As most of you know, I rarely let real world issues bleed into my blog. I like my blog to be a little escapism from the trials and tribulations of the day. Sometimes though, I'll come across something that, to quote Frank Burns, "Tightens my colon.", and rather vent about it on FB, where rational thought often goes MIA while bullying marches on, I'll vent about it here.
For those of you who have may been out of the country, whether on vacation or living, there has been a big brew-ha-ha in Kentucky involving a county clerk, marriage licenses and the Federal court system. As you read this post, the county clerk in question has been whiling her hours behind bars for contempt of court.
I won't bore you with the gruesome details, but rest assured that the S.O.P. has been applied here:
1) lawsuits;
2) death threats;
3) judicial threats; and
4) the proverbial chaos that follows due to the involuntary forcing down the collective throat of the American public of something that, believe it or not, not everyone fully supports.
My beef, as always when it comes to gay marriage, is the distinct lack of tolerance by those who profess tolerance and/or equality for all shown to those who have differing opinions than of what the militant left has (I won't go Curt Schilling on anyone just yet)
Whether you agree or disagree about gay marriage isn't really the issue. The issue here is the simply lack of tolerance for civil disobedience. Unlike in the judicial world or the militant world of the left, there are no absolutes in life. If a person feels strongly about a law that they consider unjust, they practice disobedience. Some who practice civil disobedience that the militant left approves of (offshore drilling, fracking, letting the EPA run amuck), gets applauded and slapped on the back.
Those who practice civil disobedience should be respected for standing up for a principle, not mocked and denigrated. Does it really matter what she did in the past or what she is now? Should it matter?
The more people on the militant left hyperventilate and rage about it not being about religious beliefs, the more people are going to dig in their heels and the more volatile the issue is going to become. Civil disobedience is not going to go away, in spite of what the militant left, their co-horts in the legislature and their co-horts on the bench may say.
And that, my friends, is my five cents on this issue.
(c) 2015 BOOKS BY G.B. MILLER. All Rights Reserved.
Good points, G.
ReplyDeleteAnd this was funny - one of my co-workers asked, in all earnestness: "Why don't they just go to another county to get married? Couldn't they do that?"
:)
Thanks. I think I missed a paragraph or two. I started writing it late last night, and finished it this morning, thus losing the nub of my gist.
DeleteThat's an excellent point. They could've done that and all this garbage would be for naught.
I also deplore the personal attacks against the woman's character, because that isn't the point. The point is that she has no right to prevent people from exercising their rights under the law and should have been immediately removed from her position and placed in jail. She finally has been, It shouldn't have taken so long.
ReplyDeletePerhaps she had no right, perhaps she did. In any event, the blowback should've been anticipated by the Supreme Court when they declined to take up her case to begin with. Just because something is law of the land, does not mean you have to accept it if you feel it's unjust.
DeleteIf the military can have contentious objectors and made heroes by those on the left, then why can't the average citizen support a non-military contentious objector who is practicing civil disobedience?
Oh boy, this is such a fraught issue. On one hand, I am a supporter of the right of gay people to marry, because I feel that loving one another and becoming a family can happen no matter what genitalia the participants happen to possess. On the other hand, I do believe that this woman is most likely (not knowing her personally) a good, well-intentioned person who is admirably standing up for what she has been taught is right. The world does need people like that, who have the courage of their convictions. I can see both sides of the argument, and it makes me feel a bit dizzy.
ReplyDeleteIt only makes me sad. I too, can see both sides of the issues, but the inflexibility of both sides that annoys me the most. There has to be a happy medium and sadly it won't come around until the politicians do something about it.
DeleteIt's not as if she is being drafted and is a conscientious objector. She is being paid $80,000 a year not to do her job, and preventing her deputies from doing theirs as well. If you recall she stopped performing ANY marriages.
ReplyDeleteNo one should have to travel because their locally elected officials refuse to do their job.
Yes, I realize that. However, I believe that point is moot, simply because you've had other politicians do worse than that, on many levels, and a big stink wasn't raised to a similar point.
DeleteAgain, there is a compromise available, but that would require a Democratic politician to show backbone, and I don't see that happening in Kentucky any time soon.