View from the Loft

OMG! A same-sex wedding!

Yeah, we were invited to one on Saturday last, and did attend.

What can I say? It was like every other Midwestern wedding I've ever attended. Nobody keeled over, had a seizure, heart failure, or stroke when the brides kissed, and in fact the traditional clinking of silverware on glasses proceeded apace at the reception, just as at any other (read: heterosexual) wedding.

The ceremony was held at an Episcopalian church, and while the church does not officially recognize same-sex marriages, believe me, it was a wedding, complete with vows of being faithful unto death. The brides, having a sense of fun and lightheartedness, included a reading penned by Sandra Boynton, and the priest (a woman) did refer to the one Bible reading as the "token" Bible reading. So in that sense it was refreshing, to say the least. As we left the church, I said something to the priest on the order of  "what a nice ceremony," and she replied, "Yes, wasn't that fun? I'm going to have to repeat that penguin reading ..."

The reception was very classy, with a guest book of fabulous photos of the brides--I mean really, really professional, fantastic photos--great food, and oh, okay, the wine wasn't that great but who cares. Most people seemed to be drinking cosmos, anyway...

As at every other wedding worth the celebration, I ended up removing my shoes so I could dance, etc. (See/hear "Sweet Old World" on that one.)

My point here is, what the fuck is wrong with people who are against same-sex marriages?? We were all pretty weepy at the beauty of it all, the brides were happy and radiant, and nobody seemed scandalized. Well, one of the brides' uncles was an asshole who refused to attend the church ceremony, but apart from that, it was all pretty usual.

Jim and I just felt completely befuddled as to why people get all foaming-at-the-mouth about same-sex weddings. We were so happy to be part of the celebration, and so happy to see these two women--who have been together over a decade--finally declare their commitment to each other in front of family and friends. They were ecstatic, and so were their guests.

And any time I can dance to the B-52s at a wedding reception, I got no complaints.

Cluelessness is never in short supply

Glenn Greenwald takes up a crucial issue in his analysis of conservative reaction to the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples must be afforded the same rights as married couples. That reaction, predictably, decries "judicial activism" and calls for the matter of same-sex civil unions or marriage to be settled by state legislatures rather than by judicial "fiat."

Such calls, as Glenn points out, reflect a dismaying ignorance of how the law works:

Either the New Jersey State Constitution -- as defined by the governing precedents applying it -- compels the legal conclusion reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court or it does not. That is the only relevant issue. It's not a matter of picking and choosing which issues we think it would be nice for a court to resolve and which ones we'd sort of prefer -- given our subjective druthers -- the court leave to the will of the majority.

At the very center of our constitutional republic is the principle that the overarching obligation of courts is to nullify any and all laws that conflict with the guarantees of the Constitution. Or, as Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 78: "wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former." Courts in these cases have only one question to answer -- do the relevant constitutional provisions (in this case, Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey State Constitution) bar the law in question? -- and if so, courts are required to nullify that law. There is no discretion or political judgment involved, and they are not permitted to simply decide that they won't involve themselves in such matters.

In addition, the idea that the "will of the majority" should decide matters of law is a dangerous one that fails to ensure protection of the rights of the minority. A majority of Americans opposed Loving v. Virginia; to have decided the matter of interracial marriage based on the will of the majority would have denied these two people their rights. As Glenn says,

Maybe it would be better in some political, societal or cultural sense if gay marriage and related issues were decided by legislatures and referenda rather than courts. A reasonable argument can certainly be made that it would be "better" for advocates of gay marriage if they win by convincing their fellow citizens rather than via judicial rulings which hold that denial of marriage rights is unconstitutional.

But that is just not how a constitutional republic works. Constitutional guarantees exist to limit majority will, and courts must nullify any laws which conflict with those guarantees -- even if it would be "better" in some vague political sense to leave it to the majority to decide. [my emphasis]

There have been many landmark cases in which the US Supreme Court has outraged the populace by ruling to protect minority rights; presumably, there will be many more (although one has doubts, given the current makeup of the Court). Such rulings are based on constitutional law, not on the desires of the majority. They are the opposite of "judicial activism" in that they rest solidly on interpretation of law.

