Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Three things that Rachel Lu doesn't get about the Kim Davis saga

Rachel Lu
Rachel Lu, like Brian Brown demonstrates the zealousness of a Catholic convert. For Lu the teachings of the Catholic Church define truth. Wednesday Ms. Lu provides an article in the Federalist titled “A Liberal Pundit’s Guide To Kim Davis.” She goes on to write:
For the sake of the liberal morality narrative, Kim Davis has to go down. To sell that to the public, she must be dismissed as a right-wing crank.
Thereafter, Lu devotes most of her attention to the notion that liberals are elites lacking in morality and even common sense.It's all we vs. them stuff that is entirely lacking in intellectual honesty.
Most of our elites are insulated in ultra-liberal pockets of the country where they don’t actually need to interact with the flyover-country rubes. So their explanations of how we think can be a great source of fish-out-of-water humor.
Lu, by the way, lives in Minneapolis–St. Paul. She indulges in the usual Catholic opera when it comes to marriage equality including a reference to the opinion of the Court in Obergefell v. Hodges as a “decree of His Majesty Anthony Kennedy.” She is so busy explaining the difference between liberals and conservatives that she lacks an understanding of the fact that she is really referring to contrasts with religious conservatives. For her that means conservative Christians. You can read the piece from the link above. Three things are glaringly missing from Lu's polemic:
  1. An appreciation for the fact that Kim Davis is a public servant. She acted with the full weight and authority of her public office in contrast to acting as a private citizen and;
  2. The fact that Davis was not content to refuse to participate in gay marriages. She coerced civil servants who report to her not to participate and therefore violate a court order and;
  3. The ruling in Obergefell establishes that gays have a constitutional right to marriage equality. Davis – as the occupant of the office of the country clerk – was obstructing that right.
These are serious omissions. The importance of Davis' name on some of the paperwork associated with a marriage license fades in and out of Mat Staver's rhetoric. Nevertheless, Davis should have been content to simply not participate. That is conscientious objecting. Denying other citizens certain civil rights as a government authority isn't objecting — it is bullying.

Ms. Lu doesn't get there because she does not want to deal with the difference between a private citizen and a government agent. Explaining the use of the authority of Kim Davis' office in defiance of a law that she does not like is nearly impossible without conceding that Davis interfered with the rights of the civil servants that she supervises in addition to the gay couples that were subjected to her capriciousness. Finally, Lu certainly does not want to have to negotiate the civil rights of gay citizens to marry. Lu would prefer that same-sex marriage be thought of as an abstraction as in “we all know it's not really 'marriage.'”

Gays neither seek nor require Ms. Lu's approval to marry. Apparently gays did require Kim Davis' approval, an acquiescence that she has withheld. If she continues to do so then she will end up back in jail. As a government authority her actions are indefensible.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.