The Dish

A heart-rending email:

I grew up Catholic, happily attending one of those oh-so-seventies, homemade host, guitar mass parishes. I loved the Church and the way my family worshipped Christ. The warmth of the Church then seemed part of even the designs on the cover of the Monthly Missalette. As a college student, ironically, my faith became more traditional. Though mindful of its failings, I was awed by the traditions of the Church and reveled in its history and the grandeur of its thought. Even during the crisis of faith that occurred when I came out, the Church commanded–yes, I think that’s the right word–my awe and respect. No more. Having come out, I vowed never to feel ashamed again of being gay. And I’ve been mostly successful. The Vatican’s announcement however, left me sad and angry in a way I couldn’t pin down. Then I realized the Church made me ashamed, ashamed of who I was and my relationship. Congratulations, then, to the Vatican and the Pope. Bitter now, I’ll never again step foot in a Catholic church.

Another gay man bites the bullet as well:

I woke up this morning to that bit of news in the media and immediately knew that I was about to make a life altering decision as to my religious practice. For a while, I’ve been toying with the idea of discontinuing my membership and support of the Roman Catholic Church and moving to what in my upbringing would be called “the next best thing”: the Episcopal Church, or the Anglican Church in the US. Decisions are often made when we feel we have no other choice. And this feeble and feeble-minded pontiff, controlled by old, like minded, men who run around Roman palaces in red and pink and purple dresses has helped me realize that as a thinking gay man, I have no other choice but to leave this church. In the twenty-first century North American society in which I find myself, one of the strongest votes I can register is often the vote of my pocketbook. And in leaving the Catholic church, I also withdraw the financial support that the church realistically needs to sustain its increasingly errant mission. I hope many others do the same.

I feel my own conscience getting closer and closer to making the same decision. It tears me apart to see no prospect of the Catholic Church ending its war on gay people and their dignity in my lifetime. In fact, I think it’s getting worse; and the next Pope from the developing world could make the current one seem humane. Leaving the sacraments would be a huge blow to the soul; but the pope just called the love I have for my boyfriend “evil.” That’s a word he couldn’t bring himself to use about Saddam Hussein. How can I recognize what I know to be true with what the Pope has just said? I cannot. It doesn’t leave many options but departure.

ONE HISTORICAL ANALOGY: The last big battle over marriage rights was, of course, over miscegenation. In 1967, the Supreme Court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage on equal protection grounds. But what’s interesting is how unpopular this was at the time. The Gallup poll in 1968 found a whopping 72 percent of the public opposed such marriages. That’s markedly more than the opposition to same-sex marriage today (which is in the 50 – 60 percent range, and in the states considering it, actually a minority view). Why was that not an example of outrageous judicial activism? Yes, I know that equal protection on grounds of race has far more teeth in constitutional law. But still. This was a hugely unpopular and undemocratic move. It directly thwarted the democratic will of the people, especially in those states forced by judicial fiat to let blacks marry whites. It was judicial tyranny at the expense of democracy. And opponents – latter-day Stanley Kurtzes – were full of the slippery slope argument. Here’s one 19th Century screed from Tennessee, in opposition to miscegenation:

We might have in Tennessee the father living with his daughter, the son with the mother, the brother with his sister, in lawful wedlock, because they had formed such relations in a state or country where they were not prohibited. The Turk or the Mohammedan, with his numerous wives, may establish his harem at the doors of the capitol, and we are without remedy. Yet none of these are more revolting, more to be avoided, or more unnatural than the case before us.

If that guy were alive today, he’d have the cover-story in the Weekly Standard.

In one quarter, federal spending jumped 25 percent. As often, wars are good for economies. (On an encouraging note, non-defense spending slumped a little in the quarter. But given the Bush’s fiscal record, don’t count on this continuing.) Poor Krugman. It doesn’t get much worse than this, does it? He’ll be really bummed if people start getting jobs again.

