By Edwin Cooney
Try
to set aside whether you concur or reject her cause. Is Kim Davis a genuine heroine or is she merely
a “hollerer”? It isn’t simply a question
of agreement with Mrs. Davis’s moral outrage.
It is rather a question of the substance of her behavior. Kim Davis did after all risk the comfort of
anonymity and her personal freedom from incarceration by challenging the writ of
the highest court in the land. She took
a risk most of us wouldn’t take. By so
doing she has, without a doubt, subjected herself and others close to her to
the discomfort of personal ridicule, and even threats to her well-being. One should readily grant that to put one’s
self into such a position takes courage.
Courage is, of course, an essential element of heroism. The question,
therefore, is twofold: Is the price she’s willing to pay equal to the damage
caused by the consequences of her defiance?
(In other words, is she willingly paying an adequate price for defying
the law of the land?) Second, is her defiance a question of principle or
politics?
Had
Kim Davis defied the ruling and then resigned her position, she would have
demonstrated as much principle as defiance.
However, by not resigning her position and thus retaining its pecuniary
compensation, she benefited from the privileges she has as an officer of the
very legal system she regards as guilty of an immoral act.
There
are two other factors that haven’t been adequately covered in the reports I’ve
seen on the controversy created by Mrs. Davis.
Let’s
assume for a moment that gay and lesbian marriage is an abomination of
Christian doctrine. Is Mrs. Davis
responsible or accountable for the souls of others? Additionally, where in scripture is it stated
that nations as entities have any moral accountability? Even though the “almighty” destroyed ancient
Israel for its sins, modern Israel not only exists, it possesses atomic bombs
sufficient to give any modern day Babylonia one hell-of-a jolt. Perhaps our leaders as individuals are
subject to spiritual rewards and punishments, but insofar as I’m aware, America
as an entity is beyond payment of the wages of sin. If not, America is in real trouble because
many of the most devoutly righteous among us still insist that we need be
neither humble nor apologetic about the employment of slavery against blacks or
the genocide against native Americans which we utilized to assist us in
becoming so prosperous.
Another
aspect of Kim Davis’s defiance that doesn’t get enough play is how her defiance
of the law is noble yet the defiance of our immigration laws by the refugees
from other nations is punishable by deportation.
Compliance
of the law is a vital factor in our unity, our prosperity and even our
safety. Defiance of the law is only
noble when the person who defies the law asserts three factors:
(1.)
That the law or ruling in question has passed the test of legal legitimacy and
is primarily a matter of recognizable and reasonable morality.
(2.)
That the legitimate rights of no person will be damaged by your advocacy of the
current law’s elimination.
(3.)
That the advocacy of a change or changes in the present law doesn’t nearly represent
self-righteous contempt for the opinions and values of others.
Mrs. Davis’s contention passes the first
of the above assertions. There’s no
doubt of her sincerity on moral grounds!
As for numbers two and three, Kim Davis’s actions fail to meet their
test. The legitimate rights of gays and
lesbians would be damaged if her defiance should be upheld. As for the third test of arrogant self-righteousness,
the politicization of Mrs. Davis’s contentiousness on the part of a number of
the current GOP candidates makes their perception as to the superiority of Mrs.
Davis’s stand obvious. Therein lies a blatant inconsistency on the part of most
of the GOP presidential candidates: immigrants fleeing political terror in
their homeland who violate our laws should be subject to deportation. Mrs.
Davis’s defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling which constitutes the law of the
land should be applauded as good old-fashioned patriotism. I say that’s nuts!
History
may well compare Mrs. Davis’s act to that of John Scopes who agreed in 1924 to
participate in a test case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging
Tennessee’s Butler Act which made it a misdemeanor to teach evolution in the
state’s public schools. Unlike Kim
Davis, Scopes appears to have had no deep convictions on the morality or
immorality of the teaching of evolution.
Thus Scopes (unlike Mrs. Davis) fails the first of the three above
assertions. However, his act was neither
a threat nor was it contemptuous of the rights of others. History records an irony here. The only politician prominent in the case
against Scopes was a lawyer for the prosecution, the three-time Democratic
presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan.
I’ve
never met anyone who regarded John Scopes as a hero. As for Mrs. Davis, whether
a heroine or a hollerer, you can be sure of one thing:
To
paraphrase the late great Lloyd Bentsen in his 1988 Vice Presidential debate
with his Senate colleague Dan Quayle — “Kim Davis never knew John Scopes. Kim Davis was never a friend of John
Scopes. And Kim Davis is no John
Scopes!”
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment