Civil Rights and Discrimination

Pride and Prejudice

by on

I have never seen anything quite like the Minnesota House debate over the proposal to amend their state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.  The amendment passed last night, 70-62.

In the first place, I’ve seen a lot of legislative debates on this subject, and five and a quarter hours is a lot of talking on a single subject.  I don’t think California has ever broken the three-hour mark on same-sex marriage, and that was years ago.

But the length of the discussion wasn’t what made it so remarkable.  While Joe Jervis says, “The vote came after impassioned debate by legislators on both sides,” in fact there was no debate at all.  Every member who spoke opposed the amendment – and did I mention that went on for over five hours?

The only voice in support was the amendment’s author, Rep. Steve Gottwalt, who had no backup from anyone in his party.  And even he never weighed in on why it might be good to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.  His argument was about the virtue of legislative abdication.  This shouldn’t be our decision, it belongs to the voters.  In his cameo speaking role, he kept repeating that his opinion on same-sex couples, were he to have one, would be irrelevant to his authoring of the amendment.  The proposal wasn’t about same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples, or, really much of anything at all.  He never budged from this non-position, and then went into radio silence, along with every pro-amendment Republican in the body.  One other Republican, Rod Hamilton, did share how deeply he had struggled with his vote, but that was the extent of it.  He, too, offered no argument in favor of the constitutional amendment.

In contrast, John Kriesel, a Republican Iraq war vet, was truly impassioned in his opposition.  He spoke about the American values he fought for, and explained that the amendment was exactly the opposite of what he understood our principles to be.  Rather than Gottwalt’s dodges, or the silence of the rest of his party, Kriesel was eloquent and manifest about his vote: “I’m proud of this.  It’s the right thing to do,” he said.

Three other Republicans and all but two of the Democrats could say the same thing.  So what about those 68 other non-voices, that majority in favor of – nothing?  This is what the public discussion of gay equality has come to on the right, a combination of cowardice and embarrassment.  Again, in decades of paying very close attention to legislatures, I have never seen such a stone wall (you should pardon the expression).  In the past, opponents have always had something to say.  They don’t any more.

That is a testament to the merits of their position.  They are willing to let NOM’s commercials do their talking for them, since even they know it isn’t seemly for elected officials to so openly appeal to the vestiges of prejudice.  Far from having arguments they can take pride in, they want to say as little as possible, knowing that history will judge them badly and hoping to minimize the damage.  That seemed to be Gottwalt’s strategy.  He knew, going in, that the other side had the better of it, and the best he could do was avoid owning up to the position he’d wound up having to champion.

Alone.

So now it will be up to the voters of Minnesota.  How much of the GOP’s prejudice will they be willing to adopt as so supremely important that it is worthy of being placed in their state’s constitution?

The rules for passing a constitutional amendment in Minnesota are tougher than some other states, and that is an important fact.  It must be passed with a majority of all votes cast in the 2012 general election, not just those cast on the amendment, itself.  The increasing support for equality across the nation will also play a role.

But there is one other factor.  Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has said he would fight the amendment with “every fiber of my being.”  That kind of public leadership from the state’s governor can make a difference.  California’s former governor once made a similar promise on Prop. 8; but like other promises he’d made, it wasn’t one he meant.  He spoke not one public word against the amendment, and only offered a tepid statement for use by the opposition.  I urge Minnesotans to do what California could not, hold their Governor to his word.

The rallying cry for this election should belong to Rep. Kriesel, though.  Looking down at his desk, and then up to his fellow representatives, he said, “If there was a Hell No button, I’d press that.”

12 Comments

Standing Firm

by on

Thomas Peters (“American Papist”) thinks that the Catholics who support same-sex marriage are just a bunch of phonies, and this makes the Public Religion Research Poll bogus.  I’ll leave the question of who counts as a Catholic to the Catholics, but can’t help pointing out that insulting fellow believers for insufficient dogmatism seldom works out well.  Plus, just as a demographic matter, if (as Peters suggests) the only real Catholics are the ones in the pews every week, the number of American Catholics is wildly inflated by pollsters, social scientists, and the church, itself.

But Peters doesn’t stop at provoking his fellow Catholics.  He goes on to argue that only (only!) 43% of these faux-Catholics support same-sex marriage, and that the higher figure of 74% includes those who support civil unions.  Peters says it’s important to draw a distinction:

In other words, the only way LGBT-funded pollsters can get Catholics (again, lumped in with inactive and less active Catholics) to “support” same-sex marriage is to create a false choice between full same-sex marriage on the one hand, and “no legal protection/recognition” on the other.

