The Dish

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.

It behooves me to wrestle with a question that many of you have asked me about. I have long been a strong supporter of this president’s extraordinary leadership in the war on terror. He has made some mistakes, but I stand by his broader record entirely. This isn’t because of some personal liking for Bush (although I’ve never been able to loathe him). My support for the war is inextricable from my love for America. When this country was attacked, like many others, I was distraught. I was enraged because America’s promise of a new world had been threatened by a murderous gang of theocratic thugs. Call it the wrecking of an immigrant dream. I still believe passionately in taking this war to that enemy, of not apologizing for the United States, of opposing appeasement and weakness in the face of evil. As a gay man, I could also uncomplicatedly support a war against some of the most brutal homophobes on the planet, men who also targeted Jews and women and anyone who dissented from their theological bromides. It was because I believed in the Constitution of the United States that I felt no qualms in backing this president and in fighting rhetorical wars on his behalf – because that Constitution was under attack. I grew up in a country where there was no separation of church and state and had to attend a public high school that was anathema to my own religious faith. America has therefore always signified religious and political freedom to me. So when I wrote after 9/11 about the threat of religious fundamentalism abroad, this is how I finished my essay:

In this sense, the symbol of this conflict should not be Old Glory, however stirring it is. What is really at issue here is the simple but immensely difficult principle of the separation of politics and religion. We are fighting not for our country as such or for our flag. We are fighting for the universal principles of our Constitution, and the possibility of free religious faith it guarantees.

The religious fanatics of 9/11 despise the American Constitution exactly because it guarantees equality under the law, freedom of conscience and separation of church and state. The war I have supported is a war, ultimately, in defense of that Constitution. And that is why I am so committed to it.

THE PRESIDENT’S CONTRADICTION: So you can see, perhaps, why the bid to write anti-gay discrimination into this very Constitution provokes such a strong response from me – and so many other people, gay and straight, and their families. It robs us of something no one in this country should be robbed of – equality and inclusion in the founding document itself. When people tell me that, in weighing the political choices, the war on terror should trump the sanctity of the Constitution, my response is therefore a simple one. The sanctity of the Constitution is what we are fighting for. We’re not fighting just to defend ourselves. We are fighting to defend a way of life: pluralism, freedom, equality under the law. You cannot defend the Constitution abroad while undermining it at home. It’s a contradiction. And it’s a deeply divisive contradiction in a time of great peril.

THE NEED FOR UNITY: To those who say that this amendment is merely a codification of existing marriage law and doesn’t target homosexuals, the answer is obvious. If it weren’t for the possibility that gay couples might become equal under the law, this amendment wouldn’t even exist. Pro-marriage amendments could have been introduced before now every year for decades – to ban no-fault divorce, for example. But none was. This one is entirely designed to single out gay couples for Constitutional exclusion. It therefore seems to me that I’m not the one who needs to defend his position. It’s the president who has to answer to the charge that in wartime, he chose to divide this country over the most profound symbol there can be: the Constitution itself. I refuse, in short, to be put in a position where I have to pick between a vital war and fundamental civil equality. The two are inextricable. They are the same war. And this time, the president has picked the wrong side. He will live to be ashamed that he did.

Another gut-wrenching email:

“I organized my life around four institutions: my family, the Presbyterian Church, the Boy Scouts and the Republican Party. They summed up what seemed to me a sensible view of life and the world, embodying loyalty, unconditional love, a quiet, thoughtful exercise of faith, a commitment to ethical behavior, and a limited government that did the things it needed for the public good but otherwise left people alone to be all they could become and savor the victory of having done so.
Then I came out, and one by one those four institutions turned their backs on me.
My parents were embarrassed by me and stopped nearly all communication, though they said they loved me and in some way considered me part of the family.
Then my church got a new minister who had hardly arrived before he started preaching on the marriage issue and rooting out gay staff members. Commissioned a Stephen Minister, I was told I would never be assigned anyone to walk with in their troubles. But of course the church loves me and in some way considers me part of the family still.
Then the Boy Scouts went to court and said that even though I am an Eagle Scout, people like me are not good role models for the program and cannot be leaders. But of course they consider me a Scout still and are happy to ask me for my money.
And now the head of the party I’ve stuck with through thick and thin for 36 years says the prospect of my being able to marry is so threatening to society they have to ban it in the constitution. But the president says God loves me and I got an email from him today telling me about his campaign kickoff speech. So I guess in their compassionate conservative way the administration still thinks of me as sort of a Republican.
I don’t. You can only feel the love of people and institutions who fend you off with a barge pole for so long. Today I changed my registration from Republican to independent.”

Another emailer puts his finger on it:

“We’ve witnessed a shift in Republican politics. The Republican establishment used to pay lip service to religious conservative interests while openly courting independent voters with moderate policies because it knew it could get the religious conservative vote regardless (who were they going to vote for, Clinton!?). But now, it seems Bush is paying lip service to independent interests while openly promoting religious conservative policy. Who are we going to vote for, Kerry?

Well, yes.”

He’s not alone.

Interesting details from the AP story:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he appreciated Bush’s “moral leadership” on the issue, but expressed caution about moving too quickly toward a constitutional solution, and never directly supported one. “This is so important we’re not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this,” Delay said. “We are going to look at our options and we are going to be deliberative about what solutions we may suggest.”
However, California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.
“I will say that I’m not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue,” said Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush’s campaign in California in 2000. “I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we’re at a point where it’s not necessary.”
Lewis said, “At this moment I feel changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.”

All true conservatives need to rally to protect the Constitution from being used unnecessarily for wedge politics. I’m delighted some are. More will.