IGF CultureWatch

Connecticut has just codified its (already court-ordered) gay marriage with significant religious liberty provisions attached. Vermont did the same thing just days ago. So we can now say that coupling gay marriage with opt-outs based on religious conscience is a trend, if not a movement.

IGFer Dale Carpenter is guardedly positive about this development. Put me down as enthusiastic. What's being demonstrated here is that an Armageddon-like conflict between gay rights and religious rights not only can but will be averted. Indeed, is a win for both gay equality and religious freedom, and it douses the culture wars into the bargain. That's hitting the Trifecta.

In this article, I argue that America is getting gay marriage right by steering a moderate and incrementalist path forward, despite the best efforts of culture warriors and purists to conspire against the center. Vermont and Connecticut are more evidence that this is true.

BTW: IGF is proud to welcome Dale Carpenter as a blogger. He's so smart that every time I read him I think, "Thank God he's on our side."

Frank Rich had some interesting thoughts (yes, I actually said that) in his Sunday New York Times column. He remarks on the scant reaction on the right to the Iowa and Vermont marriage victories, aside from the silly anti-gay YouTube missive from Maggie Gallagher's "National Organization for Marriage." Writes columnist Rich:

Even the anti-Obama "tea parties" flogged by Fox News last week had wider genuine grass-roots support than this so-called national organization. ...[M]ost straight citizens merely shrugged as gay families celebrated in Iowa and Vermont. There was no mass backlash. At ABC and CBS, the Vermont headlines didn't even make the evening news.

Let's leave aside Rich's partisan belittling of Fox News - the tea parties are a genuine and important demonstration of opposition by a large number of Americans, including yours truly, to Obama's trillions of spending for government expansion. (Read Steve Chapman at reason.com: "The scale of the federal response to the crises has come as a frightening surprise to many Americans, who suspect the cure will be worse, and less transitory, than the disease." And I suspect they're right.)

If we were not so intent on adopting an air of cultural superiority toward them, we might see that libertarian conservatives who distrust intrusive government and want it out of our wallets and our lives are exactly those with whom we should be engaging in dialogue.

Still, Rich is right that Americans seem to have turned a corner on the gay marriage issue. Alas, too late for California, thanks to our own activists' organizational surrender on state anti-gay initiatives in November 2008, in order to better support Obama and the Democratic Party (and not offend Obama's anti-gay minority constituency). But still a good harbinger for the future.

Rich is also right that the GOP still has a long way to go, with those he labels as the party's chief contenders in 2012, Romney, Palin and Gingrich, "now all more vehement anti-same-sex-marriage activists than Rick Warren." That's why I believe it's all the more important to be supportive of efforts by Log Cabin and the new GOProud to work toward change from within the Republican flanks. The pro-marriage equality speech at Log Cabin's convention last week by Steve Schmidt, the Republican political consultant who managed John McCain's campaign, was a good sign (see Jon Rauch's item, below).

But much more needs to be done. And liberal Democrats belittling these efforts isn't helpful.

This quote within Jon Rauch's post jumped out of me: "Another 37 percent said they thought the party should avoid the issue [of gay marriage]."

And there you have it: a capsule summary of the problem very small minorities have in a democracy. The majority already has all the relationship rights they want or need. It's easy for them to simply "avoid" the issue of same-sex marriage.

We don't have that luxury, but only because we're the only ones directly affected by the lack of equal rights. We don't get a day off from inequality, and if we were to avoid the issue, it would mean giving up on ourselves.

Does anyone really think, after we've come this far, that we're going to call it quits? Well over a third of these Republicans may want the whole issue to just go away, but that's because the status quo works for them. It doesn't work for us, and it is a supreme goal of this movement to make sure that heterosexuals truly understand that fundamental fact.

You've probably heard that Steve Schmidt, the Republican political consultant who managed John McCain's campaign, told Log Cabin Republicans Friday he's for gay marriage, and that the party as a whole needs to stop making opposition to SSM a litmus test. But that bald statement of the point doesn't convey the rare beauty of Schmidt's statement of Republican, and republican, ideals. Take a few minutes to read the whole speech.

