King and Huck

Today would have been the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 78th birthday.

That honorific -- "reverend" -- refers to King's vocation as an ordained Baptist minister. He was the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Ala. But King believed his ministry extended beyond his congregation. He believed that God had called him to work for justice not just in the hearts and lives of the believers at Dexter Avenue, but in all of Montgomery, in all of Alabama, in all of America and even, ultimately, in all of the world.

And today, on what would have been the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 78th birthday, I read this MSNBC account of recent comments by another Baptist minister, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on "The Constitution and God's Standards" (thanks, mmackmcc and Tonio, for the tip):

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

It's nice to hear Huckabee concede that same-sex marriage is, in fact, constitutional, and thus that outlawing it would require a constitutional amendment, but that's not the main point here.

The main point here is sweet fancy Moses this guy wants to rewrite the Constitution to align it with his idea of "God's standards"!

So, OK then, here's one Baptist minister who sets out to change America, leads a march on the nation's capital, and succeeds in changing the law of the land. And here's another Baptist minister who has set out to change America and to rewrite the laws of the land. So what's the difference? Why do I admire and honor the former while mocking the latter as a theocratic goof? Is it just because one was a liberal and the other a conservative?

Actually, the difference between the two cases is huge. One could almost say these two cases are opposites. King offered secular arguments in sectarian language. Huckabee is offering sectarian arguments in (mostly) secular language.

I mention their use of religious language here because that's what quite a few people get tripped up on. Religious or sectarian language is not itself the issue. Religious language can be a stumbling block in the secular realm of politics because it is not a universally shared language. King's language was steeped in religion. Quotations and allusions from the Bible, from Christian hymns and gospel songs, infused all of King's public speech. Huckabee simply can't compare. Like most of the leaders of the religious right and most of the politicians who court their favor, he is far more likely to talk about the Bible than he is to quote from it. Yet while Huckabee's use of religious language is both rarer and shallower than King's use of such language, it stands out more. It stands out because, as Huckabee uses it, it is exclusively sectarian language. He does not, as King always did, translate that language into shared, nonsectarian principles* because unlike King he has no shared, nonsectarian argument in mind, and unlike King he is not employing this language in service of a shared, nonsectarian agenda.

King's biblical oratory and Huckabee's bibliolatrous babble serve very different arguments. King's argument was ultimately a secular one: a call for justice in accord with the biblical prophets but also, even more so, in accord with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Huckabee's argument is ultimately a religious one: a call for the Constitution to be re-written in accord with the (alleged) fiats of his faith.

Those are very different. It is in no way inconsistent to endorse the former while opposing the latter. In fact, it would be inconsistent not to.

Ira Chernus explores this in a Common Dreams essay, "Faith and Politics: Rules of the Game. Chernus asks what we mean when we object to someone "trying to impose their religion" on us:

Was Dr. King trying to impose his religion upon the southern racists when he demanded integration because blacks, too, are “children of God”? More recently, progressive faith-based coalitions have won living wage campaigns. The small businessmen who must pay their help higher wages may well feel that their freedom is curtailed due to someone else’s religious beliefs. Is it fair to complain that “they’re imposing their religion on us” when gay marriage is banned, but not when racial integration or a living wage is required? We need to think this through carefully.

The real conflict between religion and politics in a democracy comes not from what people say or do but how they talk about it and the authority they invoke for it.

The underlying premise of democracy is that we human beings get to choose our laws and policies, not discover them inscribed in the cosmos. The rules a community lives by are produced by that community, and by no one or nothing else. Any law or policy is fair game, as long as it is constitutional and achieved through the democratic process.

... Any belief, statement, or action can be religious if it claims some transcendent or supernatural authority for its truth. Believing in life after death or giving alms to the poor is no more intrinsically religious than praying for a million dollars, dancing around a tree, or robbing a bank. As long as you say “Hey, I didn’t just think this up on my own. I know it’s right and true because some eternal transcendent authority told me so,” it’s religious. And that means it can never be challenged or change.

