A GOP strategist wed his partner in one of Michigan’s first same-sex marriages, notes MLive.com, which also reports “Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1988 appointed U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, who on Friday struck down Michigan’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.”
Alas, but as expected, the ruling has now been stayed pending appeal.
Loyal Democrats will soon comment that Michigan’s GOP Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are leading the appeal. But the GOP is no longer monotone, as disturbing as that prospect is to ideological partisans on both sides.
More. In another decision in favor of equality under the law, Friedman previously struck down the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race-based preferences (a ruling that was subsequently overturned), as noted in this backgrounder in the Detroit Free Press.
48 Comments for “Changing Times, Continued”
posted by Mark on
So: a GOP strategist sees the men he helped to elect now lead the charge to invalidate his own wedding. I wonder if he’ll now be so eager to help Snyder’s and Schuette’s re-election, or his commitment to a “big tent” party extends to aiding the people who despise his own rights. Stephen: how many GOP governors or attorneys general in this “no longer monotone” party support the right of gays and lesbians to marry?
Delighted that a Reagan-appointed judge–a time when the Republicans weren’t committed to appointing anti-gay judges at all levels of the federal judiciary– struck down the amendment. Stephen, maybe you could tell us when the last judge appointed by George W. Bush sided with a challenge to an anti-gay law?
posted by Jorge on
the GOP is no longer monotone
But guess who is?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yup. Boring it is, too.
posted by craig123 on
You declare Steve is “monotone” and “boring.” AND YET you guys come here every day — EVERY DAY — to insult him and to proclaim how better and smarter you are because you’re liberal left Democrats. Just who is pathetic in this situation? And say, where is your blog — maybe if you had one Steve could go there and insult you every day? Or maybe he has better things to do.
posted by Jorge on
Delighted that a Reagan-appointed judge–a time when the Republicans weren’t committed to appointing anti-gay judges at all levels of the federal judiciary…
Considering that the only person who appoints federal judges at all levels of the judiciary is the president, that’s an overreach. Your accusation is essentially that President George W. Bush had an agenda to appoint anti-gay judges. (The terms of your argument do not permit us to consider President HW Bush because he appointed liberal Justice David Souter.)
Which is quite odd, considering that during the Bush administration made a big deal out of prosecuting an anti-gay murder under Attorney General Ashcroft. He also screened cabinet nominees for anti-gay public statements prior to his first term, as described in Linda Chavez’s An Unlikely Conservative (2002). We learned why after Bush published his memoir: Dick Cheney disclosed that his daughter was gay in a way that implied if Bush had a problem with it, he could not serve in the Bush administration.
For that matter, just about every controversial pro-gay judicial decision that has had consequences for that judge’s career has been a state court decision.
I would like to know what evidence you have that Republicans have ever been committed to appointing anti-gay judges at any levels of the federal judiciary.
posted by Mark on
Perhaps you’d like to give an example of a pro-gay rights or even a neutral federal court judge appointed by George W. Bush? Or is it your argument that a judicial selection process heavily influenced by the religious right, in an administration deeply committed to anti-gay state constitutional amendments, in an administration that aggressively vetted judges along ideological lines, somehow willingly nominated pr0-gay rights judges?
In the last 3 years alone, W.-appointed judges/justices have voted the anti-gay side in Windsor (Alito, Roberts); Perry (9th Circuit, merits: Smith); and Sevcik (Nevada dist. court, Jones). None have voted the other way. But I’m sure we’ll see some W.-appointed judges vote a pro-gay way in the 4th, 5th, or 10th circuit appeals, right?
posted by Houndentenor on
At the time David Souter was considered libertarian-conservative. He was only considered liberal on such a conservative court. Since him all Republican nominees to the highest court have been arch-conservative Catholics.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I would like to know what evidence you have that Republicans have ever been committed to appointing anti-gay judges at any levels of the federal judiciary.
Oh, wake up and smell the bacon, Jorge.
