03 September 2015

Judge not, lest ye go to jail

Who was more lenient? The plaintiffs suing the Rowan County (KY) Clerk for contempt, who asked that she be fined rather than jailed, or the judge who ruled today that Kim Davis should go to jail? The fine might seem more lenient, but if it plaintiffs meant it to be so burdensome that Davis would feel compelled to resign, the time in jail, with no monetary penalty necessarily attached, and no threat (as far as I know) to her remaining in her elected office, probably looked more attractive to the embattled Clerk, a Christianist homophobe who has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the assumption that "the authority of God" overrides the U.S. Supreme Court. Going to jail is certainly more dramatic, which will help her inevitable "as told to" book. She might even get a movie made with this sort of drama in her story. Thrice-divorced woman gets born again and becomes a brave defender of the divine sanctity of marriage in the face of secular humanist pervert persecution -- I think there's an audience for that sort of thing. Meanwhile, state law says she can only be removed from office through impeachment and conviction by the state legislature, and I wouldn't hold my breath for that. It's more likely that she'll resign, once out of prison, to take advantage of her new celebrity. Whatever she does, her case ought to be a teaching moment for everybody. What I hope people learn is that Davis is not legally (not to mention morally) equivalent to those private businesspeople who claim a religious exemption from demands for service from potential customers they find objectionable on religious grounds. It is one thing, and odious enough, to refuse service to gays due to superstitious intolerance, but it would be another if that legendary homophobic baker attempted to prevent the gay wedding from taking place at all. That's what Davis has been doing. To put it a different way, it's one thing to opt out, as homophobic businesses apparently may do, and another to obstruct citizens in the exercise of their rights, as Davis has done. It's one thing to refuse to obey an order you deem immoral, and another to frag your superior officer; doing the latter crosses the line at a necessary cost. The only ethical thing Davis and other obstructionists can do in the face of the Supreme Court's decision is resign their offices; anything more is less an assertion of their own rights of conscience than a violation of other people's rights. To borrow some old phraseology, your conscience ends where another person's rights begin, or else you're waging revolution against the prevailing legal and social order, and presumably accepting the risks that come with that. Not that there's much risk in this case, with Davis's fame assured and probably immune to shame. We can only hope to make her a byword in civilized circles for reactionary bigotry, the modern equivalent of George Wallace at the schoolhouse door. And when her defenders, including the despicable Mike Huckabee, assert the authority of God, we can answer that when the word of God conflicts with the Constitution of the United States, God's word is not law, but lawlessness.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

As someone else posted on a different site, what if the situation were that she were a muslim, refusing to grant a license to a would be restaurant owner who wished to open a pork bbq joint, claiming the same religious exemption, since Islam renounces the eating of pork? Would the right-wing bigots still insist she had a right to be faithful to her religion? I think we all know the answer to that.

Samuel Wilson said...

I made a similar point in my previous post on this subject. Davis's stance is exactly equivalent to someone putting shari'a above American law, and not to recognize it as such only shows Christian bias.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is the same, but my point is, on top of that, she refuses to obey that very "sha'ria" law she is claiming to uphold. It seems to me that she could be tried for civil rights violations regarding the first amendment and the fourteenth amendment. The prosecution can throw in the Treaty of Tripoli, from 1797 as a further basis, where in article 11, it is stated in no uncertain terms that the United States government is not based on christianity. It was ratified unanimously by the Senate and signed into federal law by the President.

Then she'd be looking at a federal prison and years to think about her "religion" and the price she is expected to pay in return for her free trip to the heavenly hosts.

hobbyfan said...

There must be something in the waters in the Bible Belt states, because while Christians unilaterally will take offense with homosexuality, the reactions are strongest in the South and Midwest.

I believe I read somewhere where singer Lance Bass (ex-N'Sync) was reportedly both gay and a Christian. Hmmmmm.

Samuel Wilson said...

Hobby, I guess that people of Southern heritage feel more entitled to act on their prejudices than the rest of us, being accustomed over time to stomping on minorities as they please.

Anon, the feds will never prosecute Davis for civil-rights violations because that would only magnify the extent to which she's already seen as some sort of martyr and the Democrats in charge would fear a backlash. As things stand now I wouldn't be surprised if the judge in Kentucky who jailed her has received death threats. We'll see....

Anonymous said...

Hopefully they put her in general population.