She's No Martyr: The REAL Legacy of Kim Davis

The 24-hour news cycle has transformed how we know about events, and when we know about them, and blogs, by their very nature, are somewhat like yesterday's newspaper:  interesting, but only as relevant as the immediacy of the message they carry.  That is, unless you are writing about something predictable and unchanging; something that you know from experience is going to be the same today as it was yesterday, or weeks or months ago; something chiseled in stone or embedded in concrete.

Such a thing is Kim Davis, and her refusal to issue marriage licenses.   

I have two dogs in this fight.  The first is my long-time personal advocacy for marriage equality, which I have been writing about, posting about, and marching in support of for many years now.  The Supreme Court ruling in June was, unarguably, the watershed moment in the history of the LGBTI equality movement, one of those historical moments when we define our lives as "before this happened" and "after this happened."  But after I gave myself five minutes to celebrate, I could not escape the feeling that somehow, based on the bureaucracies of local governments and the strong grass-roots resentment against this long awaited triumph, that there would be trouble in the trenches of marriage, that county and/or local officials might in fact find a way to refuse, or at least delay, equal treatment of same sex couples.  My friends, many of whom call me "John the Cynic," told me I needed to see this glass as half full, to see it as the victory that it is, and stop worrying about the minutiae of problems down the road.  So I smiled, while still looking over my shoulder for the other shoe to drop.

In the immediate days after the Supreme Court ruling, there were "rumors of wars" that turned out to be solvable, albeit with a great deal of pain and sacrifice on the part of several gay couples nationwide.  Here in Houston where I live (a city I dearly love, by the way) the Harris County Clerk of Courts, Stan Stanart, initially refused to issue same sex licenses, using the excuse of a "necessary computer software update."  A strong letter from the Harris County Attorney fixed that.  In Hood County, near Ft. Worth, a same sex couple was refused three times before finally filing a lawsuit that forced the clerk to begin issuing licenses immediately, while costing the taxpayers of that county several thousand dollars in legal fees.  Many counties in Alabama and Mississippi were slow to come on board, and Louisiana was downright intransigent, due in large part to pronouncements on the part of bigot-in-chief of that otherwise great state, Bobby Jindal.  But as more couples demanded their rights, and justifiably threatened to sue if they were refused, the problem dwindled to just a few backward pockets of resistance, many of which are rural counties where the prospect of a same sex couple asking for a license is unlikely, as a practical matter.  And the LGBTI equality movement seemed to have found it's mechanism for resolution.  All would be well.

And then, Kim Davis happened.

That brings me to my second dog in the fight, and it is a personal one.  One of the reasons why I have devoted so much time to the issue of county clerk compliance is that I know Kim Davis.  I do not mean that I know her personally, but I grew up in a family of Kim Davises--people who think like her, feel as she does, and sympathize with her positions.  I know how their minds work, what motivates them and makes them tick.  For me, Kim Davis is that "other shoe waiting to drop," and the hell she has created for all the couples of Rowan County who are being refused licenses is that potential "worst nightmare" I was afraid of.  She is someone who, like Bartleby the Scrivener in the famous short story by Herman Melville, simply said "I'd prefer not to."  And from that moment I knew, based on my long experience with the Kim Davises in my life, where we would find ourselves right now.  There are things I have been saying throughout this ordeal I can promise you are true.  She will never issue a marriage license to a same sex couple.  She will never resign.  She does not care about anything that judges or courts have to say.  She does not care if she is fined.  She does not care if she goes to jail.  And she does not care about the couples she has refused to serve, whether they are being denied their rights or not, whether they have recourse against her are not.  She does not care. Period.

So the focus moves back to the couples, and to the marriage equality movement as a whole.  Given these realities, the emphasis must be on a solution to make these couples whole that takes into account the fact that Davis granting licenses or resigning are options that are off the table.  That might take the form of the federal judge who is handling the case in Ashland finding her in contempt, which would result in her being impeached.  Or, if she is sitting in a jail cell, perhaps the case can be made that she is "absent from work" and a clerk who is willing to issue licenses would be then be able to do so.  Or, perhaps she will be fined so deeply and so heavily that she would have no choice but to resign.  (This option is the least likely, given the proclivity of the Far Right to set up crowd funding accounts for bigots, providing them with hundreds of thousands of dollars, a sort of macabre "pay check" for hatred.)  But one thing is for sure: all of these possibilities involve more waiting, more time spent, more legal maneuvering on the part of the couples, whose lives have already been torn to pieces by this woman's ignorance and hatred and cruelty.

