House-to-House Combat

The world changed forever on June 26, 2015.  After 50+ years of LGBTQ activism and advocacy, 10 years of state-by-state progress, and months of waiting while the case of Obergefell v. Hodges was brought to and argued before them, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the right to marry the person one loves is a right that applies not only to heterosexual couples, but to same sex couples as well.  In all 50 states.  Forever.  The euphoria was palpable, in print and electronic media, and especially on social media, where the hashtag #LoveWins was used on Twitter more than 5.5 MILLION times in the 24 hours following the announcement of the ruling.  The beautifully written decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy (the swing vote who kept SCOTUS observers guessing until the very last minute) was announced just in time for Pride Weekend celebrations across the nation, and activists everywhere were awash in a sense of triumph, a sense that as treacherous as the road that had led us to this point had been, they could finally pause and catch their breath, if only for a brief moment.

Well, most activists did.  Some of us, however, were aware of a new sense of foreboding.  In the midst of the celebrations, some of us, mostly we activists who live in the Deep South and the central Appalachians, knew that there was still an obstacle that the Supreme Court had not cleared out of the way for same sex couples seeking a marriage license.

That obstacle is the Evangelical Right.  And it's face is the face of the woman whose picture appears above.

Kim Davis has worked in the Rowan County, Kentucky clerk's office for over 30 years, and she has become the poster child for a small, but vocal minority of county clerks across the country who claim that their religious convictions prevent them from issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.  Last week, a two same sex couples and two opposite sex couples in Rowan County filed a lawsuit against Davis demanding that she follow the law of the land, do the job she was elected to do and issue marriage licenses to all eligible applicants.  The judge in the case heard arguments on both sides, including from Ms. Davis herself, who took the stand.  In a statement that might remind the LGBTQ community of the bakery owners in Oregon who refused service to a same sex couple, Ms. Davis said, "If I say they are authorized, I'm saying I agree with it, and I can't."  As with the bakery owners, Ms. Davis has likened the simple act of doing her job to somehow being implicitly involved in the same sex marriage ceremony, as though signing a piece of paper would somehow be akin to forcing her to attend the ceremony in her Sunday best and throw flowers at the couple as they walked down the aisle.  

So it has gone for the first month of marriage equality.  Here in Texas, where I live, things have gone more smoothly than anyone could possibly have imagined.  Our own home grown poster child, equally as vexing but much less courageous than Ms. Davis in Kentucky, was Katie Lang, the clerk of Hood County, just outside of Ft. Worth.  Like Ms. Davis, Ms. Lang initially claimed religious exemption, and put off a same sex couple not once, but twice before the couple filed a lawsuit.  Unlike Ms. Davis, Ms Lang folded like a house of card the minute the lawsuit was filed and immediately began issuing marriage licenses to all couples.  (The couple in question has not withdrawn their lawsuit, both to insure that the Hood County clerk's office continues their compliance, and to recoup their attorney's fees.)  Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are falling in line kicking and screaming, with nine county clerks in Alabama still refusing to issue marriage licenses to ANY couple, gay or straight, rather than follow the law.  (I still say one has to make a tremendous mental leap to fathom THAT level of homophobia.)  And then there is what I call "The Kentucky Problem."

So here are my thoughts and solutions for the refusing clerks.  First of all, I don't buy what Kim Davis is selling.  There are many clerk's offices that have one or two staff members who are claiming religious exemptions from issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, but in most cases there is a clerk or clerks who have NO problem issuing such licenses and they are simply doing their jobs.  Ms. Davis has not only refused to issue the licenses HERSELF, but has forbidden anyone ELSE in her office to issue them as well.  That says to me , "This isn't about my religion.  This is about me hating homosexuals."  Second, there should not be any such thing as a religious exemption.  Issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple does not make you a part of their marriage.  The same sex couple does not care about your religious beliefs, any more than YOU should care about THEIR bedroom habits.  The best thing for all concerned would be for those clerks who have religious issues that prevent them from doing their jobs to resign.  Unfortunately, the Earth has shifted underneath you, and now you hold a belief that prevents you from doing your job.  The Earth does that sometimes.  

