Wondering, on Wednesday (v44)

I watched with interest President Obama's State of the Union (SOTU) address last night; I was curious about what he was going to say in his lame duck address, especially since there had been news in the days leading up to last night's speech that he was going to be 'unconventional' or 'nontraditional' this time around. And to an extent, that was true.

Gone were the call outs to Americans sitting in the guest boxes, veterans or teachers or plumbers or the like, folks who lived a story that touched on an issue close to the President's heart (or that of his speechwriters). The people were still there, of course. Even less-than-special guests, like Kim Davis, the government employee who refuses to do her job down in Kentucky. Seems she was 'invited' by a representative from Ohio who, until he was tracked down by someone today, was not even aware he had invited her. I wonder, this Wednesday, if he would have asked her to come along on purpose, instead of donating a ticket to a foundation that ended up in her hands?

Gone, too, from this SOTU, was any pretense of trying to get any major work done this year; Obama opened the speech noting that

Tonight marks the eighth year I've come here to report on the State of the Union. And for this final one, I'm going to try and make it shorter. I know some of you are antsy to get back to Iowa.  I know -- I've been there.

I also understand that, because it's an election season, expectations for what we'll achieve this year are low...I want to go easy on the traditional list of proposals for the year ahead. 

Generally, he kept to his legislative-light approach, and focused more on our country and our American ideals.  He made many references tor our past and how we need to somehow regain what we used to be, if we are to be successful in the future.

America has been through big changes before - wars and depression, the influx of immigrants, workers fighting for a fair deal, and movements to expand civil rights. Each time, there have been those who told us to fear the future, who claimed we could slam the brakes on change, promising to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control. And each time, we overcame those fears. We did not in the words of Lincoln, adhere to the "dogmas of the quiet past." Instead we thought anew, and acted anew. We made change work for us... and because we did - because we saw opportunity where others saw only peril - we emerged stronger and better than before.

 A bit later, as a preface to four questions he wanted to get us thinking about, he posed this question:

Will we respond to the changes of our time with fear, turning inward as a nation, and turning against each other as a people? Or will we face the future with confidence in who we are, what we stand for, and the incredible things we can do together?

Here's the gist of his four questions:

1. How do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security?
2. How do we make technology work for us and not against us?
3. How do we keep America safe, without becoming the world's policeman?
4. How can we make our politics reflect what's best in us, and not what's worst?

The last question is by far the one I'm most interested in. The first three can be filtered down into ideological issues - small government vs. big government, trickle down vs. bubble up, and so on, but the last one? That one can cross, even obliterate, party lines.

Regular readers know I often find myself wondering how the heck we got into such a pickle with our political process, with more money than all of the Supreme Beings from all the world's religions have between them corrupting the process, with corporations being equal to living, breathing people with individual rights, with efforts to restrict voting, and sham political districts, and politicians openly supporting those who bald-face disregard our laws, such as the aforementioned Kim Davis, and the Bundys, and people who refuse service to people who are not like them... I could go on and on.

President Obama hit on those topics last night. And then, he challenged us, people from both major parties and all of the other official parties, the almost parties, the special caucuses and even the loosely affiliated. He challenged us one and all.

The future we want - opportunity and security for our families; a rising standard of living and a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids - all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates.

It will only happen if we fix our politics.

I wondered, as he wove his way through this part of his speech, looking out an an audience unburdened by term limits, many of them beneficiaries of the very practices he was describing, if he really thought the people in the room would go home thinking even a tiny bit differently about how they personally are perceived, or how what they do is perceived?

Changes in our political process - in not just who gets elected but how they get elected - that will only happen when the American people demand it. It will depend on you. That's what's meant by a government of, by, and for the people.

What I'm asking for is hard. It's easier to be cynical; to accept that change isn't possible, and politics is hopeless, and to believe our voices and actions don't matter. But if we give up now, we forsake a better future.  

I wondered, would people believe him when he said it basically didn't matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, the only thing that matters is that you participate?

And so, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligations as a citizen. To vote. To speak out. To stand up for others, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable, knowing that each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, stood up for us. To stay active in our public life so it reflects the goodness and decency and optimism that I see in the American people every single day. 

Because, ultimately, it doesn't matter what your beliefs are. What matters is that your participate.

Will we answer the call, I wonder?

The Sixth and First vs. the Second

In yesterday's post, I explained the real reason Kim Davis is in jail.

