The Kounty Klerk redux

Good grief, I’m tired of writing about this broad. But there are big goin's on in Kentucky today, so you’ll get one more. But I’m sick of seeing her mug, so here is a picture of a cat dressed like a penguin.

Kim Davis had her day in court today, facing contempt of court charges. She absolutely refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and if you recall, she ordered her office to not issue licenses to straight couples, too. Because somehow she decided that would mean she wasn’t discriminating against the gay couples. Okaaaay.

When she refused to comply, the judge said something like, “Then jail it is,” and they walked her out of the courtroom and into the custody of federal marshals. Ol’ Kim went to jail! Apparently she’s ordered to stay there until she complies.

(Side note: The four couples who filed the contempt charges, two gay and two straight, specified that they did not want her to go to jail. They just wanted her to comply or face fines. Gosh, that was mighty nice of them, wasn’t it? Some might say it was almost...Christian...of them.)

One of the many things that disgusts me about this is that several of her deputies, who also had to appear in court with her, said that they would issue the marriage licenses, but this nasty woman would not allow that to happen. I guess since she’s the head clerk, she gets to make those rules. So not only is she refusing to do her job, she is not letting her deputies do their jobs. The only deputy who refused to issue licenses was her son. It seems that homosexuality is wrong for ol’ Kim, but nepotism is just dandy!

The other disgusting thing in the wake of the judge’s decision (he was appointed by George W. Bush, by the way, and ol’ Kim is a Democrat, although I don’t claim her) was the overblown rhetoric we got from some of the Republican candidates for president. The Huskster and Cruz (Tonight on ABC! A Quinn Martin production!) were apoplectic, yammering about religious persecution and how this broad was jailed for being a Christian.

::sigh::

No. No, she wasn’t. She is free to practice her religion in any way she pleases. She can go to church seven freakin’ days a week if she chooses. She is free to object to the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage. She can speak publicly about her opposition (Although government employees are generally discouraged from doing so, because they are supposed to serve all constituents, not just the ones they like and don’t find oogy—another Annie Wilkes reference!). What she cannot do is refuse to uphold the law. If she cannot serve in the capacity indicated by her job, she needs to resign or needs to be impeached. She doesn’t get to decide which laws to uphold and which to reject, all the while drawing her government paycheck. She just doesn’t. I really don’t get what is so difficult about that for some people to understand.

Of course, now she is going to be portrayed as some sort of martyr. Yeah, you’re no Joan of Arc, lady. What you are is a narrow-minded bigot who cherry picks the Bible and who thinks that she’s got a direct line to God, who is telling you to ignore the Constitution and ignore our laws. Our country doesn’t work that way. Read a damn book, Kim!

Hey Kim, I sure hope that orange jumpsuit you’re sporting now isn’t blended fabric, and what will you do on shrimp lover’s night at the jail? What WILL you do??

The Kounty Klerk rides again

You all remember Kim the Kounty Klerk from Kentucky, right? I’m sure you’ve seen that she’s in the news again.

To bypass all the filings and stays and legal argy-bargy, the bottom line is that ol’ Kim’s request to the Supreme Court to allow her to continue with not issuing licenses to anyone was rejected. They didn’t even ask any of the defendants to come before the Court and give their side of the story. Just a one-sentence ruling saying that her request for a stay was denied. This means that the federal judge’s order of a stay, which was scheduled to expire this past Monday, would expire as specified, which in turn means that ol’ Kim would have to comply with said judge’s order and start issuing marriage licenses to anyone who applies starting Tuesday morning.

So what did ol’ Kim do? That wacky gal doubled down and once again refused to issue any licenses! To anyone! When asked on whose authority she was acting, she replied, “God’s authority.” The numerous arguments concerning the separation of church and state aside, I immediately thought of this quote:

There is a justice higher than that of man. I will be judged by Him.

You know who said that, right? Yep, that lady in the picture. Annie Wilkes, one of the creepiest villains to ever grace the pages or the screen. What was the occasion? She quotes the character Misery while she is being tried for numerous murders during her career as a nurse, murders of both the elderly and of infants.

