IGF CultureWatch

Comedian Robin Williams lashing out at President Bush: "It's nice to have a President who confuses his commandments and amendments." OK, fair enough. But here's John Kerry justifying why he supports lesser civil unions for gays but favors amending state constitutions to ban gay marriage, from his interview with MTV:

"What is distinct is the institutional name or whatever people look at as the sacrament within a church, or within a synagogue or within a mosque as a religious institution. There is a distinction. And the civil state really just adopted that."

So, where are the Democratic voices rising up in anger over Kerry's adopting the position that religious sacraments shoud be dispensed by the state, at the expense of legal equality for gays? Don't hold your breath. Even this MTV story leads with an assertion of Kerry's support for granting gays "equal rights under the law," then buries his remarks about sacraments being an exception.

One thing is clear: this is going to be the nastiest presidential campaign in memory, with both sides sinking to new lows to ignite the emotions of their respective bases. And the partisan news media (and make no mistake, they're all partisan -- especially those who feign "objectivity") can't be trusted. George Orwell was never so right about how politics debases the simple meaning of words (e.g., "equality.").

-------
Addendum: A correspondent disagrees with my assessment and points out that Kerry also said, "It's the rights that are important, not the name of the institution." OK, but even assuming that civil unions would be separate but otherwise equal to marriage on a state level, Kerry still supports a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex "marriage" on the basis that marriage is a sacrament. Sorry, but I just don't see how that differs from Bush's reason for supporting an (admittedly worse) federal amendment.
-------

Joel Kotkin's Sunday op-ed in the Washington Post compares the ideological and theological divisions in 2004 America with those of England just before its 17th-century civil war. He writes:

All Americans have a stake in improving the quality of the political discourse on both sides. Issues such as the war on terrorism, the role of the state in private life, the nature of marriage and the fear of obsolescence are the issues that divide Roundhead and Cavalier America today. And they are weighty enough to be treated with something more than dueling hyperbole.

But I woundn't count on a return to bipartisan civility, not to mention rationality, anytime soon.

More Recent Postings

3/21/04 - 3/27/04

David Bernstein, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy blogsite, lays waste to columnist Maggie Gallagher's confused arguments against gay marriage. Well worth reading. Excerpt:

[Gallagher] emphasizes that heterosexual marriage is deeply rooted in Christian and Jewish "not to mention" Muslim tradition. Well, polygamous marriage is deeply-rooted in Muslim tradition, and, for that matter, Mizrahi (Eastern, non-Ashkenazic) Jews practiced polygamy from Mosaic times until the middle of the twentieth century.... Then there's the oddity of both citing Islam as a source of eternal wisdom for its views on heterosexual marriage and as an existential moral danger for its views on polygamy in the same piece.

He concludes: "If the anti-gay marriage forces are going to win the day, they are going to have to do better than such incoherent claptrap." Yes, indeed.

What Year Is This?

Here's a story from the L.A. Times that shows why marriage recognition is so important. Ron Fanelle, a Camarillo middle school teacher, is in trouble. He's become the focus of protests from anti-gay parents, angry that, when asked, Fanelle told students he was just married and his spouse's name is Randy. To the anti-gay mind, not lying about your marital status is somehow equivalent to providing a detailed description of sexual activity, it seems. The school board has launched an investigation of the "charges," and Fenelle has had to hire a lawyer to defend himself.

Read Rauch.

IGF's co-managing editor, Jonathan Rauch, who is also writer in residence at the Brookings Institution, has a new book: Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. Available at Amazon.com and better bookstores everywhere. Judging from the Publishers Weekly review on the Amazon site, lefties are already taking aim at Jon's argument that full gay marriage equality is needed to forestall the spread of "marriage lite" arrangements. The PW reviewer, for instance, is miffed by the way Jon praises the importance of marriage. From the review:

Allowing gays to participate in "the great civilizing institution" would inevitably ennoble gay relationships; providing access to marriage would give them access to "a better kind of love." Such sallies will leave some readers wondering whether "better," for Rauch, really means "straight."

Addendum: A correspondent writes to say that the libertarians at Reason Online have kinder words about Jon's efforts, calling the book "a great case for gay marriage, from just about every conceivable angle."

