I guess they meant well. But publishing this ad in newspapers, showing that the usual gang of leftwing activists, liberal politicians and big-labor leaders (and some progressive religious folks) support marriage equality made me bristle. In my view, if big labor is for it, then it certainly can't be good. I think many who aren't on the liberal left have the same visceral reaction.
I wonder if any Republican or conservative gay people (Log Cabin? Andrew Sullivan?) were even approached. And what about respected libertarian conservative figures, such as Charles Murray, who favor allowing same-sex marriage (as noted here)? Nope, no reaching out across party lines in this ad.
Maybe the aim was to shore up left-liberal support. But if they alienate independents, libertarians and centrists, what's gained? More likely, there was no strategy behind this ad at all.
Comments sample:
kittynboi: There
seems to be little evidence that the right wing will support us if
we drop the support of the left wing.
Avee: If we continue to present gay equality as part of a broad-based leftwing agenda (unions!), we will NEVER expand the range of our support out to the center, much less to the libertarian right. We will continue to remain a leftwing niche, preaching to ourselves, running ads for ourselves, focused solely on ourselves.
69 Comments for “The Gang’s All There.”
posted by Realist on
Chill out! I think less than 5% of the population can identify what part of the political spectrum any of those groups belong to. I think I’m a pretty well-educated person – I’m a Harvard-educated attorney, but I’m not a political junkie. I pretty much only care about shortening my commute, my paycheck, and my partner. I don’t know who those people are, and frankly, I don’t care. I didn’t bother to look at the names in detail; if you had not pointed out that the names belonged to people who were on the “left” I would not have even delved further into their identities. I had no visceral reaction whatsoever, except, “I see the word ‘rabbi.’ Gee, looks like some religious people signed it. Far out!” and “We have supporters.” It might seem like a shock, but most people just don’t read into these things, or even notice.
Remember, most people are not political bloggers (you exist in a very very small microcosm, Stephen), and most people have attention spans of a flea. I saw that ad, and I was like, “Cool.” Left or right? I don’t care. A supporter is a supporter.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Steve: “In my view, if big labor is for it, then it certainly ain’t good. ”
Do you have any idea how hard gays and lesbians fought within their unions to get the UAW, SEIU, IUOE and other “big labor” unions to recognize gays and lesbian concerns in the workplace, to include gay and lesbian issues in the workplace, to end workplace harrassment, and the rest?
Do you have any idea at all what it is like to be gay on an auto assembly line? Or in a steel mill?
My daughter Lucy, who is an organizer for the SEIU, would rip you a new one over this comment. It wouldn’t be pretty, sunshine, but it would be well deserved.
posted by kittynboi on
Yes Tom, but none of that seems as important to some of the authors here as distancing themselves from anything of the “left”.
Sometimes, it seems like being gay and “independent” means being a gay person with a knee jerk negative reaction against anything “liberal.”
I do think it’s stupid to equate gay concerns with every single liberal cause, but that doesn’t mean that ALL liberal causes don’t have some relevance to us.
And it doesn’t mean that we should deny ourselves supporters from any side.
After all, the right does NOT like us. The amount of people on the right likely to support us is far fewer than those on the left. We should be turning out backs on liberal supporters of our cause on nothing more than some naive gamble that the right wing MIGHT support us more if we cut all ties to the left. Do we really want to star tburning bridges just so we can cross other bridges that don’t even exist yet?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Do you have any idea how hard gays and lesbians fought within their unions to get the UAW, SEIU, IUOE and other “big labor” unions to recognize gays and lesbian concerns in the workplace, to include gay and lesbian issues in the workplace, to end workplace harrassment, and the rest?
Do you have any idea at all what it is like to be gay on an auto assembly line? Or in a steel mill?
You do of course realize that your last sentence contradicts the first, right? If unions are supposedly pro-gay, why would it be so hard for a gay person to work on an auto assembly line or steel mill?
The answer is, of course, that union members quite often hold a different view than union leaders. Most workers have no idea on what their leaders are wasting their forced contributions; this is why labor unions fought so hard against last year’s California initiative to require unions to get workers’ permission to deduct money from their paychecks for political causes. They knew damn well that those workers who make life painful on assembly lines and in steel mills weren’t about to let them spend their money on that; however, as long as they didn’t know about it, they wouldn’t object.
Most gays haven’t been anywhere near a steel mill or an auto assembly line, but they do have money and gullibility to spare; this makes them an easy target for union leaders, who get an unquestioning source of dollars and sign carryers for a few platitudes.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Do you have any idea how hard gays and lesbians fought within their unions to get the UAW, SEIU, IUOE and other "big labor" unions to recognize gays and lesbian concerns in the workplace, to include gay and lesbian issues in the workplace, to end workplace harrassment, and the rest?
Do you have any idea at all what it is like to be gay on an auto assembly line? Or in a steel mill?
NorthDallasThirty: "You do of course realize that your last sentence contradicts the first, right? If unions are supposedly pro-gay, why would it be so hard for a gay person to work on an auto assembly line or steel mill?"
The two don’t contradict. Gay and lesbian workers pushed hard to get unions to recognize gay and lesbian issues and fight for them in contracts. And a lot of gays and lesbians put up with a lot, including job risk, to do that …
You seem to think that union leaders are pro-gay liberal elitists who decided to foist gay and lesbian workplace protection on the workers. That’s crap, North Dallas, whether you know it or not.
Union leaders are elected. Union leaders were no more interested in wasting political capital on "those people" than anyone else who was elected, and gay and lesbian workers had to push hard to get them off their asses. Contract issues like partner benefits are pocketbook issues, and it was an uphill fight to get unions to include those issues in negotiations.
And yes, it remains hard to be gay or lesbian on the line and in most non-professional unions. Go sit in a working class bar sometime — take off the Pradas, first, though — and listen in.
It’s not a contradiction; its a reality. Gays and lesbians in the unions fought for what they’ve obtained, and gays and lesbians continue to live in the real world.
"Most gays haven’t been anywhere near a steel mill or an auto assembly line, … "
Most gays" haven’t been near any particular job. But gays and lesbians are pretty evenly distributed among the population. The percentage of gay and lesbian blue collar workers is probably just about the same percentage as among white collar workers.
