Kim Davis and same-sex marriage revisited

This post is a follow-up to commentary I made Sept. 4, 2015, on county clerk Kim Davis’ refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County, Ky. Here is the original post: Judge: On same-sex marriage, ‘personal opinions … not relevant.’

For those who haven’t followed Davis in the last year, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican, signed a bill into law back in April no longer requiring county clerks in the state to put their name on marriage licenses, thus giving Davis and other public officials who object to same-sex unions a way out, as it were, from being associated with the sinful act of joining two people who, you know, actually love each other. The bill also stipulated that the state will use one marriage form, whereby couples can simply mark whether they considered themselves the bride, groom or spouse. Most recently, Davis has asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court to dismiss her appeal because the new law makes her complaint null and void. Happily, the ACLU, which was representing four couples in a lawsuit against Davis, agreed with the motion to dismiss.

Credit: Chris Tilley/Reuters

Credit: Chris Tilley/Reuters

Amid a heavily divisive atmosphere in Washington and in politics in general, here is an example of a Republican-dominated state led by a conservative governor coming up with a common sense solution to a contentious problem. As I said in the previous post, echoing the sentiments of a judge who ruled on the original case, the conscientious objector provision does not apply in this case, and Davis’ opinion or convictions about same-sex marriage does not, and should not have, relieved her of her responsibilities as a public servant whose salary comes from the pockets of straight and gay people alike.

If she felt that strongly about it, she should have resigned and sought work in the private sector, where she is free to exercise all of her rights and freedoms as an American citizen. But all things considered, we have to conclude that this was a positive outcome for all parties, and Kentucky lawmakers should be commended in this case for making a smart decision. Of course, I can’t say the same thing about the state’s move to give $18 million in tax breaks to Ken Ham’s abortive $92 million Ark Encounter monstrosity under the leadership of, you guessed it, Matt Bevin.

But back to same-sex marriage. Essentially what I have argued previously was that religion has already and will continue giving up ground to modernity, and increased equal rights and protections under the law for members of the LBGT community are certainly no exception. Indeed, the church’s insistence on holding back progress in this way was, as I have said, “anathema to any kind of successful PR campaign church’s might hope to launch.”

Here is what I said about Davis’ biblical misgivings about issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples:

Refusing to issue the licenses, and thus breaking the law, should have been outside her set of possible actions in any case because breaking the law itself seems to antithetical to biblical law. Doesn’t the Bible say to render unto Caesar that which is the state’s and to obey civil authorities? I am aware that the Bible also suggests that believers should obey civil authorities unless the law contradicts God’s law, but this presents another problem for modern Christians because in a great many cases, Christians happily ignore Old Testament law. They do this whenever they hungrily gulp down shellfish, fail to stone gay people, demure from killing witches and fortunetellers or fail to carry out any of the scores of capital crime punishments listed in the Old Testament. And since homosexuality is barely mentioned in the New Testament, and not mentioned at all by Jesus himself, this amounts to one of the many instances in which Christians cherry pick parts of the Bible to read carefully and other parts that they readily scrap precisely because their conscience was forged by modern sensibilities.

To which, I got the following fallacy-ridden reply from a reader named Larry:

You … clearly don’t understand God or the Bible. Your education has failed you. Just by your statements in the old Testament and shellfish as well as stoning gays. You no nothing about the things of the Bible and now I understand clearly your beef with Christians. It isn’t because of things we believe it more about things you are totally uneducated on. So much for so called education.

I can’t find any semblance of an argument anywhere in there, but essentially, he says I don’t really understand the Bible and that I have a “beef” with Christians — I don’t on any personal level — and that my lack of understanding is at the center of this alleged “beef.” Since he didn’t bother to explain exactly how I was mistaken, I’ll do the work for him.

He might have argued, for instance, that laws in the Old Testament, like banning shellfish and admonishing believers to stone gay people, no longer have to be followed because of the new covenant of Jesus. But since many Christians obviously still read and draw a certain amount of inspiration from parts of the Old Testament, I think it’s still an open question: Should Christians adhere to Old Testament law or not? If so, which ones? Just those that do not condone violence or abuse? Let’s assume that the new covenant superseded or did away with adherence to the old laws. What do we do with the Ten Commandments? If Old Testament law is more or less irrelevant to modern Christians, why do believers spend so much time and energy protecting the inclusion of the Commandments on public property? The Bible’s position on these considerations is so far from cohesive as to make it all but unintelligible.