Marc Ambinder doesn't think Schmidt will get anywhere. But here's another sign of a change in the climate: National Journal's poll of "insiders" (political professionals) finds that 59 percent of Dems say the party should support gay marriage. Meanwhile,

Exactly half of the 104 Republican Insiders who were surveyed said that their party should oppose gay marriage. Another 37 percent said they thought the party should avoid the issue, and 8 percent said the GOP should actually support gay marriage. The remainder also gave scattered volunteered responses like leave it up to the states, accept it, or that the party shouldn't care it. That's a pretty close divide between the Republican Insiders who say their party should oppose gay marriage compared to those who say avoid or support it.

In other words, support for SSM is no longer a political third rail for Dems...and Republicans are growing uncomfortable with their opposition.

There's a telling section in the Iowa Supreme Court's opinion in Varnum v. Brien, that hasn't gotten as much attention as it should. The section is only about four pages long, but it says everything about the current state of the debate over gay marriage - and, in general, about gays in civil society.

After addressing the five key arguments against same-sex marriage, and explaining why they are not sufficient to justify state discrimination against same-sex couples, the court then reaches out to answer a sixth argument that the government had not made: religious opposition:

The belief that the "sanctity of marriage" would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples bears a striking conceptual resemblance to the expressed secular rationale for maintaining the tradition of marriage as a union between dual-gender couples, but better identifies the source of the opposition. Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained- even fundamental-religious belief.

That is both exactly right and extremely important. Courts do not normally need to look at arguments no one has explicitly made, but this is an argument that does, indeed, better identify the source of the opposition to gay marriage. It explains why so many of us who argue about equal protection for gays wind up against our wills in discussions about theology.

Historically, homosexuality has faced three major barriers to acceptance: (1) it was a crime; (2) it was a sickness; and (3) it was a sin. In 1961, Illinois became the first state to decriminalize sodomy (both straight and gay), a movement that ended in 2003 with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, overturning the last remaining sodomy laws in the U.S. And in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

That means the animating argument against homosexuality - and specifically gay marriage - remains a religious one: it is a sin.

The Iowa court acknowledged the importance of this to religious believers, but pointed out that this is not the only religious view. As evidenced by friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, many religions also "have strong religious views that yield the opposite conclusion."

No secular court can - or should - try to intervene in theological matters, one of the least controversial parts of the first amendment's religious protections. The court concluded the secular arguments are either circular, inconsistent, beside the point, or involve rules (such as procreation) that heterosexuals do not (and would not) impose on themselves. While religious arguments may be profoundly convincing to believers, civil society is made up of too many people with too many varied religious (and irreligious) beliefs for a court to have to take sides.

That makes arguments about homosexuality different from those surrounding abortion. Abortion, as a public policy matter, involves a sin that is also a well-recognized crime: murder. The issue is at what stage a fetus is a person for purposes of applying that secular rule.
But homosexuality - and gay marriage in particular -- no longer involves any secular crime. Nor is having a homosexual orientation any sort of disease that disables anyone from making voluntary, adult decisions that are lawful. Lacking either of those underpinnings, the public debate over homosexuality returns endlessly and exhaustingly to religion.

Whether or not we are a "Christian Nation," we are decidedly not a nation whose courts could conceivably resolve disputes among Christians about what is or is not sinful. Yet that is exactly the dispute that now exists, not only among Christians, but among Jews, Muslims and even religions that are not as focused on sin as Western religions tend to be.

This is a family squabble among those religions -- with some families more exercised about the subject than others. For their part, though, the courts continue to search for other reasons to justify civil discrimination, and increasingly are having a hard time of it.

Rod Dreher's interview with Maggie Gallagher is well worth your time. Like the marginalized tea partiers who will be complaining today, Gallagher is convinced she is under siege from forces that mean her no harm.

