Thursday, February 26, 2004
Mom, I'm a Terrorist
Ever had one of those days where everything seems to be going well – the sort where your professional life is going so well that you want to climb on top of your desk and shout, "I'm the king of the world!" and dance a jig? I was having a day like that earlier this week. Things were going really well. In fact, I went through my day working hard to make sure my students understood why the Truman Doctrine was so important to American foreign policy in the nuclear age (notice: not nuculer, but that's a whole other chestnut) and trying to get 14 year olds to understand what Romeo and Juliet is saying, if not why we still read it. Then I got home and discovered something about myself I didn't know…I'm a member of a terrorist organization. I KNOW! I was shocked too! I had no idea I was WILLING a part of terrorist organization! And I pay dues to these people!
At least that is what the head of education in the United States would have you believe. Rod Paige's comment was shocking and an affront to every teaching professional. Even as a joke, which Paige claims it was, it does not diminish the idea behind his comments: teacher's unions are evil and any respectable teacher should be ashamed of being a part of such an organization. Even as the audience of governors and other government officials laughed, it drove home the unspoken suggestion: teachers and those that represent them clearly cannot possibly have any legitimate say in forming the policy that affects them every day. And even as Rod Paige only moments later praised teachers for their fine work with a wink and a yuk-yuk-just-kiddin'-ya smile, it does not weaken the clear contempt that the Bush administration has for teachers. While Paige calls the joke "an inappropriate choice of words" any human being living in the world today would know that such an utterance is more than inappropriate.
Why be angry, even after a few days have past? Doesn't every person have a right to disagree? Doesn't every person have the capacity to disagree with an organization while still being supportive of the people in that organization? Absolutely. I have been doing that for quite some time. As an American citizen, it is my right, if not my duty, to question Bush on our involvement in Iraq, if only to gain a better understanding. Yet I remain unwaveringly and overwhelmingly supportive of our fine military. As a Christian, I question how the Catholic Church handled the recent sex scandals, but support the rank and file priests and nuns who do so much for humanity. And yes, as a member of a teacher's union, I question some policies that the MEA and NEA hold, and work to change them while supporting my colleagues who work so hard to create an educated society.
But I am not Rod Paige. I am not the head educator in the United States. Rod Paige is. I do not speak for the President of the United States and the government of the United States on matters of education. Rod Paige does. I am not responsible for formulating policy that affects every teacher, school and district in the United States. Rod Paige is. So when Rod Paige calls those teachers that he is charged with representing members of a terrorist organization, yes, it is a big deal. It requires more than platitudes and insincere apologies. I am a teacher and I take it personally. I consider it irresponsible, reprehensible and repugnant. I consider it slanderous. And it makes me question exactly how this man, who has spent time (distant as it may be) as a teacher, administrator and superintendent can possibly stand in front of educators now and ask us to follow his lead.
But then again, I'm just a teacher.
Ever had one of those days where everything seems to be going well – the sort where your professional life is going so well that you want to climb on top of your desk and shout, "I'm the king of the world!" and dance a jig? I was having a day like that earlier this week. Things were going really well. In fact, I went through my day working hard to make sure my students understood why the Truman Doctrine was so important to American foreign policy in the nuclear age (notice: not nuculer, but that's a whole other chestnut) and trying to get 14 year olds to understand what Romeo and Juliet is saying, if not why we still read it. Then I got home and discovered something about myself I didn't know…I'm a member of a terrorist organization. I KNOW! I was shocked too! I had no idea I was WILLING a part of terrorist organization! And I pay dues to these people!
At least that is what the head of education in the United States would have you believe. Rod Paige's comment was shocking and an affront to every teaching professional. Even as a joke, which Paige claims it was, it does not diminish the idea behind his comments: teacher's unions are evil and any respectable teacher should be ashamed of being a part of such an organization. Even as the audience of governors and other government officials laughed, it drove home the unspoken suggestion: teachers and those that represent them clearly cannot possibly have any legitimate say in forming the policy that affects them every day. And even as Rod Paige only moments later praised teachers for their fine work with a wink and a yuk-yuk-just-kiddin'-ya smile, it does not weaken the clear contempt that the Bush administration has for teachers. While Paige calls the joke "an inappropriate choice of words" any human being living in the world today would know that such an utterance is more than inappropriate.
