Abortion, gay marriage and American dhimmitude

Ever since 9/11, conservatives of the “clash of the civilizations” stripe have had a favorite word they like to casually toss at appeasing lefties: “Dhimmi.” It’s an Arabic word that applies, basically, to lesser status of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. Any time public officials wrestle with how to accommodate Muslims in America — say, when Muslim cabdrivers say they don’t want to carry passengers toting alcohol — cries of “dhimmitude” go up all along the right, with dreary consistency, an alarm that any accommodation with religious zealots whatsoever will surely result in the fall of Western civilization.

I suspect the same folks who scream “dhimmi” with some regularity, though, will have no real problem with this:

Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.

They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Ostensibly, these religious organizations don’t want to be forced to provide abortions, host gay marriages or even provide benefits to same sex partners of their employees. But it seems unlikely that any proposals on these issues would end up with that result. “Conscience clauses” largely prohibit physicians from being forced to provide medical services they find objectionable, and the First Amendment pretty much ensures no Catholic Church will ever be required to perform a marriage ceremony between Adam and Steve. It should be pretty easy to resolve these concerns, right?

Probably not. The churches don’t just want to abstain from what they believe to be immoral practices; they’re trying to influence policy and legislation so the rest of us must also abstain. I don’t really like that, but I suppose that’s their right.

But it’s interesting to me that the same folks who get the vapors when Muslim women want to use a gym separate from men are more or less the exact same folks who will defend to the death the right of a Catholic pharmacist (say) to refuse to dispense birth control pills.*

We’re expected to defer to and accommodate religious sensibilities in the public square, it seems, except when we’re not. We’re all dhimmis now.

*Christopher Hitchens, of course, is the exception to this. He thinks all of you are crazy.

Did Texas outlaw marriage?

Heh:

Dan Savage on gay marriage

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

The persecution of gay marriage opponents

You see this kind of thing a lot on the conservative side of the argument:

I’m 26 years old and my generation holds very strong views on this topic… in my experience, mostly in support of same-sex marriage. Personally, I’m on the fence about it. But for most people my age, that is not good enough. The peer pressure to support gay marriage is enormous. Which is precisely why I refuse to give my (socially mandatory in many circles) full-throated support to it. When friends tell me it’s a civil right and denying gays their “universal right to marriage” is the same as forbidding whites and blacks to marry, it makes my skin crawl . . . but I don’t know how to argue against these points. I just know deep down there’s something fishy about the arguments.

The way defenders of traditional marriage are treated appalls me, but the reason is simple. Gay marriage activists have dehumanized them totally in their own minds, which of course justifies anything. There can be no debate; for so many people I know, the “universal right to marriage” is as settled as the law of gravity, and anyone who disagrees is evil. A big reason why I’m on the fence is because there is only one “legitimate” opinion among my peers and supporting same-sex marriage is meaningless when it’s the only choice and the alternative is to be called a bigot. In the climate I live in, even to say, “Maybe they have a point” is risky and an easy way to lose a friend. I admire the courage of those on your side of the issue who take the stand publicly and accept all the heat that goes with it.

Understand: Opponents of gay marriage — though they’ve won every election where the issue was put to a statewide referendum — really believe they’re the victims in this debate. It doesn’t make any sense, really, unless those opponents feel like they need to claim the victim status in order to hold onto some kind of moral high ground.

But what evidence does the correspondent above present in support of his case that “defenders of traditional marriage” are treated poorly? That they have to face peer pressure? Well, boo hoo. Gay marriage opponents don’t want to just win the policy battle; they’d rather not get their feelings hurt by criticism. Oh, the oppression! This is what is known in politics as “having your cake and eating it, too.”

(On a related note, does anybody believe the correspondent above is “on the fence” regarding this issue? Seems like he/she has already taken sides … and lacks the courage of his/her convictions.)

It’s worth noting that if gay marriage opponents eventually lose this battle — and I believe they will, eventually, in most states — they lose nothing tangible. Nothing about heterosexual marriage will change at all. And despite the alarms, they won’t lose their First Amendment freedoms to think or say that homosexual marriage is bad. And churches will not lose their First Amendment freedoms not to offer religious ceremonies for gay unions.

Right now, though, proponents of gay marriage are losing most of the big battles. And while you can’t lose what you’ve never had, they are in many cases being deprived of more tangible benefits: The joint tax filing, the sharing of child custody, the ability to navigate sickness and end-of-life issues are all off-limits to gay couples — or, at least, much more difficult to come by. Heterosexual couples would never stand for it.

One hesitates to turn public policy into a victimization-off: Everybody loses. But the only thing that gay marriage opponents really stand to lose is the satisfaction of having lots of people agree with them. Gay couples, though, live daily under a legal regime that makes it more difficult to conduct their lives normally. It’s no contest.

