Critical Exponent

Obama mentioned gay rights in his acceptance speech even more than Kennedy did (emphasis mine):

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise – the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

But then the convention closed with a closing benediction by a Christian pastor. What about other faiths? What about atheists? Why did they have to inject religion into a political event?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks in The New York Times where Islam’s moderates are. A better question, I think, is “what are progressives and moderates doing to prevent extremists of all stripes from hijacking social discourse?”

Right-wing Christians in the US bemoan a supposed assault on Christianity, since anything less than a state religion will not do. A presidential candidate needs to placate the religious right, reciting revised history in the process. Another candidate attributes his success to god alone. In American society at large, it matters much more that one invoke the name of the proper deity in the proper way than that one have sensible, concrete ideas to put ethical principles into action.

Do these folks not realize that conspicuous piety in fact speaks very poorly of their character, ethics, and value system?

Is there any doubt America is turning into a theocracy? Here’s some more information on the rape victim who was denied emergency contraception and thrown in jail.

I guess it’s not just the Japanese Health minister who thinks of women as “birth-giving machines”.

I propose we lobby Congress to submit the Equal Marriage Amendment for consideration by the states:

Section 1. The right of two individuals to enter into or dissolve a civil marriage, with all its attendant rights and responsibilites, shall not be denied or abridged on account of either participant’s sex.

Section 2. This article shall not be construed as obliging private institutions or faiths to recognize any marriages.

Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The House just voted to bar federal courts from hearing Pledge of Allegiance cases. Aside from the sheer inanity of grandstanding for God and country instead of solving pressing issues that affect people’s lives (say, oh, the Iraq war, health care, minimum wage), this is a frontal assault on the Constitutional separation of powers.

Contrary to conservatives’ propaganda, the courts do not exist to rubberstamp the legislature or referenda. They exist to interpret cases in view of the law, and the law in view of Constitutional principles. This is Civics 101, which apparently many a member of Congress slept through. Seeking to limit matters that may be brought before the courts is the beginning of a slippery slope towards theocracy. (Side note: isn’t it funny how the conservatives uttered not one peep about the “activist judges” who ruled against gay marriage in New York and Georgia?)

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. Matthew 6:5

Nicole Kidman is the latest poster child for gay marriage.

She just got married in the Catholic Church without getting an annulment, even though she was previously wed to Tom Cruise. How is this possible? The Catholic Church refuses to recognize the previous marriage because it was performed in the Church of Scientology. As the BBC notes, “[t]he divorce granted to the couple in 2001 was a legal rather than religious procedure for Kidman.”

You see the connection?

Even though the couple were legally wed under secular law, no church was forced to accept a marriage it didn’t want to. In other words, the Church was perfectly happy to make the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage for Kidman. We have heard no cry from the Vatican as to how allowing Scientology marriages undermines the sanctity of Catholic marriages or forces the church to recognize them— because it doesn’t.

So why, then, can’t the Vatican refuse to recognize gay marriages if it wishes, but stay out of the civil marriage debate?

“Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s…”

Sex is fun, but as we all know, it has potential consequences: it can give rise to strong emotions, expose one to STDs, and (for straight folks) carry the possibility of an unintended pregnancy. For this reason, there is general agreement that people are socially and economically better off holding off on sex until adulthood. Even the modern adult, however, is hardly constrained by older notions of “procreative sex only, and only in marriage.” Some choose to hold off on marriage until reaching a more secure and stable point in their lives. Others do not wish to get married, or are not allowed to. Even a married straight couple may choose to limit how many children they have. This does not change the fact that most adults are sexual creatures, and sex can be extremely gratifying.

Which brings us to the Sex Wars. Many conservatives want to establish abstinence-only sex education, reasoning that it will cut down on pre-marital sex and the myriad social problems they claim it brings about: the decay of morals, rampant hedonism, and teenage pregnancy. Many conservatives also want to restrict or criminalize abortion, in part because they see it as breaking the link between sex and procreation. For this reason, too, many conservatives are waging a war on contraception, so that every sexual act (remember, only the straight missionary position is allowed) may lead to pregnancy and the growth of the family.

These solutions put the cart before the horse. Sure, youngsters should wait to have sex, but human nature hasn’t changed in millenia: just as they did in Biblical, medieval, and Victorian times, some fraction of young people will have sex (sometimes covertly, sometimes with a wink from society). Admonitions to abstain have not worked in all that time, and they don’t work now. Given that fact, what is the best we can do? Surely it is to educate people so that the undesirable consequences are reduced as much as possible! This means comprehensive sex education, including information on contraceptives and their risks and benefits. Withholding this information, knowing human nature as we do, is tantamount to cruelly keeping our children ignorant and condemning them to carry the burden of their uninformed, if less than wise, choices.