Why be angry, even after a few days have past? Doesn't every person have a right to disagree? Doesn't every person have the capacity to disagree with an organization while still being supportive of the people in that organization? Absolutely. I have been doing that for quite some time. As an American citizen, it is my right, if not my duty, to question Bush on our involvement in Iraq, if only to gain a better understanding. Yet I remain unwaveringly and overwhelmingly supportive of our fine military. As a Christian, I question how the Catholic Church handled the recent sex scandals, but support the rank and file priests and nuns who do so much for humanity. And yes, as a member of a teacher's union, I question some policies that the MEA and NEA hold, and work to change them while supporting my colleagues who work so hard to create an educated society.
But I am not Rod Paige. I am not the head educator in the United States. Rod Paige is. I do not speak for the President of the United States and the government of the United States on matters of education. Rod Paige does. I am not responsible for formulating policy that affects every teacher, school and district in the United States. Rod Paige is. So when Rod Paige calls those teachers that he is charged with representing members of a terrorist organization, yes, it is a big deal. It requires more than platitudes and insincere apologies. I am a teacher and I take it personally. I consider it irresponsible, reprehensible and repugnant. I consider it slanderous. And it makes me question exactly how this man, who has spent time (distant as it may be) as a teacher, administrator and superintendent can possibly stand in front of educators now and ask us to follow his lead.
But then again, I'm just a teacher.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
23 Years since the Birth of MTV and The Death of Music
MTV has ruined music! That's what the radio commentator said the other day. Of course, a radio man would have a bit of an axe to grind. But he also makes a great point.
Before MTV, we actually listened to music. We didn't watch it. We didn't judge it by what it looked like, how cute the girls were, how good the dancing was. We sat back and imagined what the music was about, we played little pictures in our heads that related to our lives. We pictured loved ones, neighborhood parks, summer vacations, school days. We were galloping down the trail, soaring through space, or boogieing across the railroad tracks. Music was the backdrop to our personal movies, the sound effects to our lives. The impact was personal.
Now, with MTV, we are told what and how and why to think and feel about the music. Instead of our pictures, they have branded their pictures onto our collective consciousness -- and most of those pictures are crotch-grabbing, hip-gyrating, not-so-subtle scenes of the steamier side of sex. Like the song "Last Dance with Mary Jane", it seemed such a lovely little heart-felt statement, until they decided to make a video about necrophilia. Now, when I hear that song, I only see Tom dancing with a dead blond.
Lately, I find myself immersed in jazz, classical and modern symphonic music, and sometimes bluegrass or folk. Not out of any higher minded purpose, but because I find the words to songs painful at this time in my life; lyrics are glimpses into someone else's world -- not mine. So I listen to CBC2 radio out of Canada. I hear old classical, new classical, symphonies from around the globe. I even hear some opera (but can't understand the words -- who can).
And what do I picture? I picture little cartoon fairies flitting from flower to flower, or wolves tippy-toeing to cottages of straw. I see a kaleidoscope of colors dancing and changing into shapes which -- you guessed it -- turn into more cartoons. Damn that Wascally Wabbit! To Hell with the Sorcerer's Apprentice! See, it's really the cartoons that have killed the music, especially classical. They were the first music videos. So maybe it's pointless to blame MTV.
We are a visual species and we happen to live in a technically capable world with lots of visual opportunities. With some luck and some time, musical expression will make its way back to an art form. Hopefully in my lifetime. Just as the great masters painted nudes (not little peek-a-boo-breast stunts like Janet pulled accidentally on purpose) but real studies of life. The musicians will soon weave honest searches for purpose and soul. They will again inspire and enlighten. And just as Delibes's Lakme Flower Song blew me away, took me to a place way past words or pictures or cartoons, musicians will again raise us up to new levels of spiritual illumination. They just need to find voices amid the technology.
MTV has ruined music! That's what the radio commentator said the other day. Of course, a radio man would have a bit of an axe to grind. But he also makes a great point.
Before MTV, we actually listened to music. We didn't watch it. We didn't judge it by what it looked like, how cute the girls were, how good the dancing was. We sat back and imagined what the music was about, we played little pictures in our heads that related to our lives. We pictured loved ones, neighborhood parks, summer vacations, school days. We were galloping down the trail, soaring through space, or boogieing across the railroad tracks. Music was the backdrop to our personal movies, the sound effects to our lives. The impact was personal.
Now, with MTV, we are told what and how and why to think and feel about the music. Instead of our pictures, they have branded their pictures onto our collective consciousness -- and most of those pictures are crotch-grabbing, hip-gyrating, not-so-subtle scenes of the steamier side of sex. Like the song "Last Dance with Mary Jane", it seemed such a lovely little heart-felt statement, until they decided to make a video about necrophilia. Now, when I hear that song, I only see Tom dancing with a dead blond.
Lately, I find myself immersed in jazz, classical and modern symphonic music, and sometimes bluegrass or folk. Not out of any higher minded purpose, but because I find the words to songs painful at this time in my life; lyrics are glimpses into someone else's world -- not mine. So I listen to CBC2 radio out of Canada. I hear old classical, new classical, symphonies from around the globe. I even hear some opera (but can't understand the words -- who can).
And what do I picture? I picture little cartoon fairies flitting from flower to flower, or wolves tippy-toeing to cottages of straw. I see a kaleidoscope of colors dancing and changing into shapes which -- you guessed it -- turn into more cartoons. Damn that Wascally Wabbit! To Hell with the Sorcerer's Apprentice! See, it's really the cartoons that have killed the music, especially classical. They were the first music videos. So maybe it's pointless to blame MTV.
We are a visual species and we happen to live in a technically capable world with lots of visual opportunities. With some luck and some time, musical expression will make its way back to an art form. Hopefully in my lifetime. Just as the great masters painted nudes (not little peek-a-boo-breast stunts like Janet pulled accidentally on purpose) but real studies of life. The musicians will soon weave honest searches for purpose and soul. They will again inspire and enlighten. And just as Delibes's Lakme Flower Song blew me away, took me to a place way past words or pictures or cartoons, musicians will again raise us up to new levels of spiritual illumination. They just need to find voices amid the technology.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Abuse vs. Punishment: A Reasonable Force
The Canadians have been arguing about their supreme court's decision to legitimize some kinds of child punishment (ages 2-12 only) and to restrict others (no corporal punishment for babies and teens, no hitting on the face or head, and no weapons). What an awesome undertaking -- creating national guidelines for disciplining children. But before you start defending the rights of parents to raise their children their own way without government interference, let us take a short step back.
A hundred years ago, before government involvement, it was legal, and sometimes expected, to beat prisoners. In private life, you could beat your servants, you could beat your apprentices, and 50 years ago you could still beat your wife as well as your children. You could even beat other people's children if you were a teacher or preacher. It has taken a few legal battles (judges were slow to interfere with a "husband's rights to his wife"), but in the end most legal physical abuse has been eradicated from North American societies -- except, of course, the parental right to hit your own offspring with "reasonable force."
But what is reasonable force? We used to rely on the axiom "spare the rod, spoil the child." Any parent will tell you children who feel a lack of discipline start whining (yuck), and no one tolerates a whining brat. But lacking that sense of security that guiding parents offer does not mean the child is "asking for it" or "wants something to cry about." The child just needs to feel safe even in exploration, needs to know a parent is there to protect even if the child strays too far into unfamiliar and frequently dangerous territory.
Some say when a child starts doing something they shouldn't, like sticking fingers in the electric outlet, should you gently tell the child "no", or "danger", while at the same time (and this is very important) hand the child something that is appropriate to play with. In this way, you are not pounding and beating the confidence and exploration out of your child, but rather are guiding the child to make correct choices. And if the child keeps sticking his fingers into the plug, do you move him to another location and give him something appropriate to play with? It seems logical. It seems loving. But if you are trying to make dinner, talk to other family members, and throw a batch of clothes in the washer. . . well, it is quicker and more productive to just strike a match, blow it out, then touch the child's finger with the still hot end and say "HOT". Then every time the child starts to touch a stove, plug, outlet, cigarette, matches, lighter, candle, etc, you say "HOT" and the child knows exactly what you are talking about. Saves time, save injuries, saves lives. Yet in Canada, this is now child abuse.
I once saw a woman hit her son on his bottom with a lead pipe for peeping through the front window while she was having an afternoon luncheon. It only took five seconds. Five minutes later, the son was throwing tiny little kittens against the cement wall of their garage. I stood up, went to the window, the boy saw me and put the rest of the kittens down and ran off. I froze. I could not help the boy; I could not help the kittens; telling his mother was not an option. What would she have done next? How would she have retaliated? Remember, in those days, if there was food in the refrigerator and no broken bones, it was nigh-on to impossible to prove child abuse. So, all I could do was leave.
In those days, she was within her parental rights to punish her son as she saw fit. Now, her rights have been superseded by a society that has since realized her choice of punishment was creating an angry violent child, one that would not only take delight in smashing kittens, but would soon become an angry violent adult.
My own mother believed in corporal punishment. She felt it was wrong to hit with her bare hand at the moment of anger, so she would usually send us to fetch the weapon du jour. She believed while we were getting the flyswatter or yard stick or switch, she would be calming down, and therefore would be punishing out of good parenting, and not beating out of anger. The Canadian government disagrees; they believe any weapon is unreasonable force. Well, today, I must admit I am afraid of angry women, I still put my hands behind my back to protect from angry women with or without weapons. Unfortunately, I am also afraid of many other things.
Protecting children from danger and teaching right from wrong by instilling a fear of pain to take the place of a conscience is too capricious. Like my mom, we end up killing spirit in our children. We trade confident and courageous children for safe and well-behaved children.
What else can a parent do? Separate kids from the people they love, send them to their rooms or to the "quiet chair" or the corner? Does that tell the child that when a parent leaves it is because the child was bad? When the parents die or divorce or become ill, or just go to work, does the child feel he has been bad and Mommy or Daddy had to go away?
Do you say mean and cruel things to them, like "I won't love you anymore" or "I'll go away forever if you don't stop"? Same problem, and far too cruel.
Or my favorite, the most common choice of parents in public, tell the children you will punish them if they don't stop the bad behavior, and when they don't stop, say it again and again and again and again and even again, until the child learns they are allowed eight or eleven chances to be bad before there are consequences.
Consequences. Balancing the suitable consequences with the type of bad behavior is the key to parenting. Overreacting and under-reacting are equally inappropriate and destructive. Now, I may not have all the answers, and my time has a learning parent ended long before I even knew this much. But the key, it seems, is showing a child that they are responsible for their own behavior (not you, not the kid down the street, not society). This is most likely to turn your child into a great adult.
And that is all I really want. I want our children to be good citizens, helpful and loving members of the world, and most of all, people I wouldn't mind having for neighbors.
The Canadians have been arguing about their supreme court's decision to legitimize some kinds of child punishment (ages 2-12 only) and to restrict others (no corporal punishment for babies and teens, no hitting on the face or head, and no weapons). What an awesome undertaking -- creating national guidelines for disciplining children. But before you start defending the rights of parents to raise their children their own way without government interference, let us take a short step back.
A hundred years ago, before government involvement, it was legal, and sometimes expected, to beat prisoners. In private life, you could beat your servants, you could beat your apprentices, and 50 years ago you could still beat your wife as well as your children. You could even beat other people's children if you were a teacher or preacher. It has taken a few legal battles (judges were slow to interfere with a "husband's rights to his wife"), but in the end most legal physical abuse has been eradicated from North American societies -- except, of course, the parental right to hit your own offspring with "reasonable force."
But what is reasonable force? We used to rely on the axiom "spare the rod, spoil the child." Any parent will tell you children who feel a lack of discipline start whining (yuck), and no one tolerates a whining brat. But lacking that sense of security that guiding parents offer does not mean the child is "asking for it" or "wants something to cry about." The child just needs to feel safe even in exploration, needs to know a parent is there to protect even if the child strays too far into unfamiliar and frequently dangerous territory.
Some say when a child starts doing something they shouldn't, like sticking fingers in the electric outlet, should you gently tell the child "no", or "danger", while at the same time (and this is very important) hand the child something that is appropriate to play with. In this way, you are not pounding and beating the confidence and exploration out of your child, but rather are guiding the child to make correct choices. And if the child keeps sticking his fingers into the plug, do you move him to another location and give him something appropriate to play with? It seems logical. It seems loving. But if you are trying to make dinner, talk to other family members, and throw a batch of clothes in the washer. . . well, it is quicker and more productive to just strike a match, blow it out, then touch the child's finger with the still hot end and say "HOT". Then every time the child starts to touch a stove, plug, outlet, cigarette, matches, lighter, candle, etc, you say "HOT" and the child knows exactly what you are talking about. Saves time, save injuries, saves lives. Yet in Canada, this is now child abuse.
I once saw a woman hit her son on his bottom with a lead pipe for peeping through the front window while she was having an afternoon luncheon. It only took five seconds. Five minutes later, the son was throwing tiny little kittens against the cement wall of their garage. I stood up, went to the window, the boy saw me and put the rest of the kittens down and ran off. I froze. I could not help the boy; I could not help the kittens; telling his mother was not an option. What would she have done next? How would she have retaliated? Remember, in those days, if there was food in the refrigerator and no broken bones, it was nigh-on to impossible to prove child abuse. So, all I could do was leave.
In those days, she was within her parental rights to punish her son as she saw fit. Now, her rights have been superseded by a society that has since realized her choice of punishment was creating an angry violent child, one that would not only take delight in smashing kittens, but would soon become an angry violent adult.
My own mother believed in corporal punishment. She felt it was wrong to hit with her bare hand at the moment of anger, so she would usually send us to fetch the weapon du jour. She believed while we were getting the flyswatter or yard stick or switch, she would be calming down, and therefore would be punishing out of good parenting, and not beating out of anger. The Canadian government disagrees; they believe any weapon is unreasonable force. Well, today, I must admit I am afraid of angry women, I still put my hands behind my back to protect from angry women with or without weapons. Unfortunately, I am also afraid of many other things.
Protecting children from danger and teaching right from wrong by instilling a fear of pain to take the place of a conscience is too capricious. Like my mom, we end up killing spirit in our children. We trade confident and courageous children for safe and well-behaved children.
What else can a parent do? Separate kids from the people they love, send them to their rooms or to the "quiet chair" or the corner? Does that tell the child that when a parent leaves it is because the child was bad? When the parents die or divorce or become ill, or just go to work, does the child feel he has been bad and Mommy or Daddy had to go away?
Do you say mean and cruel things to them, like "I won't love you anymore" or "I'll go away forever if you don't stop"? Same problem, and far too cruel.
Or my favorite, the most common choice of parents in public, tell the children you will punish them if they don't stop the bad behavior, and when they don't stop, say it again and again and again and again and even again, until the child learns they are allowed eight or eleven chances to be bad before there are consequences.
Consequences. Balancing the suitable consequences with the type of bad behavior is the key to parenting. Overreacting and under-reacting are equally inappropriate and destructive. Now, I may not have all the answers, and my time has a learning parent ended long before I even knew this much. But the key, it seems, is showing a child that they are responsible for their own behavior (not you, not the kid down the street, not society). This is most likely to turn your child into a great adult.
And that is all I really want. I want our children to be good citizens, helpful and loving members of the world, and most of all, people I wouldn't mind having for neighbors.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Either/or...
I wish I could see things in black and white. My life would be so much easier. When Colin Powell speaks, I believe what he says, yet I know much of it is what he is being pressured into saying. When I see the mass graves in Iraq and the misery caused by the Saddam regime, I think we did a good thing in removing him, but part of me fears we are not up for the job (and shouldn't be) of changing a culture. And as tired I am of the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction," I hate when it is trivialized by using the acronym "WMD". (Maybe trivialized is the wrong word, but using "WMD" seems to remove some reality of the danger.)
But, back to my original thought of not able to discern the right/wrong, black/white of things. My new frustration is with the cost of drugs, and I don't mean the fun kind. This Medicare prescription thing isn't "good" or "bad," but good and bad, for I worry about the cost to our country and to the next generation. And who is to blame? I realize that high drug costs are in part due to necessary years of research and advances, but I am so tired of all the advertising and pushing of the new and improved yuppie drug of the day. And yet I cannot say that I haven't benefited from all this research. I've been a diabetic for 18 years, and during that time have been on and off insulin (which they say can never happen.) The newest drugs even enabled me (for a while) to control the diabetes with pills alone. Eventually I went back to injections, but the quality and types of insulin have improved so much that I can stay in better control than ever. I genuinely can't believe the medical advances just in the past decade. When I was pregnant I had to go to the lab four times a week to have my blood checked. Now I check it myself, as often as I like. And I know that my newly diagnosed nephew will be amazed at the changes in the next 10 years. His prospects for a healthy, long life will be much better. And at this rate, I predict that either a cure will be found for diabetes or at least the effects from it will be minimal.
So here again, I am torn, wishing that I could simply see the issue as politicians seem to, as good or bad, right or wrong. But then, no one is waiting for my advice, wants my advice, or would care if they heard it, so I guess I can go to the mall and have fun shopping.
I wish I could see things in black and white. My life would be so much easier. When Colin Powell speaks, I believe what he says, yet I know much of it is what he is being pressured into saying. When I see the mass graves in Iraq and the misery caused by the Saddam regime, I think we did a good thing in removing him, but part of me fears we are not up for the job (and shouldn't be) of changing a culture. And as tired I am of the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction," I hate when it is trivialized by using the acronym "WMD". (Maybe trivialized is the wrong word, but using "WMD" seems to remove some reality of the danger.)
