The social issues

Alright, I might as well tackle it, since there were so many questions about social issues last night. Not that most people were all that concerned--nearly everyone who's mentioned the debate to me is steaming about the Shrub's dismissal of job losses. Nonetheless, the social issues, aka the issues about how God's representatives on Earth don't like it when you fuck, got rather more play than I thought they would. Weirdly, that made Mr. Wedge Issue really break out in flop sweat and Kerry just smile beneficiently. (Another thing that I like about Kerry is that he is so certain that most people really are just as nice as he is--it makes me want to be nicer.)

Abortion--oh, Bush is totally gonna try to ban it. I love how he got beat down by Kerry on this. Most people will tell you to your face that they are against abortion, but a third of them have been there, either by having one or having impregnated someone who had to have one. Even more, I guarantee it, have silently approved when someone else got one. Women particularly will say they'd never get one but they support your right to do so if you wish. Also, contrary to the conservatives' most feverent wishes, most people are repelled at the idea of overturning court decisions granting civil rights. Brown v the Board of Education was hugely unpopular at the time and is currently sacrosanct.

The conservative strategy of demonizing your opponent's position that would otherwise be really popular is to create a meaningless phrase and repeat it endlessly with the contempt dripping from your voice. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and all them are masters at this. The Shrub? Not so much. When he expresses contempt for something he sounds like a frat boy whining that his girlfriend wants to cuddle. You have no pity for him.

In this case, they are trying to create contempt for judicial protections of civil rights with the phrase "litmus test". They did not road test this one enough. For those of us who aren't fried from listening to right wing radio, "litmus tests" for judges sounds like you have standards that you would hold nominees to. To most of us, that sounds like a good idea. Having a judicial nominee against slavery, for instance, would be a good litmus test. Kerry exposed this nonsense for what it was very well.

Gay rights: Everyone is atwitter on bringing up Mary Cheney. Is outing right or wrong? Whatever--she's out and there's nothing wrong with it. Kerry wasn't trying, I don't think, to court the homophobes' vote or he wouldn't have immediately then supported partner rights. Kerry was trying to expose hypocrisy, which is a big part of his larger criticism of Bush and is the greatest American sin.

Both of them are wrong on the gay marriage thing, but Bush is really, really wrong. It was a gamble supporting the amendment and one that will backfire. Most people are against the amendment, and some no doubt because they know gay marriage is coming but they want it to just come a little slower.

The God Thing: The question about faith was an attempt to give Bush a handicap point. It failed miserably. Even fundamentalist Christians look to religion for some kind of spiritual guidance. Kerry waxed eloquently about how he views religion in his life. Bush made it clear that to him religion means that sex is bad. While I'm sure plenty of Bush's Christian supporters will forgive him, I'm sure a few thought, "Well, shit even I know that Jesus was about more than hating gays and impure women."

Kerry brought ambivalent Catholics over to him--mention Kennedy a couple dozen times helped no doubt. But his line about how he doesn't agree with the church on everything was poignant. For the first time in a long time, I felt like a politician spoke to most people on the subject of religion. Most people believe in God and have fond feelings towards their church, but they think that the anti-sex stuff is just a bunch of lies.

A lot of Catholics are particularly annoyed to see their church being co-opted by fundamentalist woman-haters. It's tawdry and base. Catholicism focuses on the grand, the beautiful, and the heavenly far more than the stripped-down, moralistic Protestant churches that are behind the Christian right movement. Catholics aren't generally against drinking, gambling, or having padded pews, and they have confession so sin isn't so world-shattering. And since their church emphasizes ritual and beauty, it's insulting to tell them religion is just about whether you are pro-choice or pro-life.

My boyfriend (former Catholic) has also brought my attention to something I nearly overlooked. Even very moralistic Catholics are very ambivalent about the separation of church and state. Being Catholic and used to the idea of religion-as-authority, they are open to tearing down the wall. But being a religious minority who has been all but openly persecuted at times in our history, they are reluctant to tear it down for fear that it will be turned on them. (And it will, so be afraid, Catholics.) Also, if the government starts regulating stuff that is dealt within the church, there is a potential to start intruding on their internal authority. For instance, if abortion and birth control are illegal, it will take away their ability to distinguish their religiousity by standing against something sinful even though it's legal. Or more simply, preaching against temptation has more weight if said temptation is more immediate.

Edited to add: Man of Mouse wants everyone to know that there is one more thing he would like to add so that you don't misunderstand him. He thinks the symbolic fights over things like "under God" in the Pledge are exactly the thing that is hoodwinking Catholics and other Christians into tearing down the wall between separation of church and state. Religious people want the freedom to control their churches, so they should be suspicious of any efforts to tear down that wall. But things like the Ten Commandments on the lawn or "under God" in the Pledge appeal to people because it creates a social atmosphere where the religious are elevated above the non-religious. He feels that this is reassuring to people--it's easier to believe in God if you think that all the "right" people do. I'm even more cynical--I think they're Pharisees and love public piety not because it reaffirms their belief in God but reaffirms their belief in their own superiority. I stole his argument, he read it and felt like if I'm gonna steal his stuff I can't truncate it.