Kim Davis poses a modern threat to gay rights (COMMENT)

[Melech 9,900]

"It's easy to dismiss Kim Davis as out of step with the modern world. Davis is the Kentucky county clerk jailed by a judge for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-s-x couples. She returned to work on Monday. An LGBTQ group recently put up a billboard in her hometown that reads, "Dear Kim Davis, The fact that you can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we've already redefined marriage." The implication is that Davis is trying to live in ancient, Biblical times.

Yet Davis's brand of Christianity is quite modern. In fact, it's as new as gay rights itself. And almost 100 years ago, gay rights activists were dismissing their opponents as holders of "medieval opinions," as one wrote in 1920. 

It's a mistake to assume that Davis will fade away, along with other primordial relics, such as swapping one's child for livestock. Activists like Davis have been around as long as gay rights has. Supporters of gay rights have always had to battle them over the question of what same-s-x desire is. 

In the Middle Ages, the Catholic and Protestant Churches had the first and last word on same-s-x desire: It was, according to them, a sin. Gay rights began in German-speaking Europe in the mid-1800s, when psychiatrists insisted that same-s-x desire was a mental illness, not a sin or a crime against nature. Some gay people embraced that idea. But soon, brave advocates began to insist that their love for those of their own s-x was neither a sin nor an illness. They were, they said, a special kind of person.

Freedom for LGBTQ people has not been a steady forward march of progress that we can take for granted.

In Germany from the 1890s through 1933 (when the Nazis took power), men and women built a robust movement that they named "homos-xual emancipation." Some of them described homos-xuality as an unusual biological condition (but not an illness) like having red hair. Others put biological thinking aside and claimed to be a "s-xual minority" like a national or racial minority. "We are a people," one activist wrote in 1923. 

Early gay rights defined same-s-x desire in a new way. It tried to banish Christianity's definition.

By the 1920s, German homos-xual emancipation's chief enemy was a group of passionate Christians, like Davis. The county clerk recently suggested to her supporters that they are all on a mission from God. God, she told them, "knows exactly where each and every one of us is at." They had to "keep on pressing," she said, "Because he is here." German Christians, similarly, thought that God was watching closely. Homos-xuals were not a special kind of people bounded by biology or identity. Instead, they claimed, homos-xuality was a contagious form of moral disruption. Tolerating it would allow it to spread, undermining social order and leading to anarchy, and that was not what God wanted.

In the 1920s, German homos-xual emancipation won more freedom for gay people than the world had yet seen. Christian activists called Germany "the new Sodom and Gomorrah," as one Protestant put it. After the Nazis seized power and crushed the homos-xual emancipation movement, a Catholic bishop thanked "the Lord our God" for guiding Hitler to "eradicate ... open propaganda for godlessness and immorality." (Almost 100 years later, this same line of thinking led arch-conservative religious leaders in the U.S. to attribute natural disasters like Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina to the sin of gay rights.) This vision was a direct challenge to the gay right's movements claims that homos-xuality was a natural, normal condition. It was, moreover, a call to action: If homos-xuality was a dangerous turn from God's path that threatened the nation, believers had to act.

Happily, things have changed since the early days of gay rights. For one thing, Christianity has changed – there are now Christian denominations that welcome same-s-x couples. Additionally, arch-conservative Christian opposition to gay rights has lost a lot of ground. There is now so much support for gay rights that it is not possible for Davis and her supporters to make their theological ideas the centerpiece of their fight. Davis has not publicly called Kentucky "the new Sodom." She is not, at the moment, calling loudly for the end of gay marriage, though she would clearly welcome that. Rather, she demands to be allowed to opt out of the rule of law. She and other far-right Christians are, so to speak, backed into a corner.

Yet it's worth remembering that freedom for LGBTQ people has not been a steady forward march of progress that we can take for granted. Germany of the 1920s was the most tolerant country of its day when it came to gay rights, while Germany of the 1930s, under the Nazis, was one of the most murderously homophobic regimes the world has yet seen. People like Davis are not living in the past. They are not going to disappear. Their recent claims about religious freedom pose a real threat to gay rights. Supporters of equality must take them seriously."

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/kim_davis_poses_a_modern_threat_to_gay_rights_commentary.html

Exactly my thoughts! 

[Bebe 17,289]

I agree with this commentary, and I think it also has a wider scope. Mike Huckabee, who is a huge supporter of Kim Davis standing next to her when she was released from jail, recently attacked Doritos for going rainbow in celebration of gay pride and to raise money for LGBT charity.

He was joined by many right-wingers including group One Million Moms. Some workers at the Frito Lay plant refused to work and many customers expressed outrage online.

The whole idea was that the chips mailed to anyone who donated at least $10 to It Gets Better, an LGBT group that helps LGBT youth with mental illness and works to diminish and prevent LGBT suicide.

It's easy for people to laugh away at the idea that these people were against rainbow coloured chips, but the message is strong. These people see Doritos support a charity aimed at PREVENTING THE DEATHS of LGBT youth and think it's a moral outrage. They don't care whether we live or die, they don't care that so many LGBT youths take their lives.

While our community screams for help in reducing the death count of out youth, these highly moral people turn around and exclaim "How dare you!!?? How could you force this sort of immorality down out throats? We don't care if you are dying, we don't care to help you. Don't you dare raise such concerns. We can accept you exist, but we don't want to hear about it."

It really uncovers the nasty underbelly of society. These people exist, and they are not small in numbers. These people don't care about you, they don't want you to be equal and they don't care about your struggles. To them, it's a moral outrage and an attack on their values when any company chooses to represent the LGBT community or help save their lives.

It's pretty serious and extreme when you think about it. It's more serious than some laughable overreaction to some coloured corn chips.

[darkchylde 14,857]

let's just fcking smack them all  republicans

[Princess Die 1,864]

She's a pissant. Let's be real here.

[uo111 5,283]

It doesn't make sense to say anti-gay behavior existed as early as gay rights. It existed wayyyyyyyyyy before gay rights. And supporters of gay rights have surpassed it in many western countries, despite the vehement opposition throughout most of modern history. To put that into perspective, religious institutions have had thousands of years to cinvince people gays are evil, and gays undid it in less than 50.

[Shadow 6,697]

With any movement, there is always a counter movement. There are people for change and there are people who want the status quo or even go back to old standards. Each generation deals this social arm wrestle from parent to child, from institution backers to freedom fighters, from one set of morals to another set. Both movements have strong conditioning from experiences or the same messages being repeated every week. Trauma is a critical instance that can change perspective or cement it for long periods of time. 

If only with the Age of Reason long passed, could people simply coexist and live and let live? Why can't people have their values and views and leave it at that? Why must people force or expect others to love by their lifestyle when billions of people are so different? Every single institution or group go above and beyond to protect, defend, and try to sell whatever subject they find to be so important.

If only people walked the walk instead of b---hing. I always respect people if they can show me how their lifestyle is great without alienating anyone else. No more glorified victims or transgressors, why not just let people live and plant their lives out with whatever seeds were laid. We're all on this planet going the same direction, despite the circles we take ourselves on.

Why must there be a Kim Davis or all this struggle for rights in a country that was suppose to be the land of the free? People look at freedom and seem to only think of what they are allowed to do or what they want, but what about the neighbor? Don't they deserve that right as well? We all need to wrap our minds around freedom in this nation, even this world. If we want to be free, why not extend that freedom to others...