I'm annoyed with the resistance to the Obergefell v. Hodges decision first because that resistance comes mainly from the Republican/Tea Party, and it continues that party's recently established tradition of getting emotional about small problems like gay marriage or drug use among the unemployed while ignoring big problems like anthropogenic global warming or the way we allow elected representatives to represent donors instead of constituents. The GOP/TP seems to be trying to identify itself as the party that sweats the small stuff and scoffs at the big stuff.
But the inability to rationally assess problems is just part of the problem. It's the extremist attacks on the federal government and national unity that the party uses to promote its agenda that makes the GOP/TP dangerous for America. I get especially annoyed when such extremist tactics are employed by self-styled conservatives. Conservatism is not a revolutionary philosophy. Conservatism seeks stability, and a conservative respects America's legal and political processes even if he doesn't always like the outcome.
Conservatism is also supposed to be an honest philosophy, not because honesty has some inherent nobility, but because honesty is a necessary component of a rational approach to national governance. Like so many other tenets of genuine conservatism, the GOP/TP has abandoned honesty these days.
The Texas AG's Twisted Thinking
Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, is supporting the extremist wing of the GOP/TP with an opinion he wrote for the state's Lieutenant Governor, Dan Patrick, although like most political attorneys he left himself some weasel room. From the opinion summary:
County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may provide accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Justices of the peace and judges also may claim that the government forcing them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, particularly when other authorized individuals have no objection to conducting such ceremonies, is not the least restrictive means of furthering compelling government interest in ensuring that such ceremonies occur. Importantly, the strength of any particular religious-accommodation claim depends on the particular facts of the case.The last sentence is the weasel wording that gives Texas an excuse to change its mind in particular cases. It's not that important at the moment.
The second sentence gives judges and justices of the peace an excuse to refuse to officiate a same-sex marriage. This is troubling, but it's not a major impediment to same-sex marriage, since a gay couple can always find a Universal Life Church minister to perform the ceremony. I'm a ULC minister, and I'd be happy to perform such ceremonies for tips and free drinks.
The first sentence says that county clerks don't have to issue same-sex marriage licenses if they have a religious objection, and this is where AG Paxton crosses into extremist territory.
For a marriage to be legally recognized in Texas, you need a marriage license that you have to get from a county clerk. Under Texas law, a country clerk must issue a license that's properly applied for, or they can delegate the issuance to others, like a deputy clerk. Here's the catch. While Texas law requires a county clerk to issue a license, it doesn't require a deputy clerk to issue a license.
Read that again. Under Paxton's interpretation, if a gay couple applies for a marriage license, the county clerk can't legally refuse, but they can delegate the job to a deputy clerk who can legally refuse. Under that twisted line of reasoning, the legal obligation of the county clerk to issue marriage licenses becomes non-existent.
But Paxton goes further than rendering Texas law invalid under the laws of Texas. He claims that county clerks have a right to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses if they have religious objections as long there is a clerk in another county who will issue the license. It's that recognition of a right to refuse on religious grounds that's extremist nonsense.
Religious liberty is important to Americans. We can believe whatever we want, and we can kinda sorta practice whatever religious practices we want as long as it doesn't involve smoking marijuana. But religious liberty is meaningless if another person can restrict your options based on their personal religious opinions.
The idea that forcing county clerks to fulfill their duties when it comes to issuing same-sex marriage licenses somehow limits the clerks' religious liberty comes very close to insane. Those clerks have a right to their own opinions and practices, but they don't have the right to limit the choices of other people. If the idea of religious liberty under the Paxton doctrine is accepted, then liberty has no meaning at all.
Paxton's opinion
Huckabee's Revolution
Civil disobedience is cool if you're protesting a bad law. Civil disobedience based on false claims of "tyranny" is not cool. That's extremist language, and it's the chose language of former Arkansas governor and current GOP/TP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee uses the word "tyranny" three times in a blog entry on the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. He refers to the Supreme Court as "imperial". He calls the decision "out-of-control". He calls it a "serious blow to religious liberty".
One more time for the slow Americans. Allowing gays to get married doesn't affect your religious liberty any more than allowing blacks and women to vote affected the voting rights of white men. The religious liberty argument has no merit.
Furthermore, Huckabee's drama-queen rant about how this decision represents "tyranny" is a blatant lie. It's not tyranny when you extend freedoms that were once denied to people who were unable to enjoy those freedoms. In fact, extending freedom to more people is an honored American tradition. Huckabee is stirring up division and fear among his followers based on a lie.
That's called bearing false witness, Huckabee, and it's a sin in some religions. You should look it up.
Mike Huckabee's Blog Entry on the Supreme Court
Ted Cruz Has One Idea Worth Considering
Texas senator and GOP/TP presidential candidate Ted Cruz joined Huckabee in the drama queen show by claiming that the Obergefel v. Hodges decision represents a threat to "the very foundations of our representative form of government."
Actually, no. Let's put aside Cruz's unjustified and divisive fear-mongering for a moment and remember what the Supreme Court is there to do. It's there to rule on the Constitutionality of American laws. They might not always get it right. They might make bad decisions sometimes. But making decisions is what they're supposed to do.
The real attack on the foundations of American government in this case comes from Cruz himself. He doesn't just attack the Supreme Court's decision, he is trying to make the Supreme Court look like an enemy. It's the kind of extremist nonsense you'd expect from a talk radio host, but it's unbecoming of a United States senator who wants to lead America.
A little off-topic hypocrisy for you to consider. In his complaint about the Supreme Court, Cruz lists one of the court's offenses as allowing the confiscation of property from one private owner to give it to another. The GOP/TP's beloved Keystone pipeline project relies on such confiscation of property.
Although Cruz is indulging in dangerous rabble-rousing just like Huckabee, he does go beyond the bomb-thrower act by proposing an idea that might be worth considering, judicial retention elections for Supreme Court justices. It might be healthy for America to have a way to remove a justice who's lost our trust. But this is certainly a case where Cruz should remember to be careful what he wishes for.
Ted Cruz's National Review Article on the Supreme Court
God's Opinion Doesn't Count
One of the foundational GOP/TP arguments against gay marriage is that the Judeo-Christian god created marriage specifically as a joining of one man and one woman.
First, this country is not run according to the Bible. We're run according to the Constitution, federal law, state law, and local law. We can't be run according to the Bible, because it can be interpreted too many ways. For example, does the Bible condemn or condone the taking of human life? There's no definitive answer, because it has a commandment against murder but it also calls for certain people to be murdered.
Second, marriage is a compact between couples and society. It governs civil arrangements regarding everything from inheritance to hospital visitation rights.
Third, if there's some omnipotent, omniscient being who has an opinion about American law, that being could surely find a clear, unambiguous way to communicate its opinion to everyone. There's no way it would have to rely on whispering in the ears of politicians like Cruz and Huckabee and expecting the rest of us to take their word for what they claim to hear.
We know that politicians will say almost anything to get elected. Are you really going to believe them when they claim to be official spokesmen for the Supreme Commander of All the Realms of Existence?
When they can show me an official "deputy god" badge, maybe I'll believe them. Until then, I judge them to be speaking for themselves and only for themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment