The Kim Davis News Story (Unfortunately) Goes On

The story of Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky county clerk who has been refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, goes on. The latest is, she evidently thinks she can skirt the ruling by a judge that she perform her job and issue the marriage licenses. So marriage licenses being issued by her office are having her name and even the name of the county whited-out; this, in Ms. Davis' view, makes them invalid, so her conscience can be clear because, according to her logic, she is not issuing the licenses.

If Ms. Davis has a conflict between her conscience and the duties of the job she was elected to perform, and which she took an oath to perform, it would seem that the simple answer would be for her to resign her job.

But she won't. Maybe she's enjoying the present situation too much to want to just silently pass from our sight.

I don't doubt that she's enjoying her fame (or notoriety); it seems she's getting more than her 15 minutes' worth of fame. With support from her Liberty Council lawyers, and Mike Huckabee, a presidential candidate, beside her, she can sob into the cameras and microphones and savor her new fame as the new darling of the Religious Right and the poster child for claims of "persecution of Christians." (She claims she and her family have received death threats but I'm at least a little bit skeptical of that.)

Copyright © 2015.

More on Kim Davis (Kentucky County Clerk Refusing to License Same-Sex Marriages)

A recent development in the (unfortunately) ongoing saga of Ms. Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who has been refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is that she received a visit from Mike Huckabee, a former US state governor and currently a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
 

I think it is shameful and outrageous that Ms. Davis receives encouragement in her defiance of the law from a politician. This would seem to show that Mr. Huckabee has either no knowledge of, or no respect for, how the US system of government works. The US Supreme Court is just what its name suggests--supreme. As the Court's decision in the recent same-sex marriage case implies, there is no exception recognized for personal preference, even on grounds of "conscience"--even though many on the Religious Right have been arguing for, and trying to enact into state laws, exceptions on the basis of "religious freedom" which would simply mean license to ignore various anti-discrimination laws (for example, laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation)--and would thus translate to freedom to discriminate.

 

Mr. Huckabee, Ms. Davis, and others of their persuasion must realize that we live in a secular society. Our government is not one of religious law. They seem to wish for a government in the US which is based o n "Judeo-Christian" law and which thus would be a theocracy--even at the same time that they deplore theocratic societies and governments which are being established in Muslim areas of the world, such as ISIS, ISIL, boku haram, and so forth. The negative example which those authorities show us, of what theocracy means, seems to be a lesson lost to those who want a Christian theocracy in the US.

 

Copyright (c) 2015.

Kentucky County Clerk Refuses to Issue Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples

An ongoing news story says that Kim Davis, the county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, has been refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite the Supreme Court decision that same-sex couples have the right to marry, and other court rulings that she must do so as it is required by her job.

Ms. Davis claims that it is against her religious convictions; that  her religion says that same-sex marriage is wrong, and that she will go to Hell if her signature is affixed to a marriage license for a same-sex couple.

Well, I am not a Biblical scholar (and I suspect Ms. Davis is not, either), but I am extremely skeptical that the Bible, or Jesus, anywhere says that two people of the same gender may not marry. In fact, "Biblical marriage" (as these Religious Right types keep talking about) would require that a widow marry her brother-in-law--at least under certain conditions (Deuteronomy 25:5). Of course it is no news at all that these anti-gay, bible-thumping types pick and choose what in the Bible they care to pay attention to.

Of course Ms. Davis is entitled to believe as she wishes. But if she is unwilling or unable to perform her duties as the courts define them, then I'd say the answer to the problem is really very simple: she should resign her job, but this she refuses to do.

As long as the United States is not a theocracy (that is, we have a secular society rather than one governed by religious law), her religious objections to doing her job should not outweigh the definition of her duties.

Anyway, these are my words to Ms. Davis: You've had your 15 minutes of fame. Now go away.

Copyright (c) 2015

US Supreme Court Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage

It was just announced today: in what the news inevitably would call a "historic" decision, the US Supreme court has ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, and also that a state must recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

I was a bit surprised at this decision--even though many pundits had said that it was a likely outcome--because the current makeup of the Court is quite conservative, with the likes of Justice Antonin Scalia who, to my way of thinking, has often shown himself to be extremely conservative (not surprisingly, Scalia was one of the four justices who dissented from the majority decision).

There are those who say that this is "redefining" marriage, and that marriage is a thousands-of-years-old institution. To that I'd like to reply that marriage was "redefined" in 1967, in the famous Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, which ended bans on inter-racial marriage.

