Wednesday, October 27, 2010

On Rep. Ed Clere, gay marriage and various rights to life.

More than once during the past two years, it has been suggested by State Representative Ed Clere's (R-72) supporters that I might gauge the veracity of his political self-description (as a non-ideological public servant for all his constituents, not merely the ruling party) at least in part by his ongoing, principled refusal to sign a pledge of support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I am perfectly willing to do so, with a necessary caveat.

As next week’s election draws near, much has been written and gossiped about Rep. Clere’s and the author’s seeming inability to “agree to disagree” on political matters. Much of what has been said is incorrect or conveniently omits facts, but that’s the way it sometimes goes in a small town. It also is both sad and fully emblematic of the willfully spiteful times in which we’re living.

Recognizing this, I have edited and re-edited this essay so as to phrase it in as non-confrontational a way as possible, given my predilection for polemics, and while at the same time not ducking issues that are very important to me – whether I’m a constituent, taxpayer, citizen, voter or any other label one cares to affix.

I’ve asked myself this question: If I had no prior personal experience with Rep. Clere, no back story, and no history … if I did not know him at all, except as a name in the newspaper … would I still write this essay the same way? The answer being “yes,” it is then safe to proceed.

Accordingly, whither Rep. Clere’s refusal to sign a pledge of support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

Given the famously virulent theocratic fascism practiced by numerous of his House GOP contemporaries, Rep. Clere’s stance surely has made political life slightly difficult (in his relations with them), and his refusal is commendable (for his constituents) insofar as the considerable surface demerits of a demeaning and divisive pledge are concerned.

Good for him, but only as far as it goes, and there’s the rub, because it needs to go further.

Pending clarification and elaboration, mere refusal to sign the pledge doesn’t necessarily indicate support for the notion of marriage irrespective of sexual orientation as a human right, which I, and many others, support. After reading Rep. Clere’s explanation of his pledge position, as recently proffered in the Courier-Journal’s campaign capsule, it seems legitimate to examine this under-reported aspect of the campaign a bit more closely.

If one is to judge solely by Rep. Clere’s comments about the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment as presented in this article, his position appears to consciously sidestep the concise issue of record: Gay marriage as a pillar of fundamental civil rights in a modern, enlightened civil society.

Instead, Rep. Clere seems unwilling to address the larger issues of fundamental civil rights that preface the very subject of gay marriage. He offers a stolid, utilitarian explanation for his refusal to sign the pledge: There must be legislative prioritization, and the truly important matters up for discussion rightly usurp those secondary topics that might “distract” legislators.

Speaking only for myself, I must emphatically disagree. Human rights never should be considered secondary. Not now, not ever.

I find it difficult to abide such triage when it comes to basic rights and freedoms. I find it hard to accept that the civil rights and human dignity of real, living, breathing people must be postponed indefinitely while we confuse property tax rates with freedom. I’m willing to concede that there are arguments to be made for and against gay marriage rights, but I cannot endorse deferring the discussion. Not now, not ever.

What’s more, amid the prevailing claim that legislative imperatives about the economy trump social concerns, the rights of which I speak surely are something that money cannot buy – not now, not ever.

I believe that without constant vigilance in regard to civil rights and personal freedoms, the whole historic American experiment is reduced to a form of base capitalist greed supposedly blessed by one or the other unverifiable God.

And so, shall we patiently wait just a bit longer for human rights to be magnanimously bestowed by one’s undistracted betters?

I’m sorry, but no. A cursory review of American history reveals just how scandalously long these cynical waiting periods can last, and the lengths to which injustice can endure, when the struggle is deemed insufficiently “focused” by the leadership class, and when it doesn’t suit the fashion tastes and comfort levels of a privileged society, precisely the one not afflicted on a constant, grinding, daily basis by dehumanizing discrimination.

Mythology aside, this is America’s most shameful legacy, and indeed, when it comes to distraction, institutionalized discrimination often has been, and remains, buttressed by the sort of intolerant Christian religion widely practiced in the Hoosier state, which is why the rigorous separation of church doctrine from the secular state is the single best solution to the problem.

And yet, unfortunately, I digress. All apologies.

In fairness, Indiana Republicans keen to avoid considerations of civil rights and personal freedoms in this context have a sizeable legion of allies across the aisle in the form of Indiana Democrats, who generally aren't Democrats, and who are fond of introducing themselves with the self-emasculating disclaimer, “But I’m conservative, too.” Indiana Democrats have not distinguished themselves to any appreciable extent on this issue.

To be honest, the Dems have been cowering knaves, too, and such is the faux, damning “bounty” of alikeness that we reap by having a grand total of two major parties to comprise a dysfunctional political system – and no real choice at all offered by either.

Straight up: It is not my aim to unduly attack or smear Rep. Clere, because as I’m endeavoring to make clear, the looming specter of a discriminatory gay marriage amendment clearly discredits both parties, and exposes persistent educational inadequacies and pitiful superstition among the general populace.

I will observe, however, that Rep. Clere, who seeks always to present himself as a technocrat and non-partisan policy wonk, is openly willing to take a clearer stand on another controversial social issue, one frequently and lamentably purloined by the type of wild-eyed ideologues that he surely is not: Witness his recent “Right to Life” snail mailing.

In the mailer, perhaps the first such political missive financed by Rep. Clere’s campaign itself, as opposed to the steady stream of mercenary slimings from monied interests elsewhere (and, regrettably, coming from both “sides), we learn that he intends to speak for the unborn, and accordingly, has been endorsed by Indiana Right to Life.

It would seem, then, that gay marriage rights are subservient to the economy, but a public commitment to what plainly is an anti-abortion stance is not subservient to the economy.

As such, it is my sincere hope that somewhere down the line, after various legislative prioritizing is finished (if ever), Rep. Clere forthrightly and succinctly states his position on the legal right of women to have an abortion. Rep. Clere is sworn to uphold the law, and I have absolutely no qualms that he will, except that upholding an existing law is hardly the same thing as refraining from support for efforts to change it.

When, as in the case of Rep. Clere’s rationale for not signing the gay marriage pledge, he displays a preference for touting seeming compromise, but to the convenient exclusion of the crux of the issue at hand, then I’m compelled to ask aloud those questions that might have otherwise remained silent.

I’ll reiterate: Civil rights and personal freedoms do not have the slightest thing to do with money, taxes, the state of the economy, what’s showing at the multiplex, or one’s personal religious beliefs.

Human rights and individual dignities are not negotiable conditions to be expediently deferred until we’re all wealthier, happier, saved, or recovered from our raging prejudicial demons thanks to pyschotherapy.

Rather, civil rights and personal freedoms must be established and maintained before all the rest, simply because they preface all the rest.

It's possible that Rep. Clere might actually agree with me on this point. If so, it is my earnest hope that he supports a woman’s right to choose, and permits his view on gay marriage to evolve from the safety of the breach he currently occupies to a place more pro-active in nature. I fully support trashing the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, and I am for enacting the right of gays to marry, secularly, without the interference of organized religion ... and politics.

Here’s the link to Weidenbener’s C-J piece, and the relevant passage.

... If Republicans win the House, lawmakers likely will face another vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. When the GOP controlled the House and Senate in 2005, the proposal passed.

But a constitutional amendment must pass two separately elected legislatures to be put on the ballot for ratification. When Democrats took control of the House, Speaker Pat Bauer of South Bend said it was unnecessary because Indiana already had a law banning same-sex marriage and the issue never came to a vote of the full chamber.

The issue is not part of the House Republican agenda, but caucus leader Brian Bosma of Indianapolis said he wouldn't block a marriage amendment proposal if it was introduced.

Unlike many Republicans, Clere has not signed a pledge promising to vote for the constitutional amendment.

