Unanimously, the Iowa Supreme Court declares same-sex marriage a right in that state. From the ruling:
The Iowa legislature amended the marriage statute in 1998 to define marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.
But:
[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.
For "each generation," read not "as reflected in the opinions of their elected representatives," but "as we judges choose."
More:
Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time.
Translation: even if nobody thinks these rights exist, but we do, we have a responsibility to declare that they exist. Thus does seven men and women overturn the meaning of an ancient and fundamental social institution, in a single stroke.
They go on to say that forbidding gay marriage is like supporting slavery or the disfranchisement of women, and that the real reason people oppose it is because of religious belief, which is insufficient cause.
This morning, I had breakfast with some guys, including a lawyer. We weren't aware of this decision, but we talked about this issue. The lawyer said that as soon as homosexuality receives constitutionally protected status equivalent to race, then "it will be very hard to be a public Christian." By which he meant to voice support, no matter how muted, for traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality and marriage. To do so would be to set yourself up for hostile work environment challenges, including dismissal from your job, and generally all the legal sanctions that now apply to people who openly express racist views.
That world got a little bit closer this morning. And most people don't even see it. As Maggie Gallagher wrote in her "Banned in Boston" article, which if you haven't yet read, by all means do:
Will speech against gay marriage be allowed to continue unfettered? "Under the American regime of freedom of speech, the answer ought to be easy," according to [American Jewish Congress general counsel Marc] Stern. But it is not entirely certain, he writes, "because sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace principles will likely migrate to suppress any expression of anti-same-sex-marriage views." Stern suggests how that might work.In the corporate world, the expression of opposition to gay marriage will be suppressed not by gay ideologues but by corporate lawyers, who will draw the lines least likely to entangle the company in litigation. Stern likens this to "a paroxysm of prophylaxis--banning 'Jesus saves' because someone might take offense."
Of course, you are a crazy bigot to believe this might affect you negatively at all. Ask Andrew Sullivan and Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Or consider a recent case at William Paterson University, a state school in New Jersey. A senior faculty member sent out a mass email inviting people to attend movies with a gay theme. A student employee, a 63-year-old Muslim named Jihad Daniel, replied to the professor in a private email asking not to receive messages "about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve.'" He went on, "These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned." The result: Daniel received a letter of reprimand for using the "derogatory and demeaning" word "perversions" in violation of state discrimination and harassment regulations.Interestingly, Stern points out, a single "derogatory or demeaning" remark not seeking sexual gratification or threatening a person's job security does not constitute harassment under ordinary federal and state sexual harassment law originally intended to protect women in the workplace. Moreover, Stern says, "our entire free speech regime depends on the principle that no adult has a right to expect the law will protect him from being exposed to disagreeable speech."
Except, apparently in New Jersey, where a state attorney general's opinion concluded, "[C]learly speech which violates a nondiscrimination policy is not protected." "This was so 'clear' to the writer," notes Stern, "that she cited not a single case or law review article in support." Ultimately, the school withdrew its reprimand from Daniel's employment file after receiving negative publicity and the threat of a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
Sexual harassment law as an instrument for suppressing religious speech? A few days after I interviewed Stern, an Alliance Defense Fund press release dropped into my mail box: "OSU Librarian Slapped with 'Sexual Harassment' Charge for Recommending Conservative Books for Freshmen." One of the books the Ohio State librarian (a pacifist Quaker who drives a horse and buggy to work) recommended was It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Three professors alleged that the mere appearance of such a book on a freshman reading list made them feel "unsafe." The faculty voted to pursue the sexual harassment allegation, and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped.
In the end the investigation of the librarian was more of a nuisance--you might call it harassment--than anything else. But the imbalance in terms of free speech remains clear: People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation, and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. "Soft" coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone's conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Firefishe, with one more comment to AM on firearms in the U.S. and then I'm done.
AM,
I should not fail to mention the National Rifle Association (NRA)--by far the largest and most influential body representing shooters and the shooting sports in the United States, is also the largest body of any association to represent...wait for it...
Police Officers!
The NRA trains more police firearms instructors (for their own departments' training, not for citizens in this example) than any other body, hands-down!
Also, my concealed carry training was carried out by...again, wait for it...
Retired Police Officers!
Are you beginning to formulate a picture here? The U.S. Constitution declares that every person in the United States has an individual right to bear arms; this translates to personal self defense and in times of national need when all citizens need to pitch in and do their part.
This right provides for everyone who able to possess the means to defend *themselves* and not have to rely on others so much for personal protection.
Still--as it is convenient to have others who are more professionally trained than the average joe or jane to handle the more serious elements of criminal activity, we elect, appoint, and hire police, and other legal people to get paid to patrol our cities, counties, states, and federal holdings to keep back the more organized of the denizens of the dark--such as terrorists, drug peddlers, and the like--from affecting the majority of the general population.
The training these people receive, in turn, flows down to the average joe and jane in the form of Hunting Safety Instructors, Concealed Carry Instructors, General Firearms Safety Instructors, Military Auxiliaries (that do some form of armed patrol, especially in large water areas, like the Great Lakes--these are usually deputized by the county Sheriff . The list goes on and on.
