Constitutional

Grammy’s, Gay Marriage, “Same Love”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Grammy’s, Gay Marriage, “Same Love”

During the Grammy Awards last Saturday, hip-hop artist and marriage equality advocate Macklemore performed the hit song “Same Love” with Ryan Lewis and Mary Lambert.  During the performance, Queen Latifah  legally presided over the marriages of thirty-three couples, gay and straight alike. The song then resumed with Madonna transitioning to her song “Open Your Heart.”

As someone who cares deeply and has written academically about marriage equality, I found the performance to be quite moving.  It reminded how art can capture dimensions of ongoing public policy debates in ways politicians, lawyers and even advocates often cannot. What struck me is just how apt “Same Love” is in encapsulating the essence of the marriage equality movement.  Despite all of the legal arguments and political propaganda surrounding gay marriage, the debate, at bottom, boils down to a simple proposition:

  1. The reason the state, not only permits but, promotes marriage is to encourage love and loving relationships.
  2. Gay couples and straight couples share the “same love” and can enter into the same types of loving relationship.
  3. Therefore, the state should permit and promote same-sex marriage just as it does opposite sex ones.

Although the performance was a strong message of marriage equality, I question whether it was the best medium by which to purvey it.  Initially, I was inspired by the performance, but my second thought was “And, the entire state of Kansas just changed the channel.” Making matters worse, the entire first verse of the song calls out “right wing conservatives” being naïve, fear mongering and “paraphrasing” the Bible.  However, the marriage equality movement is currently turning its attention to more conservative populations.  In the coming months and years, the movement will be attempting to overturn state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in more conservative party of the country (than say Los Angeles, where the Grammy’s were held).

If the marriage equality movement is to continue to be successful, it must adapt its message in such a way as to appeal to a potentially skeptical audience.  Once way in which the music community could assist in this re-branding there was a country version of “Same Love.” In past years, songs such as Florida Georgia Line’s “Cruise” have been successfully remixed by adding a hip hop element for broader consumption.  In this case, the reverse would be appropriate.  “Same Love” could be adapted by a country artist (excluding the first verse) for a more targeted audience.

In sum, while this year’s performance of “Same Love” at the Grammy Awards made an important statement (one that could not have been made just a few years ago); what will matter next year, and the years to come, is whether a pro-gay rights song can gain traction in the Country Music Awards.  For it will be those who listen to country music and live in more conservative areas that will decide the future marriage equality movement.

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.

Grammy’s, Gay Marriage, “Same Love”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6OVxPiZQDc

During the Grammy Awards last night, hip-hop artist and marriage equality advocate Macklemore performed the hit song “Same Love” with Ryan Lewis and Mary Lambert. During the performance, Queen Latifah legally presided over the marriages of thirty-three couples, gay and straight alike. The song then resumed with Madonna transitioning to her song “Open Your Heart.”

As someone who cares deeply and has written academically about marriage equality, I found the performance to be quite moving. It reminded how art can capture dimensions of ongoing public policy debates in ways politicians, lawyers and even advocates often cannot. What struck me is just how apt “Same Love” is in encapsulating the essence of the marriage equality movement. Despite all of the legal arguments and political propaganda surrounding gay marriage, the debate, at bottom, boils down to a simple proposition:

  1. The reason the state, not only permits but, promotes marriage is to encourage love and loving relationships.
  2. Gay couples and straight couples share the “same love” and can enter into the same types of loving relationship.
  3. Therefore, the state should permit and promote same-sex marriage just as it does opposite sex ones.

Although the performance was a strong message of marriage equality, I question whether it was the best medium by which to purvey it. Initially, I was inspired by the performance, but my second thought was “And, the entire state of Kansas just changed the channel.” Making matters worse, the entire first verse of the song calls out “right wing conservatives” being naïve, fear mongering and “paraphrasing” the Bible. However, the marriage equality movement is currently turning its attention to more conservative populations. In the coming months and years, the movement will be attempting to overturn state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in more conservative party of the country (than say Los Angeles, where the Grammy’s were held).

If the marriage equality movement is to continue to be successful, it must adapt its message in such a way as to appeal to a potentially skeptical audience. Once way in which the music community could assist in this re-branding there was a country version of “Same Love.” In past years, songs such as Florida Georgia Line’s “Cruise” have been successfully remixed by adding a hip hop element for broader consumption. In this case, the reverse would be appropriate. “Same Love” could be adapted by a country artist (excluding the first verse) for a more targeted audience.

In sum, while this year’s performance of “Same Love” at the Grammy Awards made an important statement (one that could not have been made just a few years ago); what will matter next year, and the years to come, is whether a pro-gay rights song can gain traction in the Country Music Awards. For it will be those who listen to country music and live in more conservative areas that will decide the future marriage equality movement.

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.

Clearly Hiding Something: President Obama’s chance to recommend changes to the NSA

/ David Kailer / Leave a comment

Clearly Hiding Something: President Obama’s chance to recommend changes to the NSA
By
David Kailer
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/14/obama-ahs-room-to-maneuver-on-nsa-reforms/

Amidst the ongoing controversy surrounding the National Security Agency and the arguable constitutionality of its domestic and international surveillance programs, CNN has reported that President Obama is compiling a list of recommendations to be put to the agency in order to restore confidence in the National Security Agency in light of the leaks by Edward Snowden last year.

After an independent review board looked into the NSA’s practices, their formal recommendation was “that government do a better job of protecting civil liberties”. Whether the Obama administration follows that recommendation, and to what extent they will tighten protections depends on the specific official recommendations the President makes in the coming days and weeks.

Much of the article focused on reminding readers of Obama’s continual claim to improving administrative transparency, capturing the importance of these recommendations for the second-term President’s legacy, and discussing the tension between the need for competent intelligence work and the need to protect the fundamental values of citizen privacy enshrined in the Constitution.

One recommendation the article deemed likely was that the President might order private companies to maintain the data and metadata which the NSA currently collects, and to yield that information only pursuant to a [constitutional] request. Interestingly, the article makes no mention of the significant costs creating such an infrastructure might impose on private companies. There is also no discussion of how disclosure requirements might change where private companies are keeping the records pursuant to a government regulation.

Another potential recommendation discussed included creating an entity or appointing an individual to act in an adversarial role when the government requests such documents, the opposing entity essentially playing devil’s advocate in keeping the records out of government hands. If this is a government-appointed position, that may bring up issues of collaboration by both sides or lip service in performing adversarial functions.

While it is reassuring to see the Obama administration taking the nation’s concerns seriously, it is too early to consider this issue addressed. Personally, I would like to see a vigorous, bona fide adversarial process put in place. This would have the added benefit of protecting civil liberties while not imposing any additional burdens on the intelligence community if they are already complying with the Constitution. Additionally, the President might benefit from making the National Security Agency regularly accountable for their actions, as there have been reports of the NSA refusing to answer inquiries from Congressmen about the scope of the NSA’s intelligence activities.

Do the recommendations listed above solve this issue? What other recommendations would you like to see put in place when the President submits his formal requests?

Same-Sex Marriage in Utah: Your Holiday Re-Cap

/ Matthew McKeon / Leave a comment

For a little over two weeks, same-sex couples in one of America’s most conservative states could legally wed.  Now, two weeks after a federal district court judge ruled that Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States granted Utah’s request for a stay on same-sex marriages.  As supporters and opponent of the state ban gear up for an appeal to the 10th Circuit, perhaps an overview of some of this story’s more bizarre aspects is needed.

 

One of the most interesting aspects of these events is the judge who issued the initial ruling or, more specifically, how those who once touted him are treating him now.  Judge Robert J. Shelby is a Utah native who was praised by Utah conservatives – including Tea Party member Sen. Mike Lee – when President Obama nominated him for his present post.  In fact, it was Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch who recommended Shelby for nomination.  Unlike so many of the Obama’s judicial nominees, Shelby faced no serious Republican opposition and was confirmed in September 2012.  But that was 2012.  After Shelby’s December 20 ruling finding Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert claimed that Shelby was an “activist judge” who was using his power to override the will of the people.

 

Another unique part of this story is that same-sex couples were able to immediately marry when the decision was handed down.  Unlike most other states that have legalized same-sex marriages by either judicial decision or legislative act, same-sex marriages in Utah were permitted to commence immediately when Shelby – and subsequently the 10th Circuit – denied the state’s request for a stay.  The result: an estimated 1,000 same-sex weddings were performed during the 17 days between Shelby’s decision and the Supreme Court’s stay.