Beginning with Ronald Reagan, Republican presidents have been pressured to appoint “originalist” judges and justices (think Scalia, Bork, Thomas and to some extent Alito). “Appoint judges and an attorney general who will respect the original meaning of the Constitution …” was the way the “NOM Marriage Pledge” put it in 2012.
It didn’t always work out as planned (e.g. Bork got borked and Ginsburg got toked, so Kennedy ended up on the bench instead, and the reaction to Thomas was so negative that Bush I drew in his horns and went with Souter, an unknown without a record to be attacked), but don’t think for a minute that the pressure wasn’t on.
posted by Jorge on
I am suspicious of your claims that the Bush administration made a concerted effort to appoint anti-gay judges when there is considerable evidence that the Bush administration was not anti-gay, but actually pro-gay: the Bush administration made a big deal out of prosecuting an anti-gay murder under Attorney General Ashcroft. Bush also screened cabinet nominees for anti-gay public statements prior to his first term [actually in that case it was anti-gay published statements], most likely after learning of Dick Cheney’s support for his gay daughter.
I don’t see a need to go any further than saying you are overreaching.
Oh, wake up and smell the bacon, Jorge.
Beginning with Ronald Reagan, Republican presidents have been pressured to appoint “originalist” judges and justices (think Scalia, Bork, Thomas and to some extent Alito).
Very good, Tom, although here you differ from Mark in identifying where the relevant trend begins, which does much to change the definition of what that trend is. You seem not to realize that was the type of response I was trying to provoke. Indeed, I always thought is was because of Roe. v. Wade, with a smattering of the Warren Court thrown in, that Republicans became so fervent about appointing originalist Justices. This does explain Justices O’Connor (funny at how you don’t include her) and Kennedy. They were expected to overturn Roe, and it was a surprise when they didn’t.
However, you are looking at things from a one-sided perspective, making the assumption that there is something deficient about an originalist reading of the Constitution. When you look at things from the other direction, from the view that there is something deficient about what Justice Rehnquist termed judicial legislation in Roe, and you look at that deficiency possibly having a profound effect on the country for the worse, you begin to see it’s not really all about homosexuality.
posted by Jorge on
The first part of my post was addressed to Mark.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
However, you are looking at things from a one-sided perspective, making the assumption that there is something deficient about an originalist reading of the Constitution. When you look at things from the other direction, from the view that there is something deficient about what Justice Rehnquist termed judicial legislation in Roe, and you look at that deficiency possibly having a profound effect on the country for the worse, you begin to see it’s not really all about homosexuality.
I don’t think that I’ve ever claimed that the “originalist” movement is “all about homosexuality”. I don’t believe that it is, in fact.
The “originalist” movement is a full-scale assault on Griswold and its progeny, a line of cases that includes both Roe, Lawrence and Romer, among many others. As it has played out, the “originalist” movement has stood in opposition to virtually any protection of individual rights against government regulation with respect to issues of sexual morality.
posted by Houndentenor on
Ashcroft rescinded nondiscrimination policies of his department that had been put in place by Janet Reno. You can’t spin your way out of the fact that the Bush administration is on record as being anti-gay. It was in the platform they ran on. Just because Ashcroft prosecuted an anti-gay murderer that makes him pro-gay? Prosecuting murderers is his job. Doing you effing job makes you a hero now? You’re really stretching the facts to avoid admitting the truth.
posted by Jorge on
You can’t spin your way out of the fact that the Bush administration is on record as being anti-gay.
You might want to spin your way into the position you are arguing first.
posted by Doug on
Bush appointed Ashcroft who was virulently anti-gay, that ought to be enough proof for anyone that Bush was NOT gay friendly. If Bush wanted to demonstrate that he was NOT anti-gay, there were many well qualified conservatives he could have appointed Attorney General that were not virulently anti-gay
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… although here you differ from Mark in identifying where the relevant trend begins, which does much to change the definition of what that trend is.
While I recognize that the “originalist” movement extends beyond homosexuality, that recognition doesn’t necessarily mean that Mark and I are at odds.
As I see things, marriage equality wasn’t an issue during the Reagan administration, or even into the Bush I administration, so there was no litmus test imposed with respect to marriage equality. The litmus test in those days was primarily about abortion.
