Gems from Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion

I just finished skimming Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in today's historic decision legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the country. The following passages from that opinion are gems that I gleaned from this first reading.

"The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times."

"The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter."

"The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era."

"Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied."

"The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act."

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Today, I am proud to be an American!

God Doesn't Hate Gays, People Do

A lot of thoughts have been swirling around in my head for some time about this country we live in, what it means to be a minority in the "land of the free," the hate that seems to permeate sizable portions of our society, the fear mongers that pass for political leaders, and so-called "Christians" who would be the first to crucify Jesus all over again.*

These thoughts congealed into something yesterday when I read an anecdote about an incident that had happened in Tuesday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Despite all the coverage, I hadn't heard about it until I read a short essay in The New Yorker penned by Jeffrey Toobin. Here's the relevant passage:

There was a shocking, ugly moment during the argument of Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case, in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Right after Mary Bonauto, the lawyer challenging marriage bans in several states, completed her argument, a spectator rose from a back row and started screaming, “If you support gay marriage, you will burn in Hell!” As the man yelled, “It’s an abomination!,” guards carried him from the courtroom. That wasn’t the ugly part, though. In the quiet moment after the man was removed, as his shouts vanished into the hallway, Justice Antonin Scalia filled the silence with a quip. “It was rather refreshing, actually,” he said.

How is it possible that the senior associate justice on the United States Supreme Court, even considering the outrageousness of many of his comments in the past, could make such a statement in such a place at such a time? How indeed.

There was a time when I considered myself a part of America's majority. I am white. I am male. I grew up in a solid middle-class home. I was raised in one of America's dominant Christian denominations (Roman Catholicism). My ancestors had lived in what is now the United States since the earliest days of colonial America. I became well-educated. I never had to worry about being discriminated against because of my race, my religion or my national origin. I never had to worry about police brutality or poverty or being intimidated at the ballot box or being sent to the back of the bus.

I knew what "America" meant. I viewed it through the eyes of the majority, because I was part of the majority. Though I could try to empathize with those who were women or black or Asian or poor or ignorant or Jewish or Muslim, I didn't and couldn't have expected to understand what it meant to be part of a minority in America.

I understand now. At least to some extent.

Though I was always a part of one of America's most maligned and persecuted minorities, I was safe as along as I stayed in the closet. A few years ago, however, I decided I could no longer do that; and so I became a minority. And things changed. For the first time in my life, I viewed America differently.

America was not necessarily the land of the free that I had perceived it to be. America was not necessarily the land of equal rights that I had perceived it to be. All the myths in which I had once been so strongly invested were now the precinct of "them" - the people with all the rights, all the power, all the sense of entitlement; the people who defined "right" because they were in the majority and thus is was their prerogative. America looked different because I was different.

Many of the people in the majority project their sense of "right" onto God. It has always been thus throughout the history of the American Republic and indeed in the histories of those nations who peopled America. God was who the majority said he is, at least as far as it relates to America's civil religion; and our laws have historically been based in large part on what this majority said was their God's will. The Majority god ruled. And the majority was happy, content and too often smug as long as things remained this way.

All of the hoo-haa about religious freedom in the country today is, in my view, a reaction to the majority's projected image of God being challenged in ways they do not at all like. But the only thing threatened in America today respecting religious freedom is this image, a projection that has been used far too long by the majority to impose its will upon others. It is also a projection that has channeled hate, disgust and violence from people to their god and back onto American society. 

God doesn't hate gay people. People hate gay people, and they use their god to justify their hatred. 

This is the sentiment that was spewed by the "protestor" inside the Supreme Court. And it is also the sentiment that lay behind Justice Scalia's "joke." It is well known what Scalia's attitude toward "gay rights" has long been and that he is a "devout Catholic." (So is Pope Francis, but I daresay that he and Scalia are miles apart on this issue and their approach to it.) As Toobin wrote in his piece, "[T]here’s every reason to believe that Scalia more or less shared the protester’s view of the immorality of homosexuality, and that he regards the Court’s toleration of gay people as one of the great disasters of his nearly three decades as a Justice."

Scalia's remark jolted me. It reminded me that I am part of a minority that is despised in certain quarters (some of which are very powerful) of this nation. And it all, sooner or later, comes back to religion and the great God of the majority. 

