100 years, they will fall. It’s not a solution.” 
 
 Just days before the start of a special meeting of bishops who are exploring the church’s handling of family issues, Francis said new rules that speed up the Catholic annulment process did not amount to “Catholic divorce”. 
 
 While the main focus of the synod – at least in public discussion about it – has focused on the question of whether remarried Catholics could receive communion, Francis said it was “a bit simplistic” to say the only solution was accessing communion. 
 
 He said any number of problems faced modern marriage, including whether people were emotionally mature enough for the commitment, and young people who no longer wished to get married. 
 
 “Catholic divorce does not exist. Nullity is granted if the union never existed. But if it did, it is indissoluble,” he said. 
 
 Francis praised the role of women in the US church – saying that an important US government figure had told him the education he received was thanks to them. But he reiterated his absolute objection to women becoming priests, even though “church women are more important than men, because the church is a woman”. 
 
 Asked about the US, the pope said he was surprised by people’s warmth and the different receptions he received in Washington, which was warm but formal; New York, which was overflowing; and Philadelphia, where people were “expressive”. 
 
 Pope Francis scorecard: liberals take away biggest wins from pontiff's US visit Read more 
 
 “Thanks to God it all went well. There were no provocations, no insults, nothing unpleasant happened,” he said. 
 
 The challenge for the church there, he said, was to remain “close to the people”, not removed from them. 
 
 Asked about the rapturous response he received in the US, where thousands of people greeted and cheered the pontiff and his six-day trip was the subject of wall-to-wall coverage on the cable news networks, the pope indicated such attention was likely to be short-lived. 
 
 
 
 “How many stars have we seen go out and fall. It is a fleeting thing. Instead, being ‘servant of the servants of God’ does not pass,” he said. ||||| ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Pope Francis said on Monday government officials have a "human right" to refuse to discharge a duty, such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, if they feel it violates their conscience. 
 
 Speaking to reporters as he returned home from a 10-day trip to the United States and Cuba, Francis also repeated his condemnation of priests who had sexually abused children, saying the victims had been "crushed by evil." 
 
 Although the Argentine-born pontiff delved into some of the United States' thorniest political debates during his visit, he never specifically referred to a controversy over same-sex marriages, which the Church firmly opposes. 
 
 On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licenses to gays. 
 
 "Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right," Francis said. 
 
 Earlier this month a city official in the U.S. state of Kentucky, Kim Davis, went to jail because she refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple following a Supreme Court decision to make homosexual marriage legal. 
 
 Davis's case has taken on national significance in the 2016 presidential campaign, with one Republican contender, Mike Huckabee, holding rallies in favor of Davis, a Apostolic Christian, who has since joined the Republican party. 
 
 "I can't have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right," he said, speaking in Italian. 
 
 "And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right," he added. 
 
 Francis said conscientious objection had to be respected in legal structures. "Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying: 'This right has merit, this one does not.'" 
 
 PRIESTLY BETRAYAL 
 
 In the hour-long, freewheeling talk that has become a trademark of his papacy, the pope returned to the problem of priestly abuse. On Sunday, he met five victims of sexual abuse and issued his most comprehensive condemnation of the crime. 
 
 On the plane, Francis said sexual abuse was not confined to the Church but it was worse when committed by men of religion. 
 
 "We know abuses are everywhere, in families, in the neighborhoods, in the schools, in the gyms, but when a priest abuses it is very grave because the vocation of the priest is to make that boy, that girl grow towards the love of God, toward maturity," he said. 
 
 "But instead (the victim) is crushed by evil and this is nearly a sacrilege because the priest has betrayed his vocation, the calling of the Lord," the pope said. 
 
 The pope had been fiercely criticized by abuse victims on Wednesday, after he initially addressed the scandal but did not utter the words "sexual abuse," and praised American bishops for their handling of the crisis. 
 
 Asked about barriers being but up in Europe to stop the influx of migrants, the pope said: "All walls collapse, today, tomorrow or after 100 years, but they will collapse. Walls are not a solution." 
 
 He said that while it was true that Europe was struggling in the face of a refugee crisis, the solution had to be found through dialog. "Barriers last a short time or a long time, but the problem remains and with it, more hatred." 
 
 A reporter said the pope had become a "star" in the United States following his visit to Washington, New York and Philadelphia, and asked if this was good for the Church. 
 