The hypocrisy of those complaining about judicial activism must also be pointed out. Many of these same people are or were dead set against civil rights legislation, just recently attempting to stop renewal of the Voting Rights Act. If they were honest, they would admit that in many cases, they find legislative activism just as offensive. They cloak themselves in self-righteous squawks about the will of the majority, but when Congress has reflected that will through legislative action (imperfect as our system of representative democracy is), such conservatives screamed just as loudly.

Let's hear it for activist judges!

NarfCrow recently posted an excellent piece on how the right wing exploits fear to push its agenda, zeroing in on the issue of gay marriage. I'd like to add some thoughts of my own about gay marriage, particularly about the charge that "activist" judges are making, not interpreting, law.

There seems to be an idea out there, especially (but certainly not exclusively) on the right, that the will of the majority should determine what is or is not acceptable in our society. That is, some of our citizenry seem to think that the United States is, or should be, a direct democracy. While individual states may, and do, practice direct democracy (insofar as they hold referenda, etc. to determine the will of the electorate), the federal government is not: it is a representative democracy.

In a pure direct democracy, the citizenry would decide all issues directly, without an elected representative. It is but a hop, skip, and a jump from such a proposal to mob rule, at least in the United States as it exists today. And mob rule is, apparently, what the wingnutty right wants.

Why do I say that? Because the extreme right cares not a whit for minority rights.

Let's stop and think for a minute about that. In our democracy, or what used to be our democracy, the will of the majority does not do away with the rights of the minority. That is, the minority are still guaranteed their rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and so on, along with the other rights enumerated in our Constitution.

Mob rule is the idea behind the sentiment that those who spoke out against the invasion of Iraq were traitors who had no right to voice their minority opinion. How many times have we heard or read some right-wing pundit or talk-show host call for the imprisonment of those espousing antiwar views? Yet in our democracy, traditionally, the rights of the minority are protected. This is one of the cornerstones of our form of government. The Founding Fathers were all too aware of monarchy and its absolute rule, and they were cognizant as well of the dangers of mob rule.

A representative democracy, when it is allowed to work, bypasses the incendiary emotions of the moment and calls for debate, discussion, and an assessment of who will be affected by a law, and how, and what detriments or benefits may arise. It is the independent judiciary that oversees such protections, striking down laws that violate Constitutional rights and interpreting cases the framers of the Constitution could never have imagined. (The framers knew that the future would bring about such cases and established a Constitution they hoped would be strong, yet flexible.) The Constitution provides for the proctection of minority positions and minority rights, such as the right of blacks to vote when whites acted aggressively to deny blacks that right.

Make no mistake: in 1963, according to a Newsweek poll, 74% of Americans thought racial integration was moving too fast. Yes, Civil Rights legislation helped achieve a movement toward racial equality, but numerous court cases also eventuated in establishing civil rights for African-Americans.

We are often told today, when it comes to gay marriage, that the majority of Americans are against it. That may be. But, as yesterday was Loving Day,  let us look at Loving v. Virginia.

It's only been 39 years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the laws of Virginia and 15 other states against interracial marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, the married couple--a black woman and a white man--were wed in Washington, D.C. and moved back to Virginia afterwards. There, they were indicted with violating the law against miscegenation and sentenced to a year in jail. However, the judge suspended that sentence for 25 years on the condition that they not appear together in the state of Virginia during that time. In issuing his ruling, the judge said:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

At that time, seventy-two percent of the American people were opposed to interracial marriage. Seventy-two percent. Yet "activist" judges on the Supreme Court interpreted the law to mean that no state had the right to deny marriage to interracial couples. (It was not until 1991 that more Americans approved of interracial marriage than opposed it. 1991!) Too bad if the majority was uncomfortable with interracial marriage. The Court ruled that, even though a minority of Americans wished to marry interracially, thereby offending the sensibilities of most other Americans, still their right to marry was indisputable.