Whether the Old Testament should be followed to the letter of the law depends, of course, on which passage one chooses to read.

Take Deuteronomy 7:9:

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.

What about Psalm 119:160?

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

These passages, and many like them, suggest that God’s law is immutable and timeless.

Even Jesus seemed convinced about the unchangeable nature of Old Testament law even though he is supposed the architect of the new covenant itself!

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew 5:18-19

But many others, Romans 6:14, Galatians 3:13, Galatians 5:18, Ephesians 2:15, Romans 6:14, suggest the law was temporary and no longer valid.

The point is that Larry, Kim Davis and millions of believers like them don’t have a firm biblical basis for their strong convictions on same-sex marriage or homosexuality and since they probably have interacted or had a conversation with few, if any, actual gay and lesbian people, they can’t draw from personal experience either.

We are told that the practice of homosexuality is a sin based on the Bible. OK, but the only passages that talk about it openly are in the Old Testament.

When people like myself make the rather obvious case that passages about stoning innocent people or burning witches are among some of the most reprehensible passages in all of literature — thus casting an unmistakable cloud over the supposed omnibenevolence and just nature of the god, Yahweh — we are referred to the more peace-loving and palatable New Testament with its tales of human blood sacrifice, vicarious redemption, scapegoating and eternal torment. So far as we know, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality and the only passages that could refer to it, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and Jude 1:7, issued from the mind of man. I happen to think all of it came from the mind of man, but the strongest case Christians can hope to make against homosexuality and same-sex marriage would at least need to come from a source that is attributed to God or someone claiming to be God, even if the texts were fabricated or embellished.

The vote is out on whether the Bible, from the Christian perspective, even takes a firm stance on homosexuality, and when it does take a stance, it comes off as brazenly barbaric and immoral. [note]Dismissing the primitive barbarity of the Old Testament on grounds that it can’t be judged based on today’s standards of morality gets believers nowhere either because they use their own modern standards to make judgement calls on everything else in life, and even about the wanton morality of opposing religions, so why should the Bible, which is presented to us a cohesive book from start to finish, be any different?[/note] We may go so far as to say that since the character of God in the Old Testament is supposedly the same today as he was yesterday (Malachi 3:6), maybe he actually does want us to go around killing gay people in the streets and torching witches in spite of the new covenant.

Comically, we might even imagine Yahweh and Jesus — if we can imagine them at all — bickering over these points. The best we can say, then, is that the Bible is incoherent on the topic of homosexuality. So, where do Christians and conservatives get the idea that they should oppose equal rights for members of the gay and lesbian community, most of whom they know nothing about, at every turn? Maybe that’s a question Christians should ask themselves.

The truth is that sooner or later, the church and conservatives as a whole, are going to have to exercise a small amount of reason and reform their thinking and behavior on same-sex marriage, just as they will, or already have, on other topics — the persistent and morally bankrupt resistance to potentially life-saving stem cell research comes to mind — or face continued irrelevance because they will ultimately lose the argument, as the wave of progress moves forward with or without them tumbling wayward in its wake.

[Credit: Cover artwork, “Falling in the Ocean,” by DeviantArt user kil1k.]

Judge: On same-sex marriage, ‘personal opinions … not relevant’

While I have been engaged in a debate on social media about the Rowan County, Ky., clerk who has refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses after the Supreme Ruling legalized such unions across the nation, I thought I would offer some thoughts on the issue here so that they are all in one place.

Credit: https://twitter.com/chipcoffey

Credit: https://twitter.com/chipcoffey

As most of us who keep up with the news know by now, a judge has held Kim Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to be jailed until she is willing to become compliant with the law. This week, U.S. District Court Judge David L. Bunning has received commitments from five of the office’s six deputies — the sole holdout being Davis’ son, Nathan Davis — and the office planned to issue licenses to same-sex couples today.

Bunning, who the Washington Post described as a “devout Catholic,” had this to say in issuing his ruling:

Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense. … I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs. … (But) I took an oath. … Mrs. Davis took an oath. Oaths mean things.

