IGF CultureWatch

The defeat of the federal marriage amendment in the Senate in early June was welcome, if entirely expected. It was a nice surprise to see the amendment fall short of 50 votes even on a procedural motion (its total would have been lower had it come up for a substantive vote); to have seven Republicans vote against it; to hear even southern conservative Senator John Warner (R-VA) say he thought it went too far; and to realize that this probably set its high-water mark in the Senate. But there is a cloud behind this silver lining.

The federal amendment, already on life-support, is dead for the foreseeable future, barring one of three very unlikely events:

1. A Supreme Court "victory," ordering all the states to recognize same-sex marriages, a decision that, if it came in the near future, would trigger quick passage of a federal amendment reversing same;
   
2. Unprecedented and overwhelming gains for the anti-gay-marriage movement in the next few national election cycles; or
   
3. A proposal for a much narrower amendment that would, for example, simply strip courts of jurisdiction over the issue. Even a narrower amendment would probably fail, but things would get a lot more interesting.

We'll continue to be haunted by this amendment, of course. It will rise from its grave during national election years like a ghoul in a late-night horror movie that one repeatedly kills, only to see it rise again and stumble blindly forward. It's the living dead.

All of this is cause for some celebration. But it is a muted celebration, the way one celebrates an essentially defensive victory. The debate in the Senate was a defeat for the amendment but it was not a win for gay marriage, which hardly any Senator even hinted at supporting. If we had an up-or-down vote on gay marriage in the Senate, it would lose 96-4, or thereabouts.

And while many of the arguments directed at the amendment were quite good (emphasizing federalism, the overstated threat of judicial activism, and the overbreadth of the amendment), some of the arguments against the amendment were, shall we say, deflating. For example, we heard repeatedly that there were much more important issues we needed to address, like gas prices and relations with the Principality of Liechtenstein.

I guess I have to agree with that in one sense. Any proposal is more important than one that should never have seen the light of day. Still, there was something baleful about cheering on people who were suggesting that anything related to the question of whether gays could marry was wasting our precious time. There was that not-the-gays-again tone in much of the person-on-the-street interviews seen on TV, a sentiment some Senators against the amendment seemed implicitly to be exploiting.

Even my beloved federalism argument can sound, in the wrong mouth, like "the states should be allowed to do this godawful thing if they want to." Forgive me for not finding much inspiration in that.

Then came the news, the very same day the amendment lost in the Senate, that Alabama had become the 19th state to ban gay marriage in its state constitution, which I suppose will stop dead in their tracks all those Alabama state court judges who've been seduced by pro-homosexual propaganda. Alabama and most of the other states that have passed constitutional gay-marriage bans (e.g., Texas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi) were unlikely to recognize gay marriage or anything else gay in the foreseeable future anyway, whether by legislative or judicial action, so not much is immediately lost.

But I get the sense that long after the rational debate over whether gay marriage harms anything has been resoundingly answered "no," we're going to be stuck with many of these state amendments, adopted in a time when we didn't know any better. That will be true at least in those states where a repeal, like the original amendment, will require a super-majority in one form or another. More precisely, "we" won't be stuck with these state constitutional amendments; gay families unfortunate enough to live in those places, with little means of escape, will be stuck with them.

With a federal amendment now effectively off the table, my guess is the anti-gay-marriage movement will redouble its efforts in the remaining dozen or so states that seem likeliest to pass such measures. The likely result, after a few more election cycles, will be a nation where about 35 of 50 states will be unable to give gay marriage (or, in many of these states, civil unions or watered-down domestic partnerships) a try long after experience in other states and countries has shown it's a good idea.

Of the remaining 15 or so states, a few will move legislatively and judicially toward same-sex marriage, but their public-policy advances in this area will be effectively quarantined, at least initially. That's about the rosiest realistic scenario right now for the next couple of decades.

It's not exactly the same as having a federal amendment, which would kill gay marriage in the whole United States for perhaps half a century, but it's the next worst thing.

So the federal marriage amendment is dead. Long live the amendment.

