I wrote yesterday about the scrambled logic employed by former state Rep. Cynthia Davis to defend Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refuses to allow her office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I found it hard to believe that anyone could be as obtuse as Cynthia Davis seems to be. However, as Michael Bersin pointed out earlier, current State Rep. Vicky “Running God’s Way” Hartzler is also an admirer of the Kentucky county clerk.

Hartzler not only speaks up for Kentucky’s premier religious bigot, she is, as Steve Kraske of the Kansas City Star notes, the only one of Missouri’s congressional delegation to publicly defend Davis. I suspect that the only reason that she doesn’t go as far over the top as Missouri’s Cynthia Davis does is because her pronouncements so far have been brief (and if she decides to say more, she’ll have her staff to keep her coherent – something that Missouri Davis lacks). Hartzler nevertheless, misfires just as badly when she focuses on freedom of religion without acknowledging the civil rights of those in Davis’ religious cross-hairs, declaring that:

I stand with Kim Davis. It’s a sad day when we imprison someone in America because of their beliefs. Freedom of religion is our first right.

However, both Hartzler and Missouri Davis have even more distinguished company in their desire to defend Kentucky Davis: GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. And unlike Hartzler, Huckabee doesn’t hold back. He’s as over the top and poorly informed as Davis (although a bit more fluent in English). He attempts to draw parallels with the 19th century Dred Scott decision, claiming that it is still the law of the land – even after being informed that it was overturned by the 14th amendment:

“I’ve been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, ‘How dare you say that, uh, it’s not the law of the land?'” Huckabee said. “Because that’s their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the land.’ Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”

After correcting Huckabee, Medved then asked the candidate if he would attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling with a constitutional amendment.

“I don’t think that’s necessary,” Huckabee replied. “Because, in the case of this decision, it goes back to what Jefferson said that if a decision is rendered that is not borne out by the will of the people either through their elected people and gone through the process, if you just say it’s the law of the land because the court decided, then Jefferson said, ‘You now have surrendered to judicial tyranny.'”

“The Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage decision made a law and they made it up out of thin air. Therefore, until Congress decides to codify that and give it a statute it’s really not an operative law and that’s why what Kim Davis did was operate under not only the Kentucky Constitution which was the law under which she was elected but she’s operating under the fact that there’s no statute in her state nor at the federal level that authorizes her,” Huckabee said before Medved cut him off for a break.

That, I believe, is similar to the wannabe constitutional argument that our own Cynthia Davis is trying in her labored fashion to promulgate. So what does this mean about Huckabee – and by extension folks like Hartzler and Davis? As Steve Benen remarks:

… I don’t expect Huckabee to be a legal scholar. He’s not an attorney; he has no background in legal scholarship; he’s never even been an elected lawmaker.

But Huckabee is falling short of a junior-high-school level of understanding of the American constitutional system – which is generally not an appealing trait for someone seeking the nation’s highest office.

[…]

Huckabee’s bizarre mistake would be easier to dismiss if similar mistakes weren’t so common. The former governor and Fox News host has somehow convinced himself, for example, that federal “enabling legislation” is necessary in response to court rulings, or they don’t count. He’s also endorsed pre-Civil War nullification schemes and suggested he might deploy federal troops on U.S. soil to prevent women from exercising their reproductive rights.

It’s one thing to have a right-wing governing agenda, but it’s something else when a candidate invents his own brand of crackpot civics and pretends it’s real.

Cynthia Davis is a small time political has-been who has to resort to her own Internet talk show to try to peddle her silliness and Vicky Hartzler is basically just another lack-luster GOP hack. But Mike Huckabee is running for president – president of all of us, not just evangelical Christian fanatics.

Of course, on the other hand, why am I surprised that a GOP presidential candidate sounds a lot like a dim-witted local ex-politician? These individuals are members of a party in which Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate, and which tried to make Sarah Palin Vice-President. They’re members of a party that has turned its back on science, that denies the reality of climate change, that would subjugate foreign policy to partisan political considerations, that endorses discredited Voodoo economics, that would enable tax-cuts for the rich and impose greater tax-burdens on the poor, that is willing to suppress voting rights in the name of non-existent “voter fraud,” that denies that contraception is a health issue, that tries to rewrite history books to support present day ideological druthers, and that has no compunction about trying to impose a myriad fantastical theories and beliefs on the rest of us. Davis, Hartzler and Huckabee are maybe just a little less subtle than some of their other colleagues.

Remember former state representative Cynthia Davis? Slightly nutty and seriously dim denizen of the lands on the far right shores of dominionist Christian extremism? Now that she no longer has a legislative outlet, she shares her very special political views by means of an internet talk show. Via the Turner Report, we  now have her considered opinion about why same-sex couples want to get married, and, trust me, it has nothing to do with any rationale for same-sex marriage that we’ve ever heard before.

No, same-sex marriage is, according to Davis, a ruse to “drain” the Social Security fund. Seems she “was doing research” on the Social Security Administration Website and found that now that same-sex marriage is legal, gay and lesbian partners are eligible for Social Security and Social Security Disability benefits in the same way that married heterosexual couples are. And, goosed by mental incoherence, revelation suddenly blazed forth:

So there you have it. The purpose of changing the definition of marriage was intended to drain the Social Security fund more quickly. When we allow people who are not actually married to receive marital benefits, the end result is that people will “get married” based upon what kind of monetary bonus is available.