And the last question: will Kim Davis be viewed as a "Christian martyr" by the vast majority of Americans?  Based on what I have been seeing and hearing, the answer to that is an emphatic NO.  The Christian Right, and Davis herself, have overplayed their hand this time, and very much misjudged the American people.  The American people have a very strong sense of what is right, just and fair.  For example, I have dozens of conservative friends who were, to one degree or another, against the Supreme Court marriage equality ruling.  But to a man, or woman, every single one of those people have told me that they believe Kim Davis is wrong, and that she needs to do the job that she was elected (and is being paid $80,000 a year) to do.  No, she is no martyr--rather, she will be remembered as a hypocritical bully, someone who tried to use religion to propagate hatred and lost.  And in that regard, Kim Davis is one of the best things that could have ever happened to the LGBTI equality movement.  She is a persecutor posing as the persecuted.  And the American people have little patience with someone who refuses to follow the rules, like they do.  Like we all do.  Every Kim Davis helps galvanize the support of the American people for gay rights, and reminds them that gay people are "just like them"--hard-working, taxpaying, patriotic Americans.

So thank you, Kim Davis.  When your saga is finally over, what will remain is your legacy, and that legacy is clear:  hatred and cruelty and hypocrisy cannot defeat love and fairness and justice.  Thank you for proving the point we have been trying to make all along.

Safeguarding the Progressive Movement in a Trump Presidency

"LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!"  We are all familiar with this announcement from the Sergeant-at-Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives.  It is the last thing we hear before the leader of the free world enters the House chamber to give the State of the Union speech each January.  When we hear it in January of 2016, it will be the last time that the person who walks down the center aisle of the chamber will be Barack Obama.

Traditionally, a newly inaugurated President does address a joint session of Congress a few weeks after the inauguration, even though it is not considered an official State of the Union speech.  So when we hear those words again in 2017, who will be the person walking down the center aisle?

What if that person is Donald Trump?

There are no limits to the speculation of media pundits as to the possibility of this scenario.  "A ridiculous distraction" has morphed, in succession, into "another meaningless front-runner status"; "nothing more than the groundwork for a third party run"; "a lead in the polls that will soon evaporate"; and finally "a legitimate candidacy with a real chance at victory."  As I write, the most recent CNN/ORC poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump among registered voters by only 6 percentage points, 51% to 45%.  And unfortunately for us Progressives, Secretary Clinton is facing a barrage of political attacks that are weakening her image and viability among "The Great Undecided" center-center-right and narrow issue voters: namely, Benghazi, emails, and an increasingly powerful grass-roots challenge from Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who has given Progressives a legitimate alternative to Clinton.

Counterbalancing this precarious situation is the idea that Trump would stand no chance of becoming the Republican nominee, and that he would (as he, by his own admission during the Fox debate, would be more than happy to do) run as a third-party candidate, effectively handing the White House to the Democrats by splitting the Republican vote between the corporate shills and the whackadoodles.  But in the days since the Fox debate, poll after poll has indicated that Donald Trump's positions are, in fact, the shared views of the majority of the Republican Party, the rank-and-file of which is substantially more conservative than at least 15 of the current 17 candidates.  (Neither of the two exceptions, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, will never be the Republican nominee, for reals.)   So the stage is set for an actual Trump matchup, be it with Clinton, Sanders, or even Vice President Joe Biden, who is still contemplating getting into the race.

And that lands us squarely inside the worst of all possible nightmares: that mental picture of President Trump, walking down the center aisle to deliver his first speech to a Joint Session, one hand on the nuclear button, the other signing deportation orders for 11 million undocumented immigrants.

So, what will we Progressives do for those four years?  What will be our priorities?  In a world where we can no longer count on a presidential veto to prevent regressive, damaging or bigoted legislation, we need to get as much accomplished as possible in these next few months.  These should be our priorities:

• LGBTI rights.  Marriage equality is not the end of our fight--it's the beginning. Our goal for 2016 should be the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  This is the federal law that extends equal employment protection based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  We need to make sure that every candidate we support would be willing to vote in favor of this legislation, and write/call the Democratic leadership of both the House and the Senate to encourage bringing the law to the floor.  The nation currently has a hodge-podge of state and local ordinances, which means that LGBTI workers who change jobs and move may lose their protection.  Only a federal law can fix this.  

• Black Lives Matter.  The Black Lives Matter agenda, which includes important items such as sensitivity training for officers, deescalation of lethal force and new standards of engagement, should become the standard in every community.  Progressive voters need to make sure that every candidate we support for city councils and elected police department positions are aware of this agenda and support it.  Protests at campaign rallies are valuable, but they should be expanded to include the Republican candidates, who really need to hear the BLM message.  The recent disruption of a Jeb Bush rally was a good start.

