Garrett vs. Equal Rights

I wrote yesterday about my belief at this point that marriage equality was due. Herb Jackson posted a nice piece explaining that once again the rest of the nation is looking to New Jersey to lead. In the piece, he highlights Representative Scott Garrett and his standing opposition:

A bill pending in the House since May that would prevent the district (Washington, DC) from enacting a same-sex marriage law has 60 sponsors, including New Jersey Reps. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, and Christopher Smith, R-Robbinsville.

Garrett has not changed his tune much. Back in 2004 he took to the House Floor to deliver a speech slamming marriage equality:

If we redefine marriage, it will harm everyone, especially the children. It will legally repudiate the idea that marriage has anything to do with a family, and will legally embrace the idea that marriage is just an arrangement for the convenience of the grownups.

Now, I am here today to support what is best for the kids. The ideal situation for a child is to grow up with a mom and a dad in a loving, committed marriage . Mothers are better able to provide certain lessons than fathers can, and fathers in turn can provide role models in ways that moms simply cannot.

I think it is time that we rip away all the rhetoric that we have heard and know that this debate comes down to this: it is a choice of being what is in the best interests of our children over the choice of what is in the best interests of a select few adults. The choice is clear. I urge all Members to support our children by supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment.

How exactly does equality harm me? How exactly does equality harm Garrett, for that matter? Not one single opponent of equality has ever been able to explain that to me.

This is one of many sad examples of a publicly elected official assailing the dignity of individuals. The speech may be five years old, but there are countless examples that are similar.

History has never looked kindly on those who supported maintaining inequality, and this will be another example when the time comes. The Garretts of the world on this issue are probably okay with that. To some extent, you have to expect it, as unfortunate and misguided as it is.

Legalize It

I've only written about marriage equality a couple of times, but as things have hit a fevered pitch around Trenton, I've been thinking a lot about it. I listened to the testimony given by both sides for hours yesterday. The more I hear, the more I keep going back to my classic conservative roots, which Barry Goldwater explained the best:

The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being.

The Conservative movement Goldwater helped start certainly has fallen very far from the tree when it comes to respecting the dignity of the individual human being. I have yet to see an argument from opponents that does not fall into the category of debasing the individuals I know who happen to be gay.

The more these new conservatives use the language of segregation, the stronger a supporter of equality I've become. A good example of what put me over the top was this misleading video from the Family Research Council, claiming equality means people are losing their right to be intolerant. That's simply not true, people will still have the right to be and teach their kids intolerance. It disturbs me that this has been deemed an effective message, but the FRC would not use it if they did not already know they'd make some money off of it.

Then there's the religious argument. I firmly believe in the First Amendment's protections to practice as denominations see fit. Catholics' right to not marry gays is no different than their right not to recognize divorce, even though divorce is legal. It also should in no way impede Episcopalians' right to allow equality. The law specifically protects the rights of each to practice as they see fit. It's a non-argument.

Fifteen years ago, Goldwater had a very quotable comment specifically to this issue:

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," Goldwater asserts. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

Classic conservatives, including President Reagan understood this when push came to shove. Those that make their profit off of these anti-equality campaigns will continue perverting what true conservatism is as long as there's a buck to be made. Anyone that's claiming to be a conservative by arguing against anything but all men and women being treated equal is anything but a true conservative.

It's time our legislature man and woman up and protect the rights of the individual, and the rights of religious institutions to practice as they see fit.

Garrett vs. Goldwater

Former Senator and Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater is often cited as the Godfather of the modern conservative movement. Our own Representative Scott Garrett will often invoke Goldwater's name to lend some kind of credibility to his arguments, such as during his speech I compressed last month.

I've often questioned Garrett's commitment to being a fiscal conservative, one of Goldwater's hallmarks. Things like Garrett voting for budgets that added $2.2 trillion to the deficit in four years; or failing to swear off earmarks; or even making sure his earmarks are going to programs that exist; have really brought into question Garrett being a fiscal conservative.

Granted, special interest groups like the Garrett loving Club for Growth (aided by the media) have rebranded what being a fiscal conservative means in the public consciousness, but in the Goldwater model they're not even close to Conservative. The very fact Garrett is beholden to such a special interest group is in and of itself in sharp contrast to Goldwater.

