« Senator McCain’s Medical Records, Some Preliminary Questions
As Nero, ‘Messianic’ Chavez Looks to Set Our Region Aflame … »



Gays, God, and Government: Self-righteousness in the State Capitols (Guest Voice)

May 21st, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief


This Guest Voice post is by journalism professor and author Walter Brasch who is also a syndicated newspaper columnist and radio commentator, and president of the Pennsylvania Press Club. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.

Gays, God, and Government:
Self-righteousness in the State Capitols
by Walter Brasch

The mantra of almost all conservatives—it makes no difference what political party they belong to—is to keep government out of their lives. But, they don’t mind government interference when it plays to their biases and bigotry.

For example, it’s perfectly acceptable for the government to enter one’s bedroom if the purpose is to ban homosexual activity and—horrors!—gay marriage. In Pennsylvania, political conservatives and religious fundamentalists thought the existing state law against same-sex marriage was vulnerable to a constitutional challenge, and wanted something more permanent—a constitutional amendment to “preserve” the sanctity of marriage.

Having heard the call—and an opportunity to score with his constituents— State Sen. John Gordner unleashed his horse and charged into battle, thrusting his sword of righteousness into every hole that could allow for same-sex marriage. The proposed amendment sailed through the judiciary and appropriations committees, of which Gordner is a member, and onto the Senate floor where the Republican-dominated Senate was expected to pass it and forever preserve what they believe is the sanctity of marriage.

“We do not want to take away any existing rights that gay and lesbian partners have,” said the senator from Pennsylvania’s rural northeast. Nonsense, said Sen. Vincent Fumo of Philadelphia. “When you enter this language into the Constitution, you’re begging to overthrow Devlin and everything else,” said Fumo. Devlin v. Philadelphia assured that same-sex rights were permissible as long as there was nothing to create a “functional equivalent of marriage.”

A constitutional amendment could eliminate all benefits, Fumo pointed out. With tongue-in-cheek reasoning, Fumo thrust home his concern by suggesting an amendment to the proposed amendment. If same-sex marriage destroys the institution of marriage, why not ban all divorce, he suggested.

As a windstorm of protests emerged, the senators ran for the shelter of political expediency. Since the state’s House of Representatives probably wouldn’t waste its time on such an outrageous display of public pandering, the Senate tabled the bill and blamed the House. This is the political “two-step.” The senators could continue to spout moral and religious bigotry while blaming some else for the problem.

A week after the Pennsylvania Senate’s blunderbusses blew up in their face, California became the second state, after Massachusetts, to throw out a state law against same-sex marriage. California’s law was passed in 2000 by 61 percent of the voters.

In an overview of the issue, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, a Republican, noted, “[An] individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.” In his majority opinion, George cited a 1948 California case that overturned a law that banned interracial marriage. “An individual’s sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender— does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights,” he wrote.

This is not an activist/liberal court that conservatives so frequently blame for what they see as all of the nation’s problems. “The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed ‘cautious,’” noted the Los Angeles Times.

The religious right and conservative movements aren’t bending over and taking their defeats. They’re gathering signatures to place onto the November ballot a constitutional amendment to forbid same-sex marriage. That amendment would be more powerful than any state law. Ironically, such a constitutional amendment may be unconstitutional.

Twenty-six states have laws that ban same-sex marriage, and Florida already has a proposed constitutional amendment ready for the November election. For conservatives, apparently, there isn’t enough governmental intrusion when it comes to continuing bigotry.



This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 21st, 2008 at 7:13 pm and is filed under Homosexuality, US Constitution, Legal Matters, Domestic Surveillance, Demonization, Bigotry, Civil Liberties, Homophobia, Conservatives, Politics, Democrats, Republicans, Guest Contributor, Law & Legal Matters. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 9 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Todays conservatives have little in common with the traditional conservatives of my parents generation (who cared about the country more than they did raw pursuit of power). If this new crop bothered to remember their roots, dropped the god brigade, the neocons, and all the hypocrisy, then just maybe they'd get another shot at governing. Much self-examination is in order.
    • ^
    • v
    I keep thinking about the FF (like Adams) who recognozed how easy it was for a democracy to become rule by a mob. That's why there is a third branch of government (the judiciary) to keep things in check (hopefully). But when the mob doesn't like court rulings, it's called jucicial activism.

    I'm especially revolted when God, poor God, gets drageed into these fights as the final arbiter. It's amazing how many people hear what God has to say on these contentious matters, only God seems to be saying different things to different people.
    • ^
    • v
    Todays conservatives have little in common with the traditional conservatives of my parents generation (who cared about the country more than they did raw pursuit of power).

    In relation to this article your parents were so adamantly opposed to Gays that the gay lifestyle was in the closet. I of course am using your parents in a generic sense.


    only God seems to be saying different things to different people.