A similar reasoning applies to abortion. Getting an abortion is no walk in the park, and I doubt many women rely on it as a means of birth control. More to the point, women have abortions even when abortions are criminalized: the rich do it with the discretion that only money can buy, while the poor do it in back alleys. Criminalizing abortion will not stop it, but will drive it underground. The results, at least for the poor, will be a higher rate of health complications and deaths, as well as the additional stigma, vulnerability to extortion, and criminal record that can dash all aspirations of building a better life.

If the conservatives really care about making lives better and not having abortions, they should make it possible for people to be informed about sex, prophylactics, and birth control, so that those who invariably can’t or do not want to live up to conservatives’ moral codes can make informed decisions. In other words, given that some people will choose to have sex in situations that put them at risk of STDs or unwanted pregnancies, our social policy should be to help them and society minimize those risks and associated costs. For this reason, the third front in the sex wars is also important: access to contraceptives must be guaranteed. This way, we can help reduce disease and unwanted pregnancy before they happen, when it’s cheaper and safer.

What seems to drive many of the conservatives in the Sex Wars is the notion that sex and reproduction ought to always remain coupled. That is a moral judgment to which they are entitled, but which should not be forced on the rest of society. I submit for their consideration a different tenet which works for other people: when done in a way that is respectful of all parties and which prevents unwanted consequences, sex is not only harmless, it is a celebration of life.

As a purely intellecutal exercise, I want to list the corruption lowlights of the Bush administration (both White House and Congress). I’ll start brainstorming and I’ll insert more in the days and weeks ahead.

Please, please feel free to contribute to this list via the blog comments or private email! I’m looking to fill out this list with more items and with links to relevant documentation. I’ll add the information to the main blog entry.

Let’s watch it grow!

Without further ado, in no particular order:

• Plamegate: leaking names of covert CIA operatives ( ordered by the WH? )
• Muzzling NASA scientists on global warming
• Withdrawing from Kyoto protocols
• Removing safe-sex and STD information from government website (NIH)
• Using known faulty intelligence on WMDs to justify war on Iraq
• Politicizing the faulty intelligence to justify the war on Iraq
• Spying on private communications, including those between US citizens, without a warrant, not even the super-double-top-secret-court ex post facto warrant
• No-bid contracts for Haliburton in Iraq
• No body armor or other infrastructure for American troops fighting in Iraq
• Reduced social programs
• The above while the rich get their taxes cut
• Cheney’s secret energy task force
• Sealing daddy’s presidential records
• Limited, screened access by the press
• “Free-speech zones” to hinder protests
• Terry Schiavo: limited government advocates mis-diagnose via satellite

This article talks about how black legislators in Maryland are divided on the issue of gay marriage:

Maryland’s African American lawmakers are deeply divided in the emerging debate over same-sex marriage, which forces them to balance their communities’ bedrock religious convictions against a traditional commitment to civil rights.

In the short time since a Baltimore circuit court declared the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, black Democrats in the General Assembly have reached consensus only on one thing: They don’t want the matter put to a vote.

…

Tomorrow, Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. is planning a sermon on the subject at Hope Christian Church in Bowie, said the Rev. Derek McCoy, associate pastor. “We have to stand up as a voice and defend what we believe is a sacred right between a man and a woman,” McCoy said.

Here’s a message to Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. , Rev. Derek McCoy, Sen. Ulysses Currie, Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr., and Rev. Jonathan Weaver, all mentioned in the article as opposing gay marriage:

You are entitled to be personally opposed to gay marriage and to refuse to bless or sanction such marriages in your congregations. That is your freedom of conscience. But the moment you seek to make that a secular Maryland law, you are imposing your own religious and moral convictions on others and trampling on their freedom of conscience and their equal civil rights under the law. Please, please recognize the distinction between the two and don’t allow the Maryland state government to become a theocracy. “Render unto Caesar…”

This should come as no surprise, but many of the conservative figures in the Abramoff scandal claim to be religious and righteous while doing doing deeds that are anything but. Sometimes, they were obviously trying to manipulate others:

Abramoff showered money on Lapin and his family, and the right-wing rabbi was not ungrateful. When the ambitious lobbyist needed to embellish his curriculum vitae to impress the overseers of the prestigious Cosmos Club in Washington, Lapin gladly furnished him with fake awards attesting to his religious scholarship.

“I just need to know what needs to be produced … letters? Plaques? Neither?” he asked in an e-mail to Abramoff.

“Probably just a few clever titles of awards, dates and that’s it,” the lobbyist replied. “As long as you are the person to verify them [or we can have someone else verify one and you the other], we should be set. Do you have any creative titles, or should I dip into my bag of tricks?”

What Lapin ultimately bestowed on his benefactor was a backdated award from Toward Tradition, the group he founded to restore morality in America. It named Abramoff a “Scholar of Biblical and American History.”

The real question is whether people (voters, politicians) will gullibly believe these folks’ mea culpas and put them back into power once they claim they’ve reformed. I think people like to hear what DeLay once said: “[The Lord] is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me, He is working with me.” This self-righteousness, however, is the beginning of dogma that corrupts a democracy.