 "The media uses this term, but there is another truth - how many stars have we seen go out and fall. It is a fleeting thing. Instead being a 'servant of the servants of God' does not pass," the pope said, referring to one of the titles of his office. (Reporting by Philip Pullella; Editing by Crispian Balmer and Tom Heneghan) ||||| ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE Pope Francis said on Monday government officials have a "human right" to refuse to discharge a duty, such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, if they feel it violates their conscience. 
 
 Speaking to reporters as he returned home from a 10-day trip to the United States and Cuba, Francis also repeated his condemnation of priests who had sexually abused children, saying the victims had been "crushed by evil". 
 
 Although the Argentine-born pontiff delved into some of the United States' thorniest political debates during his visit, he never specifically referred to a controversy over same-sex marriages, which the Church firmly opposes. 
 
 On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licenses to gays. 
 
 "Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right," Francis said. 
 
 Earlier this month a county official in the state of Kentucky, Kim Davis, went to jail because she refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple following a Supreme Court decision to make homosexual marriage legal. 
 
 Davis's case has taken on national significance in the 2016 presidential campaign, with one Republican contender, Mike Huckabee, holding rallies in favor of Davis, a Apostolic Christian, who has since joined the Republican party. 
 
 "I can't have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right," he said, speaking in Italian. 
 
 "And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right," he added. 
 
 Francis said conscientious objection had to be respected in legal structures. "Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying: 'This right has merit, this one does not.'" 
 
 PRIESTLY BETRAYAL 
 
 In the hour-long, freewheeling talk that has become a trademark of his papacy, the pope returned to the problem of priestly abuse. On Sunday, he met five victims of sexual abuse and issued his most comprehensive condemnation of the crime. 
 
 On the plane, Francis said sexual abuse was not confined to the Church but it was worse when committed by men of religion. 
 
 "We know abuses are everywhere, in families, in the neighborhoods, in the schools, in the gyms, but when a priest abuses it is very grave because the vocation of the priest is to make that boy, that girl grow toward the love of God, toward maturity," he said. 
 
 "But instead (the victim) is crushed by evil and this is nearly a sacrilege because the priest has betrayed his vocation, the calling of the Lord," the pope said. 
 
 The pope had been fiercely criticized by abuse victims on Wednesday, after he initially addressed the scandal but did not utter the words "sexual abuse", and praised American bishops for their handling of the crisis. 
 
 Asked about barriers being but up in Europe to stop the influx of migrants, the pope said: "All walls collapse, today, tomorrow or after 100 years, but they will collapse. Walls are not a solution." 
 
 He said that while it was true that Europe was struggling in the face of a refugee crisis, the solution had to be found through dialogue. "Barriers last a short time or a long time, but the problem remains and with it, more hatred." 
 
 A reporter said the pope had become a "star" in the United States following his visit to Washington, New York and Philadelphia, and asked if this was good for the Church. 
 
 "The media uses this term, but there is another truth - how many stars have we seen go out and fall. It is a fleeting thing. Instead being a 'servant of the servants of God' does not pass," the pope said, referring to one of the titles of his office. 
 
 (This version of the story was corrected to change designation of Kim Davis to "county official in the state of Kentucky," from "city official" in paragraph six) 
 
 (Reporting by Philip Pullella; Editing by Crispian Balmer and Tom Heneghan)
– Pope Francis made news even while flying home to Rome after his US visit, weighing in on the issue of gay marriage with comments sure to please Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis. Asked whether government employees should be allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the pope said yes, reports NBC News. "Conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right," said Francis, who did not mention the Davis case in particular. "It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right." Pressed on whether the principle does indeed apply to government workers, he elaborated: "It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right." The comments will surely be seen as a boon for Davis—see the headline in the Huffington Post declaring that "The Pope Just Handed Kim Davis a Huge Win," for example. The Guardian has a more nuanced view, observing that "the remarks about conscientious objectors seem to reflect Francis’s views on the importance of religious freedom, rather than gay marriage specifically." In his hourlong talk with reporters, Francis also repeated his condemnation of abusive priests, reports Reuters. The victim "is crushed by evil and this is nearly a sacrilege because the priest has betrayed his vocation, the calling of the Lord." (Click for one columnist's reasoning as to why Davis should never have gone to jail.)