IGF CultureWatch

Given that just for expressing my own opinions I am often accused of trying to silence people, I should probably avoid saying, "Oh, shut up" in response to those who are wringing their hands over the use of a procedural vote to defeat an anti-gay constitutional amendment. I certainly should avoid telling them bluntly what I think of them. Very well then, like Auntie Em I will be a Good Christian Woman and I won't say it.

As the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention on Nov. 9 deliberated whether to amend the state constitution to deny the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage to same-sex couples, I followed developments from afar via Bay Windows's ConCon blog. I was glad to see the serious lobbying at the State House complemented by people holding signs like "Go Home, You Look Haggard," and the satirical "Keep marriage straight, white and pure!" Considering that gay marriage has been blamed for everything but the problems with the Big Dig, a generous portion of humor was needed just to clear the air.

There was plenty of noxious gas to clear. Some of the bad air came last summer from David Kravitz of the Blue Mass Group blog, who wrote that "if the amendment isn't allowed to come up for a vote, it's a good day for Kerry Healey, and a bad day for the democratic process." Concerning the need for a vote, state Rep. David Linksy posted on Nov. 10, "I have voted on same-sex marriage sixteen times, consistently on the side of supporting same-sex marriage rights. My constituents know how I stand on the issue. My votes have been public and well-publicized and I have consistently made my views known to anyone who asked." In fact, the Nov. 7 election was a bad day for Kerry Healey and a good day for the most pro-gay governor-elect in American history.

After the ConCon recessed, the unhappy outgoing governor promised to "explore any other alternatives that may exist to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens." By that Mitt Romney apparently meant the right of the mob to attack a minority group whenever some demagogue chooses to provoke it.

Dan Kennedy of the Media Nation blog observes, "The customary procedures of the Legislature allow for members to call for a recess, and such a motion need only pass by a simple majority.... Proponents of a constitutional amendment need to get 25 percent by following the rules, not by having some outside authority put its thumb on the scale by suspending the rules."

On November 10, Andrew Sullivan blogged, "Yes, in some respects, civil rights should not be up for a vote. But many opponents of equality in marriage do not accept the premise that civil marriage is a civil right for gays. I think they're wrong; but it's an honest disagreement." Pardon me, but it is hardly an honest disagreement when marriage opponents repeatedly conflate civil and religious law and act as if their religious dogma should be binding on the rest of the population. And what does it mean to say that civil rights should not be up for a vote in some respects? Is marriage a fundamental right or not? Are gay people equal citizens or not?

Sullivan wrote that opponents of marriage equality are "not wrong that equality in civil marriage is also a social change that should have democratic input. To prevent such input by parliamentary maneuvers taints the victory." Who does he think has been denied input? What issue under the sun has had more public discussion?

This is a strange run-around. When we go to the courts we are told it is undemocratic because the legislature must decide. But when we went to the legislature in California, Governor Schwarzenegger said no, the courts must decide. And now in Massachusetts, having gone both to the courts and the legislature, we are told we are undemocratic because the people must decide directly. How many times are we expected to placidly watch the goalposts being moved?

Sullivan lamented, "I think we would have won the vote in 2008. I'm sorry we won't now get the chance to prove it." It is easy to say that he thinks we would have won such a plebiscite, but he doesn't know.

Let me offer a few observations regarding the sacredness of the people's right to decide: 1. We have a republic, not a government by town-hall meetings. 2. In recent elections in Massachusetts, opponents of marriage equality were the ones sent packing, not supporters. 3. Several other amendments have been dispatched by the same method in the past, and the Supreme Judicial Court has not ruled it improper. 4. Let our allies who have cold feet about this tell us which of their own basic rights they are prepared to ask their neighbors' permission to exercise.

My hometown of Washington is not in the same position as Massachusetts. Our special constitutional relationship to Congress makes us ill-suited to lead the marriage fight. You in the Bay State are carrying the dreams of a lot of people. You may be joined by a few other states before too long, but you are the first, and it is hard being the first. Please know that many of your compatriots around the country are proud of the determination with which you have defended this precious toehold on civil marriage equality. Keep fighting any way you can within the law, and Godspeed.

More than the necessary 50 of Massachusetts legislators meeting in a Constitutional Convention voted to support placing a proposal to ban same-sex marriage on the ballot in a statewide election.

If at least 50 votes at a second Constitutional Convention also support a referendum, then the referendum will take place and whether Massachusetts should allow legal same-sex marriage will be decided by the majority of Massachusetts voters.

