Hate and Fear of Homosexuals in Iowa

In April 2009 the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that same-sex marriages were permissible in Iowa. Apparently this ruling has caused several Iowa legislators to lash out in their hate and fear (not to mention idiocy, but more on that in a minute).

Iowa has a Safe Schools Law to protect students in Iowa schools from harassment and bullying. At present, Iowa’s law apparently provides that it is illegal to harass or bully another student because of that student’s “age, color, creed, national origin, race, religion, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical attributes, physical or mental ability or disability, ancestry, political party preference, political belief, socioeconomic status, or familial status”. (Note that I have not read the entire statute, but I do wonder why it might be acceptable to bully or harass another student because of the student’s favorite football team, musical preference, style of dress, or any of the host of other non-protected class reasons for which kids are bullied.) However, Iowa Republican state representatives Jason Schultz and Matt Windschitl apparently thinks that harassing or bullying gay students is a good thing. So, they’ve introduced a bill (HF 2291) that would delete the words “sexual orientation, gender identity” from the statute.In other words, it would apparently be OK to harass or bully a student as long as you did so because the student was gay. And just so that you don’t think I’m being creative in my description of the bill’s effects, here is how the bill’s sponsors describe the purpose of the draft legislation (emphasis added):

This bill strikes sexual orientation and gender identity from the definition of the term "trait or characteristic of the student" used for purposes of protecting students in public and nonpublic schools from harassment and bullying.

What a lovely lesson to be taught in our schools: Go ahead and harass and bully those gay kids!

But in case that wasn’t enough, Rep. Schultz has also introduced another bill (HF 2313), that appears designed to prevent Iowa courts from ever issuing another ruling like that which permitted same-sex marriage:

602.1100 Judicial authority.

1. A judicial officer shall not use judicial precedent, case law, penumbras, or international law as a basis for rulings. A judicial officer shall only use the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, and the Code of Iowa as the basis for any ruling issued by such judicial officer. The only source material that may be used for interpreting the Constitution of the United States by a judicial officer in this state shall be the Federalist papers and other writings of the founding fathers to describe the intent of the founding fathers, and if such source material is used, the full context of the source material must be used by the judicial officer.

2. This section is not reviewable by the court.

3. A violation of this section by a judicial officer shall be considered malfeasance in office and subjects the judicial officer to impeachment under chapter 68.

Unfortunately, it is probably difficult to explain how incredibly stupid this bill really is, but I’ll try.

To begin to illustrate the problem, let me relate a story. Shortly after beginning my career as a lawyer, I was downtown with my girlfriend (now wife) and several other friends. For reasons that I don’t remember, one wanted to see where I worked. So we walked over to the building where our office was and rode the elevator up to take a look. For some reason, this girl was fascinated by the firm’s law library (which was actually rather small…). She asked me why we needed so many books. My first few attempts to explain how the “law” works fell on deaf ears (or, perhaps more precisely, went in one ear, flew through the vacuous emptiness, and exited the other ear). So I tried a different route. I pulled out a volume of the Indiana Code and looked up the statute dealing with murder and showed it to her (the key language was “knowingly or intentionally kills another human being”). Then I asked her whether it was a murder if a police officer shot a criminal who was holding a gun to a victim’s head? What if the criminal wasn’t holding a gun to a victim’s head, but rather, was running away from the police officer? What about a doctor, I asked, who had to make an emergency decision of whether to save the life of a near-term fetus or the mother following an terrible traffic accident? What about two kids playing with their father’s gun when it accidentally goes off? What if one of the kids had been pointing it at the other, thinking it wasn’t loaded? What if the person who pulls the trigger was drunk or under the influence of drugs or medication? What if the person who pulls the trigger was acting in self-defense? What if the person who pulls the trigger thought he was acting in self-defense, but no real danger existed?

Now most lawyers can easily see through and address these examples, but they served their purpose with my friend. I explained to her that statutes could only handle so many issues. The legislature could try to think of events that might occur and decide whether they should be crimes or what the law should say about them, but it is impossible to imagine every single possibility. That, I explained, was what case law (common law) was for. Of course murder probably wasn’t a very good example to use, but for someone with no experience with the law it worked very well.

But I think that this story illustrates the point of the importance of common law as a supplement to statutes and constitutions: There is only so much that the legislature can address in advance. Filling in the gaps and applying the law to particular situations is the job of judges and, under our system, has been for hundreds of years (predating the founding of the United States). People complain about lawsuits, but most of the issues that make it to the Courts of Appeals or Supreme Court deal not with issues that are clearly set forth in statutes (or constitutions), but rather with the trickier issues that aren’t subject to such readily obvious answers. That is one of the main reasons that we have an independent judiciary.

But think what else this proposed Iowa bill would do. First, how well do either the US Constitution or the Iowa Constitution address the advances in modern society or the changes in public attitudes. For example, what does either Constitution say about the right to privacy on Facebook? What does either Constitution say about ownership of a frozen embryo following a divorce? Does either specifically address whether the police need a search warrant to train heat detecting equipment on a house to see if the house might have heat lamps commonly found in marijuana operations or whether the police can track a GPS unit in a cellphone? With this proposed bill, Iowa courts and the law of Iowa could never adapt and grow. The law would always be stuck in 1789 (and whatever year the Iowa Constitution was adopted) plus whatever statutes the legislature adopted. And just think of the inconsistencies that could cause. One Iowa court might say that Iowa’s Constitution allowed something while another court might disagree. Without resort to case law and precedent, there would be no way for anybody, courts or citizens, to anticipate what the law would be. This law might actually lead to more litigation; after all, if there is no case law to look to for guidance, each and every issue not clearly set forth in statute will need to be relitigated over and over and over. If judge’s are bound by precedent (as they are now), then we have a pretty good idea of what the law should say about any given subject, though with the understanding that as society and our world change, the law can change and grow with it.

One other thing about this bill is worth noting: Why the reliance upon the Federalist papers and other documents about the intent of the Founding Fathers? (And who, precisely, are the founding fathers?) Why do we need to look to their intent if the Constitution is supposed to be able to stand up on its own? We don’t look outside of a contract unless there is an ambiguity (of course that rule is from common law…), so is the Iowa legislator suggesting that the Constitution is ambiguous? But if it is ambiguous, isn’t it then appropriate to look to common law? And how, I wonder, do we decide which documents of the Founding Fathers may be used? Is Jefferson’s letter setting forth his opinion that the First Amendment erected a wall of separation between church and state one of those documents? I suspect advocates of prayer in school would disagree; after all, they’ve contended for years that what Jefferson may have said in a private letter has nothing to do with the Constitution.

I could probably go on at length (as if this hasn’t been long enough already…). In the end, these two bills simply provide ample evidence of the fear (and hatred) of some on the right toward gays and toward the possibility that court’s might view gays as being a protected class subject to equal rights, just as African-Americans were in the Civil Rights era. Plus, the second bill demonstrates just how profoundly stupid some legislators really are and how little they understand about how American jurisprudence really works.

How Do You Compare to the Wingnut … er … Republican Population?

Research 2000, a “nonpartisan full service research firm” just finished a poll on behalf of Daily Kos. The poll was conducted in late January 2010 and asked just over 2,000 self-identified Republicans a series of questions. The results are … well … staggering. But before diving into the results, let’s play a little game. Below, I’ll reprint the most interesting questions. Take out a piece of paper and write down both your answer and the percentage of those polled who you think answered the same way that you did. Let’s see if you’re a wingnut or sane.

• Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
• Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
• Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
• Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
• Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?
• Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?
• Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?
• Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?
• Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?
• Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?
• Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?
• Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?
• Should contraceptive use be outlawed?
• Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?
• Do you consider abortion to be murder?
• Do you support the death penalty?
• Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?
• Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?

Well, how would you classify yourself after answering those questions? Do you think that your answers are similar to the majority of self-identified Republicans or do you think that you found yourself in the “minority”?