It works the other way as well. When people discover they can extract more money from being in a divorced status, they divorce.

This is fraud. Yet, you can’t blame the people for being smart. The blame lies squarely at the feet of the Congress who are charged with the duty of controlling their own created bureaucracies.

How could anyone ever think fornication is promotable or merits financial reward? If the Supreme Court jurists, who are supposed to be legally brilliant, are that blind, what can we expect out of our normal citizens?

The part about folks who are “not actually married” must, I think, refer to a statement on the Webpage that indicates benefits may be available to a surviving partner in a non-marital, legal same sex relationship. This refers to state-recognized civil unions and domestic partnerships. These categories of relationship were devised precisely in order to make the legal system fairer for committed same-sex couples without offending folks like Davis who wanted to keep “marriage” exclusively for heterosexuals. At any rate, the provision now makes even more sense since these are folks who would have been married if they had not been denied their constitutional rights.

The provision for divorced spouses is of fairly long standing and is designed to take care of women or men who stayed at  home and provided support for their spouses during their marriages, only to be left with no or minimal Social Security earnings after their divorces. They may, if they wish, calculate their social security income based on their spouses’ work record and receive the equivalent of 50% of what their spouses would receive. Seems only fair to me.

Although Davis might not like extending benefits to same-sex couples – or to anyone – it’s hard to figure where the “fraud”  that has her all riled up can be found. Perhaps she should have done a little more research or asked someone capable of parsing English – and following links on the Social Security Webpages – to explain how these benefits work.

It is a mystery how she  managed to construe anything in the text she cites as promoting “fornication.” There have been people who fornicate for money since the beginning of recorded history, but I don’t think that fact has anything to do with same-sex marriage or the rules for paying out Social Security benefits. Perhaps it’s Davis whose mind is just a little too much “dans la boue,” as one of my French teachers used to say when she heard ideas or language that struck her as crude.

As for draining social security, don’t you think it might have occurred to Davis that these same-sex partners have been paying into the Social Security fund just like the rest of us, but haven’t been able to tap into the same range of benefits? Is it possible that Davis likes having a class of individuals denied the same rights as others for strictly financial reasons?  

Just for funsies, Davis might also think about what would happen if all same-sex marriage partners were magically to become straight overnight. After she yelled “hallelujah,” would she start worrying about the Social Security fund? Wouldn’t these new heterosexuals likely “drain” just as much from the fund through the opposite-sex marriages they might contract?

Perhaps Davis thinks that marriage itself is designed to drain the Social Security fund? Which would explain why she has claimed in the past that marriage is the cure for poverty. It must be all that Social Security fraud that is enriching married heterosexuals.

Today, via Twitter, from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r):

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

ICYMI: I spoke on the floor today about “Why Marriage Matters” [….] 2:26 PM – 12 Feb 2015

The video:

[….]

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Thank you. Mister Speaker, I rise today in support of National Marriage Week. It’s an honor to promote an institution that has been the cornerstone of society for centuries. And I’m blessed to celebrate this week with my husband of thirty years, Lowell Hartzler. When a man and woman join together in holy matrimony they are not only starting a life together and creating a family, they are also establishing the foundation of a healthy society. Researchers document many benefits to marriage – better health, greater personal happiness, enhanced financial stability, and positive impacts for children. Boys and girls raised at home by a mom and dad perform better in school, have less addiction, experience lower rates of teen pregnancy, and see less trouble with the law. At a time when some question the future of marriage I think it’s wise to reflect on the unique benefits the intact marriage family provides. Social science clearly tells us that marriage leads to greater wealth, health, longevity, and happiness. It is something to aspire to, to treasure, and to fight for. Not only does society benefit, but most importantly, so do the men and women who commit to a lifetime of love, laughter, faithfulness, and future generations. I yield back.

[….]

“…Researchers document many benefits to marriage – better health, greater personal happiness, enhanced financial stability, and positive impacts for children…”

Interesting. That’s a strong argument for marriage equality. Uh…

“…At a time when some question the future of marriage…”

Who exactly?

“…Social science clearly tells us that marriage leads to greater wealth, health, longevity, and happiness…”

That’s another strong argument for marriage equality.

“…It is something to aspire to, to treasure, and to fight for…”

A lot of people are. The courts are agreeing with them, too.

Previously:

Jim White (D) in the 4th Congressional District: speaking out (February 12, 2015)

The Supreme Court ruled today, 5-4, that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional:

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL. [pdf]

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 12-307. Argued March 27, 2013-Decided June 26, 2013

…The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

It’ll be interesting to see the reaction of all those members of Congress who voted for the legislation. Real profiles in courage, that.

Via Twitter:

Ari Berman ‏@AriBerman

Scalia & Roberts dissents in #DOMA fault court for judicial activism. Funny how that didn’t stop them from radically gutting #VRA 9:12 AM – 26 Jun 13

Is anyone surprised?