Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

kpete

(72,897 posts)
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:12 AM Sep 2015

To Kim Davis on her moral conflict [View all]

SUN SEP 06, 2015 AT 07:20 PM PDT
by sbloch

A letter to Kim Davis, and all the other clerks and judges fighting the same fight. Your cause would be noble if you actually had a moral conflict rather than just a grammatical misunderstanding.

Dear Ms. Davis:

Let me first say that I respect your willingness to stand up against what you consider an unjust law, even when it comes from the Supreme Court -- Supreme Courts have been wrong before. That integrity is presumably part of what got you elected to your office in the first place. It would be a noble act if you were actually standing up for a moral position. But going to jail for misunderstanding a homonym is just silly.

Let me explain. A homonym is a set of two or more words with different meanings that share the same spelling and/or pronunciation. For example, "dog&quot 1] is a noun meaning a four-legged domestic animal, while "dog&quot 2] is a verb meaning to bother or pester. As County Clerk, you're probably called upon to issue dog licenses; when you do so, are you authorizing the licensee to pester and bother people, or to own and keep a four-legged animal?

Here's another homonym: "marriage&quot 1] is a relationship recognized in the eyes of God, while "marriage&quot 2] is a relationship recognized in the eyes of the State. These two words overlap just enough to be confusing, but they're not and never have been identical. A couple married by a priest/minister/rabbi/imam who hasn't been empowered by the State to conduct marriages are married(1] but not married(2]. A couple married by a justice of the peace are married(2] but perhaps not married(1].

Members of minority religions have known this for centuries. The Catholic Church doesn't (didn't?) recognize the marriage of somebody who's been married and divorced before; the U.S. and all its States do. Both Islam and the Church of Latter-Day Saints, from their respective beginnings, not only allowed but encouraged polygamy; the U.S. and all its States forbid it. You've been fortunate, most of your life, that as a member of the local-majority religion, you've had a religious notion of marriage that matched the legal one pretty closely. Now that they don't match, you perceive a conflict between your job and your faith.

Fortunately, nobody is asking you to state that a same-sex couple can be married(1] in the eyes of God, which is a matter of faith. You're being asked, as part of your job as a public official, to certify that they can be married(2] in the eyes of the State, which is a simple, objective, legal question to which your faith is completely irrelevant, so there's no conflict. Going to jail for your principles when your principles aren't actually under attack is just a waste.

I hope I'm not bothering you with this missive. But if I am, it's OK -- I have a dog license.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/07/1419054/-To-Kim-Davis-on-her-moral-conflict
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»To Kim Davis on her moral...