Gay Marriage is the Third Rail of the Mormon Church

The Latter-Day-Saint (LDS or Mormon) Church has a policy of remaining apolitical; they only venture in when a political issue is deemed of crucial interest to the Church and its community.  It is in this spirit that the Church has been fighting the legalization of gay marriage through various ballot initiatives since 1995—weighing in on local battles over gay marriage in the states of Hawaii, Alaska, and most famously, California (where they sent armies of activists and spend over 20 million dollars to push through Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage).

However, the changing tide in public opinion on gay marriage has led the Church to rethink its strategy.

Whereas in 2008, the church leadership mobilized its membership to funnel around 20 million dollars and sent a small volunteer army to campaign on behalf of Prop 8, they remained silent in 2012, and members of the Church only sent a tiny fraction of that amount to finance similar efforts.  It would seem, especially with a new campaign  to increase tolerance for gay people in the Mormon community, changes in the Church Handbook of Instructions for the lay priesthood, and exhortations by the leadership to be more tolerant, that the Church is attempting to break new ground toward accepting its gay members (rather than trying to "cure" them and push them into straight marriages).  According to an activist who spoke with Mother Jones: 

"It seems like the [Mormon] hierarchy has pulled the plug and is no longer taking the lead in the fight to stop same-sex marriage," says Fred Karger, the LGBT activist who first exposed the church's major role in the passage of Prop. 8. "The Mormon Church has lost so many members and suffered such a black eye because of all its anti-gay activities that they really had no choice. I am hopeful that the Catholic Church cannot be far behind."

However, despite a very positive movement toward accepting and integrating the gay community into the Church, the concessions themselves are very limited.  The new official stance is that “same-sex attraction is not a sin, but acting on it is,” that being gay is probably not a choice, and that discrimination against gay people is strongly condemned; moreover, gay people are very welcome in the Mormon Church (mormonsandgays.org) 

What does this mean for gay Mormons?  Basically, gay “feelings” are not a sin, but gay “behavior” is.  This means that it is okay to be gay in the Mormon Church, but only if you remain celibate and faithful to the Church's teachings until you die (at which point, God will fix the whole gay thing in the afterlife?).  It means no eternal marriage, no romantic or sexual partnering whatsoever.  It means a kind of ordained order of openly gay monks.  

Guys, this just isn’t going to work...

Obviously, this is just the beginning of the struggle within the Mormon Church, and it is likely to be a long one. It took until 1978 for the Mormon leadership to open the priesthood to black members of the Church (not just in the U.S., but worldwide).  So it will probably take a very long time for gay members of the Church to receive all the rights that straight members receive.  Nor is this likely to be an easy ride for either gay or straight members of the Church.  This is because the Church cannot simply widen the tent to accept gay couples in the Mormon Church.  Many many things would have to change in Mormon doctrine before full equality could be achieved.

A week ago I met an LDS lecturer at Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, who explained to me that, although he was a devout member of the Church, he had a gay daughter whom he loved and therefore struggled with the Church’s position on LGBTQ issues.  He felt that there was insufficient acceptance for gay members of the Church and that things were not moving fast enough in this area.  However, when asked about the likelihood that the Church would eventually accept gay marriage, he thought this may never happen (and wasn't even sure that it should).

Despite signs of softening on gay marriage, the Church appears to have taken this fight underground.  In view of changing mores on sexuality (63 percent of the public now supports gay marriage or civil unions according to a recent poll), the Church has concluded that public resistance to gay marriage makes them look very bad.  Therefore, no more commercials, no more funding against such efforts, certainly no vocal opposition on the steps of the Supreme Court as it debates the constitutionality of California’s Prop 13 and federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  This does not mean, however, that they have dropped the fight; they are just more quiet about it.  The Church has in fact submitted two amicus curie briefs in support of the defense of these two laws; the DOMA brief reads in part:

“Our theological perspectives, though often differing, converge to support the proposition that the traditional, opposite-sex definition of marriage in the civil law is not only constitutional but essential to the welfare of families, children, and society.”

You see, the Mormon Church understands the threat of gay marriage for what it is—something that will eventually demand reform of the Church itself.  Indeed, as I wrote in an earlier blogpost, gay marriage does pose a very real threat to the patriarchal establishment of both the Catholic and Mormon Churches, which were, uncoincidentally, the two churches that provided most of the funding in favor of California’s Proposition 8 against gay marriage.

The threat to the Catholic Church lies mainly in the legitimacy of their all-male ecclesiastical hierarchy.  Like the Catholics, the Mormon Church has an all-male ecclesiastical hierarchy PLUS a highly-institutionalized heterosexual cosmology, as they have hetereosexual (and sometimes polygamous) marriage in the hereinafter as well as eternal procreation.  Gay marriage fundamentally challenges all of that.  

To begin with, it’s important to know how rigid gender roles are in the Mormon Church.  Assuming they are in good standing, all boys over 12 receive the Aaronic priesthood, and all men over 18 receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.  Women get callings in the Church as well (nearly every position in the Church is lay), but they do not get any special authority from God.  From an LDS manual on the priesthood: 

“Through the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood, we can consecrate oil, bless the sick, confer the priesthood and the gift of the Holy Ghost, ordain others to priesthood offices, dedicate graves, give blessings of comfort, bestow father’s blessings on our children, and participate in the higher temple ordinances.”

The gist of the Mormon cosmology is that God was once a man who is married to our Heavenly Mother (or Mothers), who, through the principle of Eternal Progression, eventually became god and goddesses themselves and created a world that was populated with their children (us). This means that this earth is just one of many, many planets that were created by and presided over by their own gods and goddesses.  Prophet Ezra R. Snow in 1840 poetically encapsulated this worldview: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.” 

Mormons teach that we may thus all become gods and goddesses over the course of many many years in the afterlife, provided that we fulfill all the requirements of getting to the Celestial Kingdom (Heaven).  Mormons are raised to believe that the critical prerequisite for eternal exaltation is to get married in the temple and become sealed to that one special person “for time and all eternity.”  Once both partners are dead, they are reunited in the spirit world and (provided that both make it into the Celestial Kingdom), they are ready to begin their journey to godhood. 

According to the founder of the Church, Joseph Smith, “Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, ...they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the Priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 300–301).

Heterosexual marriage is thus the foundation not only of the LDS Church on this Earth, but of all eternity—including the pre-existence and the afterlife.  Milton R. Hunter, member of the First Council of the Seventy, clarified a century after the founder’s death, 

“Later the Prophet Joseph explained what the revelation [D&C 132] meant by the statement, "which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." He pointed out that the Gods were to be parents of spirit-children just as our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother were the parents of the people of this earth” (Hunter, Pearl of Great Price Commentary, 144-145).

He also wrote, “The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this continuation of "the seeds" forever and ever, meant the power of procreation; in other words, the power to beget spirit children on the same principle as we were born to our Heavenly Parents, God the Eternal Father and our Eternal Mother. Therefore, a man cannot receive the highest exaltation without a woman, his wife, nor can a woman be exalted without her husband. That is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the plan of salvation" (Milton R. Hunter, LDS Conference Report, April 1949, 71).

Heterosexual marriage is thus the crucial building block not only of the Church structure and community, but also of the Eternal Order.  This is a patriarchal order and a heterosexual order, based on clear differences between men and women.  Men preside over the family, using the blessings of the priesthood to protect and care for his wife and children, while the mother takes primary responsibility to rear the children.

On the role of women, former President and Prophet Gordon B.Hinckley said, “[The] ability and willingness properly to rear children, the gift to love, and eagerness … to express it in soul development, make motherhood the noblest office or calling in the world. She who can paint a masterpiece or write a book that will influence millions deserves the admiration and the plaudits of mankind; but she who rears successfully a family of healthy, beautiful sons and daughters, whose influence will be felt through generations to come, … deserves the highest honor that man can give, and the choicest blessings of God” (Gospel Ideals [1954], 453-54)

In 1995 the First Presidency issued the Proclamation to the World, which states that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” In an "equal partnership," "fathers are to “preside over their families in love and righteousness and are to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”

Ask yourself: how does a gay couple fit into this cosmology?  How would eternal procreation work in this scenario?  Who would have the priesthood to preside over the family?  Both (in the case of gay men) or neither (in the case of gay women)? Assuming that the Mormon Church attempts to convert a gay couple (or single people, for that matter), what do they say? "Please be a member of our Church where you cannot receive the same ordinances as straight couples, where you cannot be sealed for time and eternity, and where we may not even recognize your marriage (but where, if you remain single and faithful, you might become straight in the afterlife)?  The other alternative--full equality--requires seismic doctrinal shifts in temple ordinances and the Mormon cosmology.  It would also call into question why priesthood is given to men and not to women.

This is why a normally politically passive Mormon Church threw everything it had at gay marriage.  Because once gay marriage is normalized in the wider society, then the Mormon Church has to explain to the world and to its members why gay members of the Church cannot marry, and when married, why they can’t be sealed to one another for time and eternity in the temple. 

The LDS Church sees gay marriage for what it is—a threat to the very core of their teachings and identity.

March 15, 1848--Hungary's Democratic Revolution Still Resonates Today

Today marks the 165^th Anniversary of the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, one of Hungary's three national holidays (the others being the October 1956 Revolution against Soviet rule and St. Stephen’s Day of state foundation on August 20). While Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán is currently at an EU Summit in Brussels, claiming that he can better represent Hungary’s national interests there, a number of rallies and festivities were planned for today (several since cancelled due to weather conditions) at Kossuth Square, the National Museum, the Buda Castle, and at Kálvin tér.

