Breaking Open the Conversation

Still behind in pretty much everything (school, life, blogging) but sticking this here for a wider audience.  I posted a link to this HuffPo article about the Kardashian debacle on my facebook page, and an old high school friend of mine commented, "Why rejoice in anyone's failed marriage?"

It was a fair question, and here is what I wrote in response (his name has been changed to protect the innocent):

John, I don't rejoice in anyone's failed marriage. I do lament what I see as a grave injustice, that someone who has such obvious disrespect for marriage is nevertheless legally allowed to keep making a mockery of marriage (and to make a crapload of money ON her mockery of it), while my LGBT brothers and sisters are (in most places) legally denied the ability to marry, and so must fight and scrape and go to great personal expense to pull together a very fragile system of support and protection and acknowledgment of their relationship. At its best this is still a fraction of the kind of support and protection and acknowledgment that Ms. Kardashian is granted by default. . .sacred relationship, support, protection, and acknowledgment which she has - twice now - casually thrown away.

I do not rejoice in the failure of her marriages. But I will rejoice if her continued mockery of marriage breaks open the conversation about what is just, and what respect for marriage truly looks like, and I will rejoice if breaking open that conversation ultimately helps secure justice, support, and protection for those who DO hold marriage sacred but are categorically denied participation in that gift.

Peace to you, brother. And thanks for pushing back with your question.

Arguments I Don't Hear Much Part 1

This came out of a conversation about marriage equality that I was involved in on facebook earlier in the week and just haven't had time to post here yet. But there are a couple arguments that I only ever seem to hear myself making, and I don't think they're bad arguments, so I'm trying to spread them around. :)

Part 1 is the political argument. Part 2 will be the religious argument, a post for another day. But here goes:

So, to my mind there are many things flawed about this marriage amendment fiasco (like, when is it ever a good idea to leave civil rights up to the whims of the majority? Seriously, somebody give me a case study from history where that turned out to be a good thing. . .). But perhaps most flawed is its method (says the girl who's been studying methodology for a month).

Because, as previously noted on this blog, gay marriage is already illegal in MN. And the vote before us is a vote to keep gay marriage illegal in MN. By analogy, it's like holding a statewide vote on keeping the common loon as the MN state bird (for those woefully ignorant of all things Minnesotan, the common loon is already the state bird).

If the vote "wins" (more people vote for it than against it) - nothing changes. Gay marriage was illegal before, gay marriage is still illegal after; similarly, the common loon is the state bird before, and the common loon is still the state bird after.

If the vote "fails" (more people vote against it than for it) - still, nothing changes. We won't wake up the next morning and suddenly gay marriage will be legal because a majority voted against keeping it illegal. Just as we wouldn't wake up the next morning and find the common loon is no longer the state bird because a majority voted against keeping it the state bird. Other legislation (or judicial ruling or executive order) would be required to make any change to the status quo.

The whole design of this vote is so flawed. . .

And yes, I have to admit, an entire month spent rejecting or failing to reject null hypotheses helped lead me to this argument. (gulp!) Statistics proved somewhat useful after all.

The Arc of the Universe is Long

. . .but it bends towards justice. -Martin Luther King, Jr

I'll always love you, New York, for many, many reasons - but you can add today's momentous decision to the top of the list.

I think a little celebration is in order - how 'bout some Ryan Adams?

Ulterior Motives

Or: Some Thoughts on the Marriage Amendment

A post on Emm-in-Sem's tumblr already had me thinking this way, but this quote from today's STrib continues the train of thought:

"While gay marriage is already banned in Minnesota, supporters say passage of the amendment would block legislative efforts to change the law."

Really? It's just a cat-and-mouse game to pre-empt any change in the law?

Because what, to make same-sex marriage doubly not legal will add that extra layer of protection against "the gay agenda"?

I don't buy it. I think this is all about flipping MN in the next presidential election.

Minnesota, with it's long strong tradition of progressivism. Minnesota, the only state in the union to vote for Walter Mondale in 1984. Minnesota, a stalwart democratic stronghold in presidential elections for longer than I've been alive.

But things have been changing, shifting evermore towards the conservative end of the spectrum. The DFL has been imploding over the last 13 years (and I personally hold our current governor responsible for a good chunk of the infighting), which hasn't helped matters. But the GOP has been slowly laying this groundwork for a while. Why else do you think they held their 2008 convention in St. Paul? Pawlenty was expected to be tapped for McCain's VP, they were hoping to flip the state back then.

