Tuesday, November 11, 2008

California's Proposition 8

Although my partner and I live in New York and have no plans to marry, I was sad but not necessarily surprised to see that California voters decided to write discrimination into their constitution.

Many will think it ironic that the same reliably blue state that voted overwhelming for Barack Obama also voted for Proposition 8. Indeed, the numbers indicate that nearly 70% of African-Americans voted in favor of the ban on same-sex marriage. I certainly don't mean to single out African-American voters. Asian voters also overwhelming voted in favor of the ban.

It doesn't take a Nobel Laureate to understand why. Religious devotion - or at least devotion to the teachings of particular churches - drives elections.

I have never been a complete fan of Keith Olbermann (MSNBC commentator on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann). I often disagree with his divisive tone and sometimes mean-spirited attacks on mostly conservative (or, let's admit, sometimes reactionary right wing) folks, but on this issue, the substance of his recent commentary reflected what so many of us are thinking: what on Earth does permitting same-sex couples to express their love and commitment through marriage do to damage the institution?

It is certainly not true that same-sex marriage devalues "traditional" marriages between men and women any more than divorce does. And, by the way, what is "traditional marriage"? If traditional marriage were all about procreation and promotion of "family", should we dissolve marriages between men and women who for whatever reason cannot or do not have children?

Let's also face the reality of the difference between marriages blessed by religious institutions and those given recognition via state law. A couple married in the Catholic Church is nevertheless entitled to divorce under the laws of their state. They are then free to remarry pursuant to those same laws. But without an annulment granted by the Catholic Church, the Church will refuse to recognize the new marriage and in some parishes will deny the newly married couple the right to participate fully in the sacraments. Of course, the Catholic Church has every right to refuse to sanctify any union it considers at odds with its teachings and even to punish or excommunicate those who stray from its teachings. But it does not have the right to nullify legally recognized marriages in a pluralistic society that has always separated church and state.

Marriages sanctified by religious institutions include a bundle of rights and obligations that are unique to a particular faith. Marriages sanctified by the state include a very different bundle of rights and obligations that are necessarily universal across all religions (or, dare I say it, no religion at all).

Barack Obama was, until very recently, a Constitutional law professor. He understands that depriving adults of the right to marry a person of their choice is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. His personal beliefs, as he has stated publicly, come from his Christian faith. I am convinced that he understands the difference between the two and will announce one day that it is not only possible, but necessary, to reconcile personal belief with the promise of a civil society that respects religion but does not permit a religious majority from legislating away a minority's fundamental rights under the Constitution.

The text of Olbermann's remarks are available by accessing the link below. Spend a couple of minutes if you have some time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Everyone Wins

Although they may not know it yet, the folks who didn't vote for Barack Obama in this election don't have much to worry about. I am convinced that President-elect Obama listened very carefully to their hopes and fears and that the inevitable public-policy changes that will take place in January, 2009 will not harm anyone.

Let's not forget that the 49% of folks who voted for John McCain are demographically less wealthy than those who voted for Barack Obama. They struggle as much or more with a lack of health insurance. They buy gas at the same stations everyone else does. Their kids have the same hurdles in affording higher education. Their homes are going into foreclosure at the same or higher rates than Obama supporters. They suffer just as much from a tax system that rewards dividends more than work. Their kids are in Iraq in the same or greater numbers than those who voted for Barack Obama.

With a great deal of help from the same folks who elected him, plus some more who didn't, President Obama can make progress on fixing what's broken for everyone.

There will be some changes that will initially confirm some of the 49-percenters' worst fears: 1) the Supreme Court won't be stacked to overturn Roe v. Wade; 2) we will start to listen again to other nations, not to create a world government that supplants our own, but to work together to solve common problems; 3) we will be less tolerant of labeling our fellow citizens "other" or "un-American" or "deviant" because they don't share our religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

I believe that those fears can be minimized for the vast majority of McCain supporters. We need to keep listening to the anti-choice message, reach out, and help find ways to really support women who choose (without any interference) to carry their pregnancies to term while making sure that the choice is between them and their doctors. We need to point out the benefits of building coalitions of nations to eradicate terrorism, dictatorships, disease and poverty. We need to respect religious devotion and make sure that the devoted understand that the fundamental messages of the world's religions are not really at odds with each other. It's only the evil folks who use religion for personal political purposes that make it seem that way. We need to show each other the millions of examples of ordinary people who will finally shatter all of the tired racial, ethnic and sexual orientation stereotypes.

I believe we will get there.