“I believe in marriage. I support marriage. I am married,” Clere said. “But we have a lot on our agenda and I think we have to make sure we keep the focus on protecting Hoosier families first and foremost by passing a responsible balanced budget and a lot of the other items on the caucus agenda.”

The marriage amendment could distract from that work, he said.

42 comments:

Iamhoosier said...

Slightly off topic:
I found the flyer that I received yesterday by the Demo's against Ed Clere to be as bad or worse than anything the GOP has done.

I find Mr. Clere's "Nixionian" tendencies to be very troubling but that anti Clere flyer was disgusting.

Iamhoosier said...

Damn typing. "Nixonian"

Since I'm back, this posting is a fine example of your skill. Please keep more of these coming.

The New Albanian said...

I agree, and will scan & post it when I'm back home this afternoon.

Kate Caufield said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kate Caufield said...

Sorry about the delete- noticed a spelling error. Can't have that. :)
________________________________

"I’m willing to concede that there are arguments to be made for and against gay marriage rights..."

I'm not willing to concede that there are any logical arguments to be made against gay marriage rights because quite frankly, THERE ARE NONE. There is not one single reason that cannot be tossed into one of two funnels: 1. It's icky, or 2. The interpretation of the bible that I read says it's wrong. Both are subjective and as such have no place in law.

If such an amendment were to pass in Indiana, you can bet I'll be using my hard earned vacation days to speak out against it.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Well written as always but, ultimately, I think you're asking Clere to employ faculties he doesn't possess.

Meatbe said...

A very well written piece indeed. I would be interested in knowing, for comparison purposes, where Shane stands on these issues as well.

RememberCharlemagne said...

snittersnit

If nothing is wrong with gay marriage where would you draw a line to define marriage?

Is polygamy wrong?

What about incestuous marriage;
First cousins, fathers, daughters, sisters, or brothers.

If society would allow the institution of marriage to be between same sex consenting adults how could objections be raises against marriages listed above?

To make a bad analogy, the Simpson’s had an episode where Springfield passed gay marriage only to attract an economic benefit only to have Homer marry anything and everything.

Karen B said...

Why is it that gay marriage opponents so often resort to comparing a marriage between two consenting, unrelated adults to incestuous relationships? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

As for polygamous marriage, that's even sanctioned in the Bible, so if you're a thumper of said book, I don't see why you'd have an argument against that. Frankly, if the parties involved are all consenting adults (read: Not 14 yr old girls forced into marrying 50 year old leches), then I don't really give a rip. What goes on in the bedroom of consenting adults doesn't begin to affect me or my straight marriage in any way shape or form.

There is an actual medical argument for prohibiting incestuous marriages/marriages between people too closely related, that being that children born of such relationships are more likely to have genetic problems. There is no such medical argument against consenting adults of no relation getting married.

snittersnit's right that the arguments against gay marriage come down to "ew" or religious based screeds. Inter-racial marriage was once banned using the same arguments from "slippery slope" to "the Bible says not to." I don't see how gay marriage is all that different.

Iamhoosier said...

Looks like you got some answers, RemChar. It is your turn. What is wrong with gay marriage?

RememberCharlemagne said...

My argument has nothing to do with the Bible.

The reason people make the argument about incestuous marriages is because there are people who are advocating for such changes and much more.

Yes, gay marriage is different from polygamy and other types of defined marriages but the issue is not just gay marriage but the re-defining of marriage.


I am aware of the tax reasons and employee benefit packages, but they can be changed. You don't need to be married to pursue a life of liberty and happiness.

If you’re not marrying for religious reasons why would you want or need to get married?

Kate Caufield said...

So, you're willing to change all of the laws AROUND marriage- or couples- like employee benefits, tax laws- but, the easiest and arguably cheaper option of legalizing same sex marriage (thus eliminating the need for all of the above), you're not willing to touch. Why? What are you so opposed to?

