Month: February 2004

Here’s an email from a Republican lawyer who sees the religious right amendment as a device to do far more than just deny gay couples constitutional protection. The amendment is just the beginning of the religious right agenda:

Now that opponents and proponents of gay marriage are all riled about the FMA its time to talk about the true impact of including a definition of marriage in the Constitution. The potential impact of inclusion of the FMA will effect every American straight or gay because the FMA is not about gay marriage, it is a dangerous Trojan Horse that could completely redefine the powers of the federal government. As an attorney who is researching this issue, let me explain to the best of my ability, why I haven’t been sleeping well since Tuesday.

Under the Constitution of the United States there is no express right to privacy, rather this right to be free from excessive government interference in our personal lives has arisen from Supreme Court precedent that cites the lack of regulation of intimate relationships and the protections of the bill of rights as the basis for an inference of the right to privacy. The right to privacy, according the Supreme Court is found in the penumbras and emanations of these two factors. A shadow of a right, very delicate and now threatened.

By including a provision regulating the most intimate of relationships into the Constitution, the traditional analysis that the court has used to limit government power will be fundamentally changed and the right to privacy, if it is not destroyed completely, will be severely curtailed. As a result, decisions like Roe v. Wade, (Abortion), Griswold v. Connecticut (Birth Control), Lawrence v. Texas (Private Sexual Acts), will all be fair game for re-analysis under this new jurisprudential regime as the Constitutional foundation for those decisions will have been altered. A brilliant strategy really, with one amendment the religious right could wipe out access to birth control, abortion, and even non-procreative sex (as Senator Santorum so eagerly wants to do).

This debate isn’t only about federalism, it’s about the reversal of two hundred years of liberal democracy that respects individuals. So why isn’t anyone talking about this aspect of it?

With luck, this agenda will be revealed as this amendment is discussed and debated. The most important thing to remember is who is behind this amendment: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, Robert Bork, Rick Santorum. For them, gays are just the beginning, the soft targets before the real battle. Memo to straights: you’re next.

The conservative magazine endorses – shock, horror – equal rights under the law for gay couples, i.e. civil marriage. They endorsed the measure eight years ago – well ahead of their time. Some of you have asked for a full case for marriage equality. My best attempt is still my book, “Virtually Normal.” If you want to read a careful, measured logical case – agree with it or not – then that’s my real statement. National Review – yes, National Review! – said that the book does for homosexuality “what John Stuart Mill did for liberty.” I’ve always believed in winning this in the court of public opinion. I think most reasonable people, if they take the time, will find the case impossible to refute. One obviously good thing about our current travails is that they have indeed increased the level of debate. I was a little ahead of the curve here. But the book is in print.

The more I think about it, the clearer it is that one sentence in president Bush’s endorsement of the amendment to ban gays from marrying stands out. It is this one:

“Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.”

So this amendment isn’t really about restraining a federal judiciary. It’s about preventing even one state from doing what it wants on marriage rights, regardless of how it impacts any other state. The federal government is determined to stop a state from regulating its own affairs within its own borders, even if it doesn’t affect anyone else, in an area long regarded as within a state’s autonomy. Why? Because in today’s increasingly sectarian Republican party, where all non-evangelical Protestants are suspect, the dictates of the religious right trump traditional states’ rights conservatism. No wonder McCain will oppose this. Any true conservative would be appalled.

Oxblog has done a quick tally on Senators’ position on the religious right amendment to the Constitution. So far, 32 against (including five Republicans) and 28 for. My hero, John McCain, has, as usual, come out on the right side. It seems to me that if Senator McCain votes to let the states decide, then we won’t see this desecration of the document. If I were strategizing to defeat the amendment, I’d try and get a Senate vote as soon as possible. Once it becomes clear this won’t pass, the House won’t touch it at all. You can help Oxblog finish the list by calling or writing to your Senator to ask his or her position and letting Oxblog know. They only have responses from around half the Senate. But if there are enough votes to defeat it after only half have said what their votes are, it seems pretty unlikely it will pass.

Well, I went last night to see the movie everyone is talking about. I’m writing this not long after leaving the theater so these are my raw and immediate impressions – not a fully considered review. I was of course deeply moved in parts. If you are a person of the Christian faith, it is impossible not to be moved by a rendition of the passion of the Savior that is not a travesty. The very story itself, embedded in the soul and the memory, stirs the emotions and prayers and meditations of a lifetime. To see it rendered in a believable setting in languages that, however inaccurate, give you an impression of being there, is arresting. It brings this simple but awe-inspiring story to life in a way very difficult to approximate in the written or spoken word. You can see why Passion plays were once performed. The Gospels do end in extraordinary drama, pathos, plot, agony. Portraying them vividly may, we can hope, bring some people to read the Gospels and even to explore further what the redemptive message of Jesus really is.

