red fuzzy jesus

Over The Moon

What can be said that hasn't already been said regarding marriage equality in New York. It's about damn time. I still can't believe it. I have to read a couple articles over and over again to believe it. Anyway, here is some of my favorite coverage of it. But before I get to that, the most significant thing to me were the tweets by my friends and comedians. They were clever and poignant at the same time. Here are some of my favorites:

And I LOVE this NY Daily News Cover. It really says it all:

And, just to make it pinch-yourself real, here are the NYTimes and Wapo stories:

 New York Allows Same-Sex Marriage, Becoming Largest State to Pass Law

New York legalizes same-sex marriage in win for gay rights advocates

 

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! 

Letter To Peter LaBarbera following the Prop. 8 decision.

This is the letter I emailed Peter LaBarbera after the decision in Perry et al, v. Schwarzenegger et al (the Prop. 8 decision) came out.  Perry was released on the eve of Peter's "Truth Academy".  LaBarbera claims the point of the academy is to train people better in countering the "lies" of the "homosexual agenda" and provide a venue to discuss issues in a way disallowed by the "Gay Thought Police" in academia.  But, one should note that the people in charge of the political campaign and judicial defense for Prop. 8 had the most training in countering the so-called agenda.  And, LaBarbera took CIA-worthy measures to screen students for his "academy" out of fear a "homosexual activist" would sneak in.  So much for free thought, but what about training?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take a lot of solace that your “Truth Academy” is happening right after the Prop. 8 decision was announced.  You purport to teach people how to counter the “homosexual agenda”.  However, the people in charge of the Prop. 8 campaign in 2008 and the legal team established to defend it were educated people extremely skilled in their various professions.  Skilled politicians tasked with selling a message and skilled attorneys experienced at litigation went before the judge.  And still, Prop. 8 was called what it is, irrational discrimination. 

 

“It [California] has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.”

 

You can claim that there is harm.  However, when forced under oath to demonstrate harm it is impossible because there IS NO HARM.  The problem for your side isn’t a lack of training.  The people working to sell Prop. 8 to California voters and defend it in court have a lot of training.  The fault is a fundamental flaw in your position. 

 

You can blame “activist judges”, as I’m sure your side will do.  You never once look at your losses and blame inadequate argumentation.  You continue to lose in court over and over again and fail to realize that the argument is the problem rather than a lack of training or obstinate judges. 

 

All your side had to do was go into that courthouse and demonstrate the harm.  The National Organization for Marriage had an ad about a coming storm.  It’s a nice metaphor but if there really were some coming threat or harm that should have been easy to explain in court.  Instead, Judge Walker saw both sides present their best arguments for and against Proposition 8 and concluded:

 

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

 

Simple.  Straightforward.  Correct.

 

Proposition 8 was about discrimination and saying, without any basis, that one group of people is better than another.  Your Truth Academy can train people in messaging but the facts behind the message do not change.  It’s not a matter of training to sell something better or get better at arguing the ridiculous.  When given equal time for two sides to make their case, one side wins and the other side loses because only one side is grounded in rationality while the other relies on subjective religious interpretation that is unconvincing in court. 

Blunt Marriage Protection

Roy Blunt is at the forefront of "defending" marriage by sounding the alarm following Obama's promise to the HRC to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.  Blunt is quite concerned with the institution of marriage in the abstract but less concerned in the particular.  You see, Roy Blunt cheated on his wife, repeatedly.  The last straw was when he carried on an affair with a lobbyist who he later also helped legislatively.  You see, the institution of marriage needs to be protected from those seeking legal recognition because it's a sacred institution in society.  However, a man's individual marriage is not so sacred and it's perfectly fine to defend marriage in Congress while disposing of your marriage with congressional staffers, and a lobbyist!  Marriage is a sacred institution between one man, one woman, his former employees, some colleagues, and who knows who else.  Then it's not so sacred when you're ready to more on.

This is why I support real marriage protection.  We need to protect the institution of marriage from Roy Blunt and men like him.  These men make a mockery of our religious heritage.  When they cheat on their wives and attack the family - their own families - they attack a timeless cornerstone of civilization.  The heterosexual agenda these men have is literally ripping this country apart.  Many might argue that the government should stay out of the moral condemnation business and not get involved in people's private lives.  To them I say, what about the children?  Who protects them from heterosexual activism?  If Roy Blunt was serious about the "defense of marriage" he would support legislation like the marriage protection act in California and similar legislation in his home state of Missouri.  

Equality March Recap

The Equality March was pretty incredible and inspiring today for the usual reasons such events are.  There were tons of people from all walks of life.  There were unexpected allies and celebrities there.  There was moving music and some really clever signs. It was a good pick-me-up but I'm not sure how useful it is.  I don't mean to always play the cynic but I question how effective any such march is.

When I worked in downtown DC near the White House there was some sort of protest or demonstration every single day.  Granted, few were as large as this but I think politicians understandably build up an immunity to demonstrations.  A large crowd of people carrying signs and chanting rhyming slogans only does so good.  The follow-up is what's important.  It's heartening to see so many people so frankly pissed off by the administration's inaction.  But I wonder how many of them are also going to make a donation to the fight in Maine or Washington. 

I find a lot more value in making a donation or calling or writing a representative than marching and chanting.  The latter makes the participant feel better.  The former makes the contributor's life better.  

Worth a Thousand Words

I have been told many times that as soon as you compare your opponent to the Nazis you have lost the debate.  I agree.  Resorting to comparisons to Nazi Germany usually indicates a lack of salient argumentation.  I do not think that makes analysis of the Nazi’s – or fascism as a political ideology – useless.  It is valuable to examine how Hitler came into power, what methods he used and what circumstances and fears he exploited.  There is also value in examining current political trends to determine if there are current movements that seek power using similar tactics. 

I had a discussion with a friend recently about progress.  He rejected the idea that the march of human history is always going up.  I have to say I am a bit of a romantic is this regard.  I do think the human race is getting better and better with minor setbacks.  But, my friend has a point.  In many ways the same battles of ideas get fought over and over again through history.  The names of individuals and respective target groups change but the same ideas are repeatedly challenged then reaffirmed.   

I had to reread Plato and Aristotle for a class in the past few weeks and something that stood out to me this time around was the age-old question of how human beings deal with the issue of inequality.  The more staid among us couch analysis of these things in terms of pluralism and competition but I do not think that is comprehensive enough.  In societies there are those that have certain resources including but not limited to power and money.  Plato thought everyone fit roughly into three categories based on innate abilities at birth.  Integrity was defined by one’s performance at their level.  Aristotle thought some people were meant to be dominated by the better.  He excused slavery because he though naturally some were designed to be slaves.   

Fast forward through the centuries and we have become quite sophisticated in how we wrangle with inequality.  We reject the notion that anyone should be a slave.  We parse words over equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome.  But we still have acceptable targets in society.  We still have groups for whom it is currently (temporarily?) okay to treat differently.  In order to maintain the power of those in power, myths about those not in power have to be perpetuated.  The victim/oppressor paradigm has to be flipped so that those kept out will appear to be the aggressors and those on top will seem the subjects of assault. 

A large part of Hitler’s power was propaganda.  He created the narrative of a lost, ideal and unified Germany.  And he exploited stereotypes that had been around in Europe since the Middle Ages.  Everyone is familiar with the propagandist imagery against the Jews.  They were depicted with big noses, paunchy bellies, and surrounded by coins and stars of David.  The formula was nothing new.  Those in power had to depict the oppressed as aggressors and threats.  A target is chosen to justify the rule of a tyrant. 

The same tactics were used to combat the progress of African Americans.  Cartoon depictions of dark skinned characters with distorted proportions and giant red lips appeared in Looney Toons cartoons and newspapers. 

One character in particular named Anglefood McSpade appeared commonly in Sunday funnies and children’s cartoons.  There was no overt political message but the subtext was enough.  Exaggerated features and jungle signifiers sent messages about those people seeking equal rights.  Do they look equal? 

Lately I’ve seen a spike in the use of political cartoons on religious right websites.  They are apocalyptic – literally – in their panic about McCain getting the Republican nomination.  James Dobson, who finally endorsed Mike Huckabee in blatant disregard for the tax-exempt status laws, has begun making daily radio addresses about America hanging on the precipice.  In congruence with their hysteria they have begun deploying the lowest form of political persuasion, the propagandist political cartoon.

Take for example this lovely comic from the American Family Association.  Notice the shoes on the men.  Notice the eyes.  Notice how they are surrounded by symbols not unlike the stars of David and coins used in anti-Semitic cartoons. 

