Kim Davis, the Kentucky court clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples avowing that such an act in defiance of God’s holy writ, would “violate her conscience,” and would be a “Heaven or Hell decision” for her, in addition, has:

 “…a complicated relationship with the institution of marriage in her personal life, divorcing three times, most recently in 2008.”

I’ve seen this phrase repeated in other media.  I’m not exactly certain how one establishes, much less nurtures, a “relationship” with the “institution” of marriage, given that I’m a tad unclear about how anyone can establish a personal connection (“relationship”) with an inanimate object like an institution.  Can one, for example, establish a personal relationship with the IRS and it’s 98,000 employees, all radical Obama supporting liberals intent on destroying rightwing 501c(4) charitable organizations that they might be?  Sure, after holding for anywhere between 20 and 120 minutes on the institution’s public Help Line, I have been able to establish connections with IRS employees.  But I’m not sure I would call my interactions with them “relationships” – some were very helpful, others not so much.  After all, my interactions were basically short term, involved certain exchanges, and were often less than wholly satisfying.  “Hookups” might be the better term for our “relationships.” 

At it’s best the “complicated relationship with the institution of marriage” phrase is confusing.  At its worst, it is simply an unnecessary  softening of the reality of Ms. Davis’ multiple marital statuses:  She’s been married four times, divorced three.  And there’s nothing really complicated about it.  Sure, the reasons for her four marriages and the dissolution of three (Doesn’t one vow to maintain the sanctity of the marriage contract unto death any more?)  might be complicated but the facts of her four marriage and three divorces at the age of 49 are not. 

It’s unfortunate that while her personal relationship with the institution of marriage (and probably the four men she chose to marry) might be complicated or not, but her continuing refusal to issue marriage licenses is not all that complicated. In fact it’s really quite simple:  She is defying the law.  But, again with the complications: she is an elected official and, therefore, cannot be fired.  But here’s an uncomplicated proposition, why don’t a few of the gay and straight couples (she’s refusing to issue all marriage licenses) just go ahead and sue Rowan Country and the County Clerk’s office for not fulfilling their State Constitution mandated requirements to serve the people of Rowan County?   I rather doubt that a public institution can get away with not providing the services that they are legislated to provide even if the God Fearing head of that office refuses to do so.

There is, of course, a larger issue here that burbles just under the surface of Ms. Davis defiantly taking the law into her own hands.  Cue: Cliven Bundy versus the BLM.  Cue: 47 U. S. Senators Inviting Bibi to speak before Congress.  Cue: Bexar County, Texas, Deputy Sheriffs Greg Vasquez and Robert Sanchez gunning down a man, standing still and facing them with his hands up.    There is an undercurrent of lawlessness afoot around the country the terms of which are basically “Don’t Like A Law? Ignore It!”   I’ve seen the argument in favor of taking the law into one’s own hands go down like this:  “We all break the law every day from tossing a gum wrapper to the sidewalk to driving above the speed limit. ”   But rather than these fairly innocuous examples, one could also cite the massive fraud perpetrated by the 501c(4) charitable organizations (PAC’s) that under the protection of the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United ruling buy politicians, legislation and elections for their own ends.    

These “Issues Organizations” who are supposed to be informing us about the pros and cons related to Global Warming, Immigration, Alternate Energy Sources, Voting Rights, etc. etc. are thinly veiled political vehicles used to promote one candidate over another or one political agenda over a rival one.  And, thanks once again to the wisdom of the Supreme Court, it appears that absent a full color HD Video with Dolby Surround Sound depicting Candidate A receiving a large envelope clearly labeled “Cash For Your Vote In Favor of Defunding the FDA” in no less than 24 point type, as Candidate A subsequently records his vote on the floor of the House or Senate recorded in real time, all this buying of politicians is perfectly legal. 

So while I have no sympathy for Ms. Davis’ religious convictions that to issue a marriage license would cause her irreparable harm (Exploding head maybe?) and violate her core beliefs (Gay men and woman are the spawn of Satan, maybe?) I have to say that given the Wild West Take The Law Into You Own Hands If You’re Pissed Off About Something that seems to prevail across the country, I’m not in the least bit surprised. 


Popular posts from this blog