But challenge and change is the essence of democracy. The only valid authority for political values is the truth discovered by human thought, which is always open to challenge and change. Democracy requires that all the people (either directly or through elected representatives) be thinking and debating about their laws and policies, constantly and endlessly. Every claim made in the political arena must be open to debate without limit.

And the debate must be open to everyone. No one’s ideas can be excluded. So everyone must have equal access to the terms of the discussion. No special terms, like the words and symbols of a particular religion, can be privileged, because that would exclude all the people who don’t find those words and symbols meaningful. The terms have to be secular.

Those who base their political values on their religion have to translate faith statements into value statements that non-believers can evaluate and debate in rational terms. That’s what Dr. King did. ...

The majority of people who bring their faith into politics, on the right as well as the left and center, translate that faith into statements of value couched in more or less secular terms. The critical question is whether they allow open-ended challenge and debate, or whether they claim “Hey, you can’t challenge this because we didn’t make it up. It comes from a transcendent authority than can never change and never be challenged.”

If you hear that, it’s fair to say “Religion out of politics!” Because at that point the only response adherents of another faith or none at all can make is, “I don’t believe you.” Then there’s nothing more to say. The conversation comes to a dead end. And that means the democratic process comes to an end.

Huckabee fails Chernus' "critical question." By stating, explicitly, that he wants "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards" he is saying, precisely, "You can't challenge this because it comes from a transcendent authority that can never be challenged." His approach is defiantly unconstitutional and profoundly undemocratic. To accuse him of endorsing theocracy here is simply to quote him accurately.

The problem with Huckabee's statement is not that I disagree with him about same-sex marriage. The problem is that Huckabee doesn't care if I, or you, or anyone else, disagrees with him. His approach does not allow disagreement -- indeed, he says, to disagree with him is to disagree with God.

Most opponents of same-sex marriage will try at least to present an argument that relies on something other than their personal conviction that they have heard the voice of God and must impose the divine sanction upon the rest of the world. They will argue, for instance, that same-sex marriage would have bad consequences. By somehow eroding the Institution of Marriage or undermining The Family: Building Block of Society, they argue, same-sex marriage would lead to harmful consequences for society (dogs and cats ... mass hysteria, etc.). Whether or not those arguments make perfect sense, or are consistent with the facts, or bear any relation to the actual consequences, the point here is that those arguments are not sectarian. I think they're wrong, but I do not think they're illegitimate.

Huckabee's argument is illegitimate. He explicitly -- and proudly -- seeks to impose his religion on the rest of us. That's out of bounds. That is theocracy, not democracy. King knew the difference. Huckabee doesn't.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* King was southern and Baptist, but he was not a Southern Baptist, so unlike Huckabee he was accustomed to viewing the Bible in terms of its larger themes and moral principles. Huckabee comes from the evangelical tradition of "literalism," which thinks primarily in terms of discrete precepts and propositions and has a very hard time discerning larger themes or principles. This is a serious handicap for evangelicals in the public sphere. They're equipped to prooftext, but not well-equipped to formulate arguments basic on overarching principles, and almost wholly incapable of translating such arguments into secular language or of basing them on shared, nonsectarian principles.

Comments

[Anna]

Sorry for the double post! My connection is acting oddly right now.

[Lauren]

No, he doesn't give a damn. If he gave a damn, he'd use it as a base, instead of wanting to start from scratch.
-Jeff

Where does Huckabee say he wants to start from scratch? The amendments he's proposing (unless he has a secret agenda to mandate prayer and religious instruction in public school) are relatively minor compared to abolishing slavery or women's sufferage. It's not like he's proposing to overthrow the republican system.

Like Ron Paul said, "Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?"

[Jesurgislac]

Tonio: That's because some black conservative Christians mistakenly assume that comparison makes light of the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow, or equates the suffering of American gays to those horrors. While that's not the case, I don't know how to make the legal argument in a way that would prevent them from making that assumption.

Well, I tend to think that when conservatives claim that, it's because they love a bad faith argument that stops groups of people who are being discriminated against from discovering their common ground: and of course there is a known conservative Christian tactic of arguing as if black people are not LGBT and all LGBT people are white. So I wouldn't give these people the credit of assuming that this is just a "mistaken assumption" on their part.