After last week's General Convention of The Episcopal Church, held in Columbus, Ohio, gay attendees and their allies were taking a while to absorb its meaning. As friends of mine on the scene noted, the worst did not happen. No resolution was adopted expressing regret or apology for the election of Gene Robinson as a bishop in 2003. Nor was a resolution adopted halting the development of rites for same-sex unions. Also, gay-supportive Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of Nevada was elected the first woman presiding bishop.

On the other hand, the day after the Convention voted to reject the anti-gay Windsor Report, bishops (with help from Jefferts Schori, and using what many have called heavy-handed tactics) pushed through a resolution "to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation," and to "call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."

Bishop Robinson writes, "The scene of gay and lesbian deputies, willing to fall on their own swords for the presumed good of the Church, voting for this resolution against their own self-interest was an act of self-sacrifice that I won't soon forget.

"Keeping us in conversation with the Anglican Communion was the goal - for which the price was declaring gay and lesbian people unfit material for the episcopate. Only time will tell whether or not even that was accomplished. Within minutes - yes, MINUTES - the conservatives both within our Church and in Africa declared our sacrificial action woefully inadequate. It felt like a kick in the teeth...."

The Anglican Primate of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, a leader of the right-wing forces, concluded a June 23 open letter to the Episcopal Church USA with this: "We assure all those Scripturally faithful dioceses and congregations alienated and marginalised within your Provincial structure that we have heard their cries." That's like a guy confiding in you that he intends to marry your wife after she divorces you. Akinola seeks reconciliation the way a predator does with its prey. This is not about theology, it is about power, and gay issues are merely a pretext for the power grab.

These are the makings of a schism. The Western branches of the Communion can hardly allow themselves to be overrun by medieval obscurantism in the name of unity. As Akinola himself stated after the destruction of Christian churches in northern Nigeria by Islamist thugs, "From all indications, it is very clear now that the sacrifices of the Christians in this country for peaceful co-existence with people of other faiths has [sic] been sadly misunderstood to be weakness."

How right you are, Eminence. The impulse toward compromise on the part of tolerant progressives is exploited by intolerant conservatives who have no interest in compromise. There is no reason why continuing a conversation should require unilateral concessions. The appeasement in Columbus was reminiscent of the signing of the Munich Agreement by Neville Chamberlain in 1938. The difference in this case is that the appeased aggressor won't bother to sign a phony peace agreement.

Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark Cathedral, contrasts Akinola's obsession over homosexuality with his church's relative silence regarding Nigeria's "massive abuse of women, polygamy, female mutilation and stoning for adultery." In the Gospel of John, of course, when the scribes and Pharisees cite Mosaic law calling for an adulterous woman to be stoned, Jesus replies, "Let the one who has not sinned cast the first stone." But Akinola is far more in sympathy with the Pharisees.

The current acrimony's roots lie in the 1998 Lambeth Conference, which, as retired Bishop John Shelby Spong writes, "was overwhelmed by a homophobic combination of first world Anglican evangelicals with third world Bible quoting Anglican fundamentalists."

More recently, the Windsor Commission called for the 38 national branches of the Anglican Communion to endorse "current Anglican teaching." To the contrary, Spong notes that the Anglican Church "has never recognized an infallible pope or an inerrant Bible," and asks, "Would those Anglicans who have engaged critical biblical scholarship be asked to subscribe to the pre-modern mindset of some third world countries that oppose evolution, interpret the Virgin Birth as literal biology or view the Resurrection as a physical resuscitation?"

The problem is not disunity, but dogmatism. Some people are convinced that they have a lock on divine truth, and that it lies in a literal-minded reading of the Bible. This does not resemble Anglicanism. Others, who value the past two centuries of biblical scholarship as well as extra-Biblical sources such as the reality of God's creation, recognize that as mortals we can never possess the knowledge of God, but can only seek greater understanding. As Bishop Spong observes, "Whenever growth occurs there is always conflict and dislocation." This happened previously over the issue of women bishops. Quite simply, the children of the Enlightenment have to stand and fight for it.

The prophet Ezekiel spoke against false prophets: "They have misled my people by saying 'Peace!' when there is no peace. Instead of my people rebuilding the wall, these men come and slap on plaster. Tell these plasterers: It will rain hard, it will hail, it will blow a gale, and down will come the wall."

Let it come down.