We, as the general populace, make up the largest body that possess firearms in the United States. We take great responsibility in this right, and do not make light of it, as we have seen the past and know what is in store for the future if we don't protect what we have as freedom now.
The UK lost its liberty when it outlawed firearms ownership by private citizens. It didn't gain anything. I think it's time to open your eyes and take a closer look at things.
These are my opinions, and only my opinions. Yours--and everyone else's--are equally valid and important. I have enjoyed sharing this information with you. Please feel free to respond. I would enjoy hearing your own side of the matter.
Warmest Regards,
Firefishe
I've read the Bible, and am interested in human history. So I'm a bit confused at all the talk about "tradional" marriage that comes from religious people. From what I can see, here are some of the "traditional" elements that have changed in the last 3000 years:
People now marry for love. Fathers no longer arrange marriages. Fathers no longer can sell their daughters into marriages. Husbands can no longer rape their wives. There are now age limits on marriage. Wives can now own property independent of their husbands. People of different ethnic groups can now marry. People can marry with or without a religious ceremony. Some people now marry with no intent to have children. Polygamy has gone in and out of favour, is frowned upon, but is not acted against (this one's kind of fuzzy). People of the same gender can now marry (still opposed in the more primitive areas). I'm sure I've missed many of the changes.
If all of these changes above are changes to "traditional" marriage, then no such thing exists. Marriage, like all social activities, changes from time to time and place to place.
The next time someone professes to support "traditional" marriage, tell them to pick a new term, because what they are defending is not traditional at all, it's transitional.
AM,
I agree wholeheartedly with you that it dose state in the bible,love the sinner,hate the sin!Also that I would not get a gay/lesbian marriage myself but that dose not mean i want to ban others who wish to live that lifestyle the right to choose to marry just like straight couples.As a smoker i know what discrimination is about so I,am not going to ban or be for a ban of any gay/lesbian marriage.This is america if you don't like it don't take part in that caramonies,protest if you must but overall lump it.They have rights just like we do!
I suppose I should preface this comment by first disclosing that I am 22 year old female, did not grow up under the influence of any organized religion, have read only brief, selected excerpts from the Bible for college courses, and would identify myself politically as liberal (though in large part I think political systems are somewhat of a band aid for the deeper insecurities facing collective humanity).
Dan, the reason I stumbled upon this blog was because of a final essay I'm writing for an Environmental Studies course at my university. It's a class on local food economy, in which we've read a great deal of Michael Pollan and Bill McKibben. Coming from a politically conservative background (though not philosophically or socially) I was interested in researching the subculture and connectivity of ideological conservatives and sustainability, which is how I discovered your book. And that was about 20 minutes ago, at which point I find myself here, trying to understand how a person with seemingly progressive views towards the underlying tenets of liberalism: "a conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship-especially of the land-is not fundamentally conservative." (I'm simply quoting from the amazon.com extended review page of your book under the section 'A Crunchy Con Manifesto,' so please forgive me if that's in any way inaccurate) could essentially be using a tactic of reverse-marginalization to further an agenda of Christian dogma and superiority.
Let's talk a little about this word 'humility.' Now, dictionary.com (apologies for the unscholarly source, I don't have a Webster's on hand) defines humility as: "the quality or condition of being humble; modest of opinion or estimate of one's own importance, rank, etc." Furthermore, 'modest' is defined as: "having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions." If you are truly humble in your opinions, and free of pretensions, then I am very much at a loss as to how you possess the inherent understanding that homosexuality is in any way a sin, except in your biased regurgitation of a doctrine that is as arbitrary in a philosophical sense as the legislation passed by the Unites States Congress. To address the bigger issue at hand: why do you feel that your religious beliefs have relevance and spiritual significance dependent only upon the concept of mutualism (in its social sense)? Belief and faith are personal--you are going to live your life alone, and you are going to die alone, so why this fundamental need to convince others that what makes you complete as a human being doesn't make sense or resonate fully unless others share your perspectives?
Having only read this blog and excerpts from your book, I would say that you at the least an eloquent and articulate writer, and I am very much intrigued by your philosophies, which I'm sure I can't begin to understand without knowing you or having read your book. But I would like to say, in a world that is rapidly homogenizing and shrinking, to discriminately cast judgment upon others because they are not like you is a genuine shame and disappointment. And to claim that there is no freedom for "religious speech" is a gross inequity when people have been fighting many years for the kind justice that we are only beginning to witness through the legalization of gay marriage. What a shame you can't understand that love is not bound definitively to principles of the Christian faith or any other; it exists freely between all people and should serve as a beautiful reminder of why we are here. If you are inextricably linked to the demonization of homosexuality because "that's what the Bible says," then I'm afraid I wouldn't bother reading your book. And how unfortunate, especially at such a crucial point in human history, when it behooves us all just to listen a little bit to the other side.
oops, I realized that I was addressing that previous post to "Dan" instead of "Rod." My apologies, Rod, it's been a long week of finals.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.