But, for the people who think that racism is worse than sexism is worse than homophobia, I would say that trying to separate out different kinds of bigotry and weigh them up and say that one is definitively worse than another, benefits only one group of people: straight white men. The rest of us need allies, not opponents.

As for the legal argument: it's simply a historical fact. The legal mechanisms being used in many states to prevent recognition of a same-sex couple's legal marriage, are the very mechanisms that were set up many decades ago to prevent recognition of a mixed-sex couple's legal marriage when the two were registered as of different races. Not similiar mechanisms, not comparable mechanisms: the very same. Bits and pieces of legislation that had lain unused since Loving vs Virginia was decided, are being picked up again and used to hack at legal marriages because bigots don't like them.

[Robb]

@ Anna

You've got a great point - his language is certainly attuned to Evangelicals, but his mentions of God/Living God/etc are still somewhat rarer in his speeches than one would expect from a Southern Baptist preacher. I've actually looked at a lot of what he's said, and while he's much more explicit than lot of others have been in the past, he's still much more [Republican Presidential Candidate] than [pastor pretending to be a candidate]. And I also think you're right about his views on theocracy vs. being conservative from a Christian perspective.

I admit that my personal religous history means I'll hear things differently, though I still maintain he's just a tad different from most of the far right rhetoric that most other high profile Christian leaders are spewing.

[Tonio]

Fred's post (and the MSNBC article he references) says he's referring to abortion and gay marriage, and I assume they have a better understanding of the context of the statement than I do.

Context aside, how do we know Huckabee wasn't thinking of the other things I mentioned? Eight years ago, who would have expected the Patriot Act or the Iraq invasion?

[bulbul]

He explicitly -- and proudly -- seeks to impose his religion on the rest of us.
But that's not how he and his followers see it. The way they understand it, all they're trying to do is bring - or more likely restore - morality to an immoral world. In other words, they believe the world is sick and they're trying to show the medicine down our throats. The fact that they're choking us with it somehow doesn't bother them.

[Anna]

Would somebody on Huckabee's publicity team please get a muzzle on this guy ASAP? He sounds a little more insane with every interview he gives.

Here's a link to Huckabee talking about appealing to SC voters by showing solidarity: when he was in college, he, LIKE THEM, also fried squirrel in a popcorn popper.

WTF. No seriously. W.T.F.

[Geds]

Robb: As a lifelong evangelical. . . well, most of my life, I have to disagree. Who's he conning? What's he hiding?

In your evangelical experience, then, I'm sure that you've been aware of the thought process of evangelicals when politics come up (or even while going to movies or listening to music). There's this general attitude towards vetting everything with that, "Is so-and-so really a Christian?" This, of course, means, "Is so-and-so a Christian like I am?" So they'll sit there and listen for all the appropriate code words and make sure that the phrases are all parsed in a properly "Christian" context. Then, for what amounts to being no good reason whatsoever, they will support so-and-so through pretty much anything (gay sex with a prostitute of the wrong skin tone might kill support. Or Communism. Communism is never a good thing).

The weird thing is, it's not the issue of fooling anybody that's not the problem. It's a known fact that there wasn't anybody who could expect the evangelical vote until Huckabee came along. Up until now he's been dog whistling for all he's worth but he hasn't said anything that would really bother non-evangelicals (I know firsthand, as I've made no headway in trying to inform people of what he's doing). It's not an issue of fooling people so much as its an issue of staying under the radar. That's what the dog whistle does. It informs certain people that you are, indeed, on their side while not weirding anybody else out.

Huckabee is, fundamentally, a theocrat. The frightening thing is, though, he might not even know it. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of his supporters don't know or don't care, either. But any time you start talking about wanting a more Christian nation while running for public office, you're talking theocracy.

[cjmr]

How in blue blazes would you fry squirrel in a popcorn popper?

Forget that.

WHY in blue blazes would you fry squirrel in a popcorn popper?

[bulbul]

I would say that trying to separate out different kinds of bigotry and weigh them up and say that one is definitively worse than another...
It's not the different types of bigotry itself that can be weighed and deemed worse, it's their effects or outward manifestations. Being killed in a gas chamber is worse - if only slightly - than being chained and forced to work on a plantation all your life which is in turn worse than being denied a job because of the sex of your life partner which is in turn worse than being treated like an idiot because of your country of origin. But that's just a side note, I get - and agree with - your point.

I would say that trying to separate out different kinds of bigotry and weigh them up and say that one is definitively worse than another, benefits only one group of people: straight white men.
...
...
...
Nope, don't feel a thing. Maybe the effect would be more pronounced if more of you tried to separate out different kinds of bigotry and weigh them up and say that one is definitively worse than another, all of you at the same time. Say tomorrow noon Eastern Standard? Gotta tell ya, I could sure use some positive mojo...

[Nathan]

By the way, at a campaign stop here in Iowa, I got to see Tim Lahaye, the man himself, endorse Huckabee. Then I heard Huck with my own ears claim that as a pastor he bought Tim Lahaye's books by the case-full. That explains a lot.

[bulbul]

WHY in blue blazes would you fry squirrel in a popcorn popper?
One of them squirrel's fried in a popcorn popper is good eating.
But you tofu-farting east-coast-liberal-elite Yankees wouldn't know nuthin' 'bout that...

[Anna]

WHY in blue blazes would you fry squirrel in a popcorn popper?

I have no idea. I mean, I grew up in SC and live there now (granted, I went to college in the godless North), and I've never heard of anyone doing this. I think the interviewers missed the obvious follow-up question: "How drunk were you at the time?"

[Geds]

"How drunk were you at the time?"

Because there's no answer more frightening than, "We weren't. We didn't drink."

[julia]

See, where I'm getting stuck is this: the same two amendments were, prominently, in the '00 and '04 platforms of the Republican party, with the same reasoning given. How is this any different?

Also, I'm starting to wonder about Huckabee and the bible - there's a piece in People this week (leave me alone, I needed something to read on the train) about what the candidates carry with them on the trail, and he said his must-have object was a bible. Then he got specific and said that he always has his New Testament with him so he doesn't miss out on his nightly hour of Proverbs.

I've never heard of referring to one testament of the bible as "the Bible". Is that done?

[Tonio]

Jesu, you're absolutely right about the merits of the legal argument for gay marriage. However, I doubt that the black conservative Christians are counterarguing in bad faith. Instead, I think that the legal argument pushes an emotional button for them, because of the painful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. They don't recognize that the argument in no way says that any one form of bigotry is worse than any other.

[mmack]

How in blue blazes would you fry squirrel in a popcorn popper?

Forget that.

WHY in blue blazes would you fry squirrel in a popcorn popper?

Biblically speaking, the question to ask is: Is squirrel kosher? (Of course, this assumes Mike and his buddies ate Mr. Squirrel, and weren't just a bunch of sadistic jerks.)

Now I reread Leviticus, and it has prohibitions against eating rabbits (hares), but not squirrel. But in the framework of our discussion, has "Huck-a-muck" sinned by frying said squirrel? Honestly, if the man is going to rule biblically, I want an answer on this one.

[Geds]

Then he got specific and said that he always has his New Testament with him so he doesn't miss out on his nightly hour of Proverbs.

Really? I mean, I know that there are a lot of New Testaments handed out with Proverbs and Psalms appended to them, but if he actually said he always has his New Testament so he can read Proverbs, that's pretty silly.

[Steven S.]

. Then he got specific and said that he always has his New Testament with him so he doesn't miss out on his nightly hour of Proverbs.

I've never heard of referring to one testament of the bible as "the Bible". Is that done?

I have to ask -- since when is Proverbs in the *New* Testament?

Is this some new bit of cultural appropriation I wasn't familiar with? ;)

[bulbul]

Then he got specific and said that he always has his New Testament with him so he doesn't miss out on his nightly hour of Proverbs.

I've never heard of referring to one testament of the bible as "the Bible". Is that done?

I believe this has to do with the practice of some publishers to publish the New Testament as A5 or A6-sized books bound in a durable (often plastic) cover which contain the New Testament plus the Psalms and the Proverbs (e.g. this). Often these editions are distributed for free.