And this:

Personal opinions, including my own, are not relevant to today. The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.

To the surprise of no one, the old divisions lines were drawn up after the ruling, with same-sex advocates lauding the decision, while some evangelical Christians played the victim card and others claimed believers should not be forced to go against their conscience, even in fulfilling the duties of public office.

Republican presidential candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee came down in the latter camp, tweeting:

Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country. We must defend #ReligiousLiberty!

As I pointed out in the conversation on Facebook, religion has and will continue giving up ground to modernity for the simple reason that many aspects of evangelical Christianity, most notably in this case, a contempt for LGBT rights and denialism that homosexuality comes hard-wired through genetics, is incompatible in an increasingly secular society.

The idea that people like Huckabee — and I would wager he represents are large block of evangelical conservatives — think that Christianity is somehow being criminalized in America is laughable. Indeed, here in the South, one can find a church on nearly every block and in every city. Even in the more progressive north, while some churchgoers hold more liberal ideologies than their counterparts in the South, one doesn’t have to venture far from home in New England to find a place to attend mass or Sunday school. What is happening, however, is that society as a whole, notwithstanding periodic flareups of racial tensions, has become increasingly more diverse and less tolerant of overt prejudice in all its forms, such that, except in parts of the South and pockets of the Southwest, believers are having to rethink how they approach society. Pew has provided a telling look at how believers’ views on same-sex marriage has changed since 2001. For sure, shilling a literal interpretation of odious Old Testament law is anathema to any kind of successful PR campaign church’s might hope to launch here in the year 2015.

So, what of Kim Davis’ particular case? My friend on Facebook seems to think that she should have been allowed conscientious objector status so that she would not have had to violate her conscience in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. When asked on what authority she refused to issue the licenses, she simply said she was acting — or failing to act — on “God’s authority.” Davis, of course, had options for moving forward that did not include breaking the law and going to jail. She could have ordered one of her deputies to issue marriage licenses. She could have resigned. The conscientious objector statute in U.S. law narrowly applies to those who have a moral hangup about fighting in combat, and the statute does not abdicate someone from their responsibility to serve.

Refusing to issue the licenses, and thus breaking the law, should have been outside her set of possible actions in any case because breaking the law itself seems to antithetical to biblical law. Doesn’t the Bible say to render unto Caesar that which is the state’s and to obey civil authorities? I am aware that the Bible also suggests that believers should obey civil authorities unless the law contradicts God’s law, but this presents another problem for modern Christians because in a great many cases, Christians happily ignore Old Testament law. They do this whenever they hungrily gulp down shellfish, fail to stone gay people, demure from killing witches and fortunetellers or fail to carry out any of the scores of capital crime punishments listed in the Old Testament. And since homosexuality is barely mentioned in the New Testament, and not mentioned at all by Jesus himself, this amounts to one of the many instances in which Christians cherry pick parts of the Bible to read carefully and other parts that they readily scrap precisely because their conscience was forged by modern sensibilities.

In any case, Davis did not get to endow the public office in which she serves with her own personal beliefs on same-sex marriage. Regardless, issuing the licenses would not have amounted to an endorsement of gay marriage on her part. I can imagine an instance in which a county clerk might not necessarily agree with interracial couples, but they would still be duty bound to issue licenses as per their job description.

As Bunning rightly said, personal beliefs do not and should not factor into the decision-making calculus when a public servant has taken an oath to serve the public, and if Davis had been granted some kind of exemption excusing her from her responsibilities as county clerk, this would have set a dangerous precedent and left the door open for other Bible-believing public office holders to claim that issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples likewise violated their conscience, thus sending us careening down a slippery slope whereby any perceived offensive law or regulation can just be dismissed on the whims of public opinion.

This a road on which we cannot travel. For the law to mean anything, the door to duty abdication based merely on personal beliefs has to remain shut.

How does that happen?

A gay hotel owner named Ian Reisner, who runs a facility called OUT NYC, was apparently shocked and befuddled when, upon holding a small dinner with Sen. Ted Cruz at his apartment, he learned that Cruz was actually adamantly against same-sex marriage on religious grounds. As a result of holding the dinner, Reisner and his partner, Mati Weiderpass, were met with a sizable backlash from the gay community.

