Prop8 and a new religious reality?

Do you think things have changed "on the ground"?  This writer does.

In 2008, the “gays versus religion” frame was strongly entrenched in the mentality of the American public. ... 

That is no longer the case. We are in a new reality. 

Since 2008, we have seen faith-based campaigns like Believe Out Loud raise up the stories of LGBT and affirming faith leaders who have decided that they cannot be silent about their faith and their belief that God created and loves the whole world, and that God’s creation includes the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people….

And these voices of faith, speaking out in support of the LGBT community, have helped drive the public opinion shift. A majority of Americans now support marriage equality, thanks in large part to hearing the voices of loving and committed same-sex couples. … 

Another writer drills into the data:

[A]  new exploration of 2011 polling by Public Religion Research Institute offers decisive evidence that the old assumptions about battle lines between secular proponents and religious foes no longer hold. Majorities of five major religious groups and the religiously unaffiliated favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to three major religious groups who oppose same-sex marriage. On the side supporting same-sex marriage, the religiously unaffiliated (72 percent) are joined by majorities of Jews (76 percent), Americans affiliated with a non-Judeo-Christian religion (63 percent), white Catholics (56 percent), Hispanic Catholics (53 percent) and white mainline Protestants (52 percent). Together, these religious groups make up approximately 45 percent of the general population. 

On the other hand, large majorities of white evangelical Protestants (75 percent), Mormons (75 percent) and black Protestants (63 percent) continue to oppose same-sex marriage. Opposition to same-sex marriage among these groups is intense: near-majorities of Mormons (48 percent) and evangelicals (46 percent) strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally. Together, these groups comprise approximately 32 percent of the general population. 

Within these opposition groups, however, a generational gap signals that with the passage of time, this intense resistance may ebb. 

The writer goes on to point out that the media meme of "Gay vs. Christian" is no longer accurate.  

Is this shift sufficient to change things?  I'm not so sure, as LGBT rights continue to be a dog-call to the right--along with abortion, and surprisingly, contraception.  But, this much I will certainly agree with:

 There are those who continue to deny that God created LGBT people as they are and, as such, should have a place at the table. For this reason, we still desperately need more people of faith to continue to speak out and share their faith and their belief in a fully inclusive society. 

I challenge every one of you to speak out forcefully every time you hear the "gays vs. Christian" meme.  Remind the speaker that many LGBT are Christian, and many Christians (and most Catholics!) agree that LGBT people should be married.  There is a new reality and the media-- and the public-- need to catch on.

The messed up mind of Maggie Gallagher

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a shady group that operates as a front for big money opposed to marriage equality. They have deep links to the conservative wing of the Roman Catholic church (e.g., here and here). Yes, the irony abounds given the majority of Catholics are supportive of marriage equality.

As we make steady progress towards equality, NOM becomes increasingly less about “marriage” and more about demonizing and dehumanizing gay people, telling lies and relying on hysteria and junk science (e.g., here.)

All this as an intro to Salon's illuminating profile about the founder of NOM, Maggie Gallagher.

It seems Maggie Gallagher’s obsession with marriage comes from the fact that she bore a child out of wedlock when at Yale, and the father refused to marry her. In a classic example of transference, she has become a primary culture warrior against gay equality. To her gay people marrying is THE cause of family failure: not divorce, not casual sex, not quickie marriages without counseling, not high rates of childbearing out of wedlock, not a crisis in poor communities. It’s the audacity of gay couples asserting a right to be together.

Barely half of the people in the US are married. Those with education are much more likely to be married . Indeed, those awful blue state liberals turn out to be the real social conservatives, with a high rate of marriage and low rates of unmarried parenting (e.g., here and here). But the biggest threat to marriage is arguably the economy, as marriage rates collapse in the economically disadvantaged.

Nevermind all this. Maggie Gallagher blames “Teh Gay”. And regardless of facts or experience, she will continue to oppose our marriages because it's all our fault that there are children out of wedlock.

In her forthcoming book, she writes that “including same-sex unions in the legal category of ‘marriage’ will necessarily change the public meaning of marriage for the entire society in ways that must make it harder for marriage to perform its core civil functions over time.” How do we know? We just do.

And even if somehow the evidence showed, conclusively, that same-sex marriage were good for children? Gallagher would still be dissatisfied: “Nothing could make me call a same-sex couple a marriage, because that’s not what I believe a marriage is.” (Salon)

THe illogic of this is so noticeable, the author stresses it again.

She is asserting what to her is a timeless social fact: that institutions and norms are delicate, and that if you mess with them — say, by expanding the definition of marriage — bad things are likely to happen.

There is an obvious problem with this sort of argumentation: it is not really susceptible to evidence. Gallagher is unwilling to make any predictions of what doom will befall families after the legalization of same-sex marriage. She just has faith that marriage, the central institution of good child-rearing, will be weakened if same-sex couples are allowed its prestige and protections.(Salon)

Over at Andrew Sullivan’s blog, Patrick Appel comments about this unwillingness to be moved by evidence

Gallagher's declaration that her mind cannot be changed is the statement of a fundamentalist. There is no greater sin against open debate than to preemptively seal oneself off from evidence.

He goes on,

Before gay marriage was legal anywhere, arguments for or a gainst it were mostly based on first principles and theoretical conjectures. Now that there are real-world examples of same-sex marriages, evidence-based arguments for or against equality are possible. Opponents of equality retreat to first-principles arguments because the facts are increasingly stacked against them.

Political opinions are not science, but they can be informed by science. Gallagher's fact-resistant opinion has almost nothing to do with gays themselves. Her opposition is rooted in theology and was likely reinforced by personal longings for a nuclear family.

So, conservative Roman Catholic, carrying around a huge level of guilt for her own perceived failure, and transfers all of that onto gay couples. Apparently, outside of this issue, she can be a warm person, but it is as though she has this blind spot that she so casually dehumanizes us and our relationships. (Interestingly, her son does not agree with her--he's in theatre, and must have many gay friends who are being deeply injured by his mother's activism.) She really has an almost unnatural ability to view us as deeply "other" so that she hurts us and doesn't really care or notice that it's real people she's hurting!

At one point, breaking from my script of questions, I interrupted her to ask if, despite all of her fears about same-sex marriage, she didn’t find it heartwarming to see those pictures of joyous gay couples in Massachusetts or Iowa or California, crying and hugging as they celebrated their marriages. Before answering, she takes a long pause, the only long pause of our conversation. “Am I happy for them?” she finally says. “That’s a tough question. I like to see people happy. It’s better than seeing people sad. So yes, I am happy for them. But I am sad. But I am not sad because they are happy.” (Salon)

Maggie Gallagher opposes marriage of gay people because she thinks children should be raised by a man and a woman. And even though marriage is not required for procreation, even though procreation is not required in marriage, even though the fight for marriage equality says nothing about raising children, even though denying us marriage in California has, as the recent decision points out, absolutely no effect on child-rearing in a legal sense, even though all this: Maggie Gallagher opposes letting two men marry because one man walked out on her.




cross posted at GMC

No contraception for anyone: the real plan

As you know the Roman Catholic church is outraged, outraged that "civilian" Catholic agencies (those with a function not limited to religion, like hospitals) might be required to provide contraceptive coverage to female employees.

First, this does not apply to institutions with purely religious functions, like churches. However, a Catholic friend told me that she was told that if this passes, the Diocese would be "unable to provide health care for its employees." That is a bald faced lie. Churches are, and continue to be, exempt.

Never mind that a lot of Catholic agencies already provide contraception. But why should we let facts get in the way?

Illinois is one of 28 to have adopted a contraception coverage requirement. Eight of those states provide no opt-out clause for religious institutions and the administration’s new rule would expand conscience protections to those parts of the country.

A recent poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute also found that a majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, support a contraception coverage requirement.

