Getting Up to Speed – NYTimes.com
Jun/090
In France, Mellier pointed me to the small city of Reims, about 90 miles from Paris, which has effectively become a Parisian suburb since the opening of the Strasbourg line in 2007. You wonder if Bakersfield could become a bedroom community of Los Angeles. In recent years, moreover, some French cartographers who think about the social effects of train transportation have taken to creating new maps of Europe that simultaneously reflect the time and the distance between cities. These “time space” drawings of France (the technical name is anamorphic maps) have a distorted look as if someone crumpled a paper rendering of the country and pulled all the surrounding cities closer to Paris than they really are. Marseille is half its real distance from the capital, as are Strasbourg and Lyon. Mostly this is because of the TGV, which seems to have knit the country together in a way that air travel never did. Alain L’Hostis, a geographer at the Université Paris-Est, told me that the train has undoubtedly changed the psychological distance between places. For the French, he said, the mobility has created among many citizens “a feeling of belonging to a common or interconnected city.”
As a survivor of an Amtrak journey up the coast, I recalled those 13 hours unconnected to any California city at all — not a particularly pleasant feeling. When I asked Schwarzenegger about the social effects of a rail line, he quickly replied, “I think people will look at the state and not just say, ‘Oh, my God, I have to go from the south to the north, what a schlep.’ ” That was kind of like what L’Hostis said to me, but in a different way. After Schwarzenegger thought for a moment more, he said, speaking of his own commute by private jet: “I fly from Sacramento to Los Angeles, and it takes two hours. And if I would fly commercial, you would have to add an hour, or an hour and a half. Imagine. What if I could do high-speed rail?” I could picture a crumpled time-space drawing of his state. In my mind, and maybe in his, too, the big cities of California were already moving closer together. (from The Architecture Issue – Getting Up to Speed – High Speed Rail in California – NYTimes.com)
The prospect of American high-speed rail is horribly exciting to me. As the article states, Reims has easily become a suburb of Paris thanks to high-speed rail. Suddenly 30, 40, 50 or more miles is just a quick train ride away. Regional airplane flights would be a think of the past. Instead of flying from Kansas City to Chicago, you could take the train instead.
America is lagging behind when it comes to transportation infrastructure. Japan and Europe have been leading the way for decades. It took us nearly thirty years to finish the interstate system, and that was a major boom to travel and the economy. Since Eisenhower took inspiration from the German autobahn, it’s high time Obama take inspiration from the TGV in France and bring environmentally friendly high-speed rail to the United States. It also creates countless jobs in construction, engineering, and manufacturing. Seems like a win-win to me.
DADT Opinion Poll
Jun/090
Via the blog Daily Dose, a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell opinion poll, separated into three “sub-polls”: for self-identified conservatives, liberals, and independents.
Data Center Overload – NYTimes.com
Jun/090
From the New York Times Magazine, an interesting look at server data centers, the monolithic buildings that power “the cloud” and all of the services we take for granted on a daily basis: email, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.
Gay Stereotypes in Film, Television
Jun/090
Movie poster for Sacha Baron Cohen's new movie Brüno, in theaters July 10, 2009.
The New York Times has an article today, A Plea for Tolerance in Tight Shorts. Or Not. regarding the upcoming Sacha Baron Cohen movie Brüno. Having never seen Borat or, admittedly, any of Mr. Baron Cohen’s prior works I’m not quite sure what to expect. But after reading the controversy that has sprung up around it, I’m definitely making a point to see it now.
Brüno, R-rated of course, stars Mr. Baron Cohen as a “flamboyantly gay fashion journalist from Austria” named, obviously, Brüno. Given the sexuality of the title character, gay groups are throwing in their opinion on the film with mixed reviews depending on who you speak to. The film’s “well-meaning attempt at satire is problematic in many places and outright offensive in others,” says Rashad Robinson of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in the NYT article. On the other side, editor of Out magazine Aaron Hicklin plans to put Mr. Baron Cohen on the cover of the magazine. Again, telling the New York Times: “The movie does something hugely important, which is showing that people’s attitudes can turn on a dime when they realize you’re gay. The multiplex crowd wouldn’t normally sit down for a two-hour lecture on homophobia, but that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I’m excited about that.”
I’m inclined to agree more with Mr. Hicklin than GLAAD’s statement. Satire is often meant to be offensive to some, while drop-dead hilarious to others. I’d like to think that the gay rights movement has come far enough that we are able to laugh at our own expense. Certainly some movie goers are going to take the movie as acknowledging their homophobia or are going to enjoy the movie more because of it, and perhaps the film isn’t going to change any minds about homophobia. Now, I haven’t seen the movie yet (it doesn’t come out, so-to-speak, until July), but I’m confident it won’t be a breakthrough in positive portrayal of gays. But the character is so intentionally over-the-top that it would be hard to peg it as representing even most flamboyant gay men. We’ve had “flamboyant gay stereotypes” on television for years (Sean Hayes’ character Jack on Will and Grace or Michael Urie’s Mark St. James on Ugly Betty, for example), and some of those shows are awarded for portrayal of gay characters. Compared to ten, or even five, years ago there are many more gay characters on television (both positive and otherwise).
Kevin (L, Matthew Rhys) and Scotty (R, Luke Macfarlane) Walker. From the "Brothers & Sisters" episode "Glass Houses". (Image from IMDb.)
ABC Family has two shows that I know of (Greek and Secret Life of the American Teenager) with a major or minor gay character in shows that target a younger demographic. The new FOX show Glee features a gay show choir stereotype, and a glee club diva with two dads. From the pilot episode (which I encourage everyone to watch, if only for the productions of Amy Winehouse’s Rehab), the issue isn’t central to the show. It’s just another facet to the characters. Yet there was some negative reaction to the character of Kurt for being a stereotype (and being a minor character in the pilot), while ignoring the other big cliché of the show: the jock with a softer side (like Sears). I’ve also seen some negativity towards the ABC show Brothers & Sisters (between Ugly Betty, Brothers & Sisters, and the ABC Family offerings, ABC is one of the more “gay-friendly” networks today) centered around the fact that gay characters Kevin (Matthew Rhys) and Scotty (Luke Macfarlane) don’t get enough on-air time.
There have been plenty of gay-centric television in recent years, on premium networks (Queer as Folk, The L Word, etc.) and broadcast (Will and Grace), and now it seems that gay characters are moving out being either minor recurring roles or part of an “ensemble of gay characters” to being just characters. Their gayness doesn’t define them as a character. The Kevin and Scotty couple could just as easily be a heterosexual couple and many of their plots don’t necessarily hinge on their sexuality; instead they are your normal couple who just happens to be gay. With more states allowing gay marriage, positive portrayal of gay characters where their sexuality isn’t a key issue can only be a good thing.
Reasons for Firing Carrie Prejean
Jun/090
Carrie Prejean reads from a bible during services at the Rock Church in San Diego Sunday, April, 26, 2009. Prejean has drawn attention for her comments against gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant, where she was first runner-up last weekend. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)
In the “karma is a bitch” department, Carrie Prejean, runner-up in the Miss USA pageant from California, has lost her crown (and title) of Miss California for breach of contract. And considering she’s been running around doing everything but (I don’t think the National Organization for Marriage is part of the Miss California USA pageant tour), I’m not surprised. The reason behind her termination was not her gay marriage comments from the Miss USA pageant in April. But should it have been?
Blogger Emma Ruby-Sachs at the 365Gay.com news site (run by LGBT-oriented cable network Logo) seems to think so. (For the sake of keeping this on-topic, I won’t go into my love/hate relationship with “gay news/gay media”.)
Yesterday, Carrie Prejean, poster child for the National Organization for Marriage and the newly conservative California, was fired.
When told of her firing by the celebrity radio host Billy Bush, Prejean insisted it was because of her answer to Perez Hilton’s gay marriage question during the pageant: “”It’s just because of my answer, I think. None of this would be happening right now if I just said, ‘Yeah, gays should get married. You’re right Perez Hilton.’”
If only that were true.
The press release issues by the Miss California and Miss Universe organizations states that the firing is, “based solely on contract violations including Ms. Prejean’s unwillingness to make appearances on behalf of the Miss California USA Organization.” Since Prejean maintained her crown after the nude pictures surfaced and after Shanna Moakler resigned in protest, it is unlikely that her answer in the original pageant is the root of this dismissal.
And that’s the problem. [Emphasis added.]
“And that’s the problem”? I’m not quite sure the situation is being looked at objectively. Instead I get the impression that Ms. Ruby-Sachs wanted some comfort knowing that Ms. Prejean was punished for what she said rather than her behavior and actions required in her contract (as happened). “[H]aving someone who holds bigoted and discriminatory views as a figure head for a state is unacceptable,” Ms. Ruby-Sachs writes, as if Miss California USA is the California equivalent of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As much as people would like to imagine a beauty pageant winner holds some sort of celebrity outside of the beauty pageant circuit, they really don’t. Yes, there might be some little girls in princess costumes who dream of being a beauty queen, but by-and-large Miss California would have never been taken seriously if it were not for this controversy. Out of the Miss America and Miss USA winners of the last twenty years, I recognized three of them (Ali Landry, Gretchen Carlson, and Shanna Moakler).
Sure, at the end of the day, the right girl is now Miss California. But the decision was made too late and for the wrong reasons. In the same way that racism is not tolerated in world of celebrity and politics (when it is recognized, mind you), homophobia should not be appropriate for those appointed to “represent” a state or community.
Ms. Prejean’s original comments (reproduced below from Huffington Post) were not homophobic. She stated her beliefs and her values. Was her answer poorly worded and in parts incoherent? No doubt about it. Her association with the truly homophobic National Organization for Marriage after this all transpired is worthy of critique, but her stating an opinion doesn’t make her a bad person.
I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. – Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA
Ms. Prejean’s right to free speech means that she should not have been fired for her words as Ms. Ruby-Sachs would have liked. I can understand not agreeing with Ms. Prejean’s response, and clearly Ms. Prejean is no friend to the LGBT marriage equality movement. But to state that Ms. Prejean should have been fired for having the courage to speak her convictions on a very divisive issue is ignoring that had her answer been in favor of gay marriage, we’d be seeing equal response from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. There are compromises to be reached, and the issues are not black and white. Zeal from both sides will get the struggle for marriage equality no where unless we respect differing views.
Joan Walsh Goes up Against O’Reilly on Abortion
Jun/090
Recently on his show, Fox News self-proclaimed “commentator” Bill O’Reilly engages in a heated “debate” with Joan Walsh of Salon.com over abortion, specifically late-lerm abortions and Dr. George Tiller. Again and again, he asks Walsh her feelings on late-term abortions in the context of his lead story for the night, “the far left on the attack”. Rather than summing it up, here’s the YouTube clip.
Bill O’Reilly still maintains that everything he mentioned about George Tiller was true and not inappropriate: calling him “Tiller the Baby Killer”, saying his has blood on his hands, that his legal clinic was an “abortion mill”. “My constitutional rights say I can say what I say,” O’reilly said. “You can say what you say, as vile as you say it, you can say it, and I would never condemn you for saying it. You are misguided, you have blood on your hands because you portrayed this man as a hero.” (Read Joan Walsh’s response here.)
I appreciate that O’Reilly has his views, just as Keith Olbermann on MSNBC has his views. But I’ve not heard Olbermann accuse a doctor legally practicing medicine of murder, launching incessant vile attacks over and over, no doubt inciting the intense hatred in the far-right groups that lead them to bomb abortion clinics, threaten practitioners and as we realized mere weeks ago, kill a man inside his church simply because they disagree with the service he provides. Free speech ends when you incite violence or threaten public safety. It’s why you can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theatre. I’d like to post here Olbermann’s comment on Fox News and Bill O’Reilly, and the inciting of this domestic terrorism. He suggests that an advertising boycott of Fox News would do nothing, but instead we should politely ask any establishment with Fox News Channel on their television to turn it off, and tell anyone you know who watches Fox News to stop doing so. I for one will do my part, not because I’m for the right to choose and that I believe I shouldn’t be allowed to decide the reproductive rights of any woman, but because I don’t think anyone should have to die for what they believe in. I don’t believe that a television personality, however popular or whatever their ideological vies, should be allowed to incite hatred and violence and ignore all culpability in the matter. I believe that humanity needs to be better than that.
In the Aftermath of a Murder, Thoughts on a Woman’s Right to Choose
May/090
Randal Terry, of the Pro-Life group Operation Rescue, released a statement today regarding the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Mr. Terry’s comments are disgusting at best. Calling a man who was legally practicing medicine a “mass-murderer”, and who only grives because Tiller “did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God”. That’s his only reaction to Tiller’s murder. He’s more worried that Obama will use this to “intimidate” pro-life groups? Disgusting. The man did nothing wrong, and had been the target of hate from groups like Operation Rescue for years. A man was murdered in cold blood by what amounts to a form of domestic terrorism, inside his place of worship with his wife singing in the choir as it happened, and all you have to say is that you are upset that he didn’t have time to redeem himself in the eyes of whatever God you believe in who condones such vile hatred towards a fellow human?
A disturbing political cartoon from a Catholic political cartoon blog.
There is a disturbing disconnect in America. Abortion is currently legal, and is a right given by the Supreme Court more than 35 years ago and upheld since then. If you do not agree with it, that is your right just as it is the right of the woman making a choice to have one. But it is not your place to make medical decisions for another person because of your moral beliefs. The gay marriage debate suffers many of the same issues, though is a relatively recent development. The pro-life side likes to think of abortion as black and white: you’re either against it in every form, or you must like killing babies. Andrew Sullivan (of The Atlantic) links to a discussion board website where a thread overwhelming praises Dr. Tiller’s murder. (There is a heartfelt dissent my a poster with a personal story, though it does little to assuage the mob’s irrationality.) People there, seemingly believing every word they type, think that Dr. Tiller would have killed a child if the “mother had a headache”, even going so far as to post the cartoon (from a Catholic cartoon blog) at left. The pro-choice crowd doesn’t advocate that everyone should go out and get pregnant so they can have an abortion. Far from it. They advocate that women have a right to make medical decisions regarding their body and their reproductive health, and the health of their unborn child who is incapable of making decisions.
America is keen on individual liberties such as speech or privacy, and the political right wants to make government smaller and get it out of our lives. Yet at the same time they freely associate with radical groups that wish to impose their beliefs, through law, limiting one’s personal rights. If the pro-life crowd wants to eliminate abortion, making it illegal isn’t going to help. Abortion being legal means that it’s not being done in dark back offices without proper medical oversight for the safety of the mother. Making it illegal won’t reduce the number of abortions. What will, however, is making more alternative available to mothers who may be thinking of having an abortion. Adoption being a huge one, though we need to also overhaul the adoption system in the country. And as much as it will jab a thorn into the social conservative’s side, birth control and proper sexual education will help, too. Telling children to “no have sex until marriage” is inherently flawed. Put some cookies on the table and tell a kid not to eat one, and it makes the cookies that much more tempting. How about instead we teach our kids that yes, waiting to have sex until you are mature and ready is the best course of action. But if you do have sex, here is how to do it safely and responsibly. If you want to avoid abortion, avoid the unwanted pregnancy.
The pro-life side looks up to Gov. Palin and her daughter as beacons for women who chose life and carried their pregnancies to term (their situations being having a child with a disability and an unplanned pregnancy). And they both may believe “in life” with the full force of their convictions. But let us not ignore that, in doing so, they made a choice to keep their pregnancies.
A Tale of Two Congressional Districts
May/090
Letter from Rep. Jenkins (R, KS 2) thanking me for contacting her office.
I received a letter today from my representative in Congress, Lynn Jenkins (R, Kansas 2). Because I’m a geek, I was very excited. I knew that Rep. Jenkins didn’t support the legislation I contacted her office about, H.R. 1913 (PDF version), the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, but it was nice to get a letter from her because, as aforementioned, I’m a big geek.
I may not have voted for Rep. Jenkins, but she still is my representative in Congress. That’s why I urged her to vote for H.R. 1913, and that’s why I’ll urge her to vote for other legislation I find important in the future (and urge her to vote nay on legislation I disagree with). It’s all part of the democratic process. I know that we don’t agree on a number of issues, and I definitely know that Senators Brownback (he’s got a National Debt clock on his website, and he gave a speech on the Senate floor congratulating the Kansas Jayhawks after the 2008 NCAA Basketball championship) and Roberts aren’t going to be swayed when I urge them to vote for the Senate’s equivalent of the hate crimes bill. The beauty of our political system is that the elected officials are there for all of their constituency, not just the ones that voted for them.
Now, Lawrence, Kansas is a bit of an oddity when it comes to representation in the US House of Representatives. Lawrence (and by extension, Douglas County) has a history of being fairly liberal, especially compared to the rest of Kansas. It voted for Obama 64% in the last election, besting McCain by a margin of 15,000 votes. (One county in far northwestern Kansas voted for McCain 86%.) Because it swings so far to the left, it would have a large influence on the Congressional district. If you were a GOP-controlled House in 2002 deciding to reapportion congressional districts, what would you do? Why, you’d take the western half of Lawrence, take it out of the KS-3, and put it into the KS-2.
Map of the KS-2 and KS-3
While for the KS-2 has been held by Rep. Dennis Moore (D) since 1999, Congresswoman Nancy Boyda was the first Democrat in the KS-2 since Jim Slattery (1983-1995, when Sam Brownback was elected prior to his election to the Senate, filling the spot left open by Bob Dole’s resignation). While there is no obvious situation recently where the outcome of the race would have been affected by not splitting Lawrence, Moore faced close elections after the 2002 redistricting plan took effect. The elections would have been far less close had the western half of Lawrence not gone to the KS-2. The differences in elections aren’t major, but had all of Lawrence gone to the KS-2 (all things since 2002 being the same), Nancy Boyda would have won reelection against Rep. Jenkins in 2008, and Dennis Moore would have still kept his seat thanks to the 60,000 vote margin between him and his Republican challenger.
There was a lawsuit in 2002 over the redistricting plan (I’ll warn you: it’s full of legalese and isn’t all that interesting) where one of the criteria for redistricting was to keep “communities of interest” in the same district. One argument was that Fort Riley and nearby Junction City should stay in the same district because the school district largely serves Ft. Riley and, because of that, receives additional federal funding. They argued that splitting it into two districts would hinder their representative in Congress’ ability to help direct funding (or something along those lines). From what I read of the case, it came down to the fact that people really didn’t want Ft. Riley/Junction City split because of the federal funding it gets. At the same time, there were guidelines where communities really shouldn’t be split and they should try to keep the districts following county lines because “Kansas counties have historically been significant political units” and “election of the Kansas members of Congress is a political process requiring political organizations which in Kansas are developed in county units”. I have a feeling that the long-standing Republican-controlled “supermajority” in the legislature had a lot to do with what got split rather oddly. They wanted to keep the federal dollars for the Junction City schools serving Ft. Riley, and keeping Lawrence in one district would be a large addition of “liberal” voters to the KS-2, or keep Lawrence in the KS-3 and give the Dems a better chance. Splitting off part of Johnson County was a no-go as well (even if Bonner Springs would likely be more accurately represented along with the city of Basehor and Leavenworth County) because of the large political sway it holds being the most populous metropolitan area in the state. The rationale was that most Kansas congressional districts are fairly evenly divided in terms of the population according to the 2000 Census. True, but is having everything equal really worth splitting Lawrence down the middle? Splitting it’s school district, business, neighbors between districts?
Left of the red line is KS-2, right is KS-3.
Yes, They Are Bigots
Apr/090
National Organization for Marriage (NOM) president Maggie Gallagher wrote a letter to the Editor of the New York Times last Friday, upset that Frank Rich titled his opinion column about NOM’s “Gathering Storm” commercial The Bigots’ Last Hurrah. (The word “bigot” only appears twice in the whole column: in the title, and the last sentence.)
Ms. Gallagher writes:
I am not the only one Mr. Rich is calling a bigot. In a March CBS News poll, only a third of Americans said they supported gay marriage.
As with most polling and statistics, she’s right and wrong. The poll she’s referencing is this one (Adobe PDF), released April 3rd. The question was “Which comes closest to your view?”, and the options were as follows:
- “Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry”, OR
- “Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry”, OR
- “There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship”
The results are as follows, broken down by political party affiliation in the first table, and then with three previous samples in the second table:
Total
%Rep
%Dem
%Ind
%Allowed to marry 33 6 46 37 Allowed to form civil unions 27 34 23 26 No legal recognition 35 59 26 30 Don’t Know / Didn’t Answer 5 1 5 7 Table 1: Party Affiliation
Now Aug 2008 Mar 2007 Mar 2004 Legally marry 33% 34% 30% 22% Form civil unions 27% 22% 28% 33% No legal recognition 35% 39% 26% 40% Table 2: Historical Samples
So only 33% of the 1142 respondents in the poll are in favor of allowing legal same-sex marriages, but that number is 11 points higher than five years ago. And respondents selecting “no legal recognition” has gone down in the past five years as well, reaching a low of nearly only 25% in 2007. Clearly, it’s still a divided issue. But support for legal marriage has risen in the past several years. As Mr. Rich stated in his column:
[T]he majority of Americans who support civil unions for gay couples has been steadily growing. Younger voters are fine with marriage. Generational changeover will seal the deal. Crunching all the numbers, the poll maven Nate Silver sees same-sex marriage achieving majority support “at some point in the 2010s.”
Ms. Gallagher, in her brief letter, ends saying that she is “proud of the ‘Gathering Storm’ ad precisely because it lets the American people know the truth: Gay marriage has consequences”. Consequences, she says? Like the ones in the “Gathering Storm” ad? The Human Rights Campaign did a good job of giving some more background behind these “consequences”:
The examples they cite in the ad are:
- A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
- A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
- A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California [Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group], determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.
Not really consequences. All of these things are as a result of failure to abide by state laws when involved in the public sphere. Doctors take an oath to do no harm and are supposed to provide care to anyone needing it, the second was more sexual orientation discrimination than anything else, and the third involved parents wanting to dictate what all children were taught. If they feel so strongly about their beliefs, they are free to teach that to their children. But a public school setting has the responsibility to be inclusive to all of the students, their families, and their backgrounds. We don’t teach in schools that single parents aren’t fit to raise a child, after all.
This assertion of “name-calling” is–much like the very act itself–childish. Does Ms. Gallagher not understand that her discrimination of gay and lesbian couples is equivalent to name-calling? She thinks that marriage matters because children need a mother and a father, and has “spent the last five years warning” that opponents of gay marriage would be called bigots. Well, by definition, aren’t they?
bigot
Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
If the shoe fits, wear it. (In the interest of fairness, it could also be said that the pro-gay-marriage side is bigoted towards those against it. Much like “special interests” and “pork barrel spending”, it’s all in how you look at it.) As for this mother and a father bit, plenty of children are raised by just one parent. And since when did marriage automatically bring raising children into the argument? Raising children either by birth or adoption is exclusive of marriage. There are plenty of gay and straight marriages and committed relationships where no children are involved. Most definitions of marriage are also exclusive of the child-rearing family structure.
If you’re going to make an argument, at least try not to come across like this is your first rodeo. Even in her appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball opposite HRC President Joe Solmonese, Ms. Gallagher came across as confrontational and standoffish, like an ill-prepared middle school debate student. Her need to write to the New York Times because someone referred to her beliefs for what they are just highlights the fact of how clueless the National Organization for Marriage is. They are a one-trick pony, with limited visibility since their “Gathering Storm” and failed 2M4M campaign (they failed to register the website 2M4M.org, now run by a gay marriage advocate). They issued a press release praising Stephen Colbert’s parody of the “Gathering Storm” ad, clearly missing the point. Her appearance with Joe Solmonese on Hardball appears below, from the HRC’s YouTube page.
What Are You Compromising?
Mar/090
The recent news on the Proposition Eight lawsuits in California have brought the issue of gay marriage back to the forefront (or at least closer than it has been the last couple of months) of the news. And while that decision can be up to 80-some-odd days away still, there was an interesting Op-Ed in the New York Times from February 22 that just now caught my attention when it was featured as part of the AfterElton.com “Best. Gay. Week. Ever.” (Goes to the third page page.) for March 5. It talks of a “compromise” on the gay marriage issue.
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.
Now while I support gay marriage and hope that one day it will be a reality in this country, I’m also a realist when it comes to the social/political landscape of America. I know that the Religious Right thinks that marriage is some 5,000-year-old sacrament that has always been about the love between a man and a woman and the procreation thereof. (Conveniently ignoring that not even 5,000 years ago marriages were often arranged, included large dowries, had age discrepancies of 25 or more years, and were ways for families to gain power. A legal contract, if you will.) I also know that religion did not found our country and that Americans have a freedom of religion that includes a freedom from religion. With these two truths in my mind, I’ve thought that the most practical interim solution is federally-recognized civil unions: conferring all of the benefits of “heterosexual” or “traditional” marriages to same-sex partners. For one reason or another, the word itself, marriage, seems to be a huge wedge issue. This effectively tables that idea for later debate or legal decision while not having tens of thousands of gay couples wait on the hopes that one day their love will be recognized by the government.
I agree with the Op-Ed in principal. I think it’s a huge step forward in advancing marriage equality, even if it creates a “second class” of marriage that doesn’t call itself marriage. Separate but equal can be hashed out later. (The May 2008 ruling by the California Supreme Court was, actually, on the basis that the same-sex wording of “civil unions” instead of marriage violated the same-sex couples’ constitutional rights.) What I have a hard time understanding is this provision for “religious-conscience” exemptions. Why is the government saying to religious groups/organizations that they don’t need to recognize these same-sex unions? Is there a federal law that requires these same groups to recognize any heterosexual marriage? From the AfterElton.com article (written by Brent Hartinger):
This makes some sense to me. Yes, it’s a compromise, and it’s outrageous that we’re having to “compromise” on any of [our] rights. But let’s face it: this is a country where every one of the thirty states that has voted on same-sex marriage, even “liberal” California, has voted to ban or overturn them.
The fact is, we’re already “compromising” by agreeing to live in a country with no federal GLBT marriage rights whatsoever. This proposal could be a better compromise. Better still, if federal marriage rights were widely available, I think there’d be much more pressure on states to pass these laws, and it would also create a stigma where even private religious institutions that discriminated would be forced to defend their decisions.
Yes, the proposal outlined in the Op-Ed could be better. But compromise is a common-ground between two sides. No one is completely happy with it, but it helps to bridge a divisive gap. And yes, a federal civil union law would ultimately bring states to pass similar legislation or recognize other state’s civil unions in full, the same as any other marriage. (Federal recognition of same-sex civil unions would, I’d imagine, put state-level DOMA and constitutional amendments prohibiting civil unions up for review as it would directly interfere with federally-granted rights. That plus the Full Faith and Credit clause already applied to heterosexual marriages.) I take offense to “creating a stigma where even private religious institutions that discriminated would be forced to defend” themselves. Is it wise for the gay rights movement to force a private religious group to recognize civil unions? Are we talking about employment discrimination? Twenty states, plus the District of Columbia (and 140 cities) have enacted some sort of sexual orientation anti-discrimination law (source, with map). All employees of the Federal government are also covered under a similar sexual orientation ban. Companies are also free to enact company policies that prohibit such discrimination and even confer benefits when state or federal law would not automatically do so. When hiring an employee, one can’t discriminate on the basis of religion. I’d imagine someone working for a religious-affiliated group would be subject to the same laws. Giving the same group a pass on discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong (especially in the aforementioned states). But that’s employment, and similar strife was encountered with all previous employment discrimination battles.
Getting back to the issue of civil unions and religion, no religion or church should be forced to recognize a same-sex union. My understanding is that you have to be a Catholic to be married in the Catholic church. Should we force Catholic churches to perform marriages between two protestants? Or when one of the parties has been divorced? Church and State have become strange bedfellows in recent years, but let us remember that there is an intended separation between the two. There are some religions or congregations that will perform same-sex unions. There are many more that will not. And that is their right in accordance with their beliefs. I am not one to judge how they choose to worship or how they practice their faith no matter what they may think of me, or my own faith. Church recognition of marriage is not essential for the validity of the marriage. A marriage in the eyes of the state is a contract between two parties. Each religion can give this same union a higher, spiritual meaning. Atheists, agnostics, and people of mixed or no faith marry every day. I’m sure there is religious opposition to some of those groups, but we haven’t legislated them down to second-class status. Why should same-sex couples be any different? I have never been given a reason why same-sex marriage (or civil unions) is bad, aside from ones rooted in religion or morality. I do not judge how you live your life, so who are you to judge how I live mine?
President Obama has stated that he is for giving same-sex civil unions the same federal rights as marriage. With this “compromise”, that statement can likely become a reality and provide hope to every couple who wants to be treated just like everyone else.
Flickr
