Category Archives: Gay Rights

The November elections delivered a long-overdue message to Washington—Americans are coming back to their senses. And whatever your political party preference, if you are reading this column in this newspaper, that message should have sounded sweet to your ears.

 

The repudiation of Bush Administration policies certainly relieved people like me, who have watched with growing alarm as Incurious George insisted upon driving America off a very steep cliff. But the real sign that “the times they are achanging” came in the results of various state referenda. Yes, several same-sex marriage bans passed, but the margins were considerably smaller than in previous election cycles, and for the very first time, one such ban was actually defeated at the polls. And in a red state to boot, as Arizona voters went to the polls and voted against that state’s proposed amendment.

 

The return to social sanity wasn’t confined to Arizona, or to same-sex marriage. A near-total ban on abortion was overturned in North Dakota, and voters in Missouri and elsewhere across the country refused to buy a “morality” that equates a mass of cellular material with a suffering human person, and supported embryonic stem cell research. Furthermore, by handing control of both the House and Senate to Democrats, and thereby changing legislative leadership, they effectively voted to take global warming and judicial selection seriously.  

 

Most of all, the vote on November 7th signalled a retreat from the moral unilateralism and arrogance that have characterized this Administration, largely because those characteristics got us mired down in Iraq, but also because of a dawning recognition that moral arrogance and immature religiosity is the root cause not just of our diminished standing in the world, but also of much of our internal civic discord.

 

Little by little, it has dawned on Americans that genuine, authentic religion is characterized by humility and compassion and respect for the deeply held beliefs of others. Authentic religiosity is not compatible with the theocratic tendencies exhibited by many on the Religious Right that are so enthusiastically represented by the Bush Administration.  Although by lumping all believers together, he painted with an unnecessarily broad brush, Sam Harris put it well in an acerbic exchange over “intelligent design”with right-wing apologist Dennis Prager. Responding to Prager’s assertion that “believing that the world just happened” is arrogant, Harris wrote:

“No one knows why the universe came into being. Most scientists readily admit their ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not. One of the extraordinary ironies of religious discourse can be seen in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while condemning scientists and other nonbelievers for their intellectual arrogance. … And yet, there is no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer: The Creator of the Universe takes an active interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death; my current beliefs, drawn from scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell…An average believer has achieved a level of arrogance that is simply unimaginable in scientific discourse—and there have been some extraordinarily arrogant scientists.”

Of all the harm done by those who exhibit such extreme versions of religiosity, the harm suffered by gay and lesbian citizens is arguably the greatest, because the religious right is willing and eager to use the power of the state to disadvantage those who offend their particular religious convictions. Don’t fool yourself into a belief that these religious warriors will be content with simply denying same-sex couples the right to marry. In states where their bans have been passed, they have then gone to court to argue for an expansive reading of those measures in order to deprive gay citizens of employment benefits, legal protections against abuse, and a variety of other rights. Scratch off the surface of one of these self-styled “godly” folks, and you’ll find a clone of Fred Phelps.

Any gay or gay-friendly activist who has debated one of these ideologues can attest to the frustration of that exercise. It’s like arguing with a brick wall. Policy arguments are met with self-satisfied, if unresponsive, retorts all of which boil down to “because the bible says so.” When confronted with biblical interpretations other than their own, these folks simply dismiss them as false. And how do they know which interpretation is true and which false? They “just do.” It’s breathtaking—and maddening. And these last few years, it has sometimes seemed as if these zealots were multiplying.

If I am reading the electoral tea leaves correctly, however, they not only aren’t multiplying, but the tide is turning. The pendulum is swinging. The grownups are reasserting control. Pick your metaphor.

As for me, I’m wallowing in an emotion that has been all too rare since 2000—a good mood.

Comments

            A friend recently sent me an article that has been floating around the internet for a while—in fact, I’d seen it previously. But for some reason, re-reading it crystallized several themes I’d been mulling over.

