protest – hugmamma's MIND, BODY and SOUL

Kim Davis has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. It goes against her religious beliefs, or so she says. She has her supporters. They who are on hand as she is released from prison having been incarcerated for 4 days for refusing to abide by federal law. Included among them are Governor Mike Huckabee and his wife.

How is it that Davis…a several times divorcee …with a child borne out of wedlock…can set herself apart from those who want to wed someone of the same gender?

“Those who live in glass houses…shouldn’t throw stones.”

Calling upon God when it’s convenient is one’s own business…except when one is paid to do a job, especially one that is mandated by law. If a person chooses to ignore that law, then she or he should seek employment elsewhere.

Laws are enacted to ensure all citizens work within their confines for the good of society. Until they were allowed to wed legally, gay couples sought other avenues to commit themselves to one another. They worked long and hard to have the law changed so that they now enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Opponents to the law should consider working just as hard and long to have it reversed. Until it is, the law allowing gay couples the right to wed should be honored.

It seems Davis will be allowed to return to her job as long as others on her staff issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Whenever possible, compromise is a good solution. However Davis should be prepared to find herself back behind bars should circumstances revert back…and she once again refuses to…

…abide by the law.

………hugmamma.

Another place, another time, Martin Luther King proclaimed the freedom of African-Americans from slavery’s lynch-hold.

Today Egyptians have realized the decimation of Hosnei Mubarack’s stranglehold on their lives. But while King and his followers protested nonviolently with as much support as they could muster, the cause to free the Egyptian people from their leader’s tyranny was embraced by millions via the internet.

Thirty-eight-year-old Wael Ghonim, marketing director for technology giant Google, spearheaded the campaign to free his countrymen from 30 years of suppression and hopelessness. No longer able to distance himself from their plight, Ghonim felt compelled to help, even risking his own security and comfort, and that of his wife and kids. Instant viewing of global images on YouTube these days seems to uphold the truism, that there’s “safety in numbers.” So perhaps Ghonim knew that the rewards reaped would far outweigh the risk in which he was willing to engage.

“A digital revolution,” as one news pundit explained of Mubarak’s removal by his people. The internet has leveled the playing field, allowing the “Davids” of the world to successfully take aim and bring down the “Goliaths.” My earlier post “give up the internet?” published on 2/7/11, pondered the inevitable loss of a simpler life, when technology came to dominate.

These last 18 days have shown the internet to be a weapon in the hands of the masses. Egypt‘s next generation, fed up with a government they didn’t countenance, and armed with useless college degrees, expressed their contempt for the status quo. They voiced their vehemence on Facebook, the online social networking system. From this global vantage point a phenomenal movement grew. As a result, President Mubarak is history.

“Aided and abetted” by technology, Oprah Winfrey, a black woman, garnered unimaginable power from the masses who identified with her. “Aided and abetted” by technology, the Tea Party Movement born out of the disenchantment of Americans for their government, has the power to make and break political careers. “Aided and abetted” by technology, the Egyptians gathered millions together in protest, making their collective voice heard and their will known, successfully bringing down the enemy.

I’ve always felt that the “have nots” live with faces pressed against the glass, envying the lives of the “haves.” If those who “have” don’t freely share of their material wealth, then the “have nots” will wrestle away whatever they can. Deserving or not, it doesn’t matter. All “have nots” probably feel it’s their moral right to live in equality with their fellow “haves.”