Church-State Separation, Sexual Freedom, and the Most Liberal States in the U.S.

I recently came across an interesting blog post on the most liberal U.S. states based on 25 indicators concerning reproductive and sexual freedom. The project, Mapping Our Rights: Navigating Discrimination Against Women, Men and Families, is the work of a coalition consisting of the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and IPAS, a Chapel Hill, N.C. abortion rights organisation. A comprehensive explanation of the methodology and other details of the study can be found at this blog. The ten most liberal states were (1) New Mexico, (2) Washington state, (3) New Hampshire & California, (5) Oregon, Vermont, & Hawai'i, (8) New Jersey, (9) New York, and (10) District of Columbia. States with the same numeral ranking tie with one another, but I am unsure why certain numeral rankings (such as (7)) are skipped. Needless to say--and I am very reticent to boast about anything--the results of this study make me proud for once to be a Washingtonian, and especially a Seattleite.

Curiously, as you will find here, the trend in the northeastern United States seems to be the pursuit of marriage equality and the neglect of comprehensive employment protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while the trend is the reverse on the west coast. For example, in Massachusetts one can marry a member of the same sex, but it is legal to fire an employee because they are transsexual, while in Washington state, registered gay and lesbian domestic partners have all the statewide rights of married couples except for the word marriage, and it is illegal to fire an employee because they are transsexual. Iowa is the only U.S. state which both grants marriage licenses to same-sex couples and protects all of its employees--whether public or private--against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. But it has no ocean.


As is usually the case, I could not refrain from being incited by what I perceived as one of the more ignorant posts on the blog, and I have provided this post as well as my rather trenchant and protracted response to it below. I have always believed that the backlash against lengthiness has been unreasonable, and that the length of a tract is justified if proportional to its depth. It is just a shame I came so let to the discussion, as the original posts are far older than mine.

"3. Ed Rockford - July 25, 2008

'Gay' people have the same rights to marry as the rest of us. Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex. The real issue is that the homosexual aggenda wants to redefine what marriage has been since recorded history begain. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That relationship often naturally results in having children.

Its really pretty simple.

'13. B. Arkell - December 2, 2009

Ed Rockford—-

The United States is not a theocracy–it is a secular state and endorses no single religion over another. This is why it is unethical for Congress-members to pass laws which represent the specific interests of one religious group, such as the anti-homosexuality stance of evangelical Christians. Consider Art. 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by founding father President John Adams in 1797:

“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Whether God intended marriage as a legally recognised breeding program between opposite-sex individuals to propogate the species is the subjective opinion of a specific religious group (the premiss of which, moreover, would nullify the unions of opposite-sex infertile couples, opposite-sex couples the female member of which is post-menopausal, or opposite-sex couples (let alone same-sex couples) who choose to adopt biologically unrelated, needy children rather than procreate); other groups believe that God intended marriage as a union between two individuals–regardless of sex–who love each other; others believe that there is no God to define marriage for us; others yet believe that God allows us to define marriage for ourselves. Your view does not trump these others just because it is your own–for these other groups have as much reason to use this argument themselves against you; your view is on equal par with theirs, since the United States was founded with the intent that no single religious view should dominate. And the simplest, most efficacious way to ensure this is to maintain that the United States is an absolutely religiously neutral entity.

I provide you this simple syllogism:

It is unconstitutional for a United States legal entity to endorse the subjective opinions of a specific religious group. Any government act or proclamation that marriage is intended by God as a legally recognised breeding program between opposite-sex individuals for the purpose of propagating the species constitutes the legal endorsement of the subjective opinions of a specific religious group. (For another religious group might believe that marriage is not just for reproduction, but also for romantic love.) It is therefore unconstitutional for a United States legal entity to proclaim that marriage is intended by God as a legally recognised breeding program between opposite-sex individuals for the purpose of propagating the species. The United States was founded on the secular Enlightment and revolutionary principles of the French and of thinkers such as Thomas Paine, not on the bigoted and manipulative doctrine of the church and religious zealots such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell. (It was the French revolutionaries who legalized gay sex in France in 1791.)

Moreover, it is unreasonable to argue that it is good to keep marriage between one male and one female just because it has always been this way: that a custom has always existed a particular way does not mean that it is better than a new one. It is just as valid to argue that one custom is better than another because it is innovative. How do you know something works just because it is old? This is relative–of course you don’t know how oppressive an institution can be without comparing it to a new way. If we clung to tradition just because it has never changed, we would never have made any innovations which improve our lives–we would still be honing stone arrowheads and living in caves with sputtering flames for heat. In short, a custom isn’t good because it is old–it is good because of how happy its qualities make the people. Change is (often) good.

Finally, in anticipation of an argument I believe you would make anyway, it is unjust in a true democracy to give the majority rule over an issue which concerns not them, but only the minority. A democracy is a system in which the citizen has the right to voice their own opinion on issues which directly concern them–specifically BECAUSE such issues directly concern them; it is NOT a system in which the citizen has the right to voice their own opinion on issues which to NOT directly concern them. With respect to same-sex marriage, it does not directly affect a marriage heterosexual couple whether their homosexual neighbours marry one another–this is a private act concerning only the homosexual couple. It therefore is undemocratic to allow the heterosexual majority to rule on a minority issue such as same-sex marriage.

Your notion of marriage as a breeding program intended by God to propagate the species is merely one of many subjective definitions of marriage which are continually weaving in and out of existence, ever obsolescing and being born. It is, in my opinion, a stubbornly primitive, irrational, and uncivilized system which seeks to dictate people’s private domestic lives through a personal belief system–religion–in order to control women’s bodies and soullessly mechanize the act of human reproduction, as if we were rabbits in a warren and it were perpetually Spring; it extols fear and intractability as virtues and overlooks some of the most quintessentially human principles of all, those which we cherish in their own right: love, happiness, and respect for the self-sovereignty and self-determination of our fellow human being.

So poo on you.' "

One afterthought I should include here as a sort of post-script, and which I overlooked because of my excited tangents on other points, concerns what appears to be a straw-man fallacy which Mr. Rockford weasels in to give the illusion that gay marriage advocates are mistaken about the state of gay-straight equality. He asserts, " '[g]ay' people have the same rights to marry as the rest of us. Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex." Mr. Rockford clearly misrepresents the position of gay marriage advocates: they obviously do not posit that straights possess the right to marry the opposite sex while gays lack this right; they posit that straights have the right to marry members of the sex they are attracted to, while gays do not. In other words, it is irrelevant that gays and straights have equal marriage rights in that both groups can marry members of the opposite sex, because this is not the inequality which gay marriage advocates have pointed out (and to which Mr. Rockford responds) in the first place. What is relevant is that (1) nobody--gay or straight--can marry a member of the opposite sex (which is just another form of sexism), and (2) straights can still marry members of the opposite sex, to whom they are attracted, while gays still cannot marry members of the same sex, to whom they are attracted. In short, the inequality lies not in the fact that anybody can marry a member of the opposite sex, whether they are attracted to that person or not, but in the fact that only straights are allowed to marry people they are attracted to. To miss this point and divert attention to an irrelevant one seems like a sophomoric, shamelessly blatant sophistry which fails to further Mr. Rockford's argument in the least.

Phantom Bride EP

Inimitable synthpop duo Erasure, consisting of keyboard wizard Vince Clarke and soulful vocalist Andy Bell, released the Phantom Bride EP 12 October 2009, realising a fourth single from their best-selling album, The Innocents. The original version of Phantom Bride not only possesses a sweeping melody and sophisticated arrangements which are timeless--epic--in their appeal, but it also serves as a social commentary which is uncannily relevant today. Come on. You have no excuse to like La Roux but hate Erasure.

