You've no doubt heard about the latest episode in "Christian" soldier Kim Davis' ongoing battle to force her personal religious beliefs on the citizens of her county.
The sound is rather faint, at least in the key part, but here's a transcript:
The "Christian" right is all over this one, of course, with the usual lies and misrepresentations. Here's Bryan Fischer, one of the most shameless liars in that camp:
What the Supreme Court does have, as we all know (those of us who did not flunk high school civics), is the power of judicial review: the Supreme Court can nullify a law if it is found to violate the Constitution. Don't expect Fischer, or any of his fellow-travelers, to mention that. (By the way, DOMA is not even the issue here. But this is Bryan Fischer.)
And this wouldn't be complete without a dose of Palinesque word salad from Rand Paul:
Shorter Rand Paul: I don't like the Supreme Court's ruling making same-sex marriage the law of the land, so let's just take the government out of marriage. We can ask the courts how to do it.
But enough of the comedy segment of this post. I had some thoughts, reading through these stories this morning, about how this all is most likely going to play out.
History is a series of reactions. They tend to happen these days within a couple of generations, at most. The sixties were a reaction to the enervating conformity of post-War America. The Reagan eighties were a reaction to the sixties. And now we're about to see, I think, a reaction to the dominance of the "Christian" right over the past thirty or so years.
In the particular instance of Kim Davis, Warrior for God, I won't guess whether Davis is looking forward to "Christian" crowd-funding to save her ass, but in the short term, she's going to be a hero to the "Christian" community -- she'll join the bakers and florists on the martyr circuit -- all on "Christian" radio and TV shows: this is their basic tactic for the new mantra of "religious freedom," which is what they're banking on to roll back nondiscrimination laws in general. But for the wider audience -- the American public -- crap like this is starting to be a major turn off, because the god-botherers don't understand that you can't carry this past a certain point. I think we're starting to see the reaction to the last couple of generations of "Christian" hegemony in American politics -- public opinion is on our side in general, and most Americans don't really like the idea of discrimination. Yes, it's the courts leading the way, which is so often the case in this country, but in spite of the "religious" right's efforts to de-legitimize the courts, they are setting the standard.
So, the backlash is going to come, and it ain't going to be pretty -- for them. They're setting themselves against the Consitution, and that doesn't go down well. For Kim Davis to cite "God's authority" when violating people's rights just makes her and her supporters look like just what they are: arrogant, self-centered bigots.
And just to underscore that last point, here's what Davis' Bible has to say about obeying the law:
(With thanks to commenter Wayne at the AmericaBlog story.)
Footnote: With regard to Davis' hypocrisy -- much has been made of the fact that she's been married four times. BeccaM, in the comments to the AmericaBlog story, cites this article:
Bit it's all OK, you see, because four years ago she found Jesus:
“She was 180 degrees changed.” So, does that mean that before becoming a "Christian," she wasn't a self-centered, arrogant bigot?
The sound is rather faint, at least in the key part, but here's a transcript:
Davis: We’re not issuing marriage licenses today.
Man: The Supreme Court denied your stay.
Davis: We are not issuing marriage licenses today, so I would ask you all to…
Man: Based on what? Why are you not issuing marriage licenses today?
Davis: Because we’re not.
Partner: Under whose authority are you not issuing marriage licenses?
Davis: [stern look] Under God’s authority.
The "Christian" right is all over this one, of course, with the usual lies and misrepresentations. Here's Bryan Fischer, one of the most shameless liars in that camp:
My point is that Kim Davis, the county clerk in Rowan County Kentucky, she is the ONLY one who is obeying the law. This is not civil disobedience on her part. This is civil obedience. In fact I would suggest that she is the only one in this entire scenario who is actually obeying the law. Because a court ruling, ladies and gentleman, is not the same thing as the law. We know what a law is. A law is something that is passed by the elected representatives of the people and signed into law by the chief executive official…the law that’s on the books is the DOMA law passed by Congress in 1996…that’s the last time Congress has addressed this thing in the form of a law…Now the Supreme Court has issued a ruling that is contrary to that, but remember the Supreme Court has no legislative power whatsoever.