Add to this the perpetual embarrassment that is Michele Bachmann, who we seem utterly unable to unseat, and who is constantly stirring and polarizing the pot. There is also the fact that Jim Oberstar (most senior member of MN's delegation, Democratic Representative from the normally staunchly pro-DFL NE corner of the state) was unseated last November. And there is a chance Pawlenty will be the front-runner on the GOP ticket in 2012.

I think certain powers-that-be were looking at these trends and possibilities and wondering to themselves: how can we capitalize on this? How can we guarantee that people who will vote for Pawlenty and Bachmann and Cravaack will come out in droves next election?

I know - let's put gay marriage up to a vote.

It's sad and sickening, really. They know they can't out-community-organize Obama, so they're not even going to try. While thousands of DFL staff and volunteers will be pounding the pavement going door to door, meeting their neighbors face-to-face and building personal connections to turn out the vote, the Republicans will merely run ad campaigns that prey on base fear and hatred.

Fellow progressives, they're kicking our hive, and though it's not a charitable thought, I'm really hoping they get stung for it. Let's show 'em what happens when compassion and civility and good citizenship wins the day.

The Main(e) Thing

So my friend Trina, Ms. Community Organizer Extraordinaire, has spent the better part of the past year schlepping across the great state of Maine trying to mobilize Mainers to protect marriage equality for their LGBT family, friends, and neighbors. Despite her and many others valiant efforts, on Tuesday the people of Maine voted to repeal their state legislature's decision to legalize gay marriage.

Some of the commentary that followed this decision focused on how, thus far, the states which allow for gay marriage have created this permission through judicial or legislative channels (and Maine was originally in this camp as well, as their state legislature passed a law to make gay marriage legal). Had Proposition 1 failed, Maine would have become the first state to affirm/allow legalization of gay marriage via a popular vote as well.

This has all prompted two questions in my mind:

First, is such analysis discounting "silent majorities?" I mean, so Maine and California have both taken legislative or judicial action which have been subsequently repealed by a popular vote. But states like New Jersey and Iowa have taken similar actions through similar channels and have not had those decisions challenged by a popular vote. Is it then fair to say that the failure to produce a proposition to repeal indicates a tacit public acceptance or approval of these actions? Will we give Iowa and New Jersey's silence and inaction on this matter the same weight as we've given to Maine and California's vociferous and controversial actions to repeal? In other words, is not bringing it up for a public vote a de facto popular vote victory? And if so, why aren't we saying that out loud?

Second, and more importantly (and I don't know why this never occurred to me sooner), why it is, in fact, so terribly important to make gay marriage legal with a popular vote?

I mean, maybe I misunderstood something in my high school civics class, but I've always been under the impression that our government was created with an intentional set of checks and balances, which were meant both to prevent one person (or group of persons) from assuming too much power, and to protect the rights of the minority. When a miscarriage of justice is committed by one branch of our government, the other branches have the right and obligation to correct or amend it; similarly, when a miscarriage of justice is committed by the larger society, the government has the right and the obligation to both correct that injustice and to protect those victimized by it.

Or to put it another way, when a popular vote denies equal protection under the law, it remains the government's job to provide it.

Which begs the question - are some judges "activists legislating from the bench," as some folks so often complain, or are these judges simply doing their job to ensure equal protection under the law? Where would we as a society be without the "activist" judges behind decisions like Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia? And similarly so, where would we be without "interest group" legislation like Title IX, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments? And where would we be if Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy had not boldly employed their executive powers to secure both the physical safety and constitutional rights of the Little Rock 9 and James Meredith, respectively? When popular opinion or vote denies equal protection under the law, it is the government's responsibility to provide it.

And that, to my mind, is what is going on here. LGBT people are currently being denied equal protection under the law, insofar as marriage allows one certain legal rights in relation to one's partner and any offspring or property shared with said partner. As such, it is entirely within the rightful sphere of influence of any branch of our government to correct or amend this injustice, regardless of the public's opinion, or official vote, on the matter. Now, I suppose you could debate whether or not marriage is an inalienable right that must be guaranteed to all people, but that's an entirely different argument than claiming the branches of government have no business acting outside of "majority opinion" on this issue.

So, while winning a popular vote to legalize gay marriage would certainly signal a "turning of the tide" as to whose opinion is perceived to be "majority," and while it should in theory, at least, shut down complaints about "activist judges" - I guess I don't see it as so crucial to legitimize actions taken by our government to protect our fellow citizens.

But then again, I'm an Upper Midwestern progressive, I'm predisposed to like government and believe in its potential to make the country and the world a better place to live. . .

Peace,
C.