Nice to see that ol’ Kim is taking a page from Annie Wilkes. Come of think of it, she looks awfully Wilkes-esque, doesn’t she? That sort of mousy, tight-ass type who thinks Peter Pan collars and Mary Jane shoes are the height of fashion.

Well, it looks like ol’ Kim is going to get her day in court, just like Annie Wilkes. It’s happening on Thursday, and it looks as though she is going to be charged with contempt of court. Personally, I think it would be delightful to see her spend some time in jail, but she’ll probably just get some hefty fines. I think we can expect a GoFundMe campaign any day now to help finance her hatred and bigotry, don’t you? Undoubtedly.

What absolutely must happen here is that she be impeached. She is not upholding her oath as an elected official to perform the duties of her office. If the numbskull is too rock-stupid stubborn to resign, then the Kentucky legislature must remove her from office. If she weren’t such a hateful thing, I’d almost feel sorry for her for being used to further the agenda of these anti-equality tools. But she IS hateful, so I feel zero sympathy for her.

I’ll end with another movie quote, this one from Dean Wormer.

A big step forward

Whew, I can barely keep up with the news spin cycle lately! As we watched all the fallout, both in my state and nationally, of Senator Lugar’s primary defeat, word came that President Obama was sitting down for an interview with ABC, and several sources said that he would speak out in favor of marriage equality.

And hot diggity dog, he DID! Obviously, that eclipsed all other stories today, whether you agree with him or not.

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I stand with my LGBT friends and family in support of marriage equality, and I share in their happiness that our President took a stand (okay, yes...finally). I’m not going to speculate about whether this is a political liability or asset for this fall’s election (it’s both), because I’ve read plenty of articles about that today, and perhaps many of you have, too. I’m also not going to speculate as to whether this was planned or whether Vice-President Biden, Arne Duncan, and others in his administration forced his hand. It ultimately doesn’t matter. What matters is that the President of the United States has said that he supports marriage equality. To use the Vice-President’s term, this is a big fucking deal. (Well, sometimes I say that, too.)

Of course, this doesn’t change our policy as a nation. This is a big step forward, however, and I’m proud of my President for standing up and saying that he believes this should happen in our country. Some have derided his remarks about “evolving” on the topic, but I understand completely, because I evolved, too. Several years ago, my position was to support civil unions, but not actual marriage between gay couples. It wasn’t until I really started exploring the topic, talking with family and friends, reading more about it, and truly stopped to think about WHY I didn’t support marriage equity that I changed my views. The truth was that I had no legitimate objections to it, none that withstood close examination. To be brutally honest with myself, I have to say that I really hadn’t thought it through. It might have been a sort of wishy-washy compromise in order to not offend the more conservative members of my family, but whatever it was, my opposition was simply not justifiable.

The more I read and thought about it, the stronger my convictions became that this is nothing less than a civil rights issue. Most objections to marriage equality are because of religious convictions; even beyond the fact that we do not base our laws on religious beliefs, this completely ignores the fact that marriage is a civic institution. I’ve written about this rather extensively before, but it bears repeating: I don’t care if you get married in the freakin’ Sistine Chapel by the Pope himself, you aren’t legally married unless you get that marriage license from your state. That’s why our marriage is completely valid, despite the fact that we got married at Tippecanoe Place by the vice-chair of the county Democratic Party. (And for those who claim that marriage is for procreation, we don’t have kids, either. Marriage still valid. Deal.) Marriage equality does not mean that religious institutions will have to marry or recognize same-sex couples, and in fact, the states that have passed marriage equality laws make sure that such language is very clear. But that doesn’t matter, anyway. The STATE is the government entity that recognizes legal marriage. Period.

It is a civil rights issue because a portion of our populace is being denied the rights and freedoms that other citizens are able to enjoy. This is wrong, and I am confident that it will eventually be made right. President Obama going on the record and saying today that he supports the rights of gay couples to marry is a step in the right direction, and I was happy to hear him say it. Let’s keep moving forward!