Like most of us, I suppose, I was rooting for the defeat of the anti-gay, or at least anti-gay marriage, forces during the run-up to the Constitutional Convention (dubbed ConCon) and while following the confused proceedings at ConCon itself at a blog provided by the Boston gay newspaper Bay Windows.

But then after passion had ebbed a bit, no longer caught up in the heat of the moment I found myself having some troubling second thoughts.

Remember what happened. Gay marriage advocates had argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) that same-sex marriage was mandated by the equality provisions of the Massachusetts state constitution. After deliberation, the majority of the SJC agreed and same-sex marriage was duly instituted.

So same-sex marriage owes its very existence to the Massachusetts constitution.

Then in an effort to roll back the moral depravity of gay marriage, anti-gay forces gathered signatures to call for a statewide referendum on the issue. The Massachusetts Constitution states that if enough voters petition in support of referendum, state legislators meeting in ConCon should vote on whether to place the issue on the ballot. If at least 50 legislators (one quarter of the whole) approve it at two successive ConCons, it goes on the ballot.

Plausibly fearing that at least 50 legislators would approve a referendum, gay advocates tried to block a vote. Anti-gay marriage forces responded by petitioning the SJC to order the ConCon to vote on ballot placement.

In a rapid decision, the SJC stated unanimously-including all the justices who had approved gay marriage-that the ConCon must vote, that the constitution stated that if presented with sufficient signatures the ConCon shall vote on about a ballot referendum, not may vote.

The court acknowledged that it lacked the power to force ConCon to hold a vote, but the message was not lost on legislative leaders. And so the ConCon voted and more than 50 votes supported sending it on to the next ConCon to see if it is approved there.

Now here is where the nagging second thoughts come in. With all the gay-supportive will in the world, I do not see how Massachusetts gays and their supporters can appeal to the state constitution to establish gay marriage, and then turn around and urge defiance of the plain language of the constitution when it comes to some aspect they do not like.

Constitutions provide neutral rules of procedures to be followed in deciding contentious issues. To refuse to follow the constitution is to cut yourself off at the knees, to undermine the very basis by which your own rights are recognized. And the next time it may be the other side that urges that the constitution be ignored.

Further, to urge the legislature to ignore the language of the constitution is to urge it to undermine its own legitimacy: The constitution is what created the legislature in the first place and gives it its authority. Defying the constitution would deny the very basis of the legislature's existence and legitimacy.

Gay advocates coped with these kinds of arguments ... by ignoring them. Instead they trotted out the familiar catch-phrase of "People's basic civil rights should never be subject to a popular vote." But however appealing that phrase may be as political rhetoric there are two problems with it.

First, that is not what the Massachusetts constitution says. The constitution provides a means for voters to vote on practically everything if they jump through enough procedural hoops.

Second, "civil rights" are not self-defining. Anyone can claim anything as a (civil) right. But what should justifiably count as a civil right may be a matter of serious disagreement. Like it or not, they are themselves matters to be decided by constitutional processes, legislatures and ultimately voters. That is what the word "democracy" means.

And so Massachusetts gay marriage advocates must either persuade a few more legislators at the next ConCon to decline to approve a referendum or else they must be prepared to defend what they hope will be recognized as a civil right. If I were they, I would be starting preparations yesterday. And the rest of us would be wise to do whatever we can to help.

With the passing of former President Gerald Ford last week at the age of 93, Republicans and Democrats have joined in bipartisan praise of the man who led the country through the aftermath of the Watergate scandal.

President Bush praised Ford as "a man of complete integrity" whose "life was a blessing to America." Conservative politicians, activists and journalists across the country echoed this sentiment. But in their encomiums to the late president, they have conveniently left out one important fact: in his later years, Ford was a prominent ­- though hardly outspoken - supporter of gay rights.

In a 2001 interview with the Detroit News, Ford said, "I have always believed in an inclusive policy, in welcoming gays and others into the party. I think the party has to have an umbrella philosophy if it expects to win elections."

But his support for gay rights was not just a matter of strategic concern; it had a moral basis as well. "I think they ought to be treated equally. Period," the straight-talking ex-President of firm, Midwestern-values said.

With Ford, there was none of the evasiveness that we hear from the current president, who speaks of the gay marriage issue with words like "civility" and "decency," while supporting unreconstructed, anti-gay policies. Nor did Ford have any problem saying the word "gay," one that President Bush has shown incredible reticence in uttering.

In 2001, Ford joined the short-lived Republican Unity Coalition, an organization dedicated to making sexual orientation a "non-issue" in the GOP. Former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson served as chair of the organization, and other prominent members included John Danforth, Mary Matalin and Diane Ravitch.