Among those who believe, erroneously, that  Davis is being persecuted for her religious views, for being a Christian, are some of the Republican presidential candidates. Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee have clearly come out on that side of the equation, as I noted yesterday. But where do the rest of the Rs stand on this?

Well, here's a sampling.

Front runner Donald Trump thinks that others in the Rowan County Clerk's office should be able to issue the licenses, or that frankly, people should leave town and get one somewhere else.

I would say the simple answer is to let her clerks do it. Now from what I understand, she's not letting the clerks do it either.  The other simple answer is rather than going through this -- because it's really a very, very sticky situation and terrible situation - 30 miles away they have other places they have many other places you get licenses. And you have them actually quite nearby, that's another alternative. 

He's half right - others in her office should be able to issue the marriage licenses, and in fact began doing so last week.  However, his suggestion that citizens cannot receive services in their own county because one elected official decides that her beliefs are more important than the law, is not acceptable.

Kentucky's own Senator Rand Paul says the answer is for states to stop issuing marriage licenses all together.

There never should have been any limitations on people of the same sex having contracts. But I do object to the state putting its imprimatur to the specialness of marriage, on something that's different than most people defined as marriage for most of history. So one way is just getting the state out completely, and I think that's where we're headed, actually.

Paul's answer is at least consistent with his beliefs in smaller government, and it removes the issue entirely by making marriage a contract between two parties with 'blessings' coming from a church if that's what you believe. But he too stays away from addressing the issue of an elected official not doing her job.

Rick Santorum, on his website, notes his respect for Davis, and vows to protect the First Amendment if elected.

I have great respect for Ms. Davis and her courage to stand up for her faith. In America we should not have to choose between keeping our job and practicing our faith. Today only reinforces my belief that the First Amendment Defense Act must be passed now at the Federal and state level. More and more people of faith will face the penalties Ms. Davis is now encountering if we do not make the necessary accommodations so people cannot just worship but live out their faith in their lives.

Santorum, like others, chooses to ignore the fact that Ms Davis is not just living out her faith, but insisting that everyone else live by her faith as well.

Similarly, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal  is on the wrong side of this. Speaking to the Huffington Post, he noted

I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners. We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience. I absolutely do believe that people have a First Amendment right, a constitutional right. I don't think the court can take that away. 

And Wisconsin's golden boy Scott Walker?  He was "out there" in his response, (which is where he believes religious beliefs are practiced).

It's a balance that you've got to have in America between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring the Constitution is upheld. I read that the Constitution is very clear, that people have the freedom of religion.  That means you have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs out there.

So, in general, these folks who would be president think that:

• it's OK for an elected official to put his or her personal religious beliefs above the law, and 
• it's generally OK for an elected official to impose those personal beliefs on everyone else,
• or that citizens should just find another jurisdiction to obtain the services they're entitled to,
• or that the government should just get out of the business of doing things that people may find objectionable.  

OK.  Let's pretend those are the right answers, the correct positions to have here. And let's say that I'm an elected official, and among my duties, I'm required to issue gun licenses and permits for folks who want to concealed-carry.

And let's say that it is my personal belief that guns kill people, and I steadfastly believe that 'Thou shalt not kill, and therefore I refuse to issue any gun licenses or concealed-carry permits.  And say that a judge orders me to issue the licenses and permits, and I not only refuse to issue them myself, but I also refuse to allow anyone else in my office to issue them. And say I try to get the Supreme Court to hear my case, and they refuse. And I still will not issue the permits, because of this 'heaven and hell' position my beliefs put me in (as Davis says), and so I go to jail.

• Would Mike Huckabee hold a rally for me, and petition the President to free me right now?
• Would Rick Santorum craft legislation to protect me? 
• Would Rand Paul suggest that the government get out of the gun permitting business, and have that just be a contract between two parties?
• Would Donald Trump simply send me to a different jurisdiction to avoid this "very, very sticky situation and terrible situation" in which I placed the citizens I was elected to serve?  

I think we all know the answer to that: Of. Course. Not.

Because a citizen exercising her personal right to practice her religion and live by her personal belief  that guns are killing machines and are against her religion, thereby barring other people from being able to exercise their right to own a gun? Well, that's a completely different constituency, and we know it's one that no Republican is going to defy.

These folks would be committing political suicide if they stood by me in a battle of the Sixth Commandment and the First Amendment vs. the Second Amendment.  I know it; you know it; and they know it. Add another twist - say I was a Muslim, or an atheist -- and we'd barely be able to see them in the rear view mirror.

