American Family Values

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves

Imagine my surprise to learn that Gawd in all His stiff-necked, punitive majesty sent a wind equivalent to a couple of Hiroshimas to flatten a twenty mile stretch of Oklahoma because of this country’s embrace of all things LGBT, and particularly sports figures. Oy! Just wait until He hears about the Boy Scouts!

This proclamation, courtesy of the evangelicals, happened the very same week that the new pope declared that even atheists who do good works are redeemed by the love of Jesus Christ, and therefore worthy of inclusion. This proves, once again, that the old Gawd is a bit dickish but that the second generation, the guy with a testament all his own, is undeniably cool. It also points up the fly in our ointment: humankind’s continuing family squabble about who we are.

We’re having a hard time making up our minds, aren’t we? It’s not just the big things, the little things have us in a stranglehold as well. After 13 hours of deliberation, a Phoenix jury attempting to decide the fate of Jodi Arias threw up their hands, deadlocked, and put the life or death decision in the hands of a new, soon to be selected jury. As the (non)decision was announced, one weeping jury member mouthed “I’m sorry” to the waiting family of stabbing victim Travis Alexander, who expected their pound of flesh (as did Nancy Grace and her many followers).

Elsewhere, building on the momentum of Connecticut and Maryland repealing the death penalty in the last two years, Colorado’s Governor John Hickenlooper spared the life of a convicted killer because he felt his state’s death-penalty system was “imperfect and flawed,” and that the public needed to learn, as he had, that this most serious of verdicts is meted out unfairly, that it has no deterrent effect on crime, and that victims’ families seldom find closure after the punishment.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia do not practice capital punishment, which many on the left consider state-sanctioned murder, more revenge than justice. Currently, Colorado, Nebraska and Delaware, along with 14 other states, are considering legislation to eliminate the death penalty in favor of life without parole. So far, supermajority votes have kept those laws from passing, but the topic is not settled. Clearly, a movement of this sort means public sentiment has moved. The concept of putting a human to death has evidently hit the consciousness of many Americans, who — rightly — are tired of war and killing.

In conventional terms, the public has come to a point of awareness on many of today’s political topics, the straw finally breaking the camel’s back, but only as we are able to connect all the dots to form an accurate picture. We seem to have completed the picture on matters of gender, even if our politicians are still hedging. In too many ways to count, civil liberties for gay citizens are a proposal whose time has come.

We can say the same for immigration, and this week, issues of immigration and gender crossed paths. In keeping with our current dysfunction, the bi-partisan group of senators trying to hammer out an immigration proposal keep watering it down in order to pass it through the House (which probably won’t pass it anyway). Vermont’s Patrick Leahy proposed an amendment allowing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans to sponsor their same-sex spouses for purposes of immigration visas, but when Pubs threatened to throw the entire package under the bus, Leahy was pressured from peers (and higher) to remove the amendment, which he did.

Two-thirds of Latino voters support equality for gay couples in immigration reform, expecting the Dems to address their issues fairly, and frankly, and it’s also in the Pubs’ best interests to pass something this demographic approves. One more time, we’re contemplating offering the voters half a loaf: yes, proposals for immigration reform are critical but diluted to the point of tepid and incomplete, barely serving our needs. The public is tapping its toe, waiting for the political class to catch up.

The decision to allow gay Boy Scouts is another of those propositions we can celebrate, but with some hesitation. LGBT adults are still unwelcome to serve as members of this organization, so any gay kids looking to earn Eagle Scout better get it done before their 18th birthday, because once they’re adults they’re out on their butts — or out-scout, forgive the pun. And will the self-esteem of gay youngsters suffer in a group that specifically bars gay leaders as potential sexual predators? What does that say about adult mentorship in general?

Since the majority of these groups are sponsored by churches, it’s interesting to note that the liberal churches, as well as the Mormons, have taken this ruling in stride, but the Catholic clergy is now “rethinking” its position. As the primary molesters of the young over these many centuries, you’d think they’d let somebody else cast the first stone, wouldn’t you? And now, thanks to that pesky pope, the Scouts will probably have to let atheists in too!

Senator Leahy said, “I don’t want to be the senator who asks people to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country.” Proponents of gay Scouts are concerned that a similar split between the acceptable gay child as opposed to the forbidden gay adult will send the wrong message to youngsters. Still, such closed-minded restrictions are only slowing up progress, not preventing it. If we’re waiting now for across-the-board approval for gay marriage, remember it wasn’t so long ago we couldn’t ask or tell, so we can treat ourself to a moment’s encouragement.

Immigration reform is in the works, destined to happen in a changing American demographic; the Boy Scouts of America now welcomes all youngsters, and some day soon, perhaps, all people; the death penalty is losing popularity as an ethical solution to crime, revealing itself as purposely cruel and anachronistic. All of that changes the energy of the moment, the zeitgeist that we so often think is carved in stone. If we connect the dots to each of these situations, it appears that we’ve already resolved most of the emotions around the issues. What is slowing up this needed process of change is the unyielding stubbornness of those obstructionists who are being dragged behind, fighting tooth and toenail to prevent a more enlightened future and free society.

Once, when government was a bit more even-handed and capitalism not nearly so wicked, when civility was prized over dissent, when science was approved over opinion, each of us could hide within our own little like-minded tribe, managing our lives as best we could. No more.

Radical politics have shifted our consciousness before, and this time on the right side of the political spectrum, providing a glimpse of our shadow side. Last time, it was lefty kids, unwilling to fight the empire’s war, pointing our attention to misuse of power and corrupt government; this time, a combination of class war and profit margin is rubbing our noses in economic inequity and corporate lobbying, the laws protecting the proletariat and middle class dead by the thousand cuts designed in conservative think-tanks and implemented, one by one, over the course of decades.

In this rarified energy, we cannot simply look at these challenges as facts, disconnected from our experience of them. Here and now, politics is highly personal. Our outlook changes when we process these cerebral topics with our hearts; in order for ethics to prevail, for humankind to hear its higher angels, we must balance mental acuity with emotional maturity. One without the other, on any topic we choose, leads to extremism. We’ve had enough of that to last several lifetimes, don’t you think?

We have opportunity, now, to see things very clearly. For instance, as Obama attempts to justify the use of drones, we are all witness to the efficiency of stripped-down technology. This is a teaching moment, a clear view of killing without the fog of war, the romance of brothers in arms, the angst of boots on the ground. Here we can decide if our security is dependent upon using such means, if this is who we are and who we want to be. It’s a legitimate question, asked of ALL Americans. Media Benjamin has one point of view, Barack Obama has another. It’s time for us to make the decision about who we are, who we will become, and define our votes, our activism, our buying habits and opinions.

Sex, death, religion: all the topics my mother warned should never be discussed at a cocktail party if one was to avoid shouting matches and flying punches. These are not just culture issues; they’re human issues, adult topics, asking us to behave as such. We’re taking a good look at the fly in the ointment of progress, taking a serious view of what no longer works nor any longer has the support of the public.

We’re defining who we are. It’s the stuff of American values, finally up on the kitchen table to be sorted.