            The article itself was a reprint from Free Inquiry magazine. Lawrence W. Britt had undertaken to define the term “fascist” by making a comparative study of seven regimes that are widely acknowledged as considered examples of fascism: Nazi Germany, of course, but also Fascist Italy, Generalissimo Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’ Greece, Pinochet’s Chile and Suharto’s Indonesia. From his study, he “distilled” fourteen recognizable patterns, or characteristics, that were common to all seven regimes. Those were:

 

• Continuing expressions of nationalism
• Disdain for human rights
• Intense propaganda targeting enemies and scapegoats
• Militarism
• Sexism (including homophobia)
• Government control of mass media
• Obsession with national security (where any questioning of tactics is considered unpatriotic)
• Joinder of religion and government
• Powerful corporations protected by law
• Labor rights suppressed
• Anti-intellectualism
• Obsession with crime and punishment, and glorification of police
• Rampant cronyism and corruption
• Fraudulent elections

 

            Needless to say, America (even under Bush-Cheney) is not a fascist state, nor even close, although in several of these areas over the last few years our movement has been toward, not away from, the elements Britt describes. No, I think the reason this list of danger signals struck me with particular force when I read it this time was because of the timing involved.

            Just the week before, the New Jersey Supreme Court had ruled that “denying commited same-sex couples the financial and social benefits given their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate government purpose.” The Republicans responded with what I can only characterize as glee; given their gloomy electoral prospects, the New Jersey decision was a gift, and they immmediately elevated their already shrill attacks on the “homosexual agenda.”

            Can we spell “scapegoating”?

 

            This was just one more example of the unrelenting attacks on the gay community that have become almost reflexive on the part of the Republican party. Here in Indiana, in the last, heated days before the midterm elections, we saw vicious ads suggesting that Congressmen who had failed to vote for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage didn’t “share Hoosier values.” In Washington, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, one of the more “colorful” members of the GOP, moved to block Senate consideration of a Bush judicial nominee, because—hold on to something—she actually attended a public ceremony in which two lesbians pledged their commitment to one another. This was evidently so heinous that Brownback was willing to deviate from his oft-repeated insistence that every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote, and put a “hold” on the nomination. There are so many other examples, they are too numerous to catalog.

            I can’t help being nostalgic for the Republican Party I used to know. When I ran for Congress as a Republican, in 1980, my positions in support of gay rights created virtually no comment. I was considered a typical, conservative Republican—too conservative for many other Republicans, who voted instead for Andy Jacobs, my Democratic opponent. Today, that Republican Party no longer exists. I miss it—and I don’t recognize the party that has taken its place.  

            Reading Britt’s article reminded me why I left. Too many of the positions trumpeted by today’s version of the GOP are positions uninformed by the history he recounts, held by folks who don’t understand where such positions can lead.

            If we aren’t eternally vigilant, it could happen here.

Comments

    It’s “that time of year.”

 

   No—I’m not talking about Halloween, or even Thanksgiving, Chanukah and Christmas. For the eleventh year in a row, from November 3d through the 19^th, approximately 100 organizational partners will invite us to the civic conversation known as the annual Spirit and Place Festival. The festival revolves around a different theme each year; this year, it is “Tradition and Innovation.”

   

One of the most timely programs is being co-sponsored by PFLAG, the acronym for “Parents, Friends and Families of Lesbians and Gays,” although I’m quite certain the co-sponsors had no idea when they planned their program just how newsworthy their subject-matter—“Traditional Families, Fact or Fiction?—would be.

    When the news broke about creepy Congressman Mark Foley, gay-bashers resorted to one of the oldest fictions—suggesting that all gays are pedophiles. As Frank Rich noted dryly in a New York Times article, saying all gay men are like Mark Foley is like saying all heterosexual men are like Joey Buttofucco.