" … but they do have money and gullibility to spare; this makes them an easy target for union leaders, who get an unquestioning source of dollars and sign carryers for a few platitudes."
Yeah, right. I’m just stunned sometimes about how disconnected many Republicans are from reality.
posted by Timothy on
Unlike those above who are proud of their ignorance, I actually read the names and titles of folks supporting or opposing various political positions. Sometimes it’s the best way to know what its about.
And I too was sad to see that all of the names and/or organizations seemed to come from the farthest edge of the left. This isn’t because there aren’t conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, or others that favor equality and freedom.
But when I looked at the sponsors of the ad, I ceased being surprised. While I generally respect GLAAD and Freedom to Marry, I suspect that the driving force behind the collection of signature was NGLTF.
Unfortunately, the Task Force has spent the past decade or so with their engine full throttle and their nose pointed left. While HRC, Victory Fund, Empire Pride, and even partisans like Stonewall have recognized the value of moderate and conservative voices, NGLTF seems to view them as the enemy. They seem to be stuck in the old “coalition building” paradigm wherein all socialist-minded groups bond together (with the gay groups accepting tiny overtures while supporting positions that most gay individuals would find idiotic).
I’m just saddened that GLAAD and Freedom to Marry got swept along. Let’s hope that someone there notices that they’ve put their name to a leftist sheet and find some other names to help balance things out.
posted by Avee on
Unions might have once had a productive role in the economy; today, they are like a cancer killing industry after industry. The UAW has killed the Detroit auto industry, and only non-unionized Japanese companies operating in the midwest show any growth. The unions killed the major airlines, sending one after another into bankruptcy; only the non-unionized upstarts show any viability.
To tie one’s agenda to the unions is to rope oneself to the past. It’s profoundly reactionary, and not at all “progressive.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I can confirm that NGLTF was the driving force behind the ad. I got an email from Matt Foreman on July 17 saying that the Arcus Foundation had come up with the money for the ad, and asking if GLAA (a centrist local gay rights group in DC) if we would sign on. I looked over the draft ad and it looked reasonable, so I said yes. But I see that we didn’t make the cut. I think, as another IGF colleague suggested, that the missing names point to blank cards on the Task Force’s rolodex. But surely even Steve Miller recognizes that the message itself is unobjectionable. And it’s unfair to declare all the signatories to be on the farthest left edge. There are some perfectly respectable groups on the list that have done a great deal of useful organizing. You know, Steve, legitimate criticisms might have a better chance of getting a hearing if you didn’t insist on couching them in partisan pot-shots. Why can’t we just say that it’s a fine ad, and it would carry a lot more weight if it had leading pro-gay centrist and conservative names on it. To be sure, some of the existing signatories have probably avoided noticing that there ARE such names. So take a deep breath and remind them. Can’t we make SOME effort to keep our eyes on the prize? Yes, leftists take plenty of cheap shots, so you can always justify reciprocating, if that’s your greatest ambition.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Avee: To tie one’s agenda to the unions is to rope oneself to the past. It’s profoundly reactionary, and not at all “progressive.”
And how does allowing uniond to become a sponsor for an ad supporting GLBT rights “tie one’s agenda to the unions”?
I think that you folks are losing it.
We should be happy that gay and lesbian workers in unions have brought the unions on board.
posted by JimG on
It is very interesting, Avee, how Managment of the companies and industries you listed seem to have had so little responsibility for the companies success OR FAILURE. So, blame it on the Unions. I’ve been in Unions and have been involved in Union negotiations. I know the games that the parties play (BOTH, mind you) and the shortcomings that Unions have (we, too are human). But I would strongly urge any and all support for them. It is extremely vital that there be some level of the playing field when it comes to workers and their management counterparts (as imperfect as it is). Because Management, too, is human and all the shortcomings that you find in the Union, you are going to find in Management. And you can remember that every Saturday and Sunday, thank you.
posted by Avee on
Union inflexibility in terms of work rules, job descriptions, merit promotions, incentives and the benefit mix have tied managements hands. It’s not exactly an accident that non-unionized firms are growing and creating jobs while unionized firms are gasping for breath.
posted by Bobby on
Avee is right. Unions may give temporary job security (although not in Michigan, where automakers can fire 10% to 15% of the workforce with impunity) but the payoff is a job where it’s very hard to get promoted or get a raise.
An interesting issue is that although Union leaders are extremely liberal, republicans have been getting more union voters on their ranks.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
In my view, if big labor is for it, then it certainly can’t be good. I think many who aren’t on the liberal left have the same visceral reaction.
And many on the left believe that if the right or capitalists are for it, it cannot be good. So let’s just have everyone, leftist and rightist, just “shut up” (to quote O’Reilly) and allow our overlords to set the tone of the debate, right? Good grief.
If unions are supposedly pro-gay, why would it be so hard for a gay person to work on an auto assembly line or steel mill?
Hmmmmm. . . last time I checked, homophobic supervisors and managers were considered “management” and not part of the union.
You’d figure that the GOP shills would at least brush up on their basic knowledge of the fading industrial workplace before betraying their profound degree of ignorance.
You’d also figure that a transparent GOP shill like NDT would refrain from attacking the organizations of others which are gay-affirmative in policy (but sometimes not in practice) when his own organization is consistently anti-gay in policy and practice. Anyone who is a faithful supporter of the Republican party has literally no moral authority to condemn the gay wrong-doings of any other socio-political group.
Union inflexibility in terms of work rules, job descriptions, merit promotions, incentives and the benefit mix have tied managements hands
There’s some truth to this.
On the other hand, management blaming labor for all of their problems definitely is a cop-out. “The unions” didn’t force United Airlines to sell seats below cost, or squeeze its cabins or depreciate its frequent flyer program and service so greatly that low-cost competitors became an appealing alternative to beleagured business travellers.
The unions didn’t force General Motors to “engineer” and release junk designs like the Chevette, Achieva, Grand Am and Lumina to do battle with Japan and Europe’s best.
The unions didn’t force Boeing to invest heavily in the Boeing 717, a warm-over of the 40-year-old DC-9, rather than develop a new airframe to compete with Airbus and Embraer in the small jet market.
No amount of work rule changes, pay cuts, or deunionizing would cover for those management stupid tricks. In addition, the Republican corporatist system is no less socialist than anything the AFLCIO calls for — it’s a system of socialized risk, privatized profit with big government bailouts for preferred companies such as Halliburton.
And while I don’t agree with all the actions of the unions, I also find the sniffing, diffident, arrogant and dismissive tone of conservatives in dealing with working people to be nauseating. It’s as though they believe people are replaceable in some government-enforced race to the bottom — well, except themselves of course. The government needs to protect the Republican jobs from smart foreigners with oppressive visa laws — free markets are bad when the competition is with Republicans or Republican interests such as Boeing.
So kindly stop lecturing the libertarian on free markets, conservabots.
posted by Jason on
What, exactly, is “libertarian” about so-called “Northeastern Libertarian”? Hey, guy, if you don’t support the right of employers to hire and fire as they see fit, then you’re no libertarian!
posted by robert on
Forget for a moment about who was left off the list, doesn’t that leave room for a logical sequel. I don’t know where the ad ran, but all marketing is targeted. As for the rest….we are everywhere. Quit wasting energy about about what is now history and move on to writing the next chapter. That\\’s what my partner, I and our children are doing.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Hey, guy, if you don’t support the right of employers to hire and fire as they see fit
I don’t recall having expressed this point of view once.
You see, unlike the Republicans of 2006, I don’t hate people just because I disagree with them politically. I can understand that working-class people contribute to the makeup and economic/cultural strength of America without agreeing with all of their politics.
You’re also wrong about Libertarianism. Libertarians believe that contracts should be enforced — in other words, if an employee signs a contract with his employer in which the employer agrees that employment isn’t at will, then he should NOT have the “right” to hire and fire that employee at will.
There’s precious little which is “capitalist” or “free market” about a system within which contracts between large corporate entities and individuals can be nullified with a quick trip to bankruptcy court. Arguing that workers should have the benefits and compensation they’ve negotiated in good faith in a contract revoked is a bad-faith, but typical Republican, position.
The irony, of course, is that Republicans squeal like stuck pigs when other contracts — such as contracts between consumer debtors and credit issuers — are violated. Then we hear imperious terms about the sanctity of contracts, personal responsibility, etc.
The reality is that only Libertarians support free markets — which includes the right to negotiate and mutually agree to employment terms AND have both parties held to the contract which is negotiated and signed. Republican “free marketeers” believe that any contract is disposable if it goes against the will of large employers, but ironclad if it goes against the interest of individuals. Some “capitalists.”
posted by Rey on
Thank god for those liberal, leftist, labor, common people. If it wasn’t for them who would be helping the gay cause, the Log Cabin Republicans? Yeah, the only thing LCR are interested in helping is their own pocket.
posted by kittynboi on
Should we get rid of 10 liberal supporters in favor of one right wing supporter?
Seriously though. I think we should not be fast to turn our backs on support, even if it largely comes from only one side. There seems to be little evidence that the right wing will support us if we drop the support of the left wing.
=======================
http://toucanfiles.blogspot.com/
My blog
posted by Avee on
There seems to be little evidence that the right wing will support us if we drop the support of the left wing.
If we continue to present gay equality as part of a broad-based leftwing agenda (unions!), we will NEVER expand the range of our support out to the center, much less to the libertarian right. We will continue to remain a leftwing niche, preaching to ourselves, running ads for ourselves, focused solely on ourselves. Some strategy for victory!
The ad ran in major newspapers; it was not targeted to liberal enclaves.
posted by jomicur on
Of all the dippy postings. First, I find myself wondering exactly how familiar you might be with the political leanings of all the signatories. Did you really research the politics of, say, each of the mayors who signed? (And if you did, why didn’t you say so?) But beyond that, are you seriously suggesting that we should only support pro-gay statements if they come from conservatives? I’ve heard any number of gay conservatives complain–frequently!– that a lot of other gay people are intolerant of their politics. Can you right-wingers not absorb the lesson of your own thetoric?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“The unions” didn’t force United Airlines to sell seats below cost, or squeeze its cabins or depreciate its frequent flyer program and service so greatly that low-cost competitors became an appealing alternative to beleagured business travellers.
Actually, they did — because at United, the workers owned the company, chose the executive management, and exercised authority over the company’s business decisions.
Of course, when faced with business realities and their own stupidity, they had to screw themselves over — which made it even more delicious.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now, to Tom.
Union leaders are elected.
In the loosest sense, yes — but not in the manner one would think:
To keep up with the debate, it helps to understand the union movement?s structure. Most unions consist of national bodies which charter local chapters. The local chapters are typically referred to as ?locals.? The national bodies are typically referred to as ?internationals? because they often have some locals in Canada.
Individual union members elect the leaders of their local, as well as delegates to international conventions. In most unions, those delegates elect the international leaders. Most American internationals are affiliated in a loose federation ? the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO?s national leadership is elected by the leaders of the international unions, who vote according to the number of members they represent. Only three national presidents have been elected since the formation of the AFL-CIO: George Meany from 1955 to 1979, Lane Kirkland from 1979 to 1995, and John Sweeney since 1995.
In short, the election process for the rank-and-file union member stops at the local — but the union’s leadership has two more tiers of election (delegate and federation). Direct democracy is a thing unknown in the union environment; policy and political allocation are set at a level for which the vast majority of union members are prevented from voting.
So, in short, what happened was that union leaders figured out that making token gestures towards gays would reap them major leftist points, dollars, and unquestioning gay support — but would cost them nothing, since they were insulated by several layers from their voting membership, and require them to do nothing, because “gay activists” would point to the “policy” and ignore the harassment and abuse that union members were carrying out on the line.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If anyone is interested in learning about the gay snd lesbian struggle for rights in unions, I refer you to Christian Bain’s “A Short History of Lesbian and Gay Labor Activism in the United States” (1999). Contrary to right-wing mythology, nothing got handed to gays and lesbians on a platter by union leaders.
posted by Floridagay on
On this day, the gay marriage movement once again was dealt a defeat by the Washington State Supreme Court when they denied to overturn a lower court ruling on the state’s marriage laws. (See MSNBC article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12549069/) In addition, a judge in Connecticut has ruled that the state’s civil union law now gives the same rights as marriage although the name is not the same. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13873925/) These decisions follow in the wake of New York’s decision (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13745017/) that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Well, call me crazy, but this gay man isn’t really that upset he can’t get “married”, he’s upset that he and his committed partner do not have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple. I’m also upset that the reasoning for upholding these discriminatory marriage laws hinge on the belief that heterosexuals are better equipped to commit to one another AND raise children. Excuse me, but I believe that recent data shows that heterosexual couples are more likely to divorce and there are no reputable studies to show a child is harmed by being raised by a homosexual couple.