Let’s take a look at the results (for full crosstabs [results], take a look at the detailed information at Daily Kos):

• Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

Before telling you the percentage of self-identified Republicans who answered this question in the affirmative, it is worth remembering what the Constitution says about impeachment: “The President … shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. (Article II Section 4.) Just out of curiosity, what treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanor has President Obama committed, other than trying to push forward the agenda upon which he campaign and for which he was elected by a majority of Americans?

Anyway, 39% of self-identified Republicans believe that President Obama should be impeached and another 29% of self-identified Republicans aren’t sure! Only 32% of self-identified Republicans do not believe that President Obama should be impeached. Too bad the survey didn’t also ask respondents to identify the grounds for impeachment. But think of what those numbers mean and then tell me how in the world bipartisanship is supposed to work. How is an elected Republican expected to work with President Obama or Congressional Democrats when this is what the Republican base believes (and maybe the elected Republican agrees…)? Also, think about the fact that President Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob and Republicans want President Obama impeached for … um … something. But President Bush got a free pass for torture, imprisoning people without right to counsel, warrantless wiretaps, going to war on the basis of a lie, ignoring intelligence that warned of an impending attack against the US, perhaps using aircraft, and the list goes on and on. What does it say about people who (I presume) did not want to impeach President Bush but do want to impeach President Obama?

• Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

Now don’t forget that, despite everything you may have read, President Obama did release his birth certificate and it was fact-checked by the non-partisan Factcheck.org. Nevertheless, 36% of self-identified Republicans do not believe that President Obama was born in the United States and another 22% aren’t sure. Add to this the fact that much of the “birther” community argues that President Obama is not a natural born citizen on the basis of his father’s British (Kenyan) citizenship, not that President Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii (though a segment continues to argue that he was born in Kenya [and has offered several obviously fake birth certificates to “prove it”] or even Indonesia [on the basis of nothing more than sheer idiocy…]). The point is that if President Obama was not a natural born citizen then he would be ineligible to be President. If only 42% of self-identified Republicans do believe that President Obama is the legitimate President, then what does that say about his ability to govern or the ability of Congressional Republicans to work with him.

It is worth comparing the “birther” conspiracy to the 2000 Bush v. Gore election. Despite ample evidence that President Obama is a natural born citizen, Republicans don’t believe it. In 2000, despite evidence of electoral shenanigans and a hotly disputed court case, once President Bush took office, Democrats didn’t refuse to work with President Bush on the grounds of “illegitimacy”. How many military officers did we see refuse to serve because they didn’t believe President Bush was the lawful Command-in-Chief? So what is it that gives the “birther” conspiracy the strength to endure even after it has been repeatedly debunked? To me, the fact that so many people are so willing to believe the “birther” theories in the face of contrary evidence says much more about the “birthers'” themselves than anything else. “We don’t need no stinkin’ facts; we know the truth, goshdarnit!”

• Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

I still wonder how many Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) really understand what it means to be a socialist or really understand what policies are socialist. Anyway, 63% of self-identified Republicans believe that President Obama is a socialist and another 16% aren’t sure. Only 21% don’t think that he’s a socialist (though I wonder if a percentage of those answered “no” because they think that he’s either a fascist or a Marxist). Of those who believe that President Obama is a socialist, what percent do you suppose would be willing to forego Social Security, Medicare, public education, interstate highways, NASA, and a whole host of other government programs?

• Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

Before I tell you the results of this question, go back and read it again. And again. Think about what you’d have to believe to answer this question in the affirmative. Well 24% of self-identified Republicans do think that President Obama wants the terrorists to win and another 33% aren’t sure. Less than half of Republicans believe that President Obama does not want the terrorists to win. Query why so many Republicans think that President Obama wants terrorists to win. Is it because he doesn’t want to torture them? It is because he wants to close Guantanamo and have trials? Is it because his middle name is “Hussein”? It can’t really have anything to do with Afghanistan or Pakistan given that President Obama has increased troop levels in Afghanistan and increased the number of drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Pakistan. But next time you hear a Republican complain about trials for suspected terrorists or the refusal to torture those in custody, think about those complaints in the context with the fact that it appears that those policy differences mean that President Obama “wants the terrorists to win”.

• Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?

21% of self-identified Republicans believe that ACORN stole the 2008 election and another 55% aren’t sure. Think about that, three-quarters of Republicans either believe that ACORN “stole” the 2008 election or aren’t sure. Again, one has to wonder what the basis for this belief (or inability to decide) could be. Could it be the thousands of prosecutions in formerly red states against ACORN for procuring fraudulent votes? Um, wait. There haven’t been prosecutions for procuring fraudulent votes. The only thing that really makes sense here is the sense that ACORN = BLACK and African-Americans turned out to vote in 2008 and helped elect President Obama. And of course President Obama’s election must have nothing to do with the financial meltdown, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Sen. McCain’s policies, President Bush’s unpopularity, or Sarah Palin. Nope, none of that could have been a factor. It must have been ACORN. But it is interesting to note the extent to which, among Republicans, a largely African-American community organizing group has become the bogeyman for what they perceive as the ills of America.

• Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

I’m going to answer this one in the reverse first: Only 14% of self-identified Republicans believe that Barack Obama is more qualified to be President than Sarah Palin. 14%. Please go back and read my previous essays American Idol Candidate and A Victory for Thought. I don’t really have much more to say about this issue; between those essays and other things that I wrote during the campaign, I think that I’ve pretty well exhausted the subject. But for those who didn’t read my previous posts, let me just say this: I believe that being educated at some of the finest schools in the country, including law school, lecturing at one of the finest schools in the country, acting as a highly successful community organizer, and serving (even if briefly) as a state legislator and in the United States Senate makes Barack Obama far more qualified than Sarah Palin who served as mayor of a town with a population of just over 5,000 and governor (until she quit) of a state with the 47th largest population. Then again, we do have to give Palin credit for discovering those non-existent “death panels” and publicizing them on Facebook, don’t we?

• Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

Don’t forget that President Obama was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. Well, 31% of self-identified Republicans still think that he is a racist who hates white people and another 33% aren’t sure. Barely one-third of self-identified Republicans don’t think that President Obama is a racist who hates white people. I wonder what percentage of that 31% are themselves racists? Just for fun, go back and take a look at my posts about some of the tea parties from last year (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) and think about the issue of racism and who (President Obama or the Republicans who think that he’s a racist) might better be characterized as the racist. And for those who do think that President Obama is a racist who hates white people … um … why?

• Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

Before I tell you the results of this question, query how many of those who answered “yes” would also identify themselves as patriots. Anyway, 23% of self-identified Republicans think that their state should secede from the United States and another 19% aren’t sure. While it is true that 58% percent don’t think that their states should secede, that still leaves an awful lot of “patriots” who favor secession or who haven’t ruled it out. Can you imagine the outcry from Republicans if a single Democrat were to favor secession or even discuss the issue of secession? Anne Coulter would write a a book; Glenn Beck would cry; Rush Limbaugh would give himself a coronary; and Sean Hannity would … what the hell is it that Hannity does anyway? But the Republican Governor of Texas openly talks about secession as a legitimate option. How very patriotic.

Let me quote Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos, about the responses to this particular question:

42 percent of Republicans aren't really patriotic. They pretend to love America only when they approve of the president. These traitors don't believe in democracy, in our nation's founding ideals, or in our flag. To them, those colors run. They are cowards.

Note, secession sentiment is MUCH stronger in the South than elsewhere -- 33 percent want out, compared to just 52 percent who want to stay. In the Northeast, "just" 10 percent want out, in the Midwest, its 18 percent, and in the West, it's 16 percent. Can we cram them all into the Texas Panhandle, create the state of Dumbfuckistan, and build a wall around them to keep them from coming into America illegally?

I guess I should feel good that “only” 18% of Midwestern Republicans want to secede.

• Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

Republicans still favor a “big tent” philosophy, right? Um, not so much. 55% of self-identified Republicans don’t think openly gay men and women should be allowed to serve in the military and 19% aren’t sure. I wonder how many Republicans will change their mind now that Admiral Mullen has come out in favor of repealing “don’t ask don’t tell”? After all, in their proposed purity test, Republicans wanted to follow the advice of military commanders (“We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges”). Nevertheless, I recognize that repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” and the issue of gays in the military is hotly debated, not just among Republicans, so let’s look at Republican views on other “gay” issues.

• Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

While the general outcome of this question probably won’t come as a surprise, the “margin of victory” as it were was somewhat surprising. Only 7% of self-identified Republicans believe that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. 77% do not believe that same sex couples should be allowed to marry! It is worth noting (though I’m not sure what it means) that 80% of men oppose same sex-marriages, but only 74% of women oppose same-sex marriages. It is also worth noting that while only 5% of self-identified Republicans aged 60 or over favor same-sex marriage, 11% of Republicans aged 18-29 favor same-sex marriage. There appears to be a direct correlation between age and support for same-sex marriage. That, in part, explains Republican efforts to amend state constitutions. They see that the demographic tide is shifting in favor of gay marriage, even among Republicans (though by a much smaller majority); thus, they want to amend constitutions now so that more socially open generations that follow can’t easily have their state laws adapt. I still wish that I understood what these people are really afraid of…

• Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?

Well maybe Republicans who oppose same-sex marriage would be more comfortable with something “less” than marriage. Or not. 68% of self-identified Republicans oppose state or federal benefits for gay couples. So much for civil unions, I guess.

• Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

Ooh. Scary. A homosexual teaching kids. Well, it apparently is scary to self-identified Republicans: 73% are opposed to openly gay men and women being allowed to teach in public schools.

Just to recap, no gays in the military, no gay marriage, no state or federal benefits for gay couples, and no gay teachers. Do you suppose that it would be fair to say that Republicans are opposed to gay rights? Or, said another way, given that some Republicans would argue with the phrase “gay rights”, is it safe to say that Republicans are opposed to gays? It seems to me that the Log Cabin Republicans really need to think about who they’re associating with and why.

• Should contraceptive use be outlawed?

Before diving into this question, remember that it is Republicans who talk about keeping government out of our lives, who were scared of “death panels”, and are usually opposed to “on demand” abortion. So you’d think that Republicans would support the use of contraceptives to avoid unwanted pregnancies and would be opposed to laws restricting what people can do, right? Um, not so much. 31% of self-identified Republicans believe that contraceptive use should be outlawed and another 13% aren’t sure. Remember, the question isn’t whether Republicans think that they shouldn’t use contraceptives, but rather, whether the use of contraceptives by others should be outlawed.

• Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?

Now that we know that nearly one-third of Republicans want to outlaw the use of contraceptives, can you begin to guess why? Yep. 34% of self-identified Republicans believe that the birth control pill is abortion and another 18% aren’t sure. In other words, less than half of self-identified Republicans disagree with the statement that the birth control pill is abortion. Given that, how in the world is any pro-choice or family planning advocate supposed to find any kind of common ground with Republicans? But it gets better…

• Do you consider abortion to be murder?

Only 8% of self-identified Republicans answered “no” to this question. Less than 1 in 10! 76% of self-identified Republicans do believe that abortion is murder and another 16% aren’t sure. No wonder people like Dr. George Tiller are killed (well, that and people like Bill O’Reilly egging on those pre-disposed to anti-abortion violence). I do wish that the survey had asked a few deeper follow-up questions to gauge whether this opinion moderated in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the health of the mother.

• Do you support the death penalty?

Well, at least we know that the vast majority of Republicans recognize the sanctity of life. Except that 91% of self-identified Republicans support the death penalty (with another 5% not sure). I don’t think that I’ve really addressed my views on the death penalty in this blog previously and I don’t really want to get into a long discussion of that now. Broadly speaking, I support the death penalty in a limited number of truly heinous crimes when we really, really, really know that the defendant is guilty; but I temper that support with the belief that as new technologies become available we need to make every effort to utilize the technology to confirm guilt before putting someone to death. I’d much rather have guilty people rotting away in jail than innocent people being killed. I don’t know if Republican support for the death penalty has any sort of nuance, but if I had to guess, I’d wager that Republicans would probably say, “hey, if they’re guilty, fry ’em”. Of course, I suspect that those same Republicans would also be willing to eliminate Miranda warnings, right to counsel, and a whole host of other protections afforded to criminal defendants.

• Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

Think about this question for a moment and what a response really tells us about someone. First, if you answer in the affirmative, doesn’t that mean that you perceive your religion as right and all others as wrong? After all, we would only be teaching the “truth” to our kids and another religious tradition that disagreed with that truth must, by implication, be wrong. Second, think about what an affirmative answer to this question says about your view of science. If Genesis explains how God created the world, then doesn’t that mean that not only evolution but also anthropology and astronomy are wrong? Note that this question isn’t even asking if Republicans think that “intelligent design” should be taught instead of or alongside evolution; it is asking if the Bible should be the source material for certain aspects of the science and history curriculum. Third, those answering in the affirmative need to address which creation story from Genesis should be taught in schools to explain the creation of the world. Read Genesis 1:25-27 and Genesis 2:18-19 and then tell me whether God created man or animals first. Then read Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:18-22 and tell me whether man and woman were created at the same time or if woman was created after man. I continue to marvel at the ease with which people will assume that the Bible is the inerrant truth and ignore obvious problems that interfere with that belief.

Anyway, with all of that out of the way, let’s look at the results. Drum roll please… 77% of self-identified Republicans believe that public school students should be taught that the book of Genesis explains how God created the world. Another 8% aren’t sure. Thus only 15% of self-identified Republicans do not think that we should be using the Bible as the basis for certain history and scientific curricula in public schools. The obvious antipathy toward science evidenced by the desire to teach the Bible instead of science is worth remembering next time you hear a Republican talking about the lack of “evidence” for climate change or evolution.

Which, of course, brings us to the real heart of the matter, the question that helps to explain so many of these previous answers:

• Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?

67% of self-identified Republicans believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is through Jesus. 18% aren’t sure. I wonder what portion of the 15% who answered negatively aren’t Christians? I’d certainly presume that any Republicans who are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or any faith other than Christian would have answered “no”. But what this response really tells us is how Republicans view everyone who isn’t a Christian. At least 67% of Republicans, if not substantially more, think that I’m going to hell. Wow. Moreover, it is worth remembering the response to this question when you next hear a Republican demonizing a political opponent; after all, why bother to humanize or cooperate with someone who you believe is going to hell anyway. And perhaps this answer helps explain why Jews identify so strongly with the Democratic party.

Whew. I know that there’s a lot to digest here. There were several other questions in the poll that, frankly, didn’t interest me that much or for which the responses weren’t particularly revealing or meaningful.

It seems to me that asking Republican candidates some of these questions in upcoming elections might be a good strategy; their responses might shore up support with their base, but might also further alienate them from the moderate center of the American electorate.

The main thing that I take away from the results of this poll is that a large percentage of self-identified Republicans really are bigoted wingnuts.

IN Touch: A Threat to Our Rights

My thirteenth post on The Indianapolis Star's IN Touch blog is now online. As I've said previously, I'm going to keep re-posting those entries here (at least until someone from the Star asks me to stop). Go ahead and visit the post on the IN Touch site, anyway.

On Jan. 20, the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee considered SJR 13, which would amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and prohibit the General Assembly from legislating civil unions in the future.

Proponents of SJR 13 talked about the need to "protect" marriage and spoke about "threats" to traditional marriage. Yet neither the sponsor of SJR 13 nor any of its proponents identified those threats from which marriage must be protected. Not one of them even tried to explain how failure to amend the Constitution would have a negative impact on their marriages or families. Not one of them explained how failure to amend the Constitution would solve crises faced by Indiana, such as taxes, budget shortfalls, education, decaying infrastructure, crime and poverty. Yet they were all so concerned by this phantom threat that they want to amend not just the Constitution but the Bill of Rights.

