Category Archives: Gay Rights

Getting It Backward

In a recent article about the experiences of gay Supreme Court clerks, I came across the following paragraphs:

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, has authored some of the most caustic dissents against gay legal rights. In his dissent in Lawrence v Texas, Scalia said the majority had “signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda … directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

Asked last month in an interview about his dissents in past gay-rights cases, voiced from the bench as well as in his written opinions, Scalia said he was merely reading the Constitution, which he says does not cover a right to same-sex relations: “Where does it come from?” he said. “This is a trendy view of the current society elite. It’s not right to impose it on everybody else. It’s a democratic question. If you want to permit homosexual sodomy, then pass a law.”

This betrays a profound misreading of the Constitution and our most basic approach to the role of government–a misreading that Scalia himself would scorn in a different context.

One of the very few things the Tea Party folks get right is their insistence that rights precede government. Their formulation is that rights are “god-given”–I won’t go that far, but I agree with the Founders that humans have rights simply by virtue of being human, that we are born with “inalienable” rights. The Bill of Rights is a list of actions that government is forbidden to take—actions that would violate those antecedent rights.

The language in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments–amendments that Scalia the “textualist” rarely mentions–is pretty explicit on the point, providing that failure to “enumerate” a right in the preceding Amendments is not to be taken as evidence that the right was not protected. That language was included in order to calm the fears of folks like Alexander Hamilton, who argued that the government of delegated powers that the Founders had created had been given no power to infringe fundamental liberties, and worried that a written Bill of Rights would inevitably omit some important ones.

The Constitution doesn’t explicitly protect a right to have children, or a right to travel, or any number of other rights the Court has had no difficulty recognizing as protected. We would rightly consider it absurd if a Justice of the Supreme Court said something like “If you want to allow people to have children, pass a law.” A majority of the Court–unlike Scalia–understands that we don’t comb through the Constitution to find out whether government, in its infinite wisdom, has conferred a particular right on We the People.We look to the Constitution to see whether government has been given the right to interfere with a particular liberty.

And I don’t find anywhere in the Constitutional history or text where government is given the power to decide who has human rights.

Comments

Do You See What I See?

A couple of days ago, an email from the Human Rights Campaign began with the following paragraph:

“Just yesterday, one of Mitt Romney’s highest profile supporters, and a member of the GOP platform committee, said same-sex marriage is something the government should condemn – along with drug use and polygamy.”

The rest of the message teemed with righteous indignation, and ended with a predictable plea for money.

Now, I fully understand how demeaning that statement feels. But I also understand where it comes from. A few years ago, during my sabbatical, I did research that later became my book God and Country. I was curious about the ways in which religious cultures and beliefs shaped people’s positions on various policies–not just hot-button social issues, but also policies we think of as wholly secular, like welfare, the environment, criminal justice.

The research was fascinating–and enlightening. It turns out that our religious socialization affects the way in which we categorize issues. So–when it comes to sexual orientation, for example–research suggests that Christians and Jews tend to classify the issue differently. Jews are more likely to classify sexual orientation as one aspect of identity, like eye color or intellectual capacity; for most Christians, on the other hand, sex is classified as a behavior–like drug use or polygamy. This initial classification doesn’t necessarily prevent Christians from drawing moral distinctions between different behaviors, and many Christians do not consider homosexuality to be immoral. But the evaluation process proceeds from different starting points.

Cultural assumptions can be changed over time, of course, and changing the way people classify sexual orientation initially is one of the great triumphs of the gay civil rights movement.

We can see it in the language: the term “sexual preference” is rarely used these days (except by the likes of a Micah Clark or Sarah Palin); it has been replaced by “sexual orientation.” The first term suggests a behavioral choice; the second, an immutable characteristic. It is an incredibly important distinction; immutable characteristics–like gender or eye color or skin color–are by definition morally neutral.

You can choose to use drugs, you can choose to be a polygamist. But science has exploded the myth that people choose to be gay, and most Americans–whatever their religious socialization–have come to understand and accept the fact that sexual orientation is not chosen.

