July 3, 2009
by David Link
Commentators on the post regarding the death of Seaman August Provost bring up what will probably be a red herring in the public debate: whether this was a hate crime. The death is being investigated as one, but I think this will distract from the real problem with DADT.
I am assuming that, in the military, there is a fairly high standard for what counts as harassment, since the daily environment must balance the need for brutal discipline against the necessity for young men and women to blow off a little steam. Facts may prove otherwise, but if reports are true that Provost told his family about being harassed, it was probably not just insults and nude pictures posted in his locker. We'll see.
Reporting that, or anything like it would subject Provost to being thrown out of the Navy for telling them he was gay -- unless he was willing to lie about that, which doesn't seem to be the case. And his harasser would obviously know that fact. In that sense, DADT is a bully's best friend.
The Navy doesn't have a report here -- it has a death. The first question on any investigator's list will be "Why?" Again, facts may show otherwise, but Provost's partner certainly seems convinced it was because Provost was gay. If reports are correct that he was both shot and burned, this would seem to be something more than just a minor incident gone bad.
For purposes of whether it was a hate crime, that motive is quite important. But even if there were no hate crime statute, this appears to be a murder. If it is because Provost was gay, it doesn't matter whether extra time is added to the punishment for that motivation. The problem is that DADT short-circuited any reasonable method for Provost to seek help from his superiors if he was concerned about a particular colleague's actions. DADT gives aid and comfort to those who want to intimidate homosexuals. That fact should not be lost in a search for the killer's motive.
Permalink | 1 Comment(s)
July 3, 2009
by Dale Carpenter
I recently stumbled across an interesting essay discussing the connection between free markets and gay marriage, written in 2006 by the prominent legal theorist Ronald Dworkin in the New York Review of Books.
Dworkin argues that culture is shaped, among other things, both organically and by law. Organically, it is shaped "by the discrete decisions of individual people about what to produce and what to buy and at what price, about what to read and say, about what to wear, what music to listen to, and what god if any to pray to." But our culture "is also shaped by law, that is, by collective decisions taken by elected legislators about how we must all behave." Which of these processes – organic or legal – should predominate in the case of same-sex marriage?
What’s most interesting about the essay is Dworkin’s critique of conservatives who oppose state regulation of markets forbidding evolution in economic practices and arrangements but who invite state regulation of marriage forbidding evolution in familial practices and arrangements.
Socialist societies do give people in power the authority to shape the economic environment for everyone by stipulating prices and the allocation of resources and production. But we insist on a free market in goods and services: we insist, that is, that the economic culture be shaped by a composite of individual decisions reflecting individual values and wishes.
The socialism of a centrally controlled economy is an insult to liberty as well as to efficiency—a view most enthusiastically held by the conservatives who favor a religious model for non-economic culture. They do not realize that liberty is even more perilously at stake in the religious than the economic case. . . .
Everything I said about the cultural heritage and value of marriage is equally true of the general institution of religion: religion is an irreplaceable cultural resource in which billions of people find immense and incomparable value. Its meaning, like that of marriage, has evolved over a great many centuries. But its meaning, again like that of marriage, is subject to quite dramatic change through organic processes . . . . American religious conservatives, even those who regard themselves as evangelical, do not imagine that the cultural meaning of religion should be frozen by laws prohibiting people with new visions from access to the title, legal status, or tax and economic benefits of religious organization.
Within broad boundaries, conservatives believe, markets should be shaped by individual decisions. The presumption in markets should be against central regulation. A similar principle would apply to religious beliefs and practices – they should be allowed to develop organically.
Same-sex marriage is the product of an ongoing, organic process that reflects the values of millions of our fellow citizens living in actual families. The opposition to same-sex marriage, at least in so far as it is grounded in dogma, amounts to this: We know the truth, we have the power to write that truth into law, and we will use our power to stop any further development contradicting it. Applied to markets, conservatives would call it socialism.
Permalink | 6 Comment(s)
July 2, 2009
by David Link
You don’t need to go much further than the death of Seaman August Provost to show how contemptible Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is. He was not killed in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or off the coast of North Korea; he was killed in San Diego.
At Camp Pendelton.
And it is very likely he was killed because he was gay – a fact his non-military partner said was known among Provost’s trusted friends at Pendelton.
Provost told family members he was being harassed, and their common-sense advice to him goes to the heart of DADT’s incoherence: he should tell his supervisor.
Except, of course, that would be “telling.”
DADT not only prevented the Navy from being able to investigate this harassment (though they can investigate it now that he’s dead), it is exactly the kind of policy that sends a message to any potential harasser that our government views homosexuality as something wrong.
We can finesse this policy till the cows come home, and maybe mitigate a bit of the surface problems of DADT. But the deeper problem, the problem of what it says about homosexuals to heterosexuals in the military is the iniquitous heart of the policy, and that message will keep being sent as long as it exists.
Permalink | 6 Comment(s)
July 1, 2009
by David Link
Dale Carpenter’s tart question about the President’s options on DADT suggested to me that we may be invoking the wrong political analogy. While the discussion has tended to focus on whether we are or aren’t similar to African-Americans in their struggle for equality, the more apt comparison might be whether we are to the Obama administration what the religious right was to George W. Bush.
For eight years, Bush got away with condescension and empty gestures: faith-based this and that, a limp, piety-draped announcement of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and all the cooing and coddling and coded insider messaging any insulated special interest could ask for. It’s clear that his administration seldom viewed the right as a group needing anything more than stroking – and that’s when they weren’t expressing outright contempt for the religious leaders to one another. For their part, the religious zealots knew they had no reasonable political alternative, and hoped (and prayed) for the best. At least they were inside the White House.
I am hopeful the Obama administration doesn’t view us, in private, with the derision and cynicism that was so characteristic of the Bush advisors. But we know Rahm Emanuel, in particular, is haunted by what he calls “the consequences of ’94.” I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe he views lesbians and gay men as a kind of political irritation, an itch that must be scratched, as his Republican predecessors in the White House viewed the far right.
I’m not alone in that fear, as gay criticism of Monday night’s cocktail party demonstrates. It was an event designed for our insiders, by insiders to cater to insiders. The President said many very good things, up to and including, “I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps.”
That expression of accountability is fine as far as it goes. But kept promises don’t include cocktail parties or gestures. The administration certainly needs some time to address the overt discrimination against homosexuals that federal law demands to this very day. But it is up to us to determine how long the President (or Emanuel) can exploit our hopes and string us along.
To me, that means, not cuddling up to us in private, but using this President’s phenomenal resources of good will and articulation to nudge the public discussion forward. And he can’t do that by just talking to us.
It is that, above all, that makes him so radically different from Bush. His speech to us on Monday suggests that he understands our issues well enough to take on that task. Not today, and maybe not even this summer. But at some point he needs to say something publicly.
As a whole, Americans are past ready for repeal of DADT. If the problem is truly the military, then Obama needs to speak publicly to the military. If Stephen Colbert can rib the troops about DADT, I think they’re probably willing to listen to their Commander-in-Chief.
And while the public is still not entirely ready for nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage, Obama cannot continue to allow federal law to recognize only the lowest common denominator of state discrimination against same-sex couples. DOMA is, and will continue to be, the wall that politics bangs its – and our – head against time after time until it is changed. He cannot assure success by addressing the American public. But he can continue to indulge prejudice by commiserating only with us.
Rahm Emanuel has reason to fear public reaction to gay equality. But that’s because he lacks the rhetorical skills his boss possesses. He has to follow, and cater to public opinion because his strength is not in changing it.
The President, though, does have that talent – in abundance. He has addressed the Muslim world directly, and showed himself fearless during the campaign in defending himself against the most demeaning political charges, absurd claims that would have reduced a lesser candidate to fits of frustration.
It is that promise, explicitly, that I want him to keep for us: the promise of representing us to those portions of the public who still harbor fear and misunderstanding. He can’t do that by holding cocktail parties for us, or weakly asking Congress to act. Congress is not famous for leading – that is the President’s job. We will continue to do our part, but now we need his eloquence. The rest will follow.
Permalink | 1 Comment(s)
June 29, 2009
by David Link
I'm usually skeptical of initial reports about incidents that have political consequences, since there is so much room for misunderstanding, misinterpretation and other mischief. I approached the first stories about Saturday night's police raid of a gay bar in Fort Worth, Texas with that wariness. Seriously? A raid on a gay bar on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots?
The first stories I read described some pretty drunk patrons, and I assumed some partying had gotten out of hand. But that sort of thing is hardly uncommon in bars, and it's not often the police show up. Box Turtle Bulletin is covering this story extremely well, and the only statement I could see about why the police came to the Rainbow Lounge is that the police said they had "anonymous tips" possibly from "disgruntled ex-bartenders." The first excuse is pretty thin, but might be true -- however implausible, or indefensible if such anonymous tips are not also relied on to conduct similar raids on heterosexual bars. The second, though, borders on lying malpractice. The bar had only been open for a week. Is that really the best they could come up with? I'm not that familiar with the ways of Texas, but can they really get fired and disgruntled that fast there?
But the big news here, judging from the statement by Joel Burns, a Forth Worth city councilman, is that there may even be some political accountability for any officials who got out of line:
I want all citizens of Texas and Fort Worth to know and be assured that the laws and ordinances of our great State and City will be applied fairly, equally and without malice or selective enforcement. I consider this to be part of "The Fort Worth Way" here. As an elected representative of the city of Fort Worth, I am calling for an immediate and thorough investigation of the actions of the City of Fort Worth Police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in relation to the incident at the Rainbow Lounge earlier this morning, June 28, 2009.
It is unfortunate that this incident occurred in Fort Worth and even more so to have occurred on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall protests. Unlike 40 years ago, though, the people of this community have elective representation that will make sure our government is accountable and that the rights of all of its citizens are protected. I are working together with our Mayor, Police Chief, the City of Fort Worth Human Relations Commission, and our State Legislative colleagues to get a complete and accurate accounting of what occurred.
Rest assured that neither the people of Fort Worth, nor the city government of Fort Worth, will tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens. And know that the GLBT Community is an integral part of the economic and cultural life of Fort Worth.
Every Fort Worth citizen deserves to have questions around this incident answered and I am working aggressively toward that end.
This is something -- a politician making a statement recognizing the role of lesbians and gay men in the community -- that could not have happened t in 1969, even in New York. And its simple fairness (even if Mr. Burns is in the minority in his sentiments) cannot be impugned. It is entirely fair and proper to have the police explain, in public, their side of the story. And I can't wait to hear what they have to say.
Permalink | 1 Comment(s)
June 28, 2009
by David Link
Frank Rich’s Sunday essay in the NY Times is about gay rights and Stonewall, and it goes without saying it’s worth reading.
A couple of sentences struck me:
After the gay liberation movement was born at Stonewall, this strand of history advanced haltingly until the 1980s. It took AIDS and the new wave of gay activism it engendered to fully awaken many, including me, to the gay people all around them.
This is true, but goes deeper than I think Rich realizes. He was, after all, a theater critic for Time magazine during the 70s, after which he took up the same role for the New York Times.
It’s worth thinking about that for a bit. A man writing about the theater in America in the 1970s and 80s could not possibly have been a stranger to gay people. So what, exactly, did the new wave of gay activism enlighten him to?
Simply asking that question implicates the unique role – or non-role – that lesbians and gay men played in the minds of Americans prior to Stonewall. And it shows why Stonewall – and the earlier Black Cat riots in L.A., and other uprisings of the time – were not only necessary but inevitable. We were, in fact, there, all along, but existed in a parallel universe of indeterminacy; somehow not quite real -- or, at least, not the same sort of beings as everyone else.
The events at Stonewall and the Black Cat bar occurred roughly simultaneously on opposite ends of the country, and apparently had no direct connection to one another. Each was a reaction to its own form of local police harassment, the kind of thing we’d gotten used to over the years. But their similarities can’t be ignored. Without anyone making any conscious decision, the injustice and the isolation -- the lack of any formal role in the society -- boiled over. Stonewall and Black Cat were fundamental assertions of our existence. It would take another quarter of a century for us to find the articulation those protesters could have used: We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.
But they didn’t need slogans to make their point. They showed up, and in those days that was plenty. Some of their stories are now available at a place few of them could ever have imagined: AARP has a section devoted to Stonewall.
Tomorrow will be an important anniversary, both to look back and to look forward. But Frank Rich inadvertently reminds us that we should think a bit about the trip from there to here – the journey from citizenship without rights to, well, whatever we can obtain through the grace of the political branches.
Permalink | 3 Comment(s)
June 27, 2009
by Brian Chase
Some lawyer who humbly describes himself as "one of the most feared and revered attorneys in San Francisco" has filed a lawsuit in California state court trying to overturn Prop 8. Didn't we just lose that case? Does he think that he's going to scare the California Supreme Court into changing its mind?
Permalink | 0 Comment(s)
June 26, 2009
by Dale Carpenter
Every year toward the end of June, gay pride time, we are treated to another round of reminiscences about the good old radical days of gay liberation, laced with resentment about how we've now betrayed some founding principles. Reading these essays is like walking into a home full of bean-bag chairs and shag carpeting. It's memorable in its way, but you don't want to live there.
In this 40th year after the riot at the Stonewall Inn, the most prominent of these nostalgists is long-time activist Peter Tatchell in Britain, who wites in The Guardian about his experiences in the Gay Liberation Front (GLF):
Our vision was a new sexual democracy, without homophobia and misogyny. Erotic shame and guilt would be banished, together with socially enforced monogamy and male and female gender roles. There would be sexual freedom and human rights for everyone – queer and straight. Our message was "innovate, don't assimilate".
GLF never called for equality. The demand was liberation. We wanted to change society, not conform to it. . . .
In the 40 years since Stonewall and GLF, there has been a massive retreat from that radical vision. Most LGBT people no longer question the values, laws and institutions of society. They are content to settle for equal rights within the status quo. On the age of consent, the LGBT movement accepted equality at 16, ignoring the criminalisation of younger gay and straight people. Don't the under-16s have sexual human rights too? Equality has not helped them. All they got was equal injustice.
Whereas GLF saw marriage and the family as a patriarchal prison for women, gay people and children, today the LGBT movement uncritically champions same-sex marriage and families. It has embraced traditional heterosexual aspirations lock stock and barrel. How ironic. While straight couples are deserting marriage, same-sexers are rushing to embrace it: witness the current legal fight in California for the right to marry. Are queers the new conservatives, the 21st-century suburbanites?
There's hardly ever been a more succinct statement of the way the gay civil rights movement has changed -- I would say matured -- over the past 40 years. Stripped of the pejoratives, Tatchell's essay accurately describes the main differences. Witness the struggle to serve in the military, to join the Boy Scouts, and most of all, to marry. This is a way of saying, Yes, many of us do accept the fundamental values, laws, and institutions of our society. Equality of rights and obligations within those institutions is ennobling, not mindless. We doubt that all innovation is good. We're not trying to abolish "gender" or monogamy. There is an appropriate age threshold for sexual consent. We think "assimilation" is just a patronizing way to describe living our lives without conforming to your romantic notions of queerness. Sexual freedom? Anybody with an apartment key has that.
And yes, we want marriage. Marriage is not a "patriarchal prison" for our partners and children. It is freedom from a queer prison of perpetual grievance and mythologized otherness. It is getting off the tiger's back of adolescence and accepting responsibilities for families and communities.
Tatchell and his generation of radical liberationists deserve our eternal gratitude for their courage and their success. Tatchell himself has been fearless in his pursuit of, whether he would say so or not, equality for gays and lesbians. The liberationists who gave us Stonewall hastened us down a path (already begun long before them) that has brought us to the edge of unprecedented respect and acceptance.
But they do not deserve our uncritical acceptance of their values or goals. We are their children but we've grown up and moved out of the house. They do not own the movement, they do not censor its messages or license its membership, and they are not gatekeepers of its future.
Permalink | 11 Comment(s)
June 25, 2009
by Jonathan Rauch
Only 52 years late, the U.S. government has officially apologized to Dr. Frank Kameny, the gay-rights pioneer, for firing him from his federal job because he was gay. The Washington Blade has an account of what must have been a deeply touching ceremony. And Dale Carpenter has Frank's characteristically mischievous reaction:
I am looking forward to receipt of a check for 52 years of back pay, which I can well use.
But, more seriously, in a phrase that I've used in a related connection recently, all this is like a story-book ending where all issues are resolved. I'm usually not very emotional, but I haven't really come back down to ground yet in all of this.
This just a week after Frank received a tribute from President Obama himself. After signing an executive order granting some partner benefits to federal employees, the president handed the pen to Frank.