While she and Dreher repeatedly invoke "war" and "battle" imagery, the rest of us are having a civic debate about whether and how to treat same-sex couples equally under the law. That is a reasonable discussion to be having in light of longstanding constitutional protections and the rise, in recent decades, of an openly homosexual minority who have abandoned the historical shame that their sexual orientation was expected to require. They do not want to have to marry people of the opposite sex, and an increasing number of heterosexuals agree that they'd prefer not to have the culture encourage that sort of deception.

Gallagher says that "2/3 of Americans agree with us," but what is it they agree with her her about? That same-sex couples should have no legal rights as couples? That they should have some legal rights, but not marriage? They they should not be able to call themselves married?

Few in the National Organization for Marriage, and certainly neither Gallagher nor Dreher, get to that level of detail, but that's where the rest of us are now. For example, Gallagher cites the win in California. But what is it that her side won here? Our Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the equal protection of the law, as the constitution says, including all the rights, responsibilities and obligations that heterosexual married couples have. In approving Prop. 8, the voters said that same-sex relationships could not be called marriages. Nevertheless, they kept all of those rights, responsibilities and obligations intact under our existing domestic partnership law. This keeps some aspect of the stigma against same-sex couples in place by making the use of the word "marriage" a constitutional issue. But it does not change one aspect of California's laws that treat same-sex domestic partners the same as heterosexual married couples.

That is the victory that Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage are claiming in California. And this is how she, and the right are losing not some war, but their credibility. Her criticism of some gay rights extremists who use words like "hate" and "bigot" is well taken, but ironic since she uses the same kind of rhetoric, untethered to any recognizable reality.

Her risible new video, with its ominous trope of a "gathering storm" is typical. No one except those who believe same-sex couples are entitled to no rights at all thinks that such melodrama is warranted. Same-sex couples with legal rights do not constitute a gathering storm - they are a spring shower.

Maggie Gallagher and I have found something to agree on! In its legislation adopting same-sex marriage, Vermont included some quite substantial opt-out clauses for religious organizations. These are not merely gestural, as David Bankof notes. Like Maggie, I see this as a potential landmark.

Maggie sees significance in the fact that the gay-marriage movement-which she regards as a juggernaut bearing down on her civil rights-"permitted" religious-liberty protections. I'd put it a bit differently: this kind of live-and-let-live arrangement, while imperfect, benefits both sides.

David Blankenhorn and I argue for tying religious-liberty protections to federal recognition of gay couples because it's a way to expand the comfort zone of both sides: gay couples and families get many of the protections they need, religious objectors get legally assured room to dissent. Vermont signals the political viability and real-world relevance of this approach.

It also, by the way, shows that legislatures can do politics better than courts. But we knew that.

Pastor Rick Warren wasn't able to appear on This Week this week. Like many people, I want him to engage in the debate over same-sex marriage, and hoped George Stephanopoulos would have asked him some pointed questions about his views on the subject.
But I was also prepared to be disappointed - not in Warren, but in Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos, like Larry King and others, has shown he is more interested in the conventional gotcha school of journalism than in actually asking - and getting answers to - real questions. And like spectators at a monster truck rally, too many people love to revel in the demolition. That's why so many are mesmerized by the flap over Warren comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. That is certainly what I would have expected Stephanopoulos to press Warren on.

But that's not a real question. For the record, here are the kinds of questions I think journalists - and lesbians and gay men - should be asking Warren - questions he should be answering:

(1) Do you acknowledge that other religions, some of them Christian, accept gay marriage, and find support for that conclusion in the Bible?

(2) I understand that you believe the Bible says marriage is only between one man and one woman; but the discussion we are having is not a Biblical or theological one; it is a civic one. Do you have non-theological reasons for imposing a secular rule that prohibits same-sex couples from having the same legal rights (irrespective of their religious beliefs, if any) granted by the state when heterosexual couples take those legal rights for granted?

(3) The equal protection clauses of both state and federal constitutions are in place to protect minorities from being subject to different rules than the majority applies to itself. Is it so important to treat homosexual couples differently that they should be exempted from legal equal protection?

(4) If same-sex couples are entitled to some equality for their relationships, would you support laws granting them similar rights, but not calling those relationships marriage? Why or why not?