What the Supreme Court does have, as we all know (those of us who did not flunk high school civics), is the power of judicial review: the Supreme Court can nullify a law if it is found to violate the Constitution. Don't expect Fischer, or any of his fellow-travelers, to mention that. (By the way, DOMA is not even the issue here. But this is Bryan Fischer.)
And this wouldn't be complete without a dose of Palinesque word salad from Rand Paul:
You know I think one way to get around the whole idea of what the Supreme Court is forcing on the states is for states to just get out of the business of giving out licenses. Alabama has already voted to do this…anybody can make a contract and then if you want a marriage contract you go to a church. And so, I’ve often said we could have got around all of this, also, in the sense that I do believe everybody has the right to a contract. There never should have been any limitations on people of the same sex having contracts. But I do object to the state putting its imprimatur to the specialness of marriage, on something that’s different than most people defined as marriage for most of history. So one way is just getting the state out completely. I think that’s what we’re heading towards, actually. Whether or not people who still work for the state can do it without the legislature changing it, is something I’m going to leave up to the courts exactly how to do it. But I think people who do stand up and are making a stand to say they do believe in something is part of the American way.
Shorter Rand Paul: I don't like the Supreme Court's ruling making same-sex marriage the law of the land, so let's just take the government out of marriage. We can ask the courts how to do it.
But enough of the comedy segment of this post. I had some thoughts, reading through these stories this morning, about how this all is most likely going to play out.
History is a series of reactions. They tend to happen these days within a couple of generations, at most. The sixties were a reaction to the enervating conformity of post-War America. The Reagan eighties were a reaction to the sixties. And now we're about to see, I think, a reaction to the dominance of the "Christian" right over the past thirty or so years.
In the particular instance of Kim Davis, Warrior for God, I won't guess whether Davis is looking forward to "Christian" crowd-funding to save her ass, but in the short term, she's going to be a hero to the "Christian" community -- she'll join the bakers and florists on the martyr circuit -- all on "Christian" radio and TV shows: this is their basic tactic for the new mantra of "religious freedom," which is what they're banking on to roll back nondiscrimination laws in general. But for the wider audience -- the American public -- crap like this is starting to be a major turn off, because the god-botherers don't understand that you can't carry this past a certain point. I think we're starting to see the reaction to the last couple of generations of "Christian" hegemony in American politics -- public opinion is on our side in general, and most Americans don't really like the idea of discrimination. Yes, it's the courts leading the way, which is so often the case in this country, but in spite of the "religious" right's efforts to de-legitimize the courts, they are setting the standard.
So, the backlash is going to come, and it ain't going to be pretty -- for them. They're setting themselves against the Consitution, and that doesn't go down well. For Kim Davis to cite "God's authority" when violating people's rights just makes her and her supporters look like just what they are: arrogant, self-centered bigots.
And just to underscore that last point, here's what Davis' Bible has to say about obeying the law:
Romans 13:
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
(With thanks to commenter Wayne at the AmericaBlog story.)
Footnote: With regard to Davis' hypocrisy -- much has been made of the fact that she's been married four times. BeccaM, in the comments to the AmericaBlog story, cites this article:
The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life.
The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008.
She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.
Bit it's all OK, you see, because four years ago she found Jesus:
The leader of the organization providing her legal representation, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, says he’s not sure precisely how many husbands Davis has had, but that it's not relevant.
“I know she was married more than once – I’ve heard three [times],” he says. “It’s a matter of fact that she’s been married multiple times.”
Staver says “it’s not really relevant, it’s something that happened in her past” and that her conversion to Christianity about four years ago wiped her slate clean. “It’s something that’s not relevant to the issue at hand,” he says. “She was 180 degrees changed.”
“She was 180 degrees changed.” So, does that mean that before becoming a "Christian," she wasn't a self-centered, arrogant bigot?
No comments:
Post a Comment