    There are plenty of “fictions” about human sexual identity at any time, of course. I recently was mailed a book as a “gift” from a gentleman who described himself as a reader of my columns. The book (written by an “eminent scholar” who is neither eminent nor a scholar, according to colleagues in the fields of psychiatry and genetics)  purported to “prove” that sexual orientation is just a choice we make. (As I told my husband, I sure don’t remember “choosing” mine!)

    Rich’s column was actually a reflection on a somewhat different tradition—the ritual use of gay-bashing as a political tool by the GOP (or “Gay Old Party,” as Rich described it) while employing numerous self-identified, out-of-the-closet gays in major staff and administration positions.  Rich focuses on the political hypocrisy involved, and doesn’t speculate about the psychology of those gay individuals who work for publicly homophobic office-holders. It’s hard not to see such people as either self-loathing or opportunistic—or both—but such behaviors are not uncommon among members of socially marginalized groups.

    Ultimately, it is precisely that social marginalization that is the target of the Spirit and Place program, to be held on Saturday, November 18^th at the Unitarian Universalist Church on

West 43d Street

.

    The description of the event begins with a question: “What defines a family in 2006?” It’s a good question, and a timely one: just in the last couple of weeks, a census report showed that married couples currently represent slightly fewer than half of American households. Both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are increasingly living together without getting married—some by choice, some because it is an avenue legally foreclosed to them.

    We need to understand the reasons for—and consequences of—these changes in social norms. How do they affect children? The elderly? What are the implications for public policies? Who are the real people who make these choices, and how does the disapproval of others affect them and their families?

    Which “traditions” are worth saving—and which aren’t?

 

 

Comments

 

    When I was a young girl growing up in the not-so-metropolitan town of Anderson, Indiana, the few Jewish families living in the area were acutely aware of their minority status. One of the most feared accusations Jews faced back then was that of “dual loyalty”—the suspicion that our support for the new state of Israel might be as strong or stronger than our loyalty to America and American values. 

    I hadn’t thought about dual loyalty accusations in a long time, although there were certainly echoes of it in the hostility with which Latino demonstrations over immigration reform were received. Displays of the Mexican flag, especially, seemed to engender resentment from people who proudly characterized themselves in letters to the editor and similar forums as “real Americans.”

    In my experience, Americans have historically tended to be pretty insular, even jingoist, likely to think of themselves as “real Americans” and “Americans First.” So I was really unprepared for the recent Pew Research poll showing that forty-two percent of Americans consider themselves Christian first, and American second. According to Pew, 

          “The 2006 Pew Global Attitudes Poll finds American adults are closely split between those   who see themselves as Christians first (42%) and those who see themselves as Americans first (48%); an additional 7% say they see themselves as both equally. By contrast, only a third of German Christians (33%) and fewer than a quarter of British, French and Spanish Christians self-identify primarily with their religion. In this regard, the views of Americans closely parallel those of French Muslims, 46% of whom think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality.”

      Pew doesn’t tell us, of course, what kind of Christian these folks are, so we can take some solace from even more recently released research from Baylor University that debunks the notion that the more devout the Christian, the more conservative the politics. According to Baylor, equal numbers of political liberals and political conservatives are comitted churchgoers.Nevertheless, there is something disquieting about these numbers. My own worry is that the people most likely to respond that they are “Christian first” are also most likely to believe that their theological beliefs should trump America’s constitutional values.

Case in point: Recently, I got a call at the office from an elderly-sounding man who wanted my mailing address. He said he read my columns in the Star, and wanted to send me something. “How nice!” I said—to which he responded, “You may not think so when you get it.” He was right; he sent me a book by a self-professed Christian “psychologist” that explained why homosexuality is an immoral choice, and how gays can “choose” not to be gay. An accompanying note suggested that I share it with my misguided son. It was a good example of someone whose “Christian” values conflict rather sharply with American values of civic equality, not to mention the quintessentially American “live and let live” ethic. 

