The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

bnpederson wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I feel really sad that someone could be so unhappy with themselves as a person that they did not feel dignified as a human being without following obscure passages from a bronze age storybook. I mean, there's just so much more to life than that.

While Kim Davis is undoubtedly using her religion as an excuse for bigotry I'm not sure piling on religion is a great response.

I don't see any reason to respect bad ideas.

SallyNasty wrote:

Geeze Michael, could you be a little more sensitive to people who think you aren't a real person, deserving of respect and dignity!?!?

<3

Chairman_Mao wrote:
bnpederson wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I feel really sad that someone could be so unhappy with themselves as a person that they did not feel dignified as a human being without following obscure passages from a bronze age storybook. I mean, there's just so much more to life than that.

While Kim Davis is undoubtedly using her religion as an excuse for bigotry I'm not sure piling on religion is a great response.

I think Mike's point is to show how disrespectful it would be to religious folk if you swapped terms, which is why religious folk like Mrs. Davis should pay more attention to what they're saying. That's how I read it at least.

More kind than what I was going for. I really don't have any respect for religion that tries to butt into my life when I've already rejected it. And really, my remark is no more piling on religion than the "still does their job" memes that are popping out all over the place.

Religions demand that these people behave this way. It just so happens that Kim Davis can't be fired and is exercising the tremendous privilege of being in that position in a state that won't bother to impeach her for violating the law to apply her biblical beliefs to people who have rejected them. Freedom of religion must, by default, include freedom from religion. And that doesn't even have to mean in a sense of complete rejection of it - just one religion from another is important enough. Imagine if freedom of religion didn't include freedom from religion - You could declare yourself Christian but be forced to participate in Yom Kippur, or Kwanza.

Her past aside, her scriptures which she so devotedly follows when it comes to gays also forbids oaths. She was firmly entrenched in her religious beliefs when she took office, yet that $80,000 a year was just too convenient to ignore. She could just ask forgiveness, after all. She's been washed clean.

No, neither Kim Davis, nor religion deserve special consideration here.

SallyNasty wrote:

Geeze Michael, could you be a little more sensitive to people who think you aren't a real person, deserving of respect and dignity!?!?

I believe the Bible and I think Mike is a real person deserving of respect and dignity.

We do exist.

Nomad wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Geeze Michael, could you be a little more sensitive to people who think you aren't a real person, deserving of respect and dignity!?!?

I believe the Bible and I think Mike is a real person deserving of respect and dignity.

We do exist.

I know you do buddy:) But I would just love for you(writ large, not just Nomad - i mean people of faith in general) to have the thick skin to handle the occasional jab from people who are frustrated by those who don't agree with you because of the fact that people like Kim Davis are making our friends and families lives miserable. Taking a little flack from some frustrated people on the internet isn't the equivalent to being denied equality under the law, ya know?

Or, you know, don't just exist. Speak out against them. The silence of the moderates is the greatest crime of religion these days.

Don't wait for Pew polls to say, "Hey, a pretty huge chunk of the people in this country, including the religious, don't really mind gays or gay marriage anymore," go stand and tell these extremists making you look bad to stop talking.

Silence is implicit approval.

I'm mostly saying that you're not helping your cause with talk like that. Belittling religion as a whole isn't going to help bring religious people towards your way of thinking, it seems more likely to drive them away. It's certainly not likely to help them speak out against bigotry and only hardens the belief in some that tolerance is somehow anti-religion.

Indeed, it feels very much like the tone policing feminists have to deal with so often.

That's because it's the same tactic.

It seems that you're assuming my goals are the same as religious goals - converts. I'm not interested in converts. I'm not interested in politely bringing the religious over to my "side." My point is to remind them, baldly and honestly, that their holy books contain a lot of really nasty things that make life more difficult for a ton of people (gays are definitely not alone in this - women, minorities, apostates, etc. as well). My goal is to engage the rational side of their brain and make them realize that people - any people - don't deserve to be treated like that. Set aside the holiness of the book for a few minutes and realize that the sh*t it tells people to do to others is really, really bad, and deserves to be excised and ignored.

When you do that, treating others better naturally follows. I don't need to convince them that I'm a person. I don't even need to convince them that their holy book says terrible things when I can point them to book, chapter, and verse. I just need them to read it honestly and realize that, no matter who the person is on the receiving end, they don't deserve that.

Do you know how many well-meaning people have come into this thread alone, hands-on-hips, saying, "That's not very nice," to the people whose group has been beaten, murdered, ignored during real health crises, suffered years of verbal and physical abuse from not just strangers, but those who were supposed to love them most?

A lot. I don't think saying "your holy book and ideas are bad, and you should feel bad" is over any line whatsoever.

bnpederson wrote:

I'm mostly saying that you're not helping your cause with talk like that. Belittling religion as a whole isn't going to help bring religious people towards your way of thinking, it seems more likely to drive them away. It's certainly not likely to help them speak out against bigotry and only hardens the belief in some that tolerance is somehow anti-religion.

