red fuzzy jesus

How To Deal With Bigots-In-Law

This commentary from Daniel Cubias posted on the Huffington Post, How Do You Handle The Bigots In Your Family? is getting top billing today because it addresses the sensitive issue of bigots related to you by marriage.  As many friends know, my sister is married to a very hateful man who has had a simmer of bigotry as long as I've known him.  Once in Harrisonburg he made special effort to point out "those who played for the other team" as he called them (i.e. gay people?) and I used to hear him make a charming fake foreign accent when ridiculing people who made incorrect turns in traffic.  "Theece Eez Amahricka!"  It is not done in an ironic or social commentary way in which speech expectations are challenged.  It's real.  He means it. 

Over the years I've heard him make various comments about various groups and it's something you just grin and bear.  He's a poster child of white male privilege and stunted personal development that you do not try to engage in real conversation.  Then, while my family was together for Christmas this past year he had what I affectionately label a "bigotry explosion" that may have caused irreparable damage to my relationship with my sister.

I relate this story not to air my dirty laundry but because I have since found out it is a more common occurrence than I realized.  One family member's uncontrolled bigotry is ultimately disruptive to relationships.  It's not uncommon for families to argue about this or that during the holidays. And family relations are more important than differences of opinion so familial love has to include respect and care in spite of not always seeing eye-to-eye. But there's a special case when that anger is unidirectional and evidence of identity-based animus.  There's something to be said for the adage that all civil rights struggles are really interpersonal struggles.  Meaning, progress for the oppressed is not fully achieved through court cases and legislation but through the willingness of individuals to speak up when someone makes a racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, or otherwise cringe-worthy comment.  Cubias handles this well but there are still unanswered questions.  

"Is it more proper to call him on his bullshit? Or would that just be a waste of time that does nothing but jack up everyone's blood pressure? Is it standing up for oneself and La Raza to go on the counteroffensive? Or is it more dignified to dismiss idiocy with the split-second contempt that it deserves?"

The topic also came up inadvertently while I was doing some research to prepare for officiating duties at a wedding next month.  Apparently, the bigot-in-law is more common than I realized.  This comment in particular stuck a cord,

"I regret that I didn't speak up yesterday when one of my uncles made a really offensive anti-Semitic comment at the party after my niece's baptism. The man is an across the board bigot and has said some awful things not only about Jews (although he has never known any except for my husband and now me), African Americans, gays, Asians, Hispanics or basically anyone who is not exactly like him."

I take some responsibility for the bigotry explosion because I have not called my brother-in-law on his bullshit enough over the years.  But, I honestly am not sure how I could have interacted with my sister and kids if I had made it a point to correct every little comment or subtle indication of prejudice.  Focusing on past dealings, however, has limited utility.  Instead, on a going forward basis, if I have any interaction with this man at all - which is unlikely - I will not be silent in the face of bigotry.  Whatever unspoken ceasefire agreement we had has been obliterated.  And, as my very good friend Steve has pointed out, silence is its own form of internalized prejudice. 

I do not agree with being an overflowing fount of conflict at family get-togethers.  There's an etiquette to keeping some opinion's to one's self in the interest of go along and get along.  But there is also a line that gets crossed.  In a way, it is somewhat liberating.  Maybe he'll read a compelling book someday or expose himself to people and places outside his immediate redundant purview.  I have no control over that.  But what I can control is my reaction to it which - now and forever - no longer includes condoning.  

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al: Initial Thoughts

Obviously, I’m thrilled with the decision because it went the right way.  But, there are additional things to point out to explain why the decision was even better than expected.  Nobody who followed the oral arguments would think Judge Walker, or any judge, would uphold Proposition 8.  But, he went further than just striking it down.

 

The reaction to the decision on the right has been shrill but stuck to a familiar canard.  Judges should not overturn the clear will of voters.  It is an indictment of judicial review rather than any real reason why California needs Proposition 8.  It is an interesting political strategy but not a valid legal one.  An attorney arguing before a judge needs to expand his or her argument beyond, “Your honor, you shouldn’t be hearing this case.”   

 

But, did they throw the case intentionally or were they subconsciously aware the case in favor of Proposition 8 was so weak.  Remember, it was the pro-Prop 8 side that fought over and over again to keep evidence from being released and to keep the hearings as secretive as possible.  They did not want the public to see the facts in the case.  Their call for the unchecked will of the majority is distorted by their efforts to conceal information from the public. 

 

They say now that they never had a chance because Judge Walker is gay.  Supposedly a gay sexual orientation robs a legal professional of his impartiality.  But, at one time during the trial, Judge Walker expressed concern that the pro-8 side had called just two witnesses and begged them to mount a stronger defense.  They didn’t.  And no prominent figure in California politics came forward to defend 8.  It was limited to far-right interest groups.  Even though Governor Schwarzenegger is the named defendant in the case, he wouldn’t come near it.  On the day the Perry decision was released he said,

 

"For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.

"Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”

 

Then, Governor Schwarzenegger asked the judge to no stay his decision,

 

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called today for the immediate restoration of same-sex marriage in California, urging the federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 to impose his ruling while the case moves through the higher courts. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry "is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect," said a legal brief written on behalf of Schwarzenegger.” 

 

Oh my word!  So much for defending that terrible proposition.  The only groups willing to argue in favor of it are those that make a career out of anti-gay animus.  It further weakens their case that they cannot find a single politician or expert or anyone who isn’t already on the payroll of one of these groups.  If the harm they argue is real, one would think it would be apparent to someone outside the shrinking religious right echo chamber.

 

I am still perplexed as to what this meant.  There are possibilities:

1. Their strategy all along was to lose and then blame those awful activist judges.
2. They knew their side has weak arguments and delivering some of them in court and having them rebuked would hurt an overall political campaign against equality.
3. Deep down they know there is no harm and that their position is based on animus.  You can translate animus into fear in a political campaign (the gays are taking over your children’s schools, etc.) but you’re unlikely to scare a judge that way.  You need actual facts, precedent, and legal theory to argue a case before a judge. 

 

It may be a combination of these and things I’m not even considering.  Jeremy Hooper ran a fascinating piece on Good As You called ‘Eating Their Own’ in which one anti-gay legal strategist criticizes another for their handling of Perry.  But, as I said in my letter to Peter LaBarbera, is it a question of strategy?  Is it really that they aren’t selling the product better or is it that the product is an empty can nobody wants to buy after looking inside?

 

One thing that was so amazing about Judge Walker’s decision in Perry is that he calls the can empty.  He looked at the arguments presented by both sides and realized, clearly, that one side just had more to say.  There was more substance including sound research, documentary evidence, legal arguments, legal precedents, on and on.  The other side had a nebulous claim of pending harm that – even when pressed very hard by Judge Walker – could not be defined.  Remember the “Coming Storm” ad from NOM.  The coming storm is a metaphor for… I’m not sure.  Apparently those who made the ad are not sure either. 

 

The decision in Perry was also great because it applied strict scrutiny and suspect class status to gay citizens.  Put too simply, that means California needs to have more than just a rational basis for Proposition 8 and the specific exclusion and political targeting gay people have endured for decades must be considered when reviewing a law that targets and excludes them.  This will make it virtually impossible for the Pro-8 side to win on appeal. 

 

So, the case will almost definitely be appealed to the 9^th Circuit where I would be shocked if the decision were overturned.  Then the pro-8 side is likely to ask for it to be reviewed by all the justices on the 9^th Circuit with a similar result.  The next stop is the Supreme Court, which doesn’t have to hear the case.  They grant cert to a very small number of federal cases that request it.  But, this one will be a big one and by that time the roster of the Court might have changed.  So, either the 9^th Circuit’s decision will become the law of the land for that region or the Supreme Court will take up the issue.  Who knows what the outcome would be at that point.  However, if gay marriage was considered by the Supreme Court I would want it to be within the context of a case about Proposition 8 because, as Judge Walker pointed out, the Proposition 8 campaign was so seedy and had so much willful misinformation that the Supreme Court would have a hard time justifying reinstating it. 

 

There is another option that is extremely unlikely.  The pro-8 side might stop at the trial court level, where the fallout is limited to California.  They may even try to fight the political battle again rather than a legal one.  I don’t think this will happen but it’s possible.  If so, they can contain the damage from Prop-8 and lose the issue in a state that was likely to overturn 8 via voting next election cycle anyway. 