Let the heterosexuals have their “marriage”, give me equality by any other name.
posted by Drew on
I think several posters are missing the point. It is not a matter of what unions have or have not done for gay people. It is the matter that the ad is not put out by a broader spectrum of society or from a more invested group. Marriage is a religious ceremony so why are unions so prominently displayed? Would it not make more sense for churches to place this ad supporting same sex marriage? But of course the answer is YES! But did we do that? Nope.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Since when is civil marriage a religious ceremony?
posted by Boo on
Drew- so instead of blaming the people who made the ad, why not blame the churches who didn’t make ads?
posted by Drew on
Much of the gains gays have made have been do to outreach to all segments of the wider community. I am suprised when I see such an ad and yet you do not see any representation from the Metropolitian Community Churches. Were they even considered? Of course, I could see other examples as wel. Why not an ad campaign saying “Support our troops, both gay and straight”?
posted by Drew on
Tom Scharbach ……….government can dictate whatever document it puts out. If gay marriage is defended as a religious institution performed by Churches, than it comes under First Amendment protections. Under that the First Amendment, government can not favor one religion over the other. Hence if government says yes to relgions which bless hetro marriages, it can not say no to religions which bless same sex marriages.
posted by brandon on
Rather than whining about how “they” didn’t include conservatives in the ad, why isn’t the poster advocating for conservatives to do their own ad? Wouldn’t it be better to have many different ads paid/signed for by many different people/groups/ideologies?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
at United, the workers owned the company, chose the executive management, and exercised authority over the company’s business decisions.
Wrong again. “The workers” didn’t own the company. Some of the work groups owned a plurality of the company, but several sub-groups — including the flight attendants, rampers, and other groups — owned none of it at all.
But don’t let that stop you from your tirade.
There seems to be little evidence that the right wing will support us if we drop the support of the left wing.
True, and there’s also evidence that everyone who the right wing “supports” ends up worse off. Just look at “Iraqi freedom fighters,” “Iraqi women,” and “Afghan women” for evidence of this.
union leaders figured out that making token gestures towards gays would reap them major leftist points, dollars, and unquestioning gay support
Again, a mindless Republican Party shill like NDT has no place blasting any other group’s support of gays as “token,” since his party doesn’t even offer that to gay Americans.
posted by G. Hughes on
When will the Log Cabin Republicans be running ads with right wing supporters of gay marriage? Waiting for the Left to come knocking on your door to invite you to join them in a campaign ad, seems to show a deplorable lack of initiative, especially when your organisation seems obsessed with bashing the pitiful remains of the American Left…..
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Drew: “Tom Scharbach ….. government can dictate whatever document it puts out. ”
Drew, civil marriage and religious marriage are distinct, separated, as you correctly point out, by the First Amendment.
Civil marriage is sanctioned by the government and controlled by state law. Civil marriage confers the benefits and responsibilities confered or imposed, as the case may be, by law.
Religious marriage, on the other hand, is sanctioned and controlled by individual religions. Religious marriage confers none of the the benefits and responsibilities confered or imposed, as the case may be, by law.
When a couple is married in a church or synagogue, in normal course, two marriages are contracted — a civil marriage and a religious marriage. The religious marriage is contracted according to the requirements of the religion involved — in the case of Judaism, the marriage contract and certain ritual acts — and the civil marriage is contracted by signing a document to be filed with the county recorder’s office, witnessed by the rabbi who witnessed the religious marriage. The two are distinct, and the acts creating them are distinct.
I have been to a number of religious marriages over the last decade (Reform Judiasm permits rabbis to conduct same-sex marriages) and the marriages are valid for all religious purposes. The couples have undertaken the full responsibility of marriage under Halakhah, and all children are legitimate under Halakhah. The state recognizes none of the marriages as valid civil marriages.
Conversely, I know any number of straight Catholic couples who are divorced under civil law. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the marriages as ended for religious purposes in most cases. Many of these folks have remarried under civil law. In civil law, these folks are married. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, they are not, and are, in fact, adulterers.
Religious marriage is not at issue in the same-sex marriage debate, except, I suppose, as individual groups of religionists make it an issue within particular religions.
What is at atake, in our national debate, is civil marriage, and civil marriage alone.
None of the court cases affect religious marriage. None of the ammendments, proposed or enacted, affect religious marriage. DOMA does not affect religious marriage.
If same-sex civil marriage is sanctioned by the states, particular religions will be free to sanction same-sex religious marriage, or not, as suits them, just as they are now. If same-sex civil marriage is prohibited by the states, particular religions will be free to sanction same-sex religious marriage, or any, as it suits them, just as they are now. Nothing will change for religious marriage, either way.
Drew: “If gay marriage is defended as a religious institution performed by Churches, than it comes under First Amendment protections. Under that the First Amendment, government can not favor one religion over the other. Hence if government says yes to relgions which bless hetro marriages, it can not say no to religions which bless same sex marriages.”
I think that it would be a terrible mistake to blur or erase the line between civil marriage and religious marriage.
Blurring the lines will, inevitably, lead to government involvement in matters of religion. Let me give you a case in point, a real case, although it sounds a bit like a comedy routine.
A Jew married a Presbytarian in a civil ceremony. At that point, the couple was married under civil law, but the marriage was not recognized as either a Jewish marriage or a Christian marriage under their respective religions. Was the couple married, or not?
The Jew later converted to Roman Catholicism. At that point, the marriage was recognized as a Christian marriage, but not a Jewish marriage. Was the couple married, or not?
The couple eventually divorced. The Presbytarian church recognized the divorce , but the Roman Catholic Church did not. Was the couple married, or not?
