Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Liberty Counsel's homophobia, vicious animus on display with attorney's callous attitude

Gannam
There are times when anti-gay groups and spokespeople are their own worst enemies. Just give them a platform and watch them undercut their claimed beliefs in morality and fairness.

Take for example, the court case in Kentucky involving Kim Davis, the clerk who says she will not give out marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs. The judge is expected to rule in August but that didn't keep her attorney, Roger Gannam from the Liberty Counsel, from speaking to the American Family Association's fake news site, One News Now.

And his words about the gay couple seeking to marry does wonders to illustrate the animus which led anti-gay groups and their supporters to lose in their fight against marriage equality:


"We were able to see through her testimony that this case, more and more, is really about the plaintiffs wanting to force Kim Davis to issue a marriage license despite her sincerely held religious beliefs," the attorney explains. "It's not about the plaintiffs' desire to get married."

Kentucky law stipulates that marriage license applicants can get a license in any county – so the plaintiffs could have driven a short distance to obtain the license elsewhere. As Gannam points out, they were certainly willing to put out extra effort to go to court Monday.

"They drove two hours to a county where they could have gotten a license if they wanted one," he notes. "They drove an hour last week to court to a county where they could've gotten a license if they wanted one. And they could've gotten a license in just about every county in between that they passed through if they had wanted one."

Gannam argues that the case is about "crushing dissent" and forcing Christians out of public office.

And there we go again with the ridiculous notion that our desire to marry is actually a part of a nefarious plan (which by the way, I have yet to get the memo about) to silence people against marriage equality and keep "Christians" out of public office.

I could say a lot about Gannam's ridiculous conspiracy theory and how his appropriation of the term "Christian" (as if to say that lgbts cannot be Christians) insults me.

But I would rather talk about his callous comments regarding the same-sex couple.

He seems to be saying rather than inconvenience Davis's religious beliefs, the couple allow themselves to be put through hoops and indignities to gain their licenses. Hoops and indignities  that a heterosexual couple wouldn't have to deal with.

And here I thought the same-sex couple paid taxes which goes to Davis's salary. I had no idea they worked for her. I was under the impression that she worked for them as a government employee.

Furthermore, I was under the impression that there was no "separate but equal" mentality imposed on gay couples seeking to marry. I don't remember SCOTUS saying that it is perfectly fair to give psychological messages to gay couples that though they may be allowed to marry, their marriages will always be inferior to those of heterosexuals. And I certainly don't remember SCOTUS saying that counties could implement these psychological messages by undermining gay couples via making them drive long distances or for a number of hours to gain licenses when there may be a clerk of court's office within walking distance or simply a few miles away. Particularly when is there is no guarantee that after they drove the distance, the clerk of court wherever they may choose would also pull the "it's against my religious beliefs" dodge.

Unfortunately that's what this "religious liberty" junk is all about. Just like segregation was partly brought about by white racists to remind African-Americans how supposedly inferior we were, the religious right has bastardized the term "religious liberty" as an effort to undermine gays getting married.  Though gays earned the right to marry in the correct and American way, the religious right don't want us to enjoy it unless they can hammer some idea into our heads just how our relationships will never reach the supposed plateau they feel heterosexual relationships are on.

Through their actions and deeds undermining African-American civil rights via segregation, racists labeled black people as "niggers trying to be humans"   In that same vile respect, via their warped cry of "religious liberty," and their actions in supposed defense of  this concept, anti-gay groups are attempting to label gays and lesbians as "faggots and bulldaggers pretending to have normal relationships."

Sorry if you are offended by my candor, but that's how I feel. I simply don't believe that organizations who have spent a number of decades demonizing gays are suddenly lessening the animus of their tune, no matter what they may claim.

When you strip away the talking points, the fake pretty words, the think tank mess, and the half-assed work done by some members of our media, that is the stark naked and sad truth.


2 comments :

Erica Cook said...

There are some things I am just so glad to hear you say. They are things I think but feel, because I am a white girl from the suburbs, I'd be exploitative. I wonder how they would feel if they were refused a license because of their marriage for a reason due to someone else's religious beliefs. I wonder How they would feel if they had to deal with that. That's why I have a very strong feeling the RFRA laws will be used much like "stand your ground" laws are. They'll apply to Christians, and no one else.

JCF said...

"They drove two hours to a county where they could have gotten a license if they wanted one," he notes. "They drove an hour last week to court to a county where they could've gotten a license if they wanted one. And they could've gotten a license in just about every county in between that they passed through if they had wanted one."


And Rosa Parks could have ridden in the back of that bus! Bigots, get it through your thick skulls that equality means we get ALL the civil rights, including the ones we "could have" done w/o to avoid hurting your tender feelings. Equality is under the LAW, not at your emotional convenience!