RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Rich writes: "There's already another shoe dropping from the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, which lets family owned corporations opt out of paying for insurance coverage for contraceptives if they have religious objections."

Women protest the Hobby Lobby decision in Washington, DC. (photo: Getty Images)
Women protest the Hobby Lobby decision in Washington, DC. (photo: Getty Images)

Could Hobby Lobby Reverse Progress on Gay Civil Rights?

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

10 July 14


Every week, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich talks with contributor Eric Benson about the biggest stories in politics and culture. This week: more fallout from the Hobby Lobby ruling; the intractable immigration mess; and Warren G. Harding's "Jerry."

here’s already another shoe dropping from the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling, which lets family owned corporations opt out of paying for insurance coverage for contraceptives if they have religious objections. Now religious groups have sent a letter to the president asking him to consider exempting some companies from complying with a proposed executive order to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians. How great an effect is Hobby Lobby going to have?

I think we are already seeing that its impact will be long-lasting. As a matter of policy, it is rank discrimination against women, period. The “religious freedom” argument of those who want to restrict access to contraception is a fig leaf — an all too literal fig leaf, in this case — coming from an American constituency that has had a long history of fighting women’s rights whether they involve the womb or the workplace (or in this case, both). Now Hobby Lobby has opened the door for “religious freedom” to be the pretext for turning back gay civil rights. President Obama has promised an executive order that would forbid companies with federal contracts to discriminate against gays. Religious leaders like Rick Warren, who gave a benediction at Obama’s first Inauguration, are arguing that it’s okay for gays to be denied jobs (or to be forced into the closet) if “religious” companies say the Bible warrants such bigotry. And that the taxpayers should underwrite bigotry by allowing the government to award these companies federal contracts anyway. When religion — or one group’s narrow view of religion — can trump the most fundamental Constitutional principles, we see clearly what theocracy would look like.

For starters, Obama should stop dawdling and issue his executive order with no allowance for religious exemptions. The Democrats who, like Obama, were way too slow to endorse marriage equality (the Clintons, for instance) should get ahead of the curve for once and speak up now on this issue. Period. Let Rick Warren and company pursue their homophobia in the nation’s courts for all to see.

As for the politics of this, nature will take its course. After Hobby Lobby was handed down, The Wall Street Journal ran two editorials on the same day — including one attacking Justice Ginsberg’s eloquent dissent — saying that it is wrong to interpret the ruling as another front in the GOP “war on women.” Of course they were protesting too much. The blatant spectacle of an all-male judicial majority deciding this case was of a piece with those infamous all-male House hearings on contraception. As Jackie Calmes of the Times reported last week, unmarried women are a fast-growing Democratic constituency — more than twice as numerous as that more famous fast-growing voting bloc, Hispanics (56 million unmarried women vs. 25 million Hispanics voters). When these women turn out — in 2016, if not this year’s midterms — they will exact an electoral price. Mitt Romney never did extricate himself from contraception politics in the 2012 campaign, and now his party will bear the burden of a Supreme Court decision that has far more lasting implications than the 2012 firestorm surrounding Rush Limbaugh’s verbal assault on Sandra Fluke. With its double-edged blade slicing away at both the rights and sexual privacy of women and gays, Hobby Lobby threatens not just the victims of the ruling but the GOP’s long-term political prospects.

Yesterday President Obama requested that Congress allocate nearly $4 billion in emergency funding to address the humanitarian crisis on the U.S.'s southwestern border, where more than 52,000 unaccompanied minors — mostly from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador—have been detained crossing into the country. Meanwhile, Texas Governor Rick Perry, an outspoken critic of the White House's immigration policies, refused to greet Obama at the airport in Dallas, but will sit down with him for a private meeting on the issue. The border situation is tragic and seemingly intractable. Is there any way out?

This much is certain: A meeting between Rick Perry and the president will solve absolutely nothing. Nor would have a Perry-Obama handshake on the Dallas airport tarmac. Nor will the immigration roundtable discussion that Obama is sandwiching in between fund-raising engagements in Texas today. Nor would a presidential visit to the border (which some Republicans are proposing and which Obama rightly is skipping). Nor will the president’s $3.7 billion proposal — a Band-Aid solution to the immediate migration crisis and not likely to get through Congress in any case.

Without comprehensive reform, the entire immigration system will indefinitely remain the mess it is now. And reform is dead because the bill passed by the Senate died in John Boehner’s House. Period. The politics are complicated for the Democrats too — witness Obama careening between strict legal enforcement and his reformist ambitions — but as everyone knows, they are particularly nettlesome for the Party of No, whose xenophobic excesses make it anathema to the Hispanic voters it needs to survive. Meanwhile, the failure to resolve the immigration standoff — year after year, and surely into the 2016 election season — remains Exhibit A in the citizenry’s sole area of bipartisan agreement: Washington is hopeless.

The country is now learning, via The New York Times Magazine, that Warren G. Harding's "intimate," "frank," and "sexually explicit" letters to his mistress will be made available to the public for the first time. How do the 29th president’s scandals stack up against our political scandals du jour?

Harding was Bill Clinton before it was cool — though as far as we know, Clinton never gave his penis the nickname “Jerry,” as Harding did. And the wholesale corruption that culminated in the Teapot Dome scandal is the template for every pay-for-play K Street and White House scandal since. Plus, a flock of mysteries, most of them bogus, trailed Harding’s short political life and untimely death in office: Was he hiding a racially mixed genealogy? Did his wife try to murder him? Did he kill himself? In the 1950s, Harding even merited a Broadway drama (The Gang’s All Here) by the same team who wrote the classic play about the Scopes trial, Inherit the Wind. But the Harding industry fell on hard times after Watergate; Nixon couldn’t match him in the sex-scandal department but outstripped his record in White House criminality. To add insult to injury, John Dean ultimately would write a book trying to make a positive case for Harding’s record.

Harding has enjoyed a slight comeback in recent years thanks to his presence in HBO’s Boardwalk Empire. He has also served as the butt of one of my favorite comic American novels, Robert Plunket’s My Search for Warren Harding, which used the unseen love letters as a trigger for high farce. Now the actuality of these letters may give Harding a new vogue. As coincidence would have it, the news of their publication arrived just as the GOP announced that it will hold its 2016 convention in Harding’s home state of Ohio. One can only hope actors with the Creative Coalition will show up in Cleveland to do a staged reading. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+37 # janie1893 2014-07-10 13:58
It is a surreal world, indeed, when a company which, in my book, is a contract between various entities, can decide how I, a real person, behave in the privacy inherent in my sexual activity, if any, by withholding my ability to access required medication that would allow me to keep working for said company instead of having to take maternity leave. Do you find this surreal?
+21 # jwb110 2014-07-10 14:45
If corporations are people then let them pay individual income tax.
If businesses have to right to deny workers benefits because of the company's religious beliefs, woe be tide us when they start using St. Paul as their source material.
Not that I think that the Supreme Court won't come down on the side of St. Paul as well.
+3 # Kootenay Coyote 2014-07-10 16:28
Well, not authentic St. Paul.
+25 # Buddha 2014-07-10 15:39
Well, duh, that is what Theocracy IS. Now religious belief (so long as it is of Christian flavor) trumps civil law, and the Bible has historically been used to rationalize slavery, Jim Crow segregation, anti-miscegenat ion laws, discrimination against women, laws making consensual homosexual behavior illegal, on and on. SCOTUS cracked open that door, the foot of our Religious Right are going to kick it fully open and there isn't anything we can do about it, SCOTUS and the gerrymandered GOP House has their back.
+18 # sofi12 2014-07-10 16:15
I liked my friend's comment on the recent public prayer ruling. He said he was waiting for either a Buddhist or a Muslim, but particularly a Muslim, to offer a prayer to begin a public meeting.(!) The so-called Religious Right is working overtime to make the country and the world safe for only one religion, and only a very narrow conception of Christianity at that!

The problem I see is in our authority figures having not risen to speak out when these assaults on other people's rights started. Fanaticism works that way -- unless it is vigorously and early protested it will just gather more and more strength.Have we learned nothing from what occurred in Germany in the 1930's and 40's?
0 # MidwesTom 2014-07-11 09:27
Maybe the world should be looking at what happened in Lebanon over the past 50 or 60 years, as it swung from advertising itself as the Switzerland of the Middle East, a banking center, and a progressive country open to all races and religions. Fast forward to today and note that Lebanon now is Muslim, zero tolerance for any non-Muslims and absolutely not the progressive melting pot of 50 years ago.
+4 # 2014-07-10 17:24
I don't think that can happen:-
a/ the truth is out that there are a high percentage who are born gay and if God born us that way who is SCOTUS to decide otherwise. The just isn't evidence in religions to show reasons. The gay was always there just closeted.
b/ who says Jesus or Moses wasn't gay?
c/ Sodom & Gomorrah writing only speaks against other aspects of behavior, not that God didn't mean to "Don't love they neighbor if he is the same sex shape"
+1 # stannadel 2014-07-11 07:16
And if discrimination against gays is allowed why not discrimination against Jew on "religious" grounds? And then against Blacks? They've opened Pandora's box here.
+5 # kyzipster 2014-07-11 08:31
I don't think this should be framed as only a threat to LGBT people. This is a threat to basically anyone, even the white, Christian majority. What's to stop a Muslim employer from requiring all women to cover their heads or from starting the work day off with a reading from the Koran. A Christian employer can fire an adulterer. Probably a bigger 'sin' in the eyes of many than contraception. It's such a general threat that it gives me hope that enough people will be outraged by the fallout that we might see it addressed somehow.

It's ironic that one of the paranoid fears of Christian extremists is that Sharia law is coming to the US, this ruling opens the door.
+8 # reiverpacific 2014-07-11 08:56
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the labor leaders, but I did not speak out because I was not a unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
As one day became another and others disappeared, gypsies, mentally retarded, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, criminals, anti-socials and emigrants, I remained silent because I was not one of them.
Then it was they came for me, but no one spoke for me because by then there was no one left to speak".
Martin Niemoller,1945.
The rest is silence, -'nuff said.
+4 # wwway 2014-07-11 14:05
They being? Capitalists of course. In 1907 Jack London's novel The Iron Heel came out. Supported with footnotes of information from the 1900 Census he argued that the 99% wasn't going anywhere because the 1% controlled the message. They controlled the message because they could effectively divide the 99%. When half the 99% is so fearful they are willing to give up their rights to avoid someone else from having the same then the 1% will easily retain power. Notice the word "retain."
0 # LAellie33 2014-07-26 04:43

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.