The Privilege of the Oppressed

Posted on | September 4, 2015 | 296 Comments

A court clerk in Kentucky want to jail because she would not issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Keep in mind that, in 2004, an amendment to the Kentucky state constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman was approved by 75% of the voters. To this fact, our nation’s liberal elite answer: Damn the voters, damn Kentucky and damn Kim Davis for thinking that her religious beliefs should be respected. The liberal elite — in particular, Justice Anthony Kennedy and four of his Supreme Court colleagues — have decided that Christian belief must be forcibly eradicated, and that the voters of Kentucky are not fit to govern themselves. Therefore, Kim Davis is a criminal.

This is what our nation’s liberal elite demands in 2015, because the liberal elite believes in a radical egalitarian ideology in which only those who are deemed “oppressed” have any influence or protection in American society. The law must judge every conflict according to a simple question: “Who is the greater ‘victim of society’ here?” The victims always win, and therefore the only way to “win” is to present yourself as a helpless loser, in order to demand that “society” give you whatever you want as compensation for your oppressed condition. That this kind of “social justice” mentality incentivizes failure and inspires fraudulent claims of victimhood (everything is rape now) is bad enough. Yet it also serves to destroy society’s ability to protect itself against real harms, as evidenced by a recent federal court ruling:

A federal appeals court has ruled that an illegal immigrant and convicted felon can’t be deported back to Mexico because he identifies as a transgender woman, which leaves him vulnerable to torture back in his home country.
Edin Carey Avendano-Hernandez was born male in Mexico, and claims to have been raped by his brothers and suffered other torments. In 2000, he illegally entered the U.S. and took up residence in Fresno, California. Avendano-Hernandez also started taking female hormones and began living openly as a woman in 2005. In 2006, he committed two separate drunk driving offenses, the second of which injured two people and resulted in a felony conviction. After serving a year in jail, he was deported back to Mexico in 2007.
Back in Mexico, Avendano-Hernandez claims to have been subjected to more harassment from family and neighbors and to have been raped by members of the Mexican army. He illegally entered the U.S. again and, after being arrested, petitioned for sanctuary in the U.S. under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that deporting him would violate the CAT because he would more likely than not experience torture at the hands of Mexican authorities. . . .
Now, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says Avendano-Hernandez must be allowed to stay in the U.S., because he “more likely than not” will be tortured if returned to Mexico.
Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, an Obama appointee, chastised immigration officials for improperly handling Avandano-Hernandez’s gender identity. . . .
The belief that Avendano-Hernandez was raped and tortured in Mexico appears to be based entirely on his own claims, which were deemed to be “credible” by his immigration judge.

Read the whole thing at The Daily Caller. You see the court has decided that this convicted criminal, who otherwise would be ineligible for residency in the United States, now must be granted residency, merely because his/her “gender identity” would make him/her a victim of Mexican society if he/she were to be deported. The United States therefore must accept every foreign transsexual who can make it across the border, because “social justice” requires it.

Christians in Kentucky have zero rights, so Kim Davis goes to jail, while a Mexican criminal pervert has a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.

Category: Gays

Comments

296 Responses to “The Privilege of the Oppressed”

Evi L. Bloggerlady
September 4th, 2015 @ 1:19 pm

It always go well for Christians who oppose the state on moral matters…
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h8u6QmpQdz8/Vej8sRXbhHI/AAAAAAAAym0/3LmM5JEaC08/s1600/ignatius_lions.jpg
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 1:41 pm

Sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more with this. Her religious beliefs are irrelevant in her job as a county clerk, and public servant. If she can no longer perform her tasks she should quit. The idea that the law should be amended to suit this individual(a slippery slope if there ever was one), and she should be able to remain on salary, and with benefits at taxpayer expense for not doing her job is ridiculous. She doesn’t have to like homosexuals, or approve of their lifestyle, but she still has to serve them as a county worker, and her personal prejudice doesn’t change that. What she definitely is not, is a martyr for a cause, or an example of a Christian being persecuted for her beliefs. The keys to her jail cell for defying the orders of a federal court are in her hands.
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 1:44 pm

If she can no longer perform her job she has the freedom to resign just like every other person who no longer agrees with certain policies, or directives in the workplace. Her religious beliefs do not exclude her from doing a job she is being paid to do.
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 1:47 pm

The state of Kentucky should fire her for simple insubordination, and then she can try and sue for wrongful termination, and discrimination, a lawsuit which I’m guessing she would also lose.
ECM
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:04 pm

It’s almost like people such as yourself failed remedial civics, so say it with me: courts can merely ‘interpret’* a law. They cannot rewrite it, they cannot execute it, etc., despite what you may have read on the Internet.