[damnedyankee]

By the way, at a campaign stop here in Iowa, I got to see Tim Lahaye, the man himself, endorse Huckabee. Then I heard Huck with my own ears claim that as a pastor he bought Tim Lahaye's books by the case-full. That explains a lot.

What this campaign needs is Meta-Hattie to descend from the clouds and set them straight...

[Tonio]

Now I reread Leviticus, and it has prohibitions against eating rabbits (hares), but not squirrel.

That probably means the author wasn't Beatrix Potter. How about Bugs Bunny? Nah, then there would be a prohibition against mispronouncing words with R in them.

[Robb]

WHY in blue blazes would you fry squirrel in a popcorn popper?

Yeah, I know - you'd have to work pretty hard to get the meat off of 'em. Thems small critters.

******

@ Geds
The whole "Is so & so a Christian like I am" question is honestly something I would have asked 10 years ago, at the height of my fundie-ism, but it's something I deliberately avoid now. I recognize it's not that important of a question, yea verily, shouldn't even be asked. However, you're right - there are lots of folks who ask it. The funny thing is, though, I've met very few folks who back Huckabee - among some people I know at church, I've found a lot of Ron Paul supporters. A friend of mine (who is a nice chap who plays WoW and D&D, but is KJV only) was chatting with me & asked enthusiastically "Did you know Ron Paul is actually a conservative Christian?" I squirmed a bit, then said I was surprised that my friend would consider him conservative, knowing (as I did) that Paul was raised a Lutheran. My friend was astounded, knowing he'd not readily consider a Lutheran "conservative" in the orthodoxical sense, and he was embarrassed that he hadn't actually looked into the religious backgroud of Paul beyond a cursory "yep, he's a Jesus guy". You're absolutely right in that most christians in the U.S. will not look any deeper than that. I loved the McSweeney's list of Democrat Presidential candidates entry on Jesus Christ: "Pro: Could draw some initial interest from the Christian right until they research his actual positions in a deeper way; likable; strong leadership qualities."

I can see how some might consider Huckabee a theocrat, but I just don't think so - he's stating where he stands, and he's stating where he wants to go, but that doesn't mean he's going to push to get there. Besides, after Bush, no one is going to be able to take this country any further in the direction of theocracy. Which is, again, the big reason why Huck won't get the nomination, and won't win the election. It's just not cool to be a Republican.

******

Then I heard Huck with my own ears claim that as a pastor he bought Tim Lahaye's books by the case-full.

And that is why I would be scared to have him as my prez. I like a lot (not all) of the things he says & the way he says them, but that doesn't mean he's got my vote.

[Jeff]

WHY in blue blazes would you fry squirrel in a popcorn popper?

How else do you get that nice buttery flavor without a lot of grease? Also, you want to make sure that it's completely popped!

===================================

Then he got specific and said that he always has his New Testament with him so he doesn't miss out on his nightly hour of Proverbs.

I'm another who had a "waidaminnit!" with this. Evden if his edition has Proverbs attached, it's still not part of the New Testament!

[Lauren]

I'm going to have a lot of trouble explaining to my boss why I can't stop laughing today. I can't even think the words "fried squirrel in a popcorn popper" with a strait face.

[Tonio]

I can see how some might consider Huckabee a theocrat, but I just don't think so - he's stating where he stands, and he's stating where he wants to go, but that doesn't mean he's going to push to get there.

His stance is a theocratic one, even if he does nothing to implement his stance.

Besides, after Bush, no one is going to be able to take this country any further in the direction of theocracy.

But many of the theocratic moves in his Administration didn't become public knowledge until later, when people like David Kuo and Mikey Weinstein spoke out. The influence of Regent University and Patrick Henry College came out only during the U.S. Attorney scandal hearings.

[Ursula L]

I have to ask -- since when is Proverbs in the *New* Testament?

Is this some new bit of cultural appropriation I wasn't familiar with? ;)

I remember seeing little pocket size books, that would have the New Testement followed by Psalms and Proverbs. The kind of thing you were given in Sunday School and told to carry with you. I think I might actually have a few of them floating about in my book-boxes.