PURE PORNOGRAPHY: At the same time, the movie was to me deeply disturbing. In a word, it is pornography. By pornography, I mean the reduction of all human thought and feeling and personhood to mere flesh. The center-piece of the movie is an absolutely disgusting and despicable piece of sadism that has no real basis in any of the Gospels. It shows a man being flayed alive – slowly, methodically and with increasing savagery. We first of all witness the use of sticks, then whips, then multiple whips with barbed glass or metal. We see flesh being torn out of a man’s body. Just so that we can appreciate the pain, we see the whip first tear chunks out of a wooden table. Then we see pieces of human skin flying through the air. We see Jesus come back for more. We see blood spattering on the torturers’ faces. We see muscled thugs exhausted from shredding every inch of this man’s body. And then they turn him over and do it all again. It goes on for ever. And then we see his mother wiping up masses and masses of blood. It is an absolutely unforgivable, vile, disgusting scene. No human being could sruvive it. Yet for Gibson, it is the h’ors d’oeuvre for his porn movie. The whole movie is some kind of sick combination of the theology of Opus Dei and the film-making of Quentin Tarantino. There is nothing in the Gospels that indicates this level of extreme, endless savagery and there is no theological reason for it. It doesn’t even evoke emotion in the audience. It is designed to prompt the crudest human pity and emotional blackmail – which it obviously does. But then it seems to me designed to evoke a sick kind of fascination. Of over two hours, about half the movie is simple wordless sadism on a level and with a relentlessness that I have never witnessed in a movie before. And you have to ask yourself: why? The suffering of Christ is bad and gruesome enough without exaggerating it to this insane degree. Theologically, the point is not that Jesus suffered more than any human being ever has on a physical level. It is that his suffering was profound and voluntary and the culmination of a life and a teaching that Gibson essentially omits. One more example. Toward the end, unsatisfied with showing a man flayed alive, nailed gruesomely to a cross, one eye shut from being smashed in, blood covering his entire body, Gibson has a large crow perch on the neighboring cross and peck another man’s eyes out. Why? Because the porn needed yet another money shot.

GUTTING THE MESSAGE: Moreover, the suffering is rendered almost hollow by a dramatic void. Gibson has provided no context so that we can understand better who Jesus is – just a series of cartoon flashbacks. We cannot empathize with Mary fully or with Peter or John – because they too are mere props for the violence. The central message of Jesus – of love and compassion and forgiveness – is reduced to sound-bites. Occasionally, such as when the message of the sermon on the mount is juxtaposed with the crucifixion, the effect is almost profound – because there has been an actual connection between who Jesus was and what happened to him. But this is the exception to the rule. Watching the movie, you can see how a truly powerful rendition could have been made – by tripling the flashbacks and context, by providing a biography of Jesus, by showing us why he endured what he endured. Instead, all that context, all that meaning, has been removed for endless sickening gratuitous violence.

PILATE, THE SAINT: Is it anti-Semitic? The question has to be placed in the context of the Gospels and it is hard to reproduce the story without risking such inferences. But in my view, Gibson goes much further than what might be forgivable. The first scene in which Caiphas appears has him relaying to Judas how much money he has agreed to hand over in return for Jesus. The Jew – fussing over money again! There are a few actors in those scenes who look like classic hook-nosed Jews of Nazi imagery, hissing and plotting and fulminating against the Christ. For good measure, Gibson has the Jewish priestly elite beat Jesus up as well, before they hand him over to the Romans; and he has Jesus telling Pilate that he is not responsible – the Jewish elite is. Pilate and his wife are portrayed as saints forced by politics and the Jewish elders to kill a man they know is innocent. Again, this reflects part of the Gospels, but Gibson goes further. He presents Pilate’s wife as actually finding Mary, providing towels to wipe up Jesus’ blood, arguing for Jesus’ release. Yes, the Roman torturers are obviously evil; yes, a few Jews dissent; and, of course, all the disciples are Jewish. I wouldn’t say that this movie is motivated by anti-Semitism. It’s motivated by psychotic sadism. But Gibson does nothing to mitigate the dangerous anti-Semitic elements of the story and goes some way toward exaggerating and highlighting them. To my mind, that is categorically unforgivable. Anti-Semitism is the original sin of Christianity. Far from expiating it, this movie clearly enjoys taunting those Catholics as well as Jews who are determined to confront that legacy. In that sense alone, it is a deeply immoral work of art.

