Now, I'm 100% sure that when you clicked to read this, you assumed I was referring to Kim herself. I'm not.
Let's be clear: I in no way feel that anyone should be able to refuse to do their job for any reason. Jobs are a privilege, not a right. However, I also don't think this whole nonsense fiasco has anything to do with refusal to do a job. I don't.
Nope...this situation is the fault of America. Or more specifically, the American government for allowing this to spiral out of control instead of locking it down early.
I use the term "Slippery Slope" quite frequently and have for years. Why? Because gay marriage was destined to be a slippery slope no matter which way it went. It was a losing endeavor. But first, a story. Religious zealots should enjoy this. Crack open your Bible, this agnostic is about to school you a bit.
1 Kings 3:16-28
Do you recognize this section of the Bible? It's actually one of the more memorable from the time when I was dragged to church by my mother. It tells the story of King Solomon when he was presented with a dilemma.Two women approach the king. They live together. Each has a baby four days apart. It's only the two women in the house. According to Woman 1, Woman 2 rolled over her baby while sleeping, killing it. Realizing this horror, Woman 2 replaced the dead baby with Woman 1's baby. After waking up, Woman 1 confronted Woman 2 as the baby wasn't hers. Now, they come to the king to ask his help in sorting this mess out.
Solomon, not knowing who's lying, offers to cut the baby in two. One half for each mother. Woman 1 pleads for the king not to kill the child (since it's hers); she would rather give him up than see him killed, too. Woman 2, presumably still bitter at losing her own child, is fine with cutting the child in half so that Woman 1 suffers the same as her. After thinking about this some more, Solomon orders the child returned to Woman 1, given her reaction vs. Woman 2.
The moral of the story isn't that you shouldn't sleep with your child (which is what I thought as a kid, to be fair). The moral of the story isn't even that someone's always lying (which I learned to be true after I grew up, to be fair). The real moral of the story is hidden in Solomon's initial proposition: cut the child in half. In other words, if neither mother spoke out, the only way to make both sides right (given what's known) is to split equally, rather than show preference to either. Fortunately, they did speak out. But again, Solomon was willing to make a sacrifice rather than show any sort of preferential treatment.
America hasn't learned why this was an effective section. Or rather, they don't care.
The gay marriage movement began as a government issue with civil unions. Homosexuals could enter into a legally appropriate pairing, called a civil union, for many years. The problem is that civil unions did not afford the same rights and privileges; they were written originally to support unions in states and regions that did not recognize common law marriages. But when certain celebrities started to call to light the fact that they were gay, there started to be an uprising: people wanted to "say" they were "married". They wanted to have a "wedding". They wanted to "walk the aisle". This steamrolled into a civil rights issue; one I won't debate here, but the thought was, why should gay couples be herded into a civil union category? Why should marriage be between "one man and one woman"? Why was there a limit at all?
Beyond movements in different states, the Supreme Court ruled that gay couples should be allowed to marry, which was followed by states such as Kentucky opening doors for weddings. There was only one problem (this is the first mistake America is making):
There are truly three branches of government: Executive (The President), Judicial (The Supreme Court), and Legislative (Congress). There are more entities in each branch, but I'm calling these three out make a point.
The Executive Branch approves (or vetoes) and enforces laws. The key word here is law: the President can't make laws. He can approve written laws, veto them, and/or enforce them if they're not being applied properly (think Bernie Madoff).
The Legislative Branch makes laws. This is key: the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which is the law that essentially ensures that you can get a job despite someone's bias against you, had to be created by the Legislative Branch to become a thing. It didn't just show up out of thin air.
The Judicial Branch reviews and makes decisions regarding law. The key word here is review: the law must exist in order for the Judicial Branch for anything to really be done about it directly (and that is referred to the Executive Branch under the purview of law enforcement). The Judicial Branch offers an opinion regarding an issue for which there is no directly applicable law (think gun control), and the issue cannot be resolved at the local or state levels. That opinion might get written up by the Legislative Branch as a law (think Patriot Act) or a refinement to an existing law (think Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act).
