Return Of The Social Agenda

There are those times when you think that that irritating dog next door that frequently disturbs your relaxing time in your backyard has decided to sleep quietly and just let be lie.  Then your neighbor – who you are not too crazy about anyway – decides to wake that sleeping dog and the unwelcome disturbance starts up again.  Unfortunately, we have a political equivalent to that scenario now occurring.  The sleeping dog of the “social agenda” has recently been re-awakened, and we have been forced to listen to its bark yet again.

First, we have the recurring gay rights battle for equal marriage.  California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge.  The opinion was intentionally and tactically written very narrowly to focus only on the California amendment process, not the broad national spectrum of gay marriage itself, making it much more difficult (though not impossible) for the Supreme Court to overturn it.  Then the state of Washington’s legislature and governor passed a gay marriage approval bill for that state, just as a half-dozen other states have now done.  (Notably by the way, none of these states has been cast into hell a lá Sodom or Gomorrah.)  Finally, New Jersey’s legislature passed the same approval, although Governor Chris Christy has vetoed it saying that he prefers a public referendum on the issue.  So New Jersey will have to wait for now, but its time will come eventually.

I have already written of my personal opinion about gay marriage (see “Gay and Lesbian Marriage” posting of 12/15/2008), so I will not repeat those thoughts here.  Full gay rights will ultimately come, just as every other prior denial of rights has gradually been (or is being) overturned.  It just has to be slogged out one issue at a time, over time.  Why we carry on for so long such fights of being on the wrong side of human justice I will never quite understand.  But justice does and will ultimately come.

Next came the latest supposed “attack on religion” by our “demonic government.”  This time in the form of an administrative ruling that all employers had to provide contraceptive coverage in their employee insurance programs.  Religious institutions were exempted, but non-religious organizations connected to churches were not exempted (e.g. hospitals and schools supported by religious groups).  Apparently these charitable and social institutions give their services only as long as you do it their way – a distinctive example of “conditional religious love for others.”  Various religious leaders, principally of the Catholic Church hierarchy, screamed “violation of freedom of religion” and some commentators opted to see another battle front in the fantasized “war on religion.”  (The only religious war we have is an ongoing battle to protect everyone’s religion equally.)  Yet the real battle was over contraception itself, ignoring that in every poll taken at least 2/3rds of Catholics ignore their Church’s position against contraception.  But Obama officials compromised: religious-attached organizations do not themselves have to offer contraception, but in such cases the insurance companies have to offer it to the employees directly – going around the Church.  Fair enough – except for some priests and political candidates who still doth protest.  Yet no one in the media, or in the church, or in the Congress trying to make hay over this issue bothered to actually include any women in this conversation!

There are several truths at work here.  One is that our Constitution does promise each individual the freedom to exercise his/her religious belief, but it does not promise a legal obligation to support any particular church or specific dogma.  Notwithstanding Mitt Romney’s unfathomable position that “corporations are people, too,” I feel no obligation to prop up any church by special laws.  Each needs to succeed on its own merits based upon its ability to spiritually fulfill its congregation, not relying on secular government support.  40 years ago the IRS forced non-profit institutions (including these same religious-based institutions) to separate out those commercial activities not core to their charitable mission (e.g. bookstores, publishing companies, food operations).  Those commercial activities had to operate and be taxed on an equal basis with other similar for-profit ventures without special favors (nor allowing untaxed income to certain non-profit “owners” seeking tax avoidance).  Perhaps this standard should equally apply here.  However noble it may be for a religious group to extend itself into the care, feeding or educating of people of their and other faiths, let them do so on an equal basis with other non-religious institutions – whether non-profit or for-profit.  No special favors cloaked under a religious cloth.  An “employer” is an employer, all with the same obligations to their employees, the same rules as everyone else plays under.  Frankly, I am really tired of all these special rules for all kinds of special interest groups.  Including churches.

Lastly, that usual bastion of conservative change, the military, once again delightedly surprised us in a positive way with progressive thinking.  They decided that henceforth, women would be allowed full combat status.  Rick Santorum, the Rip Van Winkle candidate who seems to have slept through the last 50 years of social change, decried the decision.  He appears to be worried that male soldiers will be “distracted” from their job, feeling the extra need to “protect” these female combatants in battle; that the weaknesses of men’s feelings will cause more emotional entanglements, on the job romances, and increased sexual assaults.  Did we not already traverse this terrain way back in the 1980s when women were seeking equal access to police, fire fighting, and construction jobs, as well as even being business executives?  In conflict, every soldier is already looking over their shoulder at their buddies, protecting each other while concurrently fighting the enemy.  Requiring women soldiers to stay in the “back lines away from battle” is nonsense in the urban wars of today where there is no front/back line; the battle lines are all around you.  Bullets do not have gender.  So we should give these women who are already in service a rifle to defend themselves.

So many old arguments.  So many old fights.  We have had these discussions too many times, been there and done that too often.  Too many white-haired white guys talking about things they have never experienced, holding on to that which begs to be let go.  More intent on maintaining the status quo of their power rather than advancing issues to new and needed conclusions.

Right now the highest priorities for most Americans are getting our country back into economic good heath, restoring home values, providing jobs for those who seek them, and establishing equal rules for everyone to play under.  These (not-so-social) issues are simply distractions from these critical priorities, old news seeking renewed attention by out-of-touch old spokesmen now passed over.  Let us let these three old dogs go back to sleep, let them lie quietly.  Past beliefs and past times are past.  And it is long past time for all of us to now move on to more important things.