Now, look at this. Under Jewish law, the couple was never married. Under Presbytarian theology, the couple was marred and divorced. Under Roman Catholic theology, the couple was not married until the Jew converted, and then was married, and remains married.
Which religious understanding controls civil law, if the lines get blurred?
In any event, too much confusion, too much blurring, already exists.
I’ve become convinced, canvassing against Wisconsin’s “nuclear-option” amendment, that many conservative Christians do not understand that there is a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage.
I listen to people all the time who have somehow become convinced that if same-sex civil marriage is sanctioned by the state, then they will be forced to sanction same-sex religious marriage within their religious denomination.
I don’t know whether this confusion is the result of faulty theology (most conservative Christian demoninations do not have a sacramental view of marriage) or the result of simple ignorance.
But blurring the lines of separation between church and state is going to make matters worse, not better.
posted by raj on
Drew | July 26, 2006, 7:16pm |
Marriage is a religious ceremony…
This is a crock. Marriage is a secular institution regulated by the state. Marriage ceremonies can be conducted by a “establishments of religion,” but they don’t have to be. In the US, states normally deputize “justices of the peace” to conduct marriage ceremonies. Justices of the peace may be employees of “establishments of religion”–pastors, rabbis, priests, etc., but they aren’t limited to that.
If marriage really is a “religious ceremony” as you contend, query why most states would refuse to recognize marriages of same-sex couples that might be conducted by establishments of religion such as the Unitarian-Universalists or the Metropolitan Community Church.
posted by Drew on
Tom Scharbach ….. the blurring between relgious and civil marriage took place over 100 years with the controversy of Mormon polygamy. If you want to advocate simply getting government out of marriage, than you have to get rid of the idea of civil marriage. That is why I think there is more compelling action in attributing same-sex marriage as a religious right, and showing compelling reasons for its recognition. This can be done without bringing in the thorny issue of polygamy. Everyone here keeps putting this in the term of government performing civil unions. That is not how the religious right campaigns agains the issue.
As for G. Hughes and Log Cabin running ads, they have run all sorts of ads. However, why don’t we see more? Because a large contigent of the GLBT choose partisanship over advocacy for gay rights. We be in much better standing with a bipartisan outreach. That work is still to be done.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Drew: “Tom Scharbach ….. the blurring between relgious and civil marriage took place over 100 years with the controversy of Mormon polygamy. If you want to advocate simply getting government out of marriage, than you have to get rid of the idea of civil marriage. That is why I think there is more compelling action in attributing same-sex marriage as a religious right, and showing compelling reasons for its recognition. This can be done without bringing in the thorny issue of polygamy. Everyone here keeps putting this in the term of government performing civil unions. That is not how the religious right campaigns against the issue.”
Drew, we disagree about the wisdom of the course you advocate, but reasonable folks can differ.
I note that Representative Emmanuel Cleaver II (Democrat, Missouri), a Methodist minister, made a related argument during the debate on the FMA two weeks ago:
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I probably perform more marriages than all of the other Members in this body, collected. When I perform a wedding in Los Angeles in August, it will push me over the 400 mark for my career as an ordained United Methodist pastor.
I am baffled over what is taking place on this floor. When Rome ruled the world, every now and then Roman soldiers had to go back to Rome and pledge loyalty to the Emperor. It was called sacramentum. In my tradition, the Christian tradition, we took that word to use as our word sacrament, our pledge of loyalty to God.
The generic marriage ceremony, which almost every denomination uses, begins by saying, marriage is an honorable estate instituted by God and signifies to all the uniting of this man and this woman in His church.
The point, Mr. Speaker, is that the domain of the church is the place where definitions should be made with regard to marriage. Every denomination has struggled or is struggling with this issue. The United Methodist Church voted last year not to allow same-sex marriages. The Episcopalian Church voted to do the same.
I resent a body of legislators telling me, a member of a denomination, that they will decide who can and who cannot get married. It is the responsibility of the church not the Government. If the Government is going to become involved in this sacrament, then why not communion? Why does the Congress not then begin to deal with how many times a month a church should do communion?
Friends, this is the saddest day for me since I have been here, because I can see clearly that this body is willing to trespass on the domain of God. Marriage is a holy institution. It was created by God. And we say in my tradition that Jesus ordained and beautified marriage when he performed his first miracle at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, not on the floor of Congress.
The church controls this issue. If this body would like to move to have the civil marriages restricted, that is fine. People who want to go to the courthouse, or want to get married on a ship, that is fine. But in terms of the church, keep your hands out of the church.
The church is a sacred institution. I did not come to this floor to make enemies but to make a point. And my point is this. This is off base. This is wrong. I wish we had time to debate the theology of this issue, because I would do it with anybody in this place.
And, at a later point in the debate:
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, in 1974, I was ordained as an elder in the United Methodist Church after having completed 3 years of seminary, 4 years of undergraduate work. I have been pastoring for 32 years. As of today, I have never, ever been asked to perform a wedding between same-sex partners. I do not even know of a minister who has ever been made that request.
And so I am not sure how significant this is, except for the fact that I am not here to defend anything except the church. We have people sitting in the gallery and people looking at this broadcast all across America. And the chances are really high that almost 100 percent of them have marriage licenses signed by a member of the clergy, and not a Member of Congress.
Marriage was ordained by God, and in all of the weddings the words are read, “Marriage is an institution by God signifying the uniting of this man and this woman in holy matrimony”.
And then we go on to say that, in my tradition, Christ adorned and beautified marriage when he performed his first miracle at the wedding in Cana of Galilee.
Marriage is sacred. It is holy. It is an institution created by the church. Now, the United States Congress is going to trespass on the property of the church?
I am concerned that we have gone too far. Every judicatory or denomination in the world is debating this issue, and it should remain in that domain, not on the floor of Congress. I don’t want Congress to approve or disapprove how we perform marriages in my church.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Drew wrote, “Everyone here keeps putting this in the term of government performing civil unions. That is not how the religious right campaigns agains the issue.”
