Two Triumphs

The South African Parliament just voted overwhelmingly to join the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada in legalizing same-sex marriages. If President Thabo Mbeki signs the bill into law, South Africa will stand alone among African nations, many of which still treat homosexuality as a crime as serious as rape or murder. The African National Congress has been criticized for pressuring its legislators to support the bill, regardless of their personal beliefs. But as the party's caucus chairman put it, “How do you allow for someone to vote against the Constitution and the policies of the A.N.C., which is antidiscrimination?” Word.

And in a smaller but still significant step, the Pakistan National Assembly passed the Protection of Women Bill, which includes amendments to the 1979 law known as the Hudood Ordinance. If the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law, judges will gain the option of trying rape cases in a civil court, whereas previously women would have had to use an Islamic court, produce four male witnesses, and risk conviction for adultery. In addition, the current penalty for consensual sex outside of marriage, flogging or even death, would be reduced to five years in jail or a substantial fine. It's not the full repeal of the Hudood Ordinance that human rights activists hoped for, but at least rape victims should have more of an incentive to bring their attackers to justice.

Unlawful combatants

The International Herald Tribune recently featured this article quoting Martin Scheinin, the United Nations' expert on protecting human rights in the fight against terrorism, on the Military Commissions Act President Bush signed into law earlier this month: "One of the most serious aspects of this legislation is the power of the president to declare anyone, including U.S. citizens, without charge as an 'unlawful enemy combatant' - a term unknown in international humanitarian law."

Think about what this means if you haven't already. You could be arrested and detained indefinitely WITHOUT CHARGE for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Assuming that you were lucky enough to be tried rather than imprisoned for years and tortured for information, you would be subject to a military trial, not a civilian court of law, and would not have the right to see classified evidence that could exonerate you. And that's if you're a US citizen. If you're merely a legal permanent resident, you don't even have the right to challenge the legality of your detention.

Although we are fighting a "war on terror" with no foreseeable end, we have decided that the soldiers on the other side do not deserve to be treated like prisoners of war, subject to those pesky Geneva Conventions that preclude coercive interrogation. A case certainly could be (and has been) made that individuals failing to respect "the laws and customs of war," whatever those may be, are not subject to said Conventions. But without a fair trial, how can we even justly determine whether or not a particular person has failed to respect those laws and customs?

How does denying Constitutional rights to US citizens and legal residents protect our freedom? Clearly the terrorists are winning. What is terrorism, after all, but using illegal acts to intimidate other people into acting against their own best interests?

A more perfect union?

As this NY Times article reports, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples. The Court has ordered the Legislature to create and modify laws that will provide gay couples with benefits previously restricted to heterosexual couples, including tuition assistance, survivors’ benefits under workers’ compensation laws, and spousal privilege in criminal trials. However, the Court was split on the issue of whether to refer to homosexual unions as marriages or whether another term could be used and has left that determination up to the Legislature.

Naturally reactions differ. Some conservative groups are outraged that gay couples are being dignified with the same rights as heterosexual ones, which apparently poses some kind of threat to procreation. Some gay rights activists are unwilling to settle for civil union rather than marriage, either because they fear that separate will never truly be equal in practice, or because they believe that committed homosexual relationships deserve the same social cache as heterosexual ones.

Where do you stand on this issue? I consider myself a pragmatic progressive. I think that civil unions for homosexuals with the same benefits as heterosexual marriage are a huge step in the right direction. Moreover, surveys consistently show that the majority of Americans support homosexual civil unions - but not "marriage" - on the grounds of fairness and equal rights. I think that clamoring for the right to use the term "marriage," which has weighty connotations in our abnormally religious Western nation, only serves to erode that sympathy and spur conservative hotheads to attempt amendment of state Constitutions.

I think we should take civil unions and run with them. The average citizen will eventually become accustomed to the reality of legally recognized homosexual couples who show themselves to be good neighbors, coworkers, friends, and family. Except for the serious fundies, most US religions are gradually growing more tolerant of homosexuality (and women's rights) as they are populated by more modern minds. Ultimately it will also seem natural to extend the secular institution of marriage to those who have enjoyed its benefits for years in all but name. By losing this battle now, I believe that we can eventually win the war.

Finally, as an aside for anyone who wants hard evidence that homosexuality is "natural" in the sense of not being a uniquely human phenomenon, check out this current exhibition at the University of Oslo or read this book by Bruce Bagemihl.