And never mind that no one is forcing an individual woman to use contraception: she's free not to use it, of course, as a personal moral choice. And 98% of Catholic women choose to use contraception (PDF).

But now, it turns out that the goal is beyond Catholic-affiliated hospitals, to abolish coverage from ALL plans:

[Fixing this] means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, [Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this." "If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate," Picarello said.

Now think of what this says, think of the precedent it sets. No employer would have to provide contraception if he claims to be Catholic (and it would be a "he", wouldn't it?) ANYTHING you claim as a religious exemption can be used, under this logic, in a non-religious setting. It's no different to say that a florist doesn't have to do business with a gay person to saying that he doesn't have to do business with a black person, or a Muslim.

What if an employer refused to promote a woman over a man, because of devout fundamentalist beliefs that women must always be subservient? So much for non-discrimination policies and equal pay! And do you want your access to prescriptions to be determined not by you and your doctor, but the fringe beliefs of a pharmacist?

This is an unprecedented intrusion of religious belief into the public square, and a vicious attack on women's rights.

Zack Beauchamp writes (my emphasis)

The only institutions covered by the birth control mandate have chosen to participate in the broader market, a zone of private life governed by political rules. It's incumbent on critics to explain why this particular rule is a dangerous expansion of state power over market actors as compared to, say, forcing a Randian executive to follow minimum wage laws. If they can't, then it seems like the coverage requirement protects women's rights without appreciably increasing the state's threat to private associations.

Update: Turns out this became law under George Bush.  This is a manufactured political outrage!

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

Equality under the law

Some things to remember:  the Constitution protects the rights of minorities.  That is why we cannot vote to outlaw inter-racial marriage, to segregate schools, to prevent Mormons from marrying, or to forbid Jews to own property.  And what the courts have said is that gay people have those same rights.

Americans overall are equally split on whether same sex couples should marry.  Ironically, a strong majority of Roman Catholics approve of marriage. (data here)

And just remember, in 1968, after laws against inter-racial marriage were overturned, over 70% of Americans DISAGREED.    Imagine the outcome if they had voted on it?

Why is it that Conservatives who so favor the Constitution, forget all about it when it comes to equal protection? It doesn't say, equal protection only for straight white Christian men.

From the decision

It's 2-1.  THe opinion is narrow, applying specifically to the unusual situation in CA where a right was given and then taken away. This probably makes it a sturdier decision. From the opinion (my emphases)

….all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only.  It stripped same sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right--the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage to describe their relationships.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Proposition 8 therefor could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in childbearing or  responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same sex couples to raise children oron the procreative practices of other couples.  Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights ot control their education: it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.

All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of 'marriage' which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committted relationships.  Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite sex couples  The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort" (Romer v. Evans.)

Prop8 ruled Unconstitutional by 9th Circuit

More here.

Prop8 decision due this morning UPDATED GRAPHIC

The latest in the saga of Prop8 will come this morning, with the release of the 9th circuit court of appeal decision on three issues:

 1) Do the supporters of Prop8 have the right to stand in place of the state to defend this nasty bit of bigotry? 

2) Should the judge have recused himself simply because he's gay? (I call this argument the "only straight white Christian men are objective" model of the judiciary.  After all, by this logic, women cannot hear cases on abortion.)

3) Is Prop8 unconstitutional? If the three judges here uphold Judge Walker's findings that found no rational basis for Prop8 except bias, the next stop is likely an en banc hearing by at least 10 of the judges from the 9th circuit.  Inotherwords, nothing will change here on the ground.

More on the legal background from Chris Geidner.

  Update:  here's the updated version including today's events.

One town's war on gay teens

Rolling Stone has a searing article about the rate of suicides in the Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota (Michelle Bachman's district). It is a must read, as it shows how a culture grew up in which teachers were not allowed to make any positive references to gay people, and literally looked the other way as gay kids were bullied mercilessly. At the same time, the local right wingers explained the spate of gay suicides as having nothing to do with bullying, and entirely reflecting the "unhealthiness" of being gay.

