The Blackbird Whistling, Or Just After

"Anti-gay amendments are the Happy Meal toy of Republican politics." - A Meandering Post on Gay & Women's Rights

"Anti-gay amendments are the Happy Meal toy of Republican politics." So says Chris Kelly, who has a good piece in Huffington today about Florida introducing a new Marriage Protection Amendment on the 2008 ballot. Forgive the dripping sarcasm, he makes a good point.

So come on down! And while you're in there, marking the magic X that proves you're not a homo -- and that your life wasn't a squalid waste of everyone's time, because at least you got yerself hitched -- why not also vote for a Republican president?

Something for you.  Something for the GOP. It's a get-out-the-vote win/win.

The amendment is being pushed by John Stemberger head of Florida4Marriage, which according to Kelly is

a Republican front group, run by a personal injury lawyer, to lure gay-hating boobs into the voting booths next November.

Although the the Federal "Defense" of Marriage Act applies to Florida, this push for a change to the state constitution is a "just in case" measure to firm up wording that clever homosexuals may, at some point in the future, use to challenge the definition of marriage and ultimately subject children to the "vast, untested social experiment" that is same sex marriage.

They get much of their support material from "Focus on the Family" who, when not embroiled against the ignoble war on Christmas, is  propagating the gay-is-evil Christian world view with gems like these -

• No society needs homosexual coupling. In fact, too much of it would be harmful to society and that is why natural marriage and same-sex coupling cannot be considered socially equal.

• It is an affront to African-Americans to say having past generations being prevented from taking a drink from a public water fountain or being sprayed down by fire hoses in a public park was on par to laws preventing a man from marrying another man. The comparison is shameful.

• Supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) did not just dream up the need for such an amendment. We have been forced into this battle because a very small few want to constitutionally redefine marriage for all of us. Same-sex activists brought this fight to all of us. (Er..."very small few?")

A little more digging at family.org, and I discovered the predictably misogynistic take on heterosexual marriage. The best bits are "What I Didn't Know About Men - Seven Revelations". These include - men need respect, men are providers, men want more sex, and...

Men care about appearance.
What that means in practice: You don't need to be a size 3, but your man does need to see you making the effort to take care of yourself — and he will take on significant cost or inconvenience in order to support you.

There's plenty more, of course, including a the follow-up section "You Are Her Prince Charming", but you can check it out yourself, if you're so inclined.

What's Uncle Sam Doing in My Marriage?

Great op-ed in the Times this week examining "WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry?" Columnist Stephanie Coontz notes

For 16 centuries, Christianity...defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows...the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce. Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.

Fast-forward to the early part of the 20th century and  the US state legislature begins making it illegal for whites to marry blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.

Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce. In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.

She points out that being unmarried does little to absolve one from responsibility toward a partner or your children, but it does deny one the rights granted only by a government-sanctioned union. Remind me again, whose rights are defended in the Defense of Marriage Act, and why is the government involved at all?

The American Anthropological Association release this statement on marriage in 2004 in response to Bush's introduction of the D of M Act:

Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association

Arlington, Virginia; The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the world's largest organization of anthropologists, the people who study culture, releases the following statement in response to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization.         

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that other civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies. The Executive Board of the American anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

Media may contact either of the names below: To discuss the AAA Statement please contact: Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, AAA President (847) 491-4564, office. To discuss anthropological research on marriage and family please contact: Roger Lancaster, Anthropologist, author, The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture , 2003 (202) 285-4241 cellular. [Emphasis original, links mine]

Also check out Jacob Weisburg on SLATE in 2006, writing about the GOP's "Gay Panic Button". And the history of marriage on wiki.

Ruling for Transgender Rights in MD - Christian Conservatives Seriously Freaking Out

Legislation passed in Montgomery County Maryland this week that protected transgender rights "when it comes to housing, employment, accommodation, and taxi service". As you might guess, an uproar quickly ensued. Much indignation seemed to be about (well, on top of the fact that transgender individuals deserve rights in the first place) the issue that transgenders have legal access to the restroom of their choice.  From here, it was a short step to "Co-Ed Locker Rooms in Our Schools!" Co-ed? They're so missing the point.

Given that transgenders got shafted in last week's proposal of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, this is somewhat heartening.

And even better, watching conservative groups go apeshit.  Ooh, the outrage!

"Let Me Live Free While You Live Like I Tell You" - The Misplaced Morals of the Christian "Libertarian"

Thanks to Suricou Raven at Moronality, I came across Vox Day's blog, Vox Popoli, by way of his pro-Coulter post "Ann Is Crystal Clear", which contends that

"...women's suffrage is completely incompatible with human liberty..."

