Equality is a family value

While my dad was in the rehab center and when my conservative brother came to visit I thought it prudent to borrow Dad's copy of the March/April/May issue of Washington Monthly to get it out of the house (hmm... named "Monthly" and printed quarterly). The reason: the cover article is Can Gay Wedlock Break Political Gridlock? The illustration showed a happy donkey and elephant in a red convertible with a "Just Married" sign on the back and heading into the sunset. Even my 16 year old niece had learned there are some issues we simply do not discuss with this brother.

Of course, with a title like that I just had to actually read it. And then I read a couple more articles.

This cover article is by David Blankenhorn, William Galston, Jonathan Rauch, and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. I've read stuff by Rauch before and was quite impressed with his understanding. The article in the magazine is six good-sized pages, so my summary will be leaving lots of it out.

With same-sex marriage soon legal nationally the political landscape for marriage has changed. For about 50 years both parties have lamented the decline of marriage. A big part of that has been marriage becoming a class-based institution. Middle and upper class people get married, poor people don't. A big chunk of the article goes into this in detail. This marriage gap harms children because it deprives them of a parent's support. It harms adults by reducing their chance of economic success. It harms communities because the young aren't guided into stable relationships. It harms the country by fueling inequality.

Lots of research went into the importance of families during the 1970s and '80s along with much discussion of what to do about it. But the debate was sidetracked in the 1990s by women's equality and gay rights. The discussion of marriage became a pitched battle with equality on one side and family values on the other. Pro-equality meant anti-family (sound familiar?).

But the ideas have shifted. Progressives have realized that family structure and social justice are related. Conservatives are beginning to realize that a man's marriageability is dependent on his prospects in the job market. Gays and lesbians have realized that they have a stake in the health of marriages. That has prompted progressives to see that social equality of both gays and the poor is impossible without access to marriage. Conservatives are realizing that antagonism to same-sex marriage turns off the younger voters and it is better to support gay and lesbian couples.

The authors make some recommendations. Make a public argument for marriage opportunity; explain why it is important. Increase marriageability by helping the poor join the workforce and handle life in the middle class and by providing community support of marriage. Change public policy, such things as not reducing benefits upon marriage, offer counseling to those considering divorce, support public education of life and financial literacy, and reduce incarceration which removes men from families. Include sexual minorities in all that family support. Do research on gay families, including why marriage matters and cultural factors that support marriage.

Equality is becoming a family value.



Another article in Washington Monthly that caught my attention is A New Agenda for Political Reform by Lee Drutman and Steven Teles. Most of this nine page article describes how Congress made itself stupid by cutting a big chunk of its support staff. That included staff that knew institutional history, how things got done, and could offer independent analysis of what was in various bills, and guide legislators in writing bills. Only in America are the ranks of advisers to lawmakers filled with twentysomethings, even if they are bright and eager. That means Congress must rely on industry lobbyists to explain what is going on in the world, and to write the bills that Congress passes. Naturally, those lobbyists are highly biased. I knew the situation was bad, but I didn't know how bad and precisely why.

All through the article I was thinking this is the situation the Congressional corporate masters want. How would we convince Congress to defy their masters? What reasons could we give? Thankfully, the authors have some, though they know it will be an uphill fight.

The Tea Party may realize that a stronger Congressional staff is necessary to effectively oversee the rest of government and root out waste. The GOP may realize that while they wail about executive overreach they are cutting their power to do anything about it. Both parties complain about out-of-control and do-nothing bureaucrats and may soon realize they need staff to identify and fix abuses. The cost for an expert support staff? Less than the typical Pentagon project overrun, which legislative oversight, made possible by an expert support staff, could reduce.



A third article has only a morsel to share. The title is How Mike Huckabee Became the New Sarah Palin, and is by Ed Kilgore. In 2008 Palin turned resentment of the "liberal elites" who supposedly run the country into victimization, self-pity, and vengeance. Democrats didn't just do bad things, they looked down their noses a "real" Americans. Since then many Republicans, especially Huckabee through his new book, have adopted Palin's line of attack.

The Christian Right, Tea Party members, and conservatives in general have added this general indictment of the liberal elites and their underclass clients:

an unpatriotic determination to undermine rights and overthrow governing norms set down eternally by the Founders of this exceptional nation under the direct inspiration of Almighty God. So liberals were not only mocking the religion and culture of good white middle-class folk, and stealing their hard-earned money (and richly earned government benefits) to buy votes from the lower orders – they were also spitting on the foundational principles of America and defying God.

Yeah, that's what we're facing.

Win back the hearts and minds

Though opinion is turning in our favor, we haven't won yet. This is one reason: Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky doesn't want the Supremes to rule on the Calif. marriage equality case. He wants it to remain a state issue.

If we're to say each state can decide, I think a good 25, 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people.

I don't think he reads -- or doesn't trust -- the trends in polls that Nate Silver sees.


In contrast…

This week's episode of On Being looks at the gay marriage debate. It is actually a rebroadcast of an episode from last summer, this appearance because of the cases before the Supremes. The show is a discussion between Krista Tippett, the host, Jonathan Rauch, marriage equality advocate, and David Blankenhorn, marriage advocate.

Blankenhorn noticed the importance of men in families, especially poor families. He began to advocate for stronger marriages. At first he thought the issue of gay marriage was a distraction from the real issue. Then he met and teamed up with Rauch.

Rauch, who is gay, also comes from the marriage advocate side. He recognized at a very young age that marriage would be unavailable to him and wanted to figure out why marriage is so important. What is this institution we call marriage? He found it is both love between the couple and a commitment by the couple with each other and with the wider community, and also a commitment by the community with the couple.

Blankenhorn noticed something. Straight couples were fleeing the institution of marriage and gay couples were clamoring to be allowed in. Perhaps gay couples could show straights a better way to be married and to show the importance of the institution.

