A Musing About The Minor But Predictable Gordon Howie Civil Unions (Or Not) Imbroglio

On Saturday, Pat Powers published two posts about United States Senate candidate Gordon Howie's views on same-gender marriage. In the first post, he does his best to place Mike Rounds, Powers's preferred candidate, to Howie's right.

"Apparently Gordon Howie is closer to RIck Weiland and Larry Pressler on the issue of gay marriage than Mike Rounds."

Getting to Howie's right on anything requires political maneuvering that, were it a military effort, would require the combined military genius of Sun Tzu, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and George Patton. As a political matter, one should question the efficacy of attempting to move to Howie's right, but that's a subject for a different post.

Perpetually angry Bob Ellis gave his obligatory angry retort: the "liberal media" and RINOs have written "defamation articles" "to distort what they hate," which involves marriage, family, and apparently, although Ellis doesn't write about them in the post, puppies, angels, and apple pie.

Ellis then gets to the matter at hand.

Sure enough, when I read the articles and carefully separate the quotes from the author’s “interpretation” of what was said, I find that nowhere in the article was Gordon Howie quoted saying he supported “civil unions” (which are nothing more than mimicry of marriage), much less supporting “gay marriage” (i.e. counterfeit marriage)....

...

Howie supports–as I do–allowing homosexuals continued access to the same rights that every American enjoys regardless of sexual practice and proclivity.  In other words, if a homosexual wants to leave his property to his homosexual partner upon his death, that is a legal right any American enjoys, so why should the same right be denied to the homosexual?  If a homosexual wants his homosexual partner to be able to visit him in the hospital, and he makes prior legal notice of that–just as any American can do–then why should he be denied that right?

Coincidentally, Rod Dreher has a post this morning on the American Conservative website that is more thoughtful than Ellis's and points to some major problems with Ellis's conservative agenda that purports to mix Christianity with political action. Dreher writes,

1. Traditional Christians should quit lying to themselves (ourselves) about the possibility that politics can adequately address the core problems we identify in American culture. It’s not that politics are inconsequential, but rather that what can be achieved through politics is limited. It always was, of course, but now it is especially so. . . .

Do we think we are Christians because God has blessed us with material things and liberty? What use have we made of these blessings? Because we build megachurches, bishops’ palaces, McMansions for our own homes? Is it possible that God is judging us? I ask of all Christians, not just traditional ones? I ask it of myself.

2. If the core of our problems are moral and spiritual, then we must build the institutions and communal structures that will address those problems, and attempt to solve them. No politician, Republican or Democrat, saved anyone’s soul. Again, this is not to say that our religious beliefs do not have political consequences. They do. But it is to say that we have to keep straight in our minds what our goals are, and what the means to reach them are.

3. As a Christian and conservative, I have become interested in voting for the candidate who can most be trusted to work for the maximal protection of religious liberty and an autonomous sphere within which traditionalist Christians (and others) can work to build our own institutions (churches, schools, voluntary associations) that enable us to live out in common our conception of the moral life. This means that I will support a candidate who favors gay marriage rights if I believe that that candidate can be trusted to fight for religious liberty, and if that candidate is the most viable rightward candidate.

Dreher, I think points to three things that all voters need to think about as we enter the campaign season that will be full of short TV ads and charges and counter-charges of lying, defamation, and despising all that is good and holy.

First, Americans over most of my lifetime have done a rather poor job of "adequately address[ing] the core problems we identify in American culture" and have lived under the mantra, spoken or unspoken: "It's the economy, Stupid.". Since Madonna sang about  being a material girl in a material world in the 1980s, we haven't even bothered to mock ourselves and our emphasis on securing the material at the expense of nearly everything else.

Second, politicians have really lost the ability to think long term. Everything is about issues, tactics, and the horse race. Voters trust them to deliver on their promises at the voters' peril. More importantly, the difficulty Madison enunciated the Federalist 51 remains: humans are not angels.

Third, focusing on the hot button issues at the expense of the bigger issue, in this case preserving religious liberty, is counterproductive. Also, going for an all or nothing political approach is likely to gain the latter.

One wonders what the political and social landscape would look like now if, in the 1990s, Ellis and his conservative cohorts had pushed for a law that extends to gay and lesbian couples the civil benefits he claims to support with the caveat that churches could marry or not marry anyone they chose.

I don't have the answers, and I don't know where the lines should be drawn, but Dreher's approach makes a lot more sense than Ellis's

A Post Wherein I Express My Disappointment At Being Unable To Watch A Political Train Wreck In Real Time

I want to be a real political  blogger like Heidelberger and Powers. In order to do that I need to cover a live political event. Besides, I think I might enjoy watching a slow motion train wreck.

Like the national Republican party, South Dakota's GOP has a country club/business uber alles faction, a religious conservative faction, and a libertarian faction.