Pardon me, but why in the world should we allow the religious right to frame the issue? When the action items are changes to civil laws and the Constitution, the actual, reality-based dispute is over the civil law, no matter what the religious right or anyone else says to the contrary. Virtually nobody is advocating marching into churchese or mosques or synagogues and forcing them to marry anyone or to change any of their tenets or preachings. That is a big fat red herring tossed out by the religious right, which wants to change America into a theocratic state without acknowledging any change.
The civil government is not going to get out of the marriage business, nor should it. That would be a radical move, indeed. All that gay marriage advocates (myself included) are seeking is to include gay people in the existing legal institution. When we say “legal” or “civil” it means we are not talking about the religious aspect of marriage, over which the state has no control. The distinction between civil and religious is crucial. I don’t understand why some gay people persist in confusing them or in suggesting that marriage is or ought to be a purely religious matter. No. A non-religious couple that goes to the justice of the peace is just as married as any other. I wish people, at least those on our side, would get this already.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Marriage is a secular institution regulated by the state.
Marriage is a welfare program which, even after being made available to gays, will still be unconstitutional discrimination because it discriminates against singles and other people who don’t live “the married lifestyle.”
The best thing to do is eliminate the “special rights” of marriage which are inappropriate (such as the “right not to testify against one’s spouse”), and make all the other rights (immigration, tax and inheritance, etc.) open to anyone and everyone — single or married — who wishes to designate another individual as a partner for those purposes.
Bang, problem solved all at once and everyone is happy except those who view the role of government as designating married people as “special” and “unmarried” people as “something less than married people.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Wrong again. “The workers” didn’t own the company. Some of the work groups owned a plurality of the company, but several sub-groups — including the flight attendants, rampers, and other groups — owned none of it at all.
Right.
July 1993 ? Pilots, flight attendants and machinists unions agree to wage and benefit concessions in exchange for majority ownership of UAL Corp.
Dec. 15, 1993 ? Unions reach a tentative agreement to buy the carrier in a $5.15 billion cash ? and ? concessions deal that would give them at least 53% ownership under an employee stock ownership plan.
Or maybe this will help jog your memory.
Bye now.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I listen to people all the time who have somehow become convinced that if same-sex civil marriage is sanctioned by the state, then they will be forced to sanction same-sex religious marriage within their religious denomination.
I don’t know whether this confusion is the result of faulty theology (most conservative Christian demoninations do not have a sacramental view of marriage) or the result of simple ignorance.
Probably because they know gays who don’t get what they want have no qualms about vandalizing churches, breaking in during Mass and tormenting parishoners, and then desecrating the Sacrament.
Probably because they know gay-rights groups are openly hostile towards religion, with many of their leaders and spokespersons referring to religious people as ignorant bigots and superstitious idiots.
Perhaps because they know people like Raj believe that religious people should be denied the right to vote.
The day people start believing that gays are not going to force gay marriage on churches is the day when gays start showing respect for religion and slapping down the perpetrators of religious hate speech in their midst.
Won’t be any time soon.
posted by kittynboi on
Well, gays are certainly capable of lying, as ND30 demonstrates in his post.
====================
http://toucanfiles.blogspot.com
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, please stop making false generalizations. There are a great many gay religious groups, and I am sure you don’t think they are anti-religious. There are indeed gay activist groups that use anti-religious rhetoric, but there are also groups, like my own (Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance in DC), that do not, and which have cordial relations with gay-affirming religious groups. I attended a perfectly respectful and constructive religious forum last year, I believe it was organized by the Human Rights Campaign. On the other hand, it is certainly legitimate and even necessary to criticize specific religious groups or ministers for specific doctrines or statements; but that does not require throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I myself have been a gay activist for the past quarter century, and I have written a number of essays on religious topics, including some on IGF, and they are not written from an anti-religious viewpoint.
If you don’t want gay activists to make false negative generalizations about religion, you should not yourself be making false negative generalizations about gay activists.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Pilots, flight attendants and machinists unions agree to wage and benefit concessions in exchange for majority ownership of UAL Corp.
The article is inaccurate.
If you watch the documentary on the meltdown at United post 9/11, the head of the FA Union makes it quite clear that flight attendants owned virtually none of the company and most refused the offer of ownership because they believed it was temporary anyway.
gays who don’t get what they want have no qualms about vandalizing churches, breaking in during Mass and tormenting parishoners
Well, what can be said? The Republicans blow up houses of worship in the Middle East, send the army in to invade during prayer services, and torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib. “The gays” are just doing what the Republicans say is necessary in order to secure “freedom in our lifetime.”
gays are certainly capable of lying, as ND30 demonstrates in his post
I don’t think ND30 is gay. I think he is a Republican operative who pretends to be gay in order to gain a “veneer of credibility.” In fact, I’ve never believed he’s gay. He’s fictitious persona cooked up by the Republican party spin machine for the “netroots.”
No true gay person would spit, scream and tear at his face over “betrayals by LCR” the way ND30 and “Gay Patriot” have. Someone should tell their authors to tone it down and drop the “angry white straight male” schtick when they post as “gay” Republicans.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
ND30: “…gays who don’t get what they want have no qualms about vandalizing churches, breaking in during Mass and tormenting parishoners …”
NEL: “Well, what can be said?”
A modifier might help, such as “a few …” or “some” or “on the fringes”; perhaps a combination of modifiers might approach accuracy.
ND30 is prone to using extreme and unmoderated language. In this, ND30 is not different from other folks off to the edges of our national debate.
What concerns me more than ND30 and others like him, who are easily identified as over the edge and can be discounted, is the increasingly violent language that is creeping into the mainstream of our national debate on gay and lesbian equality.
I think that our national debate is becoming more and more polarizing and dangerous as time goes on, rather than less.
As Rabbi Abraham Heschel said of words, “Speech has power. Words do not fade.”
posted by Audrey on
Tom Scharbach, are you Jewish?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Audrey, I am personally disappointed that you did not ask if I am Jewish.
posted by Audrey on
Richard, that?s because I read in one of your columns that you were (past tense) Catholic. That said, I am curious about your last name. Show of hands, who?s Jewish?
posted by dalea on
How about instead of complaining about people who actually get it together to put an ad in the press (especially when the complaints come from those who have not placed such ad) the complainers actually do something. Besides complain that is.