Despair, gay marriage and Maggie Gallagher

I haven’t been able to let go of this post by Maggie Gallagher, who runs the National Organization for Marriage, which campaigns against gay marriage, including the recent ballot in Maine. She wrote on Friday:

Despair is a spiritual weapon, and it is the gay-marriage movement’s single most powerful weapon.

Even accounting for differing political views, this is stunningly dishonest. Here’s a typical ad for gay marriage in Maine:

And here’s a typical ad against:

One is an affirmative call to equality. The other is “booga booga” scare tactics. Which side do you think despair is really on, anyway?

Gay marriage loses in Maine

So much for that live and let live New England ethos, eh? How disappointing. And I confess that I increasingly don’t get it.

“Defenders of traditional marriage” treat this debate as zero sum — as though giving gays the right to marry will somehow take away something from heterosexuals. But it won’t. Not that it matters, I suppose. Fear and bigotry get to carry the day, once again. I’m confident that won’t always be the case; today, though, I’m kind of angry.

Why Philly needs gay marriage

I’ve been surprised, since moving to Philly, that a lot of the pro-gay-marriage activism in this city has been focused almost entirely on California and Proposition 8. Maybe I’m missing stuff – I don’t hob-nob with Philly’s gay activists – but that’s kind of weird to me. Philly’s relatively gay-friendly, from what I can tell, but there aren’t marriage rights here. So why no fuss?

I thought about this again last night, reading a piece in National Journal about a gay couple from Ohio. One of the partners got sick while on a trip to Philly, and it got complicated.

Having just been told, at 3 a.m., that his partner of three decades might die within hours, Mike Brittenback was told something else: Before rushing to Bill’s side, he needed to collect and bring with him documents proving his medical power of attorney. This indignity, unheard-of in the world of heterosexual marriage, is a commonplace of American gay life.

Frantic, Mike tore through the house but could not find the papers. He would need to retrieve them from a safe-deposit box. Which was at a bank. Which did not open until 9 a.m.

Somehow Mike made it through the next six hours, “crying and frantic and all kinds of awful things running through my mind,” fetched the documents, and got on the road. By some higher mercy, those lost hours did not cost Bill his life. When Mike arrived in Philadelphia on Saturday afternoon, Bill was still alive, though in grave danger.

Mike had packed clothes for a week.

And that’s what the fight for marriage is about: Not simply the right to love each other — no law can force or prohibit that — but the right to care for each other.

My relatively open-minded conservative friends say they don’t have a problem with gay couples loving and caring for each other. They just don’t want to give up “marriage” as being exclusively a straight institution. But that’s a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too conflict I can’t reconcile. Sure, some states allow gay couples the legal right to care for each other through civil unions. But a lot of states don’t go that far. And so gay couples are forced to deal with indignities and obstacles that heterosexual couples don’t experience — and would never stand for, frankly.

So Philly needs gay marriage. Pennsylvania needs gay marriage. Loving, committed couples need the right to care for each other. It’s that simple.

In California, the Supreme Court upholds Prop 8

LA Times:

The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.

The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists said they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

While I hate it that gay people are denied the right to marry in California, this is probably the correct decision: It’s rare that a court would or could overturn a Constitutional amendment approved by a vote of the electorate.

But all is not lost. This issue will be on the ballot again in California. And eventually, the supporters of inclusive marriage rights will win. That day has just been delayed a little bit, is all.

UPDATE: Just to clarify, I’m for gay marriage. My only point was that — as a narrow legal matter — courts don’t overturn state constitutional amendments approved by a vote of the people unless they clearly conflict with rights granted under the federal constitution. That’s not the case in this case. But I believe Prop 8 will be overturned at the ballot box, probably sooner than later.

State workers’ same-sex partners to get coverage

It’s a start:

Same-sex partners of Pennsylvania state employees will soon be eligible for the same health-care benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

The policy, which goes into effect in July, provides full medical coverage for domestic partners who have lived together at least six months. Also eligible are children of same-sex partners and non-married heterosexual domestic partners.

Fifteen other states, including New Jersey, offer similar benefits, as do the City of Philadelphia and the 27 Fortune 500 companies whose headquarters are in Pennsylvania.

“It was the equitable thing to do,” David Fillman, chairman of the Pennsylvania Employees Benefits Trust Fund, said yesterday.

The fund administers benefits for 81,000 current employees and 60,000 retired employees.

Gay Marriage in Iowa: A Note From Curtis and Daren

This is what makes blogging fun. Last week, I pointed to a picture in the New York Times of two Iowa men — ballcaps, sideburns and goatees — filling out an application to marry each other. Today, I got a note from them. And some wedding pictures.

I would like to thank you for the article you wrote on us reviewing our marriage license, and would like to let you know that we got married on May 3rd.  We had a great day and all of our present hopes and dreams have come true.

We are just the guys next door, and have had a great response from everyone.  We had heard from people from all across the country, congratulating us, and that we have given them hope for their futures.

Thanks
Curtis and Daren

Congratulations, guys, from the bottom of my heart.