If George W. Bush practiced the politics of faith,
And Barack Obama practices the politics of hope,
I wonder what the politics of love will look like?
The greatest of these, I have no doubt.
Be a lamp, or a lifeboat, or a ladder. Help someone's soul heal. Walk out of your house like a shepherd. (Rumi)
If George W. Bush practiced the politics of faith,
And Barack Obama practices the politics of hope,
I wonder what the politics of love will look like?
The greatest of these, I have no doubt.
Lately there has been a debate going on in the media over who is the “de facto” leader of the Republican party. The two people in the running are Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee. Talking heads and various other people in the know are spinning this back and forth and up and down, but I have yet to hear any of them ask the really pertinent question.
If Rush Limbaugh is even in the running, if this is enough of a contest to demand debate, if there is even the slightest possibility that he could be the guy . . . then doesn’t that tell us all we need to know about today’s Republican Party?
In the same way that John McCain tried to walk a tightrope during his campaign by kowtowing to the ignorance that often found its way to a microphone at his town hall meetings, the Republican power brokers have to allow Limbaugh to run amok because shedding the light of truth on his ridiculous ranting would cost them a huge chunk of their base. Michael Steele attempted it a few days ago, and today I saw the announcement that he is apologizing. The head of the Republican Party apologized to Rush Limbaugh for calling him an “entertainer” and his talk show “incendiary.” What’s next? Are the Republicans going to hold a press conference to announce that the earth is flat? The election made it clear that the Republicans are out of touch with reality. This latest Limbaugh flap screams it from the rooftops.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, and the Republicans have chosen intercourse with Rush Limbaugh (which is a picture that should make ANYONE a Democrat). I’m just afraid the baby they make out of that liaison will be a teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy Republican Party.
On Sunday, Susie and I drove across town to the one movie theatre within probably 150 miles that will show “controversial” films. We had made the trek back when Brokeback Mountain was in theatres and would have done so for Religulous, but apparently the latter was too much even for the Green Hills Regal. This time we went to see Milk, and I was impressed enough to actually blog my first movie review.
This is the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to political office in the United States. He was assassinated while serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1978.
I had written a paper when I was in college on the gay rights movement for my persuasion theory class. It just so happened that an entire section of my paper was about Harvey Milk, and so most of the details in the movie were familiar to me. I knew to expect his failed runs for office and his ultimate success after the redistricting of the Castro. I knew to expect his death, as well as the death of Mayor George Moscone who was killed by the same gunman. I knew that the gunman was Dan White, a fellow San Francisco Board of Supervisors member. (Dan White, by the way, served a total of only five years for the double murder after his attornies claimed the famous “Twinkie Defense” which essentially stated that he was on such a sugar high from a junk food obsession that it affected his behavior and decision-making abilities. No. I’m not kidding.) I even expected the candle light vigil attended by over 30,000 people who marched through San Francisco in Milk’s honor.
What I didn’t expect was what makes this movie a must-see. I did not expect to see the well known hyper-sexual culture of the Castro District in the 1970s portrayed so honestly and yet, by the magnificent direction of Gus Van Sant, not hampering empathy for the main character in any way. I did not expect to be so completely overwhelmed by the brilliance of Sean Penn in the title role. For two hours I didn’t think of Sean Penn once. He WAS Harvey Milk. And, most importantly, I did not expect to cry.
Harvey Milk was a civil rights activist of immense importance in our nation’s history. He accomplished remarkable things, and he did so honestly, openly, . . . yes, even flamboyantly. One of the things Milk spoke about often in speeches was hope, and I couldn’t help but think about how pertinent that message still is for a nation so hungry for hope that we elected a President to try to get some back. Harvey Milk was a man ahead of his time, and those kinds often have to pay for being out of step. He knew what he was doing might get him killed, but he did it anyway to prove “You are not sick. You are not wrong.”
The fact that Harvey Milk is not remembered as vividly as other slain civil rights leaders says a lot about our country. Perhaps we’re ready now to give him at least a portion of the credit he deserved 30 years ago.
As important as the presidential election is this year, that’s not the only race that will have my attention on Tuesday. California’s Proposition 8 is perhaps as pivotal a civil rights decision as we have seen in many years.
This past May, the California Supreme Court ruled that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violated the state constitution. Almost immediately, the very people whom this would least effect jumped into high gear to introduce a ballot initiative to overturn that decision. The religious right and, most specifically, the Mormon Church has devoted millions of dollars and enlisted thousands of people to this cause.
With the Supreme Court’s decision this past May, California became the second state in the country to legalize marriage for gays and lesbians (Massachusetts having been the first). Since then, Connecticutt has made a similar decision. This early and intense challenge to California’s law is seen by many legal analysts as a canary in the mine for the way this issue may play out in other states over the coming years.
The arguments for gay marriage are legion and are supported by law and history. The arguments against gay marriage essentially boil down to one thing – religious belief. But, religion has nothing to do with it.
Since about the time that Henry VIII got irked at the Pope for denying him a divorce and started his own church, marriage has been a civil issue in most of the western world. In this country, the government has always been in charge of marriage, which is in truth a legal contract. This is why every church wedding I’ve ever attended included the words, “by the power vested in me by the state of (fill in the blank).” The first marriage of two European settlers on the North American continent was performed by William Bradford acting on the authority of his position as Governor. The early Puritans actually believed that the English custom of marriage by clergy was unscriptural. Now, I don’t have any quarrel with big church weddings. In fact, I believe it is only fitting that two people would include their spirituality in what will likely be one of the biggest days of their lives. But the simple fact is, the church doesn’t own marriage.
What is immensely distubing to me is that people who are commanded to love their neighbor as themselves are so angrily determined to suppress equal rights for an estimated 10% of the population. They have nothing to lose, and gay people have everything to gain, so the only motivation they could possibly have is religious bigotry. When pressed into a corner, they sometimes offer the olive branch of “civil unions,” a legal contract between two people who choose to build a life together (do I need to point out that is EXACTLY what marriage is?). Haven’t we already learned this lesson? In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision that segregation was okay as long as facilities were “separate but equal.” Brown v. The Board of Education overturned that ruling in 1954 when it was determined that separate was inherently not equal. The most interesting aspect of the civil unions debate is that it implies the opponent would concede the rights as long as they still owned the word. I could almost say, “Fine, just give me the rights, and I’ll use the word anyway.” Nobody owns a word, you dip-wads. But separate is not equal. Different is not the same.
The most difficult challenge in this issue is getting non-gay people to care. I know that those who aren’t gay don’t feel the sting like we do, just as white people will never truly understand the African-American experience. But, gays and lesbians across this nation, including me and my wife, are passionate about this because it is vital for us. Only marriage can give me all the tools I need to protect my family. This may seem like an off-the-radar social issue to many Americans, but to me it is my family’s finances, healthcare, inheritance issues, relationships, property rights, and basic definition that is at stake. For me, it is the right to say, “This is my family.” That, my friends, is not a small thing. And just as white people marched with Dr. King, it will take equality-minded straight people to help win this fight.
On Tuesday, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Californians will walk into a voting booth and vote on something that has no effect on them, but the most essential effect on many others. They will vote yes on Proposition 8. They are the playground bullies who won’t share the swingset. No, that’s too kind. They are the segregationists of the 21st Century. My deep hope is that hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, plus 1 vote no on this proposition of suppression and inequality. But it will take all of those who feel the full effect of this bigotry . . . plus an army of others who simply care enough to care.