Now in his 80s, Frank is blessed to see the turn events have taken—a turn he has done so much to bring about. And we are blessed to be witnesses.
Permalink | 3 Comment(s)
June 25, 2009
by David Link
I would not have wished for Mark Sanford's correspondence with his Argentine lover to have been made public. Most of us, I think, who have impulsively committed such intimate and passionate feelings to writing would cringe to have them published — and certainly would not want them tossed into the crass and dehumanizing environment that Sanford is now confronting.
But they are public, and I could not help myself. I read them. And, honestly, I found them quite beautiful. They are not momentous or articulate or consequential in the way that literature can be. But they are affecting and passionate and deeply, deeply human. In their poignant clumsiness, they reveal, not only two adults very much in one another's complicated thrall, but something very important about the unpredictable, irresistible imperative of love.
Which is another way of saying that I think this anti-gay Republican politician from South Carolina has helped make the argument for gay marriage in a way that few of us have been able to.
Take this passage, from Maria, about their feelings for one another: "Sometimes you don't choose things, they just happen ..." Could there be a more universal, recognizable definition of how feelings of love have no identifiable provenance? Even though it was written by a woman who seems quite heterosexual, can anyone who is homosexual avoid hearing echoes of "I didn't choose to be gay" in this expression of futility in the face of love? Maria goes on, in words that any lesbian or gay man who has finally stopped resisting their truest, inner self could recognize: "I can't redirect my feelings and I am very happy with mine towards you."
Or compare this passage Sanford wrote, with what we have argued so invariably for decades: "The rarest of all commodities in this world is love. It is that thing that we all yearn for at some level — to be simply loved unconditionally for nothing more than who we are — not what we can get, give or become." It is sentiments like this that separate Sanford from some politicians whose scandals have been swept in with his — Elliot Spitzer, Larry Craig and David Vitter. There is no (fair) comparison between their pursuit of sexual gratification and Sanford's deep, personal affection for, even adoration of, a woman not his wife.
This is all the difference in the world — both for Sanford, and particularly for us. The history of prejudice against lesbians and gay men comes primarily from the notion that it is our sexual natures which drive us. And if that were true, marriage would not need to be of any concern to us now that the sodomy laws are gone.
But in this historical moment of sexual decriminalization, marriage is even more important to us — and for the same reason it's important to heterosexuals. It involves something so much greater than just sex. It involves love, the kind that takes you by surprise and leaves you breathless — and a little bit obsessed. Marriage is an institution that channels love, tames it and denatures it some, for a longer-term benefit — not only to children but to the couple.
Adultery is a problem — an eternal one — because it interrupts the stability of marriage. It is, in fact, an impulse we should control but, as we see again and again, that unpremeditated love has a force and logic of its own.
Sanford's adultery is wrong, but his heartrending experience is all too human. It is that humanity lesbians and gay men are still struggling to have the public understand about us. We are as surprised and delighted by love as any heterosexual. And we have as little control over it. As Sanford writes, "How in the world this lightening [sic] strike snuck up on us I am still not quite sure."
I don't know if any of this will or should change Sanford's mind about same-sex marriage, and I admit that question is almost beside the point. But if anyone understands love's hegemony the way we do, it is Sanford. As I read him expressing his tenderest and most rapturous feelings, I saw some of myself in him. Someday, I hope he can understand why.
Permalink | 13 Comment(s)
June 23, 2009
by David Link
Barney Frank will put the Employment Non Discrimination Act at the top of his congressional agenda for the gay and lesbian community. This is a piece of substantive legislation that has the potential to help lesbians and gay men in many places. It will test the bona fides of the leadership in Congress, who have been reluctant to do anything with the hot potato the President keeps throwing them (whenever we mention it), except to throw it back. And if/when the President signs ENDA into law, it will be the kind of achievement he has often promised but not yet delivered.
Nondiscrimination laws, particularly in the employment area, are useful tools, not because they change anyone’s mind (no law can ever do that), but because they put the government’s interest in equality front and center. In any functional economy, the ability to earn a living is essential, and while it is undeniably true that, for the most part lesbians and gay men who get fired from their jobs for no reason other than their homosexuality can and do usually have other options, there are states in this nation where the web of homophobia can be relied on to drive lesbians and gay men to stay in the closet. That is what feeds the still-breathing dinosaur of the closet – it can only exist as long as we agree to abide by its dictates, but if the bargain is to remain closeted in order to earn a living, a lot of people will accept the devil’s deal.