An ad, placed by conservative gays in a conservative gay publication. One picturing the excellent conservative gay icons mentioned above. The Weekly Standard, National Review or Human Events would be great venues for this ad. How about it?
It seems clear to me that the conservative press probably would not run the ad. The conservative icons would not let their pictures be used. And the conservatives would much rather carp, complain and criticize rather than do anything constructive.
There seems to be a division of labor here. The nebulous ‘left’ does do things, does reach out to its natural constituencies, does take stands on gay issues. Like the ad. It is not at all clear to me that gay conservatives do so in a comparable fashion. Or at all. I have never seen a conservative gay effort in the Republican Party that could hold a birthday cake candle to the efforts in the Democratic party. Nor have I ever seen Rep’s as willing to listen and be open to gays as the Dem’s have been. The work and progress of the ‘left’ compares as a lighthouse beacon does to a match when looking at the gay conservatives.
Richard, I apologize for offending you. I was not aware of your efforts with ethnic and racial minorities. Very sorry.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Audrey: “Tom Scharbach, are you Jewish?”
I converted to Roman Catholism in 1989. At present, I stand in “faithful opposition“.
posted by dalea on
Hey Audrey, about your Jewish question. A ‘show of hands’ does not answer. Jewishness, or whatever, is determined by ‘circumcision’ status. Which is not knowable by looking at hands. Need to look elsewhere. Perhaps someone here has mastered the cirumlocutions and genteelisms that might guide Audrey in her quest.
BTW, like you are interested, I am a Pagan.
posted by Bobby on
Dalea, muslims practice circumcision, that doesn’t make them jewish.
posted by dalea on
Good point Bobby, the sensitivity thing is beginning to take hold. Yes Audrey, you will need to become a connisseure of circumcision. Able to distinguish between a Jewish and Muslim one at first taste, erhhhh something.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
An ad, placed by conservative gays in a conservative gay publication. One picturing the excellent conservative gay icons mentioned above.
Never happen. The true, out conservative gays like Andrew Sullivan and Patrick Guerriero were drummed out of the conservative movement long ago. Just look at the vitriol which supposed “gays” like ND30 and “Gay Patriot” direct towards those two men and their organizations.
How are you supposed to create a conservative advertising campaign when all the gay conservatives who are named are now considered “liberal infiltrators” because they’re gay? You cannot run an advertisement signed by “North Dallas Thirty” and “Gay Patriot” and “Gay Patriot West.” Besides, I have my doubts that two of the three are really gay (or even really exist, beyond handles for trolling gay political message boards).
posted by Mike on
ND30 and Gaypatriot hardly represent the conservative movement, whether gay or not. Patrick Guerriero has A LOT of credibility among MANY gays of all political stripes, especially among Libertarians and GOPers, of course, so he’s hardly the dead horse some would make him for kicking’s sake.
Speaking of trashing LCR, let’s review how it came into this discussion, with Rey’s (or is it Rev’s?) mindless post claiming that all we think about is money. Demonstrably false, given that we’ve yet to take up the banner that the Wall St. Journal and others, including myself, have waved: pushing for full economic equality for gay and lesbian couples, tax and otherwise. So far, the only real concerted push for this has come from a California Democrat, who used her position on that state’s Board of Equalization to advocate such changes and now is seeking more. That’s hardly a criticism of her; I wish she’d done it earlier across the board and that LCR and others would support her more actively. But at least one bunch of Cal. lawyers I know of declines to do so, instead pushing for the “marriage at all costs” approach by labeling such other pursuits “compromising” or “backsliding.”
Thank you, Drew, for setting the record straight – or should I say Right? – on LCR’s ad campaigns, on TV and elsewhere. To my knowledge, we were not approached by NGLTF in connection with the ad at issue.
Finally, for the record, I HAVE worked in a steel mill and paid the union dues I was forced to for two Summers straight – as I was at the time – while in college. What I saw of obstructionist union tactics – e.g., the shop steward routinely telling the other Summer hires and myself to slow down on the job – was enough to turn me into a GOPer. But it took a few more years – including a stint in the Navy – to bring me out. The union had no incentives to offer in that department.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, please stop making false generalizations. There are a great many gay religious groups, and I am sure you don’t think they are anti-religious. There are indeed gay activist groups that use anti-religious rhetoric, but there are also groups, like my own (Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance in DC), that do not, and which have cordial relations with gay-affirming religious groups.
I am aware of them, Richard, because I am gay.
But if you asked anyone outside the gay community, you would find in a hurry that the antireligious ones, i.e. ACT UP, are the public face of gays — partly because they are promoted that way by antigay forces, but primarily because those are the ones that the gay community itself chooses to promote and push.
Furthermore, the perception outside the gay community is that gay religious groups are like the Klan’s attempts to stand for family values — a thin veneer done solely out of a cynical desire to hide and obscure underlying hatred, with no real power or influence. When asked why, they will point out something that will stop you in your tracks — do you have reference to a gay-friendly religious group EVER speaking out against hate speech or antireligious statements made by gay leaders?
posted by Bobby on
“Patrick Guerriero has A LOT of credibility”
—I disagree, Patrick is nothing more than a politically correct image of what a gay republican should be.
Steve Yuhas has a lot more credibility, he takes whatever positions he wants and doesn’t try to please anyone.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, what can be said? The Republicans blow up houses of worship in the Middle East, send the army in to invade during prayer services, and torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib. “The gays” are just doing what the Republicans say is necessary in order to secure “freedom in our lifetime.”
If churches were stockpiling weaponry to be used against gays and unsuspecting civilians who happened to be nearby, THEN you might have a point.
However, you nicely proved mine; you made a ludicrous comparison to justify gays’ antireligious hatred and actions — and neither Tom or Richard said thing one about it.
posted by dalea on
ACTUP has been out of business for over a decade. There was one incident involving a RC church, in which the members stormed the alter to protest a noted bigot. In the melee, some crackers got spilled. BFD. The hysteria that accompanied the lost snack is something that comes from the hysteria of the conservatives. Not from Gay folks.
Or do you have more recent examples?
It seems rather clear to me that gay people are often critical of conservative christianity. With good reason. However, I do not see criticizing as out of bounds. And since we all are subject to whatever whimseys are running through the world of the evangelicals, usually to our detriment, it seems only candid to speak doubts about that religion. Like how the whole thing seems plucked out of the air, with no historical base or substance behind it.