 This is an utter failure of institutions that should put a child's welfare first. It's a shameful example of the bigotry, ignorance and hatred against which we must continue to fight--and a shameful example of how so-called "Christians" can be anything but.  Here's a selection (my emphases) but you should definitely read the whole thing 

 Yet while everyone in the district was buzzing about the neutrality policy, the board simply refused to discuss it, not even when students began appearing before them to detail their experiences with LGBT harassment. "The board stated quite clearly that they were standing behind that policy and were not willing to take another look," recalls board member Wenzel. Further insulating itself from reality, the district launched an investigation into the suicides and unsurprisingly, absolved itself of any responsibility. "Based on all the information we've been able to gather," read a statement from the superintendent's office, "none of the suicides were connected to incidents of bullying or harassment."  

 Just to be on the safe side, however, the district held PowerPoint presentations in a handful of schools to train teachers how to defend gay students from harassment while also remaining neutral on homosexuality. One slide instructed teachers that if they hear gay slurs – say, the word "fag" – the best response is a tepid "That language is unacceptable in this school." ("If a more authoritative response is needed," the slide added, the teacher could continue with the stilted, almost apologetic explanation, "In this school we are required to welcome all people and to make them feel safe.") But teachers were, of course, reminded to never show "personal support for GLBT people" in the classroom.

Contraception, abortion, Komen and Catholics (2)

The Susan Komen foundation, a big marketer in the breast cancer biz, is run by conservatives who don't like Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions. But significantly, PP is a major provider of health care to poor women, not limited to abortions (which are only about 3% of its business): including contraception, as well as breast cancer screenings. Komen, now heavily affiliated with the Republicans and lobbyists, would like to divest itself of a relationship with PP. While the outcry has led Komen to "apologize" to say PP is still eligible for grants, they haven't said they'll give them any. I expect they won't.

Incidentally, several people have brought up the myth that abortion is linked to breast cancer. It's not. This has been soundly debunked by numerous studies and meta-studies. It's a lie brought up by anti-abortion activists. This is a sad strategy of the right wing, who seem to have no compunction about simply making up stuff and ignoring actual facts.

I will contrast Komen with the American Cancer Society, which like Komen has its roots in rich businessmen and philanthropists--although much longer ago. To my knowledge, ACS stays out of politics and focuses on sound science. ACS puts a considerable programmatic effort into prevention and screening, and patient services , in addition to a broad cancer research portfolio, ranging from the most basic science to highly applied approaches. They aren't without complaints, which isn't surprising given that they serve numerous constituencies, but I've done a lot of work for them as a grant reviewer and a volunteer, and I am confident they identify the best science they can. If Komen has left a bad taste in your mouth, get involved with the local ACS chapter. They aren't as sleek in their marketing but they are doing good.

What's been interesting reading about this is how many people are cynical about cancer research organizations. I've read over and over again that people think that the agencies and investigators have a vested interest in "not curing cancer" and don't spend enough on research, especially research that targets  a person's specific cancer-of-interest.  Well, no one spends enough on research, but it's not because they don't want to cure cancer. Trust me, no one gets rich doing research.  Moreover, you need a broad based portfolio on all forms of cancer and basic science if you are to make inroads.  Limiting your research dollars to one form of cancer is shortsighted -- it has the effect of drying up the pipeline of fundamental knowledge which is how we will eventually make this a chronic, treatable disease.

Aside:
REmember, a major insight into familial colon cancer came when it was determined that a causative gene was the same as a DNA repair enzyme studied for years in bacteria. If you hadn't had those years of study of bacterial biology, you would have found the gene in humans and had NO CLUE what it did.  You would never have found it if you had restricted funding to more "applied" questions. (Read more)

I'm not going to argue about the amount that Komen or ACS spends on research or their other priorities. They are different sized organizations with very different portfolios. Komen, for example, doesn't support truly basic research.     I think the problem here is the politicization of women's health: (my emphases)