But, back to my original thought of not able to discern the right/wrong, black/white of things. My new frustration is with the cost of drugs, and I don't mean the fun kind. This Medicare prescription thing isn't "good" or "bad," but good and bad, for I worry about the cost to our country and to the next generation. And who is to blame? I realize that high drug costs are in part due to necessary years of research and advances, but I am so tired of all the advertising and pushing of the new and improved yuppie drug of the day. And yet I cannot say that I haven't benefited from all this research. I've been a diabetic for 18 years, and during that time have been on and off insulin (which they say can never happen.) The newest drugs even enabled me (for a while) to control the diabetes with pills alone. Eventually I went back to injections, but the quality and types of insulin have improved so much that I can stay in better control than ever. I genuinely can't believe the medical advances just in the past decade. When I was pregnant I had to go to the lab four times a week to have my blood checked. Now I check it myself, as often as I like. And I know that my newly diagnosed nephew will be amazed at the changes in the next 10 years. His prospects for a healthy, long life will be much better. And at this rate, I predict that either a cure will be found for diabetes or at least the effects from it will be minimal.
So here again, I am torn, wishing that I could simply see the issue as politicians seem to, as good or bad, right or wrong. But then, no one is waiting for my advice, wants my advice, or would care if they heard it, so I guess I can go to the mall and have fun shopping.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Gay Rights and Wrongs
On Wednesday afternoon, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that only full, legal gay marriages (and not merely "civil unions") would be acceptable under their state constitution, thereby catapulting an already contentious debate into the national spotlight in an election year. And indeed, it should be in the national spotlight, because this is not merely an issue that affects homosexual citizens, but rather all of us, and the definitions and customs and traditions we as a society hold dear. The problem is that, although many would like to see this aspect of gay rights become an election topic, John Kerry and George Bush (not to mention Dean, Edwards, and Clark) hold virtually identical positions on the matter -- all support some type of civil unions for gay couples, but strongly oppose full "marriage" rights. Indeed, only a few of the fringe political candidates (like Kucinich) support gay marriage in the way now defined by the Massachusetts courts.
And yet, the conventional wisdom among columnists and talking heads this week has been that the development will hurt Kerry, if only by association, since he's currently representing the state in question. The south already suspects Kerry's out of touch with their values, and although full gay rights is gaining support among those on the liberal coasts, mainstream America is lagging behind. Kerry is caught in the middle of a party divided on gay marriage, alienating the liberal wing if he sticks with his current Bush-supported position, but alienating the vast majority of the country if he comes around to support his own state's action. Based on his public comments in the past week, it's clear that Kerry would rather this issue just go away.
There's a weird polarity principle in American politics, a result of our rigid two-party system. Whenever a major political party takes a position on an issue, the other party gravitates to the opposite viewpoint in order to illustrate contrast. When a party shifts on an issue and adopts the current position of the opponent, the opponents either flip as well and endorse the now unclaimed viewpoint, or, more commonly, pull further to the extreme in their current direction. In the past fifty years, we've seen this happen on everything from abortion to affirmative action to taxes to the environment to immigration, and now are seeing a shift on homosexual acceptance as well. Less than ten years ago, Republicans were largely opposed to any gay rights as a matter of principle, and Democrats were only slightly to the left of that. Remember, it was Clinton who supported and passed the Defense of Marriage Act (disallowing the recognition of gay marriage) and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policy (which allowed expulsion of gay individuals if discovered, but weakened active efforts to research and pursue a soldier's sexuality). The fact that now even quasi-conservative Republicans like Bush support gay civil unions, and are considering allowing openly gay military personnel, is an example of such a polarity shift.
On one level, it's truly remarkable how gay acceptance has risen in society in such a short amount of time. Forty years ago, homosexuality was universally deplored and condemned, by anyone not wishing to be called a pervert. Only a decade ago, senators on both sides of the aisle were using phrases such as "Ellen Degenerate" to lambaste gay individuals. Now, it's difficult to imagine even the most conservative right-wing politician getting away with such an offense. Whereas some television stations dropped the aforementioned "Ellen" in the early 90s due to its "immorality," nowadays "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" are among television's most popular programs -- without the fear of boycotts from networks and advertisers that would have occurred only a few years earlier.
But along with this rather rapid acceptance (or at least tolerance) by society of its gay citizens comes a bit of nervous caution, if not outright paranoia. Just as many of the arguments against gay marriage today echo the arguments fifty years ago against interracial marriage, so too are the arguments against full gay equality echoing the fears whites once had about African-American advancement. It was one thing for reasonably minded white people to see the evils in lynchings, not letting blacks hold jobs, or having to raise their families in violence. But it was much harder for whites to accept full voting rights by blacks, or seeing blacks attend the same schools as their own children, or being their equals at work -- or worse, becoming their managers and bosses. In some of these areas, the concept of "separate but equal" allowed whites to feel they weren't being racist, since most certainly agreed in basic African-American rights to be educated or to work or to be musicians which they may have even enjoyed, but they still didn't understand why blacks should intrude on white culture, rather than simply sticking to their own.