I think that changed during the Bush II years, as Mark pointed out, and anti-equality was added to the nomination criteria. I think that is the reason that we are seeing Reagan and Bush I District Court appointees ruling in favor of equality, and Bush II appointees often not.
But again, I point out that District Court appointees are generally drawn from a pool that is not primarily ideological, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to keep a scorecard, as Stephen seems to be doing. It certainly makes no sense at all to ballyhoo a particular District Court judge — Walker or Friedman, for example — as if Nixon or Ford or Reagan or Bush I appointed them because they would issue a pro-equality decision years down the road. It is just sophomoric. There is no other way to put it.
Marriage equality did not become a hot political issue until 2004, when Bush-Rove-Mehlman developed a re-election strategy centered around using gays and lesbians as cannon fodder. District Court judges appointed before that period were appointed before the nominee’s predicted stance on marriage equality became a nomination filter. After than, not so much.
In any event, fuss about who appointed whom before 2004 is a distraction at this point.
What counts now is the Supreme Court, and we can predict with reasonable certainty from Windsor how that is likely to play out.
Justices Scalia (Reagan) and Thomas (Bush I) are firm anti-equality votes. Justice Alito (Bush II) is a likely anti-equality vote. Justices Kennedy (Reagan), Breyer (Clinton), Ginsburg (Clinton), Kagan (Obama) and Sotomayor (Obama) are firm pro-equality votes.
Roberts (Bush II) is the only wild card. Roberts voted against equality in Windsor, but Chief Justices are tricky to predict. Chief Justices tend to factor precedent into consideration more than Associate Justices, and have a propensity to vote with the majority in cases like this in order to shape/write the opinion. It is just possible that Roberts will vote pro-equality.
In any event, we’ll all know how it turns out by June 2016.
posted by Don on
Jorge has been clear: he loves W. A LOT. That might be what’s behind this defense.
posted by Mark on
On Jorge’s point, I am now enlightened: an administration that ran on a platform of a constitutional amendment to ban marriage for gays and lesbians, and which actively backed state bans (like the one in MI), and which (at best) did nothing to advance DADT repeal or any type of anti-discrimination legislation was actually “pro-gay.”
I suppose it’s just a coincidence that every W.-appointed federal judge to have considered this issue sided with the anti-gay viewpoint. Can Jorge give us a single judge appointed by W. who’s pro gay rights? In the Reagan era, when district court nominees were less ideological, it’s easy to find such judges–as we just saw with Friedman. But I hope he’s right–that would mean that the W.-nominated judges likely to appear on panels in the 10th and especially the 5th circuits will take a “pro-gay” position, seeing that they were nominated by such a pro-gay guy.
Disagree with Tom that Alito’s only a “likely” anti-gay vote–would say he’s a sure thing. His dissenting opinion in Windsor read as if it were written by Robbie George (filled with claims about how DOMA upheld a “conjugal” definition of marriage) and his questions at oral argument were uniformly hostile. Unlike Scalia, who struggles to conceal his disgust, Alito seems more savvy in his writing, and does more to mask his animus. Would like to think Roberts would at least try to be open-minded.
posted by Jorge on
On Jorge’s point, I am now enlightened: an administration that ran on a platform of a constitutional amendment to ban marriage for gays and lesbians, and which actively backed state bans (like the one in MI), and which (at best) did nothing to advance DADT repeal or any type of anti-discrimination legislation was actually “pro-gay.”
It was necessary for your enlightenment for you to have noted the fact that we are both talking past each other.
It was well for you to cite Bush’s record on DADT and for Houndentenor to cite Ashcroft reversing Reno’s anti-discrimination policies (which I actually was not aware of). This is important evidence.
For all your (plural) storm and fury, there remains considerable evidence that the Bush administration was pro-gay: the Bush administration made a big deal out of prosecuting an anti-gay murder under Attorney General Ashcroft. Bush also screened cabinet nominees for anti-gay public statements prior to his first term, most likely after learning of Dick Cheney’s support for his gay daughter. I mention this for the third time to note one thing I believe none of your conclusions take into account: these facts exist. They are sufficient to demand some kind of meaning.
