Meet The New Kim Davis: Anti-Gay Texas Clerk Still Won't Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses - The New Civil Rights Movement

Back in July, Irion County, Texas Clerk Molly Criner publicly declared that her office wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

In an interview with The Christian Reporter News, Criner compared her plight to clerks in Nazi Germany who were asked to collect information about Jews but refused to do so.

Citing her belief that children are better off with a mother and father, Criner said she prayed about the issue extensively, becoming physically ill and not sleeping for four days. She considered resigning, but after reading the majority and dissenting opinions in Obergefell, she concluded that the court had overstepped its bounds — even though she acknowledged she's not a constitutional scholar.

Meet The New Kim Davis: Anti-Gay Texas Clerk Still Won't Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses - The New Civil Rights Movement

UPDATED::David Barton’s New Project: What is Keep the Promise Super PAC?

An addendum of sorts:: Ted Cruz Speaks At David Barton’s Legislative Conference

As Throckmorton notes concerning Barton's appointment to head Keep the Promise PAC, "Cruz can’t be criticized directly for the fact that the PACs supporting him named Barton as the head of day to day operations. However, Cruz can be criticized for lending his credibility to Barton’s work when he speaks at Barton’s pastors briefing.   Cue Alan Noble’s article on how to revitalize young conservatives."

What interests me about Noble's piece, besides that it was written two years ago, it's spot on and still pertinent today.

But Cruz has chosen to associate with David Barton and speak at his conference, a conference with a very specific worldview which has been defined by Barton. Whether he likes it or not, this action by Cruz signals something to voters. It signals that he believes Barton to be an ally and a legitimate political figure. By participating in this conference, he is implicitly lending support to Barton and his work.
,,,
Barton is a fraud and a hack, as is Beck and Boykin. These figures should not have direct influence on conservatives and evangelicals, but they do. They do, in part, because politicians like Cruz don’t have the integrity and boldness to ignore them, which is what they must do if they want conservatism to have credibility,,,. The problem is that in this case, established conservative leaders are the ones who support and promote these fools. Barton continues to have influence in conservative politics, especially in Texas, in part because politicians respect him, listen to him, and participate in his political events.

_____

So earlier this month, Warren Throckmorton passed this little tid-bit along,

Bloomberg news is reporting that David Barton has become leader of a Super-PAC with ties to Ted Cruz.

Keep the Promise PAC raised more money in the first half of the year than any other Super-PAC besides Jeb Bush’s, according to Bloomberg.

Well, to me, this mean Ted Cruz would rather be president of the Wallbuilders’ Fan Club than the U.S. It has sometimes been hard to get media to pay attention to Barton’s wild claims but this appointment may now make it easier.

Later that same day, Throckmorton delved a bit deeper 

Bloomberg broke the story today that David Barton has been appointed to lead the umbrella Super PAC Keep the Promise. The PAC supports Ted Cruz but is structured in a curious manner. There are actually several PACs which supported Cruz, four of which named Keep the Promise. It is not completely clear to me that Barton will lead all of them.
,,,
The Wilks brothers sound like they have attended a David Barton seminar. They are wasting their money preaching to the choir. People outside the bubble don’t buy it. They also run a church called Assembly of Yahweh which sounds like a 7th Day Adventist style church.

What some may not be aware of, the Wilks bothers, are low key versions of the Kochs,

Farris and Dan Wilks, billionaires who made their fortunes in the West Texas fracking boom, have given $15 million of the $38 million that the pro-Cruz super PAC, Keep the Promise, will disclose in election filings next week, according to sources outside the super PAC with knowledge of the giving. 

The siblings earned their riches with the sale of their company Frac Tech for $3.5 billion in 2011, and since then have shuffled large contributions to the leading social conservative nonprofit groups that aren't required to reveal their donors. But they will no longer be able to avoid detection after giving a historically large and early donation that now make the brothers two of America's most prominent political donors.

"Our country was founded on the idea that our rights come from the Creator, not the government. I'm afraid we're losing that," Farris Wilks, a 63-year-old pastor in the small town of Cisco, said in a statement to CNN. "Unless we elect a principled conservative leader ready to stand up for our values, we'll look back on what once was the land of opportunity and pass on a less prosperous nation to our children and grandchildren. That's why we need Ted Cruz."

But here is where things get interesting,,, 

As we all know, both Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz are pandering to the "reliosheeps" in regards to the Kim Davis Affair.  Towing the "partay" line as spouted by Huckabee that basically says, "The Supreme Court cannot overrule God."  A reaction of the Reich since the Obergefell ruling this past summer.

BUT, as Antiphon Freeman, writing for Addiction Info very nicely points out,

With Ted Cruz just now appointing David Barton as his main man at his super PAC, though, it’s going to be hard for them to keep saying that the courts have no authority in the matter. Why? Because Barton has for a very long time tried to use the power of the courts to argue that traditional marriage should be between a man and a woman – because they said so.

He cited an obscure 19[1]3 Texas Supreme Court ruling called Grigsby v. Reib, which he said proves we shouldn’t accept gay marriage.

Now that the highest court in the land has ruled on the matter and upheld it several times on appeal, he wants to conveniently forget that he once thought their opinion mattered.

You can’t have it both ways,,,

Freeman is correct and maybe (I know wishful thinking) Barton will quit with his drivel in regards to this bit of case law.  As Right Wing Watch notes, going beyond the point Freeman makes concerning the above double-standard,

Contrary to Barton's claims that this case enshrines divine principles about marriage into our civil laws, the court repeatedly notes that marriage is a nothing more than a civil contract that requires "neither license nor solemnization of religious or official ceremony" to be legally binding.

​Barton claims that this case was about trying to create a secular alternative to marriage, which the court slapped down because there can never be any legal marriage that does not correspond to "God's definition." In reality, the case addressed the issue of whether a supposedly secret verbal agreement to become husband and wife constitutes a legally binding and recognizable common law marriage and whether the relationship between Stallcup and Grigsby qualified as one under the law, with the court ruling that it did not because it didn't meet the most basic requirements.

David Barton’s New Project: What is Keep the Promise Super PAC?

Scott Lively Warns Christians To Prepare For Relentless Persecution In Wake Of Gay Marriage Ruling | Right Wing Watch

More Scott Lively,,,

"As Christians, our world changed on the day the Obergefell case came down," he said, "and there's going to be persecution unfolding for all of us in this country because this movement of people is implacable, they can't be placated. They're relentless and their goal is supremacy. It's not tolerance, it's not acceptance, it isn't even celebration, it isn't even being able to force everyone to participate in their culture, it's to punish anyone who disagrees with them as severely as they can and that is what's coming for every person."

Scott Lively Warns Christians To Prepare For Relentless Persecution In Wake Of Gay Marriage Ruling | Right Wing Watch

RNC Wants First Amendment Defense Act Passed

So despite the appearance of protections for individuals and businesses, the RNC is openly endorsing discrimination against people who are LGBTQ. According to the text provide by The Daily Signal,the resolution claims it aims to "protect the rights of believers to equal treatment by the government of The United States of America":

Resolution in Support of The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Whereas, The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was written to prohibit the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction; including that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage;

Whereas, The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should therefore protect Americans from the action of a narrow 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court who have upheld gay marriage without regard to the democratic rights of the people or the states, and without any religious liberty protections;

Whereas, The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, has pointed to the serious religious liberty consequences that may stem from the decision: “Today’s decision … creates serious doubts about religious liberty . . . Indeed the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious organizations would be in question if they opposed gay marriage;”

Whereas, Many Americans, including Melissa Klein, Kelvin Cochran, Baronelle Stutzman, Angela McCaskill, Brendan Eich, Frank Turek, Scott McAdams, Tom Emmer, Jack Phillips, Elaine Huguenin, Betty and Richard Odgaard, Cynthia and Robert Gifford are losing their livelihoods or are being disciplined for courageously dissenting from gay marriage orthodoxy;

Whereas, Many on the Left exhibit an intensifying hatred and intolerance for gay marriage dissenters; and

Whereas, Religious schools, colleges and universities, and other charities, could lose their First Amendment rights and their right to equal access to government benefits, including 501(c)3 status, student aid, and government contracts; therefore be it

Resolved, The Republican National Committee urges Congress to pass and the President to sign The First Amendment Defense Act to protect the rights of believers to equal treatment by the government of The United States of America.

An issue, that ThinkProgress notes as well,

Ellen Barrosse, RNC chair of the Conservative Steering Committee, told The Daily Signal that neither the resolution nor the bill have anything to do with discrimination, but are instead “an attempt, for those of us who are people of faith, to protect religious organizations.” She offered the following example: “Does Catholic Charities have to place children with gay couples, or will they have to shut down? This is a free market, there are other agencies that will place children with them.”

Barrosse neglected to point out that every time Catholic Charities faced this conflict, it was because the organization believed it was entitled to continue receiving state funding while discriminating against couples the state recognized as married. In each case that Catholic Charities shut down adoption services, it was a voluntary decision made because it refused to operate without state funding.

