A jaundiced look at the world we live in.
Okay, so I took some liberties with that Emerson quote–but if you want a great example of hypocritical inconsistency, look no farther than this.
These twisted people will make any argument, no matter how stupid or contradictory, if they think it will persuade others to deprive GLBT folks of equal treatment under the law. When you think about it, it’s sad.
CommentsThe U.S. left Iraq (mostly) over a year ago. We seem to finally be departing Afghanistan. And yesterday brought welcome signs that yet another war is ending: the Culture War. (This must be Eric Miller’s worst nightmare…)
Nationally, there were reports in several news outlets to the effect that the Boy Scouts would abandon their ban on gay Scout leaders, and allow each troop to decide such policies for itself. Given the fact that the national organization felt strongly enough to take its case to the Supreme Court not all that long ago–where they made the argument that being straight was an essential and defining characteristic of “scout-ness”– this is quite the turn-around. The cynic in me notes that Scouting lost a lot of members in the wake of that case, and that it generated a new, competing organization, “Scouting for All.” Nevertheless, the Boy Scouts have stubbornly persisted in this position, reaffirming it as recently as a few months ago.
So–I’d say this is a big deal, as cultural markers go.
Here in Indiana, there are signs that our legislators–so hell-bent on protecting my heterosexual marriage from the certain doom that would befall it if same-sex couples weren’t conclusively banned from the institution–have seemingly misplaced their sense of urgency over the need to insert a ban into the State’s constitution.
Republican leaders who previously insisted that the prospect of same-sex marriage was an existential threat are reportedly assigning a lower priority to the matter this year. Senators who had previously highlighted their opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions–not to mention anything that looked remotely, sorta, kinda like marriage–are expressing doubts about the much-debated “second sentence” of the current language of the ban. And several Senators are actually advocating prudence, suggesting that it would be wiser to delay action and wait for the Supreme Court’s decision in cases it will decide this term.
Even in Indiana, the electoral calculus has changed. Homophobia and mean-spirited attacks on gay folks aren’t the surefire winners they used to be.
We Americans can be slow learners, but just maybe we’ve figured out that–both at home and abroad–some wars are misplaced, and others aren’t worth fighting.
Granted, reports like this one suggest that gays and lesbians still face formidable amounts of bigotry. But a recent Political Insiders poll conducted by the National Journal suggests that even those who exploited the bigots for political advantage know the culture war against gay folks is pretty much over. And while that North Carolina restaurant owner may not realize it, the good guys have won.
The poll asked operatives of both political parties–political insiders–the following question:
Which statement comes closest to your political views on gay marriage?
My party should support it
My party should oppose it
My party should avoid the issue
Other
The Democrats, predictably, were overwhelmingly in favor of having their party support same-sex marriage. After all, they just won a national election in which the party and its President strongly supported marriage equality. Ninety-seven percent chose the first option, and zero percent chose the second. Two percent said “avoid the issue.”
The response of the Republican insiders was more surprising. Twenty-seven percent said that the GOP should support marriage equality. Only eleven percent said oppose. A whopping forty-eight percent recommended avoiding the issue entirely.
As one of the “avoiders” put it, “The lines have been drawn on this. Such a polarizing topic, and given other pressing issues, this is a red herring with dynamite taped to its back. No good can come from messing with it.”
Translation: the days when we can win elections by bashing the gays and warning of “the homosexual agenda” are over.
Good riddance.
CommentsAs has been widely reported, Justice Antonin Scalia made a controversial–albeit illuminating–remark on Monday, during a speech at Princeton. In response to a student who asked him about previous anti-gay writings in which he had compared laws criminalizing homosexuality to those banning bestiality and murder, Scalia defended the comparison, saying that–while he wasn’t equating homosexuality with murder–it illustrated his belief that legislative bodies should be able to enact laws against “immoral” behaviors.
I am deathly tired of legislators and judges who define “morality” exclusively by what happens below the waist, and who confuse “tradition” with a moral compass.
Throughout his career, Scalia has devoted his undeniable brilliance not to an exploration of the human condition, the nature of morality or even the role of law in society, but rather to the creation of an elaborate intellectual defense of his prejudices.
Anyone who would equate sexual orientation–an identity–with murder–a behavior–fails Classification 101. It can never be immoral simply to be something: gay, female, black, whatever. Morality by definition is right behavior. And most moral philosophers begin that examination by asking a fairly simple question: does this behavior harm another?