Contrary to popular belief, the right to gay marriage is not in any Federal law as of this writing. It's not. We have a number of state and Federal courts who have ruled with opinions both supporting and rejecting the right to marry, so there is at least precedent for making a law. But no law exists at this time.
What's this mean? It means Kim Davis isn't breaking the law with respect to gay marriage because there is no law yet. She is doing something immoral, but that's the long and short of it. That was the point Gov. Mike Huckabee was trying to make at the debate.
I'll tell you why the government refuses to lock this down. It's because if they do so, they will basically be writing laws that trample all over the rights of everyone else. The result of that is anarchy; if you thought hate crimes were bad now, just imagine what they'd be if the government wrote some law that basically forces pastors to perform ceremonies.
Let's flip the script: suppose you had some nut who was 100% adamant against gays...and this nut is a surgeon. Or a dentist. Or a pilot. People who have lives in their hands and really could make deadly decisions simply because the government is forcing them to accommodate others despite their own beliefs.
I don't know about you, but that thought terrifies me. Difference is, it's been going through my head for over 20 years.
The counterpoint then is, "well, we had to do something about blacks too!" Totally different problem, and I argue that to this day, racism isn't illegal. Immoral, yes. Not illegal. While there are laws preventing you as a business from denying service to blacks, there's nothing preventing you from only setting up your business in areas dominated by whites (which achieves the same base objective). But that's financially stupid: the real reason you don't see businesses discriminating against non-whites has nothing to do with skin color. Segregation didn't end due to a kumbaya moment with everyone learning to get along. No...it simply didn't make sense to turn down an extra source of income from blacks, extra labor from blacks, extra commercial traffic from blacks, etc. Why make money from 40% of the US only when you could make money from 100% of the US? Simple economics.
So Kim Davis shouldn't be applauded, but neither should she be criticized. Throwing her in jail for contempt was a stupid move: She is voted in by taxpayers, who pay her salary, only to have her thrown in a jail that taxpayers pay for, plus attorneys and judges and police that taxpayers pay for. It's a money pit, all to send a statement to her? Who's the stupid one?
Then look at the two sides.
Kim Davis has made a very reasonable request: She doesn't want her name associated with any licenses issued from the office. Frankly, it's ignorant that the license is required to have her personal name attached to it, but that goes beyond marriage licenses. Birth certificates and other state forms are required to have a person's name on them, for accountability. It's a stupid requirement that serves no real benefit (because if one is issued in error or due to fraud, it is an easy matter to trace records back by date to know who was responsible). For this, I applaud her: she's trying to highlight a fundamental problem with a simple solution. Stop putting people's names on things that associate them with something. Make it a generic form that is certified by "the State" and no particular person. If that means notary needs to be that witness then so be it, without calling a name out.
Gay couples want her to resign. Frankly, I think it's ignorant that these people would rather have someone resign than to fix the underlying problem, but that's a side issue. What needs to happen here, and what the state should say, is that these couples should go to a clerk that will issue them licenses without a problem (solves their primary concern), then ensure that voters follow due diligence to get Kim Davis out of office using the right channels. Lobby against her. Put the word out that she is discriminating against people. But to take a lynch mob approach rubs me the wrong way.
Because the Supreme Court's opinion was that gay couples should be allowed to marry no matter what state they're in. Because there's no law, nothing requires every single clerk in every single county to issue licenses, as long as there's at least one, the state is following the opinion and avoiding potential lawsuits. If the couples choose not to go where they will be allowed to marry, that's a decision that will bite them in the long run, and likely why we haven't seen any additional Federal movement. They could get married; they choose not to, instead preferring to force their belief down other people's throats until everyone is on board with their mission.
With no law in place, I might add.
In summary, this whole situation is just getting worse, not better, and I refer people to Bryce Williams/Vester Lee Flanagan, a gay male. You can read up on him, but I imagine his reasoning was just the tip of the iceberg for more hate crimes.
All because America doesn't understand how to fix a situation without alienating a different population.