I know that one can find any offensive material imaginable on the Internet.  The existence of cartoons like these is meaningless outside a particular political context.  Anglefood McSpade is no longer persuasive.  These groups posting anti-gay cartoons have enormous political influence.  James Dobson is the leader of the social conservative moment.  The American Family Association who runs One News Now and American Family Radio has enormous influence in the Bush Administration and played a direct role in the nomination of Justice Alito.  The tactics they use are worthy of examination in light of the power they wield. 

The parallels between the current gay rights battle and previous battles over inequality are not limited to political cartoons.  But the images tell stories both in the time of their release and the overall narrative of human history when examined together. 

That is not to say that all equality battles are the same.  No one ever said a gay man was 3/5 of a person.  And though Hitler targeted Jews and homosexuals, denying gays marriage equality does not compare to systematic extermination.  Still, at question is the issue of target groups and inequality.  We will fight it out for a while and in the end I am confident that sexual orientation will not remain a viable justification for unequal treatment under the law.  There will be new targets in the future.  Atheists might be the next subgroup to have a mini-civil rights movement.  The target de jour is almost beside the point when looking at the tools used to perpetuate inequality. 

You may be tempted to draw the distinction between the debate over gay rights and past discourses on equality because gay rights have something to do with sex.  I would point out that neither gay people nor freedom of conscience are limited to sex acts, nor is sex anything new to the debate.  Notice the women in the anti-Semitic cartoon.  Beloved entities such as countries are often depicted as the victims of the brute identity being targeted.  Try not to notice the vulgarity of the Anglefood McSpade pictures.  Because intercourse involves dominant/submissive, active/passive, or giver/recipient roles, struggles over equality always have a sexual undercurrent. 

I do not limit my research to the websites of flame throwing activists groups to access the status of this struggle.  Fed up with the Adam-and-Steve level argumentation of the cartoon above, I seek actual intelligent discourse on the issue.  What is the intellectual argument against allowing two people of the same sex to have a marriage license?  From the best conservative political philosophy I can determine that the case against marriage equality (and related gay-centric issues such as employment protections) boils down to two key arguments. 

1.    Being gay and/or engaging in gay sexual relations is immoral.  Therefore gays deserve to be treated differently by the law in the direction of exclusion from participation in certain institutions in order to preserve the special status those institutions enjoy in society. 

This argument is compelling but weak.  If you are devoutly Christian then it is immoral to be Jewish because a Jew rejects Jesus Christ as the messiah.  If you are a Muslim it is morally wrong to be a Christian.  If you are an animal rights activist it is morally wrong to eat beef.  If you define immorality as contributing to human suffering then an endless list of actions and groups are immoral.  A liberal democracy respects the freedom of conscience of individuals to arrive at different and incompatible moral conclusions and order one’s life accordingly.  Some citizens reject the idea that having a same sex relationship is innately morally wrong.  They deserve the same right that Christians (or any other group defined by chosen moral parameters) have to order their lives according to their understanding. 

2.    Allowing gay inclusion into institutions will cause an irrevocable collapse in society.  This will result in social disorder and/or the loss of God’s protection over the nation. 

This is tantamount to the promise that the sky will fall if you share your toys.  Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in America.  It is also the only state to fully recognize gay unions.  Furthermore, the states with the largest concentration of social conservatives – the “Bible belt” – all have the highest divorce rates.  The overwhelming success of gay marriage state constitution amendments in those states should be viewed by history as the use of gays as scapegoats at the expense of addressing other social ills such as poverty and loss of manufacturing jobs.  The Jews did not cause Germany’s troubles. Gays are not weakening marriages. 

It is Black History Month so I have a homework assignment.  Research what powerful Christian leaders believed to be the moral position on giving Black peoples the right to vote.  Explore what they thought the consequences for social order would be and what God’s opinion of America would be.  Hint: see above. 

This distillation of the arguments against gay equality is similar to the discourse in previous equality battles.  One can view history as a continuous march forward or an endless repetition of the same fight, different fighters.  Analysis of the gay rights struggle now lends well to both views.  More and more identity traits claim rights than ever before in human history.  But when you listen to James Dobson rail against the ills of American society and why gays, feminists, and liberals are the cause, you get the sense that we’ve had this conversation before. 

MAY 20, 2006

Many happy years, Justin and Dre...