Proponents of gay legal equality naturally find themselves at odds with conservatives. And indeed, many conservatives joined in this debate seem motivated by little more than anti-gay animus. But it's worth recalling now and again that conservatism and liberalism, tradition and change, both have a role in maintaining society. In that vein, I found this article posted at Tech Central Station of interest. The theme: conservatism ensures that possibly dangerous social change is held in check until the preponderance of evidence shows that the change won't rend the social fabric. Writes social philosopher (and liberal turned conservative) Keith Burgess-Jackson:

Conservatism is not committed to the proposition that every tradition is respectable and valuable, and therefore worth conserving. It is committed to a presumption in favor of tradition. ... [Conservatives] believe that traditions incorporate and express important values. ... It's often said that conservatives are obstructionists. They are, of course, but they don't obstruct for the sake of obstructionism any more than liberals endorse change for the sake of change. Conservatives obstruct because they're trying to keep liberals from making things worse.

Liberals have a dismissive attitude toward what came before. They are confident that they can do better. ... Conservatives, by contrast, have a respectful attitude toward what came before. They view the present as a link between past and future. ... Liberals look forward, believing that peace, justice, and happiness are just around the corner, if only we let reason be our guide. Conservatives look backward, believing that if we tinker with tradition, even with the best of intentions, we are as likely to get war, injustice, and misery as their opposites.

Here's one example: 60s-era liberals condemned conservative opponents of welfare/income redistribution as mean-spirited reactionaries; welfare expansion then fostered an inner city culture of dependency that perpetuated poverty.

Of course, many conservative-rightists may be disingenuous haters of "the other"; but then so are many "caring" liberal-leftists (as I can personally attest from some of the name-calling hate mail I've received). Either political philosophy, if not held in check, can unleash authoritarian impulses and produce its own version of tyranny.

More Recent Postings

3/21/04 - 3/27/04

Supporters of the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) have made their first strategic retreat. As originally introduced, the amendment read:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

This wording would have voided any state or federal statute granting spousal partnership benefits, such as civil union laws (i.e., "the legal incidents" of marriage). Originally, the religious groups backing the amendment insisted that same-sex civil unions, or "marriage in all but name," were as big a threat as actual same-sex marriages. But faced with likely defeat, they've relented. The new wording reads:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

While courts are still forbidden from interpreting the federal or state constitutions are requiring spousal benefits, by deleting the words "nor state or federal law" it appears that Congress or state legislatures could recognize civil unions and spousal-equivalent benefits, but not actual marriage -- still limited to "the union of a man and a woman."

The Alliance for Marriage and its leading member groups, such as Focus on the Family, are painting this as a small technical change to make the amendment's meaning clearer. Don't believe it. This is a fairly substantial retreat. Which is why the wackier parts of the alliance, such as the Culture and Family Institute, aren't happy with the alteration (as the New York Times notes).

And more may be in store. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is shopping around an even weaker alternative that would not define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but would simply say that "civil marriage shall be defined by each state" -- meaning that no state would be compelled to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. This change is too much of a retreat for the Alliance for Marriage, which is strongly opposing it.

Hatch, by the way, is from Utah, where a fair number of dissident breakaway Mormon traditionalists still practice polygamy, though these unions aren't legally recognized. Some months ago I saw Hatch on TV and was quite surprised by his semi-defense of polygamists -- that they shouldn't be thought of as bad people (similar to what some "tolerant" conservative types say about gays). Perhaps he feels some cultural affinity for Mormon fundamentalists and is thus disinterested in an amendment that would limit matrimony to one man and one woman.

The revised FMA now being pushed by the Alliance for Marriage is still terrible and must be defeated. Hatch's alternative is far less egregious, which is why the Alliance for Marriage is against it.

The Future.

Polls show the young are much less opposed to same-sex marriage than their elders. In another generation or two, it won't even be debated.

This L.A. Times headline says it all: Nothing but 'I Do' Will Do Now for Many Gays. The article reports that many gays "denied wanting marriage when it wasn't a possibility. When that changed, new feelings emerged." Here's more:

Goals that once seemed sufficient -- health benefits for domestic partners, say, or spousal rights in child-custody matters -- now seem like tepid half-measures to many gay people. -- [It's] a change that, on a national scale, may not bode well for the long-term acceptance of compromise solutions, such as civil unions.

I'd add that time and again revolutions happen not when oppression is at its worst, but when rising expectations have been ignited and then quashed. If the power of government is used to forbid even willing states from recognizing gay unions, the growing gay counter-backlash to the conservative backlash will become a force to contend with.

More Recent Postings

3/14/04 - 3/20/04

Much attention has been focused this week on rural Rhea County, Tennessee, whose commission enacted, then rescinded (following a burst of national publicity) a proposal to ban gays from living in their midsts. Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who proposed the original motion (passed unanimously by the 8-member panel), had said: "I'd like to make a motion that those kind of people cannot live in Rhea County or abide in Rhea County."

The commission meets in the town of Dayton, Tenn., famous as the locale for the "monkey trial" that convicted John Scopes of teaching evolution in the 1920s, and immortalized (if fictionalized) in the play and movie "Inherit the Wind." As described in one news account, the scene sounded like something out of that earlier drama:

When [commissioners] entered the meeting room in groups of four, there was a loud audience cheering and booing. "Thank you J.C., we appreciate you doing this," resident June Griffin shouted. Many in the packed crowd, which spilled out into the way, carried home-made signs advocating human rights. One of them read: "The gluttons are next."

Gee, even our supporters in Rhea County don't seem to "get it."

Addendum: After reading the above, a correspondent writes:

Maybe I'm a little biased because Tennessee is one of my home states, but I'd give the people carrying "The gluttons are next" posters in Dayton a little more credit. They were just fighting fire with fire and a little irony. And it doesn't hurt to remind fundamentalists that they too contradict the literal word of the Bible.

Maybe, but the "we don't forbid other vices" argument is more pervasive than you might imagine.

Odd Allies.

Looks like popular rapper "50 cent" and J.C. Fugate are in agreement.

Two important articles take aim at the misconception, widely promoted by opponents of same-sex marriage, that a constitutional amendment is needed because once Massachusetts makes such marriages legal, other states would be forced to recognize them. Clearly wrong, writes legal analyst Stuart Taylor Jr in the National Journal. He quotes not only our colleague Jonathan Rauch, but Professor Lea Brilmayer of Yale Law School who said in congressional testimony on March 3: "Marriages have never received the automatic effect given to judicial decisions. They can be refused recognition in other states without offending [the Constitution's full faith and credit clause]." Taylor then goes on to argue:

By no stretch of the imagination...is the proposed amendment behind which Bush has placed his prestige an appropriate way to protect representative government. Quite the contrary. ... This amounts to an anti-democratic, anti-federalist effort to ban all state legislatures, for all time, from experimenting with gay marriage -- even if and when most voters in most states come to support gays' right to wed.

And the New York Times reports:

What is notable about the 1967 decision [by the Supreme Court, striking down bans on interracial marriage] for the gay marriage debate, then, is that it did not mention the full faith and credit clause. Although the case involved a Virginia couple prosecuted for violating that state's ban on interracial marriage by visiting the District of Columbia, which allowed such marriages, the Supreme Court did not suggest that Virginia was obligated to recognize the marriage.

Thus, the main thrust of the anti-gay, anti-federalist opposition to letting states decide gay marriage is built on a misconception -- or a lie (I'm shocked, shocked!).

An upstate New York district attorney has filed criminal charges against two Unitarian Universalist ministers for performing same-sex weddings, the first attempted prosecution in the United States of clergy for marrying gay couples, the Washington Post reports. The Ulster County D.A. brought the charges against the Rev. Kay Greenleaf and the Rev. Dawn Sangrey, "who performed 13 same-sex marriages in a scenic field in New Paltz, N.Y., two weekends ago," the paper recounts.

While ministers from gay-supportive denominations condemned the charges, the Rev. Richard Land, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty [sic] Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said that "We have an obligation to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," adding, "If these ministers feel this is an unjust law, then I'll look forward to reading their letter from the Ulster County Jail."

No, can't think of a better example of what a mean-spirited, anti-spiritual, state-worshipping faith the Southern Baptists now represent.

Vatican Joins Islamic States at U.N.; Polygamy OK, Gay Unions Anathema.

Another example of religious corruption on a grand scale. A bloc of more than 50 Islamic states, backed by the Vatican, is seeking to halt U.N. efforts to extend spousal benefits to partners of gay employees from countries where such benefits are provided, such as Belgium and the Netherlands. But get this: "The United Nations has recognized polygamy, a common practice in the Islamic world, as a legitimate form of marriage and permits employees to divide their benefits among more than one wife," says the Washington Post. Which, apparently, is just fine with the Vatican.