• Immigration.  The 2016 House and Senate races will be crucial to this issue.  We must use every means at our disposal to get out the Progressive vote, not only for President, but for Congress as well.  "President Trump" has already made it clear that he fully intends to deport as many immigrants as possible, even children who are legal citizens of the United States under the 14th Amendment.  The only way to effectively oppose this is to have enough leverage in Congress to counteract any potential executive order that would lead to mass round ups and deportations.  This is perhaps the most serious threat of all.  Trump has decided to focus all of his self-loathing on this particular, vulnerable group, and he has persuaded his followers to do likewise.  

Clearly, this is the most important election of the century so far.  We Progressives lost the opportunity to steer the country in the right direction in 2000--we cannot afford to lose that opportunity this time.  The stakes are too high.  A nation can recover from the dithering of a George W. Bush, but the vindictiveness, the cruelty of a Trump presidency could ruin the United States forever.  We cannot let that happen.

Getting HERO Wrong

When it comes to LGBTQ equality, things have certainly been going our way recently on the national front.  The focus on national marriage equality, as well as various prospective approaches to national employment equality, has been all-consuming for LGBTQ activists across the nation and here in Houston.

However, to use an unfortunate analogy, while we here in Houston were celebrating the beautiful, panoramic view of the national landscape, a very large tree standing right next to us fell directly on our heads.  

And the resulting "ouchie" is pretty significant.

In May of 2014, the Houston City Council passed the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance by a significant majority.  Almost immediately, a well-organized and well-funded petition drive was organized by several anti-GLBTQ rights activists, in association with a coalition of conservative black ministers, aimed at overturning the ordinance.  On April 17 of this year, State District Judge Robert Schaffer ruled that many of the signatures on the petition were invalid, and that the ordinance should remain in effect.  End of story, right?

Well, apparently, that's what the Houston LGBTQ activist community thought, and I think the best way to explain how wrong the activist community got this is to use my own personal experience.  I am a member of several activist organizations here in Houston.  I am a grass-roots member of these groups: I give what monies I can, but I cannot afford $500 a plate gala tickets; I volunteer as much time as I can given my other obligations to HIV/AIDS activism, children's health, and two chambers of commerce; I show up for meetings and always maintain my credentialing, although I often feel as though my voice is not heard.  I sometimes have to remind myself that our activist groups are, by definition, GAY groups.  That means they are like those "measuring sticks" for children in front of rides at amusement parks:  you must be THIS (physically attractive...wealthy...politically connected) for us to acknowledge you.  

So how does my experience tie into the HERO debacle?  Well, while the Houston activist community was sleeping, a group called the NO UNequal Rights Coalition, lead by anti-GLBTQ activist Dave Welch and anti-GLBTQ attorney Andy Taylor, were busy filing not one, not two, but THREE court appeals on the petition issue, including an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.  In spite of those filings, for the last four months the leadership of the activist community has been placidly telling the rank-and-file, "Celebrate!  The HERO fight is over!  Don't worry about HERO!  Yeah, sure, there are some appeals, but they're not going anywhere.  We can focus on other things now.  Hooray!"  And instead of questioning leadership, the rank-and-file went blissfully along with this party line, and those of us who WERE aware that these appeals might in fact "go somewhere" were told not to mention the emperor's lack of clothing.

Of course, last week the chickens came home to roost.  The Texas Supreme Court ruled the petitions valid and told the Houston City Council that they had 30 days to repeal HERO or place it on the November ballot.  Now the activist community, instead of being proactive, is forced to play defense, making impassioned pleas at last week's City Council meeting, and trying desperately to organize a get-out-the-vote movement.  Lurking over all of these efforts is the political reality that at best, the vote on HERO will be close, and the awful truth that the ordinance will in all likelihood fail in November.  So far, I have heard no explanations from activist leaders about why they were so negligent about staying on top of the court appeals, or how they managed to get all of this so wrong.

The problem is this:  there are scores, perhaps hundreds, of rank-and-file, grass roots folks just like me who, if leadership would quit marginalizing us, would have been happy to have been organizing, marching, protesting, carrying signs, posting on social media, and generally making a ruckus, both in Houston AND in Austin, to make sure that the court appeals of HERO stayed firmly in both the local and national spotlights.  But too often, we are told by our organizations that "your help is not needed on this" or "we're focusing on this thing over here right now."  Grass roots doesn't work with a single square foot of sod--it requires acres of people fighting EVERY potential equal rights outcome and, unlike our leadership, staying on the horse until it's safely across the finish line.  I absolutely hope that HERO passes in November.  What I don't understand is why the leadership of the Houston GLBTQ activist community helped put us in the position we are in through their complacency, especially when there are so many people, people who constitute an untapped resource, going unused.

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."