Civil unions for homosexual couples seem the perfect compromise for a well-meaning but paranoid climate, in that it allows gays legal marriage-ish protections without an interference on or threat to heterosexual culture. Gay "marriage" is just too terrifying for heterosexuals to deal with yet. "But... but we have marriage! That's ours! They can have something else! Why do they have to steal from us?" Indeed, I believe this would be the smartest position for President Bush to take on the matter, because it resonates so well with the electorate -- that gay Americans deserve equal rights and protections under the law, but there's no reason to redefine something so crucial and sacred to the vast majority of us. (Insert your own cynical comment on the modern "sacredness" of heterosexual marriage here.) In other words, gays, we'll love you, we'll stop discriminating against you, we'll let you live together and share mortgages and have hospital visitation rights and all of that, but it's selfish of you to want to steal something in our culture that's uniquely ours. To be honest, I'm even almost convinced by that. Almost.
The fact is that "separate but equal" by definition, isn't; it doesn't work, it's a cop out, and it's disheartening that virtually no political leaders in this country have the courage to intellectually combat this proposed disparity. Yes, it's an amazing step forward that the country is even willing to consider "separate but equal" in the first place, as opposed to outright hatred and persecution, and I applaud the sincere attempts of so many individuals to have a new open mind on such a controversial topic. But it's not enough. Kerry, Bush, and the vast majority of Americans who agree with them, are wrong. And truthfully, it's not even clear that the stated positions of politicians are what they themselves believe, but rather what is politically necessary in today's climate. Right now, support of gay marriage is mired in age-based division, not party-based division. Young people support gay marriage by up to 75% in national polls, whereas senior citizens oppose gay marriage by 75% or more. And seniors are the ones who vote.
Yet with those statistics, there is hope, for today's youth are tomorrow's voters, public speakers, writers, and yes, politicians. In fifty years, I believe the supporters of gay civil unions will be universally recognized as on the wrong side of history, along with advocates of race-separated drinking fountains and segregated classrooms. After all, the truly anti-gay speakers and politicians have already fallen out of favor today, after basking in such popularity only a decade ago. Someday soon, one political party may step up and have the courage to offer an unambiguous, unwavering pro-gay rights message, even in the face of remaining opposition. Right now, even the few who agree with true equality have the courage to defend it, and so our nation will have to make do with continuing gradual acceptance of gay artists, musicians, and writers, even if we're not quite ready to accept our gay co-workers, family, and friends.
On Wednesday afternoon, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that only full, legal gay marriages (and not merely "civil unions") would be acceptable under their state constitution, thereby catapulting an already contentious debate into the national spotlight in an election year. And indeed, it should be in the national spotlight, because this is not merely an issue that affects homosexual citizens, but rather all of us, and the definitions and customs and traditions we as a society hold dear. The problem is that, although many would like to see this aspect of gay rights become an election topic, John Kerry and George Bush (not to mention Dean, Edwards, and Clark) hold virtually identical positions on the matter -- all support some type of civil unions for gay couples, but strongly oppose full "marriage" rights. Indeed, only a few of the fringe political candidates (like Kucinich) support gay marriage in the way now defined by the Massachusetts courts.
And yet, the conventional wisdom among columnists and talking heads this week has been that the development will hurt Kerry, if only by association, since he's currently representing the state in question. The south already suspects Kerry's out of touch with their values, and although full gay rights is gaining support among those on the liberal coasts, mainstream America is lagging behind. Kerry is caught in the middle of a party divided on gay marriage, alienating the liberal wing if he sticks with his current Bush-supported position, but alienating the vast majority of the country if he comes around to support his own state's action. Based on his public comments in the past week, it's clear that Kerry would rather this issue just go away.
