"All Governments Lie" and the Real-Life Comments Section

“All Governments Lie: Truth, Deception, and the Spirt of I.F. Stone,” playing through Thursday, November 10 at Cinema Village.

Anyone who believes that Millennials have the market cornered on self-centeredness clearly has not been to a public lecture or a film screening followed by a Q&A. There you find yourself in an orgy of people old enough to have grown children gazing at their navels and masturbating their intellects, obsessed with the shortcomings of the film/lecture and how, had they been in charge, they’d have done it better. Too many of the Q’s are actually A’s — people speaking at, not with. The presentation has caused them to think, but only in a way that reinforces what they already believe — and if it doesn’t reinforce belief, it’s completely wrong. Such events are like being in a real-life comments section.

Standing outside afterwards you wait patiently to speak with the people who presented the film/lecture and when you finally get the opportunity, after listening to the other A’s, you are interrupted by an ejaculation of someone in her forties or fifties standing ten feet away asking if she could only ask "a" question that quickly turns into five but that are, at least, actual questions. The whole thing is recorded on Instagram and Twitter by sexagenarians with or without anyone’s consent. As you watch this it begins to dawn on you that this sort of stuff is not a Millennial problem, but a societal problem. Slowly you realize that in this context David Brooks is starting to sound reassuring, and an icy chill of cynicism and helplessness runs down your spine.

The Film

This was roughly my experience at the New York premiere of “All Governments Lie,” a documentary about modern-day independent journalists and the debt they owe to I.F. Stone and his publication, “I.F. Stone’s Weekly.” True to its title, the film spells out how all governments (and corporations) lie, focusing on the American experience though sojourning briefly to Tahrir Square circa 2011. It is a menagerie of journalists whose stories don’t quite intersect; Izzy Stone comprises the sinews that hold it all together.

The film opens dramatically, with quick cuts and booming sound effects and a few shots that I didn’t quite understand of waterfowl on a pink lake with the sun low in the sky. Just as I was preparing myself for a heavy-handed, conspiratorial film, the tone softened to an earnest sincerity sprinkled with humor. “All Governments Lie” doesn’t dwell on its titular claim. Rather, it follows the stories of the journalists revealing those lies, starting with Izzy Stone, the original old-school investigative reporter.

The film is worth seeing just for the “Hey-I-know-him!” parade of journalists: Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!), Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill (The Intercept), Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone), Cenk Uygur (The Young Turks), David Corn (Mother Jones), Chris Hedges (TruthDig), John Carlos Frey (The Investigative Fund), and many others. It also prominently featured my former professor Jeff Cohen, who was an executive producer.

For anyone who follows indy media, there was not much surprising about the film, but it was an excellent survey of the work of independent journalists on topics ranging from Vietnam to Iraq and Watergate to WikiLeaks. It also looked at the failings of mainstream media, particularly the pitfalls of their corporate funding and their unwillingness to criticize the government in exchange for access. “There’s only two types of reporters,” Chris Hedges says in the film. “Those who care and those who don’t. Most of them don’t care.” The film makes a strong case that the majority of the The New York Times and The Washington Post newsrooms fall into the latter category.

It’s not all gloom. One of the film’s highlights is a section on humor in indy media. There’s something about independent journalism that would seem to tend towards the ultra-serious, but the film rightly notes that journalists like Stone and Taibbi use humor to great effect. Take also, for example, (this point was not made in the film) the intro music to Democracy Now!, which could seem dissonant against the seriousness of the news and the news organization itself. But it’s not. The subject is serious, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be engaging or even funny.

“All Government Lie” seems to draw to a fade-to-black ending about three times too many, but each one reinforces its central message: well-researched independent journalism is essential for holding governments and corporations accountable. If you want to learn more about independent news sources, this is the film for you. And if you’ve not heard of I.F. Stone, this film is an excellent introduction to his life and work.

The Aftermath

The film ends, the audience applauds, and the director, Fred Peabody, accompanied by Matt Taibbi, begins a Q&A with the audience. This is the part where the audience is supposed to present Q’s for those up front to A. But the audience seems to produce mostly A’s.

