Did the Religious Rights Movement Find its Rosa Parks in Kentucky Court Clerk Kim Davis?

Now that I’ve polarized everyone who reads the headline, try to clear your mind of the connotations that have already formed, whether in favor of, or against, the meaning of that statement.

Let’s talk about Rosa Parks, though. Rosa Parks broke the law. She did so in defense of what she believed to be a right that stood above the law she was breaking. As a human being with free will, she could choose to violate that law if she thought that it was an unjust or immoral law.
Compare to Kim Davis. Ms. Davis, it would appear, is in violation of the law, and we can expect, will be held in contempt of court tomorrow. For doing exactly what Rosa Parks did.

Do you agree with that sentence? Disagree? Why? If you agree, there’s a good chance that it’s because you don’t think homosexual marriage should be legal. If you disagree, there’s a good chance that it’s because you think homosexual marriage is a civil right.

Step back for a moment, to register and acknowledge the fact that, whichever side you are on, it is a fact that Rosa Parks and Kim Davis are using the exact same tactic to make their point. The first reaction to this claim (rejection) would be to say that there is a difference in that Kim Davis is an officer of the government, whereas Rosa Parks was not. Irrelevant. Her employment is merely the condition that led to her being in a position to have to choose whether or not to violate the law. One could just as easily claim that Rosa Parks didn’t have to ride buses if she didn’t want to be in a position to have to make the choice she made.

Let’s go deeper. Let’s think about the other people involved in these two law-breakers’ escapades. Consider Ms. Davis first. By breaking the law, she is making people feel bad. She is depriving a homosexual couple (actually-two homosexual couples, to be precise) of something they believe should be theirs. In this case, they, and the government, think that they should be eligible to have a marriage license. By refusing them, she is taking something from them. Withhold your judgement on them for just a moment, and consider the fact that from their perspective, their rights have been violated.

For Ms. Parks, by breaking the law, she was making people feel bad too. In her case, she was making the white folk on the bus, who felt, and were backed by the law in the city they lived in, entitled to be free of sitting next to or near a person of color, as long as they sat in one of the first ten rows of the bus. By sitting where she sat, she was taking something from them. Withhold your judgement on them for just a moment, and consider the fact that from their perspective, their rights had been violated.

In each case, we have two sides, and each side believes that their rights have been, or are in jeopardy of being violated. How to balance these rights (whose rights trump mine?) is something that divides this country even further.

What is clear to me is that the winners these days, and their laws, are no different than those they have supplanted, or the laws they are overturning. Each seeks ultimate priority for the rights that they value more dearly, and ultimate priority is sought because I THINK IT’S GOOD.
Where do we go from here? Unfortunately, I’m not optimistic for our future. I can’t even decide which path forward I prefer, because I think we are equally unlikely to embrace any but a path that will continue to divide us. But allow me to propose two:

1. Since we can’t agree, we should embrace the Libertarian’s philosophy. If it’s my bus, I discriminate how I want. If it’s your bus, you discriminate how you want. Then we all use the internet to put the bad bus companies out of business. And as for marriage? The answer there is separation of marriage and tax liabilities and benefits. Take the money away, and make it a private contract, and there won’t be anything to fight over. Sound too simple? The good answers usually do.

2. Let’s all agree on a set of priorities. But let’s not choose our priorities. Let’s choose God’s priorities. No, this one is not easy. I will settle for a first step: can’t we agree that we are not the Ultimate Authority in this world? Can’t we agree that we must submit to a Higher Authority, one that is both higher than our parents, and higher than our government? Let’s agree to spend time contemplating (praying, even) that we be given the grace to know and understand what God wants for each of us. I think if we did that, we’d come a long way toward loving each other in the ways that God truly intended.