The veto of a civil unions bill for same-sex couples by Hawaii governor Linda Lingle doesn't add significantly to what we now know about the determination of the religious and political right to block any and all initiatives to grant human rights to gay persons. We see a familiar pattern replicating itself in this decision.
First, there's the claim that civil unions are "essentially marriage by another name," though study after study shows that civil unions do not, in fact, grant all the rights and privileges of marriage. The determination of Lingle, a governor who is leaving office and not running for re-election, to veto a bill that does not even grant marriage rights to same-sex couples speaks loud and clear about the intent of the political and religious right to block each and every human rights initiative for LGBT citizens.
Because. Just because. Because they are gay citizens.
Second, there's the morally abhorrent claim that the rights of a demeaned minority ought to be put to popular vote, though the civil unions legislation passed both bodies of the Hawaii legislature by a large majority (31-20 in the House, 18-7 in the Senate). As retired Hawaii Supreme Court justice Steven Levinson notes,
Third, there's the fact that this defender of traditional marriage has the same checkered traditional marital history we've noted recently in such other defenders of traditional marriage as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Ms. Lingle is twice married and twice divorced--both times traditionally.
It's beyond problematic. By definition, civil rights can't be defined by the majority. That's why we have a Bill of Rights, both at the federal and the state level. By their very nature, individual liberties are intended to be counter-majoritarian.
Third, there's the fact that this defender of traditional marriage has the same checkered traditional marital history we've noted recently in such other defenders of traditional marriage as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Ms. Lingle is twice married and twice divorced--both times traditionally.
It becomes increasingly difficult for the movement defending traditional "opposite" marriage (to quote California beauty queen Ms. Prejean) to maintain credibility, when it stands on only one leg--the leg of assertion--while its other leg--the leg of positive example--is just not there.
What Lingle's veto demonstrates is that the intent to use gay and lesbian persons as human fodder for political battles remains strong in the American political and religious right. In vetoing civil unions for same-sex couples, Ms. Lingle hopes to strengthen the cachet of the Republican contender for the Hawaiian governor's office after she retires.
And her strategy may well work. It is entirely possible that this veto and questions about human rights for gay citizens may put some Republican candidates over the line in the next election cycles. As long as gay bashing continues to bring in votes, many cynical political operatives will continue to make use of it, as the same folks are now making use of immigrant-bashing to bring voters to the polls this fall.
At the judgment seat of history, however, decisions such as Ms. Lingle's will one day be viewed as reprehensible and incomprehensible, when they are made by someone who claims to represent the moral values of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. (Ms. Lingle is Jewish.)
But as Mr. Bush junior famously noted, those who aren't around to witness history don't really need to worry about history. Do they?
The graphic is from Kerry Waghorn's U.S. Political Caricatures Gallery.