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/gabe/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/Wedding/Wedding%20138.mov

THE GAYNESS OF ENNIS

Brokeback Mountain is easily one of the most talked about films this year.  More reviewers reviewed it than any other movie on Rotten Tomatoes.  It swept the LA Critics awards and just received several Golden Globes nominations.  It is also expected to be a heavy Oscar contender.  With so much written already about the movie, it is difficult to find something new to say.  Upon careful review, however, there is something more worth noting – a lack of definition for the one thing that sets this movie apart. 

Although Brokeback is often called the “gay cowboy movie,” among the reviews and other articles there seems to be a lack of consensus on whether or not the two main characters, Jack and Ennis, are gay.   The answer to that question lies in what someone believes “gay” is.  The two characters themselves claim, “I’m not queer,” and they do marry and father children suggesting a rejection of the “gay lifestyle.” 

Some gay men have a total aversion to naked women.  They are so turned off by them that they can’t muster enough attraction to perform sexually.  Others, I would say most, can physically have sex with women and probably even enjoy it.  They can care about women and build lives with women.  Because Ennis and Jack both get married and have children they are obviously capable of sex.  This reality is what prompts some writers to declare the men are not gay.  They may be straight men with an inexplicable attraction for just each other or somehow bisexual but they’re not gay because they have wives and kids.  Gay men don’t have sex with women.   

I reject the notion that ability to form relationships with women, even sexual ones, is proving the gay negative.  In the movie, even though the two characters have wives, at a level deeper than sex lays a desire for each other.  The sex with their wives is perfunctory while with each other they achieve a truer level of intimacy.  The ability to marry and have sex with women has enabled gay men for generations to deny they are gay.  Living out the lives of their straight counterparts enables denial.  However, I would argue men in that situation are still gay if the person with whom they achieve real intimacy and personal satisfaction is another dude.  Even if they sleep with a hundred women, if they’re truly honest with themselves (easier said than done) they may conclude that men satisfy something more.  That, to me, makes them gay. 

This distinction speaks directly to the gay/ex-gay debate.  Many programs (all religious, most “Christian”) advertise the ability to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals.  However, these programs are only successful in alternating behavioral expressions of sexuality and even then, not so much.  The AFA has had a video out about their triumphs in curing gayness.  It’s called It’s Not Gay and it chronicles the successes of ex-gays.  There’s just one problem.  The people in the video now admit that although they went through the motions of being straight, they were never actually as attracted to people of the opposite gender as their own.  Michael Johnston, the central “character” in the “documentary” is now suing the AFA asking them to stop distributing the video because at the time it was made he was still having secret, and dangerous, sexual encounters with men.  He no longer wants his name and likeness to be used to promote a false idea. 

With this line of thinking comes some controversial assertions.  Some married men with children may be gay.  And it is possible to be gay even if you have never acted on those desires.  If your definition of “gay” is behavioral then you cease to be gay when you have sex with a woman instead of a man.  If you definition of “gay” includes deeper notions of love and intimacy then you retain your gayness regardless of with whom you sleep. 

What makes one person attracted to another is a great mystery of the human experience.  Most couples cannot describe in finite detail exactly why they are in love with the object of their affection.  Abstract notions of love and intimacy supercede more superficial behaviors and cultural norms.  There is no “gay lifestyle.”  Rather, there is a mysterious gay identity and those with that inclination vary in lifestyle from the cripplingly repressed to the drag queen on roller skates in the pride parade.

The characters in Brokeback are tragic in the same way that anyone is tragic who cannot be with the one they love for whatever reason.  But the tragedy runs deeper.  Ennis seethes with anger that only worsens with age because despite his best efforts he cannot be the man he feels he should.  The self loathing and self torture he endures as he tries to have a relationship with his wife and tries to push Jack away would make any religious ex-gay proponent beam with pride.  Anyone whose heart is not inhibited with absolutist ideology would have that heart break for poor Ennis and Jack.  Their lives would be so much more fulfilling if they could just be loved the way they need to be loved. 

Men like Jack and Ennis have a much easier time these days.  Part of that progress is due to movies like Brokeback.  But this movie goes further not because it features two gay male leads but because it highlights the humanity of gays.  Gays in films usually languish in stereotypes and charicature.  This movie treats them as fully realized complex people.  One would hope a greater portion of society would do the same.