. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Who, What, Threatens "The Institution of Marriage"?
Two days ago this blog addressed the basic human decency and respect owed everyone with regard to those suffering from problems of overweight and obesity. "Speaking of Obesity."
Today [May 8], following on the culmination of President Obama's "evolving" thoughts on gay marriage, here are the long-ago-evolved thoughts of another heterosexual about the basic human decency and respect owed all of our fellow humans in the GLBT community.
Last evening PBS' Newshour, as a part of its coverage of the president's "personal" position on the issue, included a debate of sorts in its story "Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage: Now What?" (with transcript and video). Judy Woodruff hosted the segment, interviewing author Kerry Eleveld, and then questioning Evan Wolfson, president and founder of Freedom to Marry, and the Rev. Harry Jackson (not the Rev. Jesse Jackson), senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland, and presiding bishop of the International Communion of Evangelical Churches -- an outspoken opponent of gay marriage.
Unfortunately, the two did not really join issue. Wolfson hammered away on his assertion (kind of self-evident on the surface) that individual straight couples suffer no harm as a result of the marriage of gay couples ("you're not able to point to a single, actual, real consequence"). Rev. Jackson was saying, "It [gay marriage] may change the institution [of marriage], though. That's the issue."
My point is that, with regard to "the institution of marriage" both are right. How can I say that?
There are many issues involving gay marriage. (1) Central, I think, given the role of religion in the arguments of many gay marriage opponents, is the fact that the legalization of gay marriage has no effect, none, on the ability of any given religious organization to refuse to perform, or recognize, gay marriage. There are two parallel tracks here: what the state can (and many, including myself, would argue, constitutionally must do) and what individual religious organizations can do with regard to "marriage." There is a significant body of constitutional law declaring, put most simplistically, that the state should stay out of our bedrooms. (2) However, the president and Mitt Romney both agree that states should be free to define civil (not religious) "marriage" as limited to a man and a woman -- and 30 states have decided to do just that (including North Carolina this week). (3) At the same time, polls seem to indicate that 50% of Americans, give or take, and especially younger persons, are totally untroubled by the idea.
I leave discussion of those, and other gay marriage issues, to another day.
What I want to address are Rev. Jackson's assertions regarding the changes in "the institution of marriage" brought about by permitting gays and lesbians to marry.
I think he's right. Gay marriage does change "the institution of marriage." It's just that the change it brings about is insignificant compared with other changes.
Title IX has changed "the institution of college athletics." Prohibitions on "sexual harassment" have changed "the institution of courtship."
The real and very, very significant changes in "the institution of marriage," however, have come from the heterosexual, not the homosexual, community.
At its inception, marriage in a patriarchal society treated women as chattels, "owned" (and certainly controlled) by their husbands (as they still are in some countries today). Children born of unmarried parents created a significant problem for a community. There were more than moral reasons to prohibit sex outside of marriage (still punished by death, at least of the woman, in some countries today). Children were necessary for the perpetuation of the species. (As late as 1600 the world's population was about 500 million, compared with today's 7, and soon to be 9, billion. World Population Estimates, Wikipedia.org.) As recently as the 19th and early 20th Century children were needed to do their share of the unending work involved in a married couple's operation of a farm. Infant mortality rates were such that a couple needed many births to be assured of enough survivors. Divorce was theoretically possible, but thoroughly discouraged socially, legally -- and economically (given the many ways in which women were oppressed, and economically dependent upon their husbands).
That "institution of marriage" has certainly changed.
Today's (at least potential) economic and other independence of women, coupled with multiple forms of birth control, means that their sexuality no longer either requires, nor is restrained by, marriage. (E.g., when I entered law school in 1956 there were but two women among the 700 or so students; today's UI Law School entering classes are roughly 50% women.) Access to abortion, an abhorrence to many Americans and unavailable in most of geographic America (of 3100-plus counties in the U.S., among non-metropolitan counties only 3% offer access to abortion) is another major change. There are good reasons for being married, and monogamous within marriage; but today those reasons are more self-discovered and lived by as a matter of choice than externally imposed. This has been an enormous "change in the institution of marriage" for both heterosexual men as well as women (as we are reminded daily by the media).
Divorce rates are up, in part, because (at least many) women are not economically compelled to stay in "bad marriages" (sometimes including domestic violence). Most people would consider that a net plus for society. But it also makes divorce possible for somewhat more frivolous reasons. In any case, the easier access to the termination of marriage has to have been the cause of significant "change in the institution of marriage."
Procreation is no longer a societal necessity, either to tame Planet Earth or to have access to an adequate workforce on the farm. Indeed, one of our species' most urgent needs is to curtail births, not increase them. We seem to be approaching (if not exceeding) the maximum number of humans our Planet can sustain. Infant mortality rates, still too high in many countries, are radically below what they were. Super-sized farms and farm equipment have reduced the farm population from roughly 80% of all Americans in 1800 to 3% today.
So, is Rev. Jackson correct? Yes, the legalization of gay marriage is "a change in the institution of marriage." But to truly understand these changes, and keep them in perspective, we need to recall the observations of Edward R. Murrow and Walt Kelly.
Walt Kelly, creator of the "Pogo" comic strip, is perhaps best remembered for his comparable line regarding environmental degradation on a 1971 Earth Day poster: "we have met the enemy and he is us.""Pogo (comics),"Wikipedia.
If Rev. Jackson, and other heterosexuals, are fearful of any "changes in the institution of marriage," and feel the necessity of a "Defense of Marriage Act," they should begin with a good long look in the mirror. It is not the gays they need fear, but themselves.
Iowa's Supreme Court Says State Constitution Upholds Same Sex Marriage; Forbids Legislative Effort to Ban (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
And here is the Court's full opinion in Varnum v. Brien, April 3, 2009.
Today my home state contributes one more "Iowa brag" to be used when curious coastal residents ask where I'm living these days and are told "Iowa." After explaining to them that Idaho, Ohio and Iowa are really three states, not one, their response is sometimes, "But Iowa, Nick? Why would you want to live in Iowa?"
I'm reluctant to wax too effusive. After all, one of the answers to their question is the fact that Iowa's relatively low population density makes for much less stressful daily living. (The state's three million residents are fewer than the number who crowd many of their coastal cities.)
There are lots of answers. The number of lists of best places to live -- for the young, for entrepreneurs, for the elderly, for schools -- often put Iowa cities at or near the top. Iowa's scientific research and academic leaders include an impressive list from George Washington Carver to James Van Allen (for whom the Van Allen radiation belts are named). The nation's largest teaching hospital, in Iowa City, has some of the top rated departments in the country.
Iowa City is also one of three "cities of literature" worldwide designated by the United Nations (along with Edinburgh and Melbourne).
Indeed, there are lots of reasons why those who confuse Iowa with Idaho, and treat both states as nothing more than "fly over country" are missing out on the gem that is Iowa.
But one of the greatest irritants for me is when I have the sense that a coastal resident's preconceived notion of the state's residents is of a group of uneducated, conservative, rednecks who would vote "Larry the Cable Guy" into the governor's office if only he'd run.
Iowa has a proud history of civil rights leadership.
After all, it was little more than a year ago that this overwhelmingly white state put the lie to the notion that an African-American would not stand a chance as a presidential candidate. Thanks to Iowa that African-American is now in the White House and the world has a new view of Americans in general.
And today Iowa becomes one of three states (along with Connecticut and Massachusetts) to recognize gay marriage. I don't want to spoil today by getting into a rehash of the merits of the issue -- though I agree with the court's opinion both as a matter of state constitutional interpretation and as a matter of public policy. (See Nicholas Johnson, "Church, State and Gay Marriage," September 1, 2007.) Frankly, as I listened to the oral arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court in the Varnum case I didn't think the gay marriage opponents did a very good job of marshaling an argument for their position.
But you don't even have to agree with the court's outcome to recognize that it says something about the state that is of economic as well as civil rights significance. Richard Florida talks about the contribution of the "creative class" to any state's economic development. And among the qualities of life, culture, and society sought by those who have the most to contribute to entrepreneurial and other economic growth -- along with quality schools, theater, entertainment venues, parks and trails -- are the range of diversity and the sense of an open, progressive, welcoming society, of which this decision is but one more bit of very solid evidence (e.g., "[the cities] faring the best right now are not only major education centers; they also are regional health-care hubs that draw people into the city and benefit from a stable, educated, highly skilled work force. . . . Economists credit a highly skilled work force for the resilience of college towns. Edward Glaeser, an economics professor at Harvard University, has demonstrated that as the share of the adult population with college degrees in a city increases by 10%, wages correspondingly rise by about 7.8%." Kelly Evans, "Why College Towns Are Looking Smart,"Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2009.).
The point is that these judgments by today's Iowans are not flukes.
Why do I head this blog entry "Iowa's Civil Rights Leadership"?
Let me answer that by quoting from Justice Cady's well-crafted opinion, which is far more precisely documented than I could create off the top of my head:
In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, In re Ralph, 1 Morris 1 (Iowa 1839), we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. 1 Morris at 9. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1856), which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly, in Clark v. Board of Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868), and Coger v. North West. Union Packet Co., 37 Iowa 145 (1873), we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Admission of Women to the Bar, 1 Chicago Law Times 76, 76 (1887). Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’ decision to deny women admission to the practice of law, seeBradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130, 139, 21 L. Ed. 442, 445 (1873), and twenty-five years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the Commonwealth of Virginia to admit women into the practice of law, seeEx parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116, 118, 14 S. Ct. 1082, 1083, 38 L. Ed. 929, 930 (1894). In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution’s ideals and reaffirmed the “absolute equality of all” persons before the law as “the very foundation principle of our government.” See Coger, 37 Iowa at 153.
Iowa has had many proud days. This is just one more. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Three Quick Fixes to Three Seemingly Intractable Problems An Entry in FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com December 9, 2008
1. Question: What's the solution to the "'marriage' is between a man and a woman" vs. "gays' constitutional right to marriage" dilemma?
Answer: Civil unions for all.
Commentary: "Marriage" for heterosexuals and "civil unions" for homosexuals is not even "separate but equal." It's inherently unequal and unfair and a limitation on gays' civil rights. Moreover, it is state intrusion into something that ought to be left to the religious community: the "sanctity of marriage." One way to solve the problem is to grant gays the right to "marriage." That irritates some folks, many but not all of whom draw their objections from their religious beliefs (among other things). By having the state grant everyone only a "civil union" license (a) the inequality is removed, and (b) "marriage" is left to religious institutions, which would remain free to accept and exclude whomever they chose.
2. Question: What can be done to provide some relief for those about to be rendered homeless as a result of foreclosure without unjustly rewarding the improvident while in effect punishing those who've been paying their mortgages?
Answer: Four percent mortgages for all.
Commentary: The banks have demonstrated that they are reluctant to use the taxpayers' trillion-dollar generosity for the purposes for which it was intended. What's the Federal Reserve and inter-bank loan rate now, 0.5%, 1.0%? By lowering everyone's mortgage rate to 4% it would put money into the pockets of consumers -- the only meaningful (as well as humane) solution to our economic problems in an economy 70% of which is driven by consumer spending -- while still enabling the banks to make a reasonable return. Yes, those who couldn't even make a 4% mortgage loan payment would still lose their homes, so the truly improvident would not be bailed out, but for many this reduction would make the difference in their being able to continue paying the bank -- to the benefit of the bank as well as the homeowner. But it would give the same financial advantage to those who were wiser in their initial mortgage commitment.
3. Question: What's the answer for the failing newspaper industry in the age of the Internet?
Answer: An ASCAP-type arrangement for those who read the papers' content online.
Commentary: Newspapers are being hit from a number of directions at once. Like other public corporations, they are under pressure from Wall Street to not only make a profit, but an ever-increasing profit. The price of newsprint is up. The Tribune's $13 billion debt didn't help its prospects any. Advertising revenues are down, not only because of a failing economy generally, but because readership has been declining for some time. Part of the reason it's declining is because a number of folks are reading the content of the newspapers, for free, off of the Internet. Song writers get their compensation from a share of the license fees paid by broadcasters and others for the blanket licenses to play any of the thousands of songs licensed by ASCAP. The problem confronted by any single newspaper seeking to charge for its online content is that it will lose online readers to competitors who charge less, or nothing. By letting the newspapers enter into such an industry-wide agreement, all readers would have to pay something for the blanket license that would let us enter the Web sites of every American newspaper. The papers could then share those revenues in some proportion to the number of hits each paper's site gets -- not only increasing their income for every additional user (who, unlike hard copy subscribers, contributes virtually zero in incremental cost) but eliminating the costs associated with newsprint and delivery trucks.
That's three for today. Got any other problems you want solved?
December 8, 2008, 6:40 a.m., plus other changes throughout the day; a revision of and numerous updates to the entry of December 7, 2008, 12:10 p.m.