So I must be clear that I support this legislation.
Still, I’d much rather have Congress spend its precious hours and resources repealing DADT and DOMA.
ENDA will aid people in states that don’t have such protections, and help to force many people living in those states to face up to what they fear or dislike so much about lesbians and gay men they actually work beside. In my view, that is a good thing.
But it also forces the future on states that prefer the past when it comes to homosexuality, and that is the way cultural acrimony gradually builds into conflagration. The federal government will have enforcement authority, but that may only magnify existing resentments. Perhaps it’s good to embarrass those who cannot see lesbians and gay men for who they are. It’s certainly good to protect the jobs of innocent workers.
But the federal government doesn’t come to this moral task with clean hands. I think it is better to eliminate the active discrimination that still resides in federal law before we extend the federal government’s positive power to the states.
DADT is active discrimination. The federal government requires the military to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It’s the law.
The military, though, is a unique environment (as we are so often told). It involves situations and absolute discipline that simply don’t exist in civilian life. That’s distinctly not true of marriage, though. DOMA does not demean a discrete segment of the population, like DADT -- it pollutes and profanes every committed same-sex couple in the United States. But like DADT, DOMA doesn’t just put the federal government’s stamp of approval on discrimination, it demands it.
Eliminating DADT is a matter of pure Congressional prerogative, and does not intrude into any state’s existing law. The same is true of Section 3 of DOMA, which we hear cited again and again and again by the President as tying his hands. Section 2 could remain in place, insulating more conservative states from their neighbors -- the only possible, decent compromise. But Section 3 has no federalist rationale; it merely sets a national standard of discrimination against same-sex couples, and imposes that sordid standard as the national norm, even when states and common sense have long since left this form of discrimination, too, in the history books.
If ENDA is passed first, it will highlight the federal government’s Do As I Say, Not As I Do hypocrisy. At its best, it can mitigate the damage to lesbians and gay men that DOMA and DADT perpetrate every day by their mere existence. The mitigation of that damage is no small thing. And, as I said, I will support it. But I won’t be as enthusiastic as I would be if Congress could undo its own discriminatory laws before going into every state in the nation and throwing its compromised weight around.
Permalink | 11 Comment(s)
June 23, 2009
by Stephen H. Miller
From activist/blogger Michael Petrelis, on the upcoming Washington, DC, Democratic Party fundraiser being hosted by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and others:
It is time to close the LGBT checkbook and ATM for the Democratic Party, until such time as the party actually delivers some real legislative and presidential-driven changes and advancement for LGBT people.
But if LGBT beltway operatives didn't raise money unconditionally for the Democratic Party, what would they do?
Permalink | 7 Comment(s)
June 22, 2009
by Brian Chase
So, it has been revealed that the National Organization for Marriage is actually, wait for it, a SUPER SECRET CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE MORMON QUORUM OF 12 AND OPUS DEI. It was right under our noses all along.
That's an actual theory being advanced in the gay press.
The evidence is tissue-thin, but the premise itself just begs to be mocked. First of all, the "Quorum of 12" sounds like it should be running the Cylon Empire. And as for Opus Dei, personally I think self-flagellation is pretty gross, but anybody who thinks it is a good idea for gays to vilify other people by implying that they are masochists has never been to International Mr. Leather or the Folsom Street Fair. People who live in glass dungeons and all that.
Maggie Gallagher is many things, but somehow I doubt she is coordinating a bizarre alliance of secretive super-wealthy cultists in a plot to deprive us of our civil rights. She's not Lex Luthor or anything. Luthor is much better dressed, and I doubt he would ever get into a spat with Perez Hilton.
Now if you will excuse me, I need to write a letter to the President demanding that he produce his birth certificate.
Permalink | 2 Comment(s)
June 21, 2009
by Jonathan Rauch
So I'm trying to figure this out. When courts impose gay marriage, conservatives tell us, that's undemocratic. These decisions should be left to the political branches, which are accountable to the people.
OK, I get that. But when two states' legislatures approve gay marriage of their own free will, with no court compulsion, and when the governors sign gay marriage into law, that's...undemocratic?