Now we are told that the rights of the minority--gay couples--don't matter. It is even held that this minority is trying to impose their will upon the majority, that the demand for equal rights under the law tyrannises the majority. By this twisted logic, the spat-upon, beaten and jailed black students who attempted to integrate lunch counters in the '60s South were, in fact, bullies trying to force their "agenda" upon a victimized white majority.

Today people argue that "common sense" tells us that only a man and a woman should be allowed to marry, or that the Bible demands it--the same "reasoning" used to decry interracial marriage. We are told that homosexual marriages will destroy the institution of marriage, or defile it in some way.

But what happened when interracial marriage was declared legal in all states? Did civilization cease to exist? Was marriage irreparably harmed?

Maybe this is what people are afraid of:

That decision has, in the ensuing years, changed the way the nation looks -- the percentage of interracial marriages has increased fivefold from 1970 to 2000, according the U.S. Census, from 1 percent of all marriages to more than 5 percent. The number of children living in interracial families has quadrupled in that time period, going from 900,000 to more than 3 million, and the Census Bureau predicts that such interracial unions will continue to increase.

There is, perhaps, a fear that gay people will marry and raise kids as these interracial couples have done and are doing. Well, what's wrong with that? The only answer to that question, honestly, is an answer born of bigotry and intolerance.

Our judiciary serves a purpose. It is to be above bigotry, prejudice, political posturing and partisanship. Its task is to uphold the Constitution, to interpret the laws, to protect the rights of the minority. President Bush betrayed his ignorance of our form of government when he said that a constitutional amendment defining marriage was necessary because "activist judges have left our nation with no other choice."

This writer said it well:

Loving showed us the importance of our judicial tradition. How long would it have taken a majority of people in all 50 states to agree that interracial marriage should be accepted? Or how long would it have taken for them to agree that segregated schools should not be allowed? Or for that matter, how long would it have taken to give African-Americans full legal rights?

How long will it take before gay couples in this country will be accepted? Will BushCo succeed in establishing a Court all too ready to abdicate their roles as guardians of the Constitution in order to press a particular agenda? That would be a tragedy, one all too easy to imagine happening.

We can only hope that the small, obsessive, fear-driven minds seeking to demonize gay people will eventually be overcome. Let's hope gay people don't have to rely on the slowly growing tolerance of the majority to at last ensure their rights. Let's hope that "activist judges" rise above the so-called "will of the people" and do their duty, as they did in Loving v. Virginia.

 

 

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada spoke Monday on the proposed amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage. Like Senator Reid, I feel frustration with the leadership of this country trying to distract us from issues that weigh heavily on all of us by instead pitting one against the other. I was a little surprised, however, to find out that even those groups who have been pushing for such legislation saw through the President's push for this subject on the legislative agenda. Even John McCain mentioned--with all of his trademark subtlety--that this amendment was doomed to fail and didn't address any of the pressing problems currently facing this country. Lincoln Chafee said that he was going to be 'collateral damage' from this salvo of the culture wars while a real war is having greater effect on the populace. Even unnamed officials inside the White House privately disclose that gay marriage is an issue that the President never talks about. Harry Reid is right in that we are being asked once again by this administration to identify those in this country who are different from us and hate them.

What amazes me is that these divisive attempts can be sold as "moral imperatives." Being an atheist, I'm dumbfounded by the logic employed by many religious leaders and self-professed religious national leaders. The illogic goes something like this:

God is a loving god.

God made man in his image.

We interpret the Bible to say that God hates gays (alternately read: women in positions of authority, people who enjoy sex not performed for procreation, anyone who doesn't acknowledge Him as the one true God, etc, ad nauseum).

So, you must hate them so that you will go to Heaven and they will go to Hell.

How exactly do they jump from the loving god to hating god in just a couple of conditions? Fear. Fear is a natural response and one that has historically helped us to survive. I remember having a discussion with an anthropologist friend who was explaining how racism was believed to be rooted in our natural protective response from days as cavemen. If we came into contact with a person or persons from a different tribe, a fear response to their different visual appearance was natural, since it might help us survive a conflict by running or calling out for our tribe to protect us. After all, we didn't want to be eaten. As we've evolved into a multicultural society and can now purchase flesh at the local supermarket, we no longer are concerned about having our own devoured by other tribes, and so this vestigial fear reaction serves no practical purpose. However, it can be easily exploited.