It’s not a fluke that the people who compare homosexuality to drug use are also anti-science.

There are many ways to slice and dice the American electorate, but I am increasingly convinced that the fundamental (no pun intended) fault line is between those who accept science and modernity and can live with the resulting ambiguities, and those who don’t and can’t–those who find change threatening and ambiguity terrifying, and who cling more and more tightly to the comforting categories and certainties of the (re-imagined) past.

Comments

Anderson Cooper and the Wheel of Fortune

In its upcoming legislative session, the Indiana General Assembly may or may not pass the pending, mean-spirited measure to constitutionalize our existing ban on same-sex marriage. I hope they don’t, but at the end of the day, it’s irrelevant. This battle is over.

Over the past couple of days, we’ve seen a variety of news items relevant to the status of GLBT people. France and Ireland moved closer to the recognition of same-sex marriage. Anderson Cooper came out (much to the surprise of absolutely no one). In his decorous and moving statement, he acknowledged the importance and significance of that action, saying

” I’ve also been reminded recently that while as a society we are moving toward greater inclusion and equality for all people, the tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible.”

The reason I say this battle is over, however, isn’t because yet another celebrity has decided that it is safe to be honest, and it isn’t because increasing numbers of Western nations have decided that GLBT citizens are deserving of equal treatment by their governments. It is because Anderson Cooper’s observation about visibility is exactly right, and because that visibility–with its welcome, everyday, humdrum, taken-for-granted nature–is increasingly part and parcel of American culture and experience.

My husband and I watch “Wheel of Fortune” most nights after dinner. (Hey, we’re old!) Last night, when Pat Sajak asked a contestant if he was married, the young man said “Yes, to my wonderful husband Garrett, for seven years.” No one raised an eyebrow. You don’t get more middle-American than Wheel of Fortune.

I’ve previously noted the presence of numerous gay and lesbian couples on HGTV–couples whose family rooms are redecorated, or kitchens remodeled, all without comment or any other indication that these same-sex couples are any different from the folks whose godawful bathroom was “crashed” the preceding week.

If you need further evidence that overt homophobia doesn’t sell even in Indiana, take a look at Mike Pence’s campaign commercials. Talk about redecorating and rehabbing! As Pence tries to recreate himself into someone likable, someone we might actually elect, he is doing everything he can to suppress his inner culture warrior. This hasn’t extended to taking any actual policy positions, mind you, but he certainly has abandoned the anti-gay rhetoric (along with reminders of his war on Planned Parenthood, immigrants and people who don’t share his brand of “Christian” beliefs) in favor of content-free paeans to “Hoosier values.”  This does not indicate a change of heart; it is a strategic decision. If Pence thought homophobia would help him get elected, he wouldn’t be soft-pedaling his own.

So I repeat: this battle is effectively over. There’s considerable mopping-up left to do, of course. Just as the civil rights movement didn’t eradicate racism, there’s plenty of anti-gay animus to confront: bullying of schoolchildren, legal discrimination and inequity, gay-bashing…I don’t mean to minimize the task ahead. But the cultural shift has occurred.

The law will follow.

Comments

Micah Clark’s Not So Good Very Bad Day

It’s all over but the shouting. The steady movement toward equality really is inexorable.

Earlier today, my husband and I rode our bikes to the Pride Parade. This was the 10th year for the Indy parade, and we were at the very first one–when, as my husband recalled, marchers outnumbered spectators even though only four or five groups marched. The parade has grown steadily–I stopped counting after fifty and it went on for a long time after that–and the crowd of spectators was massive.

The parade began at 10 and lasted until around 11:30, by which time the Pride Festival had begun. Even though the organizers had expanded the venue this year, going from the World War Memorial all the way up the Plaza to the library, it was so crowded I had trouble walking at some points. Parade and festival participants ranged from political candidates and officeholders, to banks, CPA firms and law offices, to local universities, to companies like Lilly, Cummins and Dow Agro. Local GLBT organizations were well represented, and so were area churches. (Out of 250 booths, I counted nine churches–and not just the “usual subjects.” The list included North United Methodist Church, Church of the Savior, Northview Church of the Brethern, All Saints Episcopal and Castleview Baptist, among others.)