The RNC resolution specifically references multiple cases when private business owners have faced legal consequences for refusing to serve to same-sex couples in violation of nondiscrimination laws. It also mentions several individuals who faced public scrutiny for their anti-gay views, suggesting that all of these people are victims of “intensifying hatred and intolerance”,,,

RNC Wants First Amendment Defense Act Passed

ADDENDUM::In a previous posting concerning Katy Faust

As I was getting ready to publish the preceding article concerning Faust, I pondered a bit, I've heard this story before.  Although I couldn't find the correct video that my mind was wandering back to, I was reminded of Faust's  "open letter" to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.  It was concerning the, then upcoming, arguments in the Obergefell v Hodges case before SCOTUS.

Although I have many concerns with Faust's position, there are two points I find rather disturbing.  Although I may not be as scathing as David Cary Hart over at The Slowly Boiled Frog,

I hate to pile on but the anti-gay rhetoric of National Organization for Marriage (and Witherspoon Institute) spouted by someone who was raised by gay parents is still the anti-gay rhetoric of National Organization for Marriage. It is also preposterous. Simply stated a child being raised by a gay couple is better off if that couple is married.

Faust sounds as if she should be protesting divorce rather than gay marriage.  It seems like she is more upset that her birth mom and dad secured a divorce. 

What these complainers have in common is that these are children of divorce (we don't seem to be hearing from adopted kids). It is the divorce (and the attendant religious opprobrium) that makes people like Ms. Faust angry and irrational. I suspect that, according to Faust's “logic,” it is the acceptability of (forbidden) homosexual unions that created the divorce in the first place. The reality is probably quite different. If she lacked a relationship with her father it wasn't because she was being raised by two lesbian. Rather it was because her father chose to be absent from her life.

It is also a point that Jeremy Hooper alludes to in his criticism as well, 

Her parents divorce was painful on her. That's not a surprise. It often is on children. Katy herself cites the divorce as the key issue here.  "[T]he most traumatic event in my thirty-eight years of life," she says,,,.  Of course Katy's story is a personal one that she is projecting onto every family. And as I already said, she is taking the pain of divorce, which she admits is the root issue for her, and projecting that onto civil marriage policy for gays and lesbians (who may or may not even become parents). Because that's what commentators like Katy often do.

Which brings us to my second point, as a child of adoptive - hetero parent (evangelicals to boot) - I think it's bizarre that she thinks that it is biology that makes parents great.  By her definition, divorce and adoption are not only bad choices, but kind of an abomination. It seems that she thinks that if people just try really hard, they can become the "perfect" parents that she desires.  As Hooper points out,

But here's what really gets me. In truth, Katy's attack lines could just as easily apply to opposite-sex couples who parent the very same way as their same-sex counterparts. For instance, she writes:

When two adults who cannot procreate want to raise children together, where do those babies come from? Each child is conceived by a mother and a father to whom that child has a natural right. When a child is placed in a same-sex-headed household, she will miss out on at least one critical parental relationship and a vital dual-gender influence. The nature of the adults’ union guarantees this. Whether by adoption, divorce, or third-party reproduction, the adults in this scenario satisfy their heart’s desires, while the child bears the most significant cost: missing out on one or more of her biological parents.

Making policy that intentionally deprives children of their fundamental rights is something that we should not endorse, incentivize, or promote.
FULL: Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent [Public Discourse]

"Two adults who cannot procreate" is not a stand-in for "same-sex couple." Many opposite-sex couples cannot have biological children on their own, and many of them ultimately choose adoption. Adoptive parents, be they gay or straight, are not biologically connected to their children. There is no logically consistent way that Katy Faust can use a line about adopted kids "missing out on one or more of her biological parents" and confine that line only to the kids of same-sex parents. There are millions of kids of straight parents who fall into that very same category!

I'm sorry Katy, but I find that an odious thought.  You are basically endorsing the ridicule I faced growing up as an adopted child.  That I was somehow defective and that my parents, in doing their Christian duty, took pity on me.  Granted my folks and I had our issues, some even carried over into adulthood, but in the end my parents love me.  They may not understand me, but I am quite secure in our relationship.

Even now, as I recover from a stoke at 51 years of age, I call my dad weekly to let him know how I am doing. (Sadly my mom passed last November at 94).  As odd as it feels asking my dad about what to expect with my recovery, I value his input (and not just on health matters as I seek his advice concerning financials, investing and other mundane stuff of life). 