Take a few minutes and read the Indiana Constitution (while most of us are familiar with the U.S. Constitution, how many can honestly say they are familiar with Indiana's Constitution?), in particular Article I (the Bill of Rights). Our constitution (especially the Bill of Rights) largely focuses on either the structure of government or the rights granted to Hoosiers. Do we really want to start amending our Bill of Rights with provisions that serve to restrict, rather than enhance, those rights? Do we really want to amend our constitution now in order to make it harder for future generations of Hoosiers to enact laws that extend rights?

The current issue is not whether same-sex marriage should be allowed in Indiana; it is already prohibited by state law. The question is whether we, as a people, are so threatened by the possibility of same-sex marriage that we are willing to amend our constitution to address that perceived yet unidentified threat, and whether we want our Bill of Rights to restrict rather than grant rights.

My Testimony in Opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 13 (Proposed Amendment to the Indiana Constitution to Define Marriage and Prohibit Civil Unions)

On January 20, 2009, I testified before the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee was considering Senate Joint Resolution 13 (SJR 13) which would amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and to prohibit civil unions. Here is the full text of the proposed amendment which would, if adopted, be added to Indiana’s Bill of Rights:

Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

I usually endeavor to keep separate my personal thoughts and opinions from those that I espouse on behalf of organizations with which I am affiliated (in particular the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council for which I currently serve as president). My testimony before the Judiciary Committee was on behalf of the JCRC and in my capacity as president of that organization. Nevertheless, given the importance of the issue (it is, after all, a proposed amendment to Indiana’s Constitution) and the fact that my testimony is not only public record but was also aired on the Senate’s live web feed (and will apparently be available on the Senate’s archived feed at some point in the future), I have decided to reprint my prepared testimony here. I want to take a moment and give due credit to Mark Sniderman, a friend and colleague on the JCRC Board, who testified against SJR 7 (the predecessor to SJR 13) back in 2008. My testimony was based, in part, on his prepared remarks; I deleted some and added some, but he deserves credit for preparing a well thought out and articulated presentation that I was able to use as a framework for my remarks.

I’m sure that my actual words were not identical to my prepared testimony. Furthermore, in order to meet the five minute time limit that I was asked to observe, I selectively edited my prepared testimony as I went; I’ve endeavored to indicate the provisions that I omitted in red. In addition, I contemporaneously added to my testimony to address some of the arguments (or lack thereof) that had been offered by proponents of SJR 13. I’ve also endeavored to provide at least an idea of what that portion of my testimony consisted of in green.

Finally, I want to note that the JRCR has not taken a position on same-sex marriage and I was not testifying in favor of same-sex marriage (though I personally support it). Rather, JCRC’s position, as I tried to articulate in my testimony, is that we oppose efforts to amend the Constitution to restrict, rather than enhance, rights.

Thank you Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Wallack. I am an attorney in private practice and I am privileged to rise on behalf of and in my capacity as the President of the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council, in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 13. The JCRC is comprised of representatives from every synagogue and Jewish membership organization in greater Indianapolis.

Our Jewish community supports the rule of law to assure equal rights, and we oppose constitutional amendments that restrict, rather than enhance, the rights of Hoosiers. Thus, we accordingly oppose SJR 13.

I believe that it is important to understand that we did not arrive at our position without due consideration; in fact, our community engaged in a process of learning, debate, and discussion, that lasted for nearly a year before we adopted our position. Several supporters of SJR 13 (and its predecessor) participated in that process in an open forum that we hosted on the subject. But eventually our community did adopt a position in opposition to the effort to amend our State’s Constitution.

We unconditionally support the core values of religious liberty, the separation of church and state; the safeguarding and advancement of civil rights; and the principle of equal protection under the law.

Jewish tradition teaches that each individual life is sacred and of infinite value. We are commanded to assist the less fortunate; to speak for those who cannot be heard; to stand by those who are unjustly treated; to be animated by the spirit of tikkun olam — the repair and mending of the world.

We Jews have known discrimination merely for being, or appearing to be, different; from the politest snub to unspeakably worse. Discrimination against any group of people is an insult to Jewish values. We are committed to a society that is just, compassionate, and fully democratic. Moreover, we strongly value the notion of a pluralistic, democratic society that, while recognizing the will of the majority, protects the rights of the minority.

What, then, do we owe one another as citizens? At the very least, we cannot decide that some people should be forever barred from possessing the rights and benefits of others, if the voters, through their elected representatives, want benefits and rights to be shared. Federal and state laws now grant over 1,100 rights and benefits to married couples and their families but deny them to unmarried couples. However long they live together, however deep their commitment to one another, by law unmarried couples may not possess the right to joint ownership and transfer of property; the right to participate in pension and social security benefits, health insurance programs, health care decisions, and hospital visitation, among others.

These rights are bedrock. But the proposed amendment would forever deny them to unmarried couples because — and only because — some declare their love to be objectionable.

Current and future legislators, the people’s representatives, would be powerless to assist, however urgent the need, however appropriate the assistance. The Constitution itself would have to be amended, yet again.

Charity, compassion, benevolence, a commitment to equal respect and dignity help determine the quality of life in a country. But the animating principle of the United States is that the rights of the citizens cannot be dependent merely on charity or good will.

Our state, like every other, needs to become more just, not less. Enshrining discrimination into our State’s Constitution runs contrary to that goal.

The JCRC is also dedicated to the separation of church and state. We affirm the right of faith communities to prescribe their own standards for recognizing religious marriage, for it is religious ceremony, not civil law, that sanctifies marriage. Our Jewish community, like most faith communities, will not surrender to the government the power to determine what merits sanctification in our own tradition.

But SJR 13 would nullify a right that religious communities have held since the founding of this country. It would dictate to religious faiths what they can and cannot sanctify in their houses of worship. It would establish a precedent for the state to narrow the realm of religious liberty when it wishes – that is to say, whenever it is popular to do so. What if it become popular to prohibit those of differing faiths to marry, much as it was once popular to prevent those of different skin color to marry? Are those popular values that should be enshrined in a Constitution?

SJR 13 would embed the religious doctrine of some into our state Constitution, to the exclusion of others. It would undermine the principle of separation of church and state – the very principle that ensures religious liberty for people of all faiths and beliefs.

And, let there be no mistake, religious liberty is the principle to which we are committed. The JCRC deeply respects the sincere convictions of religious groups that believe that same-sex marriage is prohibited by passages found in their authoritative religious texts. We do not, however, believe that some religious groups have the right to use the government to impose their religious beliefs upon others. The Indiana Constitution includes numerous provisions that describe the relationship between the church and state, and Article I, Section 4 states it clearly:

No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship... .

Ind. Const., Article I, § 4 (Freedom of Religion). The Equal Privileges and Immunities clause trumpets the same principle:

The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Ind. Const., Article I, § 23. These constitutional provisions are bold and manifest: our legal rights shall not be dictated by religious beliefs; nor should civil laws restrict the free exercise of religion; and when our government provides benefits, it must do so to all on equal footing

We affirm the rule of law. For laws to work, they must be clear. Their working must be predictable. Their consequences must be measured. But the rhetoric surrounding this Amendment is feverish. Perhaps worse, it is cloudy and obscure. Not one legislator has offered a clear definition of “status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage”. The mere existence of so much contention over the meaning and effect of this Amendment is reason enough to stop. Let us all agree to this rule of civil society: before we amend our Constitution, we should understand, broadly and generally, the effects of our actions.

As a result of our commitment to our core values, the Indianapolis JCRC:

1) opposes any constitutional amendment that constricts rather than enhances rights; and we therefore oppose SJR 13; and

2) opposes any effort that would diminish the authority of clergy to practice their own religious requirements regarding marriage.

To those of you who will vote against this proposed amendment, I offer our gratitude.

To those who have no doubts about the merits of the amendment, I say to you: you have a duty to question the wisdom of amending the Constitution itself to impose the religious views of some who seek to restrict the civil rights of others. Laws can be passed, then repealed. Amendments to the Constitution can hardly ever be reversed, and never quickly.

To those who may have doubts and concerns about this amendment, I ask only this: be generous in spirit, defend the principle of religious liberty, and lead us where we know -- in our very best moments -- we ought to go.