He’s a little bit snake oil

He's a little bit charlatan. (Sung to the tune of the theme song of his fellow Mormons, Donnie and Marie.)

Okay, here's the deal. Glenn Beck decided to have a rally in Washington, D.C., one that would honor the troops (right, because so many of us despise them), and one that was supposed to somehow restore integrity to America. It was initially planned for sometime in September, but that date on the National Mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial was already taken, so they rescheduled to August 28th. It just so happens that that is the date of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous "I have a dream" speech. Beck claims it was a little ol' coinkydink, it was never intended to take attention away from King's speech, blahbitty blah blay blue. Whatever. If you believe that, you're just silly. He later said that he came to see it as "divine providence," and went on to say some stuff about the civil rights movement, which I'll write a little more about in a moment.

Beck himself spoke, and so did Sarah Palin, as the mother of a soldier. Another "standout" speaker was Chuck Norris. Wow, bringing out the heavy hitters! (Or at least the heavy roundhouse kickers.) Beck stayed true to his claims that this was not going to be a political rally, I'll give him that, and there was little to no mention of our current administration or politics in general. However, there was a whole lot of churchin' going on. Man, from what I've seen and read, this was one big tent revival. Beck has been hitting the "divine plan" stuff hard lately, and seems to have developed the delusion that God is speaking to him and has a plan for him, and from what I can gather, it seems to involve buying up as much gold as possible from the company he's shilling for (which is currently under investigation).

At the rally today, Beck said, "Something that is beyond man is happening. America today begins to turn back to God."

Uhhh...no. 16% of people claim no religious affiliation, and the number is growing, not shrinking. I have no problem with anyone believing what they want to believe, just as long as they keep it out of my government. I don't want my legislators going to an ancient collection of texts for their inspiration and guidance. I want them going to college, law school, maybe medical school, learning about our Constitution and its laws. I don't understand Beck's recent embrace of this highly religious rhetoric, although I'm guessing he's just playing to what his followers seem to want to hear, which is what a snake oil salesman does. I wonder if they understand that he's a Mormon? I'm pretty sure that most evangelicals are not down with Mormonism. They certainly didn't seem to dig Mitt Romney all that much, although there were probably more factors at play there. But I digress.

One thing I noticed is that Beck said this rally was to bring back integrity, truth, and honor to our country. What? You have to have a rally to do that? You mean to tell me that you're so lost that you need someone like Beck to tell you that you need to get back to integrity, truth, and honor? If he was talking to certain corrupt politicians, sure, they need to get back to those things, too. But I doubt that they were inspired by your little rally, Glenn. In fact, I'd be surprised if they listened to much of it at all.

I also had to laugh about the remarks of one attendee who a reporter spoke to. She said, "I believe in our Constitution--and this administration doesn't." Spare me. Typical teabagger talking points. They blurt out "Constitution" about every third word. Lady, I believe in our Constitution. I want to protect it; you and your ilk want to get rid of decades-old Amendments. I want to preserve what is written there when it comes to separation of church and state; you want to pervert it. Don't you tell me I don't believe in my Constitution, and it IS mine, every bit as much as yours. And to believe that this administration doesn't believe in the Constitution is beyond retarded. Just a simple example: our President--and yes, he is your President, too, like it or not!--is a Constitutional lawyer. I think he believes pretty strongly in our Constitution, and probably understands it a whole fuck of a lot better than you do.

Now to the civil rights stuff. Oh Glenn. I think you really stepped in it this time.

First of all, I recognized this group's right to assemble there. I thought it was in rather poor taste, but I understood their right to do it. Gee, does that remind you of anything in the news lately? I found it interesting that the people telling the builders of the Islamic community center in Manhattan to "give up their rights" and move it elsewhere because it was in poor taste had no intention of moving their rally to another day when they were told that many believed it to be in poor taste. I thought Beck's calculated move to hold it on that day in that place was beyond tacky...but in the interest of consistency and constitutionality, I recognize that they had the right to do it.