There was a time, maybe 30 years ago, when I did not advocate gay marriage. My position was, "Why should we try to ape heterosexual institutions?" Well, I have long since changed my mind because now I recognize that permitting us (gay people) to marry is to validate our relationships and our love. It is a big step toward permitting us to feel that we are equal members of society, rather than in many ways second-class citizens.

Of course this decision will not go down well with some people. Given that some prejudices run strong in some areas or among some people, and given how gun-happy America seems to be, my fear is that, in one of the "Bible Belt" states, such as Texas, Mississippi, or Alabama, two people of the same sex getting married might get shot while they are trying to "tie the knot."

Also, those same states will find ways to drag their feet and otherwise avoid issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, just as for 150 years they have evolved a repertoire of ways to keep African-Americans from voting. It seems that prejudice--what they'd call preserving their way of life--can spawn a lot of ingenuity.

Copyright (c) 2015

A New Archbishop for Chicago

Just now, our local (Chicago, Illinois, USA) television concluded the broadcast of the installation ceremony of a new Roman Catholic archbishop for Chicago. For those who care, his name is Blase Cupich and he had been the bishop of Spokane, Washington. More important, he is expected to further the policies and attitudes of Pope Francis.

 

I'd like to share some thoughts and reflections on this event.

I am not a Catholic nor even a Christian, but who the local Roman Catholic archbishop currently happens to be still might affect me. Who the archbishop happened to be at the time undoubtedly affected my Jewish ancestors in Europe as it could be a matter of whether they, as Jews, would be persecuted or, more likely, how vigorously they would be persecuted. (I find, more and more, that when I think about cathedrals or the Catholic Church I think about the persecution of Jews by their Christian neighbors for nearly 2000 years.)

And even today, I can still be affected by who currently is in power in the Roman Catholic Church because, if the Church preaches anti-gay prejudice, that has the potential to stir up those who hear such words and incite them to anti-gay prejudice and even anti-gay violence which I could be the victim of. Also, the Church has been influential in opposing anti-gay discrimination laws and same-sex marriage at the legislative level.

So, who the leaders of the Catholic Church are has the potential to affect me personally in several ways, and I am glad that the current pope and similarly his appointee, the Archbishop of Chicago, show signs that they are going to be more liberal, more human and more humane.

Copyright © 2014

The Bible and Gay Marriage

Yesterday, a favorable vote in the House of the Illinois legislature meant that Illinois will become the fifteenth state (plus the District of Columbia) to permit same-sex (or "gay") marriage.

I am very happy about this, but it brings to mind the debate, which has occurred many times and took place here recently. That is, some religious folks and conservatives have argued against gay marriage and, at other times and places, other measures to ensure or enhance rights of gay people by pointing to their Bibles.

My personal argument against these people and their point of view on this subject is that we in the United States live in a secular society, not in a theocracy. If it were Muslims who wanted to blur the line between church and state by imposing Islamic sharia law (as have, for example, the Taliban in Afghanistan), there would be a loud outcry. But apparently it matters whose religion is the source of the views and proscriptions that some would like to incorporate into the civil law.

Another example of mine: Jewish people (in the US and of course elsewhere), if they are observant Jews, believe that one should not eat pork. Now suppose that I, as a Jew, argued in the legislature that since I believe that eating pork is a sin (and the Bible—Leviticus—says, I believe, that the eating of pork is an "abomination"), then no one in the US should be permitted by law to eat pork. I'd love to hear the screams and shrieks of those African-American ministers who fought against gay marriage in Illinois when their pork chops are taken away!

And, round about the year 1850, the Bible was pointed to as not only permitting, but positively endorsing, slavery.

A column today by Neil Steinberg in the Chicago Sun-Times had the same idea but he used different examples. He said that if you stone your daughter for speaking disrespectfully toward you, it won't serve you as a defense to point to your Bible. Nor can you perform a sacrifice in your driveway and point to your Bible as permitting it or requiring it. As Steinberg said, "That battle has been lost."

Just as 150 years after the slavery debate our views have changed, and no one would try to defend slavery, maybe in another 10 or 15 decades people will look back  to these times and see that it was ridiculous to point to the Bible as justifying the inferior treatment of gay people.

Copyright © 2013.