Following the coverage of Ford's passing in the mainstream media, one would have difficulty coming across any mention of his unprecedented support for gay rights. In a symposium on the web site of the leading conservative magazine National Review, not one of the nine conservative historians or journalists that the publication invited to share words on Ford mentioned this interview. Indeed, finding a conservative commentator or politician - aside, of course, from the Log Cabin Republicans - mentioning Ford's support for gay rights has been a futile effort.

That a former United States president would come out, essentially, in favor of gay marriage is no small thing. That he was a rock-solid Republican ought to give conservatives pause before launching into their next attack on the "homosexual agenda."

Gerald Ford was an honest, decent man who did a great service to his country in one of its most troubled times. In his statements on gay rights, he showed a better side of the Republican Party, one we have not seen much of lately, yet Ford reminds us what the party could still become. Ford's support for gay civil rights might have something to do with the fact that the man who saved his life from a 1975 assassination attempt in San Francisco, former Marine and Vietnam veteran Oliver Sipple, was gay.

When Ford took office in 1974, he assured the country that "our long national nightmare" - Watergate - was over. One day, when more Republicans show the same sense of fairness that Ford demonstrated, the door will be closed on our country's long, national nightmare of treating gay people like second-class citizens.

It is amazing how many politicians claim they support equal rights and oppose discrimination against gays, but then favor a ban on same-sex marriage, oppose allowing gays to serve openly in the military, even oppose adoption by gay couples.

Exactly what is equal about letting heterosexuals marry the person they love, but not gays; letting heterosexuals serve openly in the military, but not gays; and letting heterosexuals adopt children, but not gays--not even let them adopt gay youths?

I don't know about you, but I am getting a little tired of people who say they are for gay legal equality--except when they are against it, or saying they are against discrimination--except when they are for it, and then using all sort of verbal evasions to wriggle out of acknowledging how anti-gay they are.

My favorite evasive phrase is "unjust discrimination." Take outgoing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Please. Romney says, "I've opposed same-sex marriage, but I've also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference."

Romney not only opposes same-sex marriage, he also opposes the Employment Non Discrimination Act and ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Yet he says he is against "unjust discrimination." Romney advisor Barbara Comstock says he defends traditional marriage and opposes "unjust discrimination against anyone" but doesn't see a need for "new or special legislation" on DADT or ENDA.

It is worth noticing that the Pope uses the same phrase--saying he opposes "unjust discrimination" against "homosexuals." And we all know how gay-friendly the Pope is. Clearly people using the phrase hope to sound moderate and tolerant by creating the impression that they think discrimination is unjust--and many gullible people do take them to mean that.

But what they actually mean is that they think only some forms of discrimination are "unjust"--and those are the ones they oppose. But they think other forms of discrimination are entirely just--and those they fully support. And, of course, they get to decide which kinds are which. In other words, the term has no objective meaning. It is utterly empty. It means ... nothing.

Romney is not the only presidential aspirants emitting evasions. Consider the nearly incoherent obfuscation by Arizona Senator John McCain: "I do not believe that marriage between--I believe in the sanctity and unique role of marriage between man and woman. But I certainly don't believe in discriminating against any American."

Asked by George Stephanopoulos if he were for civil unions then, McCain continued: "No, I'm not. But (the Arizona anti-gay marriage initiative which he supported) did allow for people to join in legal agreements such as power of attorney and others." Question: "So you're for civil unions?" McCain: "No. I am for ability of two--I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people who have relationships can enter into."

But signing contracts, exchanging powers of attorney and "other" arrangements are rights that friends, business partners, and every adult already has, so McCain is actually saying that he is not for anything beyond what already exists. But he is trying to seem "moderate" by saying what he is for, even if it is nothing new. Thanks for, literally, nothing, Senator.

Moving to the other side of the aisle, consider former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. Edwards described same-sex marriage as "the single hardest social issue" for him and said he had had a lot of "personal struggles" over the issue. Oh, John, John, we feel your pain! How hard it must be for you to grant others the same right you have to marry the person you love.

Edwards said he favored civil rights for gays but that it was a "jump for me to get to gay marriage … I am not there yet." So Edwards favors civil rights but opposes civil marriage. Apparently a civil marriage is not a civil right. And he has the effrontery to teasingly imply that he might change his position ("I'm not there yet") but suggests no sorts of reasons or criteria he would use in reevaluating his position. Apparently it is all just a mucky ooze of subjective feelings.

And where is the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation? The gay organization that should be monitoring these statements, publicly pointing out contradictions, obfuscations, and evasions, sensitizing the news media to detect them and advising how to ask follow-up questions to force candidates to answer more clearly? GLAAD is off partying with television and film personalities--"Dancing with the Stars."