In hindsight, it’s not surprising that a film titled “All Governments Lie” would attract both people who appreciate Noam Chomsky (who is heavily featured in the film) and those who follow Alex Jones (who, thankfully, isn’t). It is startling, however, when the first A for Peabody and Taibbi is a diatribe about the filmmakers missing the true government lie. The second A was something about hearing Brian Williams say Hillary Clinton would be elected and then arrested, making Donald Trump the president. Just think about that one for a moment. As my wife noted on the train ride home from the City, “It’s important to see that the Right doesn’t have a monopoly on conspiracy theorists.”

One man accused the filmmakers of releasing the film too late - that had it come out earlier, Trump would have been taken to task sooner, and furthermore, Bernie Sanders would more likely be the Democratic nominee. This one actually was sort of a Q: Why didn’t you release it sooner?!

Finally came the a true Q that had been prompted by the film, the so what questions: In light of what we’ve just seen, how are we to spread the truth? How do we get people to start caring?

I’ve been wrestling with these questions for a while. How do you get people to stop reading junk? How do you get them to differentiate solid reporting from the filth peddled by sites like InfoWars and these click-baiting fly-by-night sites nobody’s ever heard of? How do you get people to be more information literate, to care about their media diet?

There’s no easy answer to these questions, but the glancing response from Taibbi seemed to be that you just have to write and hope that people get it and spread it. It is essential to have someone watch the watchers, even when they are mere Cassandras.

Soon we are forced out of the theater so the 9:00 showing can begin. The theater is slow to empty, and people linger in the lobby and outside the theater, eager to get a hold of Peabody and Taibbi.

I wait outside with my wife, eager to just say “thank you” to both of them, particularly Taibbi, who’s been a hero of mine since "Griftopia." The film referred to him as equal parts I.F. Stone and Hunter S. Thompson, which is the best description of Taibbi I’ve ever heard. Few write with such simultaneous passion, truth and wit.

Everyone wants a piece of them. I insert myself into lines and am quickly crowded out. Phones are flashing. Everyone’s trying to provide Taibbi an A for him to answer.

I finally get a turn. I shake Taibbi’s hand. It is large and soft and warm. He’s friendly, though understandably a little distracted. He wants to get home. We’re interrupted by Peabody, who launches into a story about an executive producer. After the director leaves and Taibbi apologizes. I thank him for his skill and his wit. I tell him the film has reawakened the journalist in me. He warns me that independent journalism does not pay much. I joke that it wouldn’t be much of a change, as I work for a nonprofit. I introduce my wife. She asks a question, but we’re interrupted again by a woman in a white dress. He answers her question, then deftly says goodbye to us. He has to get home. We understand. Time is short for independent journalists, particularly those with families.

We slip away from the orgy and I’m already composing this in my head, already gazing at my own navel, trying to get back into writing and maybe eventually journalism by making sense of my own experience in the form of the blog post that you, apparently, have read to the end.

Religion statistics reinforce what we know

I typed up a draft brief that didn't make it into the RNS budget today, so I figured I'd post it here. The latest Pew poll shows that religion largely does not matter, because people are already firm in their convictions. This doesn't exactly support the idea that the economy is the election issue par excellence, but I think that's a pretty widespread - if not accurate - truth right now.

* * *

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s religion will not hold him back in November, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest national survey.

 The poll found little voter discomfort with Romney’s Mormon faith, even though 61 percent said it is “very different” from their own beliefs.

Six in ten voters correctly identified Romney’s religion as Mormon, nearly unchanged since the March GOP primaries. The majority of voters say either they are comfortable with Romney’s religion or that it does not matter to them, indicating his faith will have little impact in November.

White evangelicals and Republicans were found to overwhelmingly favor Romney over Obama – regardless of their feelings toward Romney’s faith.

Meanwhile, fewer voters correctly identified President Barack Obama’s faith – and more got it wrong – than before his election in 2008. Only 49 percent of Americans polled correctly identified Obama’s Christian faith. This is an 11-point improvement since 2010, but still below 2008 levels, when 55 percent correctly identified his religion,

Obama was incorrectly identified as Muslim by 17 percent of the population, a 2-percentage-point drop from 2008. Conservative Republicans were especially likely to believe this.

Despite a widespread view that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs, a sizable number of voters do not know Obama’s or candidate Romney’s religion.

One-third of voters said they did not know each candidate’s religion.

The report concluded there is little evidence to suggest that concerns about the candidates’ respective faiths will have a meaningful impact in the fall elections.

A July 24 report found most voters say they already know enough about both candidates.

One Woman's Fight for Religious Liberty and Academic Freedom

Deep in the heart of Texas, a university instructor who won her case for church-state separation now finds her academic freedom may have been abridged. Sissy Bradford, an adjunct professor of criminology at Texas A&M University-San Antonio, recently lost her teaching position, months after questioning a display of crosses at the campus' entrance. Whether her dismissal is related to the cross contention forms the center of an intense debate over the limits of religious expression in American society.

[Parallel coverage appears in the New York Times and Texas Tribune.]

The controversy began last fall, when Bradford sent an e-mail to an administrator questioning the placement of crosses on a tower at the University entrance. A subsequent letter from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State facilitated the removal of the crosses. Though built on privately-owned land, the tower was taxpayer-funded and serves as a public face for the school. Private displays of religion are allowed on private land, but the tower seems to exist in a legal gray area, as the structure is publicly funded, promotes a public institution, and allegedly was intended to be gifted to the University.

The case raises a classic question out of religion and politics courses: can public funding be used to support religious displays? The answer to this question is generally “no.” There are some gray areas, but publicly funded institutions are generally banned from displaying religious emblems.

It is telling that legal action was not required to remove the crosses. Simply raising the issue was impetus enough to point out that this was an improper action on the part of the University. However, a cadre of voices defends the display – and criticizes Bradford for questioning the crosses' placement – even though Texas A&M is not religiously affiliated. I would venture to guess that this is not truly a matter of religious liberty for proponents of the crosses. Crescent moons at the base of the tower would surely provoke a tremendous outcry. And in any case, the real issue is that displays which associate a publicly-funded institution with a particular faith are inappropriate.

Thanks, jonrev at Wikipedia!

But could the crosses serve as purely historical imagery? Articles in the San Antonio Express-News from November 2011 report that the crosses were intended to reflect the historic design of the tower - a throwback to Spanish missions that once dotted the area. This argument from history/heritage is bolstered by the contentious 2005 Supreme Court decision that forbade displays of the Ten Commandments which favored monotheistic religion, but allowed displays that exemplified the Commandments as a basis for secular American jurisprudence. The 5-4 decision leaves plenty of wiggle room, but it is unlikely that the authenticity the crosses add to the tower justify their placement. The tower itself is far enough divorced from its religious roots that it does not serve as a religious symbol (witness Taco Bell). Crosses, on the other hand, still serve as powerful religious signifiers.

In the wake of her complaint and subsequent news coverage, Bradford, who is Jewish, was threatened verbally and received hate-filled e-mails and letters, including death threats. Support in comment sections of online articles was overshadowed by venomous hatred. She wrote in a December 5 statement to university police that her religious freedom was being abridged:

“I am being stalked & harassed & threatened by student(s) & community members because I am not a Christian. There exists a clear & prolonged pattern of unwanted communication, contact, threats, & invasion of privacy.” 

When campus police failed to respond to her pleas, students offered protection by walking her to her car and defending her against verbal assaults.

But these students seemingly could not protect her from the administration. She was informed in May that she would not be teaching any more courses, even after she had confirmed with the school that she would teach four courses in the fall (on a "tentative basis," writes the New York Times). She is still listed on the faculty page of the University’s criminology department.