With Garrett's sponsorship of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage we're once again reminded that Garrett is no Conservative. I realize the amendment is little more than a campaign fundraising gimmick, but it's the simple fact that a true Conservative would never sign on to something like this.

Here is, in my opinion, the singular quote from Barry Goldwater that shows this point, from his seminal book The Conscience of the Conservative:

The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.

With this view clearly articulated, it makes sense Goldwater had this to say to The Washington Post in 1994:

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," Goldwater asserts. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

There is nothing about a Constitutional Amendment that debases the commitment two individuals have made to each other, recognized by some denominations and states, that is not discriminatory.

Garrett's group of co-sponsors are not the "gentle collectivists" either. No, they're more of the religious fundamentalist variety. Garrett demonstrates this with actions like his attendance at such things as the Kairos Journal Awards. Goldwater had his thoughts about guys like Garrett:

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Goldwater was true to this belief all his life, as evidenced during his acceptance speech in 1964:

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth.

This amendment is going to fail. Garrett and his cronies will attempt to use it to rally the base, distract voters, and raise some cash. This is another example in a long line of very consistent behavior from Garrett.

Garrett is who Garrett is, but time and again he proves the fact that Garrett is no Goldwater.

Civil Unions now available in NJ

For those who didn't know, yesterday was the first day Civil Unions can be performed and are recognized in our fair state for same sex couples. For social fundamentalists, this goes too far. For others, as one lesbian friend of mine put it, "we're still talking about sitting at the back of the bus." One of my married friends is fond of saying "if they want to be as miserable as the rest of us, let them." For me, it's kind of a Ferris Bueller moment, it still doesn't change the fact I don't have a girlfriend.

While not necessarily in agreement as to what to call civil unions/marriage, it would seem the majority of Democrats and Independents, as well as a healthy number of moderate and true conservative Republicans in New Jersey support the idea of providing equal rights to same-sex couples under the law, as afforded to citizens by the 14th amendment. This leaves the social fundamentalist Republicans, such as Representative Scott Garrett, leading the way against granting any rights to same-sex couples. Back in August of 2004, Garrett went on Crossfire with James Carville and Robert Novack as the co-hosts. Carville and Garrett had the following exchange:

CARVILLE: Congressman, do you have the Kerry-Cheney position that we should not have this constitutional amendment on gay marriage or do you have the Bush-Falwell position that we should? Which one is your position, Kerry Cheney or the Bush-Falwell?
GARRETT: No, I have the Bush-American people on this.
CARVILLE: The Bush-Falwell. So you're with the Bush-Falwell
GARRETT: The Bush-American people.
CARVILLE: I got you. OK.

Garrett's stance ignores the 58% of NEW JERSEY voters opposed to such a move. Last year, the Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman was introduced, with Garrett as an original co-sponsor.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

The voters of Michigan passed a similarly worded ban amending their state constitution a few years ago, and after a recent court ruling by elected judges, public universities and state and local governments are now banned from providing health insurance to gay couples. This ruling is being appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which is also an elected body. Some have argued this might cause a backlash against those pushing for the amendment, because they advertised that this would not impact the health care benefits or life insurance policies offered to public employees (at least 375 people and their families).

That "legal incidents" part of Garrett's amendment is where equal protection is thrown out the window. No health or life insurance, hospital visitation rights or inheritance benefits just to name a few. On his website, Garrett echoes other social fundamentalists saying defending the Sanctity of Marriage is his number one family priority. In fact, marriage is so sacred in his eyes, Garrett cites tax-credits as a reason to get married, kind of like picking a Limited Liability Corporation over a sole-proprietorship.

Before our State Court's decision I wondered openly about how this debate would look if we stripped the word married from the tax code. If every married couple, domestic partnership, civil union, etc. fell into an orientation neutral category, and the definition of marriage was left to individual churches to decide, would we even be having this argument? I still think this may be the best way to grant committed couples equal protection under the law. When/if I meet another woman I'd like to spend the rest of my life with, I would hope to get married. After the church service, I've got to believe we'd be secure enough in our relationship it wouldn't matter to us what the government referred to us as on our 1040.