Stupidity: Kim Davis and the anti-gay marriage movement

The thing about gay marriage is that it is a false issue.  It is one that need not garner as much attention as it has.  However, for some strange reason unknown to me, a lot of people get their panties in a wad about whether two men or two women are “married” in the same fashion as a man and woman are “married.”  It seems to me if it offends you that two men or two women might get “married” well, then don’t marry someone of your own gender.  If you don’t intend to marry someone of your gender then same-sex marriage really doesn’t affect you in any way, shape, or form.

But because of some incredible stupidity in this country, the issue lives on.  I’m referring of course to Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses.  Let’s look for a moment at the legal aspect of that idiot Kim Davis’ rationale behind refusing to issue marriage licenses.  Her professed reason for not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is that her religion forbids or opposes it or whatever language she chooses to use.  That makes the action illegal.

How?  The Supreme Court has ruled – time and again – that there can be no religious test for public actions.  That means that the government cannot impose a test on those running for public office, for passing/enforcing laws, for employment, nothing along those lines.  This is particularly true in the case of public employees. They cannot use religion, theirs or that of others, to determine benefits, requirements for fulfilling governmental actions, forms, etc.  We know that Kim Davis is a public employee, duly elected by the electorate of whatever podunk Kentucky county she resides in.

By saying that she opposes gay marriage on religious grounds and will not issue licenses as a result, she is thereby imposing a religious test on marriage.  If her religion forbids marriage between men or between woman, and she cites that as the reason to not issue a marriage license to the same-sex couple, then she is using religion to determine whether a couple can be married.  In other words, she is using a religious test.

It’s not just a matter of equal rights, presumably the rationale behind the recent Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges allowing gay marriage (granted under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution).  It’s a matter of using a religious test to enact or enforce a law.

All that is notwithstanding what the Bible explicitly or expressly states with regard to marriage.  In point of fact, it says very little.  If we were to ask Davis where in the Bible men are not allowed to marry other men and women are not allowed to marry other women she could not point to a single verse.  We can see the anti-homosexual passages; those are well known and do, in fact, condemn both the act and the person engaging in the act.

But as to marriage, no passages forbid it.  Period.

Let’s move on to the idea that this is a restriction on religious action, behavior or worship.  No one is prohibiting Davis from worshipping as she chooses. She’s free to continue her belief that Jesus died and rose again, that he’s God’s son, and that gays are central to her small-minded segment of Christianity (i.e., the ‘god hates fags’ crowd).  If that’s what she wants to believe, and at that altar, that’s fine.  It’s her prerogative.  It’s not her private worship habits that got her put in jail for contempt.  It’s her public actions, and not her private beliefs, that are at issue.  And that is why she’s in jail now, hopefully to stay (until and unless she changes her tiny little mind).

Because she is an elected official, she has to set aside her personal objections to various laws that may run contrary to those beliefs.  So long as she’s a public official, her duty to that public is to uphold the laws, no matter how she feels about them.

That jailing raises another argument that some are trying to make.  The fool Ted Cruz (a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist no less) is calling Davis’ imprisonment “persecution.”  Oh my holy word.

Let’s look at the definition of “persecution.”  It’s defined as “a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate people based on their membership in a religious, ethnic, social, or racial group.”  Is there an attempt on Davis’ life?  Has there been a campaign against Christians to exterminate, drive away or subjugate them solely for being Christian?

In a word, no.  Davis is in jail right now because she has willfully disobeyed a court order.  She is not under a death sentence.  Indeed, the judge who tossed her sorry butt in jail bent over backwards to keep her from going to jail.  Is it part of a campaign to do away with everyone who’s Christian?  No.  Not at all.  Christians haven’t been rounded up and tossed into camps for worshipping Jesus.  Christians haven’t been rounded up for refusing to deny their god.

Not in the United States at any rate.  And definitely not over the same-sex marriage non-issue.

If you think that Christians are being subjugated, look at that definition too: (1) to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.  (2)  to make submissive or subservient; enslave.  When talking “subjugation” in a religious context, we’re talking in regard to another religion.  Is anyone trying to make Christians subjected to another religion?  No.  Nor is anyone trying to bring Christians or Christianity under “complete control.”  Are Christians being enslaved, trying to get them to submit?  Again, not in the West.

That itself is the real point here.  I understand it’s a rhetorical device to say ‘Christians are being persecuted’ and Ted Cruz is running for President (if he’s elected or even given a position in a Republican administration that in and of itself will be conclusive proof that God doesn’t exist).  But to say Christians are being persecuted in the United States (or anywhere in the Western/industrialized world for that matter) is to dishonor those Christians who actually are being persecuted worldwide.

Christians have to worship in private in Arab countries.  Even westerners working in Arab countries cannot worship in the open.  The penalty?  Death.  If someone converts to Christianity in Muslim countries, they face not just familial rejection and being ostracized, but also face death.  Christian missionaries have to operate in the shadows and in quiet else they may be imprisoned and, again, killed.  That’s persecution.  Those Christians are being persecuted.  Kim Davis is not.

Being thrown in jail for failing to carry out your duties is not persecution.  There’s no systematic move to prevent the person from practicing their faith.  Period.

This whole thing is incredibly stupid and needs to stop.  If you want to talk about persecution, look to the developing world for examples.  Don’t look at the person who was given every opportunity to fulfill the duties of her office, those she swore to uphold, as an example of persecution.

It simply won’t fly.

Advertisements

About flatpickingjd

Just your average, liberal vegetarian redneck. Yes, I'm a liberal. Proudly so. I see nothing wrong with that and wear that label with pride. Yes, I'm a vegetarian. I used to be fat, very fat. Then I started taking care of myself, lost a bunch of weight and found it easier to keep that weight off by not eating meat. Or cheese. Or eggs. Or any good stuff. Man, I miss pizza. And, yes, I'm a redneck. I like camping and fishing, listen to bluegrass music and live (from time to time) in the south(west). So, yup, I'm just your average, liberal vegetarian redneck. Serious details about me: I make my living as a lawyer. My practice focus is business law, but I've dabbled in other areas including personal injury, family law, real estate, and water law. I also hold three master's degrees with plans to earn a doctorate. I hope you enjoy your time here, and feel free to comment!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Stupidity: Kim Davis and the anti-gay marriage movement

  1. ashleyjn says:

    This is really well written and brings up great points 🙂

    • Thank you!

      You brought up some really good points in your commentary on the same issue. One of them is with regard to Davis’ personal background. Apparently her religious beliefs only extend towards judging others and not her own personal habits.

      We’ll see whether she continues to refuse to issue licenses now that she’s out again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s