Does it matter that we pretend they can on a regular basis (the most recent example being John Roberts *again* rewriting Obamacare)? No, because there is in fact no *law* governing such behavior that would grant US courts–up to and including the Supremes–such powers. Just because Congress refuses to act on their power to impeach these justices does not, in fact, make their pronouncements law as they have on authority to do so.

Therefore, until the state of KY–or Congress–make and pass a *law* authorizing her to dole out marriage licenses to homosexual couples, she is, in fact, in the right *legally*.

(Note: one of the great tragedies of this situation is that the right, it would appear, have fully accepted the left’s premise that courts can, in fact, write and execute law as the sheer number of comments and articles about this “terrible law” (that isn’t actually a law) attest.)

(Note 2: I’m not a believer, but this has ****-fall to do w/ her religious faith and everything to do with rule of law–that is, *actual* rule of law, not “I got my law degree from the Internet” rule of law.)

*That is, give the thumbs up or down.
Benschachar
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:21 pm

Just curious but would you say the same for all the Democrats running sanctuary cities that flagrantly ignore the law?
kilo6
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:31 pm

How many US States passed measures against pseudo-sodo marriage via popular vote? I think it was 19 via my last count, and all were overturned via judges. Where’s the “will of the people” in that? Do we have a representative democratic republic or an oligarchy?
The premise that homosexuals are somehow the heirs to the 1960s civil rights movement is deeply flawed. There’s nothing sinful, destructive or disordered about any skin color but sodomy is quite another story. If one believes the purpose of marriage is procreation and education of children as society has for millennia, then homosexual “marriage” is a contradiction. If one believes the purpose of marriage is purely sexual pleasure and the state sanctioning of how and with whom you achieve an orgasm, then as a society we’re heading for something out of Huxley’s Brave New World.
There’s been a decades long propaganda effort which has caused many people to believe two homosexuals acting out unnatural urges in a mens room is the same as marriage, if one accepts this premise … I really don’t know how to address this in a comments section.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:32 pm

I do not disagree with that. Of course, Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom should have resigned too when they disagreed with laws in California. I am assuming you did not call out for that at the time.
Benschachar
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:33 pm

Honestly, this is getting so bloody stupid. You can’t choose who you serve as a baker, a private businessman nor can you act in accordance with the electorate who voted you into office. But dare to cross the degenerate pets of the Democrats you get tossed behind bars and sued out of business. How long before the Democrats make our private conservations illegal or toss pastors into jail.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:36 pm

You are correct and that should also be the standard for all. Equal protection as you apply it should apply equally to Leftists when they disagree with laws in place.
Lee Reynolds
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:36 pm

Arrested?

No. She should be FIRED for not doing her job.

We don’t lock someone up for refusing to sell us a happy meal. We get them fired. That is what should happen here.

Her religious beliefs mean absolutely nothing. It is her job to issue licenses. She is refusing to do her job. Therefore she should be fired. Then she can go home and be as religious as she likes.

If she won’t do her job, there are plenty of people ready and willing to take her place and her paycheck.
daialanye
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:39 pm

This is obviously a special situation since it’s a case of the court usurping the legislative function. On a practical basis, such legal determinations allow a minority in Washington to appoint individuals who force a change in law that would not pass a legislature.
daialanye
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:41 pm

And we should ban you from posting here, merely because I’ve determined your sophistry to be unacceptable. You may sue me if you disagree.
Benschachar
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:41 pm

What if they own their own business?
ConstantineX1
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:56 pm

Here is where Tyrant David Bunning and Anthony Kennedy get their power from: http://www.constantinoplenotistanbul.com/2015/09/this-explains-where-federal-tyrant-david-l-bunning-gets-his-power-istandwithkim/
ConstantineX1
September 4th, 2015 @ 2:58 pm

She was following the law in Kentucky. Gay marriage does not exist in Kentucky law. Judges do not make law. They make something but it’s not law. laws are passed by LEGISLATURES, not by the gavel bangs of deranged unelected judges.
Quartermaster
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:12 pm

There is a very large difference between law and judicial fiat. Queer “marriage” is not law, but judicial fiat. Courts don’t make law.

