I know that facts and logic have no place in Republican tradition, but Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio–and the other political grandstanders surrounding Kim Davis–are advocating for a Christian version of Sharia law.
How? They set this whole screwed up anti-gay marriage argument for Kim Davis’ refusal to issue marriage licenses up as a religious persecution play. This is the same crowd that says, “We don’t want [Islamic] Sharia law, don’t let them tell us what to do, keep their religion out of our lives and out of our government.”
But it’s ok when Christian beliefs supersedes the law of the land? Really? When this started, this lawyer said that he needed an accommodation for a woman who wanted one. She said she didn’t want her name on a license for gay people. They couldn’t come up with an accommodation. Now they’ve come up with one: they’ve let her out of jail; they’ve said, “All right, you don’t have to have your name on there. We’ll just put the county on there.” All this is done.
But it’s not what they want–we’re hearing now what they want. This is what they want, and this is what they’re going to get: a stirred-up argument, and they’re making these claims that laws, even ones decided by the Supreme Court, a Conservative Supreme Court, can be broken with impunity as long as it’s on religious grounds. And the truth is when you get right down to the fundamentals of this, the Supreme Court of the United States says that you can’t have things being okay for one group of people and not okay for another group of people. This is not unprecedented. They did it when they said that black and white people couldn’t marry. And they said, “Oh, wait, I guess you can.” Now they’ve said straight people and gay people can also all get married.
But presidential candidates no less, are advocating for the higher law being that stated in their personal religions…in this case, Christianity. It is a complete manipulation of religious individuals in order to satisfy a political message. And if it were a Muslim or Jewish or Hindu man or woman citing religious doctrine as superior to the Constitutional of the United States there would be an outcry from the Conservatives tantamount to declaring war.
The government is not going to get in the way of you more than they did in the way of straight people back in the day. But haters are going to hate. We thought that what this woman wanted was an accommodation, which they’ve granted her–something that worked for everybody, but it’s not what they want.
If Kim Davis, the woman refusing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples in Kentucky, was a Muslim man refusing to simply endorse drivers licenses for women (or marriage licenses for Christians) do you think the same people yelling “Freedom of Religion!” today would be yelling about Sharia Law?
By the way, it is Kim Davis’s job to certify a marriage license. It is not her job to endorse gay marriage. If she cannot do her job according to the Constitution of the United States and the Supreme Court she should be held in contempt. The only problem with holding her in contempt of court is she emboldens a growing group of Christians with a victimhood mentality and a martyrdom complex that suggest she is a symptom of a fascist government with a Muslim, Socialist, Anti-American president.
The loud voices get heard too often. And several presidential candidates have taken up this exact position for political purposes. They happen to be candidates with low poll numbers. But if a candidate for president of the United States doesn’t understand an issue concerning a county clerk doesn’t it follow that it would disqualify them to be president?
For almost seven years now, Republicans and conservatives have accused President Obama and Congressional Democrats of supporting “Sharia Law,” the concept within some quarters of Islam that believes religious law always trumps written law. This is EXACTLY what Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz are advocating! There’s never been any evidence that Obama or Democrats support this and in fact, they have often supported laws they might not agree with in totality over personal beliefs.
In the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refuses to do her job in violation of the Constitution, state law and the U.S. Supreme Court, the veil has slipped once again from the right and we see that if anyone supports some sort of Sharia law in America, it is the Republican Party.
The case here is very cut and dry. The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage in America is constitutional and legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. There can be no ban on those unions between legal adults in any state or jurisdiction in the country. You cannot restrict it, at all.
Yet according to Huckabee, Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio–and their disciples Palin, Bachmann, et al—if elected President, the job entrusted to defend that same Constitution, are backing Kim Davis. And doing so under the most absurd of justifications.
So-called libertarian Rand Paul says he supports this form of Sharia by noting, “I think people who do stand up and are making a stand to say that they believe in something.”
Senator Marco Rubio backed Sharia law in America, telling the New York Times, “There should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office.”
Failing presidential candidate and former Fox News host Mike Huckabee also called for a Sharia-compliant America, going even further than the others in his support of the law-violating Kim Davis:
“Kim is asking the perfect question: ‘Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?’ That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school,” Huckabee said in a Wednesday statement, according to Right Wing Watch.
America exists under a system of laws, not religious edict. Those laws protect the right to worship, but the beliefs of worshippers don’t have precedence over our laws. Several members of the Republican Party’s presidential field, campaigning for a job that is in many ways the chief law enforcement officer for the United States, and who would nominate Justices to serve on the Supreme Court, have come down on the supremacy of religious beliefs over our written rules of law.
Now it that’s not treasonous to the oath of the office that they seek, then what is?