In times when people have more to fear, their fear response can be broadly played upon to steer issues not even remotely related to those fears. There is plenty to fear these days. For many Americans, the increase in transportation and home heating fuel costs cause serious impact on the family budget. Many of these families already carry crippling credit card debt, made worse by the sudden upsurge in fuel costs. Of course, there is also a war going on. One that our President has said is our new "Crusade" and Donald Rumsfeld likened to lasting longer than the Cold War. Despite the fact that Condoleeza Rice's mushroom-cloud of a smoking gun was never realized and WOMDs were never found in Iraq, they managed to get enough support through this public campaign to invade Iraq. The color-coded terror alert system has been employed several times, especially ahead of election cycles and unfavorable economic announcements. Here, by ringing the terror alert bell, we are reminded of 9/11/01 and are distracted from the monthly unemployment numbers. Television campaign spots during the last election cycle featured wolves working together to attack while the announcer sounded solemn tones of terrorism, more than hinting that we would be struck again if Bush weren't reelected. There are many who believe that this one TV spot was responsible for swinging a critical percent of voters to voting for Bush and sticking us with four more years of misguided and poorly planned executive initiatives. Again, fear exploited for the purpose of retaining executive power. And now, we have the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment.

The popular sound-byte is that gay marriage threatens traditional marriage. I am a heterosexual male, happily married for nearly 8 years now. A couple of weeks back my wife and I had a lesbian couple over for dinner. I just want to let you all know that, so far, my wife and I are still not arguing, not feeling like switching teams, not being offered free toasters by Ellen DeGeneres to divorce. I will try to keep you informed if anything changes. We have many, many friends who are married and only one of them has recently undergone a divorce. The reason, you may be surprised to learn, was not that his wife had decided that gay marriage was now an option for her, but that she decided to have sex and fall in love with another man. I know, it's the last thing in the world you would expect, but it's true. Wait... actually, isn't it the first thing you would expect? Yet, I don't hear anyone proposing a Constitutional Amendment against extramarital affairs. After all the hoopla surrounding the impeachment of President Clinton over his very public extramarital affair, you would think that the Constitutional Ban on Extramarital Affairs would be a natural seller. Why doesn't it work? Because too many of us heterosexuals have had these feelings of attraction to another while we were romantically involved with someone. It doesn't matter whether we acted on these attractions or not. What matters is that when we are reminded of behavior that is very much like our own, it doesn't strike the same fear reaction. But, when Gays want to get married... KATY, BAR THE DOOR!

Today, the Senate rejected this Constitutional Amendment initiative. Let's hope they are sending the message: Enough of this fear mongering already. Enough of the division. Let's agree that some of us have different behavior sets than others and that these don't threaten any of our own behaviors in any way. Let's agree that our Constitution, the way it was originally written, is good enough in helping to guarantee that we will treat each other as equals and that this will help us to work together on larger issues that affect us all. Let's hope that these attempts to get us to fight with ourselves so that we will not pay attention to larger issues continue to lose their effect, so that this practice can be abandoned. If YOU want to hate someone because they are different, well... there's nothing I can say to you except: don't try to legislate this hate upon the rest of us.... And don't waste the time of our elected representatives.

Let's all start acting like Dorothy and pressing that man behind the curtain to explain his statements and (in)actions.

Two gay-marriage bans fail

Well, sort of.

The one in  Florida was a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution so it would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It failed to garner enough signatures, falling short by about 200,000. The bad news is that Florida law already defines marriage that way.

In Maryland, parliamentary maneuvers that I can't begin to understand sent a gay-marriage ban down. The Repubs, though, vow to revive it, also using parliamentary procedures.

I will never understand why the opponents of gay marriage are so focused on this. Okay, the politicians figure they'll play to their base, being Repugs and all, but why does the base care? I can't help but think that people who obsess about this issue have, well, issues of their own.