[I noted that proponents of SJR 13 not only failed, but actually made no attempt at all, to explain what the “threat” to marriage was. I explained that none of the proponents had explained how their marriages or families would be harmed by same-sex marriage and I posited that they did not even attempt to explain this threat because they recognized that the perception of a threat was patently false.]

It is also worth noting that this Amendment will not create any new jobs in Indiana; it will not solve our State’s deficit; it will not be a cure to tax woes; it will not improve our schools or our roads; it will not reduce crime or find more homes for orphaned children. Given all of these issues, is an amendment to the Constitution solely for the purpose of restricting rights really the best thing for this General Assembly to focus upon?

I have come before you on behalf of the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council. But I am not less an American for being a Jew. I ask you, I urge you: do not make government the agent of one religious doctrine. Many serve G-d. It is not for the State to decide that Protestant prevails over Catholic; that Christian prevails over Jew; that Jew prevails over Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other faith.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

None of the senators asked me any questions. It is worth noting that several senators, in particular Sen. Greg Taylor (D-Indianapolis) and Sen. Tim Lanane (D-Madison County), asked numerous questions, both of proponents and opponents of SJR 13; moreover, it is also worth noting, as Sen. Taylor did in explaining his vote, that the Republican senators asked very few (if any) questions during the entire hearing.

The Democratic senators each gave brief speeches to explain their votes against SJR 13. The Republican senators simply voted “yes”. In the end, SJR 13 was approved by the committee by a vote of 6-4. All four Democrats voted against SJR 13; six of the seven Republicans voted in favor (one was not in the chambers when the vote was taken).

Finally, as long as I’m on the subject, I want to take a few moments to address (briefly; I plan to come back and address some of these points in much more detail at another time) some of the arguments made by proponents of SJR 13:

• James Bopp, Jr., claimed that courts have “seized control” of the issue of gay marriage. While courts have certainly been involved in the issue, to suggest that they’ve “seized control” (his phrase) is misleading, at best. If we are to accept his suggestion, then it must also be true that courts “seized control” of issues like segregation and civil rights (remember Brown v. Board of Education) or, more recently, gun control (Heller and the Chicago gun control cases).
• Bopp also suggested that courts shouldn’t have a role in determining the legality of gay marriage because the “people will have spoken”. Of course that argument completely misses the point of the role of the courts in our system that recognizes a separation of powers. The people can do a lot of things through their legislators or referenda, but that doesn’t make those things right or legal. I suspect that a majority of people could be convinced to outlaw Islam or require schoolchildren to pray to Jesus; it would be up to the courts to recognize that doing so violates the Constitution. When people like Bopp make this argument, what they’re really saying is that we don’t want to give the courts the chance to tell us that legislation that we’ve proposed does not conform to the rights and privileges granted by the Constitution (or, more correctly stated, retained by the people). It is critical to remember that in our constitutional system, the will of the majority cannot trump the rights of the minority. That is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place.
• Bopp also argued that the possibility of litigation over Indiana’s current prohibition on same-sex marriage is reason enough to amend the Constitution. By that logic, however, any statute passed by the General Assembly that was, in any way, controversial, should I suppose be in the form of an constitutional amendment because virtually all legislation draws litigation of one form or another. But that is not the purpose of a Constitution.
• The best (funniest?) moment (at least to me) of Bopp’s testimony came in response to a question (from either Sen. Lanane or Sen. Taylor). Bopp said that the amendment was necessary to protect marriage from the General Assembly and the Courts; he said that was the role of the Constitution: to protect rights from the General Assembly and the Courts (oddly enough, Tim Tracy, speaking on behalf of the Indiana Family Institute, said almost the exact same thing in response to a question about the separation of powers). I don’t think that Bopp (or Tracy) quite recognized what he really said, though he was precisely right. The Constitution does protect the rights of Hoosiers. Defining marriage in a way that restricts rights is, in actuality, the exact inverse of the what the Bill of Rights does.
• Curt Smith (speaking on behalf of the Indiana Family Institute) argued that the limited definition of marriage should be added to the Constitution because “marriage is a unique, social good”. But if marriage is, indeed, a social good, shouldn’t it be encouraged in various forms, including same-sex marriage? Why is one marriage a social good while another marriage is a “threat”? And how does that impact civil unions? Wouldn’t they be a social good, too?
• A Hispanic pastor (I didn’t hear his name) argued that the Constitution should be amended because the “Bible is the infallible word of G-d”, because “G-d discriminates against right and wrong”, and that homosexuality was a behavior (a choice) that was wrong (thus discrimination against gays is acceptable, a position that none of the other proponents adopted…). He also said that referring to same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue was “offensive” and “disgusting”. I don’t think that I really need to respond to his arguments beyond saying that I found much of his testimony to be both offensive and disgusting. (Thankfully his testimony was offset by the testimony of Rev. Linda McRae of Central Christian Church who talked about what the Bible really says about marriage.)
• Micah Clark (I think) claimed that “if marriage can mean anything, it ultimately means nothing.” I’m not really sure what this means; I suspect that it is his attempt to make the slippery slope argument (oooh, if we allow gays to marry, what will be next? Polygamy? Incest? Pedophilia? Bestiality?). Of course, these same arguments were used to support anti-miscegenation (laws against interracial marriage).
• Glenn Tebbe, Executive Director of the Indiana Catholic Conference, argued that marriage should be protected in the Constitution (again, what is the threat?) because marriage is a “faithful lifelong partnership”. Of course, by that reasoning, divorce should probably be prohibited in the Constitution, too.
• Finally, Eric Miller (of Advance America) claimed that protecting marriage (again, from what?) was “in the best interests of families and children”. Of course, he didn’t get around to explaining how “protecting” marriage was in the best interests of families and children. After all, wouldn’t a married same-sex couple be a “family”? Wouldn’t children be better off in a committed, loving, two-parent relationship than in a single-parent family, let alone in foster care or an orphanage?

Those are the sorts of arguments being advanced by the opponents of same-sex marriage and the proponents of the constitutional amendment. One other point worth making: Not a single one of the people who testified in favor of SJR 13 offered any reason whatsoever as to why civil unions were bad, let alone why the General Assembly should be prohibited from adopting civil union legislation in the future should that be the will of voters expressed at the polls.

Please call your senator (and representative, for that matter) and tell them to oppose SJR 13. You don’t have to support same-sex marriage; but please tell our legislators not to amend Indiana’s Constitutions to restrict, rather than enhance, the rights of Hoosiers.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society [humor]

Tomorrow, I have the opportunity to testify to the Indiana Senate in opposition to a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana that would ban gay marriage as well as civil unions. Here is some of what I wish I could say:

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Note that I'm not the author of the foregoing list and, unfortunately, I cannot find the notes that I made when I originally found and copied the list.

Offensive, Over-the-Top Rhetoric in Opposition to a Domestic Partnership Bill

I don't normally like to bash other religions. However, sometimes an official statement from a religious official bears mention and critique.

Apparently Guam is considering a domestic partnership proposal. For those who forget, Guam is actually a territory of the United States, has a non-voting member in Congress, votes in the presidential election (though without any electoral votes, that vote is meaningless), and sends delegates to the Republican and Democratic national conventions. Like other states that have considered domestic partnership laws (or gay marriage or other civil rights issues related to sexual orientation), debate on the issue is apparently impassioned.

However, the Catholic Archdiocese of Agaña (Guam) has stepped over -- way over -- the line of decency in a political debate on domestic issues. Here is the penultimate paragraph of a letter (the entire letter can be read here), allegedly* from the Archdiocese:

The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self-sacrifice. It is a glaring example of what John Paul II has called the culture of death. Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice. Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy. One, however, does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the U.S.A. in particular is the “Great Satan” is not without an element of truth. It makes no sense for the U.S. Government to send our boys to fight Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, while at the same time it embraces the social policies embodied in Bill 185 (as President Obama has done). Such policies only furnish further arguments for the fundamentalists in their efforts to gain more recruits for the war against the “Great Satan.”