 

This leads us to the current showdown between state and federal government.  On January 12, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the marriages performed during the 17 day window were valid for purposes of federal law.  Governor Herbert responded that while the state would comply in providing the newly-married same-sex couples with federal services through state agencies, it would not extend state benefits until the 10th circuit has ruled on the issue.  Both supporters and opponents of Utah’s now-uncertain same-sex marriage ban would likely agree that this state-national discrepancy is awkward in the extreme.  While the political posturing continues, same-sex newlyweds in Utah are caught in the middle.

 

Finally, we come to the state’s arguments to the Supreme Court; they must be read to be believed.  In its request for a stay, the state ditched the “responsible procreation” argument that it tried out when requesting a stay from the 10th Circuit; instead, Utah argued that its ban on same-sex marriage promotes “optimal parenting.” While surely this phrase will turn out to be as vague as it is euphemistic, I hurry on so that I may address the state’s second, slightly more insane argument: that the ban is beneficial because it promotes “gender diversity” in marriages and parenting.  This is quite possibly the most disingenuous invocation of gender diversity on record, as evidenced by the notion of diversity being forcibly applied to families in any other context.  Just as no one would agree that marriage should limited to interracial couples in the name of racial diversity, no one honestly believes that diversity is the real reason anyone wants to see this ban upheld.

 

(Citations for this article can be found at the hyperlinked text within)

Does It Matter How Marriage Equality Is Achieved?

/ Matthew McKeon / Leave a comment

This week, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah heard arguments in a case challenging the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Considering that this is one of just 40 such challenges in 22 states, this may not seem like a particularly unique development.  However, the Utah lawsuit – and all other lawsuits challenging state marriage bans – represent a fundamentally different approach to achieving marriage equality than the recent votes in the Hawaii and Illinois legislatures to permit same-sex marriage.  The question that arises is this: when it comes to marriage equality, should it matter if a state’s policy is changed by democratic vote or by judicial decision?

Inevitably, the issue boils down to majority versus individual/minority civil rights.  Voting on marriage equality via legislative bills or ballot initiatives is attractive in the obvious sense that it is the more democratic route.  Naturally, both sides of the marriage equality debate have favored voting on the issue if their state is politically supportive.  Of the 16 non-tribal jurisdictions (15 states and the District of Columbia) that have legalized same-sex marriage, 11 did so by legislative act: Vermont, District of Columbia, New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Minnesota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Illinois, and Hawaii.  All 11 jurisdictions reliably vote democratic in presidential elections, and a Gallup poll taken early this year indicates that 7 of these jurisdictions are among the 10 most liberal in nation, based on a sample of adults who self-reported their political ideology.  Accordingly, marriage equality advocates in “liberal” states have put the issue to a vote with little to fear; the Vermont legislature had sufficient votes to both pass a marriage equality bill and override the Republican governor’s veto.

The democratic rout looks less tenable to marriage equality advocates in more conservative states; in such jurisdictions, court challenges may be the future of activism.  The prototypical case here is Iowa, where the state supreme court decided in 2009 that that the state’s restriction of marriage to man and woman violated the state’s constitution.  Some marriage equality advocates seem to turn to the courts after legislative efforts fail.  This seems to be the case in New Jersey: advocates launched a successful lawsuit against the state after the Republican governor vetoed a marriage equality bill that had passed both houses of the legislature.

Personally, I believe that opponents of judicial intervention have little to stand on.  While the democratic process is indeed the preferable method for most issues of public debate, this is not a debate over whether to decrease the state pension fund or increase the state tobacco tax; this is a debate over whether a minority will be denied a civil right that the majority enjoys.  Today, few Americans –including opponents of same-sex marriage – would publically claim that citizens should have voted to abolish state bans on interracial marriage rather than the Supreme Court striking down all such laws in 1967’s Loving v. Virginia.

In the end, I believe that marriage equality advocates should follow whichever route promises the greatest chance of success.  Where citizens of a state are inclined to vote to affirm the civil rights of their LGBT neighbors and family, clearly a vote is preferable.  However, civil rights are not beholden to majority rule.  Where the majority of a state’s citizens or legislatures would likely vote against marriage equality, would-be husbands and wives deserve to proceed via the judiciary.  Men and women denied who are denied civil marriage by the majority for arbitrary reasons should not be lectured to about democracy.

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