Vox backs this with the vague reasoning that "emotion" always leads to fear, which always leads to heightened preoccupation with homeland security. At  least I think that's what he means from the single sentence he devotes to the point:

"One cannot defend freedom on the basis of emotion, as fear always runs to promises of security, however nebulous."

He slams-home his point of women-wreck-democracy-with-their-emotional-voting  with the astute realization that

"...no bald politician has been elected in either the United States or the UK with the exception of Eisenhower and Churchill."

I guess he means elected since women's suffrage. I'm also guessing that baldness is preferable because less hair means more brains (which would actually give most women an advantage) - or it could be because the youngish Vox is, in fact, ah-hem...balding? - (and oh the irony that Vox's email is "Vday")
 

But this is so ridiculous, it hardly merits mention. What I want to speak about is this emerging trend, apparently known as Christian Libertarianism. Vox's site has the brash sub-head of "Live Free or Die!" Denying half the population the right to vote is certainly on the right track.

True Libertarianism holds the noble principals of individual freedom and self responsibility. It advocates individuals making and accepting responsibility for their own social and economic decisions.In other words, you're free to life your life the way you want as long as doing so doesn't impinge on the rights of others to do the same...even when they do things you personally find depraved, dishonorable, or just plain dumb. And here's the problem. I'm not saying you can't be a Christian and a Libertarian, of course you can. But the moment you attempt to force others to live by the principals outlined by your religion, you are a Libertarian no longer.

In Steven Yate's lengthy essay "How I Became A Christian Libertarian" he chronicles his intellectual journey and attempts to rationally synthesize the two disciplines.

Although Yate's admits that "Libertarianism is rooted in a philosophy of natural rights that inhere in individuals, not groups," and goes on to say the tenets of Christianity are not the opinions of a group but rather...  well, simple truth. So it's okay.

As far as I can tell, most Christian Libertarians explain their stance by first quoting scripture illustrating that god approves of a hands-off government and then point to a handful of bible stories that may be viewed as representing individual freedom and culpability. Right about now doubts will be cast as to whether non-Christian individuals can possibly handle this type of freedom without an overriding moral compass to keep our "appetites" in check. Instead of the government, which in the least usually forms laws based on consensus and is morphable over time, we instead have the vastly superior authority of Christ dictating allowable and prohibited behaviors. Great.

So while Christian Libertarians believe in liberty and that we all should be free to make our own choices, women should be denied reproductive rights, sex education is for the (preferably married) 21+ crowd only, and the deviancy of homosexuality should not be recognized, condoned or rewarded by the state. The fact that homeowners and straight married couples are rewarded by the government, while not exactly libertarian, is not so much of an issue.

To be fair, I did find one somewhat moderate stance. Michael Bindner, author of the site "The Christian Libertarian Party Manifesto" makes the astonishing realization that

"As Libertarians, criminalizing abortion is forever off the table."

Hey, does this guy actually understand and embrace the principals of liberty? Well, no but he at least sees the hypocrisy so many others of his kind piously discount. Bindner basically says that abortion is morally wrong and we must work to stop it, but instead of outlawing the practice he wants to incentivize child-bearing and give special sliding-scale tax breaks based on the number of children in one's family. Unfortunately, this too goes against the foundation of Libertarianism by putting the government in the role of encouraging a large-family lifestyle and once again we have the government enacting procedures that effect all of its citizens based on the views of a particular group.

He also has the idea that businesses should be forced to advance and reward women who take a year off to have a baby in the same way they would for someone who worked that year. How this could ever be measured or implemented is unclear, and if it's good or not is not the point. This move makes him more Democrat or Socialist than anything else. The point is - it's not Libertarian!

Like I said, this is the"moderate" CL view on  non-Christian-friendly social issues.

The more common stance? Vox himself wrote an article for the Christian Conservative World Daily News in 2003, in which he explains

"The basic principle of Libertarianism is not anarchic. There are real limits. My free will ends where yours begins. Neither the community nor I have any claim whatsoever on your property or your life, and a libertarian legal system would be structured around that principle."

So far so good. And then...

"Do not be misled by the false "pro-choice" rhetoric of the infanticidal abortionettes; when one individual decides the fate of another, it is nothing more than the ancient law of tooth and claw. Still, their very terminology is the homage vice pays to virtue."

All the more disturbing because I basically agree with the first two-thirds of his article, which talks accurately about Libertarianism. And then he wallops you with this craziness at the end.