Yesterday's decision by six same-sex couples to challenge South Dakota's laws and constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage brings divisions between South Dakota's religious conservatives and libertarians into sharp focus.

Ken Santema gives the libertarian perspective:

An important concept in America the right for all citizens to be treated equally under the law. Political activists from all perspectives use this concept to advocate for their beliefs. As a libertarian I believe this means that any law created must apply to all citizens equally and special ‘classes’ of people would be unconstitutional. A more authoritarian person would believe this concept means the government has to use its power to create equal outcomes for all citizens. Ironically both viewpoints should theoretically see same-sex marriage in a similar manner: reserving the right to marry to one subset of the citizenry creates a special class and is therefore unconstitutional. . . .

The legal benefits become apparent last summer when the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was found to be a violation of the US Constitution. At that time I noted that DOMA was passed, in part, to prevent people who were in a same-sex marriage or civil union from receiving federal benefits. Now those same-sex couples that are legally married by the State will be allowed access to the same federal benefits and welfare programs that other married citizens enjoy. That is the only part of the expansion of marriage I truly dislike: it will lead to an expansion of federal benefits and entitlements to more people. Yet as distasteful as I find the current entitlement policies in DC, I find it even more distasteful to outright arbitrarily classify citizens based upon the religious beliefs of some Americans. Perhaps this expansion of the entitlement state will now force social conservatives to get the government out of the business of marriage. I doubt it, but I can always hold out a little bit of hope.

Santema may be an outlier, but unless South Dakota's Republican party is an island unto itself, there's little reason to believe that a not unsubstantial number of the state's Republicans share his libertarian leanings.

The religious conservatives are royally pissed off markedly less sanguine about this legal turn of events. Bob Ellis, the angriest man in the South Dakota blogosphere, contends:

You didn't seriously think homosexual activists would be happy with their partial Supreme Court-awarded victory over marriage, did you? You didn’t think anything less than the total eradication of what is good would appease them, did you?

Homosexual activists have been threatening for some time to attack marriage in South Dakota by going to another state and counterfeiting marriage, then returning the South Dakota to attack marriage here. Now they have finally pulled the trigger on their plan. . . .

Because homosexual activists have had marriage in their crosshairs for several years, the people of the overwhelming majority of the states took the extra steps of defining and spelling out in law what human beings have instinctively understood for thousands of years (that marriage takes a man and a woman).  Allowing these vicious activists to counterfeit marriage and render meaningless the constitutions of multiple states is absolutely unconscionable and should not be entertained even for a second by rational, moral people.  This is an attack on liberty and our republican form of government, as much as it is an attack on the institution of marriage and the moral fabric of our society. Our constitution and our government belongs to “we the people,” not to narcissistic activists and tyrannical oligarchs in black robes; self-government is not their personal plaything.

Pastors and good people all across the state of South Dakota should rise up and demand that Representative Kristi Noem and Senator John Thune make it clear in public on television that we are prepared to pull the trigger on any judicial activist who would attack marriage, the will of the people, and the South Dakota Constitution, and impeached them as is our right and obligation under the U.S. Constitution. It should be made clear that the U.S. House will prefer articles of impeachment, and by the time those articles reach the Senate, it will probably be in Republican hands next year to carry out the full impeachment of said judicial activist judge.

Or shall we just slink away like impotent cowards and allow radical Leftists to make a mockery of the Republican Party, the conservative movement, democracy, the rule of law, the South Dakota Constitution, the United States Constitution, Christianity, and the very Creator who created humanity and established marriage as between a man and a woman?

Some South Dakota Republicans, Ellis chief among them, hold the party's platform at a level usually reserved for sacred not secular texts. Seeing these two factions argue about the marriage plank in the platform while watching the business faction trying to determine which position will earn them the greatest profit would have created some fun blogging opportunities. Unfortunately, I have a work commitment.  I suppose I could see if the Democrats give out credentials to bloggers. Demolition derbies are almost as fun as train wrecks.

Holy Manchurian Lesbians, Batman!

Reasons may exist to oppose civil same-sex marriages. Ross Douthat has argued forcefully, intelligently, and coherently against it but concedes the battle is lost. Douthat also contends that Christians and social conservatives need to distinguish between being disadvantaged and being discriminated against. Discussing an exchange between Andrew Sullivan, the man Douthat deems "gay marriage’s intellectual progenitor" and American Conservative blogger Rod Dreher, Douthat writes,

Since Sullivan wrote the post quoted above, he and Rod Dreher have been having an increasingly hostile exchange about how justified religious conservatives are in worrying/complaining about legal disfavor and cultural pressure, with Sullivan complaining about “the hysteria and self-pity among those who, for centuries, enjoyed widespread endorsement for the horrible mistreatment of gay people.”