The meaning I believe they demand is that you are overreaching when you say that Republicans were [ever, but I infer the Bush administration] committed to appointing anti-gay judges at all levels of the federal court system. Out of several responses you could have given, you have chosen to place your own position on stronger ground with supporting details. It will do. (You’ve also attempted to misstate my position in an attempt to discredit it. That doesn’t work on me.)
posted by Houndentenor on
To be fair, I don’t know of any evidence that any of W’s SCOTUS appointments were SPECIFICALLY chose for their anti-gay views. They were all socially conservative Catholics and the anti-gay views were just a bonus in a screening process intended to find anti-abortion justices unlikely to get all libertarian on the court like O’Connor.
posted by Houndentenor on
There have been pro-gay or at least neutral on gay issues Republicans for a very long time. Everyone knows this. Our frustration is not that they exist. It’s that they don’t seem to do anything when it matters, like in 2004. There are a lot of conservatives who are not social conservatives. In fact, there was a time (very long ago) when civil libertarians were at least as likely to be Republicans as Democrats. My anger is not that pro-gay Republicans will change the party. It’s that they don’t seem to have made any effort to do so. Mary Matalin claims to have gay friends and be for gay rights (not including her recent embarrassing obviously drugged tv appearances), but what good did that do her gay “friends” in 2004 when she was working on the Bush/Cheney campaign which put an anti-gay constitutional amendment front and center of its campaign? What good are gay friends who are happy to sell us out for their 30 pieces of silver? What good are gays Republicans who will sell us out and elect anti-gay officials? What’s the point of that? The problem, Stephen is that people like the one you mention above obviously don’t give a crap about anyone else’s gay rights but their own.
posted by Thom Watson on
Moreover, the very article to which Stephen links notes that this GOP strategist “now runs the Michigan Freedom Fund, a conservative political advocacy group, and is chief operating officer for The Windquest Group, an investment firm founded by DeVos. The DeVos family last year donated to the campaigns of three Holland City Council incumbents who voted against a proposal to expand the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The fact that some Republicans — Kirk, Murkowski and Portman, for example — have “turned” and are now pro-equality is nothing new. The reality shift in the Republican Party has been ongoing for several years, and, despite ferocious opposition from social conservatives, will continue little by slowly, as inevitably as the changing seasons. Stephen has pointed out, numerous times, that change will come slowly, taking several election cycles, and I agree.
And it is not surprising that a number of Republican-appointed District Court Justices are faithful to the Constitution and do the job they were appointed to do — find facts without distorting the facts through ideological filter and apply Windsor‘s reasoning to those facts.
We’ll see more of it. As Mark pointed out, the only Republican judges who have not found for marriage equality to date are judges appointed during the Bush II years, judges who were appointed during a period when social conservatives pressured the administration for a litmus test on marriage equality.
What is changing is that the fight for equality has shifted from the political arena to the courts, and is entering its final stages.
The District Court decisions to date have been consistent. Anti-equality laws and amendments have been declared unconstitutional in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas and Michigan, and partial decisions, requiring states to recognize out-of-state marriages, have been handed down in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. With the exception of a few ideologues among the District Judges, we can expect that consistency to continue in the District Courts who will be deciding the remaining 40-odd federal cases now awaiting trial or summary judgment.
The battle — the real battle — is now in the Circuit Courts.
The 10th Circuit will be hearing appeals in Bishop v. United States (Oklahoma) and Kitchen v. Herbert (Utah) in April. The 4th Circuit will be hearing arguments in Bostic v. Schaefer (Virginia) in May. The 5th Circuit is likely to hear the appeal in De Leon v. Perry (Texas) this year, as is the 6th Circuit in Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky), DeBoer v. Snyder (Michgan) and Obergefell v. Wymyslo (Ohio), and the 9th Circuit in Sevcik v. Sandoval (Nevada). District Court cases in Idaho (9th Circuit), Oregon (9th Circuit) and Pennsylvania (3rd Circuit) are scheduled for April, May and June, and it is probably that these cases will be decided at the Circuit Court level by the end of the year, as well.