“I voted for President Bush in 2000 and planned to do so again in November. My reason: national security and the man’s seeming personal integrity. As a Jew, I had a gut-level fear of the Christian Right but (1) did not believe Bush shared its worldview and (2) saw fundamentalist Christian support for Israel as indicative that the Christian Right was not anti-Semitic.
Then, in one ten day period, I saw the Christian Right go into rapture over a film that is blatantly anti-Semitic (I saw it today), saw Laura Bush both indicate approval of this film and empathy for those disgusted at the idea of gay marriage and then the President made his speech supporting the amendment.
I’m straight and also a Jew and, to me, the Bushes – sensing defeat in November – are going to tap into homophobia, anti-Semitism and whatever else it takes to secure their base.
I was never part of that base. Jews, gay Republicans, African-American Bush voters, Hispanics are not part of the base but, add our votes to that of the base, and the GOP wins.
But now it loses. Jews used to be the canary people. Jews still play that role but today, even more so, that role is played by gays. You can judge a party or a leader by how he treats this group, the one group it is still safe to hate in America.
Well, Bush has failed the test. I will not be part of the gay-bashing, Mel Gibson adoring, xenophobic America that the Bushes consider their base.
This canary has no intention of dying from the poisonous gas of hatred. I’m 58. I have voted for every Republican nominee since Nixon and without regrets. Until now. I wish I could take back my 2000 vote. But, in any case, I will work to get out the vote for Kerry or Edwards. I will not vote for a President who secures the basest elements of his base by dividing Americans.
And you know what: he is going to lose. That gay marriage announcement was the desperate act of a desperate man.”

This expression of classic Jew-hatred on Ash Wednesday is, alas, a sign of the times. Gays aren’t the only minority targeted by a few extremists on the religious right.

Fascinating email from a reader who observed a very similar proposal for a constitutional amendment in Ireland on the equally emotional issue of abortion:

Using a constitution for political ends is typically going to backfire. Just look at Ireland. In the early 1980s, a strong pro-life lobby forced a constitutional amendment banning abortion in every single case. There was already sweeping legislation on the books, and it was highly unlikely the Irish courts would have followed Roe v. Wade. This referendum tore the country apart, at a time of great economic difficulty. I was there. I remember. And so the amendment was passed. Move on to 1991. The Attorney General invoked this article to get a court order stopping a 14 year old rape victim from traveling to the UK for an abortion. The country erupted again. The case went to the Supreme Court, which offered a new interpretation of the amendment: since the language stated that the life of the mother and child were equally valued, the court decided that when the life of the mother was in danger, her rights took precedence, and abortion was permissible. The Court extended this further by saying that the threat of suicide was a valid reason. Since the girl in question was reportedly suicidal, the criteria were met, and the injunction was lifted. The country erupted yet again. Pro-lifers were enraged that their precious amendment had been interpreted in such a way. They demanded a new amendment. Others wanted the government to legislate in line with the Supreme Court ruling. Finally, the government offered a new amendment: one which would allow the right to abortion information, the right to travel for an abortion (these were controversial issues in the 1980s), and the right to limited abortion if the life of the mother was in danger. It did not allow for threat of suicide. Predictably, neither side of the debate was satisfied, and this third element was defeated, by a combination of conservative and liberal voters. And so it stands. Successive governments have refused to raise the issue again, although it remains fundamentally unresolved. Such are the perils of tarnishing a document like the constitution for political gain.

The other obvious precedent in America is prohibition. Add to this that the younger generation largely supports equal marriage rights and you have a disaster on your hands.

Somewhat crude, but captures the essence of what the president is proposing.

