Political myth busting

From contraception to same-sex marriage, the past two weeks have been a bit of a whirlwind in progressive politics on a variety of levels. Rather than the wins and losses, I’d like to take on a few potentially dangerous myths before they fester into facts.

President Obama planned to force religious entities to fund contraception for their employees.

I was raised Catholic, and if I owned a business, I would consider health insurance part of the compensation package to my employees. How they used it wouldn’t be my Catholic company “paying” for anything but service rendered; it would fall under “letting people decide how to spend their earnings.” As that is a direct quote from most arguments to cut taxes, I would have thought at least one free market promoting tea party pundit might point it out. Instead, they perpetuated a disingenuous interpretation to score political points against President Obama.

Claiming that companies have a right to deny health interventions in conflict with their religious beliefs may work for conservatives on contraception, but they won’t like where the argument goes. Do companies owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses have to cover blood transfusions? Would a Mormon purchased plan bill the patient directly for coffee in the hospital? Don’t forget other forms of compensation. Can my 401k contain stock in conglomerates that make condoms? Can I use my salary to buy them? Or, am I stuck with what is on the shelf at the company store?

It would be better to put a Pride flag on private, not public, land.

When the Hillcrest Pride Flag project was discussed at last weeks Uptown Planners meeting, a number of people expressed a concern that it could become a source of controversy and lawsuits, like the cross at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial. Thankfully, the majority of Uptown Planners didn’t buy this argument and endorsed the Hillcrest Pride Flag project, but it will probably come up again unless we dispense with the controversy now.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from enacting a “law respecting an establishment of religion.” There is no such prohibition on establishment of tolerance and diversity. Indeed, America has typically moved in the direction of both, if in fitful stops and starts. Marking the trail are memorials to leaders and organizations that moved us forward, all on public land. Whatever one’s view on the Mount Soledad cross, it is at least arguably a religious symbol, and it has nothing to do with a Pride flag.

Nor, by the way, will the Hillcrest Pride Flag make straight people feel unwelcome. The LGBT community is only the most recent of a number of groups, including Jesse Jackson’s “Rainbow Coalition,” who have used the rainbow to symbolize tolerance and diversity. Most of the straight people who live in Hillcrest came for the diversity and openness that define our community, which includes LGBT San Diegans and straight allies. A 65 foot high Pride flag might make intolerant people avoid Hillcrest, which is their loss, because we’d welcome the opportunity to show them who we are.

President Obama needs time to evolve on same-sex marriage.

As Washington state legalized same-sex marriage and Prop. 8 was again found unconstitutional, President Obama’s surrogates were again dispatched to remind the LGBT community that he was evolving on the issue, supposedly differentiating his position from the Republican contenders in substance, if not text. Yet rarely has a news cycle so starkly demonstrated just how quickly this president can change his mind. After months of heralding the danger of Citizens United and undisclosed political donations, he suddenly needed to level the playing field by accepting help from (but not coordinating with) a Super PAC. When Catholics decried his decision on contraception, he found a compromise in days. Clearly, when dollars and swing voters are on the line, the man can turn on a dime.

President Obama’s first term has been nothing short of historic for the LGBT community and I plan to vote for him again, but the “evolving” trope needs to go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *