Robin Reardon's Blog: Robin Reardon: Speaking of writing... - Posts Tagged "kim-davis"

If Kim Davis and her knight in shining armor Mike Huckabee are to be believed, Davis has suffered “immediate and irreparable injury" because she was expected to perform the duties for which she was hired: that of Kentucky's Rowan County clerk.

Davis's attorney is saying that Davis “is facing immediate and substantial harm and consequences for exercising her individual constitutional and statutory rights.” And what right does she want to exercise? Her religion condemns homosexual activity, so she doesn't want to be required to issue legal marriage licenses to gay couples. She wants to perform only the parts of her job that don't, in her mind, conflict with her religious beliefs. Should she be allowed to do that?

We have a similar case in flight attendant Charee Stanley, a Muslim, who refuses to serve alcoholic beverages to passengers. Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, says, "... no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely." And what does Stanley demand? Her religion bans the consumption of alcohol. She wants to perform only the parts of her job that don't, in her mind, conflict with her religious beliefs. Should she be allowed to do that?

Of these two women, I actually have more sympathy for Davis (though I am by no means exonerating her). In her case, even though the law has changed, she can truthfully say that when she took her current job, there was no legal basis for gay couples to be granted marriage licenses in Kentucky, and she could turn them away with impunity. But, in fact, the law has changed, and it's now her job to supply marriage licenses to all citizens, anyone's religion notwithstanding. Stanely, on the other hand, must have known very well what the job of a flight attendant entails.

What they have in common, however, is this: They have placed their secular jobs on a priority level at least as high as their religions.

Now let's look at another couple of examples, where the individual in question is actually being persecuted.

In trying to resolve child custody issues with her ex-husband, Holly Salzman was court-ordered into counseling and was sent specifically to one Mary Pepper. Salzman chooses to live without the crutch/comfort/whatever of an institutionalized religion. Pepper, on the other hand, claims to be Christian, and she proceeded to inundate Salzman with proselytizing brochures, verbal religious pablum, and Christian-based "homework" assignments. When Salzman protested, her sons were taken away from her until she subjected herself again to the ministrations of this religious extremist. Turns out the "Christian" Pepper was operating under the table, meeting clients in public libraries (a legal no-no), and insisting on secrecy and cash payments so her chicanery wouldn't be exposed. Um... these are Christian principles? And what about Salzman's constitutional and statutory rights when it comes to religion and to—oh, I don't know, keeping her kids?

Then we have high schooler Brianna Popour, a lesbian who wanted other gay kids to feel as though they could be comfortable with themselves, so she wore a T-shirt to school (not against school dress codes) with this message written on it: "Nobody knows I'm a lesbian." School officials labeled the message "disruptive, offensive, and distracting," and the girl was suspended. So, just for openers: What about Popour's first amendment rights?

In summary
1. Holly Salzman was forced by the secular court to be subjected to unwanted religious rantings and worse, in a situation that was illegal, and she had submit or lose her sons permanently. This is essentially not a choice.
2. Brianna Popour has been told that her very nature is "offensive," and she was told to leave school. She has no choice about being gay; all she wanted to do was be open and honest about that, and to encourage other gay kids to feel comfortable in their own skins.
3. The Kim Davises and the Charee Stanleys of the world have chosen their religions, and they have chosen their jobs. The law does not require Davis to marry a woman or Stanley to drink anything she doesn't want to consume. And if they're going to treat their jobs as though the jobs were as sacred as their religions are said to be, how seriously do we need to take their cries of religious persecution?

And, by the way, Mike Huckabee, why aren't you leaping to Stanley's defense as you did with Davis? What's that you say? Oh—sorry; I forgot for a minute, there. Christianity is the one true religion.

Sorry. Wrong.

Religious freedom and First Amendment rights are yours, as long as you're Christian? I see. So all this gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair isn't really about religious freedom, is it?

With the stated intent to preserve the religious freedom of government officials (and, presumably, to avoid legal hot water regarding the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling), Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin has issued an executive order that a new marriage license be created for that state, one that does not mention the name of the clerk executing the document. The question arises: Is this a good way to cast a little oil upon the roiling waters set to boiling by Kim Davis and give everyone a little breathing space, or is this a way for cultural and religious dinosaurs to drag their feet and at least slow the progress of LGBT rights?

Once upon a time in the United States, there was no legal recognition of a union between two women or two men. LGBT couples who wanted to call themselves married did so without the support of—or, in fact, any kind of acknowledgement by—government. Then in the year 2000, Vermont created an instrument called a civil union that could be entered into by gay couples. Other states followed, putting into place civil union and domestic partnership laws.

To some in the LGBT community, this seemed like a good thing. Maybe it wasn’t “real” marriage, but it was a step in the right direction. And now that the unions were legally recognized, gay people would have an opportunity to demonstrate that they were just as capable as straight couples (and, as it has turned out, possibly even more capable) of maintaining the married state. After all, wasn’t tolerance better than hatred?

To others, this separate-and-unequal treatment felt like a slap in the face, or worse. They weren’t interested in being tolerated. They insisted on full acceptance and labeled as cowardly anyone who said they were pushing for too much too soon. They demanded to be recognized as full citizens with all associated rights and privileges, and—while they were at it—as real human beings alive on the face of the planet.

In 2004, this second group—those not willing to be tolerated—began to see light at the end of the tunnel when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled that denying any citizen full marriage rights was inconsistent with the state Constitution. In the ensuing years, state after state went in one direction or the other, with some following the lead of Massachusetts and some amending state constitutions to ban “gay marriage.” The gap between these two directions was bridged legally by Obergefell v. Hodges. The cultural/religious gap remains and even seems to be widening.

Smack in the middle of this gap is Kim Davis, the Kentucky Rowan County clerk who has been refusing to issue licenses to LGBT couples and/or altering the licenses themselves to omit the name of the county and the name of any clerk. And it seems Governor Bevin, with the executive order, is following her lead.

So is Bevin throwing oil on the waters, as he claims? Is he allowing LGBT couples in Kentucky a separate-but-unequal counterpart to a marriage license that will protect them from the fury of Kim Davis and her ilk, or is he denying them, yet again, full citizens’ rights?

What are the ramifications of a marriage license that lacks the names of those in authority to issue it? Will it be valid in other states? Would it withstand a legal challenge? Does it leave a crack through which someone—or some government—could refuse the rights due to a legally married couple because the document lacks authority?

And here’s an interesting question: Whom is Bevin trying to placate with this executive order? With this executive order in place, who is it who’s being tolerated? Is it LGBT couples who are being singled out yet again for separate treatment, or is it the Kim Davises of the world—those who insist on living in a separate reality from what’s just outside their doors?

I say let’s reject tolerance. All citizens deserve full acceptance and full rights, and all who would deny those rights should be openly declared to be the bigots that they are. For they meet the very definition of bigotry: the reserving of a right or privilege for one group of people to the exclusion of another for no reason other than the opinion of the first group. Bigotry it is, and Governor Bevins is not just encouraging it. He’s codifying it.