For some real self-contradiction and clumsy scramble of logic, check out Bindner's section on gay rights, where he tries to find cohesion with "everyone should have personal liberty" and "but gays are abhorrent and really shouldn't do those things."

Why did they even come into the Libertarian camp at all?

This is my point. "Yes, freedom. Freedom, except..." We all have our personal exceptions, and they are all different. If you allow any one person's, or group of people's exception to form a law restricting others, you are not for true freedom and liberty.

Okay, assault, theft, murder, fraud, personal violation, all these are punishable because they intrude upon the liberty of another. However, whether I wear a seatbelt in my car, or someone says fuck on the radio, or  two women marry and raise children, or whether my doctor and I (or my clergy and I, or my boyfriend and I, or just me alone) decide that I don't want to continue my pregnancy... The Libertarian stance firmly holds that none of it should be in the hands of a government that can take your money and/or lock you up not living the way it decrees.

Allowing Jesus to dictate the "exceptions" to liberty does not make the exceptions inherently okay. Your god is not my god so keep him out of my life!

So, Christian Libertarians, find a new term, you're corrupting what was once a perfectly legitimate political stance and sullying it with god. Damn it.

 

One more guy - I can't resist...

Okay, this guy is a nut-job, although reasonable enough to admit he doesn't speak for every Christian or every Christian Libertarian.

The self-delusion goes so far that The Fountain of Truth founder Doug Newman will talk all about liberty and individual freedom, and then detail all the ways that Bush has been too lenient on abortion and homosexuals. In fact, he seems to think Libertarianism means not wanting to pay your taxes and the "the government screws everything up." Inexplicably, though wanting to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, he seems to think the Branch Davidians should have been left alone...

In the midst of a nauseating number of pages of essays, quotes, and personal rants, I found this lovely poem called "The Old Paths" (anon), with stanzas such as:

I liked the old paths, when
  Moms were at home.
  Dads were at work.
  Brothers went into the army.
  And sisters got married BEFORE having children!

Moms could cook;
  Dads would work;
  Children would behave..

Women wore the jewelry;
  and Men wore the pants.
  Women looked like ladies;
  Men looked like gentlemen;
  and children looked decent.

Cursing was wicked;
  Drinking was evil;
  and divorce was unthinkable

The flag was honored;
  America was beautiful;
  and God was welcome!

We read the Bible in public;
  Prayed in school;
  And preached from house to house
  To be called an American was worth dying for;
  To be called a Christian was worth living for;
  To be called a traitor was a shame!

Sex was a personal word.
  Homosexual was an unheard of word,
  and abortion was an illegal word.

Laws were based on the Bible;
  Homes read the Bible;
  and churches taught the Bible.

If you believe no one should tell you how to live but others should be made to live the way you do - you're NOT Libertarian! YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST WHO DOESN'T WANT TO PAY TAXES!

Stop using liberty as your premise, and make up a new damn term for your political leanings.

Military Inadvertently Recruits Gays

This is too good. According to the USA Today article Military Inadvertently Recruits Gays, the US military bought ad space aimed at new recruits on Glee.com, a networking site for "Gays, Lesbians, and Everyone Else." Dealing with GLEE's parent company, Community Connect, and working through private ad agencies, the military purchased a  "diversity and inclusion" placement package that targeted "special interest" web communities such as Latino, Asian-American, and gays.

Steve Ralls of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group, commented:

"The majority of GLEE's members would not be allowed to be as open in the military as they are online...[gays] have been drummed out of the armed forces simply for using sites like GLEE."

Despite General Schwartzkopf's long-standing claim that "the presence of open homosexuality would have an unacceptable detrimental and disruptive impact on the cohesion, morale and esprit of the Armed Forces," the Guardian reports a different outcome for British Forces. It's Official: gays do not harm forces relates the state of British Military ten months following a reversal of the ban on gays in 2000. An unidentified British military a paratrooper is quoted:

Our key priority is recruiting tough, fit, team players. We need as many as possible. This sex thing has nothing whatsoever to do with their ability as soldiers. It appears to be an obsession of armchair warriors.

Although a recent article in the British conservative Daily Mail describes a "spate of resignations in protest" by members of the British Armed Forces in 2000, "American scholars" dissect and debunk the claims here.

A 2007 CNN poll reveals evolving attitudes toward homosexuality, including growing acceptance that it is genetic and unchangeable. The poll also found that 79% of Americans believe that openly gay  people should be allowed to serve in the military.

Changing attitudes on the right can also be seen in the June 2007 Fabriozio/MaLaughlin poll:
The Elephant Looks In the Mirror Ten Year Later