GILLIGAN UNMASKED: Another bummer for Krugman. Leaked transcripts from the parliamentary committee examining the BBC’s claim that Tony Blair had distorted intelligence to beef up the case for war against Saddam are riveting stuff. Essentially, Andrew Gilligan, the key BBC reporter, unravels in broad daylight. Both Tory and Labour MPs accused the BBC reporter of “leading the public up the garden path in a most staggering way.” One asked Gilligan if “he wished to issue a full and frank apology to this committee for having, in my view I believe, grievously misled this committee.” Hard to get more damning than that. Meanwhile, evidence for WMDs in Iraq mounts up.

Now the Israeli government is intent on breaking up marriages it doesn’t like. A new law would prevent Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip who marry Israeli Arabs from living with their spouses in Israel. This new law is a horrifying attack on a basic freedom – to marry the person you love; and it smacks of racism of the worst sort. Israel contends it is protecting itself from terrorists using the law to get into Israel to attack Israelis. There are surely better ways of doing that. One of the more brilliant insights of Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is that one sign of freedom is the ability to construct human relationships without the state intervening. With this new law, Israel’s presence in the West Bank corrupts its own democracy one little bit more.

WHY MY SUGGESTION WON’T FLY: Thanks for all your emails on the FMA question. Many of you think that a federalist state-by-state process is a fine idea. But the social right doesn’t. Here’s why. They’re worried that if a state decides, even by legislative action, to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, then those couples will sue the federal government for federal benefits. As they should. That will then conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which the social right knew at the time and still knows is unconstitutional. So the Supreme Court, upholding states’ rights to determine marriage and wary of a federal law that obviously singles out gay people for discrimination, will strike DOMA down. Then we essentially have same-sex marriage on a state and federal level. The only way to stop states making up their own minds is to make it unconstitutional for any state to decide on gay marriage at all. Hence the current FMA which, on my reading, would also bar any state from enacting any benefits to gay couples whatever – even modest domestic partnership deals. That’s how radical an attack on federalism this amendment is. They want to gut federalist principles, end a volatile national debate before it goes against them, and write anti-gay animus into the only place the courts cannot resist: the Constitution itself. Whatever else these people are, they sure aren’t conservatives.

“Sorry, Andy me boy, but buttfuckery will NEVER be an act of marriage. And if you don’t like the backlash? Well, as you have so often observed, Americans will put up with abuse for a very long time, then we’ll put our foot down and crush it, and the abusers who cause it, if the abusers go too far. Just be glad that stopping gay marriage is as far as we’ll go. We regard the prospect of judge-mandated queer “marriage” as the political equivalent of flying jet aircraft into a 110 story paired bride and groom. We are not going to put up with it. If you DO want to stay here, respect our fucking laws, thank you very much.” – more arguments (more reasonable ones, mercifully) on the Letters Page. I have to say that the sheer volume of lewd and crude hate-mail from conservatives these past few days has been overwhelming. But they’re offset by the genuine missives from many others on both sides, for which I’m most grateful.

The backlash to gay equality is now in full swing on the right. The Vatican declared in no uncertain terms the “evil” nature of loving gay relationships. Not only are gay relationships inferior to straight ones; they bear no relationship whatsoever to them. They are not even “remotely analogous.” Love is not something gay couples feel in the way that straight couples feel. And if a gay couple adopts, say, a foster child, then they are inflicting “violence” upon such a child. Violence. This from an institution that, we now know, condoned, covered up and practised the molestation of hundreds of children. I guess they’re speaking from personal experience. In Canada, “Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary warned that Mr. Chrétien [the Canadian Prime Minister] could be doomed to burn in hell if he allows same-sex legislation to become legal.” And then I get a revealing email like the following:

