I know I'm not necessarily expected to comment or have an opinion on this, but...

[netmouse]

I'm really tired of seeing over the top, demeaning posts about Kim Davis.

I mean, I have nothing but disdain for the politicians who are using her to rally their troops (especially the ones who keep forgetting to get permissions from musicians before using their work as fight/victory songs). They are manipulative, spiritually ugly people fomenting hate and divisiveness.

But fundamentally, Kim Davis was doing something called passive resistance. And if you want to politely refuse to do something that's morally objectionable to you and go to jail for it, I think that's an ok way to protest something. Much better than yelling at people, or shooting them.

A lot of people are talking about how she swore to uphold the constitution when she was elected, and follow the laws. And from the perspective of those of us who ALWAYS believed that the constitution's guarantee of equal rights should be interpreted as extending to all people in the country, for all aspects of the law including marriage, it looks like she then refused to do that - refused to do her job.

But it doesn't take much stretching to understand that from her perspective, interpretation of the law and the constitution *changed* while she was in office, and was not the same as what she swore to abide by and protect.

I see people dissecting her life, suggesting that because she has been married and divorced multiple times it is hypocritical of her to treat marriage as something special. But I've been divorced and remarried, and I don't think that has damaged either my ability or my right to define my own opinion of marriage as an institution.

People have criticized her religious views because she only became devoted to them recently, but I think, if someone has had such a shitty life, and they find a doctrine that seems to improve things significantly, it only makes sense that they would try to adhere to that doctrine firmly. A relatively new faith probably even more than any other, if it seems to have saved them from a worse situation. Sometimes people struggle to find a path, and something that can guide you helps.

I hold the people who teach and spread that doctrine responsible for including the message that behavior I see as loving and fine is somehow morally deviant and inappropriate. I resent that they teach that, and I disagree with their ethics. I know plenty of people who believe themselves to be devout Christians who don't interpret the texts of their faith that way, and I have studied the text and discussions of it and found the arguments against homosexuality based on it weak or nonexistent, myself (especially once you look at the original text, before it was translated).

But I don't think that's a valid reason to hate on someone's hair style or personal lack of beauty. If camera crews descended on you some random day at work, look beautiful you might not, either.

And "furthermore, she ugly!" does not really forward the cause of civil rights.

Please, give it a break.

Comments

[marsgov.livejournal.com]

I initially condemned her actions; after all, she is an elected official.

But it turns out that news reports failed (surprise, surprise) to include the entire story. Davis seeks an accommodation to remove her name from the certificates, so that her personal name does not appear on the document.

Religious accommodations are part and parcel of the current state of the law. E.g., a Moslem truck driver now seeks to avoid transporting alcohol, and he has support from the government.

This puts a different spin on the story.

[dawnwolf.livejournal.com]

Ah! Thank you! I didn't know that, and it's an important piece of information.

[the-leewit.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

nod. I haven't been writing as much as I want to be. Thanks for the encouragement/positive reinforcement.

[the-leewit.livejournal.com]

Well, I was thanking you for the message. It just creeped me out how this woman was picked on.

Now, as for writing more often... yeah! Get on it, woman! =)

[arkuat]

Yes, thank you. This was a refreshing read.

[dawnwolf.livejournal.com]

Brilliantly put. Only one caveat, and that is that she wasn't simply passively resisting. It would be one thing if she refused to issue licences herself, but she was also forbidding her employees from doing so and in effect forcing them to choose between the law and their income. IMHO, that's a pretty heinous position to put someone in.

The rest of what you've said, though? Absolutely, completely spot on.

[parsleigh.livejournal.com]

Well said, Anne.

[drplokta]

Passive resistance and civil disobedience are tactics. They're morally neutral; they are admirable if deployed in a good cause, and despicable if deployed in a bad cause. The means do not justify the ends.

[coraline73.livejournal.com]

except that the person or people using them is likely to be doing so in the genuine belief that they are using them in a good cause.

I think Davis is wrong and bigoted, but she presumably does not see herself in that way.

I personally think that morally, she ought to have resigned and if necessary, made clear that she did so on a point of principle.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I'm going to agree with you on the "She's ugly!" posts. Those are just silly. I admit to chuckling over the one where they compared her to Kathy Bates' character in "Misery" but some other stuff has been more mean-spirited. I liken it to comedians and memes making fun of fat politicians. Like Chris Christie gets picked on a lot for being fat, and I think that's just lazy, because there are so many things on his platform to criticize, rather than his weight. Or Seth Meyers making fun of Newt Gingrich for being fat. Really, this is one of the most morally reprehensible human beings in the country and your first thought is to go for the fat joke?

On the other hand, I pretty much completely disagree with you about not pointing out Davis's hypocrisy around defining marriage.

*I see people dissecting her life, suggesting that because she has been married and divorced multiple times it is hypocritical of her to treat marriage as something special. But I've been divorced and remarried, and I don't think that has damaged either my ability or my right to define my own opinion of marriage as an institution.*

That's not why I criticized her (publicly on my FB page) for being married multiple times. I think that pointing out that she's not following Biblical injunctions about marriage (i.e. if you've been divorced, you're committing adultery if you re-marry) is totally legitimate. It shows that she's not protesting same-sex marriage licenses out of some consistent, principled religious conviction but more that she's having an atavistic "Homosexuality is ICKY!" kind of reaction. Sure, we're all hypocrites at time, but she's choosing to be a gigantic hypocrite in the public eye.

[apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com]

She put her hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Later, she refused to perform her Constitutional duties because she is "Christian".
There is no version of "Christian" I respect who would do that.