Give Me a Break!

My 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

Engage!

There’s no dearth of discussion about the effect of social media on culture and politics. Facebook and Twitter, especially, are credited (if that’s the word) with facilitating everything from the Arab Spring to the surprise victory of Glenda Ritz here in Indiana. Political observers tell us that sophisticated use of social media was a major factor in Obama’s successful GOTV effort, and that bungled use of that same media hampered that of the Romney campaign.

During a discussion about the Media and Policy class we’ve been team teaching this semester, John Mutz wondered aloud whether these forms of communication might be destabilizing government, making it much more difficult to engage in the sort of negotiation and deliberation that democratic theory prizes.  I think he’s right, and I think this is an unfortunate and under-appreciated consequence of our current, frenetic media environment.

It’s not just the speed with which information, innuendo, rumor and half-backed conspiracy theories circle the globe. It’s the partial nature of that information.

The goal of democratic societies is informed participation. Not just voting, not just agitating for this or that change, but thoughtful engagement in self-government. Today’s communication technologies facilitate immediate engagement: Sign the petition to XYZ, telling them to vote for ABC! Join the protest against so-and-so! Don’t let ‘them’ change this program–it’s all that protects grandmas and kittens! We are given tools with which to send a message, but all too often, the message is not based upon a full explanation of the issues involved.

I know there have been several instances where I’ve gotten such a “call to action” that initially seemed appropriate to me, but upon further research into the policies involved, turned out to be promoting a result that was neither practical nor possible. (The federal budget really isn’t like our household budgets–it’s a lot more complicated. Sometimes, well-intentioned programs that are meant to help one population or another have negative unintended consequences that really do need to be addressed. It’s usually more complicated than that email blast would suggest.)

Despite their considerable merits, Facebook and Twitter and all the other methods of rapid communication at our disposal too often get us to fire before we aim.

It’s important to be engaged. It’s important to communicate quickly with our elected representatives when we think they are about to act in ways that will damage important institutions, or harm vulnerable constituencies. Social media allows involved citizens to mobilize others, and to have a much louder and more effective voice than was previously possible. The downside is that the folks most likely to be involved are the partisans, both left and right, who tend to be more ideological than informed.

It’s so easy to click that link and sign your name. Who has time to read up on the arguments, pro and con?

As Captain Picard might say, “Engage!”

Comments

A Meditation on Snark

A regular reader of this blog posted a reasonable–albeit uncomfortable–question the other day. How can someone (me) who regularly inveighs against incivility and ad hominem argumentation routinely “disparage” (his word) others? Is there not an inconsistency–even hypocrisy–there?

Fair question. And if I’m honest, I do go over the line–a line I set–every so often. Sometimes, the urge to engage in snarky characterizations is just too tempting.

The question made me think about what’s fair and what isn’t. Where is “the line”? Certainly, criticism itself is not only inescapable, but often appropriate–as I tell my classes at the start of each semester, reasoned argumentation is expected. Debate and deliberation is a tool that–properly deployed–moves us toward truth.

So how do we distinguish “reasoned argumentation” from the sort of incivility that moves us not toward truth, but further into our warring factions?

I think the first rule is that criticism must be grounded in specifics. There is a difference between saying “this person/these people are wrong because” and simple name-calling. It is perfectly acceptable, in my view, to say “I think Obama has been a lousy leader because he didn’t accomplish XYZ.” I may disagree with you about the desirability of XYZ, or whether Obama was responsible for its failure, but I understand the grounds of your disagreement. It is not acceptable–again, in my opinion–to say “I hate Obama because he’s a socialist/Muslim/gangster.” Not only are these accusations demonstrably untrue, they give those who disagree no clue to what the speaker actually dislikes about the President. They encourage listeners to draw our own conclusions, and those conclusions are likely to be unkind.

Similarly, if criticisms of particular groups are based upon behaviors–living in the suburbs, voting for particular candidates, whatever–they may be intemperate, or may be over-generalizations, but they are specific enough to be countered with logical or factual objections. When groups are disparaged because of their identity–gay, Christian, African-American, etc.–there’s not much room for discussion or nuance.

Readers may be able to flesh out these “rules of the road,” but that’s my first effort. What do you all think?

Comments

What is WRONG with these People?

The embarrassments just keep coming, and the continued descent into self-parody of a once-rational political party is painful to watch. It seems that every day brings a new “WTF moment,” another occasion to shake one’s head and contemplate the GOP’s penchant for self-destruction.

A couple of days ago, the U.S. Senate failed to ratify a United Nations treaty on the rights of the disabled–a treaty modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Treaty would not have required a single change to current U.S. law; its ratification was, in a sense, a formality, intended to bring the rest of the member nations up to the standard set by the United States. Bob Dole came in his wheelchair to urge Republican Senators to ratify it. Dick Lugar and John McCain were among the eight GOP “defectors” who joined all of the Democratic Senators voting for ratification.

According to media reports, ultra-conservatives associated with the Tea Party, led by former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, opposed the treaty on the grounds that it threatened U.S. sovereignty and parental rights. Santorum, who has a daughter with special needs, argued that the treaty would effectively put the United States under international law and give the U.N. discretion over decisions about how special needs children are educated.

This, of course, is nonsense–part and parcel of the paranoia that characterizes the Right’s frantic rejection of anything connected to the United Nations and increasingly, Europe. Even Bob Dole and Dick Lugar couldn’t shame them--but then, how do you shame crazy? So–add the disabled to the growing group of constituencies–women, immigrants, gays, young people–that the party has infuriated.

Washington is hardly the only habitat of the legislative loon, of course. Here in Indiana, we breed dozens of them.

The Northwest Indiana Times captured a quintessential example, under a headline that deserves some sort of prize: “Indiana Senator’s Plan to Teach Creationism Evolves.”

State Senator Denise Kruse has sponsored some of the Senate’s most constitutionally-suspect measures. Most recently, he’s been trying to pass legislation that would require the teaching of creationism in public school classrooms. Last session, his measure passed the (overwhelmingly Republican) Senate, but House Speaker Brian Bosma killed it in the House. Bosma is a lawyer, and obviously is aware that the courts have settled this debate, holding that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be taught as science.

Kruse told the Times that he would not submit a similar bill this time. No, he said, he “wants to empower students to challenge their teachers” and “to make sure what is being taught is true.” He will sponsor a bill require teachers to justify and support their lessons.

I don’t know what Kruse thinks happens in a classroom. Given his public pronouncements, it’s fair to assume he hasn’t been in many. But I can’t imagine a classroom where students don’t challenge their teachers, or a classroom where teachers aren’t absolutely ecstatic when they can share with students the evidence and research underlying the substance of their subject-matter. Does he think students come into the classroom for indoctrination sessions? That teachers hypnotize children, or pour pre-packaged lessons into the tops of their heads?

Since conspiracy theories seem to be the order of the day, here’s mine: someone is putting hallucinogenic substances in the food of Republican elected officials. And baby, those substances are strong.

Comments