Right! Here it is, in an article by one Mark Hemingway at NationalReview.com. Apparently the goalposts have moved a bit: now only plebiscites are democratic:
"Of the recent states that have legalized same-sex marriage — Iowa, Maine, and New Hampshire — none has done so through democratic means, and the actions of the courts and legislatures run against public opinion."
One can only wonder: have these people any integrity at all?
Permalink | 18 Comment(s)
June 21, 2009
by David Link
Hendrik Hertzberg has an excellent Talk of the Town piece in the June 22 edition of The New Yorker about the effect of Barack Obama’s Cairo speech on the Middle East. As I was reading it, I kept thinking how much I wish that was the Barack Obama addressing gay equality.
Here is Hertzberg:
. . . he offered his audience not only ordered information, argument and context but also the catharsis of saying aloud things long unsaid. He wished, he said, to speak clearly and plainly, and that is what he did.
Compare that to the Obama who has been assigned to deal with our issues. He has said he supports equality – is, in fact, a “fierce advocate” of it – but has also said that he believes marriage is only between a man and a woman because of his religious beliefs. In fact, he has never offered anything other than religious beliefs to support this statement.
That is entirely respectable as a declaration of faith, but it is not a policy argument, except for those Christianists who believe that, like Iran’s theocracy, religious leaders are capable of using scripture to determine public policy in a 21st Century nation that is composed of various sects, religions and even non-believers. We do not have a religious Supreme Leader, or a Guardian Council, and I, at least, am skeptical that this is the model most Americans would want for the United States.
Obama opposed California’s Prop. 8, which suggests he is open to public policies that conflict with his religious belief. And that is of paramount importance.
But compare Obama’s performance on gay equality to his performance in Cairo. He has yet to articulate any ordered information, argument and/or context, and if anyone has heard him speak clearly or plainly on homosexual equality or same-sex marriage, they’re keeping it to themselves.
Is it possible that homosexual equality is harder than dealing with the Middle East? The talent this President has – of “saying aloud things long unsaid” – is exactly what this discussion has long needed from a President. Our frustration, I think, is in the fact that we elected exactly that President, and now he seems to be more afraid of dealing with us than he is of dealing with the most intense religious and political conflict in the modern world.
Jonathan Capehart makes the good argument that Congress is where the laws are made and, in the case of DADT and DOMA must be unmade – and that we should focus our efforts there. And he is surely right about that.
But what we need is leadership, and when it comes to that, Congress is no match for the President. As an institution, Congress follows, it does not lead. Nancy Pelosi and particularly Harry Reid are cautious administrators of their party's interests, and neither is in a league with the President when it comes to sheer political oratory.
But as the world could see from the Cairo speech, oratory comes from understanding, and I am not convinced Obama yet has anything but rhetoric on gay equality, the glib and uncritical soundbites that go no deeper than political convenience.
If his newfound solidarity with the A-List gays goes no further than the usual political jargon, we won’t have gained anything. That is, in fact, the central problem that needs to be solved. This President has shown he can get beyond the jargon in ways that most of the political establishment cannot. But he needs to hear from people who do not speak in the jargon – and jargon is the stock-in-trade of those who claim to be our (unelected) leaders.
Permalink | 1 Comment(s)
June 20, 2009
by David Link
If you need evidence of how much of a burden homosexuals have in the political environment, I'd recommend this video of Robert Gibbs. He takes a genuine political risk on our behalf, and comes out foursquare in favor of arithmetic. As you can see, the White House is ". . . committed to a fair and accurate count of all Americans," and is currently ". . . in the midst of determining the best way to ensure that gay and lesbian couples are accurately counted."
I don't want to sound too snarky here. It is real progress that the government we pay our tax dollars to support is actually willing to count same-sex couples accurately. That certainly has not been the government's policy in the past -- which should tell you something.
The fact that they have to struggle with this -- the fact it is a problem for them -- brings them face to face, once again, with the unreasonable, irrational and mean-spirited provisions of DOMA. Someday, I hope, they will see that it's easier for all of us to get rid of it, and save us all valuable time and effort we could be devoting to real problems.
I'd also like to join Dale in extending a warm bloggy welcome to Brian Chase.