You're forgetting the teeny, tiny little point that no one needs the help of religious people anymore. Same-sex marriage has been ruled a Constitutional right.

Bigots who continue to use religion as their excuse to be bigoted can wail and gnash their teeth all they want. Nothing is going to change. Except they're going to be judged poorly by society and history (and their loving god, if he actually exists).

And the only concern that believers should have isn't that people will think tolerance is anti-religious. It's that people will think religion is intolerant.

And that's what all this Kim Davis business is about: the last bit of the same-sex marriage fight where we make sure that religious people can't make an end run on the Constitution and enshrine for themselves the right to have their religious beliefs trump any and every law if they wish.

Which is why Kim Davis and all who support her need to be slapped down and slapped down *hard* and made to understand that they need to stay down.

And that's not religious people being attacked, persecuted, or even belittled. It's them coming to grips with the fact they've lost a tiny bit of the immense privilege they've enjoyed without question for millennia.

NSMike wrote:

Or, you know, don't just exist. Speak out against them. The silence of the moderates is the greatest crime of religion these days.

Don't wait for Pew polls to say, "Hey, a pretty huge chunk of the people in this country, including the religious, don't really mind gays or gay marriage anymore," go stand and tell these extremists making you look bad to stop talking.

Silence is implicit approval.

People like me don't hang out in many of the same places as the more extremists. Even if we did, my words aren't likely to hold any more weight than anyone else's. I don't shy away from the topic when it comes up in conversation, but I've never felt that picketing and shock marketing are all that effective for meaningful dialogue. I'd imagine you feel similarly.

I'm not telling you to meet Westboro Baptist on the picket lines, or fly to Rowan County.

Why not start with you pastor's office and ask him first?

Gay marriage has already been upheld by the US Supreme Court. How many of the people who voted for it are atheists? Honest question. I don't know.

The US Supreme Court is 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. Exactly 0 justices are atheists.

Would you say that the religious people who voted to uphold gay marriage in the US represent moderates? If so, would their voice and actions fighting for gay marriage be considered silence?

Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and the other four justices, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, joined his opinion, meaning they didn't write their own. Kennedy is a noted conservative judge when it comes to rulings. Where he falls on the spectrum of devotion to his religion, I don't know. I only know it didn't interfere with him doing his job, considering the noted objection the Catholic church has to gay marriage.

Additionally, the majority of Americans don't even know as much as I just wrote about the decision, let alone the demographics of the SCOTUS. They're not a significant voice for any kind of moderation, and the extremists have already declared them as "activist judges" who are "making their own law" anyway. Nobody looks to the SCOTUS to represent anything as far as citizenry in the US. They only matter when there's a big case in front of them, and then, people only care about the results, and generally don't care about the people behind them. Unless it's nutty Scalia getting into the news for talking about how the devil is real.

Even considering all of this, they're judges, offering a ruling on the law. Even if the dissenters mentioned religion, it's not a religious ruling. Not a single US Citizen looked at the ruling and said, "look how the religious moderates are standing up for equal rights!"

Seriously Larry, I don't even understand how you can honestly ask that question. Religious moderation isn't represented by judges. It's represented by religious leaders. Nobody confuses judges robes for vestments.

I beg to differ. By definition, a moderate devotion or stance on religion is emulated by people whose concerns mainly involve not-religion. I suppose you're asking people who belong to the Catholic Church to change our leadership by vote or renounce our faith? Doesn't work like that. That's a very big ask from just keeping our hands to ourselves.

We do our jobs just fine, and that's the voice you wanted, right?

Ok, you can beg to differ and pretend that SCOTUS judges somehow represent their religion before they represent their country or their office. Nobody is looking to them for religious leadership, though.

Your argument amounts to, "A snowflake is technically ice and it technically makes a cup of hot water cooler." Ok. But a few ice cubes would do a hell of a lot more.

The judges might have more impact in favor of religious moderation standing up to the loud extremists if they bothered to say anything about their religion, but they're not going to do that from the bench, and proximity to religious moderation in their personal lives doesn't do a damn thing (if it even exists - like I said before, their ruling doesn't mean they foster religious moderation, they just don't let religion get in the way of their jobs). Nomad is here on these forums being a small voice for religious moderation on occasion. Nobody really thinks about that when he posts about how he's enjoying a particular game.

If we're to hold religious moderates accountable to standing up to the toxic voices of their faith, they must hold their leaders accountable in order to enact real change.

That is, once again, a VERY big ask. You're not just asking us to stand up for your rights. You're asking us to change our religion. For you. That's not very tolerant of religions. Church leaders can say whatever the heck they want, can't they? If it doesn't affect our secular performance and if we fight for you in secular positions, then is that still silence? The only thing that isn't silence is for us to change our religion for you?

I'm not very tolerant of religions when they start intruding into my life.