Reisner had this to say:

I was ignorant, naïve and much too quick in accepting a request to co-host a dinner with Cruz at my home without taking the time to completely understand all of his positions on gay rights.

I’ve spent the past 24 hours reviewing videos of Cruz’s statements on gay marriage and I am shocked and angry. I sincerely apologize for hurting the gay community and so many of our friends, family, allies, customers and employees. I will try my best to make up for my poor judgment. Again, I am deeply sorry.

I’m sure he is “deeply sorry,” but how can a person who is actually part of the gay community be that ill-informed about the social policies of any high-profile politician he invites into his home, much less a self-professed ring leader of the evangelical right?

It almost defies comprehension.

The ‘non-offending’ pedophiles

Andrew Sullivan from over at The Dish received an anonymous email from a self-proclaimed pedophile who said that while he has never acted on his attraction to children and is “committed to never doing so,” his sexual persuasion, like that of his “non-offending” pedophiles, is nonetheless innate.

Sullivan calls the following a “predicament” for these so-called Virtuous Pedophiles, which is a quote from the group’s website:

We do not choose to be attracted to children, and we cannot make that attraction go away. But we can resist the temptation to abuse children sexually, and many of us present no danger to children whatsoever. Yet we are despised for having a sexual attraction that we did not choose, cannot change, and successfully resist. This hatred has its consequences; many of us suffer from depression and sometimes even commit suicide. Paradoxically, the hatred actually increases the risk of child sexual abuse by making us afraid to admit our condition to others, thus discouraging us from seeking treatment. More of us could lead productive, happy, law-abiding lives if we could open up to people who would treat us not as monsters but as human beings with an unfortunate burden to bear.

Of course, we can all be glad that they don’t act on their attractions, but I see a couple things that are problematic.

First, we have fairly strong evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is genetic, and this makes sense since we see same-sex — well, sex — in other parts of the animal kingdom. Pedophilia, however, is classified as a psychosexual disorder that usually grows out of any number of types of abuse or neglect in a person’s past:

The underlying cause of pedophilia is unclear. Although biological abnormalities such as hormone imbalance may contribute to the disorder in some individuals, biological factors have not been proved as causes. In many cases pedophilic behaviour appears to be associated with sexual abuse or neglect experienced during childhood and with stunted emotional or psychological development. Research also has indicated that boys who were sexually abused are more likely to become pedophiles or sex offenders. − Encyclopaedia Britannica

Second, can a person really be described as “virtuous” for merely refusing to succumb to their desire to have sex with children? Modern humans are generally attracted to money, and from our youth we learn that if we have enough of it, we can buy things that can make us happy, even if its a shallow form of happiness. Do we call people who don’t rob banks or commit fraud virtuous? Every day, humans choose not to act on their desire to sleep with their friends’ wives. They have no control over who they are attracted to; yet would we call these people virtuous for not committing adultery when every fiber in their loins tells them otherwise? More than a few Catholic priests are apparently attracted to children. I realize some of them may have acted on it, but surely many closeted priestly pedophiles have successfully eschewed their longing for children. What about people who are into bestiality or forced sexual slavery? Are these folks just virtuous if they don’t act on their morally reprehensible inclinations?

I realize this group of pedophiles describes their plight as an “unfortunate burden to bear,” but people refuse to act on their desires every day for the betterment of society as a whole, and we don’t necessary applaud them for it or bestow them with anymore respect. It’s simply part of being a responsible adult. We all bear burdens.

It’s like the old schtick from Chris Rock about parenthood:

You know the worst thing about niggas? Niggas always want credit for some shit they supposed to do. A nigga will brag about some shit a normal man just does. A nigga will say some shit like, “I take care of my kids.” You’re supposed to, you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant shit is that? “I ain’t never been to jail!” What do you want, a cookie?! You’re not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!

Because Stone Cold said so …

Check out this [[“Stone Cold” Steve Austin]] quote from his most recent podcast providing his thoughts on churches and gay marriage:

Which one of these mother fuckers talked to God, and God said that same sex marriage was a no can do? Can you verify? Can you give me some 411 on that background?

… I’ve got some damn good friends that are gay. I’m absolutely for same sex marriage. I don’t think that there is a god that says you cannot do this, you cannot do that. If two cats can’t get married, but then a guy can go murder 14 people, molest five kids, then go to fucking prison and then accept God. He’s going to let him into heaven. After the fact that he did all that shit?!? See, that’s all horse shit to me. That don’t jive with me.