On June 13, someone set fire to the gay/lesbian special collection at the John Merlo branch of the Chicago Public Library, destroying about 75-80 of the 800 books in the collection before the fire was extinguished.

Library administration spokeswoman Maggie Killackey downplayed the fire and a police spokeswoman said it was not a hate crime because there were no prior threats or anti-gay graffiti, as if that were sufficient to rule out anti-gay intent.

Most gays, however, noticing the timing just before the Gay Pride Parade and the Gay Games in Chicago, viewed the fire as an attempt to attack gays and mounted a sustained effort to draw media attention to the fire. Gratifyingly, television stations visited the library, interviewed gay spokesmen and covered a June 20 protest denouncing the police.

On June 21, police announced the arrest of a 21 year old pregnant, homeless woman with a long arrest record who said she wanted to protest the library's refusal to let her to sleep in the library. She said she did not know what books she burned but chose books in a secluded part of the library.

To gays familiar with Chicago police practices, the quick arrest of a suspect after major negative publicity, a homeless person at that, smacked of "round up the usual suspects." But the woman reportedly bragged to friends about setting the fire.

Police said, "What she did in her mind was little. She realized it got a lot bigger than she intended." If that means she bragged about the fire after noticing the media coverage or the man who reported her realized from the publicity that the fire was a major issue, or the woman meant that police intensified their efforts after all the publicity (as they did), all those suggest that the media attention and political pressure produced an arrest. Activism worked.

The fire raises concerns about the safety of the library and the gay collection. There seems to be no surveillance camera in the library entryway, so police could not determine who had come and gone near the time of the fire. Library security guards are there only part time. Patrons in the library at the time said smoke detectors did not go off. And the gay books might wisely be moved to a less secluded location.

But the pressing issue now is the Chicago Public Library's (CPL) offensive and dismissive policy of not accepting donated books. That policy must be revised.

With amazing speed to stanch bad publicity, within two weeks the CPL reordered books that could still be identified. But gay community members insisted that the collection not only be reconstituted but be expanded to better meet local needs and interests as well as send a warning to homophobes that attacks on gays will be countered with a greater positive response.

Yet when people brought books to branch libraries, they were told that the CPL does not accept donated books and their offers were rejected. (Do not blame branch libraries--they do not control policy.) This policy has created growing anger as people learn about it. Although people are still sympathetic with the Merlo branch which supports the unique gay collection people are increasingly angry at the elitist downtown administration.

At the June 20 demonstration, library spokeswoman Killackey complained to me with evident irritation, "People are bringing books to libraries all over Chicago." Stunned, I could only think to reply, "It's a shame libraries are getting more books."

Killackey's main rationale for the policy is that processing books "is not an efficient use of staff time." Yet it takes about 10 seconds for a subject area specialist to determine whether a book would be a useful addition and five minutes or less to process it if the Chicago system already has a copy anywhere else in the system. Clearly a bargain. If no Chicago library currently owns the book, it takes about a half hour to process it. But if the library can get a free $50-$60 university press book (a typical price for specialized books) for a half hour of processing time, that too seems like a bargain.

And the no-donations policy seems to be unique among libraries in the U.S. New York, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia told me they all accept and consider books donations. They leave it up to specialist librarians whether to add donated books to their collection based on the condition of the book, its value to the collection, and their current need. Reasonable enough.

Gays and lesbians in other cities who wish to help can donate funds for the Merlo gay book fund at the website of the Chicago Public library Foundation (www.chicagopubliclibraryfoundation.org). They would also be wise to learn from Chicago's sour experience. Consider donating library-appropriate gay and lesbian books in good condition to your local library. Talk with the librarian first to make sure they can be added to the collection, but please help expand the range of materials available for gays, students and other people who wish to learn about gay history and gay issues or wish to explore the gay/lesbian literary heritage.

For Chicagoans, the following are some possible responses: Write to Library Commissioner Mary Dempsey to urge revision of the policy. Write to Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley since Dempsey is a close ally. Donate gay books to any branch library you like (they could all use more) and let them cope with the problem. Call or write 44th Ward Alderman Tom Tunney (the Merlo branch is in his ward) and ask his help. Consider an informational picket outside Harold Washington Library downtown: The CPL honchos richly deserve the negative publicity they would get.