Obama and Marriage Equality

As you know, President Obama has come out in favor of gay couples getting married. Amazing. Bravo.

I have been meaning to say (or maybe I have?) that him claiming that he is "evolving" to be political stupidity. It seemed to be a way to tell his base that he would get there eventually, but he wasn't ready politically yet. He wanted to have it both ways. I am glad he has moved away from that.

I am sure the decision had some political calculation to it as well - especially since this side of the issue has popular support. But I still think overall, it shows some strong leadership and bravery. Some.

Now, this business about him thinking it is okay for the states to make their decisions is weird and stupid. But small stupid. He is signaling that he doesn't want to do anything to prevent states from banning marriage equality. I don't understand that logically, but whatever. I am just happy that he did this. A sitting president has come out in favor of marriage equality. That is a big deal.

By the way, I was convinced that the Biden thing was a political testing of the waters. President Obama is saying that wasn't the case - Biden got out ahead of himself. That's funny if it's true.

Marriage Equality!!!

New York State passed same sex marriage on Friday, June 24. My wife and I watched it streaming live, and the key moment being when Republican Senator Saland signaled that he would be approving not only the religious exemption amendment, but the full bill. As I said on Facebook, I have never been more proud and never been more happy about a piece of legislation. I think this is the civil rights issue of our generation and I am thrilled to see that attitudes are changing. It gives me so much hope to see that we can progress as a society.

If you want a great article on the behind-the-scenes push, read this article in the NY Times. It seems clear - and has seemed this way all along - that the person that deserves a huge amount of credit is Governor Cuomo. While the two previous governors also supported same sex marriage, Cuomo wanted to expend significant political capital to make it happen. And the bill passed largely because Cuomo is actually good at using his political capital strategically.

I also know that my boss, Speaker Quinn, spent a lot of her time lobbying to get the bill passed. And I can't wait for her wedding (not that I assume I will be invited, but just to know that it has happened will be great).

In the NY State Senate, Tom Duane has been lobbying his colleagues since before the 2009 vote. What is the most remarkable thing about his lobbying is that it seems to be full of patience and tolerance. In his speech on the floor he said there were not villains that night, only heroes. And from what I hear, that has been his message in meeting with his colleagues - he has asked them to show their support for his relationship with his partner but never made them feel like bad people for opposing it. I don't know if I could be that way, and it is more remarkable that he could.

I also think we need to thank Republican State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos. That a Republican would bring this to a vote, knowing it very well might pass, it amazing. It is even more remarkable when you consider it wasn't a given that Democrats would bring it to a vote in 2009. So even though I doubt Dean Skelos wants my thanks, he has them.

As for the non-villains, I will say I was disappointed with Senator Lanza's no vote and his explanation. And I have a lot of anger for Senator Diaz - his animosity against gay marriage seems to know no bounds. But I won't respond to either because I don't need to. We won.

Post Tries to be Reasonable About Gay Marriage

I do find it interesting that even conservative papers like the Post are trying to make anti-same sex marriage arguments sound reasonable. They even acknowledge “the frustration of gay couples who insist that they be treated the same as everyone else.” Unfortunately, that’s not enough to convince them to allow it.

Of course, the editorial falls on two familiar but illogical arguments. First, they try to say that marriage as an institution promotes procreation and gay marriage will undermine procreation. The problem is that society - and government - is perfectly willing to accept heterosexual couples that are obviously marrying for love and have no plans to have children. If we were honest about wanting marriage to be only about children, there would be a question for couples seeking a license asking if they can and intend to have children. But there isn't because heterosexual love is okay, homosexual love isn't - but reasonable people don't want to say it that way.

Second, they argue that allowing marriage would prevent religious freedom. We do not condone racism, even if it is part of someone’s religion. Religious freedom is not unlimited. We should never condone bigotry, even if someone is hiding behind their religion. Unfortunately, it takes time to recognize bigotry.

Now, I am willing to accept exemptions for religions for now as a first step to get more people used to the idea. And after society gets used to idea, we might finally see opposition as illogical and only explainable as bigotry. And at that point, we won't need a religious exemption. And we'll be happy to promote marriage for love, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

DADT

I have been absent for a while; I apologize. I will say that I am happy with the lame duck compromises / legislative victories. And none more so than DADT repeal. And I have to say, I have new faith in Joe Lieberman thanks to his fight for this issue. Somehow, it didn't seem political or calculated; it seemed like he just wanted it. I could be wrong of course, but that is my initial read.

NY Times: Op-Ed at 40

The Times has an amazing feature today in recognition of their 40 years of Op-Eds. The feature includes some of the most notable Op-Eds (good and bad) over that time. The highlights include:

A piece by Gloria Steinem on Clinton's impeachment. For the record, I completely disagree with it. Of course yes means yes and no means no. However, it is difficult to think that a supervise has the power to say no to a supervisor - that he or she can actually consent to anything. It seems to me that there was a lot of tortured logic on both sides during the Clinton impeachment trial (one of the few clear voices was Marjorie Williams) and this strikes me as one of them.