(5) Would you accept openly same-sex couples into your congregation? Would this depend on whether they were married or not? Explain your reasoning.

Journalists (and, to be fair, their audiences) who focus on distractions like Warren's comments on incest and pedophilia (which he did make, and which he has since backed away from), or his statement that he had not campaigned in favor of Prop. 8 (after having made a video expressly telling people, at least three times, that they should vote for it) too easily allow religious leaders to avoid answering these questions. Religious leaders obviously want to have a discussion about religious belief because they will win that argument every time - no journalist can talk a pastor out of the belief that the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, if that is what the pastor believes.

Here, Warren and others have chosen to engage in the secular discussion outside of their church, and that is a good thing to my mind. But the secular discussion includes churches and religions that fully support same-sex marriage (and have signed on to legal briefs in courts from California to Vermont), churches and religions that oppose same-sex marriage, and churches and religions that remain neutral in the debate. What we want to know from Warren is which of these positions - in the secular debate - he thinks his church should take - and if he has any reasons for that which a non-adherent to his religious views could accept.

Don't know if a new group called GOProud, subject of a nice Wall Street Journal "Mainstreet" column by William McGurn, will have staying power. But any additional effort to challenge the Democratic Party's string-pulling of LGBT political activism (which resulted last year in funneling gay dollars, staff resources and volunteer legwork to the Obama campaign, rather than to defeating the four successful anti-gay state initiatives) is certainly A-OK in my book.

More. You can learn more about GOProud at their website, where their mission is described as to "promote the power of individuals, limit government's reach, enable economic growth through free market principles, and strengthen America's position in the world."

It would be great to see them organize visible gay contingents at future "tea party" protests and otherwise build alliances with the libertarian right.

More on tea parties. Steve Chapman writes at reason.com:

The scale of the federal response to the crises has come as a frightening surprise to many Americans, who suspect the cure will be worse, and less transitory, than the disease.

And I suspect they're right.

Of course, the concerns of their liberal critics can't be ignored; after all, it is true that to the extent that there are leaders of these protests, many of them don't even have Ivy League degrees (if you can imagine). And worse, I've heard that among the protesters are many (and I'm not making this up), dangerous VETERANS!

New York Post columnist Kyle Smith writes:

News stories about the Vermont decision implicitly recognize that this one really counts, by emphasizing the fact that this is the first state to approve gay marriage through a legislature rather than impose it from the bench.... Vermont has made the change the proper way, and it ought to be congratulated.

Those who chafe at the decision - and the passage of Prop. 8 in California, which Obama carried by 24 points, suggests that the opposition is hardly limited to Republicans - should reexamine their arguments.

Smith goes on to note that opponents of letting gays wed like to claim that same-sex marriage violates their religious freedom, which apparently is premised on living in a society where government consigns gay people to second-class status. (This video from the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is devoted to this point.) But as Smith remarks:

Christians are surrendering nothing. They remain free to disapprove of homosexuality.... They also remain free to move to a country that enforces religious views....

Conservatives who are in favor of more children being born into and raised by two-parent families, social mechanisms to limit promiscuity, decentralized political decision-making and the supremacy of lawmakers rather than judges in non-Constitutional matters have much to cheer in Vermont. Gay-marriage opponents should ask themselves whether their reasoning is something else in disguise.

Making a conservative, pro-family argument isn't going to sway all social conservatives, but it will eventually convince many who are not bigots, and who don't wish to see themselves as such.

And there's another lesson: domestic partnerships and/or civil unions can be stepping stones to full marriage equality, allowing states to grow comfortable with the notion. Those who argue that it must be full marriage equality now or nothing - no compromise! - have been proven wrong.

But that's not to say full equality doesn't remain the goal, and we should keep our eyes on the prize. With four states won (Iowa and Vermont joining Massachusetts and Connecticut) it's right to press congressional Democrats and the Obama administration to modify the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act to allow federal recognition of same-sex marriages in states where they exists - and to do so before the GOP retakes seats in the House and the Senate in 2010.