    Are you sure runasim? God seems to be talking to the right and has abandoned the left. I rarely if ever hear the left talking about what god is saying. Or that god is in favor of Gay rights. Abortion. Gun control.

    God has always been the driving force of this nation. For democrats and republicans alike. Always. It has only been in the last few decades that the movement to bring about change has decided that those opposed to their agenda is the enemy. Rather they be left or right.

    Instead of Opponents they are the ENEMY. For the left God has become the enemy because the Right leans on God and points to God as their reason for being right. This has in effect alienated a large amount of people who do not like seeing god as a ping pong ball in a game of humanistic Political jockeying. And when I say alienated a lot of people I mean on both the Right and the left.
    • ^
    • v
    I heard an interview with Mickey Edwards yesterday, he was talking about his recent book: "Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost--And How It Can Find Its Way Back". Pretty fascinating stuff. Amazon has more info, reviews, etc.
    • ^
    • v
    We are a multicultural society built on the concept of religious freedom. That means that we accept that God says different things (or in the case of atheism- nothing) to different folks. Which is the best reason to keep whatever we think He says or wants us to do out of our government. God has been used and misused over the centuries to start a myriad of wars and in our own country as an excuse for imperialistic expansion.

    Very religious voters are often easily manipulated. The religious right lent their support to the GOP in the belief that they would best advance their agenda. But in doing so the GOP has attempted to encroach on the rights of the rest of us, and a series of moral scandals revealed that their representatives are no better than the lowest of sinners, which has led to the inevitable backlash. Thus the need for Republicans to regroup and figure out what they stand for. The GOP has used the religious right by grandstanding on wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion and flag burning--usually right before a key election. They are finding out that this strategy is no longer a path to electoral success.
    • ^
    • v
    "maybe they'd get another shot at governing."

    They're guaranteed it anyway once in a while if the Dems go too far to the left or otherwise mess things up too much. But that isn't what you're talking about, of course.

    Unfortunately, the GOP needs to become more libertarian and respectful of constitutional federalism to offer something really refreshing and attractive to the learned, but this flies in the face of ever-growing entitlements and other benefits from Washington that buy ever-larger vote totals, while Washington (which loves power) continues to get larger and ever more interventionist. I have no confidence in a revived GOP. It likely will range from just the Opposition to Dems Lite as "needed."
    • ^
    • v
    "God has always been the driving force of this nation. "

    Well, not for everyone, but religion has been a strong force throughout America's history.

    The argument here is not about the presence or absence of God in American life. It is about who gets to be God's mouthpiece.

    In addition to being inspired by God, people also have the gift of free will. That means the people, each person, is responsible for how he applies that inspiration in his personal and political life. Hiding behind 'God's will' is shirking personal responsibility and blaming God for one's own errors of judgment.

    It's a current obsession to describe everything as a Right vs. Left issue. In reality, however, there are no armies of people divided strictly along a L-R boundary line on the God issue. I suspect those who see it like that, just want to have an another excuse for denigrating political opponents, and I find it disturbing when God is used like a political shotgun.

    Evangelicals have much more in common with each othher than the extent of their divisions according to what God inspires them to do. Yet, they don't agree on environmentalism, homosexuality, the role of religion in politics and a host of other issues.
    The Episcopalian Church is divided about female ministers and homosexuality, as well. There are even mini rebellions in that staid old lady, the Catholic Church.
    Not every Catholic bows to the authority of the Pope on every questoon.

    These are all signs of recognition that personal responsibility is involved in what we hear God say. It's that recognition that leads many to believe that It's not right to make God choose sides in elections or debates. It is, after all, people exercising their free will who participate in elections, policy debates and civic life.

    That is not the same as making God inaccessible in private or public life.
    It is making God inaccessible as the umpire in team sports or political contests
    It is about having people take responsibility for their own choices..
    • ^
    • v
    God does not decide the law of the land, period. God "says" whatever is most convenient to the person wielding the holy book wants him to say. Its totally subjective and by nature denies rights to others who don't believe as you do, which is totally unamerican. No doubt religon has had a role in this country, but it is by no means our driving force. It is a driving force in the middle east, and look what its done for them.
    • ^
    • v
    No doubt religon has had a role in this country, but it is by no means our driving force.

    Wrong. It is and has been a driving force in this country. Even today the fact that the left rails against the right for Using god to advance their agenda shows that God is alive and well on Planet America.

    Right or wrong is not relevant to my discussion. I simply am pointing out the facts. Despite the fact that you choose to not agree with my conclusion does not alter the fact that GOD today, yesterday and during the founding of this nation was a Major driving force in which way we have gone and how we have gotten there.

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Senator McCain’s Medical Records, Some Preliminary Questions
As Nero, ‘Messianic’ Chavez Looks to Set Our Region Aflame … »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.