Maggie Gallagher’s White Flag (And Bitter Predictions)

A few days ago, Huffington Post blogger Lila Shapiro posted her recent interview with Maggie Gallagher, co-founder and former president of the National Organization for Marriage and, more recently the Institute for Marriage And Public Policy.  While HuffPost’s “Gay Voices” articles tend to skew towards shrill tirades against comparatively trivial grievances, Shapiro stepped back and let Gallagher speak her mind. The results were interesting.

 

The focal point of the article was that Gallagher more or less acknowledged the inevitability of marriage equality, and that she would henceforth direct her energy to other issues.  Gallagher said that she had no regrets about fighting for an issue she cared deeply about, but that there are other battles she looks forward to fighting. “I now have a lot more freedom now to figure out what I want to do with the next 20 years of my life,” she told Shapiro.  Gallagher’s concession was naturally big news, but it’s her additional comments regarding the future pro-marriage equality America that interest me.

 

When asked her opinion on increasing support of marriage equality from religious groups in the U.S., Gallagher had her explanation ready.  She reasoned that as the dominant public morality in this country changes to support marriage equality, religious groups will want to conform in order to avoid being seen as backwards.  Gallagher predicted a bleak future for these groups:

 

“If responses to previous cultural/sexual/moral clashes (like abortion or the sexual revolution) are any indication, religions that embrace the dominant morality and reject core Biblical teachings will fade, fast, like the Episcopalians in this country.”

 

To me, this illustrates a profound misunderstanding of religious support of marriage equality and LGBT rights generally.  Gallagher seems to believe that religious Americans were coerced or assimilated into a viewpoint out of fear.  That contention sidesteps the reality that many individuals in “mainline” Protestant denominations have advocated for LGBT rights – including marriage – as soon as the issue began to gain public notice in the early 2000s.

 

Perhaps more importantly, Gallagher missed the mark on impact of religious groups embracing marriage equality. While both Catholic and mainline Protestant church attendance may continue to decline, it will not be because of a compassionate stance on marriage.

 

Congregations are growing older and they need newer, younger members to survive.  It is no secret that younger Americans are more in favor of marriage equality than their parents or grandparents, but this trend continues even among comparatively conservative Evangelical Christians.  A 2011 Pew Research poll f0und that 44% of respondents aged 18-29 supported marriage equality, compared to only 12% of respondents over the age of 65.

 

I have seen the fallacy of Gallagher’s prediction with my own eyes and in my own community.  As a practicing Episcopalian, I have regularly attended services at St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral in downtown Syracuse since my arrival in 2011.  In 2013, a rainbow flag was introduced beside the American and Episcopal flags, indicating the church’s inclusiveness to all who pass by.  On at least two or three Sundays after the new flag was hung, several new and younger people and couples wandered in during the service and took a seat.  Afterwards, they expressed relief to the pastor that they found a church that accepts them.

 

Such occasions give me hope that Maggie Gallagher’s bleak predictions for the future of religious America are unfounded.

(Sources for this article can be found in the hyperlinked text within)

Debating Assisted Suicide

After a brief (Spring) break, the SLACE Archive has returned. The most recent episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze radio programme, lived up to its name–tackling the vexing issue of physician assisted suicide.

Here is a description of the show from the Moral Maze website:

There are few more emotive subjects than assisted dying. It captures both the hopes and the fears of the age in which we live. Advances in medical technology have been a triumph, extending our life expectancy almost exponentially. 33% of babies born today can expect to live to 100. 80 years ago the figure would have been less than 4%. But along with the undreamt of levels of longevity have come the nightmares of a lingering death; robbed of our humanity by the indignity and pain of diseases. The government has just announced that it will give MP’s a free vote on the latest legislative attempt to allow people to get help to die and campaigners believe that decision will give the bill a strong chance of becoming law. It will allow adults to ask a doctor to help them die if they’ve been given no more than six months to live. But it won’t go as far as some campaigners would like. Why is it morally acceptable to help someone to kill themselves if they’re already close to death, but not to help someone who might have many years of pain and suffering ahead of them? And if it’s right to allow adults assisted suicide, why not children? After all is it moral to expect them to endure the suffering we would not? At the heart of this issue is personal choice and moral agency – it’s my life and my death. But is the brutal truth that in almost every circumstance we already have that choice, it’s just that we want someone else to administer the coup de gras? Or is that point? Assisted dying – a very compassionate and humane answer to help people when they are at their most desperate or a law that will in reality help only a small number, but put many more vulnerable people at risk? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Claire Fox, Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser.