But the truth remains: God doesn't hate gay people; people do.

_______________

* If the religious right's reaction to a number of Pope Francis' statements and initiatives is any indicator, it's a pretty good bet that Jesus would not be welcome in many places of worship in this country, and he certainly wouldn't we welcome in the what the religious-freedom advocates like to refer to as "the public square," where his views and level of discourse would be, I fear, not at all  welcome.

The Sound of Music, Indiana and Republican Presidential Hopefuls

The recent uproar about Indiana's "religious freedom law" has reminded me of a scene from The Sound of Music. Let me explain.

Since coming out, I have had occasions when I am reminded of some dialogue in The Sound of Music. Kurt comes to deliver a telegram, hoping to see Liesl. Instead, he is confronted by Captain von Trapp. Nervous and taken off guard, Kurt salutes von Trapp with the Nazi salute, "Heil Hitler." Nazi Germany has not yet taken over Austria via a referendum, but it is looming on the horizon.

Max Detweiler and Baroness von Schrader (Elsa) are with von Trapp. It is strongly hinted in the movie that Max is both Jewish and gay (with regard to the latter, his flamboyance and acerbic wit are dead give aways). The Captain is incensed and tells Kurt to get out. The following dialogue then ensues:

(Elsa) "Oh Georg, he's just a boy." (Captain)" Yes, and I'm just an Austrian. (Max) "What's going to happen's going to happen. Just make sure it doesn't happen to you." (Captain, incensed) "Max, don't you ever say that again!" (Max) "You know I have no political convictions. Can I help it if other people do?" (Captain) "Oh yes you can help it. You must help it."

Max was naive. If he had been a real person instead of a fictional character, he likely would have been gassed during the war, either for being a Jew or a homosexual or both. If he was lucky, he would have survived a horrific concentration camp ordeal. (If you're interested, read The Pink Triangle. The Nazi War Against Homosexuals, or I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror). It was in Max's best interest to have political convictions and not support a regime that meant death for him.

I have been puzzled over the last few years at how LGBT individuals could continue to support the Republican party. Granted, the GOP does not want to actually kill gays, though there are plenty of people on the Christian and Tea Party right who have publicly espoused this "final solution" to the gay problem. Google it.

Which brings me back to Indiana. Here's what a United States Senator and presidential hopeful (Ted Cruz) had to say about the controversy:

"Governor Pence is holding the line to protect religious liberty in the Hoosier State. Indiana is giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across this country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties. I’m proud to stand with Mike, and I urge Americans to do the same."

Apparently, when the personal liberties of an LGBT individual are attacked, it's ok.

Here's what the "moderate" "establishment" GOP presidential candidate (Jeb Bush) had to say:

"I think Gov. [Mike] Pence has done the right thing. I think once the facts are established, people aren’t going to see this as discriminatory at all.”

Hmmm.

Senator Rand Paul, who is expected to announce his candidacy shortly, recently had this to say at a prayer breakfast:

“The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government.”

Again, hmmm. 

So again, I wonder: how can any LGBT person support the Republican Party or even passively ignore the party's stance toward our community?

"...  I have no political convictions. Can I help it if other people do?"

"Oh yes you can help it. You must help it."

It Took a Woman

It took a woman to acknowledge that homosexuals are human.

There is so, so, so much that could be written about what leaders of the Mormon Church said during the past week about "religious freedom" and (oh yeah, we almost forgot) non-discrimination toward LGBT people. Most of that - at least by me - would be negative. But I'm not going to go there ... much.

The thing that most impressed me about all that has happened in the past week was that it took a woman - Neill Marriott, 2nd Counselor in the General Young Women's Presidency and a member of the Church's Public Affairs Committee - to say what none of the three apostles who were involved could or did say: gay people are real and they have been wronged:

"[The gay rights] movement arose after centuries of ridicule, persecution and even violence against homosexuals. Ultimately, most of society recognized that such treatment was simply wrong, and that such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should not depend on a person’s sexual orientation."  

Two sentences. Thank you, Sister Marriott, for saying what the men couldn't (or wouldn't) apparently say. Though it is only two sentences in a sea of moralizing, at least you let us into the room.