Why does it matter to you the reasons someone would or wouldn't want to get married? If they choose to enter into a lawful union that affords them protections and benefits (and their children) because they both like pickled turnips and want to spend the rest of their lives eating pickled turnips together, what does their reasoning matter to you?

As a side note, a friend of mine made the point recently that gay people don't make gay kids- straight people do. Good point, my friend.

RememberCharlemagne said...

The defining of marriage goes beyond gay marriage and just addressing one issue doesn't address all others.

What about common law marriages shouldn't they receive the same benefits?

Iamhoosier said...

Marriage is legal matter, not a religious one. At least in the US.

Two people stand in a church, in front of 10 ministers for 24 hours and declare their undying love for each other and God. They are not married unless the proper government paperwork is done.

RememberCharlemagne said...

Why does the government have anything to do with religious marriages then?

G Coyle said...

RemC - Religious marriage is just that. The government witnesses a legal contract called civil marriage. The big redefiner of marriage is obviously divorce. Why don't you work at ending divorce if you really care about the religious institution of marriage?

RememberCharlemagne said...

it's all the same Gina

Kate Caufield said...

But RC, it's not the same- otherwise, this entire conversation wouldn't be an issue.

Iamhoosier said...

Technically, they don't. And shouldn't. From a legal perspective it's the paperwork. As I stated above, you can have all the religious CEREMONY that you want but you ain't married until the government paperwork is done. The only real connection is the legal power the government confers to ministers to legally sign the marriage papers.

Ask yourself. Who is married? The couple I described above or a couple who just go to the courthouse and completes the proper paperwork?

Matthew Nash said...

I think anyone that wants to should have the right to be married. They deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us

Matthew Nash said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RememberCharlemagne said...

lam. So why does the government concern itself with marriage.


Today I have been thinking about marriage in general, aside from religion. Why would someone want to marry - other than tax reasons?

Wasn't marriage historically a form of slavery? A legal ownership over females by males?


BTW, Good post Roger well written

Iamhoosier said...

Legal contract which contains certain rights and responsibilities. Also, some "controlling of the masses" features such as incest.

The problem is when religion gets involved. No, that's not quite right. When the people's interpretation of religion gets involved, things get more screwed up than even governmental bodies can do on their own.

RememberCharlemagne said...

"Legal contract which contains certain rights and responsibilities"

Government doesn't need marriage to achieve this.

so why does government concern itself with marriage?


Why not abolish civil marriage?

RememberCharlemagne said...

What rights and privileges are granted by the state for marriage?

lafyetteblues said...

I'm upset because I'm single, never been married have no kids, and I don't get a tax break. I'm being discriminated by the government for being single?

Government needs to get out of marriage, take away tax breaks, that way no one can say foul.

Maybe the government gave tax break to people so they would have an incentive to procreate?

More Americans means more people to tax? More people for the army?

When Steve and John get married they don't create any revenue for the U.S. government.

lafyetteblues said...

It's not an issue of religion or anyone's interpretation of it, the modern area started several hundred years ago, things have progressed since than.

People can create any form of ceremonies that they feel spiritually linked to another person.

It's the fact that government gives incentives to married couples. That is unfair to anyone cannot not get married according to the state.

Instead of trying to weed out what is a union in order to give equal treatment to a certain group of people they need to get ride of government's involvement into people's personal lives, or at least as what kind of partner you want, or if you want a partner at all.

Karen B said...

Beyond tax privileges you previously cited, there are inheritance rights and rights to direct medical care when one spouse is incapacitated. Hospital visitation is another oft-cited privilege of spouses. Hospitals otherwise can deny visitation rights unless two people are married.

Frankly, I'd be perfectly fine if the government got out of the business of recognizing religious ceremonies and shifted merely to registering/recognizing civil partnerships regardless of the genders involved. If a Church/Temple/Mosque/whatever wanted to perform a ceremony and recognize a relationship in the context of the sacred, that would be entirely up to that Church/Temple/Mosque/whatever.

