Category Archives: Gay Rights

As most readers of this column know, I also write regularly for the Indianapolis Star, the largest daily paper in Indiana. My Star columns are usually a bit less…edgy…than my contributions to the Word, and range more broadly across the public policy landscape. While I do write about gay issues on occasion, gay rights is not a central focus.

 

Recently, however, I devoted a column to the discussion of SJ 7, Indiana’s constitutional amendment to “defend marriage.” Like amendments passed in many other states, SJ 7’s language doesn’t stop at declaring that only marriages between a male and female are valid. It adds Part B, which forbids any court from interpreting any law in any way that might confer unnamed “incidents of marriage” on unmarried couples.

 

Even those who support banning same-sex marriage have expressed concerns that Part B will prevent municipalities, state Universities and private employers from offering health insurance and other benefits to the partners of their unmarried employees, gay or straight.

These concerns have been met with assurances from Brant Hershman, the sponsor of SJ 7, that Part B has no such intent, and will have no such effect.

 

I pointed out that courts in other states, faced with similar language, have held otherwise. In the most recent ruling, just a couple of months ago, a Michigan court stated "The marriage amendment’s plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose." The Court dismissed all the Hershman-like statements by Michigan legislators that the language absolutely didn’t mean what it obviously said as political posturing and instead gave effect to the law’s “plain language.” (Darn those activist judges!)

 

I also noted that the sincerity of supporters on this matter might be evaluated by logging on to the web site of the Alliance Defense Fund, a right-wing organization promoting same-sex marriage bans. The ADF—like our local proponents—had adamantly denied that Part B-type language would interfere with the rights of public and private employers to extend benefits to their employees’ partners. According to the ADF web site, “Preying on these and similar fears, advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ argue that proposed state marriage amendments will undermine the ability of government and even private entities to grant benefits to unmarried people. This false argument is being used to confuse many people…”

 

And what did that same organization have to say about the Michigan ruling? Under the heading “Michigan Court Does the Right Thing,” the web site self-righteously reported “The benefits plans violated the Michigan marriage amendment, the Court of Appeals rightly reasoned, because the government plans at issue extended health insurance benefits to the same-sex partner of an employee…Whether the benefit is health insurance or season tickets to the U. of Michigan men’s’ water polo team,  governmental units in Michigan may not condition receipt of the benefit on being in a relationship that tracks with the state statutory requirements for marriage.”  

 

In my Star column, I simply pointed out the obvious: proponents of this ban know same-sex marriage is already illegal in Indiana, and they also know that Indiana courts have already upheld the current law. There would be no reason to pass SJ 7 except to void those few benefits that gay couples now enjoy.

 

It was after that column ran that things really got interesting.

 

I’m used to getting a few nasty emails, and seeing some negative letters to the editor, but the attack this time was several magnitudes greater. That led me to conclude I’d hit a nerve, so I did a bit more digging around. And guess what I discovered?

 

Brant Hershman, the sponsor of SJ 7—the guy who has called critics of Part B “liars,” the guy who says he has nothing against gay people, the guy who says Part B absolutely wouldn’t do what it says it will do, the (divorced) guy who is just “defending the sanctity of marriage” has a very illuminating legislative history! For example, in 2003, right after Purdue University  began offering same-sex partner benefits, he sponsored the following bill

 

SECTION 42. IC 5-10-8-1.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003]: Sec. 1.5. (a) A state educational institution (as defined in IC 20-12-0.5-1 ) that provides group coverage for health care services for the state educational institution’s employees shall provide coverage for only the:
        (1) employee;
        (2) individual to whom the employee is married under IC 31-11-1-1 ; and
        (3) employee’s dependent:
            (A) child; and
            (B) stepchild;
under the employee’s coverage.
    (b) A state educational institution that provides coverage for health care services for an individual other than the individuals described in subsection (a) is not eligible for public funding related to the group coverage.”.

 

In other words, “Purdue, give those gays benefits and bye-bye state funding.” Pretty clear.

That bill didn’t pass, but it sure sheds light on the ferocious reaction to my column!  I had—mostly inadvertently—hit them  where they were least truthful, and therefore most vulnerable.

 

Comments

It isn’t just the hatefulness. It’s the hypocrisy.

 

By now, Indiana citizens have heard all of the justifications for SJ 7, the Indiana constitutional amendment to “defend marriage” against the assault of all those gay terrorists who just want to participate in it. And we’ve heard all of the pious assurances that the language in “part B,”(forbidding any court from interpreting any law in any way that might confer the “incidents of marriage” on unmarried couples) isn’t meant to deprive gays of health benefits or hospital visitation rights. It’s just an effort to “clarify” that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

 

Really?

 

Then why have courts in other states, when construing similar language, all held otherwise? In the most recent ruling, just this month, a Michigan court stated "The marriage amendment’s plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose."

 

Those who were challenging that interpretation of the Michigan amendment pointed to all the statements by Michigan legislators that the language absolutely didn’t mean what it obviously said, but the Court dismissed that as political posturing and instead gave effect to the “plain language” of the amendment. Darn those activist judges!

 

If anyone harbors a lingering doubt about the real motives of the legislators who support SJ 7 and similar measures, I suggest they log on to the web sites of the right-wing organizations supporting them. One such organization, the Alliance Defense Fund, has absolutely denied suggestions that Part B-type language in these amendments would interfere with the rights of universities and private employers to extend benefits to their employees’ partners. According to the ADF web site, “Preying on these and similar fears, advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ argue that proposed state marriage amendments will undermine the ability of government and even private entities to grant benefits to unmarried people. This false argument is being used to confuse many people…”

 

And what did that same organization have to say about the Michigan ruling? Under the heading “Michigan Court Does the Right Thing,” they wrote “The benefits plans violated the Michigan marriage amendment, the Court of Appeals rightly reasoned, because the government plans at issue extended health insurance benefits to the same-sex partner of an employee…Whether the benefit is health insurance or season tickets to the U. of Michigan men’s’ water polo team,  governmental units in Michigan may not condition receipt of the benefit on being in a relationship that tracks with the state statutory requirements for marriage.”  

 

Let’s be clear about this: the people pushing for SJ 7 want to make life as difficult as possible for Indiana’s gay citizens. They know same-sex marriage is already illegal in Indiana, and that Indiana courts have upheld the current law. There is no reason to pass this amendment except to void those few benefits that gay couples now enjoy.

 

They may get SJ 7 passed, but no one who believes in equal rights should let them get away with pretending that they don’t mean what they say.  

Comments

Boy oh boy—we’ve barely gotten beyond the 2006 midterms, and the 2008 mud is already flying.

 

Last month, Fox News reported, with a straight face, a charge that had been floating around the right-wing internet the previous few days: Barack Obama is really a Muslim, and possibly a Muslim with terrorist sympathies! He was educated in a fundamentalist Muslim school when he lived in Indonesia!

 

Never mind that it was Obama himself who wrote in his first book about his attendance at that particular school for two years while he was a young child living in Indonesia, his stepfather’s place of birth. Never mind that anyone visiting the school—as real reporters working for CNN subsequently did—found it to be a perfectly ordinary, secular public school, attended by children from a wide variety of religious backgrounds. Never mind that Obama has been a member of a United Church of Christ congregation in Chicago since 1988—clearly, that was just part of his sly dis-information campaign! Remember—he’s black, and his name sounds foreign! What more evidence do you need?

 

Of course, it isn’t only Muslims, African-Americans, gay citizens and assorted others whose less-than-wildly-popular views are met with innuendo, conspiracy theories and blatent bigotry. As many readers of this column know, I write a twice-monthly column for the Indianapolis Star, and evidently I’m not the most popular girl on the block. (Okay, so I haven’t been a girl since the early Ice Age—cut me some slack here, I’m making a point.) The other day, the Star forwarded (as is their practice) a letter addressed to me care of the paper. The letter read, in its entirety, as follows:

 

You’re not half as bright as you assume. Why don’t you go back to the land of your ancestors and live with the progeny?

 

Lest my lack of “brightness” cause me to miss the point, the writer closed with a Star of David. Marginally preferable to “shut up you dirty Jew”—but only marginally.

 

The bigotry, of course, is unfortunate. But it’s the refusal to engage the argument at hand that is most dangerous.

 

Is Obama wrong about health care, the war in Iraq, his description of the political process—anything concrete? If so, why? What did I say in my column that my correspondent disagreed with? What was the reason for that disagreement? Did I get a fact wrong? If so, which one—and where’s the evidence that it was wrong? Should gay people be prevented from marrying, and gaining access to the 1008+ benefits available to married citizens? Why? If gay unions pose a threat to heterosexual marriages, what is the nature of that threat?

Name-calling as “public discussion” doesn’t illuminate anything. It doesn’t allow us to hammer out our differences. It just makes people angry, and deepens American divisions.

 

When I come across one of these examples, I can’t help remembering an old routine of the Smothers Brothers (a comedy duo that was famous way before most of you reading this were born). One of the brothers (Tommy) would make an outrageous remark (the moon is made of green cheese, or something comparable), and the other brother (Dick) would patiently and reasonably explain why that was semi-insane. Tommy—clearly recognizing the force of Dick’s argument, and having nothing rational with which to counter it—would just get red-faced and sputter his trademark rejoinder, “Mom always liked you best!” A non-sequiter, but hey—it was all he had.

 

As for consistency with the American values these folks claim to be defending—can you picture James Madison or Benjamin Franklin responding to an argument with the equivalent of “Well, your mother wears combat boots!”

 

Me either.

Comments

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