These candidates should all take a page out of Carly Fiorina's book:

When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government. And while I disagree with this court's decision, their actions are clear. And so I think in this particular case, this woman now needs to make a decision of conscience -- is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid by the government, in which case she needs to execute the government's will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government ...?

That is exactly the issue here. And that's exactly the right answer.

That we have so many people running for president who pretend not to understand  this, and who would not have the courage of this 'religious freedom' conviction if the belief-holder wasn't a Christian, and wasn't complaining about same sex marriage, is frightening.

Why is Kim Davis in Jail?

Kim Davis is in jail because not because she's being punished for her beliefs, as some people maintain, but for her failure to obey the law and her failure to do her duty as the elected county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky.

Some of the presidential candidates are chiming in.Prominently, for example, Mike Huckabee, president of the Josh Duggar Fan Club, plans on visiting Davis on Tuesday.  He's also established a Free Kim Davis Now petition,which is front and center on his presidential campaign page.  The petition, addressed to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and US District Judge David Bunning, states:

Immediately release Kim Davis from federal Custody. Exercising Religious Liberty should never be a crime in America. This is a direct attack on our God-given Constitutional Rights. 

Government government shutdown artist/denier Ted Cruz also supports Davis in her dereliction of duty, and has also wrongly stated the issue on purpose, noting that

Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their faith - or be sent to jail.

Not so much, gentlemen.

Kim Davis is not only not being persecuted for being a Christian; she's not being persecuted at all. She's being treated like a public official who has officially shown contempt for the law, and for multiple courts. Her disdain has been duly recognized, which is what she wanted, and she's simply getting the attention she requested by defying the court's order.

Some folks are happy to point out that Davis has had four marriages, as if that should disqualify her from having a faith-based position on same-sex unions. While it might be hypocritical to profess concern about the sanctity of marriage if you've had four of them yourself, it's not really our business, and it's not the issue here. The more time spent on that argument, I think, the more time wasted.

Truth be told, I'm also not concerned with her religious beliefs. Not because I disagree with them (which I do), and certainly not because she's not entitled to them -- she is absolutely entitled to have her own personal religious beliefs, and to share them. However, she has no right to impose her beliefs on anyone else. That's why they're called personal religious beliefs.

Some folks have suggested that, if Davis were a Muslim instead of a Christian, no one would have an issue  with her behavior. That argument is ridiculous; this isn't about her choice of faith - it's about her failure to do the job she was elected to do.

Davis's decision to deny marriage licenses to all who seek them, whether gay or straight, is not a defense, either. Dereliction of duty equally applied is still dereliction of duty.

Her actions are also in direct conflict with her own statements thanking those who voted for her when she was elected last year, replacing her mother who served for decades in the position.

My words can never express the appreciation, but I promise to each and every one (of her constituents) that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and fulfill the statutes of this office to the letter.  (Emphasis added.)

She also noted during the race that

If I'm elected it will be a seamless transition with no break in services to our citizens. Licenses, taxes, election-related activities and all of our other services cannot stop or slow down.  (Again, emphasis added.)

A "working clerk" would issue marriage licenses to all legal applicants, and a "good steward of their tax dollars" would not accept salary and benefits paid by tax dollars if he or she was not doing her job. After all, the county clerk cannot pick and choose which dollars she's going to take care of, she must take care of all of them, including the ones that pay her salary. Further, it defies logic that not issuing licenses would seem to constitute a "stop or slowdown" don't you think?

Davis should stay in jail for as many days as it takes for her to formally agree to perform all of the duties of her office. She could be released on bail, I suppose, but that would seem the easy way out (and one which would attract a lot less attention) so I doubt the option would be accepted if offered.

If she can't bring herself to faithfully execute the duties of her office -- all of them -- as required, then she must step down. I'd also like to see her repay the salary and benefits she received under false pretenses during this time. (Davis reportedly makes $80,000 per year.)

She's also potentially facing charges for misconduct,for violating the Kentucky code; charges have been referred to the State's Attorney General.

A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, knowingly (a) commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions or (b) refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office or (c) violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office. 

The code doesn't get into the reasons behind an official's misconduct, and neither should we.

Kim Davis is welcome to exercise her religious beliefs, even to proselytize on her own time; she's welcome to teach bible study to prisoners (if they're interested) on her free time, as it's been reported she does.

However, she's not welcome to deny services to the taxpayers she was elected to serve, whether they are gay or straight, old or young, black or white, male or female, Christian or atheist or anything in between.