Gay Rights – Page 47 – Sheila Kennedy

SJ 7 and the Jews

Why Jews Should Oppose SJ 7

Opening Remarks at Jewish Community Relations Council Workshop on

Same-Sex Marriage

For the JCRC, there are really two questions about SJ 7. One is a policy question, and one is a question my grandmother would have asked. The policy question is: would this be good or bad for Indiana? The grandmother question is: would it be good or bad for the Jews?

There are a lot of bad public policies. Since the JCRC has limited resources, those resources need to be focused on issues that clearly threaten our community and our religious values. I think SJ 7 is such an issue, and is something the JCRC should actively oppose, because it isn’t just bad policy; it is also bad for the Jews.

I won’t spend a lot of time on the reasons it is bad policy, because those will undoubtedly be addressed by others. Let me just quickly enumerate some of them:

It’s bad for economic development. Indiana is trying to recruit and grow high tech industries that employ a significant number of gay people. Sending a message that Indiana doesn’t value gay citizens won’t help.
It’s bad for business. The language of Part B virtually ensures that there will be a lot of costly litigation over its application.
It’s bad for civil liberties. SJ 7 would write discrimination into the constitution—a precedent I don’t think we want to set.
It’s bad for families. This ban would do absolutely nothing to “protect” families, and claiming that it would is illogical. Look at the four most common justifications:

1) Gays are immoral. If legislators care so much about morality, why do they let rapists and murderers marry?

2) Marriage is for procreation. Then why do we let old people and sterile people get married?

3) Gay parenting is harmful to children. There isn’t a scrap of credible research supporting that assertion. Most of the “studies” cited as “evidence” come from the same good scholars who first alerted us to the fact that Sponge-Bob Squarepants is gay.

4) Same-sex unions will undermine the institution of marriage. We aren’t told how or why. For that matter, the same thing was said about interracial marriages, and about letting women own property and vote.

These aren’t reasons—they are excuses. So SJ 7 is bad public policy. But SJ 7 is also bad for the Jews. Not just because Jews do better in open and tolerant societies, although we do, but because the Jewish community has an enormously important stake in preserving the constitutional separation of church and state. SJ 7 is an effort to turn a religious belief held by some Christians into the law, in a state where many citizens—including many Christians—do not share that belief.

Now, all laws are based to some extent on a society’s shared moral premises—shared being the operative term. But in our constitutional system, in order to be legitimate, laws must be justified by what philosophers call “public reasons”—secular civic purposes that are not grounded solely in religious doctrine. Let me suggest an example: In Judaism, we circumcise baby boys eight days after birth. There is research suggesting that wives of men who have been circumcised may be less likely to get cervical cancer. (That research is actually a lot more credible than the research cited by proponents of SJ 7.) If we had enough votes, should we pass a law requiring that all male infants be circumcised, irrespective of the wishes or beliefs of the child’s parents? If we leave out the eight-day wait and don’t require that a mohel perform the circumcision, would such a law be a secular exercise of authority?

Or take a less fanciful example: women’s rights were fiercely resisted for decades, in substantial part because a majority of Americans believed God wanted women to stay home and be submissive to their husbands. That isn’t what policymakers said, of course—they talked about protecting the “traditional family.”

This is not just about marriage. The people who support this ban believe homosexuality is evil, and that equal rights for gays are an endorsement of evil. They are the same people who oppose application of Indiana’s civil rights laws to gays and lesbians, the same people who defeated a city ordinance extending health care coverage to domestic partners of gay city workers. The organizations opposed to same-sex unions are the same ones that sent angry letters to the editor when Mitch Daniels and Carl Brizzi adopted employment policies protecting workers from being fired for being gay.

This measure is part of a much wider campaign to marginalize an entire group of people because some Christian denominations disapprove of them, and part of an ongoing assault on separation of Church and State. If there is one thing Jews have learned over the centuries, it is that we do not do well in a society that gives government the right to decide whose beliefs and “lifestyles” are acceptable.

Here’s the deal: the First Amendment means that Jews have to honor the free speech rights of Nazis and anti-Semites. We have to protect the right of religious figures to say things like “God doesn’t hear the prayer of the Jew,” or “God hates fags.” And people whose religions disapprove of homosexuality have to swallow hard and honor the right of all Americans to equality before the law. They don’t have to approve, they don’t have to invite gay people (or Jews) to dinner. They can picket gay pride, they can denounce gay culture, they can run homophobic political candidates. But in a society that separates church from state, they cannot deprive an entire group of people of equal treatment before the law. That is the line in the sand—and once it is erased, no one is safe.

Since we’re talking about religion, let me just conclude by referencing a passage from Leviticus that I don’t hear quoted by proponents of SJ 7. It describes an old ritual in which the high priest placed his hands on the head of a goat, and confessed the sins of the people. The goat was then sent into the wilderness, taking the sins of the people with it.

When people are frightened, when their world no longer seems comprehensible, they need someone to blame and send into the wilderness—a scapegoat. The Germans wanted a reason for their lost war and ruined economy, and blamed the Jews. In Salem, when things went wrong, it was the witches. Today, for those who find themselves surrounded by social change and events they can’t understand or control, it’s “the homosexuals” and “the gay agenda.” It is understandable, but it is an enormously dangerous road to travel.

And—as my grandmother would have said—it’s a road that is very bad for the Jews.

Thank you.

Comments

Morality or Bigotry?

How did the song go? You say “potato” and I say “po-tah-to?”

Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi triggered a modern version of the old standard when he adopted a new office policy providing that employment decisions would be made only on the basis of job performance, and that no one would be discriminated against on the basis of skin color, gender or sexual orientation. From my perspective, this was an entirely appropriate confirmation of the value Americans place on equal treatment before the law. According to Micah Clark and the American Family Association, it was a cowardly acquiescence to the “homosexual agenda” and a “slap in the face” to citizens of Marion County.

Whatever views people hold on the far more volatile issue of same-sex marriage, if polls are to be believed, most Americans are deeply committed to fairness in the workplace and equal treatment before the law. Because it is so difficult to argue that employers ought to be able to fire people just for being gay (or black, Jewish or Christian), those objecting to equal civil rights for gays have asserted that they aren’t really against equal rights—they are against “special rights.” But it has become quite clear that what they define as “special” is equal rights for gay people.

A couple of weeks ago, the Kansas Supreme Court struck down the sort of law that the American Family Association feels is proper. Kansas had adopted a statute prescribing penalties for statutory rape—consensual sex between two individuals, one of whom is under the age of consent. For heterosexuals, the maximum penalty under the statute is fifteen months. Matthew Limon, a gay teenager convicted of having sex with a younger gay teenager, had already served five years of a seventeen-year sentence.

Let me be very clear: if every single other fact of the offense had been identical, but Matthew had been arrested for heterosexual conduct, he would have served at most fifteen months. He got an extra fifteen years and nine months because he was gay. When the Kansas court ruled that this amounted to unconstitutional discrimination, the decision was met with predictable accusations of “judicial activism.” In language quite similar to Micah Clark’s, a Kansas pastor decried the ruling as “a victory for supporters of a creeping gay-rights agenda.”

To his credit, the Kansas Attorney-General, a Republican, has said the state is unlikely to appeal, and pointedly noted that when he had served in the legislature, he had voted against the law.

The bottom line in these debates—and in the ongoing City-County Council struggle to include gay people under the City’s Human Relations Ordinance—is quite clear. On one side are those who may or may not approve of homosexuality on religious grounds, but who nevertheless believe that every American should be treated equally in the workplace and by the law. On the other side are those who believe that laws preventing them from punishing or harassing gay people are somehow an “endorsement” of homosexuality.

Potato—po-tah-to.

Comments

Get Mad–And Get Even

Remember the great line from the classic movie Network? Where people leaned out their windows and yelled, “We’re mad as hell, and we aren’t going to take it anymore”?

I’m there. What pushed me over the edge were the grim pictures from New Orleans, showing the devastating consequences of stupidity, arrogance and continuing, monumental failures of leadership. Added to the incompetence of an unnecessary war that no one knew how to wage, economic policies that are rapidly turning the U.S. into a banana republic, it was for me—and, I hope, for many others—the last straw.

But just being mad doesn’t get us anywhere. Being pissed off doesn’t win wars. (If it did, some of us have been so mad so long, dead bodies would be littering the battlefield.) People who care about America have to channel our anger into productive activism in our own communities. If we don’t, we are equally culpable.

The gay community needs to be politically active for lots of reasons that are only marginally connected to the disaster that is our national government, but let me just list four:
·        First, elected officials are not mind-readers. City-County Councilors don’t know that most people really do believe in civil rights for everyone. Even Jerry Falwell says he believes that! State Senators and Representatives don’t know that the local clones of the American Family Institute and Concerned Women for America don’t speak for most Americans, and they won’t know unless we tell them.
·        Second, the Right wing is not just vocal, they are shrill. It’s one thing to be quiet when most other people are being quiet. But the right wing makes up for its small numbers with VERY loud voices. If those voices aren’t countered, if they are allowed to dominate the conversation, there will BE no conversation, because they are sure not interested in dialogue. If it takes two to make a debate, we need to be one of the two.
·        Third, nothing ever changes unless ordinary, good people make it change. It’s a political truism that the “base” of each political party is dominated by the most committed—okay, the most rabid—partisans. The majority of Americans have long since “tuned out” the usual voices, and they are not invested in civil rights or any other issues—they aren’t against equal rights, they just haven’t thought about it one way or the other. (Until Hurricane Katrina intruded, they’ve mostly been following the kidnapping of the blond in Aruba, or watching Donald Trump fire someone.)
·        And fourth, we owe it to our communities, and to America. People have died to protect our right to free speech, our right to petition our government for redress of grievances, to criticize public officials when they are wrong, or corrupt, or just plain stupid–we need to use that right. Use it or lose it was never more apt.

Feel impotent? Wonder what you can do between your job and other obligations? Plenty!

You can write letters to the editor(s)–supporting the good guys, criticizing the bad guys. And don’t just send them to the local daily paper: send them to neighborhood papers, appropriate newsletters, local and national magazines—any appropriate outlet. (And do use spell-check; I get hate emails about my columns all the time, and there is nothing more annoying than being cussed out in language you can’t decipher.)

Contact your elected officials. I know you get told that all the time, but it really is important. Email is good, if time is a problem. Hand-written letters are better, and personal contacts are best of all. Does your Representative hold town meetings? Go. And speak up. Did you contribute to a campaign? Call and remind the recipient that you’ve supported him financially and you are vitally interested in his position on fairness and equality for all Americans.

Does someone who is actively working against gay rights own a business? Boycott it, and tell them why.

Be a precinct committeeperson or ward chair, for either party. Actually, the GOP would be best—today’s Republicans desperately need more rational voices within the ranks.

Monitor the media. Pat Robertson isn’t the only loony-tune out there making ludicrous statements. Rational people are offended by pronouncements that God destroyed thousands of poor people in New Orleans because He opposes gay rights. Any opportunity to highlight the essentially nutty character of the far right is an opening. My favorite headline in the wake of the most recent Robertson episode was, “Who Would Jesus Whack?” One story about James Dobson saying Sponge-Bob Squarepants is gay is worth a month of well-researched arguments.

There is a large and receptive audience waiting for our message—but someone has to deliver it.

Comments

PLAG State Conference Kenote Remarks

PFLAG State Conference
Keynote Remarks

Since we are in a church, I’d like to open these few remarks by discussing a passage from Leviticus. Not the one you are thinking of, the one always trotted out by the ‘usual suspects’—this is a different one.

These passages describe an Old Testament ritual in which the high priest placed his hands on the head of a goat, and confessed the sins of the people. The goat was then sent into the wilderness, taking the sins with it. Remind you of anything?

In other words, it’s our children.

The difference is, PFLAG families are not willing to be “good Germans.” We’re prepared to fight, not just for our children, but for REAL Family values, REAL American values, and REAL Religious values. Healthy, loving families don’t disown their children, or try to “cure” them, or pretend that they are something that they aren’t. Genuine patriots will insist that America remain true to its ideals, including its historic commitment to equality and inclusion. Authentically religious people understand that attributing human hatreds and fears to God is the ultimate blasphemy.

To steal a line from a classic movie, Network: We’re mad as hell, and we aren’t going to take it anymore.

But just being mad doesn’t get us anywhere. Being pissed off doesn’t win wars. If it did, most of us have been so mad so long, dead bodies would be littering the battlefield. We have to channel our anger into productive activism, and that is what today is all about.

PFLAG families need to be politically active for lots of reasons, but let me just give you four:
·       First, elected officials are not mind-readers. City-County Counselors don’t know that large numbers of people—probably a majority—really do believe in civil rights for everyone. Even Jerry Falwell believes that! (relate story) State Senators and Representatives don’t know that the Eric Millers and Curt Smith’s of this state do not speak for most Hoosiers, and they won’t know unless we tell them.
·       Second, the Right wing is not just vocal, they are shrill. It’s one thing to be quiet when most other people are being quiet. But the right wing makes up for its small numbers with VERY loud voices. If those voices aren’t countered, if they are allowed to dominate the conversation, there will BE no conversation, because they are sure not interested in dialogue. If it takes two to frame a debate, we need to be one of the two. But notice that I said frame a debate. We must always keep in mind that we are not talking to, or debating, the Radical Right. They are not open to hearing us. What we are doing is ensuring that their arguments do not go unchallenged, and thereby educating the “mushy middle”—folks who may have adopted some of their positions, but who are not emotionally invested in them.
·       Third, nothing ever changes unless ordinary, good people make it change. It’s a political truism that the “base” of each political party is dominated by the most committed—okay, the most rabid—partisans. The majority of Americans have long since “tuned out” the usual voices, and they are not invested in our issues—they aren’t against equal rights, they just haven’t thought about it one way or the other. (Until Hurricane Katrina intruded, they’ve mostly been following the kidnapping of the blond in Aruba, or watching Donald Trump fire someone.) Cindy Sheehan managed to focus the attention of the nation on Iraq because she is a mother. We are mothers, and fathers, and grandparents and siblings, and that gives us a moral authority that homophobes like Rick Santorum or James Dobson will never match.
·       And fourth, we owe it to our children and grandchildren, and we owe it to America. People have died to protect our right to free speech, our right to petition our government for redress of grievances, to criticize public officials when they are wrong, or corrupt, or just plain stupid–we need to use that right. Use it or lose it was never more apt.

I know I’m preaching to the choir. If you didn’t want to be active, you wouldn’t be here today. So the practical question is: what we can do? Let me just talk a bit about Activism 101 and 101A: activities for moms and dads who have some time and resources; and activities for those who don’t have much of either.
·       Letters to editor–supporting the good guys, criticizing the bad guys. And don’t just send them to the local daily paper: send them to neighborhood papers, appropriate newsletters, local and national magazines—any appropriate outlet. If you don’t have much time, write one and just cc it to others. (I know I don’t need to tell you to avoid ad hominem attacks and name calling. The Right does that, and we don’t help our cause by responding in kind. And do use spell-check; I get hate emails about my columns all the time, and there is nothing more annoying than being cussed out in language you can’t decipher. When criticisms are misspelled and ungrammatical, it tends to diminish the force of the argument.)(I did love the guy who capitalized “Godless”…)
·       Contact your elected officials. I know you get told that all the time, but it really is important. (tell Mosely-Braun story) Email good, if time is a problem, but hand-written letters are better, and personal contacts best of all. Does your Representative hold town meetings? Go. And speak up. Did you contribute to a campaign? Call and remind the recipient that you’ve supported him financially and you are vitally interested in his position on fairness and equality for all Americans.
·       Does someone who is actively working against gay rights own a business? Boycott it, and tell them why. You work hard for your money, and there is no reason you should spend it supporting people who are trying to hurt your family. Get your friends and family to join you.
·       Organize for maximum effectiveness. I’m not going to belabor this one, because that’s what today is all about—leveraging our efforts and combining our talents, energies and ideas.
·       Recruit candidates to oppose hate-mongers and their fellow-travelers–or run yourself. This involves much more time and effort, but if you have that time, it is effort well-spent. Even if you run against an incumbent who is unbeatable—and thanks to gerrymandering, there are a lot of them in Indiana—you will be forcing those incumbents to spend time and money defending their positions, and you will be educating their constituents.
·       Be a precinct committeeperson or ward chair, for either party. Actually, GOP would be best—today’s Republicans desperately need more rational voices within the ranks. Here in central Indiana, a new organization called First Republicans is trying to take the party back to its more libertarian roots; there are undoubtedly similar efforts elsewhere. We need to remember that the Right gained control in precisely this way—by having their activists run for precinct positions, and then taking control of the party. This is obviously a hugely ambitious goal, and PFLAG alone isn’t going to accomplish it—but every precinct official we elect is a beachhead for the sane side. And both parties are desperate for folks willing to fill those slots.
·       Be prepared to call media and elected officials on inaccurate or inflammatory rhetoric. Just monitoring the airwaves can be enormously helpful. Pat Robertson isn’t the only loony-tune out there making ludicrous statements. Rational people, whatever their politics, are offended by pronouncements that God destroyed thousands of poor people in New Orleans because He opposes gay rights. Any opportunity to highlight the essentially nutty character of the far right is an opening. My favorite headline in the wake of the most recent Robertson episode was, “Who Would Jesus Whack?”—humor will get us farther than anything else. One story about James Dobson accusing Sponge-Bob Squarepants being gay is worth a month of well-researched arguments.
·       If you have the resources—if you have ANY resources—give money to organizations working for positive change–ICLU, LAMBDA, PFLAG, HRC, American Values Alliance—I don’t care who. They all need it.
·       And finally, speak up! Speak up at your church, synagogue or mosque; speak up in your civic organizations. Be willing to participate in panels at the Kiwanis or Rotary or whatever, if you possibly can. Be willing to find someone if you can’t.

Keep one thing in mind, always. We can defeat these efforts to keep our children second-class citizens. What we are facing is a backlash—prompted by the very real, very substantial progress that has been made over the past decade. Earlier this week, the California legislature passed a law to recognize gay marriage. It wasn’t an “elitist” court—it was a body of elected Representatives. Governor Terminator may have terminated it with a veto, but it still represents amazing progress.

We will win this battle, because Hope trumps despair, and Love trumps fear.

We will win this battle because fairness is a basic American value, and all we are asking for is simple fairness. And we will win because history is on our side, and the next generation is on our side. My own students, even those from very conservative churches, overwhelmingly support equal rights for gays and lesbians—including marriage. Every poll on the subject confirms what I see in my classroom. There is a large and receptive audience waiting for our message—but we have to deliver that message. We have to stand up to the fear that is motivating the backlash, and we have to make it absolutely clear that we refuse to allow our children, our families, to be the scapegoats.

And the next time someone quotes Leviticus to you, ask them if they know verse 16:20-22. Tell them PFLAG doesn’t approve of selective use of the bible or selective application of the constitution.

We can do this.

Thank you.

Comments

Texas Morality

The Texas challenge raises two very important constitutional issues, privacy and equal protection. The privacy argument makes the same point my students made: government doesn?t belong in anyone?s bedroom. Sodomy statutes, like statutes against fornication or laws forbidding the use of birth control, are simply not within the proper power of the legislature. If the Justices rule on the basis of privacy, overturning the infamous Bowers v. Hardwick decision, then all sodomy statutes will be invalid.
Continue reading “Texas Morality”

Comments