Given the consistency of the decisions coming out of the District Courts, I expect that the Circuits will, for the most part (the 5th Circuit, which is very conservative, is problematic), decide in favor of marriage equality.
It is likely that Circuit Courts will have decided four to six cases by the end of the year, all of which will be appealed to the Supreme Court. It is quite possible that some will be decided in time for the decision to be taken up by the Supreme Court during the 2015 Term (October 2014 to June 2015) if the Court chooses to take up the issue, and dead certain that the Supreme Court will be forced to decide the marriage equality issue during the following term (October 2015 to June 2016).
So what’s changed is that we are now in the early stages of the end game. At this point, while anyone with any sense welcomes a change in the Republican Party, we all know that the change is, for all practical purposes, going to come post-facto.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Loyal Democrats will soon comment that Michigan’s GOP Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are leading the appeal.
Of course. An election is coming on.
The more relevant question is whether pro-equality Republicans will have anything to say about it at all.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Thinking about the silence from pro-equality Republicans to continued Republican opposition to marriage equality in Michigan and other states where litigation is moving forward, I wonder if Stephen and other pro-equality Republicans might consider taking a hint from Massachusetts Congressional candidate Richard Tisei, who elected to boycott the state’s Republican convention at which he was nominated for election.
As Tisei put it: “We’ll never be a 21st Century party if our platform’s stuck in the 19th Century“.
Tisei’s boycott didn’t change the platform, but it can’t hurt if the goal is to help Republican Party “evolve” from the 19th Century. That would be true of pro-equality Republican opposition to the political positions of men like Snyder and Schuette, too, it seems to me.
I can’t help but believe that taking a stand against the troglodytes has to beat sitting around trying more and more improbable ways to spin Democratic support for marriage equality into a negative. But to each his own, I guess.
posted by Houndentenor on
Oh those Republicans will all make brief quasi-pro-gay statements AFTER they retire from office.
posted by Mike in Houston on
“Loyal Democrats will soon comment that Michigan’s GOP Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are leading the appeal.”
Just stating facts…
Like, ever notice that pro-equality Republicans (in the main) tend to not do anything about LGBT equality while actually in power or office (see Ken Mehlman, Dick Cheney, etc.)?
Or that the most strident of “go slow” voices (like Stephen) do so from safe enclaves where employment non-discrimination, marriage equality and public accommodation is already enshrined in law?
There’s conservatism and then there’s cowardice.
posted by Lori Heine on
“There’s conservatism and then there’s cowardice.”
Exactly right.
posted by Kosh III on
“The fact that some Republicans — Kirk, Murkowski and Portman, for example — have “turned” and are now pro-equality is nothing new.”
Have they done anything concrete, pushed legislation; anything beyond saying nice things as opposed to hateful things?
And you won’t find even ONE allgededly pro-gay Republican in their stronghold states which are almost all below the Mason-Dixon line–you know the same places that have always opposed equality for anyone but rich white men.
Remember the “original intent” of the Founders was for the country to be ruled by property-owning white men only. Everyone else was 3/5th or less of a person.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Remember the “original intent” of the Founders was for the country to be ruled by property-owning white men only.
Well, if we returned to that way of thinking, Ann Coulter would get her heartfelt wish.
A small plus to be sure, but still a plus. It is just too bad that Coulter would take down a lot of intelligent women with her.
posted by Lori Heine on
Anytime Ann Coulter wants to relinquish her own suffrage, that would be peachy with me.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Loyal Democrats will soon comment that—
And perhaps some “Loyal Republicans” will also prefer that we — gay voters — ignore the homophobia within the GOP and instead focus on how President Obama is both a socialist, and Muslim fundamentalist and anyone who does not worship Goddess Ayn Rand and the God Walmart is also a socialist.. ;0)
Seriously, it is a nice little historical footnote — a gay Republican was able to marry his male husband and that not every single Reagan appointee is blindly opposed to equal citizenship.