Here the religion issue transmutes into a political issue. Universities must follow internal rules and labor laws for hiring and firing. (Yes, even for adjuncts!) There was something strange about Bradford's sudden dismissal, and it was not difficult to sniff out.

The American Association of University Professors came to Bradford’s defense in a letter [PDF] to the university president, dated May 31, 2012. The letter details how Bradford was given many indications that she would teach in the fall 2012 semester: she received confirmation that she would teach four classes, and students had already enrolled. The dismissal seems at odds with academic due process outlined by the University’s own policies.

Because adjunct professors are generally viewed as part-timers, it is easy to drop an adjunct’s professorship because it is not a tenured position and often is expected to be short-term. However, the University must comply with its internal policies and the rule of law. The former seems to have been contradicted in Bradford’s dismissal. The latter would be contradicted if it can be proven that this dismissal was tied to Bradford’s expression of religious freedom, and questioning the display of religious imagery by a public institution.

Media reports seem to indicate a strong connection between Bradford's outspokenness and her dismissal, and this seems to be a continuing narrative in higher education. Untenured professors who espouse controversial ideas often find themselves without a job. But to question Christian iconography on promotional material for a publicly-funded school? That does not seem controversial at all.

NJ Marriage Equality Part 3: The End of Marriage

This is the third article of a three-part series on gay marriage in New Jersey.

Part 1 gave a broad overview of the state of civil unions and gay marriage in the Garden State. Part 2 focused on polling data, public opinion, and the language used in the gay marriage debate. [In a completely unrelated development, PolitiFact NJ did some research on polling as well, featured in today's Star Ledger. It also published more on Chris Christie's stance.]

Those who have attended Christian wedding services have probably heard the following verse from Saint Paul's first letter to the Corinthians:

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...

...And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
(1 Corinthians 13:4-7, 13)

Is it not wonderful to hear these words and know that God has sanctioned this marriage - that matrimonial love is the outgrowth of a communal and divine love shared by all Christians? Here, within Christianity, love is safe and distinct and clearly exists only between a man and a woman, for Paul rails heartily against homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27!

Yes, truly this is a blessed union, in which male and female unite and female is subordinated to male! Paul reminds us later in First Corinthians:

As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
(1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

Oh.

Wait a minute. We don't agree with that at all, do we? Hmmm.

The great question: What do we believe? What do we choose to accept among competing scriptural messages?

This is no place for politics.

Ah, but as Noah Feldman points out in Divided by God, the systems are so intertwined! Marriage as recognized by the United States government grew out of the Puritans! They didn't want English clergy performing this...sacrament...so they passed a law that made it illegal for anyone but magistrates to perform marriages. In one fell swoop England and religion were removed from marriage! But people clung to the idea of the "holy." This was a sacred union - commissioned by the government no less!

Marriage serves a very important societal function today. Liberals argue that it confers tax benefits and is essential for the moral practice of such processes as end-of-life care, in which one partner would be best suited to make decisions about the life, well-being, and property of the other. The Religious Right, on the other hand, argues that marriage is a contract between a man, a woman, and God. It's a zero-sum game. If one side wins, the other side loses.

And so I propose a non-zero-sum solution: the abolition of marriage as a governmental institution. Marriage grew out of religion, it's true, but partnership, especially in parenting, is largely perceived as serving a beneficial social function. Therefor marriage should function in the domain - once again - of religion only. Here the Religious Right wins. BUT, in order to provide the benefits promised by a liberal society - those that ensure that the dying are cared for, and that people are rewarded for just behavior - there should still be an institution that mimics marriage. Therefore I propose...

CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL!

The governmental contract of marriage should be replaced by civil unions, which will remove any semantic confusion about the intermixing of religion and politics on this issue. The term "marriage" muddies the larger question of equal rights - rights supported by a majority of Americans. My proposal does away with that confusion entirely. Homo- and heterosexual partners in civil unions will receive benefits and responsibilities at the state and national level of government. Marriage will recede to its religious roots.