A Different Religious View.

A very distinct, spiritually nourishing view, from Jewish Week, where David Ellenson writes:

As a religious Jew who favors the extension of full rights to gays and lesbians in both civil and religious realms, I contend that "the actual realization of the biblical quest for justice" is the primary motivating factor for our support of this stance. ...

For many of us, this biblical quest for justice stems from a vision of humanity that is stated at the beginning of Genesis, where the Torah teaches that every human being is created b"tzelem, "in the image of God." Furthermore, this notion is complemented by the demand found in Exodus and elsewhere in the Torah that commands us as Jews to champion an ethic of compassion and empathy. The Bible reminds us again and again not to "oppress the stranger, for we were strangers in the Land of Egypt and you know the heart of the stranger."

A Jew who takes these commandments seriously can assert with religious integrity that the overarching ethos of these mitzvot provides sufficient sanction for the claim that Jewish tradition can permit gays and lesbians to enjoy the same privileges and entitlements that heterosexuals do.

No, such views won't please the Vatican, nor the Islamists, nor the Orthodox Jews, for that matter. Way too life-affirming and spirit-filled for that.

Reports the Boston Globe, in an article by Naomi Schaefer of the Ethics and Public Policy Center:

If the Bush campaign is searching for the 4 million evangelical voters who stayed home during the 2000 election, they should know that the editorial board of the Baylor Lariat, which voted 5 to 2 to support gay marriage, is not unrepresentative of the views of younger evangelicals.

Baylor is a conservative Baptist university, and the Lariat is the student newspaper. The article continues:

the growing support for gay marriage among young evangelicals finds its roots in another trend as well. These students are more likely to place some distance between their religious beliefs and their political views than their parents and grandparents did. The editor of the Lariat explained that the board's decision was based on legal grounds not moral ones. Putting it more bluntly, one young man at the evangelical Wheaton College told me, "Christianity should never be reduced to politics."

So even among self-identified evangelicals, the next generation is far more accepting of gay equality than their elders. And that certainly bodes well for the future.

Not All of One Mind.

Here's more on divergent views among evangelicals. On the conservative Wall Street Journal "opinionjournal.com" site, there's an interesting essay by the Rev. Donald Sensing, pastor of the Trinity United Methodist Church in Franklin, Tenn. Though his view of homosexuality clearly leans to the religious right, he scores some original observations about the decline of marriage being unrelated to gays desire to join the club. In "Save Marriage? It's Too Late --
The Pill made same-sex nuptials inevitable," he writes:

If society has abandoned regulating heterosexual conduct of men and women, what right does it have to regulate homosexual conduct, including the regulation of their legal and property relationship with one another to mirror exactly that of hetero, married couples?

I believe that this state of affairs is contrary to the will of God. But traditionalists, especially Christian traditionalists (in whose ranks I include myself) need to get a clue about what has really been going on and face the fact that same-sex marriage, if it comes about, will not cause the degeneration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it.

The tired cast of religious right televangelist "leaders" may be anti-gay to their core, but Karl Rove's dream of using a marriage-ban amendment to energize the base and add 4 million evangelical votes to Bush's ledger may be headed for a hard crash into a far more complicated evangelical reality.

More Recent Postings

3/07/04 - 3/13/04

Michael S. Greve, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, writes in an article titled "Same-Sex Marriage: Commit It to the States":

It is rarely a good idea to enact social policy in the Constitution, and same-sex marriage is no exception. A decade or so hence, a majority of citizens may still disapprove, as they do now, of same-sex marriages. They may come to conclude nonetheless that the costs of prohibiting that institution greatly exceed the costs of tolerating it. The Constitution should not stand in the way of that collective judgment.

Taking a cue from Jonathan Rauch (who is credited in a footnote), Greve writes that instead of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment backed by President Bush, a better strategy for conservatives, consistent with maintaining federalism and the rights of states, would be an amendment that says the Constitution does not require the federal government and the states to accept same-sex marriage, but then leaves it to the states (and the federal government) to decide what marriages to recognize. If that were the mainstream conservative position, we'd certainly be a lot better off.