Show Notes::I'm Special - The Kim Davis Affair

Today I am going to open with words from the incomparable George Takei: 

"Well this is a bit of a circus. So let us be clear: This woman is no hero to be celebrated. She broke her oath to uphold the Constitution and defied a court order so she could deny government services to couples who are legally entitled to be married. She is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to impose those beliefs on others. If she had denied marriage certificates to an interracial couple, would people cheer her? Would presidential candidates flock to her side? In our society, we obey civil laws, not religious ones. To suggest otherwise is, simply put, entirely un-American."

See also::

George Takei on How Kim Davis Violated the First Amendment

As a public official, it isn’t even clear Ms. Davis has the same rights as a private citizen to speak out let alone act in opposition to same-sex marriage as part of her official duties. As the conservative majority of the Supreme Court noted in the case of Garcetti v. Cebalos back in 2006, “[W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” In other words, Ms. Davis, as an officer of the county, is subject to the Establishment Clause limitations, and precisely because she is a government employee, does not have the right to claim First Amendment protection either for her speech or for her actions based on her faith.

George Takei: Kim Davis isn’t Rosa Parks. She’s George Wallace.

George Takei’s Take on the Kim Davis Rally Was Great; His Response to a Troll Was Even Better

George Takei Schools Kim Davis On The First Amendment

My original plan, I wasn't going to touch the Kim Davis affair in any great detail.  I mean seriously how much more can one small time blogger add to the conversation.  And in all honesty Mr. Sulu summed up the whole debacle in his statement alone.

Simply put, she broke the law and the law won, there is no other way to look at it.  You can argue semantics all you want [natural law v the Constitution, State vs Federal, discrimination vs religious accommodation, etc] but,,, 

And. let me just say as a brief side note as to how ridiculous this is becoming,

One self appointed political know it all has tried to compare the whole religious liberty facade, specifically Davis, to imprisoned missionary Saeed Abedini.  Where he goes wrong in this analogy,,, Iran is a Islamic theocracy where there is no SOCAS.  [Abedini allegedly broke the laws of the country he was visiting.  While I sympathize with his family and supporters and find the "charges" against him bogus, there is no comparison to the religious freedoms and freedom of speech we enjoy here in the US compared to an Islamic run country.]

Another, has gone so far as to say Davis is the Rosa Parks of our era,,,Uhm, NO!!

The one small point I will make concerning an issue of semantics, is a statement Davis herself made:

To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.

Now, this is just "lying for Jesus," because it isn't so. Davis regularly issues marriage licenses in conflict with her so-called definition of Biblical marriage. She is not averse to allowing divorced couples to marry at all.

As much as I hate to admit it, it is one point the WBC has right (although the primary focus of their ire is Davis), the typical fundamentalist view is that once married always married.  By Kim's own logic, every license she signs for a divorced local couple is a violation of "God's definition of marriage."

[Besides the fact that the definition of marriage has already change both from a biblical standpoint and from a societal one as well.]

That aside, a recent discussion surrounding the whole faux Christian persecution complex has highlighted one point that has not really been discussed.  Special Pleading or Religious Exceptionalism and if you have followed my blog it is a point that I have highlighted numerous times before starting with none of than Hobby Lobby and it's aftermath.

Before we begin, I will not be arguing whether Davis is a "true" Christian, or whether her "religious convictions" are hypocritical in light of her divorces and marriages.  Nor will I touch on whether what she spouts is actually what she believes; in other words is she seeing $$ signs or is she getting piss poor legal advice.  What is at issue, plain and simple:

The First Amendment does not give Kim Davis the power to decide whether same sex marriages are lawful in the State of Kentucky. That question was settled this summer by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-to-4 that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the freedom to marry in all 50 states.

Davis’s private, personal beliefs are covered by the First Amendment. But when she steps into her official role, she is no longer a private citizen—she is now an agent of the government. And the same First Amendment that protects her private freedom of religion bars the government from having any official religious beliefs.

So lets go back and take a look,,,

If you remember, prior to oral arguments being heard in the Hobby Lobby case, I highlighted an interview with Barry Lynne of the AUFSOCAS.  Mr. Lynne, speaking in general terms of the scope of HL said this:

,,,but the agenda of the Religious Right is the right to opt out of ANY federal or state law(s) they do not like because of actual or alleged violation of THEIR religious principles.

