by Brendan Beery
Mathew Staver, the lawyer who represents Kim Davis in her war on human nature, said the following yesterday:
[Davis is] there to do a duty, a job and the job duty was changed. Does that mean that if you’re Christian, don’t apply here? … What happened in Nazi Germany, what happened there first, they removed the Jews from government public employment, then they stopped patronizing them in their private businesses, then they continued to stigmatize them, then they were the ‘problems,’ then they killed them.
What Staver would have us believe is this: Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who sought to oppress gay couples under her jurisdiction because she saw them as immoral bacteria that might infect the body politic, is herself a victim of majoritarian animus on par with the Jewish victims of Nazism.
It’s exhausting to dissect so many layers of ignorance and untruth, but that’s what conservatives hope will defeat us. If everything they say is a lie, surely they can put truth-seekers on defense and wear us out. (You know the saying in politics: if you’re playing defense, you’re losing.)
Well I, for one, won’t play that game. I won’t defend liberals against the claim that they behave like Nazis when I can – accurately – put conservatives themselves on defense because they are the ones behaving like Nazis. And let’s be clear about this: they are behaving like Nazis.
Let me count the ways.
For starters, Reichsleitung Staver has, as Nazi propagandists are prone to do, reversed the majority and minority populations so as to make the oppressor the oppressed and the oppressed the oppressor. There is a small – but, one would think, rather dispositive – distinction between the Jews of Germany during Nazi rule and the Christians of modern America: namely, that German Jews were a minority and American Christians are the majority. A trifling thing, this puny detail.
Then there is the matter of what religious participants in government – Jews in Germany or “Christians” in America – were punished for. Whereas the Jews in Germany’s government were purged because they were the disfavored and allegedly immoral cancer on society, Kim Davis is being purged because she discriminates against the disfavored and allegedly immoral cancer on society. I don’t hear any gay people claiming that Kim Davis’ religion renders her a stinking abomination. Rather, it is Davis who said as much about gays.
The Jews who were persecuted and murdered in Germany were persecuted for being Jews. Kim Davis is being held to account not for being something, but for being anti-something. If by now you can’t already see the folly in Staver’s argument, you’re a hopeless idiot.
But let’s not stop yet. The greatest irony of all is that, after conservatives use precisely the arguments that Nazis used against the Jews, they accuse gays – their modern-day Jews – of being Nazis. A conservative calling a gay a Nazi is like a Nazi calling a Jew a Nazi. (Oops – did I just call conservatives Nazis? Oh well, if the shoe fits …)
It is indeed a terror that the great exemplar of my point is a sitting United States Supreme Court Justice – Antonin “Il Duce” Scalia. Here is an excerpt from Scalia’s dissenting opinion in a case called Romer v Evans, wherein he explained why it was okay for Coloradans to use their lawmaking power to target gays:
The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite. The [law] before us here is … a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. …
I turn … to whether there was a legitimate rational basis for the substance of the [anti-gay law]. It is unsurprising that the Court avoids discussion of this question, since the answer is so obviously yes. …
There is a problem … which arises when criminal sanction of homosexuality is eliminated but moral and social disapprobation of homosexuality is meant to be retained. The Court cannot be unaware of that problem; it is evident in many cities of the country, and occasionally bubbles to the surface of the news, in heated political disputes over such matters as the introduction into local schools of books teaching that homosexuality is an optional and fully acceptable “alternate life style.” The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities, … have high disposable income, … and of course care about homosexual rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide. Quite understandably, they devote this political power to achieving not merely a grudging social toleration, but full social acceptance, of homosexuality. …
By the time Coloradans were asked to vote on [the law], their exposure to homosexuals’ quest for social endorsement was not limited to newspaper accounts of happenings in places such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Key West. Three Colorado cities– Aspen, Boulder, and Denver–had enacted ordinances that listed “sexual orientation” as an impermissible ground for discrimination, equating the moral disapproval of homosexual conduct with racial and religious bigotry. …
That is where [the law] came in. It sought to counter both the geographic concentration and the disproportionate political power of homosexuals …
… But the Court today has [invented] a novel and extravagant constitutional doctrine to take the victory away from traditional forces … by verbally disparaging as bigotry adherence to traditional attitudes. To suggest, for example, that this constitutional amendment springs from nothing more than “a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” … is nothing short of insulting. (It is also nothing short of preposterous to call “politically unpopular” a group which enjoys enormous influence in American media and politics) …
When the Court takes sides in the culture wars, it tends to be with the knights rather than the villains–and more specifically with the Templars, reflecting the views and values of the lawyer class from which the Court’s Members are drawn. …
Did you get that? The majority of Americans – American traditionalists – may use their lawmaking power to target gays because gays take over certain cities; concentrate their power; control all the money; infect and dominate the media, the arts, and political parties; seize control of law schools and the law profession; and seek to impose their immoral agenda on all of society in a parasitic endeavor to consume their hosts.
If you haven’t heard this propaganda before, you haven’t read Mein Kampf.
Gays are to American conservative Christians precisely what Jews were to Nazi Germans. For American conservative Christians to call gays Nazis, therefore, is tantamount to Nazis calling Jews Nazis.
Conservatives can only get away with this if Americans are buffoons. I fear that conservatives will get away with this.