First of all, several readers wrote in unhappy about (though not refuting) the assertion in Friday’s post (scroll down; it’s right below this one) that if the Mormon Church did in fact set up the National Organization for Marriage, it acted within its rights..

Though worded differently, the several emails made the same two points: (1) Doesn’t this kind of political activity by a church violate the spirit ,if not the letter, of church-state separation; (2) Doesn’t a church endanger its tax-exempt status when it engages in such political activity?

The answers are yes and yes. In fact it’s hard to see how the Mormon Church was not practicing politics on “company” time and using church facilities back in 1995, when it set up a similar group called Hawaii’s Future Today to help defeat same-sex marriage in that state.

Assuming that the letters obtained by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate are not forgeries (and no one has claimed they are), church officials put the group together by communicating with one another on stationary bearing the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” letterhead.

One of the letters, on February 11, 1997, was sent to Gordon Hinckley, then the Church’s president. It suggested using the Hawaii organization as a model for establishing a similar group in California.

It isn’t clear whether anything can be done about this kind of violation. Eliminating the tax exempt status of religious organizations seems politically impossible, and maybe a bad idea, anyway. Not just the churches, but also the elaborate social service systems they support, would be discombobulated if taxpayers could no longer deduct their contributions to religious institutions.

Perhaps more realistic (though also politically tough) would be simply to ban religious organizations and clergy from political activity while on the job. The defenders of various faiths object that this limits their free-speech rights. But law enforcement officers may not engage in most political activity. Neither, come to think of it (though in this case it is not a matter of law) may journalists, who can be fired for advocating candidates or causes. It isn’t really a deprivation of rights because nobody has to be a cop, a reporter, or a minister.

Second, let’s deal just a little more with this “referendum” business. A recent post noted how ironic (deceptive?) it was that conservatives – traditionally foes of ‘government-by-plebiscite’ – were calling for a non-binding referendum on the gay marriage question. But perhaps a little skepticism should also be applied to the other side’s reply — that gay marriage is a basic right, and therefore not subject to majority decision.

“We don’t typically think of individual rights as appropriate fodder for public referenda,” wrote Vermont Freedom To Marry’s Board Chair Beth Robinson. Elsewhere, advocates of gay marriage have expressed the same outlook even more forcefully.

“Equality is a basic value underlying human rights standards and cannot be retracted at the whim of a simple majority,” is the way Human Rights Watch put it.

But on the face of it, here in America, saying that the people have no right to make any major decision is a pretty tough sell. The ‘whim of a simple majority” sounds  both dismissive and elitist. “Here the people rule,” said President Gerald Ford as he took office in 1974. No one really disputes that. Under the system of government the Founders designed 220 or so years ago and still in operation, “the people,” if they really want to, can do away with individual rights altogether by Constitutional amendment.

But not quickly or easily. There’s the genius of the system those guys put together in the late 1780s, and the better answer to the calls for a referendum. What few like to acknowledge is that the Founders created a truly elitist form of government, one that would be dominated by the real elite – not wimps who eat brie and drive Volvos, but men with immense wealth and power.

Only white males with some property could vote in those days, and even they weren’t trusted to elect U.S. senators or presidents directly. State legislatures chose the senators, and (at first) the electors who chose the presidents. The Founders established checks and balances to restrain all power centers, and there was no power center they feared more than “the people,” especially when in the throes of some public passion.

Such as, for instance, being for or against gay marriage.

The country has grown less elitist and more democratic, but representative democracy retains the power to sift and filter passions. The people will vote on same-sex marriage, on Election Day, 2010, when all voters can throw out the representatives whose vote displeased them.

Whereupon we segue, as the TV folks put it, to another matter about which no one else seems to have examined: which outcome this week is more likely to put the issue to rest, or at least to dampen the debate in the months to come?

Granted, putting the issue to rest has not been a priority of the combatants on either side of the dispute. But some legislators have looked forward to “getting this issue behind us,” and no doubt so have some citizens.

The best way to do that is to pass the bill.

This is not a recommendation to any legislator as to how to vote. As Gov. Jim Douglas said, they all ought to vote for what they think is right. This is just an observation based on political analysis. The analysis concludes that passing the bill will calm things down more (or at least heat things up less) than defeating it.

As noted here Friday, no one expects the gay marriage advocates to let up if they lose. Why would they? They’ve won big majorities in both houses. They have the momentum and the energy. If they lose they will try again in the next legislative session. If they lose there they will fight in next year’s elections.

They will not be alone. Their allies from outside the state have plans to help them. More outside money and more outside political operatives will come to the state on their behalf. So, then, will outside money and operatives on the part of their opponents. Political consultants for both sides will set up shop in Montpelier and/or Burlington. They will establish the tone of the debate. They are not always bound by the standards of intellectual honesty.

Or common decency, for that matter.

But won’t the same thing happen, just in reverse, if the bill becomes law?

Probably not. Because while the path to victory for the gay marriage advocates may not be easy, the path for the opponents (should they have to overturn a law already passed) is pretty close to un-doable.

Vermont does not have referendums. To repeal the gay marriage law, opponents would have to defeat more than 20 representatives and 11 senators. The former task is difficult, the second nigh on to impossible. Six of the senators who voted for the bill are elected at large from Chittenden County. None will be defeated over this issue. That means the opponents have to turn around 11 of the 20 other senator who voted ‘yes.’

Only the knowledge that nothing in politics is impossible prevents calling this task impossible.

The opponents of gay marriage know this. They can raise just as much money as the other side and they are no less committed to their cause. But they are not fools. Their resources are not unlimited, and they have to establish priorities.

Vermont is not likely to be among them. They can write it off. It’s tiny, and it’s weird anyway; it has a socialist senator, for crying out loud. (OK, Bernie Sanders isn’t really a socialist; we’re dealing with perceptions here). Their time and  money would be  better spent in Maine, in New Hampshire, in Iowa, where the state Supreme Court just legalized gay marriage. Chances are, they’ll give Vermont a pass.

Of course, like all prognostications based on political analysis, this one could be wrong.

Tags: gay marriage, Mormon Church

This entry was posted on Monday, April 6th, 2009 at 12:15 am and is filed under Politics & Elections, The Legislature. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.