As always, I will look first at the worst parts of the work. And please note that the EP is definitely worth buying, since most of the tracks are delicious--and, besides, every purveyor of melodic synthpop markets itself with dated and generic club mixes for the average Corona drinker to gyrate to.

The EP is plagued with generic, clubby dance-floor fillers which cannot be liked even if one is drunk--or, if I can like them after a few drinks, it is only because I am drunk enough to lower my standards. The worst offender is the obnoxiously over-driven, silly Wayne G and Porl Young 'Betty and Ford' mix and mix edit of the venerable Chains of Love, which consists of a stupidly concussive bass drum drowning out a fart-like and insipid bass guitar (in typical club-shit tradition), and inane, repetitious piano riffs which recall banal early '90s pop house. This track is an offense to all of the moderated, precisely punctuated, restrained, rigid, formal, flamenco-influenced, suspense-driven, weird, quirky, otherworldly synthpop sensibilities for which I believe Vince Clarke stands. Thank goodness it was relegated to a promotion-only edition of the EP; it means you'll never find it in the shops, and, to find it, you'll actually have to hunt for a copy on the internet. The second offender is the Wayne G and Andy Allder mixes of the inviolable A Little Respect, the best song ever written, which forces me to re-examine my stance on capital punishment. This sublunary remix is a generic hi-nrg/trance perversion of a perfectly sublime, soaring anthem; it suffers from immaturity, impatience, and attention deficit-hyperactive disorder, and so do its promotion-only edit and dub mix. Less disappointing are the Almighty mixes of Chains of Love, including the CD-only 'Essential' and digital-only 'Definitive' mixes, which show a melodic and well-orchestrated, if boorishly thumping, rendition of the song.

But these are the butcher-tracks of money-hungry remixers and record labels who belie the original genius of the artist. Let us now focus our attention on the complementary interpretations, those which take heed of the original conception; let us return to the world of good pop song-writing, rock 'n' roll edginess, gospel-inflected, almost spiritual, vocals, mantric basslines, and cynical, world-weary British savvy:

She was a shy girl from a lonely street. She had no job to do and no friends to meet.
She'd sit in silence in her rented room, dream of her childhood and invented truths.
And in her mind she'd drift away--a secret place to steal away.
[ . . . ].
He was a good boy from the other side of town, said he could treat her right, said he could win her round.
Her morning sickness and the kick inside. The phantom kisses of the phantom bride.

Not only does the original version of Phantom Bride exhibit lavish, elegantly punctuated riffs, but it poignantly exposes the plight of the disabused single mother, unexpected pregnancy, and abandonment by a seemingly 'good boy'. Perhaps one of the reasons the song is so popular among the fanbase is the feminist subtext and the intimate portrait of a young, well-meaning woman who has sown nothing but woe and regret in her eagerness for love and salvation from her mundane, working-class world. Andy Bell, functioning almost as an oracle, conveys the story of this woman with eery empathy, as if she were one's next-door neighbour. And this is a good thing, since it reminds us of other people's secret forlornness.

The other mixes are mediocre and more contemporary than the thumping, mainstream mixes. Joebot's "Ounce of Bounce" mix of the gorgeous Heart of Stone is a choppy and disjointed convulsion--a confusing attempt at British urban beats; Frankmusik's 'Ghostly Groom' dub mix, despite being somewhat grating and frenetic, and a dub mix no less, is more catchy, bouncy, and melodic; Phantom Bride (Dogmatix's 12'' Tearless Mix) is weirdly abstracted from the original with an incongruous melody and psychedelic trance sound; the Plastic Operator mix of Chains of Love is very pleasing, preserving much of the original melody, chords, and vocals of the original version in a slick, quick, relentless glide which balances low-frequency basslines, middle-frequency strings, and high-frequency twiddle-dee-doo-dee sounds in a wash of glory, especially in the last two minutes of the track; but the diamond in the crown of the Phantom Bride EP is a remix by Erasure themselves: Hallowed Ground (Vince Clarke's Big Mix). The track begins with an eery, almost inaudible, primeval chant followed by a faint recorded voice chanting "nothing has changed" and Andy singing: "Everybody's intent on killing someone / The streets are closed, and there's a kid on the run. / The bullets scream out from gun to gun. / Everybody's intent on being someone." The chorus is introduced by a sudden, alarming burst of bass drum, bass guitar, and middle-frequency synthesisers which echo eerily in the background.