Though not connected "biologically" there is something even stronger that binds us together - love.  As Hart notes quite harshly, "I suspect that, according to Faust's “logic,” it is the acceptability of (forbidden) homosexual unions that created the divorce in the first place.  The reality is probably quite different. If she lacked a relationship with her father it wasn't because she was being raised by two lesbian. Rather it was because her father chose to be absent from her life." Or she encouraged that behavior by distancing herself from him - speaking from experience.

Having the personal, private belief that same-sex relationships are not Biblical may not be hateful per se (wrong IMO); it is her belief.  BUT, traipsing around the world spitting rhetoric that is not even your own (National Organization for Marriage and Witherspoon Institute) is vile; it is hurtful. Being loud about it, so that the whole world can hear you, is being hateful. 

Like those before her - Anne Paulk and Linda Wall - Faust needs to examine her own life before condemning others.

I am truly sorry that Katy Faust longs for a different childhood than the one that was in her cards. I am genuinely happy that she says she is happy with her husband and children. But what Katy is doing right now is an act of bad faith on behalf of actual human children who will grow up finding rhetoric like hers and wondering why they are being told to feel bad and/or broken because of their loving family structure. Rather than limit their political assaults to just adults and fellow commentators who signed up for this fight, these adult activists are now indirectly (or even directly) targeting our children as they come up in this world. It is an amoral thought crime against parents like me and children like mine.

Alabama Judge Asks State Supreme Court To Issue 'Landmark' Ruling Nullifying Supreme Court Marriage Decision - The New Civil Rights Movement

An Alabama probate judge has asked the State Supreme Court to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court decision that brought marriage equality to the country - even Alabama.

The 18-page brief, filed Monday by Probate Judge Nick Williams, reads more like a temper tantrum that a legal document, calling the Supreme Court "semi-absolute rulers" and urging Alabama's chief Supreme Court justice, Roy Moore, to end his recusal on marriage cases. Marriage rights activists have compared Judge Williams to Alabama Governor George Wallace, who in the 1960s, stood against desegregation ordered by the federal courts.

"The eyes of the nation are again turned upon Alabama." wrote Judge Williams. "This court has the lifetime opportunity to issue a landmark ruling that could inspire other courts, officials, and legislatures to stand with us."

"For such a time as this, the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court have an opportunity to safety traditional marriage and spark a rebirth of constitutional federalism. Who knows when, or if, that opportunity will come again?"

Judge Williams, who is a product of the radical right-wing Liberty University, sang the praises of the Alabama Supreme Court for its order demanding probate judges stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after a federal district court struck down the state's marriage ban last March.

The State Supreme Court issued that order as the result of a lawsuit filed by two anti-gay groups, the Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program. According to Al.com, both plaintiffs argued there was precedence for rejecting a U.S. Supreme Court mandate believed to be unlawful. The groups cited the rejection of pro-slavery laws in the 1850s, such as the Wisconsin Supreme Court's refusal to submit to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required runaway slaves be returned to their former owners. They did not, however, suggest the state could defy the Supreme Court.

When the U.S. Supreme Court legalized marriage equality in June, Judge Moore asked the Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program to submit briefs on what they wanted the State Supreme Court to do in light of that decision. It is for that ongoing case that Judge Williams has submitted an amicus brief, asking the state Supreme Court to defy the U.S. Supreme Court, and refuse to accept its decision in Obergefell V Hodge.

Alabama Judge Asks State Supreme Court To Issue 'Landmark' Ruling Nullifying Supreme Court Marriage Decision - The New Civil Rights Movement

David Barton: Churches Are Required to Hire Pedophiles to Run Church Nurseries

With uninformed pundits like Barton headlining church conferences, no wonder many evangelicals are worried the sky is falling.  I hope Mr. Mitchell will consider giving equal time or at least informing his listeners that Barton was wrong and the First Amendment still exists in America.

Throckmorton offers a concise take-down of all of Barton's talking points:

No. Just no.

Barton is completely wrong about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It never passed both houses of Congress during the same session, and it is not law today. It was not introduced in the 109th Congress (2005-2007). As an aside, the House speaker during that Congress was Dennis Hastert and the Senate president was Dick Cheney.  ENDA passed the House in the next Congress but not the Senate. Another version of the legislation passed the Senate in 2013 but not the House (see this timeline).

Barton told Mitchell’s audience that President Obama’s executive order forbidding discrimination by federal contractors came “as a result” of ENDA. Not so. Barton claims faith based groups have to hire homosexuals. However, this order only applies to federal contractors not all faith based groups. Then he uncorked a doozy by claiming that churches have to hire pedophiles who want to run church nurseries. Of course, this is ridiculous fear mongering.