Gannett's Disastrous Decisions (A Blog Entry of FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com)
A CEO's gotta do what a CEO's gotta do.
But there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it. Given the choice between the two Gannett has chosen the wrong way.
These are tough times for the newspaper industry -- along with everybody else.
"Venerable newspaper chain Knight Ridder was swallowed in June 2006 by rival chain McClatchy Co., which has since watched its stock price lose 90 percent of its value. Over the same period, shares of The New York Times Co. are down more than 60 percent, while shares of The Washington Post Co. are down more than 40 percent." So the Washington Post reported in the body of its story about what appears to be the Tribune's impending bankruptcy. Frank Ahrens, "Debt-Ridden Tribune Co. Considers Bankruptcy,"Washington Post, December 8, 2008, p. A1. ("The Chicago-based company owns a coast-to-coast empire with television stations and newspapers in most of the nation's largest cities. Its holdings include the Los Angeles Times; cable television super-station WGN in Chicago; the Baltimore Sun; and WDCW-50 in Washington, the CW affiliate. The company even owns the Chicago Cubs.")
Gannett, which owns the Des Moines Register and Iowa City Press-Citizen newspapers in Iowa as a part of its media empire, has not been immune from Wall Street's pressure for newspapers to show ever-increasing profits in a downward-spiraling economy, with rapidly declining advertising revenues, along with declining readership, and the lack of a successful business model for making sufficient profit from the online editions that make the companies' multi-million-dollar content available for free. Gannett's third quarter earnings per share were down from $1.01 in 2007 to $0.69 this year, although operating revenues for the quarter only declined from $1.8 to $1.64 billion. Broadcasting revenues were actually up 3.9% for the quarter (from $189.5 million in 2007 to $197 million this year).
Gannett's response has been to apply an across-the-board 10% layoff policy to over 80 newspapers including our Des Moines Register and Iowa City Press-Citizen. OK, I understand why some cost cutting might be preferable to Tribune's choice for how to deal with $13 billion in debt. And I understand that you can't really sell off printing presses and stay in the newspaper business -- at least not without a business model for economic survival online. So you have to let some folks go. But who you pick, and how you go about the layoffs, not only tells volumes about your character, but also about your business smarts.
The corporation's first mistake was its choice of who does, and does not, get laid off -- as the Press-Citizen's Bob Patton illustrates:
[Credit: The Press-Citizen's nationally recognized, distinguished graphics artist and editorial cartoonist Bob Patton, December 2, 2008.]
Judging by the absence of a Patton editorial cartoon in yesterday's [Saturday, November 6] paper, I fear that he may be among the 11 said to have been laid off at the Press-Citizen.
Hopefully not, because if so it's just one more classic example of big business shooting itself in the foot, getting rid of irreplaceable top quality professionals in times of economic downturn while hanging on to easily replaceable mediocre executives -- like Detroit's shrinking "Big Three" have done, bringing about their own demise.
Dubow has lived inside America's premier example of the commercial riches created by graphics in the marketplace -- television. He started his career by selling TV commercials and worked his way up through the broadcast side of Gannett. He is now the chair of a corporation that made itself famous as well as rich by creating the first newspaper that epitomizes color and graphics surrounding paragraph-long stories (and is purchased from a box that looks like a television set) -- USA Today. You would think that Dubow, more than most corporate executives, would see the necessity of retaining the corporation's best graphics and editorial cartoon professionals.
Editorial cartoonists and graphics designers are on the front lines of the newspaper's hope for winning back readers. They should be the last to go in a newspaper's restructuring.
What scares me is that the precipitous, forceful, crude and rude removal from the Des Moines Register of beloved Iowa icon and 25-year Gannett employee Brian Duffy is now a matter of public record as a result of the KCCI-TV report last evening [December 6] and gives further reason to believe Patton may be gone as well. I understand that corporate executives are sometimes as boorish and cruel as they apparently were in this case in man handling Duffy (it's often just in their nature and training), but I've never been able to understand how they can be so stupid. ("[Duffy] has been working as a cartoonist and illustrator for more than 30 years. He has received two Best of Gannett awards, two World Hunger Media awards and was a finalist for the prestigious John Fischetti Award for editorial cartooning. His two books are A Decade of Duffy and More of Duffy, published in 1995. His cartoons are syndicated by King Features Syndicate.")
Here's video of the WHO-TV interview with Duffy December 6:
If Patton is in fact also gone it is a great tragedy for this community, Iowa, Gannett and the newspaper industry -- though hopefully, given his rich talents and job opportunity elsewhere, not for him.
The case takes on national significance because Iowa stands on the threshold of becoming only the fourth state in the United States to recognize gay marriage, and the first in the Midwest.
Recognizing this, the Iowa Supreme Court, to its credit, is making special arrangements to handle this national interest. General Information about the oral argument, including how you can get access on your laptop to live streaming of the lawyers' presentations, is available on the Iowa Supreme Court's special site.
Obviously Americans' attitudes and arguments about gay marriage are shaped by many factors and come from many directions. But among those approaches are the ones of relevance to the Court: the legal arguments. If you're curious as to what they are, the Court has made available for you the legal briefs filed with the Court by the parties on both sides.
I began my commentary two weeks ago,
That gay and lesbian couples should be permitted to enjoy the status of "marriage" has always seemed such a no-brainer to me -- whether as a matter of constitutional law, public and social policy, basic fairness, or even economic policy -- that I've not bothered to comment about it.
Now that the Iowa Supreme Court case is putting the issue back in the local news -- including Editorial, "A Case of Civil Rights," The Gazette, November 23, 2008, p. A9, and Jeff Charis Carlson, "Don't Listen to Straw Men," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 23, 2008, p. A9 -- it's probably appropriate to remove any possible ambiguity as to my position.
And see also the Register's page one story this morning, Grant Schulte, "Gay marriage goes before Iowa high court this week," Des Moines Register, December 7, 2008.
Of course, these issues don't always go the way of the GLBT community, as they recently discovered in California with Proposition 8. But, being Californians how did they respond? Why with a musical, of course:
Well, Linda Lantor Fandel and the Register have done it again.
It was only a couple of weeks ago I was writing in praise of the paper's presentation of Finland's educational system, Linda Lantor Fandel, "An academic star: Finland's focus on education translates into top achievement,"Des Moines Register, November 23, 2008, p. OP1 -- with links to the 15 or more additional stories on the subject in the special section. Nicholas Johnson, "Satisfactions of Lively Learning," November 23, 2008, a blog entry about what we can learn K-12 education generally from "alternative education" and showcasing Mary Vasey's Gazette column, "Why Involve At-Risk Students With Theater?" The Gazette, November 23, 2008, p. A10.
These have been wonderful contributions to Iowa's efforts to recapture its once proud status as one of America's best K-12 systems -- if only school board members, superintendents and teachers will read and act on them, or better yet write the equivalent for themselves.
What do I mean by that? As I have often said, "With 15,000 school districts in the United States there is virtually no challenge confronting any one of them that has not presented itself to another district, which identified, addressed, solved and then wrote it up and put it on the Internet for others to use." In addition, of course, are the reports and research from the U.S. Department of Education, Presidential task forces and commissions, Congressional committees, national foundations and research centers, the NEA, and 50 state departments of education, as well as the education "trade press."
We don't need to hire consultants, go to winter conferences in sunny climes, or even read the Register to find out how to improve Iowa's educational system. It's all out there, available to all. Three hours on the Internet by an educator who is proficient with Google will produce more ideas than three days at a conference or with a consultant.
But given the results the Register reports from the global "Program for International Student Assessment" we need to look to other countries as well -- as the Register has been encouraging us to do.
In 2003 Finland scored first in science and reading, and second in math. Canada scored 3rd in science and reading and 7th in math. The U.S.? We were 29th in science, 18th in reading, and 35th in math.
When I was writing bi-weekly columns on K-12 education as a school board member I would occasionally write about what was going on in other countries, e.g. Bulgaria ("Much is Accomplished with Little,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 28, 1999), Germany ("A Good Model for Education,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 29, 2000, p. 11A), Switzerland ("Swiss Education Runs On Time,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 5, 2001, p. 9A).
The Register has provided Iowa educators, students, parents, legislators, local leaders, and the business community that depends on an educated work force a running start at educational improvement with its continual drumbeat about education -- including these two special sections on Finland and Alberta. But with all the Register does, even if we read it, that will no more solve our problems than buying a diet book at the bookstore will result in our sheding pounds.
Now it's up to us to act, in the realization that the rich rewards from improvement make "the pain of change" seem petty by comparison.
Historic preservation is always a balance between nostalgia and history on the one hand and cost and "highest use" on the other. But all too often the lure of the latter is permitted to outweigh the former, such that our search for profit ends up producing our loss.