At this point, the Religious Right may grumble something about the government promoting the immoral gay lifestyle, but in fact such legislation would be very beneficial to a moral society, argues David Brooks. The true conservative policy would be to get people to settle down and adhere to societal norms. What better way than to force them into a contractual relationship that would steer them toward the status quo of togetherness!? [Not that heterosexual marriage is doing that well. The divorce rate of the United States is half that of the marriage rate. That means that for every two married people, there is one divorced person!]

Now, there is a slight problem with this. Many religious organizations maintain a special protection to practice discrimination. The Supreme Court in fact recently established a "ministerial exception" to allow churches to hire and fire who they please for certain positions. And while people may argue for changes in the Catholic Church, they aren't doing it through the courts. The separation of church and state in the U.S. is a positive right for religious organizations with a number of legal exemptions.

Religious organizations enjoy a large degree of autonomy, and I don't think this should change. In America, "religion" functions as a marketplace that allows believers to choose a religious "brand." The Pew Research Center reports that 28% of Americans have changed religion from the one they grew up in. Counting shifts in Protestant denominations brings that statistic up to 44%. Some churches already preach a discriminatory message. If you don't like that, you are free to move.

It becomes complex here because believers may discriminate en masse through a religious organization, but may not discriminate as individuals. A wedding photographer (or "civil union photographer" if my idea catches on) may not refuse providing services to gay couples. However, the pastor of the church that the photographer belongs to may refuse to officiate a service for this couple. This brings up an entire new complex of issues, but my instinct now is that as long as religious organizations do not infringe on the rights of others, their actions are legitimate. The very principle of religion's insulation from politics is what allows this somehow-sanctioned discrimination.

Religion speaks to that which they eye does not see and the ear does not hear. It may have ideas to offer to politics, but particular faiths should not bear a great influence in an increasingly pluralistic society. Let us maintain our values - the popular supports for equal rights of all couples - by shifting the way we think about the issue.

[Given the irrational nature of political discourse, I have no faith whatsoever that my proposal would be seriously considered, but I hope I have offered at least a thought-provoking argument. And so, thoughts?]

NJ Marriage Equality Part 2: A Matter of Language

This is the second article of a three-part series on gay marriage in New Jersey.
Part 1 gave a broad overview of the state of civil unions and gay marriage in the Garden State. Part 3 will focus on moral and religious issues.

It seems that we cannot even speak of the abstract concept of "equality" if we can't get beyond the issue of language.

What's in a Name?
The Star Ledger has begun providing resources to citizens who wish to speak coherently on this issue. (Not that commenters on NJ.com articles take advantage of these resources).

NJ.com [the web arm of the Star Ledger] has focused on State Senate President Stephen Sweeney in one article, noting that the now-advocate for marriage-equality legislation abstained from voting on the same issue two years ago. Oof. That contributed to its demise, even as then-Governor Corzine vowed to approve such a measure. Now the State Congress must muster enough votes to override Governor Chris Christie's all-too-certain veto.

NJ.com even gives a lesson in framing - which informs today's post. The way in which we speak about the issue of marriage equality/same-sex marriage matters because the issue is apparently perceived through a lens constructed by political language.

A fairly-useful infographic accompanied an article that focused on Sweeney [at least in the online version - I don't get the print edition out here in Boston]. The language utilized here attempts balance, but fails to deliver. And I quote:

When Jew Jersey Democrats begin their new effort in the coming weeks to allow same-sex couples to marry, pay close attention to the language both sides choose in framing the debate.

Fair enough, I say. Let's see how both sides use language in framing this:

Proponents can be expected to replace time-worn terms like "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" with "marriage equality" - and with good reason. "Marriage equality" has scored 9 percentage points higher among New Jersey voters.

Ah, the politicization of words: tailor your message to your audience. But wait, how does the other side speak about the issue? The JPEG doesn't say. Presumably opponents would favor "homosexual marriage" over "gay marriage," the former having a definite pejorative connotation. "Gay marriage" would probably be used over "same-sex marriage," the latter of which may sound too liberal. "Marriage equality" will be avoided because of its strong support. But I'm just guessing here.