The challenge is that MOST (not all) elected Republicans or Republicans hoping to win a serious state or federal office feel the need to pander to the anti-gay bigots so as to remain a viable candidate.
Does the Michigan Governor really care that much about gay marriage? I doubt it, but he does care about being a viable career-candidate and so plays the anti-gay game because it gets people to write him checks and mark their ballots. As the Hollywood Mafia man might say, “Nothing personal, just business,”
Chris Christie — made some effort to stradle the issue; he opposes gay marriage and made sure that the cameras and reporters covered his opposition, but he signed a bill restricting the flow of snake oil from the ex-gay ministry quacks.
It is possible that the Michigan governor may do something similar — if he is looking at being considered for some type of federal office/ticket.
So, we may indeed see GOP Presidential and VP hopefully coming out against gay marriage, but finding some sort of gay rights bill to support in order to seem ‘moderate’.
I do not know enough about judicial appointments to say how much of this applies to GOP judicial nominees.
Bork — an early Reagan choice for the high court was very much opposed to civil rights in general and had quite of bit of writing and commentary on the subject.
posted by Don on
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what most gay marriage opponents think they are doing. Take W for example. Early on, his life was a wreck. He became an evangelical, took the advice of those spiritual leaders, and his life transformed significantly for the better. Nearly every evangelical can point to that point in time when they made such a shift. But they’re not the only ones. Samuel L. Jackson said “Alcoholics call it a moment of clarity” in Pulp Fiction. In short, they stopped what they were doing, looked around and realized their path wasn’t serving them well.
Gay people do the same thing when they come out. Our lives tend to go much better when we quit fighting who we are.
But evangelicals are convinced that we would all have massive improvements in our lives as nearly everyone of them have as a result of going to church and focusing on doing good things.
I can’t even argue with that.
But they cannot distinguish between “I turned to God” and “I joined a really positive group where everybody is helping each other.”
It wasn’t strict adherence to scripture that saved them. They could have become Buddhists and had the exact same turnaround. Good mentorship and putting others first will totally turn your life around. Period.
I believe W (or his type) thinks we would be better off if we just stopped acting on gay impulses and we would have the same experience he did. But there is the logical fallacy. They don’t know what “changed” their life. Discipline, community, sense of belonging. They think it is because God smiled upon them. And they followed the right book of his teachings. Maybe that’s part of it. Maybe he did. But I can point to lots of happy non-theists who have experienced similar turnarounds.
They’re just trying to save us. Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where “the operation was a success! but the patient died.”
They’re denying us the exact thing that saved their lives: positive connections and a sense of community drawing us closer, not farther apart. Sometimes we can’t get it. But one day we will.
posted by Jorge on
I believe W (or his type) thinks we would be better off if we just stopped acting on gay impulses and we would have the same experience he did. But there is the logical fallacy. They don’t know what “changed” their life. Discipline, community, sense of belonging. They think it is because God smiled upon them. And they followed the right book of his teachings. Maybe that’s part of it. Maybe he did. But I can point to lots of happy non-theists who have experienced similar turnarounds.
Your point is worth serious consideration.
There’s also various social order perspectives in religion. For example, there’s the idea that because society would look a certain way if everybody had a “moment of clarity”, it is justifiable to shape society in that image before everyone actually does have that “moment of clarity”. This is what Fred Phelps and his quieter and louder counterparts in Christianity and other religions are about.
I think Bush himself comes from the perspective that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That even if something may be good for gays, it may not necessarily be good for the rest of society. Bush’s whole presidency was pretty classic, sometimes ruthless, and frequently myopic, at putting what he considered this country’s needs ahead of other valuable considerations. I think this is true of his arguments in favor of the FMA itself.
posted by Doug on
“I think Bush himself comes from the perspective that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
That’s why we have a constitution, to protect the needs of the few. Apparently Bush didn’t care much for the constitution.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t know what W personally thinks about gay people and frankly I don’t give a damn. What matters is what he did, not what he thought. He pandered to anti-gay bigots to win an election. I don’t know how any gay person excuses that.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Fresh off of posting that gay equality is not the same as racial equality (like anyone of note ever really said that), we now get a ‘More’ from Stephen that seems to negate the previous post… Oops!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It makes no difference to me whether or not Bush II was pro-gay or anti-gay. What matters to me is that his administration’s policies were relentlessly anti-equality, and that we have a lot of work to do undoing the legacy of his administration’s success in putting those policies into effect.
