Just yesterday, I read the following article, which provides great detail of anti-LGBT Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis' love life via a flowchart:
http://www.queerty.com/kim-davis-marriage-history-explained-in-one-handy-flowchart-20150904.
This flowchart shows that Ms. Davis has been married four times to three different men and divorced three times. After posting this flowchart on my Twitter page (https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki) and receiving a record (for me) 170 favorites and 206 retweets (thus far), I received multiple comments from the pro-Kim Davis camp. Allow me to share those tweets and why their comments are either wrong or irrelevant (or both).
- "You libs can't just be happy with love wins, you have to go against Kim Davis rights!"
- "All this stuff happened before she converted to Christianity in 2011. What happened before doesn't matter."
- "She wasn't a Christian until 2011! You libs seem to forget that!"
- "What moronic logic! That's like saying someone can't be a drunk and go to AA to clean himself up!"
- "This is the scary and dangerous world God told us about!"
- "This is why we so need our lord and savior right now!"
- "Where's a similar flowchart for Bill Clinton?"
- "This is the first step to Sharia Law!"
- "Guys in California have done similar things against the law! Why aren't they in jail?"
- "Where's that study that shows gays average 800 sexual partners?"
- "Remember this? [a picture of the White House with rainbow-colored lights] Hypocrites!"
There were others which I can't recall at the moment, but I'm sure you get the idea. I won't even comment on the absurdity of a few of these, but will respond to a few of them.
Yes, "love won" at the Supreme Court, but what kind of victory would that be if clerks all across the country, like Kim Davis, refused to provide same-sex couples with marriage licenses? Honestly, this is what that person sounds like: "What are you crying about?!? You have your freedom now! ...just not if we don't want you to!" Yeah, that's quite the bit of freedom right there, isn't it? Also, Kim Davis still has the right to believe as she so chooses, but in case you forgot, there's a separation of church and state in this country, and the law of the land trumps the interpreted law of the Bible. Kim Davis can believe in God all she wants and be as adamant of an opponent on gay marriage as she so wishes, but since same-sex marriage is now legal nationwide in this country and it's her job to provide marriage licenses to couples regardless of their orientation, if she refuses to do this due to her religious beliefs, she'll have to face the just punishment for not doing the job she was hired to do.
I don't care if Kim Davis was a Christian since she was 2-days-old or 42-years-old, that still doesn't excuse her from doing the job she was hired to do. Also, yes, all of her divorces occurred prior to her "conversion," but as the saying goes, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Kim Davis can talk about how she obeyed God's commands and believes in the sanctity of marriage all she'd like, her life shows she doesn't have much room to talk when it comes to such things. Can people change? Yes. But should a woman who's been divorced three times and married four times be lecturing same-sex couples about the sanctity of marriage? No.
Segueing from that, I love the AA comparison. Yes, alcoholics can overcome their addiction and be sober for the rest of their days, but does that mean they should go on lecturing people about how they shouldn't drink, making it appear as if they've lived perfect lives and come across as condescending in the process? No. Similarly, Kim Davis could potentially be completely faithful and happily married to her fourth husband (for the second time), but again, does that give her any excuse to be condescending to same-sex couples for allegedly not believing in the "sanctity" of marriage? Once again, no.
The Bill Clinton comment is just a red-herring fallacy. Yes, Bill Clinton was unfaithful to his wife, Hillary, but has he been going around preaching to same-sex couples about how they too should believe in the sanctity of marriage? No, so this point is moot. Nice try at misdirection, though...
Lastly, yes, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom may have made some moves contrary to the law at the time in ordering a clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but after the California Supreme Court ordered them to stop issuing such licenses, they did so. That's in stark contrast to Kim Davis, who, after being told by the U.S. Supreme Court that same-sex marriage was to be legal nationwide, refused to comply with the law and faced contempt of court and some jail-time as a result. Also, while some conservatives have compared Kim Davis to Martin Luther King, Jr., nothing could be further from the truth. In this case, Gavin Newsom would be like MLK, fighting for the equal rights for a minority. Kim Davis would be like George Wallace, fighting to prevent a minority from obtaining equal rights. Like I said, the Kim Davis-MLK comparison couldn't be further from the truth.
So, keep on trying, pro-Kim Davis trolls, but you're going to have to do a lot better than that. Yes, we all have the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but while we have the freedom to say and believe as we so choose, those choices can come with repercussions, especially at the workplace. Due to the separation of church and state in this country, the law of the land trumps the (supposed) law of religion, and if one's religious beliefs prevents them from doing their job, they should seek work some place else.
As actor George Takei nicely summarized the matter:
"The First Amendment has two clauses that are relevant here. One is the Establishment Clause, and the other is the Prohibition Clause. Congress may not prohibit free worship, and that is what so many claim, wrongly, is being violated. But it is also not empowered to establish any religion, nor to enact any laws favoring one religion over the other. Permitting a state employee to foist her religion upon others, denying them a fundamental right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell, would be to give government, through this agent, the power to impose religious doctrine and viewpoint. That it cannot do. Ms. Davis is in effect establishing religion by using her governmental powers to impose her religious views. I know the First Amendment, Shawn (a Kim Davis supporter). Do you?"