I'm short on time today, so I'm not going to go through a line-by-line examination of how flawed the reasoning and offensive the conclusions of this letter really are. Besides, I think the letter really does speak for itself. But query what it is about homosexuality -- and not, by way of comparison, the death penalty, torture, degradation of the environment, or any of a host of other issues -- that leads anyone, let alone a church, to condone such an offensive viewpoint.

*I say "allegedly" because I have been unable to confirm that this letter really does come from the Archdiocese of Agana. The website for the Archdiocese does not appear to have been updated since February 2009 (at the latest). However, I have seen numerous references to the above-quoted letter as well as a second (far less inflammatory letter on different letterhead from the Archbishop of Agaña) and I have not found any indication of a claim by the Archdiocese that it is not responsible for the quoted letter. Nevertheless, I recognize that until the authorship of the letter has been verified, criticism of the Archdiocese needs to be tempered. If this letter was not authored by the Archdiocese, you would certainly expect a strong (and prompt?) denunciation of the viewpoints attributed to the Archdiocese by the author of the letter. If, on the other hand, the Archdiocese is the author of the letter, then I would also expect strong denunciations of those viewpoints from a whole host of sources.

Prop 8: The Musical

Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris, Margaret Cho, Andy Richter, and others present: "Prop 8: The Musical"!

(The video is from Funny or Die which sometimes won't embed properly; if you can't watch it, click here to go to Funny or Die's website.)

Tolerance Remains an Elusive Goal

I'm sure that many of you have read about the Florida high school principal who not only refused to help a student who was being taunted by other students because she was gay, but who actually told her that her sexual orientation was "wrong" and then "outed" that student to her parents, told her to stay away from other students, and then suspended her friends when they wore gay pride shirts and buttons as a sign of support. (See the AP story which has been reprinted numerous places.) I find this story so disturbing on so many levels, I'm not really sure what to address or which element offends me most. So, I'll start at the beginning.

First, I cannot believe that any school official would ever knowingly allow a student to be taunted. Isn't part of the role of the school to protect children? How mad would you be if your child came home and said that she was being taunted at school but the principal wouldn't do anything about it? We'd all be outraged if the principal's reasoning was the student's race or religion; but why are some people willing to treat the student's sexual orientation differently? Is it OK to string a gay man up on a fence post and leave him to die just because he's gay?

While I can understand the principal's desire (although I completely disagree) to set the student "straight" (pun intended), I cannot believe that he would tell her that her lifestyle is "wrong". Sure, if what she was doing was illegal or dangerous then "wrong" might be appropriate, but telling a teenager that being a lesbian is wrong is no better than telling a Jewish student that his religious choice is wrong, telling a Republican that his political affiliation was wrong, or making any pronouncement related to a student's other conscious and personal choices. How offended would you be if your child came home and told you that the principal told her that her religious affiliation or political affiliation was "wrong". Why is her sexual orientation any different?

And I cannot believe that the principal "outed" the student to her parents. I'd be curious to know if he did it out of a sense of moral superiority (as in, "if her parents know, they'll "fix" the problem") or malice (as, in, "if her parents know, they'll beat some sense into her") or xenophobia (as in, "if her parents know, maybe they'll move her out of my school where I won't have to deal with her"). But what right did the principal have to give this type of information to the student's parents? Would you feel differently if the principal told the parents that the student had expressed an interest in a different religious viewpoint or was seen wearing a campaign button for a political party different from the parents' choice? What if the principal told the parents that their daughter's boyfriend was of a different race or different socio-economic class? I'm sure that teachers and school administrators learn private information about students all the time, but so long as that information does not impact upon illegal conduct or poor performance in school, then by what right are the school administrators disclosing that information to the parents?

I'm not even sure how to address the principal's telling the student to stay away from other students. Was he afraid that homosexuality was contagious or that she would rape other kids?

High school is difficult enough for most students, even without worrying about coming to terms with their sexual orientation. But to have the school principal tell you that you're "wrong", tell your parents, and punish your friends...? How much more difficult can life get?

And let's talk about those friends for a moment. I have a hard time believing that there are many principals left in America who aren't somewhat familiar with the limited free speech rights still available to students. Of course, the most famous case dealing with the subject is Tinker v. Des Moines, in which the Supreme Court upheld the right of students to wear black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. In that case, the Court noted that students do not "shed their constitutional rights when the enter the schoolhouse door." But apparently, the principal at one Florida school was either unfamiliar with this doctrine or simply thought that it didn't restrict his behavior, at least not when the issue was ... gasp ... homosexuality. Once again, can you imagine a principal suspending students for wearing a t-shirt endorsing the politician of their choosing? For wearing a button opposing the war in Iraq or supporting Greenpeace? So how could anyone think that it was OK for the principal to suspend students for simply wearing shirts or buttons to support their friend? I'd be curious to know if the principal stops students from wearing shirts or hats with Confederate flags?

And, if all of that wasn't bad enough, the principal starting asking students whether they were gay or associated with gay students. Apparently, this principal went to the McCarthy school of government administration which conveniently ignores such fundamental concepts as privacy rights and the constitutional right to freely of associate. Of course, all of that pales in comparison to the fact that the principal apparently lifted students' clothing to see if they'd written "Gay Pride" or "GP" on their skin. How would you feel if you learned that the principal at your daughter's school had lifted your daughter's shirt to see if she had written "Obama for President" or "WWJD" on her skin?

Also I can't let the reaction of the citizens of the town go without comment. They are religious people. Fine. They think that homosexuality is wrong. Fine. I'm not telling them that they should change their own particular views, religious or otherwise. They can feel and think however they want about homosexuality. That is one of the joys of America. You are free to be an idiotic, homophobic bigot if you want to. But you cannot force those beliefs upon others. The AP article says that townsfolk feel as if outsiders are forcing beliefs on them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, they are simply being told that they can't force their beliefs on everyone who happens to share their town. Stop for a minute and ask if the situation would be any different if, instead of homosexuality, the issue was race or religion. Would anybody think it OK for the community to burn a cross on the yard of the new black or Jewish neighbors? They don't have to invite the girl over to dinner or let their son or daughter date her. They don't even have to talk to her. But she is still entitled to the same constitutional rights and protections as the rest of the community.

The principal went way beyond what was right, let alone legal. That is terrible. But the support that the townsfolk expressed for his actions is, perhaps, worse, because it demonstrates a complete failure to comprehend constitutional rights, including the right to be different. It is somewhat ironic that this lack of understanding comes to light with regard to the failings of the educational system. It makes me wonder what else the people in that part of Florida have been (or not been) taught. I wonder if they still think that slavery was a good idea?

Organized Bigotry Ready for the Next Round (part 3)

This is the 3rd part of an ongoing series of posts. For prior entries in the series, please see the original post and the first update.

American soldiers are dying every day in Iraq. Millions of Americans face the prospect of losing their home to foreclosure. Gas prices and food prices are forcing average American families to make hard and painful choices and sacrifices. Millions of Americans can't afford decent health care and others have to choose between food and medication. Global warming threatens the future of our planet.

Never fear: Congressman Dan Burton has the answer to the problems facing America! He has signed on as a co-sponsor to the "Marriage Protection Amendment": a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States to ban gay marriage! Way to go, Rep. Burton, way to go (I hope that the sarcasm is literally dripping off of your screen as your read that...). That is certainly the most important issue facing our country today; after all, if we stop same sex couples from marrying, the war will end, gas prices and food prices will come down, banks will forgive mortgage debt, health care costs will come down, more employers will offer quality heath care to their employees, illegal immigrants will go home, green house gas emissions will be reduced, and baseball players will stop using steroids, right?

I'm so proud that my Congressman could come in off of the golf course long enough to add his name to a Constitutional amendment that would, for the first time since prohibition, restrict rights granted by the Constitution (did we really think that it was a good idea to let blacks, women, and 18-20 year old kids vote?). Maybe he can go after that pesky 1st Amendment next or that annoying guaranty of equal protection under the law. I mean, hey, who needs protection from the government or from the majority; after all, we have Congressman Burton and President Bush looking out for us, don't we? Maybe the good Congressman and his golfing buddies can even come up with a Constitutional Amendment to make this fine land the G-d-fearing Christian nation that they all believe it should be.