…Komen remains pretty damn territorial around that whole “cure” thing. In a 2010 story for the Huffington Post, writer Laura Bassett pointed out that, according to Komen’s own financial records, it spends almost “a million dollars a year in donor funds” aggressively going after other organizations that dare to use the phrase “for the cure” – including small charities like Kites for a Cure, Par for the Cure, Surfing for a Cure, Cupcakes for a Cure…  

It has a whole online store encouraging visitors to “purchase with purpose to end breast cancer forever,” where you can buy “silicone bling watches” and “Passionately Pink” ribbon-shaped cake pans. …

Komen also famously outsources its merchandising. It’s teamed up with the likes of KFC for “Buckets for the Cure” – because nothing says you care about women’s health like a big vat of fried chicken. Komen has additionally sold a pink-hued “Promise Me” perfume that contains several toxins – including galaxolide, a synthetic musk that critics claim is a hormone disruptor. ...

That Komen has raised staggering amounts of money is undeniable. There’s also pretty compelling evidence that it has done so in some pretty boneheaded ways. So given its track record, it’s fair to ask what happens now to the 11 percent of the Komen budget that goes to screening. Does it get funneled toward more glitter bracelets and “Promise Bears”? 

....It’s worth noting that while breast cancer rates are dipping, an October report from the American Cancer Society warned that they are declining more slowly among low-income women, and that “Poor women are now at greater risk for breast cancer death because of less access to screening and better treatments. This continued disparity is impeding real progress against breast cancer.” You know who loses when Komen backs away from Planned Parenthood? Probably not those nice, pink-clad ladies who attend Susan Komen wine-tasting events.

It's a clever political move, trying to fragment women's health advocates, and to continue the attempt to render abortion for poor women illegal. Because abortion for rich women, or women who have rich men as lovers, will never be illegal. They will always be able to afford the travel or the doctors to end their pregnancies. Meanwhile, it's poor women whose health will suffer for this --and who are already suffering.

But, as Mitt Romney says, who's worried about the poor?


PS: You want cagey cancer orgs? what does Livestrong do with all the money they make from their yellow bracelets? They aren't supporting screening or research. And revenues are exceeding program expenses.  Read more here.... and don't buy them.

Read the previous post in this series

Contraception, abortion, Komen and Catholics (1)

Wow, so much to blog about, as people seek to control and manipulate the wombs of American women. My next two posts will address this.

First, the Roman Catholic Church is outraged that Catholic hospitals and other non-religious industries associated with Mother Church might be required to support contraception as part of their health care.

I'm all in favor of letting them have an exemption, EXCEPT for these points-- and they are big points.

1) For many women, patients as well as employees, there is no "choice" about a Catholic hospital. They are a big business and they OWN the medical care in many parts of the country. So you can't go off and go to a different hospital, or work for a different hospital: they are literally the only game in town. Should they be able to require that unwilling patients and employees live under Catholic Diktat?

2) And as NPR points out, while they may be Shocked! Shocked! at the current federal rules, there is already ample precedent: the fact remains that dozens of Catholic hospitals and universities currently offer contraceptive coverage as part of their health insurance packages because state laws require it.

3) We don't let a Catholic businessman deprive his employees from contraception because of his religious disagreement. Why is this different?

4) Contraceptive meds are also used for non-contraceptive treatments. As a lesbian birth control is not an issue, but I spent some time on the Pill for medical reasons. Do they think that could be denied?

5) They don't approve of gay relationships. Do you think they should be able to deny treatment to gay Americans? What if they are the only hospital in a region?

6)The rates of teen pregnancy AND abortion are much higher in the US than Western Europe. This is considered to reflect much easier access to contraception in Europe. As the bloodshed of the 30s pointed out, prohibition is seldom an effective strategy. But then, the interest is not in blocking abortion. It's in controlling women. Of course, the relative paucity of 6-children families in the local parishes reveal that in this as so many other things, the laity are practising a "don't ask don't tell" with the doctrines ofMother Church .

7) do you think they cover Viagra? Just asking.

And I say this as a baptised, confirmed, nun-educated and happily EX Roman Catholic.