 

That brings me to a final point.  Part of me wishes there had been a political victory rather than a judicial one.  I think the “activist judges” crap is nonsense from the right.  But, I can remember election night watching the Presidential election get called quickly for Obama only to focus, nervously, on California’s election returns.  The final vote took days to be announced and I kept refreshing my computer as hope faded.  I want to see the rights of a minority – my minority – win in a political arena.  And it’s happening.  It will happen some more. 

 

Those that argue against “activist judges” need to be questioned on the major civil rights cases of the 20^th century.  Were those also not the purview of the courts and instead the sole domain of a panicked and bigoted public?  They should also answer larger questions about how a liberal democracy is to protect against tyranny of the majority or guarantee equal protection without courts playing such a role.  There’s a discussion to be had there and there are solid arguments against judicial review.  But they do not make those.  They cry about judicial activism but run to those same “judicial activists” to overturn majority based policy whenever some kid isn’t allowed to wear an offensive t-shirt at school or when college Christian clubs intentionally exclude some members of the student body while taking activity funding from everyone. 

 

They don’t really want to argue against judicial review.  They want to cry about gays being treated as equal to them because they don’t have much of an argument to make other than a guttural aversion to that form of difference.  And they know that doesn’t play well in courts no matter who the judge is. 

 

One thing is sure.  Times are changing.  They are changing quickly.  They are changing because animus can be stimulated for short-term political gains but is not a long-term education, political, or legal strategy.  And, though the right refuses to admit this, there are just too many parallels with previous civil rights battles.  We’ve seen this movie before and the movie always seems to go by quicker with subsequent viewings.  It’s an exciting time to be alive! 

Dominionism and Epistemology

I have decided to post the main piece of writing I've been working on this semester as a PDF.   It has been submitted to several Political Science journals and is awaiting peer review.  Below is the précis only followed by a downloadable  copy of the full document.  Enjoy:

Précis

Dominionism is an authoritarian ideology that combines political hegemony with metaphysical certitude.  A key impediment to any authoritarian leadership is the capacity of subjects to question and counter its claims to power.  Human reason and critical analysis provide the inspiration to subvert an authoritarian regime.   This paper examines an American political movement that works within the confines of liberal democracy to supplant liberal democracy.  Critical to its agenda is the undermining of institutions that cultivate reason in citizens.  The underlying difference in the conflict between dominionism and reason is best understood as a competition of epistemologies.

Download dominionism_and_epistemology.pdf

Dramatis Personae

Recently in a discussion of the book American Fascists by Christ Hedges the topic was raised of whether the religious right constituted a fascist movement.  Topics included the challenge of effectively identifying fascism and who exactly counts as a member of the religious right.  I argue that the average religious fundamentalist family is primarily apolitical in their day-to-day life but that one can review the prevailing rhetoric of religious right interest groups and evaluate them in terms of their compatibility with the assumptions of liberal democracy.

Religious right groups typically depict themselves as desirous of a place at the table of public discourse.  And their rhetoric is usually phrased in terms of support or opposition to specific pieces of legislation.  To understand the religious right agenda one has to look deeper than reactions to singular legislation and focus instead on the underlying beliefs about the role of government.   This level of analysis is useful in deciphering whether the religious right is just a genre of interest group within liberal democracy or opponents to liberal democracy altogether. 

The religious right phrases their agenda in terms of individual issue positions.  But they do not actually advocate isolated policy preferences.  They advocate a different basis for law than is conventionally understood in a republican form of government.  They oppose pluralism in which different viewpoints compete equally for representation via elected representatives and issue advocacy.  Their central assumption is that their understanding of their religion should be the law of the land for everyone and those not adhering to their understanding of faith should be treated differently under the law. 

A good example of this is the contrast in response to two different expressions of faith.  In the case of Roy Moore they argued vehemently that Moore had the right to use government resources to display the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse.  However, they also opposed the right of a Hindu minister to lead Congress in prayer.  Most religious right groups issued action alerts encouraging supporters to contact their members of Congress to prevent a prayer from another faith being read in Congress.  Protesters ultimately disrupted the Hindu prayer and the disruption was predictably praised throughout religious right web sites. 

This contrast shows their view of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.  Not only is the civil government – even the supposedly impartial judiciary - expected to express faith but only those adhering to the correct faith are afforded this right.  They advocate that members holding a specific interpretation of a specific religion be privileged while others are denied equal treatment under the law.  This surpasses mere issue advocacy and advocates a different style of government than liberal democracy.

A key tenet of liberal democracy is freedom of conscience – the right to believe what you choose.  This freedom is not based on an immutable characteristic like race.  People willfully choose their religious identity and can renounce their faith or convert to a different religious identity at anytime.  The freedom of conscience is based on individualized liberty.  One’s understanding of morals, religion, faith, their role in the universe and their relationship to a supreme being and each other is so core to identity that they are awarded special protection under the law.  That understanding of individual identity and the legal right to define one’s self and the confines of one’s life is key to other aspects of liberal democracy.  Central to freedom of conscience is the right of one citizen to reject the prescriptions of another citizen’s faith without legal repercussions.  Absent this understanding of personal autonomy no political system can derive other tenets such as private property rights or the rights of association and expression. 

The religious right gains a lot of attention in the media because they are the only reliable opponents to gay rights.  Unfortunately, the religious right has been successful in defining the discourse on gay rights in terms of support or opposition to homosexuality. The legal issue of gay rights really has very little to do with homosexuality.  One can vehemently oppose homosexuality based on personal religious convictions while still supporting equal treatment under the law regardless of religious convictions.  The issue of gay rights has to do with freedom of conscience.  By advocating that gay people should face legal discrimination because of a lack of adherence to their faith the religious right opposes absolute protection for freedom of conscience.  They currently gain the most yardage in their run to supplant individual liberty by adamantly opposing gay rights but the temporary target of their agenda is irrelevant in light of their overall vision of government.  There were other targets used in the past to argue against freedom of conscience and there will be new ones in the future when gay panic ceases to be lucrative. 

Leaders of religious right groups believe homosexuality is immoral.  They have every right to believe anything they want.  But they go beyond personal belief to advocate that people should be treated differently under the law based only on their expression of faith.  A good example of this is the opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  ENDA, if passed and signed into law, would make it illegal to fire someone because of actual or perceived sexual orientation.  The only source of opposition to this bill is religious right groups.  They not only believe that homosexuality is wrong (a personal religious conviction) but that it should be legal to fire someone for not practicing their faith the way they prescribe. 

Morality based unequal treatment under the law is not sustainable legally due to the equal protection guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment.  This realization is the reason religious rights groups invest so much interest in judicial appointments.  They code their support in terms of literalism or strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitution.  But their concept of constitutional application is so literal that it becomes useless in contemporary law.  Their advocacy is forced to then shift to opposition to judicial review altogether or an outright rejection of the rational basis test and the doctrine of stare decisis. 

In a liberal democracy members of the religious right are free to believe that certain things are immoral without fear of losing their job or facing discrimination in public accommodations.  Likewise, people should be free to choose not to adhere to precepts of others’ religious faith without the fear of legal discrimination.  The issue is not a minority religion or sexual orientation per se but the freedom of conscience to define one’s own moral parameters and governmental neutrality toward those personal parameters.

In order to have freedom of conscience and the formalized legal protections that derive from that freedom a government must be limited.  There must be certain aspects of an individual’s life that are so personal, so core to identity that they are outside of the coercive jurisdiction of the state.  The religious right advocates that the government invade that personal sphere and award certain individual liberties to the correct religious practice while denying those same liberties to other concepts of self.  From opposing the right of defendants to take an oath on the Koran to all legal protections for gay Americans the religious right forwards an understanding of government that is incompatible with liberal democracy. 

Public opinion on the issue of gay rights is quickly shifting.  In the near future faith-based moral opposition to equal rights will be an unpopular minority opinion.  Even when that demographic change occurs, freedom of conscience will protect the right of people to disapprove of homosexuality.  The religious right’s attack on the right of others to live out their beliefs undermines the protection for their own beliefs.  For this reason, the religious right is not merely anti-democratic but an irreducibly self-destructive movement that counters the understanding of freedom of conscience that makes their moral advocacy possible. 