But there are even simpler, and ever so much cheaper, things to preserve our architectural history that ought to be supported by everyone from the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Association to the Johnson County Historical Society and Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission.
Some years ago I wrote a column noting how little most UI students (and new faculty for that matter) know of those for whom, say, the buildings on the Pentacrest are named, and the history of their construction and use over the years. I suffer no illusion that the column had any impact on anyone's subsequent decision, but I did notice some plaques ultimately sprung up.
The same sort of thing could be done for Iowa City's downtown business buildings. What was the first business to occupy this location? What were the subsequent businesses? Where was that ice cream shop on Iowa Avenue near Clinton? The Iowa, Varsity and Pastime theaters? Winter's Barbershop? The Co-op grocery store on Clinton in the 1940s, long before New Pioneer? How many people recognize that the sculpture near where 9 East Market Street used to be was originally a part of the wading pool in the yard outside the building containing one of the world's first institutions devoted to the study of normal children, the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station?
There's a plaque on the west end of the Benton Street bridge with some interesting history about early travel over the Iowa River, and on the Coralville end of the footbridge about Coralville's early history.
So it's not like we haven't done this at all; I'm just suggesting we do more of it.
Is a plaque the equivalent of the historic preservation of a building? Of course not. But it will cause at least some people to pause for awhile, learn a little bit more about their town, and maybe be a bit more willing to support historic preservation when the time comes.
Gay and Lesbian Marriage
That gay and lesbian couples should be permitted to enjoy the status of "marriage" has always seemed such a no-brainer to me -- whether as a matter of constitutional law, public and social policy, basic fairness, or even economic policy -- that I've not bothered to comment about it.
Now that the Iowa Supreme Court case is putting the issue back in the local news -- including Editorial, "A Case of Civil Rights,"The Gazette, November 23, 2008, p. A9, and Jeff Charis Carlson, "Don't Listen to Straw Men,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 23, 2008, p. A9 -- it's probably appropriate to remove any possible ambiguity as to my position.
Any of those of us heterosexuals who are truly concerned about "family values" and "the sanctity of marriage" should reflect upon Pogo's wise observation: "We have met the enemy . . . and he is us" -- up to and including some of our heterosexual public officials and even those ministers who seemingly find it easier to preach than to practice "family values."
There are two separate issues and institutions here -- the state, and religion -- and it is equally important for the integrity of both that their role in "marriage" be kept separate.
This is not just a matter of finely parsed constitutional provisions and language from Supreme Court opinions -- though I believe they support my interpretation. (The First Amendment prohibits the state from either "establishing" or preventing "the free exercise" of religion.) Even without this constitutional protection, as a matter of social and public policy religious institutions should have the right to admit and exclude whomever they choose -- however abhorrent their standards may be. None should be required to provide marriage services for anyone.
Similarly -- and for reasons not limited to constitutional guarantees -- the state (that is, any unit of government) should not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference when it comes to the dispensation of basic civil rights and human rights. Any denial of a marriage license by the state should have to be grounded in significant and legitimate (and constitutional) interests of the state -- such as, say, a minimum age requirement, or waiting period, equally applicable to all.
Many of our disagreements regarding acceptable behavior could be at least moderated, if not eliminated, if we could focus on, and agree that there are distinctions between: (a) this is the behavior required of those who belong to our religion, and if you are unwilling to behave that way we will ban you from our religious organization, and (b) this is the behavior required of those who belong to our religion, and we believe so deeply in the importance of these standards that we insist the state to adopt and apply them to everyone on pain of fines and imprisonment. It is a distinction embodied in the bumper sticker: "Opposed to abortion? Don't have one."
In sum, gay and lesbian couples should have the right to obtain a marriage license from the state, but should not have the right to insist that a reluctant religious institution perform a marriage ceremony for them.
Which brings us to the use of the word "marriage" rather than, say, "civil union" -- in a case in which the substantive legal rights granted by either would be identical. Words do matter; wars are fought over them. And I can understand (while rejecting, and not sharing) the feelings of those who feel threatened by gay "marriage" but not by gay "civil unions."
Nonetheless, I guess on balance I think it's a little silly -- and even a bit mean-spirited -- if we are going to grant gays and lesbians the rights of married couples (by whatever name), as I believe we should (and believe the constitution says we must) -- to deny them the added primarily social benefits that flow from being able to characterize their relationship as "marriage."
