I suppose the obvious topic for me to write about these days would be the whole affair surrounding Kim Davis. That’s precisely why I haven’t felt the desire to write about it. It’s too obvious. I keep feeling that by this point nobody should need me to spell out how I would feel about such nonsense: she broke the law and even if she didn’t deserve legal repercussions she certainly shouldn’t be allowed to keep her job. Apparently she’s going back to work despite the fact that she’s publicly saying she still won’t issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Religious freedom is the freedom to practice your religion, not take away the freedom from somebody who doesn’t share the same beliefs as you. Besides all of that, her beliefs are just plain wrong.
There, I got my opinions about it out of the way. So why keep going on about it? That’s precisely my problem. People keep on giving this one morally corrupt government clerk far more publicity than she deserves. Yes, she did wrong and will continue to do wrong. Yes, this is an important story after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. This country still has these conservative hurdles to jump over. But there’s a fine line between choosing a news story to represent the next step in the overall narrative and focusing on one person too much.
To write about her is to indirectly write about the people who have not gotten marriage licenses because of archaic views. Why not also write about the same-sex couples who are getting married? Okay, we acknowledge that there is still wrong going on in the world. But what about the positive, progressive news? Then we can see that not all is lost. By focusing too much on the views of the religious nuts we’re giving those views too much exposure. I’ve been leaning towards Richard Dawkin’s arguments that by debating Creationists we’re giving too much air time to their bad ideas. Perhaps we’re doing the same by giving Davis too much news coverage
This is all aside from my previously mentioned views that the only reason that I don’t believe in marriage at all; if we’re going to allow any marriage we should include those that include gay and lesbian couples. I only agree with marriage when it’s done with its original intent—as a means to control heritage. To that end I couldn’t care less what kind of romance, if any, is involved. As the law can’t recognize religion in any of its other aspects, marriage shouldn’t also be touched by religion.
I suppose if I keep going on I’ll be just as guilty of what I’m complaining about as anybody else. I can hide behind the fact that my little blog isn’t nearly as widely read as the mainstream news organizations. But if I can get any idea out there and circulating, it would be this: let’s focus more on the positive aspects of the recent Supreme Court ruling, and less on the bigotry. We shouldn’t ignore it, of course. But by showing the positive, hopefully we’ll generate more of the positive.