There's a weird polarity principle in American politics, a result of our rigid two-party system. Whenever a major political party takes a position on an issue, the other party gravitates to the opposite viewpoint in order to illustrate contrast. When a party shifts on an issue and adopts the current position of the opponent, the opponents either flip as well and endorse the now unclaimed viewpoint, or, more commonly, pull further to the extreme in their current direction. In the past fifty years, we've seen this happen on everything from abortion to affirmative action to taxes to the environment to immigration, and now are seeing a shift on homosexual acceptance as well. Less than ten years ago, Republicans were largely opposed to any gay rights as a matter of principle, and Democrats were only slightly to the left of that. Remember, it was Clinton who supported and passed the Defense of Marriage Act (disallowing the recognition of gay marriage) and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policy (which allowed expulsion of gay individuals if discovered, but weakened active efforts to research and pursue a soldier's sexuality). The fact that now even quasi-conservative Republicans like Bush support gay civil unions, and are considering allowing openly gay military personnel, is an example of such a polarity shift.
On one level, it's truly remarkable how gay acceptance has risen in society in such a short amount of time. Forty years ago, homosexuality was universally deplored and condemned, by anyone not wishing to be called a pervert. Only a decade ago, senators on both sides of the aisle were using phrases such as "Ellen Degenerate" to lambaste gay individuals. Now, it's difficult to imagine even the most conservative right-wing politician getting away with such an offense. Whereas some television stations dropped the aforementioned "Ellen" in the early 90s due to its "immorality," nowadays "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" are among television's most popular programs -- without the fear of boycotts from networks and advertisers that would have occurred only a few years earlier.
But along with this rather rapid acceptance (or at least tolerance) by society of its gay citizens comes a bit of nervous caution, if not outright paranoia. Just as many of the arguments against gay marriage today echo the arguments fifty years ago against interracial marriage, so too are the arguments against full gay equality echoing the fears whites once had about African-American advancement. It was one thing for reasonably minded white people to see the evils in lynchings, not letting blacks hold jobs, or having to raise their families in violence. But it was much harder for whites to accept full voting rights by blacks, or seeing blacks attend the same schools as their own children, or being their equals at work -- or worse, becoming their managers and bosses. In some of these areas, the concept of "separate but equal" allowed whites to feel they weren't being racist, since most certainly agreed in basic African-American rights to be educated or to work or to be musicians which they may have even enjoyed, but they still didn't understand why blacks should intrude on white culture, rather than simply sticking to their own.
Civil unions for homosexual couples seem the perfect compromise for a well-meaning but paranoid climate, in that it allows gays legal marriage-ish protections without an interference on or threat to heterosexual culture. Gay "marriage" is just too terrifying for heterosexuals to deal with yet. "But... but we have marriage! That's ours! They can have something else! Why do they have to steal from us?" Indeed, I believe this would be the smartest position for President Bush to take on the matter, because it resonates so well with the electorate -- that gay Americans deserve equal rights and protections under the law, but there's no reason to redefine something so crucial and sacred to the vast majority of us. (Insert your own cynical comment on the modern "sacredness" of heterosexual marriage here.) In other words, gays, we'll love you, we'll stop discriminating against you, we'll let you live together and share mortgages and have hospital visitation rights and all of that, but it's selfish of you to want to steal something in our culture that's uniquely ours. To be honest, I'm even almost convinced by that. Almost.
The fact is that "separate but equal" by definition, isn't; it doesn't work, it's a cop out, and it's disheartening that virtually no political leaders in this country have the courage to intellectually combat this proposed disparity. Yes, it's an amazing step forward that the country is even willing to consider "separate but equal" in the first place, as opposed to outright hatred and persecution, and I applaud the sincere attempts of so many individuals to have a new open mind on such a controversial topic. But it's not enough. Kerry, Bush, and the vast majority of Americans who agree with them, are wrong. And truthfully, it's not even clear that the stated positions of politicians are what they themselves believe, but rather what is politically necessary in today's climate. Right now, support of gay marriage is mired in age-based division, not party-based division. Young people support gay marriage by up to 75% in national polls, whereas senior citizens oppose gay marriage by 75% or more. And seniors are the ones who vote.
Yet with those statistics, there is hope, for today's youth are tomorrow's voters, public speakers, writers, and yes, politicians. In fifty years, I believe the supporters of gay civil unions will be universally recognized as on the wrong side of history, along with advocates of race-separated drinking fountains and segregated classrooms. After all, the truly anti-gay speakers and politicians have already fallen out of favor today, after basking in such popularity only a decade ago. Someday soon, one political party may step up and have the courage to offer an unambiguous, unwavering pro-gay rights message, even in the face of remaining opposition. Right now, even the few who agree with true equality have the courage to defend it, and so our nation will have to make do with continuing gradual acceptance of gay artists, musicians, and writers, even if we're not quite ready to accept our gay co-workers, family, and friends.
