One of my favorite  songs is the Eagle's  "Frail Grasp of the Big Picture." The song tells us about the modern civil religion that combines a pseudochristianity with various Americanisms like praying before football games. The lyrics say "He presides over football games." Does  God preside over football games? Putting it that way makes such prayer seem silly--as it should. But I am reminded of this song with regards to the Kim Davis hoopla. 

A Kentucky county clerk who has become a symbol of religious opposition to same-sex marriage  was jailed Thursday after defying a federal court order to issue licenses to gay couples. The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., was ordered detained for contempt of court and later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release. Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage

Why does Kim Davis remind me of the song? Before I answer that question let's talk about a fallacy that is often used in political discourse that I need to be careful to avoid. It is called "Argumentation to the Man," or for those that like Latin, ad hominem. Wikipedia describes it this way: 

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

There are some aspects of Kim Davis' life that bear on the issue. As in the Wiki definition, to point out personal details of a person's life is not necessarily an ad hominem argument if those facts relate to the subject in question. 

According to an article in US News and World Report, Davis, who is now 48, married her first husband Dwain when she was 18, and they divorced in 1994. Five months after that divorce, she gave birth to twins. The twins' father was Thomas, a man who would later become husband number 3. However, instead of marrying Thomas right away, she married Joe, husband number 2 in 1996. Joe adopted the twins. In 2006, Davis divorced Joe and married husband number 3 (Thomas) who had fathered the twins. But in 2008, she divorced Thomas and RE-married Joe. 

In other words, her current husband, Joe Davis, is, all at the same time, her second husband, fourth husband, current husband, and ex-husband. 

Why is ANY of this relevant to the county clerk situation in the news? 

In insisting she is unable to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, Davis would cite the following scripture. 

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them. Leviticus 20:13. 

Thus Davis insists she is unable to issue a marriage license lest she be seen by God to be approving "an abomination." 

This makes sense logically. However...just one Bible book later, in Deuteronomy, we read this in chapter 24:  

1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife, 4Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD. And thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Maybe I am easily amused, but considering the Hebrew word in the original biblical writings for abomination in Leviticus against homosexuality is the same word used in Deuteronomy against this kind of remarriage, it seems to me that if Kim Davis had been county clerk at that time of her remarriage to her second husband she could not have issued a marriage license to herself.

And while one could assert that Kim Davis had been "forgiven" for all her past sins when she became an Apostolic Christian...her marriage to Joe is still, according to the passage in Deuteronomy, an abomination. Just as most Apostolic Christians would consider that a homosexual could only be forgiven for homosexual acts if he quit doing them, it would seem that Kim Davis would be required to abandon her "abominable" marriage to Joe in order to be forgiven. (Which, of course, would require another divorce.)

Considering the lack of marital fidelity in the Christian world, how would the reaction differ if Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to divorced people? After all, some do have a religious belief that forbids remarriage after divorce. For example, could a Catholic county clerk (an elected job ... Kim Davis was elected to her position) refuse to issue a marriage license to any divorced person who did not have permission of the Catholic Church to remarry? The logic would dictate that that clerk could, and even should, refuse to issue the license. 

So arguments about Kim Davis’ looks is ad hominem, but talking about her argument isn’t. So no, pointing out the inconsistency is not an argument to the man. Those who are getting all hot and bothered by this case need to ask themselves why. Would you feel the same way if a clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to divorced couples? 

So it seems to me that many have a Frail Grasp on the Big Picture. 

Here is a cover of that Eagles song.