OTOH, sanctuary cities stand not just in violation of the law, but in defiance of it.
Quartermaster
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:13 pm

They violated actual law, not judicial fiat. They should have been jailed for it.
NeoWayland
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:17 pm

This whole mess was made when government started licensing marriage.

That being said, if the state (or it’s agents) base licensing on religious principles, it is religious discrimination by definition. No government should do that.

That is completely separate from a private business.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:20 pm

I would be good with fired.
NeoWayland
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:28 pm

Apparently as an elected official, she can’t be fired.

She can be impeached. Or she can resign.

Given what’s happened, she could probably win another term.
Renaissance
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:32 pm

A propos:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/alarmed-report-details-sexual-lefts-agenda-to-defeat-surging-european-famil
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:44 pm

We all know federal law supersedes state law here. If she can’t perform her job as a county clerk she should resign. Making gay couples go to another office in another county because a state employee’s supposed(and I really stress that word since she’s working on marriage number 4)religious beliefs aren’t being honored is total crap. Quit, or let someone else issue the liscense, but she won’t even allow that, even though five other clerks are complying with the judge’s orders.
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:45 pm

Totally ad hominem.
trangbang68
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:46 pm

Also President Obola ought to resign as he disagrees with that archaic document called the Constitution
trangbang68
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:47 pm

spoken like a good German
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:47 pm

We don’t settle civil rights issues via popular vote, and number two, in a case like this, democracy becomes mob rule.
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:51 pm

But, if the highest court in the land says denying a marriage liscense to
a gay couple is unconstitutional, and through that reversed earlier laws then your little screed sounds like a lot of semantics, especially if a federal judge has the ability to force her to issue the liscense or be in contempt of court, and every state in the country has complied with the ruling.
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:53 pm

I’m not a democrat, and have no opinion on this whatsoever. I do not like Ms. Davis and know a sanctimonious bully, and hypocrite when I see one.
trangbang68
September 4th, 2015 @ 3:55 pm

she’s an elected official, representing the views of 75% of the electorate of her state. What we are witnessing is the tyranny of the minority. A majority of the Supreme Court which consisted of the lesbian Kagan, the racist radical Sotomayor, the Europhile Breyer, the communist Ginsberg and the eunuch Kennedy overthrew 2000 years of Western Civilization to normalize depravity. Liberal fascism in all of it’s putrid glory.
trangbang68
September 4th, 2015 @ 4:00 pm

Or the traumatized sodomites could go to city hall in Louisville or Lexington or countless other venues and get married, but they don’t want to do that because they’re bomb-throwers.
The agenda of the lavender mafia is plain, the destruction of traditional moral order, heterosexual marriage, the church, the Bible, decency, order, etc.
Everyone must shout “normal” when the naked degenerate emperor walks in the room.
No thanks, men sodomize each other is dirty nasty business. Always has been, always will be.
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 4:06 pm

Personally, I feel that the people who oppose gay marriage have abstracted the issue into one of “law”, when in fact their opposition is primal, and fear based. I don’t see this as dystopic, or fascist, or what have you. Try to remember people called Lincoln a tyrant for freeing the slaves, J. Edgar Hoover saw the civil rights movement as the greatest domestic threat we faced, and communist in nature, etc. The greatest threat to Americans is the current, neoliberal economic order which has failed repeatedly, and continued to fail, especially on Wall Street, and the dawning police state that maintains it.
Prime Director
September 4th, 2015 @ 4:06 pm

the state has a legitimate interest in the institution of traditional (real) marriage that is wholey (heh heh) lacking in the other degenerate/parodic forms.

The union between one man and one woman is the necessary but not sufficient condition for the creation of new human life. Its fucking magical. Men and women have a special love that deserves special recognition, period.

the gayz can build their own fucking institution that celebrates that which is unique about their love; but marriage is to enshrine the magical kind, the kind that makes babies.
Prime Director
September 4th, 2015 @ 4:09 pm

I would like to hear some presidential candidates answer this question:

Is the love between one man and one woman special, deserving of special recognition and protection?
Prime Director
September 4th, 2015 @ 4:13 pm

No, ad baculum… stupid :^)
kilo6
September 4th, 2015 @ 4:13 pm

Civil rights issue?
Why is a choice to practice sodomy a “civil rights issue” ?
Do you accept the premise that the modern homosexual rights movement is equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s?
Daniel Freeman
September 4th, 2015 @ 4:13 pm

If she resigns, then that is the same as saying that she thinks that what she’s doing is wrong — but if she herself thinks it’s wrong to not issue the licenses, then she could fix that problem by issuing them.