[aunursa]

Jesurgislac: Conservatives never like to take responsibility...

LAFORGE: I'm running a level-one diagnostic.
RIKER: For 30 hours? You only need four. You are incapable of that level of incompetence, Mr. La Forge!
...
PICARD: Captain, perhaps it would be best if we discussed this...
RIKER: Shut up!
PICARD: I beg your pardon?
RIKER: I said, "Shut up!" As in close your mouth and stop talking!

In the House of Representatives, 224 Republicans voted Yea on DOMA, 118 Democrats. 65 Democrats voted Nay on DOMA, 1 Republican, 1 Independent.

Last I checked DOMA -- like every other bill -- required the president's signature. That makes President Clinton responsible for its enactment. Had he rejected the bill, 183 Democrats (42%) could have voted to uphold the veto. Thus the Democrats had both the executive power and legislative power to defeat this bill. DOMA could not possibly have become law without bipartisan support.

Jeff: Name them, torture-monkey.

No thanks, I'll leave the gratuitous personal attacks and juvenile name-calling to you.

[aunursa]

Julia: I've never heard of referring to one testament of the bible as "the Bible". Is that done?

Jews consider the Bible to consist of the Hebrew Scriptures -- what Christians refer to as the Old Testament. So the answer is "yes".

[Tonio]

The blame for the DOMA is less important than the fact that government has no compelling interest in limiting legal marriage to straight couples. I've heard only one wholly secular argument against gay marriage - government allegedly having an interest in fostering procreation. Not only could this be used to deny marriage to straight couples who can't or won't procreate, it also falsely implies that gay marriage somehow hinders procreation. How exactly would gay marriage hinder procreation? Gays wouldn't enter into straight marriages in the first place.

[hapax]

I would say that trying to separate out different kinds of bigotry and weigh them up and say that one is definitively worse than another, benefits only one group of people: straight white men. The rest of us need allies, not opponents.

I just want to quote that again, for truthery. Not that I have anything against straight white men, mind you; some of my best friends are Pale Penis People. I just love the "allies, not opponents" part.

As far as the Huck goes, well, I've been listening to the man for a decade now. I've seen how he governs. He is a theocrat, the whole deal. There's some upside, there, I must admit; until he started listening to his handlers, he had a pretty good grasp on the whole "caring for the poor, the widows and the orphans, and the alien among you" angle.

On the bad side, as Fred points out, it makes him impossible to reason with, in the purest sense of the word. If he hears God telling him one thing, and the entirety of the U.S. population, the Congress, the Judicial Branch, the Constitution, and his mother telling him something else, he's gonna go with what he thinks God says. And anyone who disagrees with him, doesn't have a different viewpoint; they are fundamentally, inherently, instrinsically, WRONG. That's where his reputation for being "thin-skinned" comes from.

But he isn't a con man, or speaking in code words. He's never pretended to be anything other than what he is. What is interesting to me is how many fundamentalist Christian voters, who have been responding to the dog whistles and the vague insincere panderings for decades, suddenly don't seem to like very much what they've been always saying they wanted.

[Anna]

Aunursa's right about DOMA. It was the Dem's fault just as much as the Repubs, and everyone should take responsibility. There is no one party that's always done the right thing, just like there's no one party of Goodness and Light. Perfection (just like perfectability) is a myth, but for some reason we're afraid of the fact that it's mythical. Hillary Clinton has refused to say 'I was wrong' about her Iraq war stance because she's afraid that it makes her look less-than-perfect, and therefore weak. There's a certain defensiveness to the 'It was SO not our fault!' response when someone talks about DOMA.

Yes, it was our fault (no matter which side of the aisle you stand on), and yes, everyone was wrong. Neither of those things is a reason to perpetuate the wrongness, however, and the one party now that seems to be willing to countenance a positive change for queer rights is the Dems. So I support them, even if they did stupid things in the past. (And yes, DOMA was a stupid thing. It was a political compromise for Clinton, but some things, like people's rights and/or dignity, shouldn't be compromised.)

It's not something to argue about or get defensive over, it's something to acknowledge and move on, and remember, so that we don't do stupid things again.