The accurate label for the religious right remains elusive.  Some say they are a fascist movement.  Others stop at merely authoritarian.  I prefer the term “theocratic democracy” because I see a basic respect for the institutions of democracy in their rhetoric combined with religious criteria for full enfranchisement within those institutions.  Regardless of the label, even a precursory view of their advocacy reveals that they work within the confines of liberal democracy to establish a basis for law that is antithetical to liberal democracy.  The endgame is a theocratic caste system in which full individual liberties are awarded to the sufficiently pious whereas those deemed immoral or members of an inferior faith are treated differently under the law.   

The Grandma Dillusion

Two bills have been introduced in Congress lately that mark significant progress in human dignity.  The first is a modification to hate crimes laws to include gender, sexual orientation, and disability status.  The second would make it illegal to fire employees based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.  I know I tend to be a bit liberal but when I first heard about these two bills a few months ago I was surprised they weren’t already law.  I thought for sure it was illegal, or at least sue-able, to fire someone for being gay.  And I could have sworn women were already covered by hate crimes laws.  I was wrong.  The debate on the floor of the house before the passing of the hate crimes modifications was perfunctory, predictable, and hardly dramatic.  The bill is a shoe-in to make it to the Senate.    This does not echo the debate among interest groups.  There are some people out there that still believe you should lose your job for not following their religious orthodoxy.  And there are some out there who equate hate crimes protections for women, gays, and handicapped people to us becoming a Stalinist regime.  Guess who?

It is difficult to list, much less counter, all the insane and inane arguments against these bills floating among the “pro-family” crowd.  It is so tedious a task.  It certainly can’t be done in one article so I will try through a series to dissipate the dense fog that exists in these people’s minds.  Fortunately for the first category of ridiculous rhetoric there is a large degree of repetition.  That first argument against hate crimes laws being expanded to cover gay people is the argument I call the Grandma Dillusion. 

This insidious piece of “reasoning” uses a transparent manipulative tactic: take something that instills disgust in your followers and juxtapose it against something that engenders fondness.  For example, compare grandmothers to gay men and surely no red-blooded good Christian would support giving legal protections to the latter if it meant jeopardizing the former. 

A few examples of this are as follows:

Matt Barbar, one of the more spiteful men at Concerned “Women” for America explains hate crimes by saying, “All things being equal, this means that if your 5-foot-2-inch grandmother were attacked in her home and a 6-foot-4-inch homosexual linebacker who likes to wear lipstick and high-heels were attacked by the same assailant, the "gay" linebacker would be treated as more valuable to society, and the crime would officially be considered more egregious.”

Originality at CWFA is not a priority as Shari Rendall of the same group later writes, “A grandmother walking down the street should have at least as much protection under the law as someone who is leaving a “gay” bar.”

In discussing Conyers, one of the original sponsors of the bill, Janet Folger explains, “And he must hate…grandma. And I think it's a crime. You see, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee just introduced the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act" which would not only restrict our speech and remove equal justice, but it would give senior citizens (and the rest of us) less protection than homosexual activists.  So, if you're going to mug someone, better make sure it's grandma (unless she's become a lesbian) – because if the guy whose money you steal happens to be a homosexual, you're looking at a triple sentence. Go after grandma, and it's one-third off! Hey, why don't we save everyone a lot of time and just hand out "Conyers' Coupons for Criminals!"  She even has cute little coupons to encourage violence against grandma.

Monica Boyer of Illinois Voice for the Family explains hate crimes laws by saying it would “[make] it a worse crime to assault a gay man walking out of a bar than attacking a grandma walking down the street.

Another former Concerned “Woman” for America, Robert Knight, warns of the dangers of hate crimes laws by saying, “Equal protection means your grandma and your friend who lives as a homosexual have the same rights when they walk down the street. Under a hate crimes law, someone who mugs your grandmother will not be prosecuted as vigorously as someone who commits the same crime against a homosexual. This says to criminals: ‘Mug Grandma; It’s less risky.’ Hate crimes laws aren’t about justice; they are about favoritism and special rights.”  He repeats himself here in the Baptist Press.   

A stellar piece of journalism from the “Christian” "news" source Agape Press reads, "So if your grandmother is mugged… it won't be a big deal, and the law enforcement authorities may have to put more of their revenues toward the mugging, say, of a homosexual guy walking down the street.”

