Defying the Courts

So, I don't know if you noticed, but recently the Supreme Court ruled that America has to stop treating same-sex couples like second-class citizens. When it comes to marriage, anyway. So naturally, a lot of Bible-thumpers have their Fruit of the Looms in an uproar over this development. And some of them are county clerks and judges who will now have to issue marriage licenses or perform weddings for couples even if they're both guys (Agh! The horror!) But not to worry, they've found a solution. They've come up with a very clever plan to say "nuh-unh" and "you can't make me" and "you're not the boss of me, Supreme Court."

Clerk won't issue same-sex marriage license

GRANBURY — The Hood County Clerk says she will not issue same-sex marriage licenses.
"Morally, this is wrong," Katie Lang said Monday from her office in Granbury.  "The truth is, it is in the Bible that marriage is between one man and one woman."

Um, ya know, the ironically-named Katie Lang, you might want to check your Old Testament

Solomon “had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.” I Kings 11:3

Also, you might want to check your America, because our laws don't get based on what the Bible says, or on what Katie Lang thinks it says. 

And seriously, your name is Katie Lang? And you're a homophobe? What, did you change it from Birkenstock B. Toklas?

And it's not just her, of course. 

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is one of a handful of local officials across the country who have refused to comply with the court's order. Davis and others say it violates their religious beliefs. Davis told the Louisville Courier-Journal said that her "deep religious convictions" prevent her from complying with the Supreme Court's decision, and so she has decided to issue no more marriage licenses to any couple -- gay or straight.

And some clerk in Texas has actually published what she seems to think is a legal basis for giving the Supreme Court the finger.

July 4, 2015

Declaration of Obedience to Law and Defense of Natural Marriage

Whereas, the County Clerks of Texas are tasked with upholding the Constitution and Laws of the State of Texas and the written United States Constitution; and Whereas, on June 26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, five justices of the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion with no basis in the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, American law, or Western history, purporting to overturn Natural Marriage and inventing a false "right" to same-sex "marriage;" and

Of course she issued this bullshit on July 4. Of course she did. Because this is an act of courage tantamount to the Founding Fathers disavowing any allegiance to the British monarchy who were sure to respond with military action. What a brave, brave woman. She could actually lose the job she's refusing to do and be forced to raise a million dollars of Go Fund Me.

But, sure. The Supremes decision had no basis in the Constitution. Obviously a low-level state functionary with no legal background knows that better than a group of experienced jurists. And yes, obviously, by allowing same-sex couples to have the same marriage rights as heteros, the Supreme Court has "overturned" "Natural" marriage. That's why no heteros can get married anymore.

Whereas, two justices essential to the majority, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, failed to recuse themselves from Obergefell after publicly showing personal bias, in violation of federal law mandating that "Any justice...shall disqualify h[er]self....[where her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned."   (28 U.S.C.A. § 455);

And no one could possibly question the impartiality of Scalia or Thomas or Alito. Why, they're the very picture of objectivity!

Whereas, in contrast, the Declaration of Independence explicitly recognizes that the Creator has endowed mankind with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, under the Rule of Law, consistent with the created order; and

Okay, how many times do we have to cover this? The Declaration of Independence is NOT a legal document. It was a piece of p.r. designed to convince the other monarchies of Europe not to intervene on the behalf of Britain. And I'm pretty sure that the pursuit of happiness should include being able to marry the person of your choosing. I know it was for me.

Anyway, it goes on and on like this.

But here's the thing I don't get.

Your religious beliefs make it impossible for you to, in good conscience, issue marriage licenses to gay couples? Fine. That's your right, more power to you. Then you resign in protest. You don't say "I'm only going to do the parts of my job that I feel good about."

It's great that you want to take a stand for what you believe, but why would you think that there would not be consequences?
 I was raised fundamentalist Christian. We were always told that there were going to be things out in "the world" that were going to be problematic for us, and we might have to have the courage of our convictions to stand up and say "no, I can not do this great wickedness and sin against God." But we were told that this kind of stance would have consequences. We might lose our jobs, we might lose friends, etc. Why would you think you could stand up for what you think is right and not face any repercussions?
Jesus told his disciples (somewhere in Acts, I think) that they needed to be prepared to suffer for his sake, that they would  risk persecution on his behalf. And he meant actual persecution. By the Romans. Like imprisonment, floggings, even death. Not having protesters with rainbow flags trying to make you feel bad.

But, as always, conservatives want to have it both ways.
They want to stand up for discrimination and be spared any consequences.
So enjoy the unemployment line, homophobic assholes!





a