[Praline]

The amendments he's proposing (unless he has a secret agenda to mandate prayer and religious instruction in public school) are relatively minor compared to abolishing slavery or women's sufferage.

I'd take issue with that. Obviously it's worse to be enslaved than to be prevented from having the right to a legally recognised union with your beloved, but - leaving aside the fact that NABA isn't a good argument, as Fred points out - the same kind of thinking underlies all three: some people are not entitled to the full rights of citizenship. That idea, whatever its manifestation, goes absolutely against the principles of democracy.

Being prevented from owning yourself, voting, marrying who you choose: they're different versions of the same insult. And that insult, when acted upon, is one of the great evils of society. It always tends towards people getting hurt. Any manifestations of it therefore have to be taken seriously.

[Tonio]

Pale Penis People

Sounds like an alien race from slash science fiction. What about the Pink Petal People?

[damnedyankee]

No thanks, I'll leave the gratuitous personal attacks and juvenile name-calling to you.

Thanks for the clearance, Torture-Monkey!

[ninjanun]

What is interesting to me is how many fundamentalist Christian voters, who have been responding to the dog whistles and the vague insincere panderings for decades, suddenly don't seem to like very much what they've been always saying they wanted.

And just out of curiosity, hapax, what have fundamentalist Christian voters been saying that they want? (I really want to know; I've never been able to articulate it myself, even when I was a fundy Christian).

[ninjanun]

Hillary Clinton has refused to say 'I was wrong' about her Iraq war stance because she's afraid that it makes her look less-than-perfect, and therefore weak.

Not to condone her unwillingness to admit her wrongful stance, but Republicans/Conservatives DO indeed think that admitting you're wrong means you are weak. Which is why so few of them ever do it. Just look at the roasting John Kerry got for changing his mind.

[Froborr]

I've never heard of referring to one testament of the bible as "the Bible". Is that done?

In his introduction to The Monotheists, F.E. Peters explains his decision to use "the Bible" to refer only to the Jewish scriptures and "the New Testament" to refer to the Christian additions. I don't have it in front of me to quote, but basically his reasoning is that the term "the Old Testament" is purely a Christian one which Jews never use, while Christians *do* accept the term "New Testament". In discussion of Christianity, the Jewish texts only come up very rarely, and can be referred to by specific books.

Praline: To say that something is unconstitutional is not actually the end of debate in the U.S.; it simply means that it's going to take a lot more work if you want to change it. However, the process for doing so is neatly laid out in the Constitution itself. The main usefulness of this is that it prevents a brief moment of public insanity from creating long-lasting alterations in our system of government or freedom. (When it works, that is. The system isn't perfect, and particularly has a tendency to let things like the Patriot Act slip through -- something like it has been passed and eventually repealed and declared unconstitutional at least three times that I'm aware of).

And yes, you've got civil unions. On the other hand, you've got ASBOs, which would never be allowed here.

[Robb]

what have fundamentalist Christian voters been saying that they want?

I think it's not a bad guess to say that at least some of them want the end of the world. Fred's pointed out a few times the fervency with which many fundies track any event that's related to the prophecy scheme they subscribe to, and this is spelled out in even more detail in Skipping Towards Armageddon by Michael Standaert. He makes an excellent case for fundamentalists actively trying to bring about events of prophecy (through political action), while simultaneously declaring everyone should be wary of the end of the world.

For the most part, I'd say what fundamentalists *don't* want is much more clearly defined than what they do. I also look back on my fundy days in bewilderment as to what the whole point was.

[Tonio]

(I really want to know; I've never been able to articulate it myself, even when I was a fundy Christian).

Molly Ivins said that fundamentalists aren't evil, they're scared. I suspect that many of them don't believe their own rhetoric about gay marriage meaning the end of straight marriage and family, or of school prayer being a cure-all for society's ills. I'm not saying they're consciously lying. I'm saying that their sense of insecurity in the face of modernism runs so deep that they cannot articulate their fears in a logical way.