THE SIMPSONS ON THE FLAG AMENDMENT: The first Bush, of course, had the flag amendment to stir up his base. Now it’s the fag amendment. A reader reminds me of a Simpsons episode that dealt with this issue. It included a singing amendment on the steps of Congress. Here’s the song:

[Little Boy] Hey, who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress?
[Amendment] I’m not garbage
I’m an amendment to be
Yes, an amendment to be
And I’m hoping that they’ll ratify me
There’s a lot of flag-burners who have got too much freedom
I want to make it legal for policemen to beat ’em
‘Cause there’s limits to our liberties
At least, I hope and pray that there are
‘Cause those liberal freaks go too far
[Little Boy] But why can’t we just make a law against flag burning?
[Amendment] Because that law would be unconstitutional
But if we change the constitution –
[Little Boy] – Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!
[Amendment] Now you’re catching on!
[Little Boy] But what if they say you’re not good enough to be in the constitution?
[Amendment] Then I’ll crush all opposition to me!
And I’ll make Ted Kennedy pay
If he fights back, I’ll say that he’s gay
[Congressman] Good news, amendment! They ratified you!
You’re in the US Constitution!
[Amendment] Oh, yeah! Door’s open, boys!

Yep. Doors open. Who’s next for a constitutional amendment after the gays have been relegated to second-class status?

Just to address a few issues before heading out to lunch. Here’s one overlooked part of the president’s remarks yesterday on amending the Constitution: You’ll notice he did not say that any amendment should allow for civil unions. The words “civil union” have never passed his lips. His spokesman yesterday said that in Texas, Bush would never support civil unions for gay people. (And it’s important to recall that Bush himself suppported the criminalization of private gay sex while governor.) This is deliberate. If Bush came out for civil unions, Gary Bauer would be appalled. What Bush said is that the amendment should allow for “legal arrangements other than marriage.” I think what that could mean is any ad hoc legal arrangement two spouses can put together – arrangements that the religious right amendment would make unenforceable in court. Clever, no? Almost Clintonian. To respond to Jonah’s question about why I keep calling the FMA the religious right amendment: the reason is that it is their amendment. The people pushing hardest for this have been people like Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, Carolyn Musgrave. If they’re not the religious right, who is? Lastly, there’s some confusion in the blogosphere about Kerry’s position. Ramesh Ponnuru seems to think that Kerry has come out for the religious right amendment, if it were to contain explicit provisions for civil unions. But Ramesh is confusing (understandably in context) Kerry’s remarks about a state constitutional amendment in Massachusetts and the federal one. Kerry has said quite clearly that he will vote against the federal amendment. So will Edwards. I cannot see over a dozen Democrats voting against their nominee in the Senate in an election year. Hostility to gay relationships is not that intense an emotion any more – expect for old Klan members like Robert Byrd. But even Byrd might balk at amending the constitution over this.

KIRKPATRICK CORRECTS: It took a while but David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times has now corrected his previous assertion that the current version of the religious right amendment would not bar civil unions. At the very least, there is confusion about it. At best, it would invalidate Vermont’s civil unions and any civil unions law that emerged as a result of court prodding or action. At worst, it would gut – and some of its authors obviously intend it to gut – every civil protection now held by gay couples.

FROM A SOLDIER IN SPECIAL OPS: “Well … And so it now begins. My more liberal friends told me a day like this would come, and now I am forced to eat crow. Words cannot express the hurt and anger I feel for the man’s blatant constitutional and moral attack on a segment of our population. And for the still wobbly among us, make no mistake … this is an attack… I realized long ago I am (was) a Republican solely for foreign affairs. But that’s not good enough anymore. I’ve helped feed the Kurds in Northern Iraq, I’ve slept in the mud and rain to enforce peace treaties in eastern Europe, seated in 100 percent humidity in southeast Asia, and I dodged too many bullets and remote controlled bombs in and around Mosul to count. But I gladly did this (and will do it again) to protect the rights and liberties of ALL Americans, not just those of my family.
I voted for this man … despite what my family said, despite how many times I was smeared because I am African American and (was) a Republican, despite his joy in being an anti-intellectual … they warned me, they warned me and I didn’t listen … and now I am ashamed of myself. By all that I hold Holy it will never happen again!”

HOME NEWS: No, this blog is not going to become devoted to civil marriage issues for ever. But this is a burning question right now and I feel a real responsibility to address these questions, especially since I played a part for the last decade or two in pioneering this issue. I keep being told that people will stop reading the blog if I continue. Fine. There’s plenty else to read out there. And a blog doesn’t have to be as comprehensive as the NYT or even NRO. But as a purely factual matter, there’s not much evidence that people have stopped reading. Yesterday was the biggest traffic day in the history of this site: 110,000 visits. Our average weekly readership has increased every single week this year. People are interested in this important matter. And although I’m obviously invested in one side, I think it’s a good thing that a blog can provide in depth coverage in a way other outlets cannot.