Stop a minute to think about that claim. Anyone who has any knowledge of church work or volunteer work with children knows Barton’s claim is ridiculous. In many schools, you can’t volunteer to accompany your child’s classroom on a field trip without criminal and child abuse clearances. In recent years, churches have been required by liability insurers to screen all volunteers before working with children. Barton’s claims are absurd and irresponsible.

On the claim that a church has to hire an openly gay applicant, Barton offers no evidence. I know of no case where a non-gay-affirming church was required to hire a gay person for a religious function. Churches discriminate on the basis of religion all the time by hiring only those who agree on even fine points of doctrine. Many churches also discriminate on the basis of gender by not hiring women for certain functions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance makes it clear that “governmental regulation of church administration, including the appointment of clergy, impedes the free exercise of religion and constitutes impermissible government entanglement with church authority. The exception applies only to employees who perform essentially religious functions, namely those whose primary duties consist of engaging in church governance, supervising a religious order, or conducting religious ritual, worship, or instruction.” Clearly, youth directing is an essentially religious function.

David Barton: Churches Are Required to Hire Pedophiles to Run Church Nurseries

How John Bingham's edits to the 14th Amendment paved the way for gay marriage.

A pre-SCOTUS look at one of the main issues:

Bingham’s key move was to craft a new provision that promised “equal protection of the laws” for all persons, not just African Americans. In one of the most important edits in American history, Bingham added text that was, as he later explained, “a simple, strong, plain declaration that equal laws and equal and exact justice shall hereafter be secured within every State of the Union,” guaranteeing “equal protection” for “any person, no matter whence he comes, or how poor, how weak, how simple—no matter how friendless.” 

Without Bingham’s revisions to Section 1, it’s entirely possible that the equal protection clause would have outlawed only racial discrimination—a major addition to our Constitution, to be sure, but a long way from the provision that we have today. Instead, Bingham incorporated into our Constitution the broad promise of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” Better still, he perfected and universalized it by substituting the word “person” for Jefferson’s “men.”

How John Bingham's edits to the 14th Amendment paved the way for gay marriage.

Meet The 'Accidental Activists' Of The Supreme Court's Same-Sex-Marriage Case : NPR

Four reason why marriage equality matters:

The wake-up call about their legal status came after a truck traveling in the wrong lane nearly hit their car head-on.
April DeBoer says the near-miss got them thinking.

"We started to seek out information on protecting our kids, and putting wills and trusts in place to make sure that our kids are protected," she says.

But there was nothing they could do to ensure that if one of them died, the other parent would get custody of the two children adopted by the deceased partner. They could put their wishes on paper, but that paper would have little legal status.

"A judge could award that child to someone else," Jayne observes, effectively making the surviving parent "a legal stranger to the child that they've helped raise since birth."
,,,
There is the ever-present anxiety of unmarried, same-sex parents about what would happen to the children if one of them were to die. But there are more mundane matters too.

They don't qualify for each other's spousal death benefits. Because the state does not recognize them as one family, they have to have two separate family health insurance policies. Over the years, they've learned to shop around for day care, schools and pediatricians who will treat them both as parents.

And when Paul was diagnosed with prostate cancer three years ago, they had to shop for a doctor who would recognize Randy as his full partner with decision-making power should Paul's health make that necessary.
,,,
Although a married heterosexual couple would both automatically be the parents of a child in a situation like this, under Tennessee law, Sophy is not a married spouse and therefore had no legal relationship to Emilia. So the couple sued.

That's how Sophy, through a legal quirk, became the first female "dad" in Tennessee.

Because Emilia was born in the short window of time when there was a court order requiring the state to recognize their New York marriage, Sophy Jesty is listed on the birth certificate as Emilia's father.
,,,
Through a friend, a civil rights lawyer came to Jim and John's home to explain that Ohio would not recognize the marriage.

Jim recalls what happened next: "He pulled out a blank death certificate and said, now, do you realize when John dies, the state of Ohio will say he's single, and this blank here for surviving spouse name will be blank. Your name won't show up there, Jim."

The couple decided to fight. They filed suit just eight days after the tarmac wedding. Because of John's health, the judge heard arguments the following court day, and that same afternoon issued his ruling requiring the state to recognize Jim as John's spouse on a death certificate.

Three months and 11 days later, John Arthur died. The death certificate listed Jim Obergefell as his surviving spouse.

If the state wins its case in the Supreme Court, it can reissue a death certificate without Jim Obergefell's name.

Meet The 'Accidental Activists' Of The Supreme Court's Same-Sex-Marriage Case : NPR