However, Beck's remarks leading up to this rally grew increasingly bizarre when it came to the civil rights movement. At one point, he said that he wouldn't be surprised if:

...in our lifetime dogs and fire hoses are released or opened on us. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of us get a billy club to the head. I wouldn't be surprised if some of us go to jail--just like Martin Luther King did--on trumped-up charges. Tough times are coming.

Read all of Beck’s remarks on the civil rights movement. They are astonishing.

He said that it was time for him and his followers to "reclaim the civil rights movement," because after all, "we were the people that did it in the first place!”

Wait. What?

I was born in 1962, and I don't remember a thing about the civil rights movement. I was two years old when the Civil Rights Act was passed. I don't remember JFK, RFK, or MLK being assassinated, and I don't remember racial tension or riots. Anything I know about it, I learned through reading and talking to others.

Beck was born in 1964. So what is this "we" you speak of, Kemosabe?

He has shown numerous instances throughout his career in which he exhibited racist behavior, including the most recent one in which he mimicked one of the President's daughters and questioned her intelligence. He called the President a racist, with a "deep-seated hatred of white people," although he later backed off of that a bit. Listen to Beck's reaction when Joe Madison, a radio host, took him to task on his remarks.

And this is the guy who wants to "reclaim the civil rights movement."

Let's get something straight, you rabblerousing, treasonous bastard: you don't have any more claim to the civil rights movement than this lily white child of the sixties does. I can admire what people like Dr. King did, and mourn for him and others because they lost their lives in an effort to make things better for ALL Americans. I can read with amazement of the courage of Rosa Parks as she finally had enough and peacefully and calmly took that seat at the FRONT of the bus. I can see with shock the pictures of little girls running a gauntlet of hatred, derision, and venom as they walk to school, and I gaze with horror upon the pictures of black men hung from trees for the crime of looking at a white woman. I read of the beatings and torture endured by those who were on the front lines--and it WAS a war, make no mistake about it--and I am ashamed that my country did such things to its own citizens. Ashamed.

But I would never, NEVER claim the civil rights movement as my own. It is part of our history as a country, it is part of my history, and I can admire the courage and fortitude of those who endured such treatment in the name of equality and justice for all. But I have never been subjected to such horrific treatment, whether for the color of my skin or for anything else, and most importantly...NEITHER HAVE YOU.

So get off your bizarre little carousel ride of "I'm just like you and it's MY civil rights movement, too!", put on your big boy magic underwear, and just shut the fuck up already.

Love, friendship, and civil rights

Last evening, I had a fun dinner with a handful of gay friends celebrating one of their birthdays. We talked, we laughed, we ate, we had...well, we had ourselves a gay old time, in the Flintstones vernacular.

I actually hesitate to classify them as my "gay friends." That's kind of like talking about your "black friends," or your "Satan-worshiping friends," or your "Republican friends." (Heehee...couldn't resist throwing that one in there!) Why categorize? They're all just friends. However, they often refer to themselves as "the homos," and for the purposes of this entry, I will categorize a little bit.

I first started making gay friends when I lived in Indianapolis; Indy has a fairly large population of gays, I guess because quite a few come from the Midwest to live there. It's much more open and gay-friendly than rural towns, but not as expensive as Chicago. There were a couple of guys I worked with at the hospital, and I found them a lot of fun and very funny, and I can't begin to tell you what a relief it was to not get hit on, or not have them staring at my ass. Don't get me wrong...I generally found that flattering, but sometimes it was just a relief to be myself and realize that they had no hidden agenda. They just liked me for ME, and had no designs on how to get me in the sack. I really felt at ease with them, and I suppose they sensed that, as well as my complete acceptance of them, so they were equally at ease with me. I love my online buddies, too, and hope I get to meet them one day!

Last night, it was a few of us at dinner. One I've known for a long time, others are fairly new friends. I had a great time, and as I reflected later, thinking about all of us just talking and laughing, I wondered at how anyone could deny any of them the right to marriage. It seems that too many think of them as "other," or even as "lesser," and it appalls me to know that some even think they are an "abomination," according to what their religious text tells them to think.