RememberCharlemagne said...

Karen, I've heard the hospital argument before but that's the hospital's policy not law.

Hospital's need to change their policy not only for gay people but all people and when I've heard this argument I haven't heard of any examples.

You don't need to be married to inherit anything just sign a will and testament.

Why other than tax discrimination do people need civil unions? There is no need for it. There are no rights and privileges given to married people that other non-married people have other than taxes.

If government's concern for marriage and civil unions is procreation based it opens whole other arguments.

RememberCharlemagne said...

I digress with hesitancy, if marriage is rooted in slavery, and slavery was abolished, and there is a separation of church and state, shouldn't civil and religious marriages recognized by the government be abolished?

Karen B said...

Inheritance via will is always guaranteed. But in the absence of a will, there is no right of or automatic inheritance between unmarried persons. Sure, you can say everyone should have a will, but shit happens. Marriage confers next of kin status. You also ignored my point about making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse. That's not merely hospital policy, that's law.

RememberCharlemagne said...

What about power of attorney?

You don't need to be married to give someone power of attorney.

If someone can sign a civil marriage contract they can sign a will and testament and power of attorney.

Can someone sue of a marriage contract?

Why does anyone need to be civily married?

RememberCharlemagne said...

What about Head of House Hold?

Can one partner be Head of House Hold in a relationship thereby avoid the tax discrimination and take away the only arguement for gay marriage?

Karen B said...

Again, shit happens outside of people's planned, regimented lives. Forming spousal partnerships means you don't have to secure an attorney and sign 15 separate, different contracts to ensure the various rights or privileges you're talking about.

Honestly, this isn't worth further discussion on my part. You've clearly made up your mind, and when questioning positions, you seem to either move goal posts or ignore points made. If you want to outright abolish all spousal partnerships, civil unions, marriages, what have you, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I personally see societal benefit in stable spousal partnerships regardless of gender. I do see lafyetteblues's point about the unfairness of tax breaks for married couples vs singles. Beyond that, I'll bid you good night, RC.

RememberCharlemagne said...

"You've clearly made up your mind, and when questioning positions, you seem to either move goal posts or ignore points made. If you want to outright abolish all spousal partnerships, civil unions, marriages, what have you, you're certainly entitled to that opinion."

Most if not all of what I said I wouldn't consider it my opinion, but an attempt to create discussion in response to snittensnit's comment that there are no logical arguments against gay marriage.

All I know is the issue is more complex than most people attribute to it. I can tell from your responses that you are a thoughtful and caring fellow human being that cares for his/her fellow human. The world is better off because of it. Can society reach consensus on social matters or is it a constant struggle of change vs conservatism over long periods of time? All I know is change seems to win out. Have a good weekend Karen.

Iamhoosier said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Iamhoosier said...

Are you advocating for the abolition of civil marriage? Or, just avoiding answering the question? It's kind of hard to tell.

RememberCharlemagne said...

Which question are you refering to.

Kate Caufield said...

Forgive my ignorance here...but, one thing not discussed is any children produced by civil marriage. RC, can you address this? If you feel that there's no merit to civil marriage (even for the sake of argument), how would dissolution of all civil marriages impact their related laws and rights of children within those marriages? (Does that make sense?)

Iamhoosier said...

Gay marriage.

RememberCharlemagne said...

snittersnit it makes complete sense.

There is the issue of legal custody and rights of their parents with regard to their children.

In today's society having children out of wedlock is not uncommon. The law doesn't require marriage to have children.
If parent can't decide for themselves what to do with their children the courts decide for them all the time.

Mark, my position here has been there is an argument to be made against gay marriage even when you take religion out of it and that the issue is greater than gay marriage within itself regarding civil rights.

lafyetteblues said...

Didn't former president George W. Bush use Gay Marriage as a way to avoid questions about the war in Iraq?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlwk8rh425Y

go to 5:09 to see.