Don’t get me wrong: just as Christians in Germany who placed religious and moral teachings above the Fatherland were right, Americans absolutely must bring moral precepts—grounded for the most part in religious belief—to questions of officially condoning torture, the conduct of war and the erosion of civil liberties. “My country right or wrong” is wrong. For that matter, many of us who support gay civil rights do so because we believe our religion or morality requires it. But in these situations, most of us would not see our religious or ethical beliefs at odds with American values. Rather, we see our ethical or religious beliefs requiring us to work for an America that lives up to its own constitutional and civic values.

Maybe that’s all the Pew poll signifies. Maybe my own history as a member of a minority religion has made me too sensitive, has caused me to over-react to these numbers. But I can’t shake the feeling that these self-professed “Christian first” folks are really the fundamentalists who have done so much to divide Americans, and set us against each other. I can’t avoid the nagging suspicion that what these folks are saying is “My kind of Christian first.”

I sure hope I’m wrong.

  

Comments

A college in Canada—Lakehead University—is running a rather audacious recruitment campaign: an internet advertisement with George W. Bush’s face and the message “Yale, Shmale. Graduating from an Ivy League university doesn’t necessarily mean you’re smart. If you agree, click here.” When you click on the link, you get a pitch for Lakehead.

Just another bit of evidence—as if evidence were needed—of the low esteem in which the current American President is held.

If his usefulness to Canadian ad men and late-night comics were the only consequences of Bush’s incompetence, that would be an embarrassing, but short-lived, problem. Unfortunately, having a chief executive who doesn’t recognize basic constitutional principles or comprehend important distinctions has created domestic and international disaster. 

Let’s just connect the dots by way of one example. Bush has constantly talked about the importance of bringing “democracy” and “freedom” to the Middle East. He clearly believes the terms are interchangable. They aren’t. Democracy is the practice of popular election; liberty, as the western world has come to understand that term, requires the rule of law. The rule of law protects our freedom to live our lives as we see fit, without government interference so long as we aren’t harming someone else. Liberty thus includes freedom of speech and religion, a right to due process and equal protection, the right to privacy, and so forth.

In the Middle East, for example, Hamas—the Palestinian terrorist organization—was democratically elected (and Hezbollah enjoys majority support in much of Lebanon). It is quite likely that Iraq, which used to be the most secular Arab state, will eventually elect a theocratic government—assuming Iraq survives its current civil war intact. In short, a country can be both “democratic” and repressive. 

Why is any of this important—or relevant—to the gay community? 

The central concern of civil liberties and the rule of law is to trump what James Madison called “the passions of the majority.” The ACLU is never called upon to defend people everyone agrees with; the First Amendment was intended to protect, as Justice Holmes once put it “the idea we hate,” not the popular, widely-accepted idea. The gay community’s ability to make progress toward acceptance and equal rights depends upon America’s commitment to liberty, not its practice of democracy. In 2004, we saw what happens when citizens get to vote on the rights of their gay neighbors. The principle that matters is equal protection of the laws, not fidelity to majority passions.

This is not to suggest that democracy is unimportant, only that it is insufficient. Majority vote unconstrained by the rule of law and respect for equal rights can be every bit as tyrranical and despotic as the rule of a dictator.

An example: when I was the Executive Director of Indiana’s ACLU, we represented the KKK in a suit against the state. The then-governor, Evan Bayh, had refused to allow a Klan rally on the steps of the Indiana Statehouse. The steps were routinely used by other groups—prochoice and prolife, major and minor political parties, all manner of issue advocacy organizations—but the Klan was (for good and obvious reasons)massively unpopular. Those of us defending the right of these despicable people to be treated like everyone else included me (Jewish), a co-operating attorney (gay), and a paralegal (African-American). We’d have been the first people killed if the Klan ever came to power.

In a very real sense, however, we weren’t representing the Klan—we were defending the rule of law. We knew that our own rights depended upon fidelity to the principle of equal protection—that if the most despised citizens don’t have rights, no one really has rights—they just have privileges that government can revoke when majority opinion makes it politically convenient to do so. 

Too bad our President doesn’t understand that.

 

 

 

 

Comments