Yes, I'm asking you to change it, and nothing short of religious leadership being forced to change by the laity is going to do that.

I've already stated why the SCOTUS is not a voice for religious moderation. I don't know how to make it clearer.

Actually, maybe I can. Let's apply the "moron in a hurry" test to your assertion.

Moron walks by me in a hurry, and I stop him to ask him a question before he goes on his way. Based on your premise, my question is,

"The US Supreme court just ruled that gay marriage is now the law of the land. Would you say that ruling demonstrates a strong voice of religious moderation shouting down religious extremists?"

If you honestly think he'd answer yes, you're beyond my help.

At that point, this fight isn't about your rights. It's you telling people what their religion ought to be even when it's NOT intruding into your life anymore. When religious SCOTUS judges fighting for you isn't enough, when us putting our religion aside for secular concerns isn't enough, then you prove that Kim Davis was right all along. It IS a fight for our religious expressions.

No, not even close. I'm asking. Kim Davis wants her religion to hold the full force of law. I'd never do that.

You can argue with me on that point, but the minute you bring the law into it is the minute the fight changes. Your religion can't have that power over me. It just can't. The US is not the Philippines where the Catholic church has de-facto control of the government. You're standing much closer to Kim Davis's shoes than I am.

And it absolutely shouldn't have the power, socially, to abuse me, or trans people, or women, at all. I'm asking for religions to change to get rid of that. In our country, even the force of law is not behind us in that respect yet.

Your right to swing your arm stops at the point where it hits my face. The extremists can keep swinging their arms as long as they don't hit my face (read: become law). But the religious moderates have to understand that their silence, or even quietness, about how their extremist cousins are using their faith makes them complicit in the abuse.

Religious moderates like that judge that upheld your rights? He has to understand? Because upholding your rights was silence?

I've already said I don't know if he's religiously moderate. I don't know a damn thing about his religious ideas or practices. I just know he didn't let Catholic teachings on gay marriage affect his duty as a judge.

I honestly don't know where the short circuit is happening in this conversation.

Is it that you can point to at least one guy who is apparently moderate and has done something good for me and my rights, and therefore you feel like you can negate the word "silence"? Are we really getting that semantically granular here? Because that's f*cking ridiculous.

I'm questioning why you insist that we're being silent about your rights being your rights when people who clearly aren't letting their religion get in the way of their jobs (a form of religious moderation) are apparently simultaneously upholding your rights while being complicit in denying it.

No less than the majority vote of the US Supreme Court, most of which are religious, upheld your rights. That's not just one guy. As far as I can tell, there isn't a massive nationwide movement of public servants refusing to provide licenses en masse. It's just a few Kim Davises here and there.

By and large, I DON'T consider it worthy of publication that I did my job normally when I serve someone who may or may not be part of the LGBT spectrum. That's how I do my bit for change. You can view that as identical to discrimination if you like, because apparently it is.

Ok.

Yesterday Judge Bunning rejected the motion Kim Davis filed right after she got out of jail that asked the court to allow her to continue not issuing any marriage licenses while her case works its way through the appeals process. Her lawyers argued that Bunning's earlier rulings only applied to the four people who sued her and since they had marriage licenses now those rulings were invalidated. Unsurprisingly, Judge Bunning disagreed.

Davis' lawyers have already appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Bunning hasn't responded to the motion the ACLU filed on Monday that accused Davis of violating Bunning's earlier rulings by tampering and interfering with the issuing of marriage licenses. Hopefully he'll get around to locking her ass up again before the weekend.

Alluding to NSMike's discussion, there are 120 counties in Kentucky. Surely, some or most of those county clerks are religious yet are doing their jobs. As "Christians", why aren't they coming out against Kim Davis for belittling the position they hold? Doesn't all her comments cause trouble for them? When they go to church, are people asking them why they aren't doing the same thing and why their "faith" is not as strong as hers?

At this point, it is clear that no measures are going to stop her from using the office to grandstand. It is time to put the office into receivership.

karmajay wrote:

Alluding to NSMike's discussion, there are 120 counties in Kentucky. Surely, some or most of those county clerks are religious yet are doing their jobs. As "Christians", why aren't they coming out against Kim Davis for belittling the position they hold? Doesn't all her comments cause trouble for them? When they go to church, are people asking them why they aren't doing the same thing and why their "faith" is not as strong as hers?


Here is one story.

Nomad wrote:
karmajay wrote:

Alluding to NSMike's discussion, there are 120 counties in Kentucky. Surely, some or most of those county clerks are religious yet are doing their jobs. As "Christians", why aren't they coming out against Kim Davis for belittling the position they hold? Doesn't all her comments cause trouble for them? When they go to church, are people asking them why they aren't doing the same thing and why their "faith" is not as strong as hers?


Here is one story.

Thanks Nomad. i wish this type of a story got more national attention.

I hope the GOP enjoys another albatross around their neck

Kim Davis changes her party affiliation