Ford reaffirms commitment to gay rights

In a reversal of what the news media have reported for the past two weeks, Ford Motor Company has issued a letter that sets forth its commitment to the gay community. The American Family Association, headed by Donald Wildmon, had stated that Ford had buckled under to its threat of a boycott by agreeing that it would

1. No longer run ads promoting Jaguar or Land Rover in the gay press.
2. No longer support gay events or organizations.
3. Continue running Volvo ads in the gay press, but no longer tailor those ads to the gay community (i.e., in the future such ads would be the same ads that are run in the mainstream media, rather than the crafting the ads to appeal to a gay readership).

There is some question, apparently, as to whether Ford ever agreed to the AFA's demands. Whether they did or not, Ford has "reaffirm[ed] our principles of nondiscrimination and inclusiveness. We agreed, without any reservations, and issued a statement immediately after the meeting in which Bill Ford did so personally." The practical outcome of this reaffirmation takes the following form:

1. Ford announced that it will continue to support gay organizations and gay events in the coming year and beyond.

2. Ford is going to run advertisements in the gay media NOT ONLY promoting the Jaguar and Land Rover brands, but the ads will promote ALL of Fords brands, by name, including Jaguar and Land Rover.

3. Ford states unequivocally that it will continue to tailor its ads for the specific audience it is trying to reach, and then goes one step further. Ford challenges us to keep an eye out on their upcoming ads in order to verify that they will in fact be tailored.

I had been surprised and outraged by what I thought was Ford's caving in to the right-wing extremists, but now I'm wondering if AFA didn't fabricate the entire "victory." Ford has in the past shown itself to be unafraid of these types. Either way, kudos to Ford for doing the right thing.

 

Wingnuts unhappy with Cheney

So, Dick Cheney came out against the Federal Marriage Amendment:

Vice President Cheney broke with President Bush on Tuesday on the question of same-sex marriage, saying he believes the issue should be left to the states. "Freedom means freedom for everyone," he said at a campaign rally in Davenport, Iowa.

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney said as his daughter Mary stood in the audience. He said he opposes the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that Bush has endorsed.

"But the president makes basic policy for the administration," he added.

It's good to see Cheney being a supportive dad and even better to see him speak out against the nominal president's stand on gay marriage. Loathsome as Cheney is in so many ways, I feel heartened that he can set aside thoughts of "the base" long enough to acknowledge his daughter's lesbianism this publicly and break with the wingnuts on this one.

The wingnuts are already letting their displeasure be known:

"If the vice president perceives the problem of activist judges and their actions, as he stated in his remarks, then how can he not endorse the same solution the president and his pro-family allies have proposed?" said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "Protection of our values is made more difficult when mixed messages emanate from the White House."

Mr. Bauer [Gary Bauer, president of the group American Values], who ran for president in 2000 to Mr. Bush's right on social issues, called the vice president's remarks "unhelpful" and warned that the party "can't afford to be turning off the people that have the most passion for President Bush and Vice President Cheney."

I've read other rumblings that the extreme religious right is unhappy with BushCo for not delivering on various promises (ending abortion, putting fears of gay marriage to rest, etc.), but this has gotta fry them. And it does: Perkins himself told the Republican Platform Committee not to expect voters to go for Bush if the party didn't stand firm on key issues like abortion and gay marriage. Perkins explicitly rejected the "big tent" notion--wow, what a shock ...

I have to say I'm surprised that Cheney would speak out so forthrightly on this one. When has Cheney ever broken with Bush on anything? (Of course, since many of us feel that Cheney usually calls the shots, it would be pretty surprising to hear him contradict Bush ... er, himself ... er ...) And in an election when Bush has played pretty much to his base--making people sign loyalty oaths, having people vetted before they can get a ticket to his appearance, appearing only in the most carefully controlled, supportive atmosphere--it is remarkable that Cheney has refused to toe the line on such a tinderbox issue.

As Perkins and his like make apparent, the Republican Party no longer has room for any who dare oppose the religious right's "values." That makes it a delicious irony that featured speakers include people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Pataki, who deviate from the party line on both abortion and gay rights. Of course, you and I know that it's just part of the plan to convince people that there's room for moderates in the GOP, which is patently untrue. When the likes of Perkins and Bauer throw their weight around, it's time for thinking people to ask themselves if the Republican Party is any longer a party they want to belong to.