So let me share some random observations:

  • The crowds weren’t just huge, they were significantly more diverse than they used to be. There were large numbers of African-Americans and Latinos this year, for example. In the past, the more conservative nature of their cultures has meant fewer black and Latino attendees. From the looks of this year’s crowd, those barriers have weakened. (Surprisingly, I even saw two Muslim women wearing headscarves.)
  • Organizers accommodated the greater number of children in attendance by erecting a Fun Zone with a couple of large blow-up “bouncy houses.” From the looks of it, the kids were bouncing themselves silly and having a great time.
  • There must be a lot of dog lovers in the gay community; I saw spay-neuter organizations, dog grooming salons, something called “Puppy Playground” and something else called the “Bark Tutor School for Dogs.” It wasn’t just dogs–a representative of PETA thrust a pamphlet into my hands with an adorable, fuzzy chick and the caption “If you knew me you wouldn’t eat me.”
  • A very persuasive young salesman nearly sold me a Chevy Volt. Chevrolet had several cars on display, but the Volt was clearly the star of their show.
  • The wonderful thing about capitalism is that it trumps bigotry every time. Literally hundreds of merchants were hawking their wares on the mall–from the jewelry and tee shirt vendors who reliably show up at every festival to realtors, printers, day spas, pizza joints and children’s camps. It was a great opportunity for marketing, and they were taking full advantage of it.
  • Also taking the opportunity for outreach were lots of government agencies, social services organizations, and a variety of non-profits hoping to attract new members.

Bottom line? Over the past decade, as old bigotries have steadily retreated, the annual Pride festival has come to look more and more like every other American celebration, with gays and straights, children and adults, vendors and politicians all mingling on the mall. That normalcy is what will finally defeat the remaining homophobic fringe characters who can look at lots of nice, normal people enjoying themselves on a sunny Saturday and see a group of fellow humans who somehow don’t deserve equal civil rights.

Fortunately, fewer and fewer people see what Eric Miller and Micah Clark see. That ship has sailed. Too bad they weren’t on it.

Comments

This is Getting Tiresome

Micah Clark of the Indiana Family Institute is nothing if not dependable. And unhinged.

The Indianapolis City-County Council is considering a proposal that would extend benefits to unmarried employees whose significant others are either unemployed or cannot get those benefits from their own employers. Predictably, councilors received a long, rambling email from him with accusations that such a policy would “undermine marriage and mock Indiana’s marriage statute,” that it was a “political statement, not a policy change,” that children residing in the homes of unmarried partners “will be sexually, physically or emotionally abused,” and that “gay men are substance abusers at a higher rate than the general population.”

Zach Adamson–who has more patience than I would have with Mr. Clark’s accelerating emotional instability–calmly tried to respond to the torrent of accusations. As he noted, the proposal does not “extend marital benefits” as Clark charged; it simply amends the City’s employment package to adjust compensation levels. It is a human resources policy modeled after that used by over 60% of Fortune 500 companies to attract and retain a qualified workforce. Other midwestern cities–Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati, for example–already have such policies.

Zach’s point-by-point takedown was a great example of trying to reason someone out of a position he didn’t reason himself into. It was also futile. The two page diatribe simply dripped with hatred for GLBT people, with accusations that gays are trying to destroy marriage, that lesbians are alcoholics, homosexual men syphilitic…well, you get the picture. It is impossible to read it without wondering what demons Mr. Clark is battling–what monsters are in his personal closet.

Thankfully, the days when Micah Clark and his ilk controlled the public discourse on these issues are over. Homophobes used to be able to use religion to deflect criticism of their hatreds, but increasing numbers of churches are endorsing equality for gays and lesbians. As their fig leaves are stripped away, nothing but incoherent fury and frustration remain.

Poor Micah Clark. I feel sorry for him, but I’ll be glad when society quarantines his particular strain of mental illness.

Comments