If even for this one remix, which is truly an improvement on its original version (a very rare accomplishment), Phantom Bride EP is a delightful foray for Erasure until the much-anticipated release of their next album, as well as Andy Bell's latest solo release.

The 'Man-Code'

This evening I had the eye-opening opportunity to engage in a blog discussion over a Savage Love post published in The Stranger, a Seattle weekly newspaper. It concerned an unspoken 'man-code', which basically prescribes, 'A man will not have sex with his male friend's female lover, or even his former female lover, without obtaining the permission of that friend.' Sound familiar? That's right--Moses, Mount Sinai, and that whole fiasco. The punishment for violation of the code is relatively light--a mere savage beating. The post itself was a response by columnist Dan Savage to an anonymous reader who argued that Savage was incorrect to suggest to another reader that, essentially, he could not 'steal' a woman from another man, since a woman is not property to be stolen in the first place.

I was truly nonplussed reading about this primitive 'contract', which seems founded on jealousy between heterosexual males, male possessiveness of females, and disregard for female volition. Repeatedly, some bloggers argued that the 'contract' did not treat women as property, but rather sought to preserve the friendship between the males involved. Personally, I cannot see how this is true: this strange proviso does not involve just the two men's interests, but also those of the woman, yet it is the desires of the two men, and not those of the woman, with which the 'contract' is concerned.

My amazement billowed into disbelief as I read some of the comments left by readers; with relief, I observed many heterosexual men denouncing this silly pact as cretinous, the preservation of 'nebulous notions of honour', as one individual astutely put it. It is gratifying to know that forums for discussing such issues as this are ubiquitous and easily accessible nowadays through the internet, and although at times he can come across as smug, I respect Savage for his appreciation of fairness and reason, and for his empathetic interest as a gay man in the plights of similarly marginalized individuals.

You can visit the blog at http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/10/02/savage-love-letter-of-the-day; you can read my own comment to the post below. It may offer a more coherent reading first to review the blog post itself to get a comprehensive understanding of the controversy, then to read my response below:

I am incredulous. Is "MEAT" actually arguing that it is inconsequential whether his ex-girlfriend has the right to date whomever she wants, and whether he has the right to control her? It is just strange to think that one would sabotage the relationship of a former lover despite her voluntary desire for it. That is truly arrogant.

MEAT's argument sounds like a defense of outmoded (if it ever even was the mode) alpha-male corralling of potential "incubators" (females) for the alpha-male's genes. It seems like an embrace of some primitive impulse to hoard such "incubators" against competition from other males, with whom the female nonetheless may wish to mate.

Of course, I believe such a "man-code" is total bunk, and would have believed it was bunk even when it was the case. After all, that a state of affairs is true does not mean that it should be true (which is partly why I oppose biological determinism). It appears to be a desperate, artificial construction of some sort of "masculine social mystique". At any rate, I have no sympathy for men who try to control women's actions, whether because they want to propagate their genes, because they merely suffer from jealousy, or for any other reason. It was bad (for everybody other than the alpha-male) in the first place, and it still is. I care more about people's autonomy than about spreading my seed, even if MEAT doesn't.

Dan, I am glad you disagree with MEAT concerning the irrational disregard by jealous men of their former lovers' voluntary participation in subsequent romantic affairs.

B. Arkell

Image ©1986 Jonathan Borofsky