On their website, the Campaign for California Families asserts, “If John Doe randomly picked a lesbian and killed her because he hates everyone with a homosexual orientation, he would be given a stiffer penalty than if he killed his grandmother because he hated her. That is, the lesbian would be valued more than the grandmother.”
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat11.htm

Never one to be left off the crazy train, the American Family Association argues, “Under this radical bill, an assault against a homosexual man in his 30’s leaving a gay bar would carry a stronger punishment than the same crime against a grandmother leaving the grocery store.”

And one of the frequent AFA contributors, AKA Shelly the Republican, makes it clear by saying, “Let me just make this clear – you will spend more time in jail for killing a gay who tried to have sex with you then some crackhead who beats a little old grandmother’s head in for the pocket change in her purse.”

There are literally dozens more examples of this.  No one in the religious right is concerned with coming up with an original argument against hate crimes, much less a serious one. 

Anyone with a bit of education can smell the rhetorical rat in these claims.  Of course it won’t be less illegal to kill grandma or anyone else under the proposed expansion of hate crimes laws.  The religious right argues against “hate crimes laws” as if they’re a new concept that hasn’t existed for decades.

The original hate crimes laws were introduced over 40 years ago during the height of the civil rights movement.  The same Southern Baptist religious conservative crowd that viciously opposed the original hate crimes laws in the 60s is the same crowd that opposes their expansion now.  The church groups and geographical location of the opposition has not changed – only the targets. 

The four original categories were race, nationality, ethnicity, and religion.  The first three are somewhat redundant but the fourth is enlightening.  For more than four decades members of the religious right, and any other faith, have been protected by hate crimes laws.  And yet it has never been less of a crime to beat an atheist grandma over the head than a Jewish one – no matter what they say. 

The idea of hate crimes law is not to elevate categories of people over others.  They are designed to address the layers in complex crimes.  The original introduction of hate crimes laws came after a series of church burnings and bombings in the South.  The idea is that if someone comes to your backyard and burns down your garden shed and no one is hurt the crime is simple arson.  However, if someone comes to your church and burns it to the ground and no one is hurt it’s more than just simple arson.  The burning of a church sends a message to all followers of that religion within a particular community.  It implicitly threatens them with violence simply because of the faith they choose to practice.  So, in the instance of a church burning, there’s the crime of arson coupled with the independent offense of threatening a larger community.

It is not that poor gardening grandmas are valued less under the law than churchgoers.  It is a recognition that more than a simple act of violence has occurred when considering the symbolism of burning a church.  It is the same with ethnically owned businesses.  If you smash the glass at Belk and steal some watches you have committed theft.  It is a serious crime that is prosecuted.  However, if you smash the window of a Muslim bakery and spray paint racial epitaphs all over the walls you have done more than just breaking and entering.  You have used that crime to send a message to all Muslims in the community not to do business in your neighborhood.  There is an additional layer of criminality when one considers the threatening message.

Adding gays, women, and people with disabilities to hate crimes laws follows a similar logic.  If someone mugs someone for cash it’s a mugging.  However, if some thug is targeting men who leave gay bars for violence then that crime is sending a message to all gay men.  It tells them they shouldn’t get together – that they should live in the shadows or face getting beaten over the head.  There’s an additional crime present in that threat.

I know that Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc. do not directly advocate violence against gay people.  That’s not to say they don’t contribute to it with their constant fire-and-brimstone message about gays and feminists destroying all of society.  But, they don’t outwardly advocate it to their followers.  They do, however, benefit greatly from it.  As long as misguided males use gay people as their personal punching bags there will be all the more reason to remain in the closet.  It’s not gay bars the religious right fears gays assembling in.  It’s HRC meetings. 

If you can keep gay people closeted with any method of fear then you can slow their political progress.  The religious right’s first priority is political power and this continues to be threatened by their opponents.  If it is now a federal crime to threaten the greater community with violence, their silly radio shows will never be enough to derail the latest wave of the civil rights movement. 

So, rather than arguing why hate crimes shouldn’t exist for anyone in the first place they rely on frightening fabrications about your grandma being killed.  Religion is a choice.  You may be born into a religious family but you willfully choose to adopt that faith as your own and you also choose the way you practice it.  It is not an immutable trait as evidenced by the frequent religious conversions and general wandering agnosticism so common today.  If that lifestyle choice deserves special protection under hate crimes laws then surely the arguably less chosen, less mutable identity trait of sexual orientation deserves equal protection. 