And, while I plan to continue discussing this whole issue in future posts, in the meantime, ask yourself two simple questions: First, what is it about same-sex marriage that creates such strong emotional opposition in so many people (and am I the only one to whom that opposition often looks more like a manifestation of paranoid fear)? Second, is that objection so strong and so important, that it should be enshrined in a document widely hailed as the foundation of one of the best political systems ever created and, more importantly, perhaps the single most important document enumerating, granting, and protecting human rights? Or, to be more crass, the question could be asked this way: Do we really want to fuck with the Constitution just to stop homosexuals from being treated as equal citizens?

Organized Bigotry Ready for the Next Round (update)

Several days ago, I blogged about the fact that organized bigotry, in the form of gay rights opponents advocating for a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, were ready to start spewing their drivel again. Well, unfortunately, I was right. Today's The Indianapolis Star contains a featured editorial from P. Eric Turner entitled "Let's protect the will of the people in marriage debate". As expected, Turner makes many of the arguments that I briefly addressed in my previous post.

A few things, however, are worth discussing. First, I found it somewhat curious that print edition of The Indianapolis Star identifies Turner as the assistant Republican leader in the Indiana House of Representatives while the online version of his essay omits that identifying information. Knowing that Turner is an elected official with a fair amount of power is, I think, important to know when reading his opinion; after all, he is not just a man in the street offering his proverbial two cents, but, rather, an elected legislator who has the power to introduce and vote upon legislation.

Second, I find it troubling that The Indianapolis Star would publish this essay in the first place, in part because of the allegation of malice that Turner ascribes to the California Supreme Court and in part because of the lack of a counterpoint essay offered for the sake of balance. I believe that when it comes to issues as divisive and charged as this one, a newspaper owes a duty of balance to its readers, especially to those readers who may read the words of an elected official and not have a sound understanding of the nuances of the issue or of the opposing position.

I also want to address several of the points that Turner makes in his essay. First, let's consider Turner's opening salvo: "We should be worried when the wishes of the electorate are willingly -- maybe even maliciously -- tossed aside by activist judges." Think, for a moment, about what Turner is really alleging. The California Supreme Court (the Chief Justice of which is, by the way, a Republican), found that a referendum adopted by California's voters impermissibly violated the California Constitution's guaranty of equal protection. In other words, the Court found that the people of California could not ignore their own Constitution and vote to discriminate against a class of citizens. Yet in Turner's bigoted worldview, the California Supreme Court acted "maliciously" when it decided to uphold rights protected by the Constitution. I contend that, if malice is being exhibited, it comes from those who don't believe that all people are entitled to live their lives without fear of discrimination and with all of the rights and privileges granted to their fellow citizens. I also think that it's malicious to intentionally mislead those who may not have a firm understanding of how our legislative and judicial systems work together. Apparently, Turner forgot his social studies lessons about checks and balances between the branches of government.

Turner then offers the standard right-wing diatribe against "activist judges" and proclaims: "California's justices decided to make legal what the people of California decided was counterfeit. The court stepped beyond its judicial role and legislated by fiat, making law rather than interpreting it." Once again, as I've noted several times in the past, the role of the judiciary is to do precisely what California's Supreme Court did: To examine whether a particular law is constitutional or not. When a court examines a law and compares that law to the protections granted in a constitution, that court is acting as it is intended to do. The California Supreme Court did not "legislate[] by fiat"; rather, the Court told Californians that they can't adopt discriminatory laws that contravene the express protections found in the State's Constitution.

Turner also, somewhat bizarrely, notes that "there are plenty of reasons to cite Judeo-Christian tradition in defending marriage and limiting its availability". First, not all of our laws owe their derivation solely to Judeo-Christian tradition (and we certainly ignore that tradition in many, many ways, not the least of which is the long-established right of citizens to ignore the Ten Commandments by believing in or worshipping any god of their choosing [or no god at all]). Thus, to suggest that all of our laws with regard to marriage must be somehow grounded in religious principles not shared by all citizens is both wrong and insulting (and doesn't Judeo-Christian tradition have a history of polygamy, one of the perceived evils that Turner claims will be an end result of allowing gay marriage?).

More importantly, what precisely does Turner mean when he talks about "limiting" the availability of marriage? Other than gays, who else shouldn't be allowed to marry? Interracial couples? After all, it took "activist judges" to overturn state laws that banned interracial marriages several decades ago. Perhaps Turner would prohibit divorcees from remarrying (after all, in his essay, he specifically notes that "marriage means one woman and one man uniting for one lifetime" [emphasis added]. Would the limited availability of marriage be open to infertile couples or to couples who don't intend to have children? What about those who don't come from a Judeo-Christian tradition and have different understandings of what marriage is (and is not)?And, even if these are not the types of limitations that Turner is referring to, why are we even discussing limiting civil rights? I'm curious to know if there are other civil rights that Turner would like to limit? Voting rights, perhaps? Oh, wait. He's already done that with his support for the voter ID law.

Turner also claims that Indiana's statutory prohibition against gay marriage "is based on millennia of accepted standards and has been shown to be reasonable and fair." First, those "accepted standards" are limited to Western Judeo-Christian traditions and may have nothing to do with the "standards" of other cultures that are just as much a part of America as Turner's. Second, as mentioned above, didn't those same "standards" (as described in the Bible) include polygamy? And just where have those standards been "shown to be reasonable and fair". Were they fair to women who were forced into arranged marriages for political gain (a common practice throughout European history)? Were the fair to women who could not get a divorce even when they were being abused by their spouse? Were they fair to women who could not own property or vote or engage in any of a host of activities that were reserved for men? Were they fair to the interracial couples who loved one another but were prevented from marrying because of bigots who wanted to keep the races segregated?

And just in case Turner's rhetoric doesn't sway enough people, he even resorts to a bit of fear-mongering (and note the use of the word "trashed" to describe the action of the California Supreme Court and "perversion" to, implicitly, describe homosexuality):

If Indiana's definition of marriage is trashed by activist judges, what stands in the way of other laws preventing other perversions of accepted Hoosier standards of decency? Once traditional marriage is felled, arguments against polygamy, adult-child marriages or even marriages between blood relatives become bolder.

For now, let me simply suggest that Turner is engaging in the worst type of fear-mongering on the basis of elusive slippery slope arguments. I'll take some time another day to address these sorts of arguments head on and in more detail (polygamy, in particular) and show them for the sham that they are. One thing worth noting is that these very same fears were used to try to keep bans on interracial marriage. Moreover, the ban against adult-child marriages is easy to defend on the simple basis of the fact that, unlike adults, children are not entitled to make certain decisions or to enter into contractual relationships precisely because they are children and, as children, are only entitled to a subset of the constitutional rights available to other citizens. Similarly, the ban on near-relations marrying is easily justified by the societal costs of birth defects that are frequent in these types of marriages. None of these concerns are implicated by gay marriage. And, just because Turner (or his religious tradition) views homosexuality as a "perversion" does not mean that all (or even a majority of) Hoosiers share that view; after all, we don't outlaw homosexuality (and, for the record, the United States Supreme Court has held that consensual homosexual sex is protected by the Constitution).

Finally, Turner attempts to play upon the nuclear family bias by claiming that "[r]esearch throughout the years has shown that the mother-father model works best at establishing and maintaining stable families and well-adjusted children." While this statement may be accurate, Turner ignores the fact that a two-parent family, without regard to the gender of the parents, has also, I believe, been found to be more stable and to produce more well-adjusted children than single-parent families. So, while giving every child a happy, healthy (health insurance, anybody?), stable, two-parent family is a laudable goal, it is certainly not a reason to oppose a system whereby more two-parent families might exist and where more children might be adopted into those two-parent families instead of being left in a foster care system that can't properly care for those children. If Turner is so concerned about families and a stable environment for children, he should be screaming at the top of his lungs to allow gay marriage precisely to encourage more stable two-parent families and to offer the possibility of adoption for more Hoosier children. The fact that Turner turns [sorry] that analysis on its head and uses the need for two-parent households as a reason to oppose gay marriage demonstrates that Hoosier children are not his real concern.