As soon as you introduce the reality that there are other ways of accommodating homosexual relationships into civil law without redefining marriage, support for same-sex marriage among Catholics drops off again. And yet we still see the headlines, “Catholics support same-sex marriage.”

How could I disagree with him about this false choice?  I’m all about the compromise.

The problem for Peters, though, is that one of the few people on earth who is undoubtedly a real Catholic thinks that false choice is the only one.  In 2003, Pope John Paul II approved of a document titled, “CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.” Bottom line? “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”  This explicitly includes civil unions which you’d think, by their very definition, might fall outside the jurisdiction of Catholic religious doctrine.  But it’s right there in black and brown and sepia.  These “considerations” were issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and bear the name of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who in recent years has moved up in the organization.

I get a bit hot under the collar when people like Peters invoke civil recognition of same-sex unions, and imply they would support that compromise when, in fact, they won’t (Since Peters claims he’s a Real Catholic, I assume he would follow the teachings of the Vatican on this matter).  That has always been the shell game NOM plays, ceaselessly claiming they want same-sex couples to be happy, just not married, and then remaining blithe about the lack of any legal recognition for same-sex couples; they go blank in the eyes at any mention of support for civil unions.

In this, at least, Indiana’s legislature is being honest.  They are getting ready to go on the record as prohibiting any same-sex couple in their state from having any legal recognition, marital or otherwise.   While state statute already defines marriage as between one man and one woman, this constitutional amendment would make it clear to any uppity judges out there that Indianans won’t tolerate wobbliness.

It’s rarer than it used to be to see such open hostility to same-sex couples.  Even politicians who think their constituents want them to be anti-gay are more careful these days, and couch their rhetoric in fashionable tolerance-manque.  But Indiana and the Vatican remind us what steel-toed intolerance — the kind that ran rampant in this country for most of the last century — looks like.

6 Comments

Cheney and Obama: Nowheresville

by on

There is a long and growing list of people – and specifically Republicans — who are said to be to the left of President Obama on gay marriage.  Our high-profile GOP supporters include Laura Bush, Elizabeth Hasselbeck and, most recently, freshly-out Ken Mehlman.

But the grandest of the Party’s Old Grandees is, of course, Dick Cheney, whose support for same-sex marriage is the most valuable scalp gay marriage supporters have been able to secure.  He’s even been characterized as “more progressive” on this issue than Obama.

Let’s get a grip.  I won’t argue that Obama’s well-documented flips and flops, ducks, weaves, hedges, caveats, little white lies, obfuscations and desperate dives underneath the desk in the Oval Office are any profile in courage.  Despite the fact that I think he will still be one of our finest presidents and may yet show some spine on real equality, what we’ve gotten from him so far is a savvy exhibition of three card monte.  While we know he can demonstrate leadership on issues he finds compelling, on gay equality he is more sheep than shepherd.

But Cheney hasn’t exactly been our Martin Luther King.  The pinnacle of his oratory has been this: “I think freedom means freedom for everyone.”  To my knowledge, he has never yet publicly used the phrase “same-sex marriage,” or even “civil unions.”  Here’s as close to explicit as he has ever gotten:

I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.

Now I won’t look this gift horse in the mouth, but it’s not exactly support for equality – it’s a plea for state’s rights.  And that would appear to include the right for states to give same-sex couples nothing.

Perhaps I’m wrong about that, but from Dick Cheney’s extremely rare public utterances, I can’t find any reason to believe he would have as little problem – i.e. “no problem” — with same-sex couples having no rights as he would with them having full equality.

But he can clarify that.  Specifically, he could put his money where is mouth is, and join Mehlman, Ted Olson, and so many other leading national Republicans at the AFER fundraiser (even Mary will be there).  Or he could actually say something clearly:  “I support same-sex marriage” would be nice, but I’d even take something like, “Both of my daughters deserve the same respect and rights under the law, and my party ought to make a commitment to that fundamental principle.”

At that point, I would be willing to put him beside Obama and find Obama wanting.  But for the present, the two are about even in substanceless avoidance; Cheney avoids the issue by saying too little, while Obama avoids the issue by saying too much.

22 Comments