posted by Kosh III on
Bush’s whole presidency was pretty classic, sometimes ruthless, and frequently myopic, ”
Bush was NOT a Christian, at least based on all his actions in his lifestyle. Even a brief reading of the Gospels tells us we never wage war, never mistreat others, never lie, cheat or do all the things that he and most politicans and corpocrats do regularly. The only President who came close to a Christ-like life is Carter and he was hated by the “evangelicals.”
posted by JohnInCA on
Even a brief reading of the Gospels also tells us all about Christians who waged war, mistreated others, lied, cheated and so-on.
Sorry, but you’ll have to do better then that to disassociate Christians from Christianity.
posted by Kosh III on
How so?
The essential is to “love one another.” IJohn 3:23, John 13:34, Mark 12:32
All the things I list are not in any sense loving, you can have a belief system that allows war, and all the rest but don’t attribute it to Jesus Christ.
And I can assure you that the attitude of Bush, Falwell, Robertson, Romney and others that I get is anything but loving.
posted by Lori Heine on
Kosh has it right. There are belief systems, and there is how people who claim various belief systems as their own happen to behave. To confuse the two concepts is to confuse apples with oranges.
To do all the terrible things people too often do — citing Christianity (or any other religion) as the reason — is to fail to practice that religion’s tenets. When they behave that way, they are not “being Christians,” or “being Muslims,” or being faithful adherents of whatever other religion they cite. When they do those things, they are merely being human beings.
Does that mean that — as John Lennon suggested — we should imagine a world without religion? That was itself essentially a utopian notion. The only available evidence we have of a large-scale ideology that eschews religious faith leaves us with a witness as horrific as any other.
posted by JohnInCA on
I confuse nothing.
Religion is a personal choice and belief system. Whether someone is a shining example or a horrible warning doesn’t change their religious affiliation.
And your arrogance, to seek to strip someone of their connection to their God just because you don’t like their actions… that’s pretty damn horrific.
posted by JohnInCA on
Oh, I do love this argument.
“I don’t like these people, so they clearly weren’t Christian”.
Sorry, but whether someone is a “Christian” or not depends on how *they* identify and what *they* believe. Their success in following in his footsteps is irrelevant. Whether they believe they should follow in his footsteps the same way you think they should is irrelevant.
And quite frankly, your standard of who is and isn’t a Christian quite interesting in a historical context. I mean hell, suddenly Europe went and became a bunch of blasphemers for the better part of the last 2000 years. So many liars who thought they were Christian but were wrong.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Bush (senior) apparently said something to the effect that he wished the gay rights issue would just “go way”. He was pro-choice on abortion, until he wanted to be Reagan’s VP and then a viable GOP presidential candidate. Again… “Nothing personal, just business:.”
Bush (jr) may have been very, very “uncomfortable” having people in his administration say anything overtly anti-gay or overtly in support of equality. Sort of like saying that if you are going to stab someone in the back, at least do it in a kindly way.
It is possible, that like his father, he decided to throw gays under the bus in exchange for political power. Again, I have no idea what he personally believes and frankly, what he did policy wise probably matters a bit more.
Karl Rove was one of the major power players in the Bush Administration…..;
Apparently, Bush supported the anti-gay criminal laws (in Texas, as Gov) and then sort of took ‘no position’ when the law went before the high court. It was a position hardly in support for privacy rights, but apparently it was enough to make gay Republicans feel all warm and fuzzy.
He backed the Federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage/civil unions. It would have banned federal and state equality. If their were any legal protections he felt gay people should have, he failed to do much about it as president.