Amen.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/george-takei-gives-amazing-civics-lesson-to-pro-davis-trolls-i-know-the-first-amendment-do-you/
http://www.queerty.com/kim-davis-marriage-history-explained-in-one-handy-flowchart-20150904.
This flowchart shows that Ms. Davis has been married four times to three different men and divorced three times. After posting this flowchart on my Twitter page (https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki) and receiving a record (for me) 170 favorites and 206 retweets (thus far), I received multiple comments from the pro-Kim Davis camp. Allow me to share those tweets and why their comments are either wrong or irrelevant (or both).
- "You libs can't just be happy with love wins, you have to go against Kim Davis rights!"
- "All this stuff happened before she converted to Christianity in 2011. What happened before doesn't matter."
- "She wasn't a Christian until 2011! You libs seem to forget that!"
- "What moronic logic! That's like saying someone can't be a drunk and go to AA to clean himself up!"
- "This is the scary and dangerous world God told us about!"
- "This is why we so need our lord and savior right now!"
- "Where's a similar flowchart for Bill Clinton?"
- "This is the first step to Sharia Law!"
- "Guys in California have done similar things against the law! Why aren't they in jail?"
- "Where's that study that shows gays average 800 sexual partners?"
- "Remember this? [a picture of the White House with rainbow-colored lights] Hypocrites!"
There were others which I can't recall at the moment, but I'm sure you get the idea. I won't even comment on the absurdity of a few of these, but will respond to a few of them.
Yes, "love won" at the Supreme Court, but what kind of victory would that be if clerks all across the country, like Kim Davis, refused to provide same-sex couples with marriage licenses? Honestly, this is what that person sounds like: "What are you crying about?!? You have your freedom now! ...just not if we don't want you to!" Yeah, that's quite the bit of freedom right there, isn't it? Also, Kim Davis still has the right to believe as she so chooses, but in case you forgot, there's a separation of church and state in this country, and the law of the land trumps the interpreted law of the Bible. Kim Davis can believe in God all she wants and be as adamant of an opponent on gay marriage as she so wishes, but since same-sex marriage is now legal nationwide in this country and it's her job to provide marriage licenses to couples regardless of their orientation, if she refuses to do this due to her religious beliefs, she'll have to face the just punishment for not doing the job she was hired to do.
I don't care if Kim Davis was a Christian since she was 2-days-old or 42-years-old, that still doesn't excuse her from doing the job she was hired to do. Also, yes, all of her divorces occurred prior to her "conversion," but as the saying goes, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Kim Davis can talk about how she obeyed God's commands and believes in the sanctity of marriage all she'd like, her life shows she doesn't have much room to talk when it comes to such things. Can people change? Yes. But should a woman who's been divorced three times and married four times be lecturing same-sex couples about the sanctity of marriage? No.
Segueing from that, I love the AA comparison. Yes, alcoholics can overcome their addiction and be sober for the rest of their days, but does that mean they should go on lecturing people about how they shouldn't drink, making it appear as if they've lived perfect lives and come across as condescending in the process? No. Similarly, Kim Davis could potentially be completely faithful and happily married to her fourth husband (for the second time), but again, does that give her any excuse to be condescending to same-sex couples for allegedly not believing in the "sanctity" of marriage? Once again, no.
The Bill Clinton comment is just a red-herring fallacy. Yes, Bill Clinton was unfaithful to his wife, Hillary, but has he been going around preaching to same-sex couples about how they too should believe in the sanctity of marriage? No, so this point is moot. Nice try at misdirection, though...
Lastly, yes, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom may have made some moves contrary to the law at the time in ordering a clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but after the California Supreme Court ordered them to stop issuing such licenses, they did so. That's in stark contrast to Kim Davis, who, after being told by the U.S. Supreme Court that same-sex marriage was to be legal nationwide, refused to comply with the law and faced contempt of court and some jail-time as a result. Also, while some conservatives have compared Kim Davis to Martin Luther King, Jr., nothing could be further from the truth. In this case, Gavin Newsom would be like MLK, fighting for the equal rights for a minority. Kim Davis would be like George Wallace, fighting to prevent a minority from obtaining equal rights. Like I said, the Kim Davis-MLK comparison couldn't be further from the truth.
So, keep on trying, pro-Kim Davis trolls, but you're going to have to do a lot better than that. Yes, we all have the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but while we have the freedom to say and believe as we so choose, those choices can come with repercussions, especially at the workplace. Due to the separation of church and state in this country, the law of the land trumps the (supposed) law of religion, and if one's religious beliefs prevents them from doing their job, they should seek work some place else.
As actor George Takei nicely summarized the matter:
"The First Amendment has two clauses that are relevant here. One is the Establishment Clause, and the other is the Prohibition Clause. Congress may not prohibit free worship, and that is what so many claim, wrongly, is being violated. But it is also not empowered to establish any religion, nor to enact any laws favoring one religion over the other. Permitting a state employee to foist her religion upon others, denying them a fundamental right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell, would be to give government, through this agent, the power to impose religious doctrine and viewpoint. That it cannot do. Ms. Davis is in effect establishing religion by using her governmental powers to impose her religious views. I know the First Amendment, Shawn (a Kim Davis supporter). Do you?"
Amen.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/george-takei-gives-amazing-civics-lesson-to-pro-davis-trolls-i-know-the-first-amendment-do-you/
Comments
Post a Comment