Let's see if I can make this very, very clear: I don't give a flying fuck what your god thinks about my gay friends. I love them and value them for who they are, and that is people who work, play, and love just like anyone else does. They pay their taxes, they volunteer, they are no different than anyone else, and they also have the same rights as every other person in this country. That includes the right to marry the one they love.

Mexico, possibly one of the most Catholic countries in the world, recently passed a law allowing gay marriage. Some in the United States continue to try to make this a cultural and religious war, rather than comprehending that it is a legal matter, a constitutional matter, a human rights and civil rights matter. I've written about these subjects before. We do not base our laws on any religion, and marriage is a civic institution, not a religious one. A marriage does not have to take place in a church or be officiated by a pastor in order to be a legal marriage; it is the state who says that a marriage is legal. For those who would say that it should then be left up to the states, you're not getting it. It's a civil rights issue. Our country has a constitutional obligation to ensure that this can happen for all people in our country. Desegregation was not left up to the states. The federal government said that equal rights were the domain of every person in this country, and same-sex marriage issued in one state should be legal in the entire country.

Instead of taking the lead in this human rights issue, the United States is choosing—CHOOSING—to sit in the back of the bus, letting country after country (Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Mexico) pass same-sex marriage laws while we sit idly by. It's embarrassing. South Africa (and such)! Remember apartheid? They finally got rid of that, and they passed same-sex marriage laws before we did!

President Obama has said that he favors marriage being between a man and a woman. You all know I love and support our President, but I do not agree with him on this. He is a constitutional lawyer, and he should know better.

I look forward to the day when same-sex marriage is allowed in our entire country, and I believe it will happen in my lifetime. I wonder if the rabid anti-gay church people will spontaneously combust, or just quietly implode? I shall watch closely and with great interest.

I'll just add this. If I ever see anyone, whether a stranger, a supposed friend, or even a family member, disrespecting any of my gay friends or giving them the evil eye, or in any way, shape, or form saying or doing anything hateful or mean, I will not be responsible for my actions. I will not tolerate such intolerance, and it is not your place to judge them. I will get seriously medieval on your ass.

I believe that constitutes fair warning.

Calling all queers! And those who love them!

Sorry about another post today, but I'm not sitting idly by on this one.

A religious website has posted a story about the President declaring that June is LGBT month. They include such lovely comments as this one, from some "pro-family" activist:

This proclamation talks about the entire radical homosexual agenda that Obama supports -- including homosexualizing the U.S. military [and] federal so-called 'rights' based on homosexuality, which will impinge on the religious freedoms and freedom of conscience of other Americans.

Ahh yes...the "radical homosexual agenda." Then there's "homosexualizing the U.S. military." (Since when was "homosexualizing" a word?) I'm sorry, but....

Hahahaha! Yes, the President's goal is to make sure that every person who enters the U.S. military is either gay, or will soon be recruited to being gay. (What is the incentive again? Isn't it a toaster oven?) Do such websites have any idea of how idiotic they sound? Maybe that can be a new threat: I'm a-gonna homosexualize you! Look out, here it comes...shazam!

Oh, and riddle me this, Batman: how does the right of gays to marry and the right to be free of persecution and discrimination infringe upon my rights, or anyone's rights, to religious freedom and "freedom of conscience?" It doesn't! That's right, you can believe whatever you want to believe! You can hate on whoever you want to hate on...but you have no right to harm them or discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation. Period. What part of that don't they get?

I have just about had it with this hateful rhetoric and ridiculous drivel that is being spouted about those who are guilty of...what? Loving someone?

I have a modest proposal. If you feel the same way I do, visit the website, and read the article if you want, but definitely vote on their poll. Tell everyone you know, and let's all do our best to make sure that we make our voices heard! C'mon everybody, let's go skew us a poll! Who's with me?! [running out of the room, screaming]