It’s a good line, with real bite. I can’t promise Sullivan that religious conservatives will conduct themselves with salt-of-the-earth optimism rather than self-pity, and I certainly can’t wish away institutional Christianity’s past and present sins.

I don't know how all religious conservatives will react, but I can say for certain that Bob Ellis will not "conduct himself with salt-of-the-earth optimism."

Responding to a Rapid City Journal report that "Nancy Robrahn and Jennie Rosenkranz, who have been together for more than 30 years" will endeavor to overturn South Dakota's ban on same-sex marriage, Ellis asserts that Robrahn and Rosenkranz have been "waiting in the wings to assault marriage and family in South Dakota." This assault is part of "radical homosexual agenda" filled with "clear malevolent intent" and enabled by an "apostate 'church." The apostates are assisted by  RINOs in the state legislature who  allow this "strategic plan" to "attack marriage, family, freedom and normality" to proceed with "only a tweak in strategy."

Ellis apparently gets his talking points from the back-cover blurbs of Dan Brown novels. Let's be clear,the idea that these two women decided to live together for the past thirty years for the express purpose of instituting same-sex marriage in South Dakota is laughable unless one has spent the past few months sitting next to the ghost of Joesph McCarthy and watching The Manchurian Candidate on a continuous loop.

 If these women were engaging in a similar strategy to overturn the Affordable Care Act, Ellis would likely view these women as "maiden aunts" who deserve the love and respect of all. More importantly, the "traditional" view of marriage was being challenged before the Pharisees asked Jesus if it is proper for a man to"put away his wife."

Finally, I have always had trouble with the Moral Majority's, the Religious Right's, or self-proclaimed Conservative Christians' rhetoric. They seem to ignore an important Biblical injunction:

3 Do not put your trust in princes,
    in human beings, who cannot save.
4 When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;
    on that very day their plans come to nothing.

No amount of hysteria from Ellis or anyone else will change that fact. Instead, Ellis should follow Douthat's advice:

Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.

It might also be good for all of us to frequently read the rest of Psalm 146:

7 He upholds the cause of the oppressed
    and gives food to the hungry.
The Lord sets prisoners free,
8     the Lord gives sight to the blind,
the Lord lifts up those who are bowed down,
    the Lord loves the righteous.
9 The Lord watches over the foreigner
    and sustains the fatherless and the widow,
    but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.

Taking up those causes as our own should keep all of us from hyperventilating.

If You Thought Gay Marriage Caused Controversy. . . .

I think there's more to come and the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth will become more pronounced.

Germany now has a legal definition for a third gender:

Starting this November, German parents will be able to select male, female, or “indeterminate” when filling out their newborn’s birth certificate. This means that parents won’t have to label their baby’s gender, thereby allowing those born with intersex characteristics to make a decision later in life. Or not.

The new law, which goes into effect on November 1, was passed back in May, but has only now started getting widespread attention — a mere six weeks after Australia became the first country in the world to introduce legal guidelines on gender recognition. Back in July, the country added “intersex” and other gender designations to official documents, like passports.

An intersex person is someone who has a variation in sex characteristics, including chromosomes and genitals that don’t allow them to be identified neatly as either male or female.

Germany apparently trails Sweden when it comes to recognizing this third gender. The Swedes have introduced a gender neutral personal pronoun:

And in an effort to work towards yet even greater levels of gender equality, Sweden now wants to do it through the channel of linguistic gender-neutrality. A good number of forward-looking Swedes have determined that government and society should no longer recognize any legal distinctions between the sexes. To that end, they have officially introduced the new gender-neutral pronoun, "hen," to the vernacular. To make it all the more official, they added it to the country's National Encylopedia and defined it as a "proposed gender-neutral personal pronoun instead of he [han in Swedish] and she [hon]."

I think it may be time to move to a small cabin in the woods with a big pile of books. When these changes are proposed in the United States, and make no mistake, they will be, I'm afraid the debates about marriage that now seem heated will suddenly appear as banal as dinner party small talk.

Get Thee To A Tech School. . .

. . . for a good ROI that is.

Payscale has listed the colleges and universities that provide the best return on investment (ROI) in 2012. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSMT) came in 25th, right behind Princeton. Over 30 years, a SDSMT grad can expect to earn $1,228,000 on an $85,830 investment for an annual ROI of 9.7%.

In 2012, Black Hills State University provided a negative ROI without financial aid.  Over 30 years a BHSU graduate will lose about $17, 500.

 SDSMT has recently hired a new president,  Heather Wilson, a former New Mexico congresswoman who has a record of being less than friendly to the LGBT community. Given the minor dust up caused by this hire, the biggest question posed by these numbers may be whether SDSMT will have the same or better ranking  five years from now.

How's This Same Sex Marriage Evolution Going To Play With The South Dakota Republican Base?

Some South Dakota Republicans have have been kvetching that the Republican party and its candidates have not been Republican enough. They also vociferously also oppose same-sex marriage.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has before it a draft resolution that seems to repeat the standard Republican position that marriage should be solely between one man and one woman.

A group of self-described young conservatives has deemed the resolution 'objectionable" and claim that it "offends most Americans." They further assert that Republicans should not "hypocritically support this intrusion of Big Government into the private and peaceful lives of our family members, friends, and neighbors" before concluding:

As young conservatives, we call on the members of the Republican National Committee to dismiss this resolution out of hand and save the Party from further marginalization. Instead, we should look to the leadership of elected leaders like Senators Portman and Kirk and Representatives Ros-Lehtinen and Hanna who are already leading the way to a stronger and more consistent conservative movement

Two of the signatories are S.E. Cupp and Meghan McCain, hardly invisible players in conservative circles.

I expect that the RNC will take the Liz Cheney route and announce that the marriage issue must happen on a state by state basis. Federalism has long been a Republican safe fallback position. In fact, I believe some Republicans have added "Blessed be those who let the states decide" in the margins of their Bibles next to the Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

On a related note, I doubt if Cheney will get any questions about her stance when she speaks in Rapid City later this month. I would like to see a poll to learn if most conference-goers will agree with her stand about the State Department policy offering benefits to same-sex partners, but I doubt that will happen. Agenda 21 and Sharia Law seem to be far weightier issues in some conservative circles.. Perhaps they the conferees will be spending most of their time discussing how the 2nd Amendment was never meant to apply to jihadists.

Quotation Of The Day: Tim Johnson On Same-Sex Marriage Watch

From David Weigel at Slate:

Carper's evolution reduces the Senate's number of gay marriage Democratic hold-outs to seven: Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson, Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor. In what order will they evolve? To know this we need to put them into teams.

Senators retiring next year: Johnson

Senators up for re-election next year: Landrieu, Pryor

Senators not up for re-election until 2018: Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, Nelson

Senators from states that have voted for Obama at least once: Donnelly, Nelson

Looks like Johnson would raise his hand next, right? Hard to say: His son Brendan may run for his U.S. Senate seat, and having a parent weigh in would lock him into a position he might not hold or want to hold. Nelson's got the smallest amount of risk—you'd think some 2018 Miami donors are going to ask him about marriage rights—so I bet he falls next. Landrieu and Pryor have the most to lose, sure, but to what degree can they alienate the gay/gay-friendly donor class leading in 2014? I'd put them on the bubble.[Emphasis Mine]

South Dakota Is 7th Most Gay State In The US

Gordon Howie was disconcerted that South Dakotans were less likely to identify as conservatives than their neighbors to the north. I suspect this Gallup poll will make Gordon apoplectic. Based on self-identification, South Dakota has the 7th largest percentage of gay citizens. The state's 4.4% ties us with Massachusetts and is nearly a full percentage point higher than the nation's 3.5% average.

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/160517/lgbt-percentage-highest-lowest-north-dakota.aspx

If Money Is Speech, Is Romney Pro-Choice?

TMZ has the details of a surrogacy agreement that Romney subsidized for his son Tagg and Tagg's wife Jen:

TMZ has learned Mitt Romney's son Tagg -- who had twins this year through a surrogate -- signed an agreement that gave the surrogate, as well as Tagg and his wife, the right to abort the fetuses in non-life threatening situations ... and Mitt Romney covered some of the expenses connected with the arrangement  ... and it may boil down to an incredibly stupid mistake.

The contract between Tagg, Jen, and the surrogate contained a paragraph 13 which TMZ reports had the following provisions:

"If in the opinion of the treating physician or her independent obstetrician there is potential physical harm to the surrogate, the decision to abort or not abort is to be made by the surrogate."

Translation:  Tagg and Jen gave the surrogate the right to abort the fetuses even if her life wasn't in danger.  All the surrogate has to show is "potential physical harm," which could be something like preeclampsia -- a type of high blood pressure that could damage the mother's liver, kidney or brain, but is not necessarily life-threatening.

Paragraph 13 goes on:

"In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents.  In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents' decision."

And there's another relevant provision in Paragraph 13:

"Any decision to abort because of potential harm to the child, or to reduce the number of fetuses, is to be made by the intended parents."

Translation:  Tagg and his wife, Jen, had the right to abort the fetuses if they felt they would not be healthy.

TMZ goes on to point out that the family claims that Paragraph 13 was left in the agreement inadvertently. Perhaps so, but someone who's supposed to be a manager and who claims he'll put the country on sound fiscal footing should be reading contracts for services he's paying for a little better, especially if it contains clauses that could mean that he'll be paying for things he claims he morally oppresses.