Now granted Lynne was speaking in regards to for-profit businesses such as HL,,,
 
BUT...

Six months later, after the final ruling by SCOTUS, the Reich was fucking pissing their pants we glee.  According RWW, Matt Barber,

,,,is hopeful that anti-gay Christians will now have a solid defense when they refuse to "be an indentured servant" by providing services to "a counterfeit gay marriage" because this ruling was "a strong rebuke of all those sexual orientation laws around the country in cities and municipalities and states that say somehow gays win, Christians lose, sexual orientation trumps all."

It was a sentiment echoed by many within the Reich.  As their devilish minds worked an unexpected win to their advantage in advancing their agenda.  [Keep on mind I personally believe the Reich never expected to win.  That HL was itself a "test case" and nothing to do with contraceptives at all.]

That brings me to something I wrote a month later, and something Barry Lynne already suspected.

When one looks at the decision rendered by SCOTUS it has to be through the lens of the Reich's overall agenda -  starting with a "reformed" interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause or an outright repeal of the First Amendment, continuing with the abolition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ending with the implementation of dominionist ideology in order to govern by theocratic control.  [And this is the crux of the whole HL case] With the ruling in Hobby Lobby, the Reich will "now" be able to exempt themselves from any laws that they don’t like; that they find “religiously objectionable.”

Sound familiar?

Make no mistake, the Kim Davis Affair is just another cog in the wheel of the Reich's agenda - just like former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, florist Baronnelle Stutzman, bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein, Mennonite couple Dick and Betty Odgaard, and former Air Force Sgt. Phillip Monk.  [And trust me there are many more!!]


Now bear in mind that was "just the highlights" to set the tone, so to speak.  There is too much minutiae regarding the politics and I'd prolly bore y'all to death.

So on to this notion of Special Pleading or Religious err,,, Christian Exceptionalism, I mean accommodation for religious belief and why it would be a bad judicial precedent...

When you have time listen to this clip from The Young Turks, it is a perfect demonstration of what I mean:

This is my current working definition, how I look at it,,,

Invoking your personal interpretation of the religious dogma, that your particular religious group teaches, onto other individuals in order to outright deny a service or product. (Not taking into consideration possible accommodations that could be made.)  Then when the denial of service (discrimination) is called into question based on applicable law, said religious beliefs are invoked as a defense under a twisted interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

A few things to keep in mind: 1] the courts generally do not rule on whether said a religious beliefs is genuine.  2]  The Kim Davis Affair IMO is pretty straight forward, as Davis is an agent of the gov't. 3]  By accommodation, I mean simple items - such as not having to work on accepted holy days IF prior notification is given. [An example would be applying for a position that requires work attendance on a day normally reserved for worship.]

So THE question in the Davis Affair becomes, is it acceptable for religious belief to undermine lawful civil rights protections?  [Remember keep the overall agenda in mind.]

The simple answer is no, as Takei noted,

According to the US Constitution, religious freedom does not equate to religious entitlement. While the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion and forbids religious favoritism, which is why Davis’s actions are particularly egregious.

As Judge Bunning himself stated, “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.” 

There is no such thing as "natural law" in a secular society, at least not in the manner the Reich is insisting. [That's a whole 'nother ball of wax to contend with.] To Davis et al, it means only one thing - God's law.  Or more apt, my interpretation of God's law.  Or quite succinctly, SHARIA!!

As you can see this mess is about more than just about Kim Davis.  There is so much other stuff mixed into the bag of goods being sold to the public by the Reich, it would take the patience of Job to sort it all out.  Besides the above, the Natural Law discussion as I mentioned.  There is the piss poor analogy to Dred Scott and for shits and giggles we have Rena Lindevaldsen, who works for the Liberty Counsel, who has taken to arguing that Christians have the right to overthrow the democratically elected government and simply impose their will by fiat.  What she is suggesting is the Sovereign Citizen motif.

Davis is a pawn of her own legal team blinded by the idea that religious conservatives are entitled to ignore — or even overthrow — democracy and seize power just because they feel like it.