A great piece by Harvard theologian Peter J. Gomes. I would give you a quote, but really you need to read the whole thing. It is titled A Bible for All and it is near perfect.

A piece by Henry Louis Gates (of break-in fame) about the poison of bias.

Those are the three that stuck out to me so far. If I notice more, I'll update the post.

An Ideal Marriage?

Ross Douthat wrote an intersting, but wholly wrong column on gay marriage. He seems to be saying that heterosexual marriage at its best offers more than homosexual marriage at its best. It's nice that he isn't saying gay marriage is bad. However, I completely disagree with that. He and everyone else that take this similar position have it all wrong.

Actually, before I comment on the part of his argument I did find interesting, let me deal with a few things that were actually pretty stupid. First, Douthat seems to lump gay marriage in with serial monogamy, and no fault divorce. This is absurd. These things have nothing to do with each other. Second, he seems to suggest that one ideal will replace another. Instead, we are likely to see not one ideal (serial monogamy versus lifelong partnerships) but a realization that both / all are acceptable ways to live ones life.

Now for the interesting part of his argument. Douthat says that society should hold up ideal relationships for everyone to strive for. I agree. However, his ideal form of marriage includes many characteristics that are superficial and unimportant. Ideal family situations should have parent(s) that are loving and supportive and have enough time to provide effective care. This can be a single parent or two-parent, same sex or opposite sex, household. Gender and biological connection are irrelevant.

His article reminded me of a conversation I had with a former co-worker. She was saying to me that she wanted her son would marry someone of the same ethnicity (she and her husband had immigrated from another country). She said marriage was hard work, and having different cultures mixing would just create another challenge that a marriage doesn't need.

I can imagine someone using Douthat's logic to say that ideal marriages are between people of the same ethnicity or race. Since that is the case, society has an interest in promoting that ideal and therefore refusing to confer the ultimate title of marriage to all that do not conform. We long ago rejected this argument against interracial marriages (although a justice of the peace in Louisiana still holds this position).

It is heartening to see people move away from the truly intolerant language on an issue like gay marriage and struggle to find more reasonable ways to oppose it. It means the debate is moving in the right direction. However, you can see the strain in the logic, and it becomes clear that this argument is flawed as well.

My Anger Will Last

I cannot express the anger I feel right now over today's vote in the New York State Senate on Marriage Equality. And I feel that the anger will not go away soon.

I am not going to launch an explanation for why I think gay marriage should pass. I think I have done that enough already. What I will say is that this is the one issue that I can't understand the other side. For every other issue I can think of, I can understand the other position - I think it is wrong, but I understand it. I understand libertarianism even though I dislike the individuality and selfishness that is its underpinning. I understand those who support small government and have strong faith in markets, even though I think they exaggerate the impact of taxes on businesses and do not fully understand flaws in open markets. I even understand the people who oppose affirmative action even though I think we do everyone a favor by promoting diversity.

But I do not understand opposition to gay marriage. There is no argument that is logically consistent and so any argument must be based on bigotry. Religious arguments hold no water when you consider all the other things in the Bible that so-called religious people ignore. And we don't ban all people who cannot have biological children from getting married, so that argument does not work.

I cannot understand the other side, and therefore I am enraged at how many people, many of them otherwise decent caring people, believe that it is right to deny loving adults the opportunity to the same benefits opposite-sex couples have.

I watched some of the debate today, and the most powerful argument for me came from Senator Squadron. He was married just this summer and he mentioned how emotional that experience was and how he believes everyone should be able to have a similar ceremony. I too was married this summer and like Senator Squadron the wedding was the most emotional day of my life so far. So it matters that we are denying a class of people the right to that experience, and all other benefits that come with it.

I am surprised it was so lopsided (38-24 against), and because of that, the people that oppose this - the people that stand for bigotry against equality - feel vindicated. And that is what makes the most angry. I was expecting it to pass, and I was prepared for the fight that might lie ahead if it was then pushed to referendum. I was not expecting this at all.

The only positive thing that came out of today, was the fact that there was a vote. This way, twenty years from now, when the whole country accepts gay marriage the way the country now accepts inter-racial marriages, those who voted no today will have to explain their votes. Twenty years from now, the grandchildren of the people who voted no are going to walk up to their grandparents and ask them why they stood opposed to the biggest civil rights issue of our time. Today, 38 people voted either on bigotry or short-term concerns about elections and I can take some solace in knowing that in the long-term they will have to face their choice with shame.

Gay Marriage: What Does the Bible Say?

Newsweek recently had an interesting article focusing on gay marriage. The article tried to engage with Christian arguments against gay marriage, instead of simply dismissing the Bible as an invaluable place to derive policy. Overall, the author made some good points, but oversimplified others. At the same time, I don't know how you can really engage in a discussion on textual teachings of the Bible and be thorough while also meeting space constraints of a Newsweek article.

