Acts of plain unfairness and undue harshness of actions to any cause makes no friends on either side of any argument. When people like the obese guy with a cigar on a radio show with the RamRod initials or a so called Doctor which she is not, nor people in congress expressing outlandish religious view points that sometimes they don’t believe themselves but are branded out for shock value and for the benefit of the more vocal but conservative side of their audience. Such actions makes no new friends and they loose the fair-minded people in the middle and make the case against them from the undecided people trying to weight the issue in a fair way more squeamish of their views.
I truly believe these crazies on the right have been of help in giving us a broader audience of more fair-minded people. The same holds true of this publicity seeking town clerk Kim Davies in not allowing new marriage licenses to be issue. She knew that this would not stop same sex couples from getting married else where in the state and not even on her own county. She weighted greedily the way the publicity was to be vast and the money would be forthcoming for her and her cause. The money part has come through but not in vast amounts for her on the other hand the publicity certainly came the way it was device to do.
The problem for her is that if she meant to sway opinions to her cause the opposite has happened. I don’t think Clerk Davies is sophisticated enough to think that this would irk many fair minded people and people that know the difference between taking an oath to do a job and refusing to accomplish it the way its supposed to but the oath is taken seriously in this country. Americans and their Oaths go way back since the time of the continental Congress and George Washington. As we know on those days your word of oath was as seriously as a video of an oath taker today. Sometimes paper and ink was not available so a shake of hands or your right hand up and left on your heart or the bible was as good as a signer on a document today with a notary present and a video rolling to record the transaction.
There are a couple of polls that would shead a brighter side on what I’m talking about. Mark Joseph Stern writes the following about these two polls on Slate:
Shortly after the Supreme Court brought marriage equality to every state, the AP released a troubling poll: 49 percent of respondents believed local officials with religious objections should be exempt from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, while just 47 percent thought they should be required to follow the law.
That, of course, was before the Kim Davis brouhaha. Over the last month, Davis’ refusal to issue marriage licenses—on account, she says, of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage—has dominated the news cycle. Davis appeared to be a terrible poster girl for the cause of anti-gay “religious liberty”: Even principled conservatives turned against her after she violated a federal court order and displayed brazen contempt for the rule of law. In early September, I hypothesized that Davis’ stand might be a gift for the gay rights movement, since she so insolently revealed the raw animus that lies beneath the cynically misleading “religious liberty” campaign. But others, like the Atlantic’s Emma Green, speculated that Davis might actually bolster the “religious liberty” movement by giving it a sympathetic martyr.
On Tuesday, an ABC News/Washington Post poll revealed the most significant post-Davis data point yet—and the results don’t look good for Davis and her admirers. An overwhelming 74 percent of respondents believed that when a conflict arises between religious beliefs and equal treatment under the law, equality should win out. Moreover, 63 percent of respondents said that Davis should be required to issue marriage licenses despite her sincerely held religious beliefs. (That tracks an earlier Rasmussen poll, which found that 66 percent of Americans think Davis should follow the law and issue licenses.)
Notably, a majority of only two groups thought Davis should be exempted from issuing licenses: evangelical white Protestants and self-identified “strong conservatives.” That view was also more common among Republicans, less well-educated people, and lower-income Americans. Democrats, well-educated people, and higher-income Americans widely believed Davis should not defy a federal court order and refuse to do her job.