The equality versus same-sex debate says a great deal about public perception of this issue. A rose by any other name, it seems, would indeed be perceived as having a different smell, depending on its name. In the very act of naming this issue we exercise political judgments.

The infographic refers to an August 2011 Rutgers-Eagleton poll that found that support for gay marriage jumped from 52 percent to 61 percent when "gay marriage" was recast as "marriage equality." The truly useful statistic is that 36 percent of the Garden State population opposes same-sex unions of any kind. The rest are either in support or are at the whim of framing. Gay marriage is largely favored when it is perceived as a civil rights issue (that is, one of equality).

What's in a name? An arsenal of political rhetoric. It is deplorable that opinions on this issue hinge not on meaning, but on phrasing.

Taking It to the Polls
Indeed, gay marriage approval in New Jersey is difficult to assess through polling, and many polls wielded as political weaponry when in fact their results are often inconclusive. Public Policy Polling reported on July 29, 2011 that New Jersey residents believe same-sex marriage should be legal, by a margin on 47 percent to 42 percent. Despite the headline that “New Jersey supports legal same-sex marriage, if one were to look at the margin of error of plus/minus 4.5 percentage points, one would see that this assertion is not mathematically reasonable. So, in fact, there can be no conclusion that New Jerseyans favor same-sex marriage based on this poll. Likewise, a November 2009 Quinnipiac University poll found that New Jersey voters opposed legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry, by a margin of 49 to 46 percent. Again, since the margin of error is plus/minus 2.4 percentage points, the assertion that New Jersey voters oppose same-sex marriage is invalid.

Numbers are less ambiguous when pollsters ask about same-sex rights in general. When Public Policy Polling and Quinnipiac asked whether respondents supported gay marriage, civil unions, or no special recognition, it was found that gay rights in some form were supported. In the Public Policy Polling report, those who support gay marriage came to 42 percent, those who propose civil unions but not marriage was 40 percent, and those who believed there should be no recognition for a gay couple’s relationship was 17 percent.iii When offered three choices in the November 2009 Quinnipiac poll, New Jersey voters responded as follows: 42 percent favor same-sex marriage; 30 percent favor civil unions, but not marriage; and 20 percent oppose any legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Voters also supported the existing law establishing civil unions for same sex couples, 63 percent to 30. Recent polling from the Pew Research Center shows that support for civil unions is at 57 percent.

These statistics are much more useful in analyzing public opinion and recommending policy because they show that many in New Jersey believe that gay couples should be afforded equal rights. These data demonstrate majority support for unions of same-sex couple that provides the benefits and responsibilities of opposite-sex marriage. The problem, it seems, is the terminology that is used to describe these rights. As we will see Friday, "marriage" is a loaded term with both secular and theological implications, depending on who wields the language. Regardless of the phrasing however, the fact is that an overwhelming majority of New Jersey and United States citizens support equal rights for same-sex couples.

The Changing Tide of Youth
Robert Putnam and David Campbell help to navigate the tension between politics and religion in their analysis of the landmark Faith Matters surveys, recorded in their book American Grace. The book analyzes in part the pull of religion on politics and of politics on religion. Putnam and Campbell make an interesting discovery about the nature of religiosity and political issues: “Religiosity has a tight connection to attitudes regarding abortion and gay marriage, and a more modest correlation – or none at all – to issues that do not pertain to sex and the family.” One’s beliefs on other issues are generally not affected by religion, but on the key issues of abortion and gay marriage there is a very strong tie. Religiosity plays a large role in these issues, but it is not a good indicator of whether someone is racist, or favors the death penalty, or believes that the United States should decrease immigration. Not only this, but politicians have built coalitions around the issues of abortion and gay marriage. After the 1980s, when these issues became tied to political parties, we see that religiosity and partisanship have come into alignment. Especially in the 2004 election cycle, Putnam and Campbell note, sex and family issues, already tied to religiosity, were tied to the Republican Party. Democrats only weakly embraced the opposite stance, but it became clear that embracing abortion and gay marriage rights were tied to lower religiosity and the left.

