Fascism for New Mexico

From Jim Scarantino at New Mexico Liberty:

What I'm talking about. Read, if you have nothing better to do, Democracy for New Mexico's call to censor me. I wrote a piece for the Albuquerque Journal this past Thursday discussing the fascist alter-ego of progressives, and how it is taking shape in this state. Besides being seriously (blissfully) ignorant of the historical accuracy of this observation, the blogfrau at DFNM merely proves the substance of my argument.

I argued that progressives have a tendency to roll over the rights of individuals once they are in power. In their push to transform society to fit their vision of a more just society they are willing to stomp on individuals and trample individual rights.

I focused on two social initiatives of progressives: extending domestic partnership rights to same-sex couples and overturning the "freedom of conscience" rule promulgated in the waning days of the Bush administration (doesn't it feel good to read that? "waning days of the Bush Administration"--at last)

On domestic partnerships, I pointed out that Rep. Mimi Stewart's bill to create same-sex domestic partnerships explicitly refrains from interfering with or regulating the practices of "religious bodies" but does nothing to recognize the religious beliefs and practices of individuals that may conflict with the goals of her legislation. To ensure that those individual rights are not trampled as a price for extending rights to others in society (same-sex partners), there is no reason why Stewart's legislation could not create a safe haven for individual religious beliefs the same way it carves out a safe place for corporate religious entities. The omission, and resistance to a simple corrective amendment to shield individuals from the law's force, is a revelation that has grown clearer to me since I wrote the column.

We have already seen a case where a photographer objected on religious grounds to facilitating a lesbian union and was fined $6,000 as punishment for not surrendering her religious liberty. That occurred at a time when neither same-sex partnerships nor marriages were recognized in this state. If same-sex couples want to partner up, fine and dandy. But, please, don't force someone to have to surrender either their religious integrity or their livelihood as the price for that development.

How would that happen under Stewart's bill? The fine against the photographer was imposed by a commission. It has been appealed to a court. The photographer has argued that she was in the business of providing services to marriages, which under New Mexico law are ceremonies uniting one man and one woman. The same-sex ceremony which she declined to photograph is not a marriage ceremony, and, at the time of the case and under present law, there is no such legally recognized thing as a same-sex parterning ceremony. Stewart's law (1) creates same-sex domestic partnerships and (2) makes them equal to marriages. Therefore, the photographer would now be required, in conjunction with the enforcement of the NM Human Rights Act, to serve heterosexual marriages and same-sex partnership ceremonies without distinction. Florists, bakers, wedding planners, wedding hall lessors, even wedding singers, I suppose--everyone who provides services and products for wedding ceremonies and celebrations--could no longer legally decline to assist same-sex union ceremonies on the ground they only assist heterosexual weddings consistent with their religious beliefs.

There's tolerance--extending rights to people who don't have them. And then there's state coerced attitude adjustment--using the coercive powers of the state, it's ability to take property and freedom, to force acceptance of and participation in rituals many people and every major religion continue to view as sinful or even, the strongest term out there, "an abomination." That's not my term, but it reflects how strongly some people take their religion. And, in this nation (unlike other less freedom respecting locales) they are allowed to take their religion as seriously as they want. So live and let live. What's wrong with that unless one's agenda is domination and control of all aspects of society and individual conscience? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question).

Again, all it would take is for Rep. Stewart to insert the words "or individuals" after "religious bodies" in the text of her bill. She accuses me of misreading--or not reading--her bill. (But I obviously read it carefully enough to note the absence of protections for individuals). Legislation like this breaks lots of new ground. No one can predict how it will be applied, or how the legislature's decision to protect the religious rights of "religious bodies" but not individuals will be interpreted in the context of the entire body of law. Did the legislature, by that omission, indicate it intended for the rights of individuals, but not religious bodies, to be curtailed by this law? Such will be the questions raised in future litigation. So, if there is no intention (or unstated hope) to in any way interfere with or regulate the religious beliefs and practices of individuals why not simply say so and have it done with? But Rep. Stewart resists. Why? What's the problem? (More rhetorical questions).

Instead of addressing this argument, the author of Democracy for New Mexico calls for her readers to collectively act to censor and silence me. The comments pile on. The concept of "freedom of expression" does not inform the original post or the comments clamoring for me to be deprived of every outlet for exercise of my First Amendment liberty.

I find it ironic--and highly illuminating--that I am being excoriated as a right-wing wack job for ringing alarms bells about infringement of fundamental individual rights and warning about creeping fascism in our fair land.

For the past eight years, legitimate concerns have been raised about the fascist wing of the GOP. Is there a fascist wing to the Democratic Party? Judge for yourself. (That's not a rhetorical question. It's up to you to determine the answer).