I'm still not sure why the issue of gay marriage resonates so strongly with me, but it does. And I will not be shy about standing up telling people like Turner why they are wrong and why their viewpoint is, in essence, bigotry.

Organized Bigotry Ready for the Next Round

Now that California's Supreme Court has recognized that civil rights should apply to homosexuals, Indiana's bigots are ready for a renewed fight to be sure that gays in Indiana can't possibly be recognized as having civil rights by a Court. Proponents of the proposed amendment to enshrine discrimination into Indiana's Constitution are apparently gearing up to take the issues to voters and make gay marriage an "important" issue this fall. I strongly oppose the proposed Constitutional Amendment and I support gay marriage. I'm not quite sure why the issue resonates so strongly with me, but it does. And I'm not shy about saying so. I suspect that, over time, I will write on this issue at length and I want to make several things clear right from the start.

First, if my tone (such as the use of the word "bigot") seems aggressive or strident, it is supposed to. Personally, I believe that anyone who opposes gay rights is just as bigoted as someone who opposed interracial marriage or allowing a "negro" into the local country club or keeping quotas on the number of Jews in certain colleges or ... well, you get the picture. Gays are people and, no matter whether we think homosexuality is a choice or a function of DNA, as people, they are entitled to dignity and respect, just as are those of us in the heterosexual community. Anybody who thinks that a certain group is not entitled to basic human rights is, in my estimation, a bigot. End of story.

Second, even though I am a staunch supporter of gay rights, I am not, myself gay. So what? I'm not African-American either, but I support equal rights without regard to race. I'm male, but I support gender equality, too. I'm neither Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, but I support rights for all religious communities as well. You see, I support the concept of human rights and civil rights and equal protection and I don't believe that some of those rights apply to certain groups but not other groups. Perhaps it's because I'm a member of a religious minority group myself that makes me sensitive to the rights of other minority groups, be they religious, racial, or whatever. But when people take a stand against extending rights (and that must be distinguished from privileges) to groups on the basis of race, gender, religion (or lack thereof), national origin, disability, or sexual orientation (and don't think that list is exclusive), then they are being bigoted.

Plus, ask yourself this: What is it about gay marriage, in particular, that makes people so outraged, so nervous, so angry, that they are willing to amend the Constitution to, for the first time in Indiana's history, enshrine discrimination into our basic governing law. Look through Indiana's Constitution and the US Constitution and see how many times we've amended those documents to take rights away or to limit the extension of rights. I think you'll find that, with the exception of prohibition (which was quickly repealed), both the Indiana Constitution and the US Constitution are documents that have been used to grant and extend rights, not to limit rights or to prevent their extension.

Third, if gays are allowed to marry, it will not weaken the institution of marriage. My wife and I may argue about lots of things (and who doesn't?); there may be lots of things that put stress on our relationship, whether it be work, money, family, which TV show to watch, whether to have chicken or fish for dinner, whether we want to the front door to stay green or be painted blue, instead, or who gets to feed the goldfish tonight. But whether a gay couple is allowed to marry or ... gasp ... adopt a child, will certainly not be one of the things that puts a strain on our marriage, make our marriage any less meaningful, or make us love each other or our children any less. To those who believe that allowing gays to marry will weaken the institution of marriage, I suggest that they first watch a TV show like Extra for the latest on celebrity hook-ups and divorces (how long was Britney married that first time?). Next, they should look at divorce rates and the difficulties presented to children of divorced parents. Then they should visit an orphanage or check out the lives of children living in foster care facilities. Finally, they should take a big time out and really evaluate what is important in their own marriage and what makes it stronger or weaker. Then, they can then tell me about the "integrity" of the institution of marriage.

Fourth: What exactly does the government have to do with marriage anyway? Most objections to gay marriage are, at their core, based on religious opposition to homosexuality. If a religious tradition does not support gay marriage, then that religion does not have to marry a gay couple. But marriage is about more than words spoken by a priest or rabbi or imam; marriage, from the perspective of our government and laws, is also about property rights, health care decisions, family planning, and other matters that have nothing to do with religion. Perhaps religious marriage and the government should be separated completely. Let religions marry people and let the state recognize civil unions (both hetero- and homosexual). Then, property rights and other legal implications of "marriage" could be divorced (pardon the pun, I couldn't resist) from the religious "meaning".

Fifth: Why are those on the right of the political spectrum so opposed to "judicial activism" when it overturns laws that discriminate or take away certain rights, but don't have any problems when other judges invalidate laws that take away other rights? The California judges who believe in equality are thought to be upsetting the will of the people, but judges who overturn gun control laws are viewed in an entirely different light. More importantly, there is a very simple concept that many opposed to judicial activism (and gay marriage, in particular) fail to understand. An example of this failure is evident in a letter to the editor published in today's The Indianapolis Star in which reader Tim McDowell bemoans the fact that the California Supreme Court dismissed the wishes of California voters. What is implicit in this letter is the notion that, if voters want something, then courts should always respect that decision.

The problem, of course, with this viewpoint is that it is anathema to the very way in which a constitutional democracy like ours is supposed to work. Mr. McDowell apparently does not understand the very premise that the role of the judiciary in our constitutional democracy is to protect the rights of the minority. As I've mentioned in the past, I suspect that a majority of voters could be convinced to outlaw Islam or Judaism or to make Christianity the "official" religion of Indiana, to stop newspapers from criticizing the government, or to take away any of a host of rights that have been recognized over the last 200+ years. But the point of the judiciary is to protect minority groups from the whims of a majority. Our Constitution protects freedom of religion, even if a majority thinks that Islam should be banned. Our Constitution doesn't allow a majority to decide that African-Americans can't live in a certain community. It was "activist judges" who recognized that "separate but equal" school segregation was unconstitutional as was a ban on interracial marriages. Yet people like Mr. McDowell would appear to suggest that the will of the majority should be allowed to trump the rights of the minority. That is not America. I wonder what people like Mr. McDowell think about popular decisions to ban guns in certain communities, even if that popular decision might be in violation of the 2nd Amendment? Should the will of the majority trump any individual rights that may be found in 2nd Amendment? And what if the women in society (who, I believe, hold a slim majority) voted to take rights away from men? What would Mr. McDowell say? Would he allow voters in Martinsville to ban African-Americans or Jews from moving to their town? Could voters in Marion/Hamilton County vote to outlaw Republicans/Democrats (as applicable) in their respective county? Why is it OK for judges to strike down some laws but not others? Why are some rights worthy of protection but not others?

It has always been easy for the majority to take rights away from (or refuse to extend them to) a minority group, but the very essence of our system protects all groups from the whims of the majority. That is one of the reasons that our system of government has often been described as flawed but still the best ever created. Just because a majority may not want gays to have full civil rights, is not reason for the courts to ignore what is right, even if unpopular. Judicial activism is rarely anything more than the courts intervening to protect the minority from the majority as our judicial system was designed to do.

OK, I know. I got a bit off topic there. But that's OK. My point is this. I support the right of gays to be left alone and treated like everyone else, and that includes the right to marry (although I'm willing to call it something else if that makes the objective easier to obtain). And, I believe that those who oppose extending civil rights to groups on the basis of sexual orientation (not to mention numerous other reasons) are, essentially, bigots. So, as the issue begins to be debated again (and used as a wedge issue to divert attention from more serious issues like Iraq and the economy), I intend to speak up, often and loudly. I oppose the proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage and I intend to use this blog to help explain why and to take to task those bigots who would deprive others of basic human rights.

Or maybe we should just find a majority willing to pass a law to make bigots just shut up and go away. What would they say to a majority who didn't want to hear them spew their bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and hatred. Then again, much as it pains me, I believe in the 1st Amendment and the rights of idiots to say what they want. But I also believe that I have the right, if not the duty, to tell them what I think of their ideas.