Her first point, and what I have come to believe, is that most people who oppose gay marriage cannot do it using Biblical textual literalism, since almost no one actually follows all things taught in the Bible. Modern Christians regularly disregard teachings from the Old Testament, especially Leviticus, one of the few places male homosexuality is mentioned.

So if textual literalism is not driving Christians to oppose gay marriage, what is? The common response is support for a traditional family. It is this part of the argument where the author oversimplifies. She looks back to the Old Testament families (especially Abraham and Jacob) and suggests that since they had multiple wives, than the Bible cannot be the source of a focus on the one male - one female family unit. This argument does not make sense if we see that the teachings of Jesus often conflict with, and probably were meant to change, teachings in the Old Testament. The loving and peaceful Jesus was very different from what appears to be a vengeful Old Testament God. So if Jesus did preach about family units, than Jacob's multiple wives doesn't matter as much.

Unfortunately, I don't know as much about all of the teachings of Jesus, so I don't know what focus he put on families. But from what I understand, his (and Paul's) opposition to divorce is far stronger than opposition to gay relationships (the author rightly mentions this as well). So this begs the question - why does modern Christianity put far more focus on gay marriage than on actually dealing with the bigger problems facing what the Bible upholds as the traditional family unit? Through this lens, it seems like bigotry masking itself as righteousness.

If Christians really want to focus on strengthening families, then they need to focus on things that are actually affecting families. If high divorce rates and single family households are contrary to what the Bible upholds as the correct family unit, then Christians should deal with these issues, which are not related to homosexuality at all.

The bottom line is that opposition to gay marriage makes little sense even if you accept that the Bible can be a reasonable place to draw moral lessons. Almost no one can claim they are Biblical literalists and looking at the spirit of the text gives no clues to understand why opposing gay marriage should be a major focus of Christians hoping to protect families.

The Bible, Again

In a previous post I mentioned how I was interested in reading the Bible primarily because I wanted to know where it actually talked about homosexuality. In looking back, I realize I did not make it clear why I would be interested in that. In case you do not know me as well, my interest is in how a loving God could ban something that, when done between two consenting adults can be just as beautiful as any heterosexual relationship.

My interest therefore is where in the Bible gay relationships are mentioned, what the context is, and how it compares to other proscriptions of the Bible. I assume that many people who argue against recognizing gay marriage do so with little real knowledge of the Bible and so my goal is to know the Bible better than they do.

In truth, I think I also oversimplified. I also want to read the Bible to understand myself better, to understand my family (ancestry) better, and to understand other conservative thought better.

Blizter v. Cheney

Wolf Blitzer had the following exchange in an interview with Vice President Cheney recently:

BLITZER: We're out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy. She's going to have a baby, you're going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics, though, are suggesting -- for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean it's best for the child." Do you want to respond to that?

CHENEY: No, I don't.

BLITZER: She's, obviously, a good daughter...

CHENEY: I'm delighted -- I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question.

BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate...

CHENEY: I think you're out of line.

BLITZER: ...your daughters. No, we like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very, very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that's come up, and it's a responsible, fair question.

CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.

BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.

Apparently, this whole interview was pretty contentious. But it is this last exchange that really struck me. I never really had a good feeling after the number of times I have seen Cheney confronted on this issue. It isn't that I don't see why people bring this up. The hope is that since Cheney obviously loves his daughter, he will want to defend her, and her lifestyle, against the ignorant comments coming from the far right.

Even though I understand that, I still don't think it is right the way to handle it. In my opinion, the fight to give same sex individuals and couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is fundamentally about respect for the individual and their choices and lifestyles. By thrusting Mary Cheney into the spotlight, in the hopes that a big name conservative will do battle with the religious right, is unfair to her, and I think goes against the spirit behind our goals. Instead, whether she gets involved should be her choice, just like who she chooses to share her life with should also be her choice. If she were to enter the arena, and do battle with far-right conservatives, we would all rally behind her. But since she seems to not want that battle, we should respect that and respect her privacy.

In Case You Missed It

Some recent headlines:

Rehabilitating Robert Moses

[Editor's Note: Of course I disagree with his legacy of supporting highways over mass transportation, but I don't find this the worst part of his legacy because NYC's public transportation is still incredibly strong. No, the worst part is often overlooked - how some of his designs were meant to exclude the poor from certain public benefits.]

Editorial: Nicotine Manipulation Confirmed

Any doubts that the tobacco industry has surreptitiously raised the nicotine content of cigarettes should be laid to rest by a study from researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. They confirmed last year's discovery of the nicotine increase by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and went on to identify how the tobacco companies designed their cigarettes to accomplish this.

Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.

This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.

[I appoligize, the last two articles are now only offered on Times Select.]