Can someone give Stone Cold a “hell yeah!”

Listen to his podcast here.

Michael Sam Sr.’s hypocrisy

So days after Missouri Tigers defensive lineman Michael Sam became the first openly gay college football, making the announcement Feb. 9 to ESPN and The New York Times, news has come out that his father, Michael Sam Sr., was apparently distressed when he received a text from his son. His father was at Denny’s celebrating his birthday, but upon receiving the text, he left to go get drinks. As reported by The Times:

Last Tuesday, Michael Sam Sr. was at a Denny’s near his home outside Dallas to celebrate his birthday when his son sent him a text message.

Dad, I’m gay, he wrote.

The party stopped cold. “I couldn’t eat no more, so I went to Applebee’s to have drinks,” Sam Sr. said. “I don’t want my grandkids raised in that kind of environment.

“I’m old school,” he added. “I’m a man-and-a-woman type of guy.” As evidence, he pointed out that he had taken an older son to Mexico to lose his virginity.

On Sunday night, just after Michael Sam announced his intention to make sports history, his father was still struggling with the news.

To apparently prove this, he recounted a story in which he took one of his other sons to Mexico to lose his virginity.

I’m not even sure where to start. Why would a father actually take a proactive measure to ensure that his son has sex for the first time and in Mexico no less? Why would a father even really be that interested in the minute details of his son’s virginity? Was this arrangement set up beforehand or did this noble fatherly act take place in a brothel down in some barrio?

Second, he said he doesn’t want his grandchildren to grow up in that environment, when everything that I’ve seen about Michael Sam Jr. is that he is an upstanding young man with a bright future and a good head on his shoulders. Shouldn’t a father be proud that his son had the courage to make the announcement and that he wants to live an honest and open life? Shouldn’t a father want his son to be happy and not have to sneak around and live in constant fear of embarrassment and rejection? No, instead Michael Sam Sr. seems to prefer the environment of intolerance and bigotry, where a person merely drinks their problems away and can’t be real about who they really are.

Stephen Colbert opined on the issue last night:

 

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Video Archive

 

 

When in Russia …

Although Russia received heavy criticism ahead of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi about the nation’s ban on homosexual propaganda, eight states here in the U.S. have similar bans on the books, as reported last week by The Washington Post.

Utah’s residents are apparently not allowed to advocate for homosexuality, whatever that might mean, and in Texas and Alabama (bastions of progressivism as they are!) sex education teachers must make the point that homosexuality is “not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public.” Even more stunning, according to two professors who analyzed these backward laws existing in our own country:

… the Alabama and Texas statutes mandate that children be taught that “homosexual conduct is a criminal offense” even though criminalizing private, consensual homosexual conduct has been unconstitutional since 2003.

Here is a map showing the states that have these laws on the books:

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network

Thus, isn’t it kind of hypocritical for people in this country to be criticizing Russia for its anti-gay sentiments when most of the South and even other parts of the United States chafe at giving equal rights to gay and lesbian couples, which represents just another pox on a nation that began by boldly declaring “all men are created equal.”

Eight U.S. states have policies similar to Russia’s ban on gay ‘propaganda‘.

Map credit: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network

Cracker Barrel shames itself because that’s what’s best for business

I tweeted about this earlier today, but if you missed it, Cracker Barrel initially said it was going to remove Duck Dynasty merchandise from its stores after Phil Robertson’s noxious comments on gays and black people, but only 48 hours later reneged on the decision claiming that it had learned the error of its ways by displeasing its customers.

Here is the entirety of the statement, which was posted on the Cracker Barrel’s Facebook page. It has more than 21,000 comments, most of which are drivel:

Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.

And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.

The part about offending its customers by pulling the merchandise is particularly shameful. What about the millions of homosexuals Robertson offended when he more or less compared the human love and affection of consenting adults to bestiality? What about the millions of blacks Robertson offended with his idyllic and inaccurate portrait of the segregated South?

In short, Cracker Barrel seems more concerned with kowtowing to its bigoted customer base rather than fighting bigotry itself. Oh that’s right: Without the bigots, Cracker Barrel would be out of business.