After spending five nights in jail for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County, Ky., clerk Kim Davis was released on Sept. 8 and quickly swept up by an approving, roaring crowd of religious conservatives hoisting white crosses and signs insulting the Supreme Court for “incarcerating Christians.”
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a presidential candidate, stood by her side on the podium and embraced her as a champion, a “martyr” for the cause of institutionalizing and justifying homophobic bigotry on the grounds of religious belief. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, another GOP presidential candidate among the attendees, emphatically placed his right hand over his heart in a gesture of support, while fellow candidate Rick Santorum absurdly claimed Davis to be somehow worthy of comparison to revered civil rights leader Martin Luther King in a baffling Sept. 11 interview. Amazingly, she was even whisked in to meet Pope Francis in private on Sept. 30.
None of these reactions were remotely appropriate for the situation.
To begin with, Davis crossed an ethical and professional line when she allowed her personal stand on gay marriage to conflict with her government-appointed job.
Imprisonment was the only remaining legal option after she obstinately upheld her stance against issuing marriage licenses to both homosexual and heterosexual couples alike (as her job and the Constitution rightly demanded of her). She refused to recognize the implications of “separation of church and state” in the Constitution as well as the fact that, in secular 21st century America, nobody’s God has a place in state affairs.
Santorum then told the News Network Examiner that the Supreme Court “abuses its power by forcing Christians to accept same-sex marriage” — which is about as valid as the objection of racists to the 14th Amendment in 1868, which “so tragically” compelled them to put aside their passionate travails for a racially segregated America to make way for civil equality. There is no morally-relevant difference between the two.
If, say, a clerk refused marriage licenses to black couples because doing so “conflicted with her conscience,” the outrage would be swift and severe.
But ironically enough, it seems that people are willing to condone homophobia if there exist religious premises behind such deliberate discrimination. These religious excuses have deepened an impenetrable “castle moat” — protecting bigots like Davis and, essentially, licensing them to do as they will.
To what extent are we going to accommodate the problematic agenda of religious conservatives like Davis? Is her bigotry, for which religion is “responsible,” somehow justifiable simply by virtue of her professing her Christian beliefs?
It’s hardly a legitimate excuse. While I’m well aware of (and happily support) the concept of religious freedom, worship cannot arbitrarily supersede Constitutional law or meddle in state proceedings.
Beyond that, no essential characteristic differentiates the case for LGBTQ rights from that of racial equality. Were racism backed by some religious principle, it seems as if Santorum and his allies would attack the state for “urging the pious to accept racial equality” and have a desire to reinstate racial stratification.
Worship simply cannot be used to make an exception out of Davis’ case. There is absolutely no way that, opposing both Constitutional rulings and the moral conscience of the Supreme Court, she can possibly justified in denying gay couples the right to marry.
Truly, it’s people like Kim Davis who hold us back from healing the wounds of those communities that have been so horribly wronged by centuries of inhumanity and intolerance.