Campbell and Putnam’s study, however, also determined that Americans are becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, and this is especially so of younger people. They attribute the findings to pop culture and lower religiosity among younger generations. So while politics shapes the way we express our religious convictions, culture and weakening religiosity work to reduce opposition to same-sex marriage issue at a “glacially slow” pace.

I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but it was a similarly slow pace of change, of course, that Martin Luther King, Jr.so strongly against in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail."

The Question of State Versus Nation
Even if marriage equality is achieved, the relationships of gay and lesbian couples will not be recognized on the national level.

The balance between state and nation in the question of gay marriage is a peculiar problem because states maintain control over marriages, but benefits conferred from recognized marriages are granted at both the state and the national level. With the exception of some benefits for the same-sex partners of some federal employees, federal benefits are not extended to same-sex couples in America. Massachusetts couples, for example, even though they are “married” in the eyes of the state, do not receive the same benefits that married couples do from the United States government. Civil unions receive even less protection.

Steps are being made to remedy this issue in other parts of the United States. In July 2011, Cambridge, Massachusetts made the unprecedented move of pay quarterly stipends to city employees in same-sex marriages to help defray federal taxes on health benefits for partners. This move seeks to address the inequality that arises when benefits for opposite sex spouses are not taxed. This patchwork remedy has its heart in the right place, but it does not address the fundamental inequality that gay couples suffer. Changes are necessary at the national level in order to afford rights to gay couples. For now though, action is focused primarily on the state level.

These are some of the issues that will inform the third installment of the series, which will focus on moral and religious dimensions of the debate. Look for that post Friday.

NJ Marriage Equality Part 1: State of the Civil Union

This is the first part of a three-part series on gay marriage in New Jersey.
Part 2 will cover polling and statistics, while part 3 will focus on moral and religious issues.

It's time for another shot at marriage equality in New Jersey. The Star Ledger is reporting that a bill to legalize gay marriage is in the works:

In a dramatic gesture, Democratic leaders plan to announce Monday that a bill legalizing gay marriage will be the first measure to be introduced in the new session of the Senate and the Assembly, sources with knowledge of their intentions said tonight.

The unified Democratic leadership represents the best chance supporters will have to see a bill legalizing gay marriage move through both houses, according to three sources who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the plan.

Though the bill stands a chance of passing the state legislature, Governor Chris Christie remains the largest obstacle to marriage equality in New Jersey. He has spoken out against gay marriage in the past, stating on Meet the Press:

I am not a fan of same-sex marriage. It's not something that I support. I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. That's my view, and that'll be the view of our state because I wouldn't sign a bill that - like the one that was in New York.

Indeed, a Democratic legislature failed to pass a similar bill in the waning days of Governor Corzine's governorship in 2009, before the Republican Christie took office.

New Jersey is not alone in wishing to advance the case of marriage equality. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in six states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York, as well as the District of Columbia. A May 2008 California Supreme Court decision allowed gay marriage for six months before a move to legislate the matter, Proposition 8, was voted down in November. Maine, the first state to establish same-sex marriage through legislation rather than a court ruling, enjoyed a similar six-month period of legalized same-sex marriage in 2009. The law was overturned via popular vote on a November ballot.

New Jersey, Hawaii and Illinois are the only U.S. states that currently permit civil unions, and only New Jersey permit these without attendant anti-gay marriage legislation. Twenty-nine states have such laws. Meanwhile, heterosexual marriage is legal in 50 states, and may be achieved through religious or secular means: the church or the courthouse.

Civil Unions or Gay Marriage?
Some wonder what the big deal is. Doesn't New Jersey already allow civil unions?

It does. The Civil Union Act was signed into law by Governor Jon Corzine on December 21, 2006 and came into effect on February 19, 2007. But the law has failed in achieving its stated goals. The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission (CURC), established alongside the legalization of civil unions, found that the New Jersey law is ineffective at affording equal rights to gay couples as those received by married straight couples. New Jersey civil union law does not guarantee federal protection or equal treatment by insurance providers, hospitals, and the government. There have also been problems with requiring private-sector organizations to provide equal services as those offered to married couples.