A few years ago I attended a lesbian “marriage” ceremony in Memphis. One of the women involved was a childhood friend of my wife, and as a pretty libertarian conservative, I was all in favor of it. To my utter surprise, about halfway through the “ceremony” I was furious and I only grew angrier. It took a while to figure out why I was so upset, but what I finally decided was that if this charade of a real relationship was to be called “marriage” then what does that make my own marriage? Is all marriage to be reduced to this level? My marriage is the most important thing in my life; it honors a promise I made before God to love & cherish my wife; it’s a promise made completely separate from the issue of whether we have sex with each other. (We’ll still be married if either of us should suffer some injury.) How can you compare that to the fly-by-night sexual couplings of gay people who define themselves, to the subordination of all other traits, by their sexual preference? I encourage communities that are so inclined to constitute some sort of legal relationship that allows for property inheritance, rights to handle details at funerals & hospitals, etc., regardless of sex or relationship. I will never accept the gay agenda of cheapening the meaning of marriage so that those who have chosen to live outside the boundaries of normalcy can feel better about their choices by redefining normal.

There you have it. He provides no evidence why this lesbian relationship is somehow a “fly-by-night sexual coupling.” That’s just how he feels about it. A heterosexual quickie Vegas wedding would doubtless leave him feeling far less angry. What you have here, I think, is a simple defense of privilege. This is my piece of social status. If queers are in it, it’s no longer special. Why? The usual inchoate emotions. One reason minorities have always always needed courts to defend them against overwhelming majorities is that privilege has defenders. Remember the battle over inter-racial marriage? Back then, whites felt that their institution would be destroyed and cheapened by “mongrel” weddings. Much bigger majorities opposed inter-racial marriage in 1967, when it was finally protected, than now oppose same-sex marriage. But then those evil judicial activists imposed equal marriage rights on an unwilling populace.

On my fortieth birthday in a little while, in this little resort town, I have the privilege of having Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn coming to Town Hall for a “Democracy Now” teach-in. On the very day. Isn’t that special?

It seems clear to me that we are now headed toward a terrible and possibly definitive tempest on the issue of gay equality. President Bush said yesterday, in so many words, that he is considering amending the constitution to deny gays legal equality in their relationships – indeed to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the sacred words of the founding document. It is very hard to think of any act any politican could endorse that would alienate and marginalize gay citizens and their families more. The Republican leadership in the Senate has signed on:

The pace of the gay marriage activists’ campaign through the nation’s courts is uncertain, but it is not at all certain that DOMA or other legislation will stop determined activists and their judicial allies from pursuing this agenda – only a constitutional amendment can do that. The Senate should evaluate the Federal Marriage Amendment seriously and consider whether it, or any other constitutional amendment, is the appropriate response.

That’s directly from the Senate leadership, under John Kyl. (What Kyl ignores is that “gay activists” have been the last people to endorse this. The fight for marriage began and continues because of ordinary gay couples refusing to accept second-class citizenship. We had to battle most activists to get it on the agenda at all.) The Weekly Standard has run a cover illustration depicting gays as some sort of barbarians intent on destroying society. National Review views polygamists as preferable to gay couples. Next up: the Vatican will declare that giving gay people equality under the law will also destroy society.

CAN WE AVOID IT? Of course this is one side of the ledger. On the other are polls showing growing support for gay equality and a revolution in attitudes toward gay people. The popular culture suggests that the battle for gay acceptance is over – and tolerance has won. The world – including America’s closest friends and allies – is moving fast toward integrating gay people fully into society. Big majorities in the younger generation support gay equality. The two states contemplating equal marriage rights both have majorities in support of the move. Many principled conservatives balk at amending the constitution on an issue that’s clearly highly volatile in public opinion – and will continue to change in the years ahead. I have faith in this country and the fairness of its people. I cannot believe that they will ostracize gay citizens for ever in an impulsive and explosive constitutional amendment. I also cannot believe that this president wants to marginalize an entire group of citizens for good simply because of who they are. Certainly, if this amendment is pursued by this administration, it’s the end of any relationship between the gay community and the Republican party. Those of us who have tried to build a bridge between the two are watching helplessly as the White House mulls burning it. They won’t, will they? Or will they?

