The Dish

The wonderfully named bigot, Seaborn Roddenberry, was not a Republican. (Am I allowed to call those who wanted a constitutional ban on inter-racial marriages bigots? Or were they just concerned about the “sanctity” of civil marriage?) He was a Democrat. Most bigots from Georgia were Democrats back then.

“The Passion of the Christ” is obviously a provocative movie, and will bound to provoke widely differing judgments. But what strikes me about the responses is how politically monolithic they have been. I’m especially struck by how the conservative media, press and intellectual establishment has been, so far as I can tell, completely uniform in its positive response. Among the theocons and neocons, uou are less likely to find a criticism of this movie than you are to find criticism of the president! Have I missed something? Has some brave neoconservative or any writer who gets his paycheck from the conservative media dared to criticize this movie? Or is the Popular Front intact?

The boyfriend insisted I link to this.

There are still many pitfalls – not least of which is the nature and shape of an interim Iraqi government after June 30. But Sistani’s agreement to extend the deadline to the end of this year for national elections strikes me as a real coup for the Bush administration. I’m still an optimist. I’d be interested in hearing or seeing a real tally of U.S. casualties in Iraq recently. From reading the papers, it appears that the casualty rate has subsided – or has shifted (appallingly) toward the civilian population. But I’ve long believed that if we show real determination to persevere, and if we don’t lose our nerve, Iraq can transition to a functioning, if ramshackle, democracy. That remains a huge achievement – the most encouraging development in the Middle East since the Israel-Egypt peace accords. And Bush and Blair deserve the credit.

THE SAUDIS PROMOTE TOURISM: Well, it’s an improvement. Until you read the fine print. Here it is, according to the Guardian:

The supreme commission for tourism’s website lists those who will not be allowed in: Jews; people with Israeli stamps in their passport; “those who don’t abide by the Saudi traditions concerning appearance and behaviour”, and “those under the influence of alcohol”.

Can someone tell me why we still have cordial relations with a country that simply bans “Jews” from even entering its borders?

There is, alas, one simple factual problem in Charles Krauthammer’s thoughtful piece today. It is the following assertion:

[B]ecause of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution (which makes every state accept “the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State”), gay marriage can be imposed on the entire country by a bare majority of the state supreme court of but one state. This in a country where about 60 percent of the citizenry opposes gay marriage.

This is inaccurate. Historically, marriage has never been one of the “public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings” that the Full Faith and Credit clause mandates are transportable from state to state. If that had been the case, we would never have had a struggle over inter-racial marriage. As soon as one northern state legalized it, it would have been legal in every Southern state. (Civil divorce, ironically, is such an institution. It is the result of a judicial proceeding. Civil marriage, in contrast, is a license.) It has long been established law that the states have a public policy exception to recognizing marriages from other states; and Massachusetts’ marriage licenses, to cite the current controversy, are even issued on the condition that they are void elsewhere if unapproved in other states. So the notion that four judges in Massachusetts can impose civil marriage for gays on an entire country is simply mistaken. Some argue that activist courts these days will over-rule these precedents. But with 38 states explicitly saying they won’t recognize such marriages; with the Defense of Marriage Act backing that up; the likelihood is minimal. And once you remove that premise, Charles’ argument about who is the aggressor here is undermined (although I am glad that he wants to defend the Constitution from unnecessary meddling). In my view, the religious right amendment is both extreme – in that it bans any state from granting civil marriage rights to gays – and premature – in that the need for it on purely federalist grounds hasn’t been in any way proven. Here’s my offer, then, to my friend, Charles. If all legal precedent fails, if DOMA is struck down, if one single civil marriage in Massachusetts is deemed valid in another state, without that other state’s consent, I will support a federal constitutional amendment that would solely say that no state is required to recognize a civil marriage from another state. By that time, we might even have had a chance to evaluate how equal marriage rights play out in a single state or two. How’s that for a compromise?

A PREVIOUS MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: A letter writer to the Washington Post reminds us that marriage amendments have been introduced before. “On Dec. 12, 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry (R-Ga.) proposed this amendment to the Constitution: “Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians … within the United States … is forever prohibited.” Ernest Miller provides some historical context.

It’s well worth reading. Money quote:

The only cinematic achievement of The Passion of the Christ is that it breaks new ground in the verisimilitude of filmed violence. The notion that there is something spiritually exalting about the viewing of it is quite horrifying. The viewing of The Passion of the Christ is a profoundly brutalizing experience. Children must be protected from it. (If I were a Christian, I would not raise a Christian child on this.) Torture has been depicted in film many times before, but almost always in a spirit of protest. This film makes no quarrel with the pain that it excitedly inflicts. It is a repulsive masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film, and it leaves you with the feeling that the man who made it hates life.

Gibson as the purveyor of the culture of death.

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.