What Kim Davis’ refusal to give a marriage licence to a gay couple says about America

Clerk in County office Kim Davis' ignores US law that legalised gay marriage and refuses licence to gay couple. Davis becomes a hero to right wingers and a villain to liberals and gays.

WrittenBy:Vikram Johri
Date:
Article image
  • Share this article on whatsapp

The Washington Post called her “defiant”; NBC dug up the dirt on her own multiple marriages. On Thursday, she was sent to jail for contempt of court after she refused to perform her duties as mandated by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Say what you will about her, Kim Davis has got America talking.

subscription-appeal-image

Support Independent Media

The media must be free and fair, uninfluenced by corporate or state interests. That's why you, the public, need to pay to keep news free.

Contribute

Davis, a clerk in Kentucky’s Rowan County, has starkly brought forth divisions around the SCOTUS ruling that made gay marriage a nationwide reality in America earlier this year. In what has become a major news point in the US, Davis has steadfastly refused to grant marriage licences to gay couples, saying the move violated her religious beliefs.

On Wednesday, before a posse of press and cameras, she refused to grant a licence to Robbie Blankenship and his partner of 20 years, Jesse Cruz. Here is a link to the ensuing acrimony:

Expectedly, Davis’ action has led to a backlash. Gay rights organisations rallied to denounce her move and called for her firing and arrest. They argued that Davis had gone against the law and refused to perform her duty as a clerk of the state. On the other hand, Davis received much support from the conservatives for standing up to “Satanism”. Some went so far as to say that she
for doing “God’s work”.

This flashpoint may have generated the most heat, but is only the latest indicator of how the battle over marriage equality continues to divide America. When SCOTUS ruled gay marriage into nationwide reality in June, the move was heralded as the fruition of a long and divisive battle in America over gay rights. By confirming the right of every American to marry a partner of their choice irrespective of gender, SCOTUS, it was claimed, had put the final nail in the coffin of bigotry, and in so doing, midwifed the birth of a new America.

But did it really? As recent events have shown, legal remedy is only one part of the battle for greater equality. Many American states continue to have laws where gay persons can be fired for their sexuality. That does not square with marriage equality at all. Besides, religion has become a renewed battleground. Cases of bakers and florists refusing to cater gay weddings owing to the proprietor’s religious beliefs have come to light.

Davis’ refusal to grant a gay marriage licence comes in this fraught background. SCOTUS, on its part, called her stand illegal in a ruling on Monday which directed all Kentucky clerks to abide by the law. With Davis’ arrest, the issue is unlikely to settle anytime soon. As the election cycle for the 2016 polls begins, gay marriage will continue to divide the left and the right.

To be sure, America is changing, and a large number of young Americans, whether Democrat or Republican, support gay marriage. There is, however, a more insidious argument being made that does not frame gay rights as inherently bad but as violating the rights of others. Davis’ case is representative of this dichotomy. Peculiarly, she has refused to grant all licences – whether to straight or gay couples. Her stand: she did not want to discriminate under the law since her hands were tied down by her beliefs.

The stand Davis has taken raises interesting questions and it will do no good to drown them in self-righteousness. How does one decide what is right in a case like this? Is a person allowed to refuse out of personal conviction what the law demands?  This may seem wrong to gay rights advocates in this particular case, but think about earlier battles for equal rights. Had Rosa Parks vacated the seat that she was not permitted to occupy on a bus — a provision that was built into the law — we would not have witnessed the modern civil rights movement. Had Gandhi not broken the oppressive salt tax of the British, which was “legal” in the eyes of the colonial rulers, we would not have struck a brutal blow to the might of the Empire. If Mandela had not called out apartheid, a grievous policy sanctioned by the law, for the discriminatory practice that it was, he would not have spent 27 years in prison — at the end of which he got what he asked for and thus changed the world.

These examples teach us that one person, however small and weak, can shake the strongest foundations by dint of their personal voice. Surely the same logic applies to Kim Davis? Can we not equate her plea with those from the past who wanted to overturn the law of the land because an inner voice directed them to do so?

No, we cannot. There is a fundamental difference. Rosa Parks spoke from personal conviction against a practice that was discriminatory. Gandhi fought a regime that was abusive and morally reprehensible. Mandela fought against a system of oppression that considered one class of humans inferior to another.

In each of these cases, the personal voice rose against a majoritarian system. That is what gave the voices of these men and women a ringing moral currency. And that is the power that the gay rights movement, which has long struggled for equality before the law, now celebrates with the SCOTUS win. Davis’ personal voice is not a voice against oppression. It is a call for a return to an America that denied equal rights to sexual minorities. Her voice aligns not with the powerless but with those who have wielded power and discriminated.

Over the coming days the anti-gay movement will couch its campaign in language reminiscent of the best reformers of the past. They have already done this by demanding that religious belief be considered a cherished, personal ideal that prevents its adherents, against the better angels of their nature, to allow gay marriage. Examine the fatalism in this argument, as if discrimination is something that is not in one’s hands, something that one is tied down to by the force of one’s beliefs. But unexamined beliefs that vitiate the freedom of others are not beliefs but dogma.

Gay marriage is a legal reality in America today, but society has a lot of catching up to do before we reach a stage when gay unions are given the same dignity and respect as straight alliances. This will be a drawn-out process and the gay community must not rue the opposition. Social change of this magnitude takes time and as long as the law is on our side, things should move along a positive trajectory. That said, gay rights campaigners should watch out for specious arguments that couch bigotry in softer, seemingly noble concerns. Those are more diabolical, and will not be countered by a rousing invocation of the fundamental rights of man. They will need to be systematically destroyed by exposing the harmful doublespeak that they mask.

subscription-appeal-image

Power NL-TNM Election Fund

General elections are around the corner, and Newslaundry and The News Minute have ambitious plans together to focus on the issues that really matter to the voter. From political funding to battleground states, media coverage to 10 years of Modi, choose a project you would like to support and power our journalism.

Ground reportage is central to public interest journalism. Only readers like you can make it possible. Will you?

Support now

You may also like