The Federal Hate Crimes act did not include sexual orientation during his administration — he opposed adding it with the “I oppose all hate crime laws”, but he didn’t mind the hate crime laws that existed…..
posted by Don on
I think my point could have been more artfully made. The evangelical position is that they are “saving” us in the way they were saved from an unhappy and/or unfulfilling life. Maybe even a self-destructive one.
I say that because it is best to understand those with whom you disagree. Bigots wish to harm us; not all who disagree are bigots. Some are merely opportunists. Others ride any bandwagon because they don’t think well for themselves.
It seems to me, the loud social conservatives are driven by a twisted form of dominion over others. They are the 1% of the social conservative world. Understanding them is not the secret to success. Bryan Fischer, if given a chance to remake our culture, would make Sharia law look like San Francisco.
But the majority have been told a simple lie: gay people would be happier if they weren’t gay. Their lives have no meaning and they are consumed with selfish pursuits because their life has no grounding in society or God.
Those people have a chance in seeing that as the lie it is. But not by calling them bigots or having “no interest” in what they think or what their motivations are.
We are asking many people to drop the idea that Biblical literalism, which changed their lives and has guided it for decades, is not workable. You can say “believe what you want” but you can’t change the mind of someone with a foundational idea like Biblical literalism by simply pointing out the facts.
What I believe we are really up against is something much more basic. Our country has a founding belief: All men are created equal. But some Americans don’t but that. You can’t discuss legal frameworks with people who’s foundational theory obliterates your discussion.
We talk about fairness, the constitution, freedom of religion, and equality under the law. They say “this book is God’s law and He says no;” conversation over. I think until the debate shifts to this more salient ground, we will be running out of persuadables pretty soon.
Not to mention why we have run into a buzz saw of opposition among certain segments of society.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We are asking many people to drop the idea that Biblical literalism, which changed their lives and has guided it for decades, is not workable. You can say “believe what you want” but you can’t change the mind of someone with a foundational idea like Biblical literalism by simply pointing out the facts.
I don’t think that we are asking anyone to change their religious beliefs. All we are asking is that people recognize that civil law is based on the question of “What is good for society?” rather than on “What does the Bible say?”
I have fundamentalist neighbors and friends. I have no doubt that they sincerely believe that I need to be “saved” both because of my religious background/belief and because of my “lifestyle”; in fact, we talk about the topic from time to time.
But the question of whether I need to accept Jesus as my personal savior is a different question than what is best for our society. When it comes to discussing civil law marriage equality with them, I walk them through divorce/remarriage/adultery paradigm/analogy. Most get it, at least enough for me to know that I have planted a seed.
What I believe we are really up against is something much more basic. Our country has a founding belief: All men are created equal. But some Americans don’t buy that. You can’t discuss legal frameworks with people who’s foundational theory obliterates your discussion.
I think that most fundamentalist Christians believe that all men were created equal. The stumbling block is how to reconcile that belief with the idea that laws should be based on Biblical morality.
We talk about fairness, the constitution, freedom of religion, and equality under the law. They say “this book is God’s law and He says no;” conversation over. I think until the debate shifts to this more salient ground, we will be running out of persuadables pretty soon.
We have about 55-60% of Americans with us at this point. I think we can get to about 70%, based on Canada’s experience over the years. At that point, I think we will run into a wall. It doesn’t bother me.
posted by Don on
I don’t think that we are asking anyone to change their religious beliefs. All we are asking is that people recognize that civil law is based on the question of “What is good for society?” rather than on “What does the Bible say?”
I agree with that statement. But I was trying to capture “what they hear” not “what we are saying.” And that is a core requirement of communication. That it be understood. Your final point that we will hit a wall at 70% probably is correct. And that goes to the heart of why we won’t cross that wall. The entire framework of their worldview makes it impossible to reach them unless the framework itself changes. I hope, for their own sakes, it does. Not for gay equality, but for the ability to cope with the modern world. It’s the same principle that is tying them in knots over evolution. If they accept that it might be true, then the whole worldview would be flawed. (I disagree with that assessment of biblical literalism being inconsistent with evolution, but that’s what they keep telling each other)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note, the New York Times has a fascinating article on the changed connotations of the word “homosexual” in our society.