Let's hope that the great divide between Cheney and Bush on gay marriage will prompt some soul-searching among some few thoughtful Republican voters.

URGENT ACTION NEEDED NOW!

MoveOn has alerted its members that a vote on the Constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage is coming up on Wednesday. That's the Federal Marriage Amendment Act, better known to many of us as the Hate Amendment.

Please visit their site to sign a petition and to send your own message to political leaders.

Seems to me like they're trying to slip this one under the door. This is the first I've heard that the vote is to be so soon, and I try to pay attention to things like this. I'm appalled, but not surprised, that the Republican leadership is doing this.

Your point will be made more strongly if you call your senators and representative. Go to Congress.org to find out how to contact your elected officials.

You may wish to remind more conservative officials that it is possible to oppose gay marriage without altering the Constitution to block it. Amending the Constitution is something that is seldom done, and this is an inappropriate occasion for it, to say the least.

We can't let the wingnuts win this one. Let's stop this amendment in its tracks, or it will continue to be a divisive force for who knows how long, with state-by-state fights and more of the familiar hysteria we've heard too much of already.

Catholic gay-bashing

Well, let's get it straight: I'm talking about the Catholic Church hierarchy, not all people who describe themselves as Catholic.

But the Church in the U.S. seems increasingly willing to extend its coercive tentacles into the political arena. Recently we've seen the Catholic leadership threaten to withhold communion from pro-choice Catholic lawmakers:

The leadership of the US Catholic Church has approved a statement branding politicians who support abortion rights as 'cooperating in evil' and giving the green light to bishops who would deny Communion to such people, including Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry.

After a plea from George W. Bush himself to the Pope asking for increased condemnation of gay marriage, America's Catholic bishops met in Colorado to discuss how to deal with politicians who support gay marriage or refuse to support the Hate Amendment. In this case, the bishops left it up to individual dioceses, but some had called for Roman Catholic politicians who support same-sex marriage to be denied the sacraments of the Church.

I don't know much about the history of the Roman Catholic Church in American politics, but this strikes me as unprecedented. Perhaps some of my readers can enlighten me on this topic. In any case, many liberal bloggers have already noted the irony in the fact that when John F. Kennedy was running for President, there was a lot of worry about his Catholicism: would he have a hotline to the Pope? Now it seems that the criticism is running the other way--John Kerry isn't Catholic enough.

But the Church isn't content with condemning gay marriage and those who support it. No, in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is currently legal, they're going one better: the state's four bishops are considering firing gay and lesbian employees who marry their partners.

It would involve people in jobs ranging from teachers in Catholic schools to janitors in churches to workers in Catholic aid agencies.

[snip]

The four dioceses in Massachusetts are separate entities under church and civil law; however, the issue could pit the Church in a major battle with the state since it receives large sums of public money to provide social services.

[snip]

Earlier this week, the political arm of the Church in Massachusetts told voters to reject any candidate who does not support amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, and provided a list of those members of the legislature who did not vote for the proposed amendment in March.

Two things here: one, the church is telling its members whom to vote for. I have to question whether, since this is the case, it should be allowed to keep its tax-exempt status. Two, it looks like a battle in the making between the Church and the state, since the Church receives state money to provice social services (a lousy idea in the first place, in my opinion).

Since when is it all right in the United States of America for a church to impose its beliefs on those outside that church? No one is forcing a believing Catholic to marry a person of the same sex or to have an abortion. Yet the Catholic Church is bringing its coercive power to bear against politicians and ordinary people whose consciences disagree with the Church's teachings on these matters.

I know pro-choice Catholics. I know gay Catholics. Their religion is important to these people, and the rulings of the leadership will likely be painful for them. It's a shame that these people see their Church as opposing them and their right to follow their consciences and their hearts. It's a greater shame that the Church is so nakedly involving itself in politics. The separation of church and state is indeed at great risk in our country at this time. I just hope we all survive the attempt to turn the U.S. into a theocracy and emerge victoriously religion-free after what will surely be a bitter fight.