Three editorials this morning offer a similar approach to Judge Hanson's 63-page ruling holding Iowa's prohibition on gay marriage ("only a marriage between a male and a female is valid") to be unconstitutional.
They are analogous in a way to the bumper sticker's advice: "Opposed to abortion? Don't have one." In this context I guess it would be, "Opposed to gays marrying? Don't marry one."
(It's not that simple, of course. With the exceptions of self-defense, insanity, and manslaughter, among others, there are both laws and widespread general agreement that frown on "murder." So we're left with "when, if ever, prior to the moment of birth, should the decision to abort a fetus be equated with the deliberate killing of a fully born human being for purposes of inclusion within the criminal law definition of 'murder'?" Obviously, this has been a matter of considerable disagreement.)
The similarity between the controversies surrounding abortion and gay marriage, however, is that both have utilized arguments that tend to conflate (1) one's personal, religious, moral, ethical, philosophical and public policy beliefs and practices, with (2) the desirability and propriety of the state, the government, imposing one's standards as a matter of criminal or civil law on everyone (or groups of citizens taking matters into their own hands).
I happen to think that urban transportation by bicycle makes a lot of sense. It strengthens your body, awakens your mind, improves your health, reduces disease -- with significant savings in our $2 trillion, profit-maximizing health insurance system. It is environmentally friendly, reduces greenhouse gases, reduces our disproportionate use of petroleum -- and need for the other (ultimately, with externalities) $2 trillion total cost: the Iraq war that was apparently necessary to get our oil out from under their sand. It requires less expense (or could if more did it) of road building and repair. It's cheaper, usually faster, and saves looking (and paying) for parking.
But I'd agree the bumper sticker (if there were room for it on a bike) ought to read: "Favor bicycle transportation? Get a bike and ride it."
In other words, I would not advocate criminal penalties for driving automobiles in urban areas; additional license fees maybe (as reduced London's congestion), but not compulsory bicycle riding.
The distinction between one's personal preferences and imposing them on everyone else is a distinction too often overlooked in everything from casual conversation to newspaper editorials.
That's why I was pleased to see this morning's editorial efforts in the Register and Gazette.
The Gazette draws the distinction between church and state from the start of the editorial:
A Polk County district judge’s ruling Thursday that Iowa’s law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional sets the stage for a resolution of this issue . . .. [T]his debate needs to be settled regardless of whether any consensus is ever reached in the moral and religious arenas.
It continues:
Whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong morally is a matter of faith or personal belief. However, civil marriage, whether between opposite- sex or same-sex partners, is not the legal business of religion.
That task belongs to governments that preserve both the freedom of religion and the rights of those who disagree with others’ beliefs.
Governments need to define legal unions between two people because tax issues, insurance and other benefits and many other public policies rely on definitions of various relationships.
. . .
Beyond legal circles, churches and their members and families continue to struggle with the samesex marriage issue and likely will do so for years to come.
In the meantime, Iowa can make sure its laws don’t place unfair restrictions on people’s civil freedoms, including same-sex marriage.
The paper couldn't have made the issue -- the distinction between church and state -- much clearer. Editorial, "Let Court Settle Marriage Debate,"The Gazette, September 1, 2007, p. A4. The Register gets to the Gazette's mountaintop by a different trail. Rather than have the government grant gays the rights to "marriage," have it grant all couples -- gay and straight -- equivalent "civil union" rights, and then leave the "marriage" business to churches:
To truly assure equal treatment, the government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether and grant civil unions to everyone, gay or straight.
That would allow the law to focus on the legal benefits to which all couples are entitled in a democracy that espouses equality for all people - and allow religious institutions to set their own rules for marriage.
Individuals, religious organizations and their spokespersons and leaders should be free to offer such rejoinder as they're able to another bumper sticker -- "Hatred is not a family value" -- citing such teachings of Jesus (and others) as they find persuasive in their opposition to gay marriage.
Legislating their hatred is not an appropriate role for government. Protecting their First Amendment rights to talk about it is.
Just as is protecting gays' constitutional rights to equal protection of the law with straights when it comes to marriage -- or universal civil unions.
Today [May 8], following on the culmination of President Obama's "evolving" thoughts on gay marriage, here are the long-ago-evolved thoughts of another heterosexual about the basic human decency and respect owed all of our fellow humans in the GLBT community.