The bottom line is this:  gay people are not going to accept being treated differently than straight people anymore.  Not anywhere, not anyhow, not under any circumstances.  Not in the public square, and not in private enterprise.  The sooner that the public officials, who are paid with OUR tax money, realize that, the better.

Understanding the Other Side: Iconography

Recently I had an interesting discussion about the picture that reinterprets the Marines raising the American flag on Mount Suribachi as shirtless gay men raising the rainbow flag. I am a progressive liberal who always makes it a priority to have open, civil discussions with my conservative friends, of which I have many. I almost never agree with them, but I grow from the dialogue, and I think they do, too. The important concept to understand with this picture is what constitutes "offense" and "offensiveness." We are often too quick to say "I'm offended," as well as "I don't care if other people are offended." We have to understand both sides of the street. I'll try to be concise about this complex issue.

Many veterans have posted on social media that they find the alteration of the picture offensive, and they have a legitimate reason for thinking so that has nothing to do with gay rights, hating gays, or gays in the military. They are offended because this picture is an ICON. Icons are different from "symbols." Symbols are something that people can interpret in different ways; therefore, symbols can be debated, loved, hated, even debased or destroyed without upending the essential structure of our society. For example, the Confederate flag is a symbol, not an icon. It was removed from the Capitol square in South Carolina because to many it symbolizes racism and treason. And yet, some conservatives were angry, and we on the left said "you don't have a legitimate reason to feel that way." And we're right--they don't.

But icons are different. Icons are part of a larger narrative that goes to the core of who we are as a society. If you talk to veterans about the original "flag raising on Iwo Jima" picture, especially veterans who fought in the Pacific in WWII or their families, they will tell you that this picture is not just a symbol of Marine pride. It encapsulates what was a life and death struggle of democracy against dictatorship with the freedom of the entire world at stake. It has moved well beyond being just a symbol and has become part of the iconography of WWII. It's not a symbol of one group--it's an icon of our shared experience as a society. So my message would be, before we as liberal progressives post the "corrupted" version, we need to acknowledge that, this time, those people who are offended by the altered version have a legitimate right to be offended. Which then leads to the question: why would we, as liberal progressives, post such a thing?

There are other examples. I think we can all agree that Abraham Lincoln is more than symbolic; he is an American icon. Imagine that vandals spray painted the phrase "N***** Lover" on the Lincoln Memorial. Would some (pretty sick) people agree with that sentiment? Absolutely. Would the mass of American society be justified in its legitimate outrage? Absolutely. Perhaps some of you have seen the Andres Serrano art piece called "Piss Christ," which is a crucifix submerged in the artist's urine. Should the piece be protected and/or appreciated for its artistic expression? Absolutely. Do the Catholics who were outraged by the piece have a justified, legitimate right to be outraged? Absolutely. Because the cross is not a symbol; it's a religious icon. I would even argue that the rainbow flag has moved from symbol to icon, which is why we were all justifiably offended at the picture of the "rednecks" using the rainbow flag for target practice.

I'd offer one final thought as a long-time activist for GLBTQ equality. The reason same sex marriage is now legal nationwide is only 50% due to lawsuits and Supreme Court decisions. The other 50% is because of PERCEPTION and OPTICS. That's one gay person at a time befriending a skeptical straight person; our mass media reflecting us as multi-dimensional people rather than creatures lurking in bars and public parks; the relentless persuasion of straight society that we are not their GAY neighbors (or teachers, or doctors, or bosses); we are their neighbors (or teachers, or doctors, or bosses) who HAPPEN to be gay. I don't find the rainbow Iwo Jima picture offensive (because I'm 55 and nothing offends me anymore) but I do find it disturbing. But what's really important is that we need to be careful how we deal with powerful icons. The veterans have every right to be offended that their icon has been tampered with, and we need to remind ourselves: "Having the right to do something doesn't always mean it's in our best interest to do it."