The religious right has no sound argument against expanding hate crimes laws.  The best they can do is scare followers.  Fear is a powerful motivator in politics.  But, fortunately, so are facts. While fear is effective it is also fleeting.  Facts, however, are more sustainable as a political tool and a better predictor of ultimate success.   

What Christmas Movies are All About

I dislike a lot of Christmas traditions.  Decorations tend to be gaudy.  Gifts tend to be tacky.  And a lot of lyrics in Christmas carols don’t make sense.  But my most hated Christmas tradition has to be the crappy Christmas movie.  This year there seems to be more than usual.  There was the Santa Clause 3 then Deck the Halls and now there’s Unaccompanied Minors. 

These movies are horrible.  They appeal to the lowest common denominator with thoughtless humor devoid of irony or even originality.  It’s a lot of – whoops – someone slips on the ice or something gross like a camel spitting green slime in someone’s face.  These movies feature the stupidest slap stick jokes and the dumbest plots.  And they are always accompanied by the lamest lines.  In the preview for Deck the Halls we see a concerned Kristen Davis say, “What our kids need for Christmas [pause, pause] is you.”  Groan.  The trailer for Unaccompanied Minors promises kids will learn, “What Christmas is all about.”  Gag. 

Why do so many of these movies get made every year?  The easiest explanation is money.  They’re quick, easy cash.  But the dumb holiday fodder is not even doing well at the box office.  The Santa Clause was supposed to be the big holiday movie.  It was released right after Halloween – when everyone is feeling so Christmassy – and expected to remain in theatres through December.  It didn’t.  Deck the Halls also tanked.  Could it be that even the kids these movies are aimed at are becoming too sophisticated for this tripe. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Nativity Story.  The story of Jesus’ birth was intended to milk the same cash cow the Passion did.  But the movie has been destroyed in reviews as being dumb and boring.  I haven’t seen any of these movies (I don’t have to to know they’re awful) but I have seen clips of the Nativity Story on the internet.  What’s pathetically humorous about that movie is that Mary and Joseph speak awkward broken English in really bad Middle Eastern accents. 

Before every line you expect Joseph to utter, “Uh, how do you say…”  Why did the director feel it was necessary to make Mary and Joseph struggle with English?  They weren’t actually speaking English then and one would assume they spoke to each other in their native tongues.  Considering the target audience the creators might have been trying to exploit a bad Middle Eastern stereotype but I’m not sure.  It comes off as dumb. 

The annual crop of really bad Christmas movies forces me to wonder, why can’t someone make an intelligent Christmas movie?  Much of the best writing derives from universal experiences or very special circumstances a skilled writer can make universal.  We all experience Christmas so why can’t anyone produce a good Christmas movie? 

These past weeks I have worked very hard finalizing my Christmas tour.  This is my term of endearment for the rush of traveling I do every year for the week of Christmas.  Last year I visited six cities in just seven days.  Never again!  Behind all this traveling is a lot of drama.  I can’t cut out flying to see my Mom.  She always talks about being lonely.  I can’t cut out a trip to my grandparents.  They always talk about being dead.  I have eight nieces and nephews that love me but siblings that don’t get along.  I’ve often thought, this could make a good movie.  I don’t get bonked on the head and nothing scatological happens.  But I do manage the conflicts and insecurities of about twenty people in order to see everyone and enjoy Christmas with them. 

Although my traveling may seem extreme it is common that people’s various relationship issues – familial, platonic, and romantic – are amplified by the holidays.  And these are the ingredients to good film making.  Unaccompanied Minors may promise to reveal what “Christmas is all about,” but I can’t think of any contemporary Christmas movie that has rung true. 

I would love to see a Christmas movie with more than falling face down in the snow and slipping on ice.  I would like to see a legitimate, well written film that deals with the subject of family, friends, money, etc. on the holidays.  It shouldn’t be that hard to make.  The next best thing I have to that is the equally horrible and cheesy Black Christmas.  If you haven’t heard that’s the new, graphic Christmas horror movie.  If I can’t go see a thoughtful, compelling film about Christmas at least I can enjoy watching the two dimensional Christmas characters get sucked into death.  It beats watching the same thing happen to Papaw.