There is no scenario in which resignation makes sense.
Prime Director
September 4th, 2015 @ 4:20 pm

Obama “has made the determination,” Holder wrote, that Section 3 “as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

Holder wrote that the president has instructed government lawyers to no longer defend the law in those two lawsuits.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html?pagewanted=all&referrer=
Daniel Freeman
September 4th, 2015 @ 4:22 pm

If she believes that she is right to not issue the licenses, then it would be wrong for her to resign, knowing that she would likely be replaced by someone who would do the wrong thing.

I absolutely believe that she is doing the right thing by forcing the question of the SCOTUS’s authority to invent a new civil right and override a state’s constitution on the definition of marriage.
Daniel Freeman
September 4th, 2015 @ 4:30 pm

The federal government’s authority in this matter is not anywhere as clear-cut as you seem to imagine. Of course, the five Supreme Court justices that made the majority ruling in Obergefell seem to think they have the authority, but that doesn’t mean that you have to agree and submit.

You are, in fact, allowed — and in a democracy, I would argue damn near required — to challenge authority and make it prove itself.
Daniel Freeman
September 4th, 2015 @ 4:38 pm

We all know federal law supersedes state law here.

What federal law? Can you even name it, let alone quote it?
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 5:03 pm

There is no reason they have to go elsewhere, and they don’t need to orient themselves around some Christian fundamentalist, either. It is Ms. Davis who can either orient herself around them as part of her job, allow other clerks to issue the liscense or she can quit her job. the rest of what you’re saying is just s load of fear mongering. Moral order hasn’t collapsed because two homosexuals enter into
a monogamous union. It’s ironic that you’d prefer gay people to lcruise for sex, and live high risk lifestyles, the very same behaviors that scare you so much, rather than joining in conventional vanilla unions. Have you seen some of the people that are marrying? They’re in late middle age, and together for decades.
NeoWayland
September 4th, 2015 @ 5:05 pm

“the state has a legitimate interest…”

No, “the state” doesn’t. Individuals have interests, states have agendas.

And thank you for illustrating my point so well.
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 5:07 pm

Now, that’s ad hominem. And stupid is pissing your pants because some hate mongering Christian fundie got thrown in jail for defying a court order that upholds the US constitution, and failing to do the job she is being paid for.
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 5:31 pm

Not all hetero couples have children, and for a myriad of reasons, and simply enjoy each other. How is that any different from a gay couple, who, by the way, you smugly judge as “degenerate”, and their union as “parodic”. In all of the arguments against homosexual marriage the one that claims it weakens, and destroys the marriage between straight couples is the silliest, and most unfounded of all.
Blue
September 4th, 2015 @ 5:36 pm

I’m quite sure that back in the 1960s the majority opposed the Civil Rights Act, and desgregation. The majority opposed ending the institution of slavery, too, and that’s why we don’t settle civil rights issues through the passions of voters, and leave it up to experts in law, no matter how flawed, and in your case, tyrannical, you think that process is.
Prime Director
September 4th, 2015 @ 5:36 pm

Its cool

All the gay democrats say that
DeadMessenger
September 4th, 2015 @ 5:43 pm

You would assume correctly. Troll-daddy Blue seeks to heap reproachment upon progressive religion heretics only.
DeadMessenger
September 4th, 2015 @ 5:54 pm

Under no reading of the law of the land (the Constitution, not progressive fiat law), nor the law of Kentucky, has she committed any crime. Christians can’t just roll over and play dead, or run away crying in these circumstances.
Quartermaster
September 4th, 2015 @ 5:59 pm

The appeal to race has already been repeatedly debunked. race is an immutable characteristic of humankind. being queer is a mental illness that can be overcome, even if it is difficult to do so.

The two situations are not even comparable, although i can understand why the loony left like such appeals. But the loony left has always been factually challenged and has never had a firm connection with reality.