ONE OPTION: Okay, so here’s something that I don’t support but offer to the president as a suggestion. He wants to reserve marriage to heterosexuals but he doesn’t want to hurt, wound or marginalize gay people. I’m prepared to accept that is his genuine position. But it won’t be convincing if all he does is back the FMA, as currently worded. How to avoid that nightmare? He could back an alternative amendment that says merely that no state should be forced to recognize the marriages in any other state. That essentially codifies federalism and prevents a nationalization of gay marriage through the courts (a highly unlikely scenario, in my view anyway). And it doesn’t tell states what they can and cannot do for their own residents. It doesn’t impose a single definition of marriage on the whole country. And it preserves state autonomy. That seems to me a sensible compromise if some kind of amendment looks impossible to stop. It’s conservative in the right sense. I, for one, want to see federalism work on this matter. Why? Because I think the experience in one state will reduce the fear and panic elsewhere. But those who predict disaster also have a chance to prove their case. Isn’t that the way this country is supposed to work?

More good news at the New York Times. They’re getting an independent ombudsman to field reader queries and complaints. The report on what went wrong in the Blair catastrophe pulls no punches either:

“No single person, no single mistake, no single policy is responsible for the embarrassment of plagiarism and fiction that stained the journalism of The New York Times in the spring of 2003,” the three outsiders wrote, based on their interviews with many of the people who had overseen Mr. Blair’s career. Mr. Blair declined to be questioned, citing “health reasons,” according to the outside journalists. Instead, the outside journalists concluded, “a series of management and operational breakdowns made it possible for a junior reporter in his mid-20’s to get past one of the most able and sophisticated newspaper editing networks in the world.” “Behind the Blair story,” they wrote, “lay a misguided pattern of tough supervision and lenient forgiveness that led to retaining him, and in fact promoting him, when at several points he was demonstrating that he was not yet ready to join the staff of The New York Times.” Indeed, less than a year after receiving “a particularly negative evaluation,” the outside journalists found that Mr. Blair was given a merit raise while covering the Washington-area sniper case.

Mr Raines, he partly responsible. If this is Bill Keller’s first real decision, it’s deeply encouraging. But Keller still seems in some denial about the role of race. He writes in a memo that the charge by “partisan” critics that race may have had something to do with Blair’s promotions is “wrong.” But Raines himself admitted it was a factor in his own tolerance of Blair. And the report says that “diversifying the staff was only one of a collection of factors” that had “propelled Blair upward toward journalistic disaster.” So it was a factor – if only one of many. Why would Keller deny something the report affirms?

DAVID HOROWITZ ON MEL: A bumper crop of new letters on the Letters Page.

DEAN’S YEARBOOK ENTRY: It’s great. And it’s real!

Some of you have chided me for not noting the USA Today poll showing a backlash against gay equality in the wake of Lawrence vs Texas. I didn’t because I think it’s a blip not a trend. The long run shows clear and growing acceptance. And it’s routine that backlashes like this occur. Take Vermont. In November 1999, the polls showed 47 percent against gay marriage and 40 percent in favor. Two months later, after the civil unions legislation passed, the opposition went up further to 52 percent. But a year later, polls showed that number down to 46 percent again and support for civil unions rose to 52 percent – a majority for the first time. A full 27 percent actually described themselves as “enthusiastic” supporters of the new law. Once people realize what this actually means, they calm down. And move on.

THE BBC VERSUS BLAIR: Here’s how they spin quotes. What Tony Blair said at his press conference yesterday was: “There is a big job of work to do – my appetite for doing it is undiminished.” Here’show the BBC described it: “Tony Blair has fended off questions over the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly – but acknowledged that trust in his government was an issue which he had to confront. Mr Blair, who said his appetite for power remained ‘undiminished’ despite his recent troubles, said he understood the ‘very legitimate questions’ to be asked over Dr Kelly’s death.” The war continues. (Via Oxblog.)

I forgot to publish the Fredriksen letter on the Letters Page. It’s there now. Apologies.