[Lauren]

the same kind of thinking underlies all three: some people are not entitled to the full rights of citizenship. That idea, whatever its manifestation, goes absolutely against the principles of democracy. -Praline

My point was that nobody is trying to scrap the Constitution. Total equal rights complement democratic government, but they are not a prerequisite for the same.

The best aspect of the US Constitution has been that it acts like a ratchet: once an incremental step has been taken to expand rights, it is very hard to undo, so that eventually freedoms accumulate and spread to everyone. At any point in time, the vast majority of the population is happy to leave things the way they are, whatever that means.

And as one who wishes the government would get out of the marriage business altogether, I hesitate to call marriage a "full right of citizenship." Cohabitation, yes. Privacy in the bedroom, absolutely. The right to maintain custody of your children outside of a "normal" living arrangement, for sure. But once those rights have been affirmed (and they more-or-less have) marriage is just a legal contract at a discount rate.

[jamoche]

But it's a legal contract you can't get any other way - what other legal contract provides for tax breaks, the right to see a person who's been hospitalised, the right not to testify in court against a person, etc?

[Froborr]

The tax breaks for marriage really ought to be dropped. The whole point of giving out tax breaks is to encourage socially positive behavior without requiring it, and I honestly don't see that marriage provides any benefits to anybody other than the couple themselves. I agree with jamoche, though, that marriage brings with it a number of rights that make it more than just an ordinary contract.

[Lauren]

Tax breaks are a fundamental right of citizenship? I thought they were a tool used by the government to encourage desired behaviors without compelling them.

Nevertheless, I would much rather that hospital visitation, tax benefits, and spousal immunity be revoked then see them more broadly applied.

[ninjanun]

You want hospital visitation and spousal immunity revoked?! Why?

[Spherical Time]

What about citizen benefits for immigrants married to citizens, Lauren? Why?

[Froborr]

I think -- at least, I hope -- that what Lauren's advocating is making these benefits available to all, not just marrieds. For example, you can make a list of who's to be allowed to visit you in the hospital, and the hospital must allow everyone on the list and bar everyone else (well, obvious exceptions like cops who need to question you and suchlike).

I actually disagree. I think it's socially useful to have a special category of relationships where the persons involved are treated, for certain legal purposes, as having special access to one another by default -- for example, automatically having parental rights regarding one another's children. I see no reason, since we've always called it marriage, not to keep calling it marriage. However, I think it should be extended to be open to any group of legally competent adults, regardless of their genders or how many of them there are, and it should be possible to break it effectively instantly, as long as the involved parties can agree on the disposition of previously shared property.

[alsafi]

Not to mention survivor's benefits--the thought that if I die, my partner will suddenly find herself below the poverty line is one that keeps me up nights. Or the fact that one of us might not be able to take off work to attend the other's funeral, since we don't qualify as close enough "kin" for bereavement purposes.

[Jeff]

As far as the Huck goes, well, I've been listening to the man for a decade now. I've seen how he governs. He is a theocrat, the whole deal.

Then how do explain him pardoning a rapist, apparently because one of the vicims was a friend of the Clintons?

===========================

Thanks for the clearance, Torture-Monkey!

Dance, torture-monkey, dance!

(Torture Monkeys could be a cool band name, though)

==============================

On the other hand, you've got ASBOs, which would never be allowed here.

ASBO's? Is that where you fire an arrow from your posterior?

[Lauren]

You want hospital visitation and spousal immunity revoked?! Why?

As specific rights pertaining only to the married, yeah, why not? Why should I be compelled to testify against a parent or a child but not against a spouse? What does special protection for spouses accomplish for society?

I'm not even sure I understand the hospital visitation rights issue, except as it pertains to a family restricting access to an unconcious patient. Which could happen to an unmarried heterosexual couple, too, or in any case where the patient and the closest relative don't get along. Hospitals ought to respect the wishes of patients in all cases, not just when they have legal documentation to back it up. But that's a patients-rights issue more than a GLBT-rights issue.

I really think what this country needs is a generic "I Consider This Person Family, Even Though There is No Biological Relationship" form. Useful for adult adoptions, step-siblings, cults, and same-sex couples alike.

And I consider it an injustice that the US does not recognize polygamous marriages from other countries, too.