Permalink | 6 Comment(s)
June 19, 2009
by Dale Carpenter
... a passionate advocate for gay civil rights, and a brilliant and accomplished lawyer who's been in the trenches of the fight. He's also very funny and an incisive analyst, as his initial post below demonstrates.
At last he's been released from the deadening clutches of the establishment!
Permalink | Email Comments
June 19, 2009
by Brian Chase
Anybody remember the "Tax Equity For Health Plan Beneficiaries Act"? I didn't think so. It’s the federal bill that would end the unfair taxation of health insurance benefits for domestic partners.
Right now, if your employer provides health insurance for your domestic partner or same-sex spouse, the insurance is taxed as income. Economist Lee Badgett estimates that this discrimination costs an average of $1069 per year and takes a collective $178 million dollars per year out of the pockets of gay and lesbian families. The Tax Equity Act would fix all of that.
The Tax Equity Act is co-sponsored by a Republican, has the backing of a huge swath of corporate America, and would provide real, concrete financial relief for same-sex couples. So when we list all of the things Obama and the Democrats in Congress aren’t doing for us, why do we keep forgetting about this bill?
A hate crime bill may be psychologically satisfying, but it isn’t going to do a thing to reduce hate crimes. ENDA is just going to give us another blistering fight over the political feasibility of transgender inclusion. The Democrats are so terrified of looking anti-military that they probably won't repeal Don’t Ask Don't Tell until the ghost of Douglas MacArthur appears before a joint session of Congress and reveals that he was actually gay himself. So why don't we focus on something that can actually pass and would do a tremendous amount of good?
I know "tax relief" and "backed by corporate America" are dirty, dirty phrases to many on the left, but this bill really shouldn’t be allowed to die on the vine.
Permalink | 2 Comment(s)
June 19, 2009
by David Link
Chris Geidner has a good, measured piece at Salon, gently making the point that the gay community does not need to be at war with the President over the Smelt brief. I agree, and urge people to read his essay.
While he does not defend the brief, though, I think he misses the key point. That’s even clearer in his blog post criticizing the rhetoric John Aravosis has been wielding. It’s not that he’s wrong; Aravosis does exaggerate the role that the pedophilia and incest cases play in the brief, and does overstate DOJ’s official statement about its role in defending federal laws. But these are disagreements about hot, political oratory, and distract from what I continue to think is the central problem with the brief – its premises.
As I’ve argued, the constitutional sections of this brief could not have been written but for its central, unarticulated thesis -- that all people are fundamentally heterosexual. It is only from that starting point that anyone could argue DOMA does not discriminate against lesbians and gay men. If all people really could meaningfully marry someone of the opposite sex, then DOMA's prohibition on any federal legal recognition for same-sex relationships really doesn't discriminate against anyone. It is the very model of the "neutrality" the brief continually invokes -- because the world it posits has no homosexual people in it to discriminate against.
That premise is as untenable as it is incoherent. Of course DOMA discriminates against lesbians and gay men. It was intended to discriminate against lesbians and gay men. This calumny deserves the fury that has taken hold in the gay community, and is at the very heart of the acrimony I think most of us now feel.
Everything else is beside the point. This vintage misconception (I’m really trying to restrain myself now), was publicly adopted by the administration, and we deserve nothing less than a substantive and explicit apology for it. From what I’ve heard and read so far, the administration has never so much as acknowledged that the brief might be reinforcing a notion that is not true – the very one that provides the foundation for the harmful notions about homosexuality gays are spending their lives trying to replace.
Like Geidner, I honestly do not think the President believes this lie. But it now has his name on it. We need to focus solely and relentlessly on getting the White House to see what it has actually told the American people.
Permalink | 7 Comment(s)
June 18, 2009
by David Link
To my skepticism below, though, I need to add a note of thanks to the administration. Someone had the good sense to invite Frank Kameny to the White House for yesterday's ceremony, and give him the President's signing pen. This explicit and public step toward equality is what Frank has been fighting administrations for since he was fired from his job as an astronmer in 1957 because he was gay.
Frank is one of the superstars of gay history, and the White House got it exactly right in making sure he was there. When they finally finish the job, they should invite him back.
(Thanks to Jon Rauch for pointing this out)
Permalink | 4 Comment(s)
» View Previous Entries