Witnesses are Graham Winyard, Colin Harte, Gerlant van Berlaer and Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Debating Assisted Suicide

After a brief (Spring) break, the SLACE Archive has returned. The most recent episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze radio programme, lived up to its name–tackling the vexing issue of physician assisted suicide.

Here is a description of the show from the Moral Maze website:

There are few more emotive subjects than assisted dying. It captures both the hopes and the fears of the age in which we live. Advances in medical technology have been a triumph, extending our life expectancy almost exponentially. 33% of babies born today can expect to live to 100. 80 years ago the figure would have been less than 4%. But along with the undreamt of levels of longevity have come the nightmares of a lingering death; robbed of our humanity by the indignity and pain of diseases. The government has just announced that it will give MP’s a free vote on the latest legislative attempt to allow people to get help to die and campaigners believe that decision will give the bill a strong chance of becoming law. It will allow adults to ask a doctor to help them die if they’ve been given no more than six months to live. But it won’t go as far as some campaigners would like. Why is it morally acceptable to help someone to kill themselves if they’re already close to death, but not to help someone who might have many years of pain and suffering ahead of them? And if it’s right to allow adults assisted suicide, why not children? After all is it moral to expect them to endure the suffering we would not? At the heart of this issue is personal choice and moral agency – it’s my life and my death. But is the brutal truth that in almost every circumstance we already have that choice, it’s just that we want someone else to administer the coup de gras? Or is that point? Assisted dying – a very compassionate and humane answer to help people when they are at their most desperate or a law that will in reality help only a small number, but put many more vulnerable people at risk? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Claire Fox, Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser.

Witnesses are Graham Winyard, Colin Harte, Gerlant van Berlaer and Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Sunday Funday: The Daily Show on AZ’s Anti-Gay Bill

Sunday Funday: The Daily Show on AZ’s Anti-Gay Bill

Earlier this week SLACE discussed a bill, SB 1062, passed by the Arizona Legislation that, by the end of the week, was widely viewed as being anti-gay.  As of last Monday, when the SLACE post was published, the bill was awaiting enactment through the signature of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.  In the interim, a strange turn of events came to fruition.  The bill was lambasted as being discriminatory, and even some of the legislatures who voted for it repudiated their votes and urged the governor to veto the bill. Gov. Brewer did eventually veto the bill.  However, before tearing the bill out of the legislative history and tossing it to the trash bin of bad ideas, here is a clip from The Daily Show lampooning the failed bill and pointing out the hypocrisy that sounded it.

 

This post was originally published on the SLACE Archive.  For more public policy related video/audio, be sure to check out the SLACE Archive for daily podcast recommendations.

Sunday Funday: From Russia with Love

Sunday Funday: From Russia with Love

This week, This Daily Show with Jon Stewart sent correspondent Jason Jones to Russia, albeit Moscow, for the Olympic games.  In the first segment, entitled “Jason Jones Live From Sochi-ish – Commie Dearest,” Jones explores Cold War nostalgia.  Here is a description:

JASON JONES REMEMBERS THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF DRUNKEN NUCLEAR HOOLIGANISM BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND SOVIET UNION.  (06:28)

The second segment, titled “Jason Jones Live From Sochi-ish – Behind the Iron Closet, discusses Russian views on gay rights. Here is a description:

JASON JONES QUESTIONS RUSSIAN CITIZENS ABOUT GAY RIGHTS AND FINDS THEIR OPINIONS COMPARE FAVORABLY WITH AMERICAN VIEWS — OF 40 YEARS AGO.  (06:39)

This post was originally published on the SLACE Archive.  For more public policy related video/audio, be sure to check out the SLACE Archive for daily podcast recommendations.