A part of the discussion is the hope of a new way to look at divisive issues. To tackle them both sides must devote the effort required to understand the other's point of view. The discussion must be done without trying to score debate points or attacking the opponent as a substitute for probing the issue. The result may be that neither side may convert to the other's viewpoint. Even so, a greater goal is achieved -- respect for the other and his view.



Terrence Heath disagrees with Blankenhorn's assertion that a lot of family ills are because of missing fathers. Heath says a lot of family ills are because of poverty. If a guy has a job he can afford to get married.

Heath ponders all this because the Oklahoma House might debate a bill that diverts money from welfare to fund a campaign promoting marriage. Heath says it will fail. Taking money from those who need it most means fewer people will be able to afford to be married.

A flawed proposal for federal civil unions

I've been a bit busy so I haven't had time to read and comment on a link my friend and debate partner sent to me. In this case he only said I would want to know about it. Last Sunday, the New York Times published an editorial promoting the idea of federal civil unions with religious exemptions. It was written by David Blankenhorn, who has said some weird things about gay marriage, and by Jonathan Rauch, who is a gay conservative and wrote the book "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good For Gays, Good For Straights, and Good for America." I've admired Rauch in the past.

We know the basic issue: Gays demand the support of marriage for their loves and families. Many religious people think that God can't possibly tolerate such an abomination. We're at an impasse.

So the proposal is to meet halfway: Gays get federally supported civil unions, giving all the benefits of marriage except name. Religious institutions don't have to honor them. To make sure of that last part they propose the federal civil unions only take effect in states that enact those religious exemptions. Doing it this way would head off a "long-term take-no-prisoners conflict."

One might wonder why the existing Bill of Rights -- the First Amendment part that allows religious institutions to not marry any couple that doesn't fit their guidelines -- isn't enough. Apparently such institutions also don't want the possibility of being forced to provide benefits to the spouse of a gay employee (even if done with the federal dime) or recognize a gay spouse in a religious hospital.

My reaction: It won't work.

We already have a "long-term take-no-prisoners conflict."

Many religious institutions -- as Utah demonstrates in one of today's other posts -- aren't just trying to protect marriage. They want to completely eliminate gays. Their long-term efforts have consistently been to thwart any recognition of gays and gay rights. Federal civil unions contradict that goal. In the broader culture wars, gays are only one piece. Must we compromise on everything else too, such as abortion? (Alas, in some sense, we have. Do you know how many counties where women have no access to abortions? About 87%)

Gays would remain upset that churches are allowed to remain bigots on the federal dime. Our taxes are being used to pay for our second class status.

Federal civil unions may indeed be a step towards marriage, though many gays would fear that halfway measure would become permanent. However, providing such a broad religious exemption only enshrines bigotry. We didn't exempt churches from civil rights laws protecting blacks. Laws banning interracial marriage were given religious justification.

Other gay voices also call the proposal flawed. Some of the ideas mentioned:

The religious viewpoint is morally and intellectually bankrupt -- witness how much of their arguments are based on lies or are based on visions of catastrophic results.

Gays have already compromised with state-by-state civil unions. While some gays get some protections and benefits, this patchwork is leading to the judicial efforts that Fundies are up in arms about.

A compromise like this would only work if both sides have equal power. As in all civil rights issues, that is a flawed assumption. One side holds the power and refuses to give any of it up.

When making compromises one must pay very close attention to its consequences that may take years to undo, forcing us to live with an unequal system in the meantime. The original proposal doesn't discuss such costs, never mind asking whether such long-term costs are worth the short-term gains. One long-term cost is too many straights will feel the problem has been "solved" even if gays are left with inequalities.

Even in this compromise some gays don't see what the Fundies are giving up. A compromise means each side gives up a bit. Yet, Fundies still get to be bigots. Perhaps it will be a compromise if we give religious people the word "marriage" and all government institutions refer to civil unions.

In what other area of American law do we allow a religious exemption? If we allow it here how far will the exemptions go?

Federal civil unions would only provide federal benefits in states that already have gay marriage or civil-unions. If your state (like Michigan) bans both, you're out of luck.

The reasons for the "religious exemption" clause are already included in other laws. Which means Fundies aren't interested in a religious exemption. They want to ban everyone from recognizing gay marriage. Gays won't have to reject this compromise because Fundies will -- the fight against civil unions has been just as strong as for marriage.

Political history suggests a compromise isn't necessary. DOMA could fall in a couple years and the Supreme Court ruling in our favor could come in 15.

How about this idea: ban recognition of Mormons, then move on to Southern Baptists and other Fundie denominations.

I wrote all that yesterday but a browser/website glitch prevented me from posting it before I dashed to help at the Ruth Ellis Center. Just as well, here's a bit more on the story.

There were a couple nasty comments made in the last few days, both by Colorado state senators. One was in response to a bill to grant benefits to same-sex partners of state employees (they've come a long way from Amendment 2 in the 1990s which tried to ban gay friendly laws). As part of his argument Senator Scott Renfrew quoted Leviticus, stressing that gays should be put to death.

The other was Senator Dave Schultheis who voted against a bill that would provide for HIV testing of pregnant women at a time when the results could prevent the fetus from contracting the virus. His reason is that such a test would promote promiscuity and the baby deserves to get AIDS.

These people have no intention of ever compromising. The federal civil union "compromise" has no chance of getting their approval. Which I guess means there is no need to carve out a religious exception.

One of the commenters to this posting brought up 1 Samuel 18:20-21:

And Michal, Saul's daughter, loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. And Saul said, "I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Wherefore Saul said to David, "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time." (American Standard Version)

Second time? That means the first time was when David and Jonathan were married?