Daily Archives: June 16, 2009

More Manufactured Outrage

Posted on by

I don’t know what’s more amazing: that the powers that be on the Right would even think up a stunt like this, or that so many righties are such sheep — nasty blood-sucking sheep, but sheep nonetheless — that they unthinkingly go along with it.

Here’s the basic story — Wednesday next week ABC News will devote much of its program to the Obama Administration’s proposed health care policy. On that day, “Good Morning America” will originate from the South Lawn of the White House and will include an interview by Diane Sawyer with President Obama. That evening, President Obama will take part in a moderated discussion in front of a live audience on ABC. The moderators will be Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer, and questions will come from the audience, according to ABC News.

One might say, Good for ABC! Unless, of course, you are a Republican.

The GOP officially complained that “opposing voices” will be left out, namely that they won’t be able to plant one of its usual trained goons next to the President to interrupt incessantly with absurd talking points so that no one can have a sensible discussion. ABC promises that people with diverse opinions will ask questions from the audience. One also hopes that Sawyer and Gibson will ask substantive and challenging questions.

Righties are screaming about an “ethical firestorm” because news will be “anchored” from inside the White House. A sampler of reactions:

This is the stuff of apparatchiks and Politburos, not a healthy, ethical free press. ABC will become the Obama network to sell his health care plan for an entire day. … [link]

Dr. Goebbels would be so proud… [link]

As far as I am aware this has never happened before in any administration – Democrat or Republican.

A free and independent press is one of the legs on which all representative governments rest. If we have lost it, The American Experiment’s remaining time is short indeed. [link]

One must ask, in what universe would news reporting from inside the White House, or a President taking questions from a live audience whose members he did not personally choose, be considered subversive of democracy? Beside Bizarro World, of course?

And the answer is, a world of people who think of the place from within the White House as enemy territory that must not be allowed legitimacy.

Update: See Bob Cesca at Crooks and Liars.

No Need to Be Civil

Posted on by

In an op ed in today’s Los Angeles Times, Douglas W. Kmiec argues that the simple way to resolve the Proposition 8 controversy is to cross out “marriage” and substitute “civil union” in California statutes. I held a similar view years ago, but I’ve changed my mind. And I have two reasons for arguing that same-sex marriage should be marriage, period, not “civil” anything.

Unless there is agreement at all federal levels that “civil union” and “marriage” mean exactly the same thing under the law, California by itself cannot resolve some of the more intractable issues of same-sex marriage. These include whether “civilly unioned” couples are entitled to the same federal benefits, tax filing status, etc., as their married co-citizens. It also doesn’t tell us whether other states may recognize civil unions in any way.

But my larger objection is this: The word “civil” in this context means “Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state.” It also means “Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical.”

In other words, by creating a dichotomy between marriage and civil unions, we are saying that marriage is something recognized and authorized by more than just the state. Marriage has the weight of ecclesiastical authority on its side, whereas civil unions are merely a legal contrivance. I argue that this dichotomy does not reflect reality.

First, marriages are not always blessed by clergy — judges and ship’s captains can do the job as well. Further, not all religious institutions are opposed to same-sex marriage. Some — a minority, I admit, but some — are just fine with it. And I argue that not recognizing same-sex marriages performed in those traditions as marriage is a form of religious discrimination.

The usual argument from religious institutions is that recognizing same-sex marriage would force them to perform such marriages, in violation of their beliefs. I would support language in the law that permits any religious institution to refuse to marry a couple for any reason. I believe they have that right now. I’ve often heard of priests and ministers refusing to perform wedding ceremonies because the engaged couple were not both of the same faith, or because the engaged couple were already living together. But if it makes everyone feel better, then fine; let the law clearly state that a religious institution can refuse to perform or honor same-sex marriages without penalty of law.

However, my understanding is that a few religious institutions have been performing same-sex wedding ceremonies for a while, and same-sex couples are recognized within that organization as being “married” in every sense of the word. These institutions include Unitarian Universalist fellowships and at least some Buddhist sanghas. I know American Zen priests who have been performing same-sex marriages for many years. Episcopalians may be heading in that direction also, and it wouldn’t surprise me if some Episcopal priests have presided at same-sex wedding ceremonies, even if they aren’t yet officially sanctioned by the church.

Yet the law does not recognize these couples as being married. On the other hand, some religious institutions are demanding the law reflect their sectarian beliefs opposing same-sex marriage, which to me clearly runs afoul of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

I say the only way for the law to avoid religious entanglement and be free of religious discrimination is to recognize same-sex marriages but make it clear that a religious institution can refuse to perform them. We don’t need to be “civil” about it.

Update: I confess to being very tired right now, and I discussed the Los Angeles Times article without reading it through to the end. So I missed this paragraph:

The federal action was brought on behalf of two gay couples who were denied marriage licenses after the ruling that upheld Proposition 8. If such an action were instead brought in state court, California would have an opportunity to bring equity to both sides. The attorney general, in defending the state’s interest, could ask for a court order enjoining the state from using the terminology of marriage altogether. Instead, the state would give everyone — gay or straight — a civil union license and allow churches, synagogues, temples and mosques to say who can and cannot “marry” within their individual traditions. Religious freedom, a bedrock constitutional value of like importance to equality, would also be a winner.

That has some internal logic to it, although I don’t think it would fly. It still doesn’t solve the issue of federal privileges and protections. And what does this say to atheists? Surely there are atheists who would like to call themselves “married” but who, as a matter of principle, would not take part in a religious ceremony.

It occurs to me also that there are many circumstances in which a couple might be married under the law but not in a church. I understand that Catholics who have not had a first marriage properly annulled by the Church cannot be married in the Church, for example.