Now, I know there are endless (legitimate) arguments about the nature of “harm,” but–Micah Clark and Eric Miller to the contrary–the mere fact that gay people exist and may be granted equal civil rights cannot be rationally considered harmful.
How moral we are depends upon how we treat each other. Sexual molestation is wrong whether the molester is gay or straight. Theft is wrong irrespective of the color, religion or sexual orientation of the thief.
And as many others have noted, tradition is hardly a reliable guide to moral behavior. Quite the opposite, really. War has been a human tradition. Slavery was traditional for generations. The submission of women lasted eons. The loss of these “traditions” is hardly a victory for immorality–although for old white guys like Scalia, I’m sure the loss of privileged status is cause for regret.
The job of legislatures is to pass measures needed by governing bodies–rules for civic order, taxation, service delivery, and the myriad other matters that may properly be decided communally. Allowing legislators to decide whose lives are moral is not only improper, not only an abuse of power, it is itself immoral.
CommentsMy friend Bill Groth has been posting to Facebook bits and pieces of the amicus brief that Indiana’s Attorney General has filed in the Supreme Court in the Proposition 8 case.
| “The decision below invalidating California’s traditional definition of marriage represents about as radical a departure from deeply ingrained American legal traditions and precedents as one can imagine….The result [of the 9th Circuit’s decision] is disintegration of perhaps the most fundamental and revered cultural institution of American life: marriage as we know it.”Next, he tells us why “traditional” marriage is so grand–only we straights can “beget”:
“A state may rationally confer civil marriage on one man and one woman in order to encourage the couple to stay together for the sake of any children that their sexual union may create. Traditional marriage focuses on protecting children and creating optimal childrearing environments, not on adult relationships. The male-female relationship alone enables the married persons—in the ideal—to beget children who have a natural relationship to both parents and to serve as role models of both sexes for those biological children.” Zoeller next scolds the 9th Circuit for even daring to suggest Prop 8 was mean-spirited: “[T]he Ninth Circuit’s unsupported and insulting insinuation [was] that California voters adopted Proposition 8 out of sheer bigotry against homosexuals….” |
Oh, no–it couldn’t possibly be mere bigotry! After all, the arguments against same-sex marriage are so logical and powerful. (Actually, they are powerful. Like zombies, they just won’t die.)
Let’s go over this one more time.
“Traditional marriage” has always been between one man and one woman. Bullfeathers. Read that damn bible you keep cherry-picking, and see how many wives those patriarchs had. Look at world history, where plural marriages–polygamy–have been the norm in many countries. For that matter, look around the globe today, where a significant percentage of the world’s population continues to practice polygamy.
Marriage is for procreation. Double bullfeathers. In the past, marriages have been arranged in order to maintain business relationships, cement national treaties, protect property…Furthermore, if we didn’t let non-procreators marry, there would be a lot of lonely old folks and sterile singles. I certainly didn’t marry my current husband in order to procreate–we’d both done that with previous spouses.
Allowing same-sex couples to marry won’t do a single thing to diminish my heterosexual union. It won’t cause divorce rates to skyrocket (Massachusetts, interestingly, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.) It won’t require elementary school teachers to talk about sexual orientation, or ministers to perform same-sex marriages. It won’t establish affirmative action quotas.
Despite the whining coming from the Right, same-sex marriage won’t undermine Western Civilization as We Know It.
What recognition of same-sex unions will do is acknowledge that gay men and lesbians are citizens, not criminals, and entitled to be treated equally under the law. And that is quite clearly what sticks in the craw of the “defenders of traditional marriage.” Recognition of that increasingly obvious fact is what leads most fair-minded people to the inescapable, albeit “insulting,” conclusion that opponents of same-sex marriage are simply bigots.
What infuriates me even more than these tired and flimsy justifications for homophobia is the news that my tax dollars are being spent by the Indiana Attorney General to file a brief that purports to represent the position of the Hoosier state. I’m pretty confident that Indiana citizens are closely divided on this issue. I’m even more confident that, if asked, a significant majority of us would tell Greg Zoeller to spend his time on the duties statutorily assigned to him, the tasks for which he is being paid.
He can indulge his prejudices on his own time.
Comments