The CURC issued a report in December 2008 based on the findings of 18 public meetings, 26 hours of oral testimony, and hundreds of pages of written submissions from more than 150 witnesses. It concluded:

[T]his Commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children. In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples.

The CURC proposed three recommendations to remedy the apparent inequality.

1. It called on the legislature and governor to amend the law to allow couples to marry. 
2. It proposed this law should be “enacted expeditiously because any delay in marriage equality will harm all the people of New Jersey.” 
3. It recommended the continuation of the Domestic Partnership Act, which provides protection to committed though unmarried heterosexual and same-sex couples age 62 and over.

This legislation, which affects 4,800 same-sex and 100 opposite-sex couples, guarantees visitation, medical, funeral/autopsy/organ donation rights for domestic partners, as well as tax benefits and pensions benefits.

The commissions findings give a strong case to gay rights advocates because it grounds the argument in legal terms. Civil union legislation has failed to provide the rights and responsibilities it promised, and therefore must be fixed, or another law - such as a gay marriage law - should replace it.

When legislators failed to amend civil union law in 2009, gay rights organizations Lambda Legal and Garden State Equality turned to the courts.

The battle for marriage equality in New Jersey, therefore, is currently being fought both through the legislative and judicial branches of state government. But even a win through the legislature may be blocked by Christie. Even then, gay couples would miss out on federal benefits. So what does the state's population think of all this? That is the topic of the next article in this series, to be posted Wednesday.

Puff Puff? Pass.

[G'day! Can I interest you in stereotypical characterization?]

SYDNEY — A study published Friday in a British medical journal may have uncovered the secret behind Australia's laid-back lifestyle, and it turns out to be more than just sun and surf: The folks Down Under consume more marijuana than any other people on the planet.

That's coming from a Seattle Times article published January 6, "Marijuana use highest in Australia, study finds." It's a report on an article published in the scientific journal, The Lancet, titled "Extent of illicit drug use and dependence, and their contribution to the global burden of disease."

The only problem is, the study didn't actually find that Australians (Oceanians in the study) consume more marijuana than any other nation.

Problem 1: The study does not look at net consumption. Rather it considers use percentage, meaning that a higher percentage of people from Oceania use pot than, say, Europeans. It does not indicate that Australia and New Zealand consume more weed than any other nation.

Problem 2: The journalist again fails in accurately explaining the research. The numbers presented in the study are sketchy, because they come from a variety of sources. Consumption of marijuana in Oceania is estimated at a range of 9.3-13.8 percent. North America, meanwhile, is estimated at exactly 10.7 percent, based on official government statistics. This means that at the highest rate of use, Oceania outpuffs North America, while at the lowest rate of use, North America outblazes Oceania.

Besides, if you're going to list the highest estimated percentage of use, west and central Africa wins the weed war hands down, with an estimated 5.2-14.6 percent use rate. This makes perfect sense, right? When most people think "laid back," the first nations that come to mind are the Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone. Which leads us to...

Problem 3: Stereotyping. It is the journalist's assertion that pot is linked to a society's collective lifestyle. He leaves out that Oceania also topped the list for amphetamines. And if there's one thing you don't want to take to have a laid back shrimp-on-the-barbie-que, it's a central nervous system stimulant.



Why not comment on the North American lifestyle, which has the highest rate of cocaine use (1.9 percent)? The answer is clear: First, an indicator such as drug use is insufficient for explaining broad cultural trends. Second, these cultural trends are themselves stereotypes, whereas the truth defies simple labeling. We saw above that North America has a high use rate of marijuana, but no one would say pot mellows Americans out. America simply isn't perceived that way.

The Seattle Times may have won eight Pulitzer Prizes, but its stereotyped and inaccurate coverage of this story should go up in smoke.