The "Logic" behind Anti-Gay Views

Along with many others who hold conservative views, anti-gay people often are hard-pressed to support their views with good, logical arguments.

Someone else--a frequent poster and commenter on HuffPost (formerly Huffington Post) who has, to my mind, intelligent and progressive views—pointed out that if you ask anti–gay marriage people how or why a same-sex couple getting married will affect them, they typically will simply change the subject. Because they can't show any way in which it would affect them, let alone hurt them.

Similarly and again on HuffPost, I challenged a woman (I think the person in question is female but it's often hard to tell their gender from people's online handles) to answer this question: If being gay is a choice, as she maintained, explain to me why anyone would choose to be gay—when being gay means discrimination in many spheres, being told you're a sinner from the pulpit, and even being physically attacked.

Her reply was that people "choose" to be gay to shirk responsibility or avoid pregnancy.

I assume that the responsibility she refers to means the responsibilities, etc., of being a parent. Well, many gay couples these days—mainly lesbian couples but definitely gay male couples as well—do want to be parents and do so through adoption or other means.

Second, many gay men are in fact married and may have fathered children in those marriages. Particularly among my generation, many gay men got married when they were young. (These marriages sometimes are successful but frequently end in divorce, so I'd say that generally it's not a good idea. Still, in these cases you can't say they have shirked the responsibilities of marriage and/or parenthood.)

As to her other argument, about avoiding pregnancy. That's simply silly. People can (and of course do) avoid pregnancy and conception, both within and outside marriage—and that has absolutely nothing to do with being gay.

So, my point is, press these people to back up their opinions and you get replies that are lame at best, totally nonsensical at worst. I have a feeling that, even as they are saying these things, they know they're not making very good sense. But is that going to make them open their minds? You know my answer to that question. Post a comment if you believe I'm wrong.

Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein

Mormons and Marriage

With a big news story about federal raids on the compound of a fundamentalist Mormon sect a while ago, and a more recent TV program about a polygamist family, the practice of polygamy associated with some Mormons has been in the news.

As you may know, mainstream Mormonism at one time not only tolerated polygamy but actively encouraged and preached it. For example, Joseph Smith, with difficulty, persuaded Brighman Young to have multiple wives.

Then, at one point--to end federal pressure on Mormons and further the incorporation of Utah into the Union--Mormon leaders suddenly and miraculously had a new "revelation" that told them that they should renounce polygamy.

I'd like to tell you what I think. Aside from questions of what it does to the birth rate, I am fine with polygamy. I think people, Mormon or otherwise, should be permitted to do what they want, and it's no skin off my nose.

But there's a huge irony here. Mormons would like others to keep their hands off marriage--yet they won't do the same in return. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) was a very big financial supporter of Proposition 8 in California, which was a ballot initiative to end same-sex marriage.

To any Mormons out there: Hey, let's make a deal. I'll advocate letting you guys do whatever you want, marriage-wise--you can have multiple wives, multiple husbands, I couldn't care less. And in return, how about you keeping hands off same-sex marriage?

Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein

Rev. Donald Wildmon and Same-Sex Marriage

I recently saw Donald Wildmon, head of the anti-gay American Family Association, being interviewed in a film. The film was several years old and Wildmon was predicting that God would punish Massachusetts for legalizing (and legitimizing) same-sex marriage.

Well, it has not happened--not yet, anyway. The Netherlands was the first country to marry same-sex couples, in 2001. By now there have been six other countries and three U.S. states, with same-sex marriage set to start in three more states. I haven't noticed any divinely-ordained catastrophes striking any of these states or countries.

If God wanted to punish the Netherlands, it ought to be pretty easy for Him to cook up a big storm that would cause the sea to breach the Netherlands' extensive system of dikes that keep the water out of many hundreds of square miles of below-sea-level land. Doubtless, if pressed, Rev. Wildmon could explain What God Is Waiting For. Guess that when you become a rev., there's some piece of paper you get that certifies, "Knows What God Is Thinking."

If Wildmon, and people of his ilk, believe what they say, when they say things like that, then they are big fools. I am not sure, though, that they do believe what they are themselves saying. If that's the case, then they are mendacious liars and downright evil, trying to manipulate their followers for their own advancement. (And how many of these preachers have made themselves rich? How many anti-gay preachers and politicians have been arrested in public washroooms or in some other way been shown to be big hypocrites? If you follow the news, I don't need to start enumerating them.)

For more on Wildmon, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wildmon

Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein