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.
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.
Justifiable Discrimination
Nov/080
In an Associated Press story on MSNBC.com today, advocacy group Equality Utah is asking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon church) to support several legislative initiatives in the upcoming year.
Equality Utah said Monday it will help draft five bills for the 2009 session, which starts in January. Three of the bills seek equal treatment for domestic partners on hospitalization, medical care, housing, employment and probate rights.
A fourth bill would create a domestic partner registry. The fifth would repeal a part of Utah’s marriage-defining constitutional amendment that Equality Utah Public Policy Manager Will Carlson said has been “misinterpreted to avoid any recognition of gay couples.”
According to Equality Utah Chairwoman Stephanie Pappas, LDS Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated that the church does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships. They do, however, oppose allowing gays to marry. The passage of California’s Proposition Eight was thanks in part to contributions from or at the urging of the LDS leadership, be it financial or urging members in California to vote for the measure.
The five pieces of legislation, as outlined above, would be a huge step forward as far as gay rights in Utah goes. They would, for the most part, confer some of the same rights given to heterosexual married couples and provide anti-discrimination to same-sex partners for housing, medical, and real estate matters. And this isn’t just a Utah-only situation. There are other states that have similar domestic partnership laws (California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington). California was, up until the aforementioned Proposition Eight, one of only three states that allowed for same-sex marriage. Connecticut used to be on the list of states with domestic partnership laws, but as of tomorrow as it so happens, they will become the only state other than Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legal. Vermont, California, New Jersey, and New Hampshire laws for domestic partnership explicitly define said unions as having the same rights and responsibilities of marriage, as applicable to state law. Mane, Hawaii, D.C., Oregon, and Washington laws offer varying “subsets” of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
Based on the above list, 20% of our great and free Union allows domestic partnerships. If we add Connecticut and Massachusetts to that number, we’re up to 24%. But those are only states. Federally, the “Defense of Marriage Act” (1 U.S.C § 7) limits the recognition of a marriage to heterosexual couples. This includes everything from federal tax law, to the Census Bureau. (Married in Massachusetts and gay? Sorry, you’re single according to the census in 2010.) Not to mention application of health care beneficiary status (some policies designate “spouse” to be as defined by the United States government). According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), more than 1,138 “rights and responsibilities” are conferred to US citizens upon marriage. Most “day-to-day” rights are governed by the states, as has been the case for the last 200-plus years of our country’s existence. In fact, traditionally, the federal government recognized a marriage by any state, regardless if another state recognized that same marriage (as was the case with interracial marriage before the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision). In 1996, when the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was passed, no state was even close to allowing same-sex marriage; 12 years later and we have two, plus all of the domestic partnership states. What is a country to do? How on earth will we handle varying and often conflicting state laws, not to mention federal law?
Historically, as the federal government had no laws defining marriage, states were free to create their own set of rules. That is clearly outlined in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. (Some argue about “Ninth Amendment Rights”, though the Ninth Amendment doesn’t expressly outline any rights. It only serves as a “guide” on reading the Constitution; that is, just because it doesn’t say so in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a right of the people. This was used in the majority decision in Roe v. Wade.) Aside from the anti-miscegenation laws up until 1967, states have recognized that marriages from other states, under Article Four, Section 1 of the Constitution (the “Full Faith and Credit” clause). This is also how your Kansas drivers license permits you to drive in the state of Missouri, or the commonwealth of Virginia. And while some states that recognize domestic partnerships for same-sex couples also recognize similar laws from other states, any state that where such unions are illegal or unconstitutional do not (also, states like New Jersey recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as being legally equivalent to New Jersey’s own civil unions). Same-sex marriages conducted outside of the United States (in Canada, for example) are only recognized in New Mexico, New York, and Rhode Island.
What we have here is an odd legal mess where gay citizen are treated as second class, either by a denial of right to marry, or an absence of equivalent domestic partnership laws. Of the states where domestic partnerships or civil unions are legal, most agree that they should have the same legal rights as marriage. New Jersey’s state Supreme Court ruled that gay couples should be granted the same “rights, benefits, and responsibilities as heterosexual couples with respect to their relationships”. While the court was split four-to-three, the difference between them was whether or not granting marriage to same-sex couple would be the resolution, or if a separate yet equal legal status would pass scrutiny on a constitutional level. They left it to the state legislature, avoiding a decision. Then-Chief Justice Poritz led the dissent in the decision, saying:
What we name things matters, language matters…Labels set people apart surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities…By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the State declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples. Ultimately the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as “real” marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage.
Connecticut’s path to gay marriage started with a 2004 suit by the group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, on behalf of eight couples arguing the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is discriminatory under the state’s constitution. A Superior Court judge ruled against them, stating “Civil union and marriage in Connecticut now share the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law. … The Connecticut Constitution requires that there be equal protection and due process of law, not that there be equivalent nomenclature for such protection and process.” On October 10, 2008, Connecticut’s State Supreme Court ruled that a “separate but equal” approach and denying gays the right to marry did violate the equality and liberty rules in the state constitution.
Coming back to the Utah story, and the already existing laws in the aforementioned states, is giving equal benefits under a different name “good enough”? Is a second-class status to same-sex couples acceptable in this day and age? Two states say it isn’t, and while that may be “activist judges” instilling their belief upon the majority, is it not the job of our government and our judiciary to protect minority rights? Over 18,000 couples have legally married in California before Tuesday’s Proposition Eight, and because a simple statistical majority happened to disagree with that right was taken away. In 1967, was allowing interracial marriage overwhelmingly popular in the states where it was illegal? No, but equality and the law don’t have to be popular to the majority.
I’m leaving you with two recent thoughts on this issue that are far less broad than my hastily-written views above. The first is MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, and his “Special Comment” on Proposition Eight:
The second is a post from fellow blogger and friend-of-a-friend Jake. It’s an emotional piece that provides an often-overlooked human element to this struggle. I encourage you to comment should you feel the desire. I do ask that you keep it respectful and keep it on-topic. I agree with free speech, but there is a line where freedom of speech becomes hate. That and this is my blog, and I have the right to moderate offensive or inappropriate comments.
Flickr