There are many gay and lesbian religious leaders with influence. Zusanna Budapest is one I greatly respect and admire. Father Malcolm Boyd is another. At White Crane there are quite a few gay religious practitioners on display. So, what is your idea of gay religion?
Wren of Witches Voice has spoken out against gay misrepresentations.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
If churches were stockpiling weaponry to be used against gays and unsuspecting civilians who happened to be nearby, THEN you might have a point.
The US destroyed mosques in the Middle East which didn’t stockpile weaponry, but which were meeting places for anti-government groups. Churches certainly are meeting places for anti-gay groups, isn’t that good enough?
you made a ludicrous comparison to justify gays’ antireligious hatred and actions
Yes, those poor, poor victim churches. Marginalized, out of power, near bankruptcy, the only thing protecting them from the evil homosexuals is an online troll named “North Dallas 30” who pretends to be gay in order to fit in a bit better in his rants.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
in which the members stormed the alter to protest a noted bigot. In the melee, some crackers got spilled.
*gasp*
You’re not respecting the conservatives’ superstitions, you hater! That’s not just any cracker, it’s the Mystical Cracker Of Jesus!
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | July 28, 2006, 5:10am |
The true, out conservative gays like Andrew Sullivan and Patrick Guerriero were drummed out of the conservative movement long ago. Just look at the vitriol which supposed “gays” like ND30 and “Gay Patriot” direct towards those two men and their organizations.
The ridiculously-named “Gay Patriot” isn’t a conservative. He’s a Republican aparatchick. That should be apparent. He and his co-bloggers defend the Bush malAdministration, although that malAdministration is nothing more than borrow-and-spend liberals, and despite the fact that, on the social side, the Bushies are obviously anti-gay. Oh, and despite the fact that the Bushies have engaged in at least one senseless foreign adventure–which they (GP and his co-bloggers) cheer but aren’t interested in serving in. (The term “chicken-hawk” comes to mind.)
BTW, re “GayPatriot.net,” take a look at who is sponsoring the web site: “PajamasMedia.com”. Do a google search on Pajamas Media. You might be surprised at what you might find as to who is investing in and controlling that entity.
NDXXX is nothing more than a bloviator. Its leaps of logic and discourse are manifest, as has been noted here, at “Gaypatriot.net,” at Malcontent, and at PamSpaulding. It apparently loves to see itself post, but what it posts are easily shot down.
posted by Kevin on
This commentary reminds me of the Gospel story where a couple of Jesus’ disciples come to him and complain that there are unbaptized men in some town who are casting out devils in Jesus’ name. The concern of the disciples is with the unbaptized part. Jesus responds by basically saying, “So what? As long as they’re casting out devils in my name, that’s what counts”.
I think it’s petty to criticize a particular group for espousing a cause to which the writer is presumably committed, just because they didn’t include political rivals. I thought the “about us” for this Forum stated that it’s composed of people of different political perspectives? What difference does it make if the Log Cabin Republicans weren’t included in an ad taken out by a group that disagrees with the larger political goals of the Log Cabiners? I hope my use of “larger political goals” isn’t too politically incorrect.
posted by ETJB on
Knee-jerk Talibanical reaction against labor unions tends to come from misguided people that feel that working class people would be better off if big business was allowed to do whatever it wanted, whever it wanted.
It is funny to see the blinders that the IGF writers have when it comes to certain groups of gay people, i.e. class, Iraq, ballot access law.
When gay Republicans ‘work’ at moving the GOP forward and acomplish nothing, the IGF gives them praise. When gays from the working class work at moving major labor unions forward and are successful, the IGF attacks them…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….but what seems funny, ETJB, is that gays give unions tons of money and time, but are still terrified to work on the assembly lines and in the union factories because of antigay sentiment and actions.
And thank you again, NL and Dalea; you have, once again, demonstrated the utter hollowness of words like Richard’s.
posted by etjb on
“gays give unions tons of money and time,”
really? any credible evidence to back this up?
“but are still terrified to work on the assembly lines and in the union factories because of antigay sentiment and actions.”
Being openly gay? Yes. Most states do not have decent civil rights/harassment laws. Thus a blue collar gay worker takes a bigger risk them a middle class gay Republican writer in SF.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….but…but…but….the union says it supports gays and would never allow its workers to harass them.
WHOOPS!
As for money and time, try Googling “Harvey Milk LGBT Democrats” and “union”. You’ll be scared to death.
posted by etjb on
More silly union bashing from people using Taliban tactics. Will they ever grow up?
Most major unions will address issues of on the job harassment. However, that requires a blue collar gay person to actually ‘come out’ when they have little job protection.
I also do not believe everything that I read online.
LOL….but…but…but….the union says it supports gays and would never allow its workers to harass them.
WHOOPS!
As for money and time, try Googling “Harvey Milk LGBT Democrats” and “union”. You’ll be scared to death.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Most major unions will address issues of on the job harassment. However, that requires a blue collar gay person to actually ‘come out’ when they have little job protection.
LOL….good leftist puppet, defend your union lies.
The reason unions give for their existence is providing job protections for workers. Explain why your union masters who claim they support gays would support a worker being fired because they were gay in a union contract.
posted by etjb on
“Good leftist puppet, defend your union lies.”
Puppet? Me? LOL! I am not a member of a labor union. I have no personal interest in this topic, aside from telling the truth. This is in contrast to say, big business or our president. So, go shovel your pro-Taliban crap somewhere else.
Labor unions exist to represent employees and thus collectively bargain for decent working conditions. The major labor unions have come around to supporting gay rights in the workplace.
The problem is that gay workers often (1) reside in a state without any sexual orientation based anti-discrimination laws. (2) reside in a state that has diluted the power of the labor union in comparison to the employer.
Hence, under the doctrine of ‘at will’ employment, an employer has a right to fire a gay employee for being gay unles a law is on the books.
If the union master is affiliated with a union that supports equality in the workplace they would not support a worker being fired because they were gay, but their is little that can be done, absent of a state or federal law.
A union contract has to follow the rules and regulations of state and federal law.