In Brussels and more generally, critics are exhorting the FIDESZ government reverse course on recent changes to the constitution, debating possible sanctions from the EU if Hungary fails to comply.

Given Hungary's current constitutional crisis, it is worth taking a look at what the March 15 holiday is really about.  Although, the 1848 Revolution is more widely known as the (ultimately failed) attempt to throw off the yoke of the Austrian Empire--and thus as a nationalist movement for political independence against Habsburg dominion--March 15, 1848 was actually a day of pro-democratic demonstrations by Hungary’s most celebrated political reformers (including Sándor Petőfi, István Széchenyi, Lajos Kossuth, and Józef Bem) against internal autocratic rule.

On the morning of March 15, 165 years ago today, Hungarian revolutionary, Sándor Petőfi, and fellow dissenters marched from the Pilvax Café to the medical university of Pest, where they were joined by medical students, and from there about 1,000 young people went to printing houses to copy Petőfi’s Nemzeti dal (National Song) and a list of 12 demands. Then held a demonstration at the National Museum, and then marched to the Pest city council, where they demanded support for their demands.  From there, they decamped to Buda where they held a protest before the Imperial Governing Council.  In the end, Emperor Ferninand declined to use military force against the demonstrators and agreed to sign the list of 12 demands.

The 12 points

What the Hungarian nation wants.

Let there be peace, liberty, and concord.

(1)    We demand the freedom of the press, the abolition of censorship.

(2)    Independent Hungarian government in Buda-Pest.

(3)    Annual national assembly in Pest.

(4)    Civil and religious equality before the law.

(5)    National army.

(6)    Equal distribution of tax burdens.

(7)    Abolition of land tenure.

(8)    Juries and courts based on an equal legal representation.

(9)    A national bank.

(10) The army must take an oath on the Constitution, send our soldiers home and take foreign soldiers away.

(11)  Setting free the political prisoners.

(12)  Union with Transylvania.

The result of the March 15, 1848 demonstrations was the Governor-General establishing a Hungarian Parliament, with Lajos Batthyány as its first Prime Minister.  The new government then passed a sweeping package of reforms called the "April laws", creating the basis for a liberal democracy.

From the 1848 list of demands, Points (1), (4), (6), and (8) are still relevant for Hungarians today with regard to the conflict between pro- and anti-government groups.

Indeed, today marks the continuation of several-years internal battle against the current government’s efforts to, as many critics put it, dismantle a constitutional democracy.  Their positions are ably articulated here and here; what hangs in the balance today is whether the current prime minister will sign an amendment of the new constitution that will massively restrict the independence of the Hungarian constitutional court.

On March 11, an overwhelming majority of MEPs in the Hungarian parliament passed a 15-page amendment (also called the "Fourth Amendment) to its controversial constitution, that had been passed one year ago by the FIDESZ super-majority in parliament.  

The Economist describes the changes as follows:

Hungary’s Constitutional Court can no longer reject constitutional amendments on matters of substance—only on procedural grounds. The court must also ignore more than 20 years of legal precedent, basing future rulings on the constitution enacted in January 2012.  What may seem like an arcane legal manoeuvre has profound significance. The measures open the door for the government to use the constitution to pass new laws that might otherwise be rejected by the Constitutional Court. The process has already started. The amendments, the fourth round since the constitution was enacted, included several laws the court had previously thrown out, including provisions that allow local authorities to penalise the homeless, to limit political advertising in election campaigns and to force university graduates who get state funding to work in Hungary after graduation. As these will now be part of the constitution, they can be amended only by a two-thirds majority, limiting the scope of future governments to change them. 

Kim Lane Scheppele, Princeton professor and close observer of constitutional developments in Hungary, summarizes the substance of the new amendments in a guest post in Paul Krugman's New York Times blog:

The new constitutional amendment (again) kills off the independence of the judiciary, brings universities under (even more) governmental control, opens the door to political prosecutions, criminalizes homelessness, makes the recognition of religious groups dependent on their cooperation with the government and weakens human rights guarantees across the board. Moreover, the constitution will now buffer the government from further financial sanctions by permitting it to take all fines for noncompliance with the constitution or with European law and pass them on to the Hungarian population as special taxes, not payable by the normal state budget.

In a subsequent guest post in Krugman's blog, Scheppele notes that everything now rides on whether the Hungarian president now signs this into law:

If it is signed by the Hungarian President, János Áder, the “Fourth Amendment” will wipe out more than 20 years of Constitutional Court decisions protecting human rights and it will reverse concessions made to Europe over the last year of difficult bargaining as the Fidesz government has tightened its grip on power.

The Nation has linked to a vlog of Márton Gulyás (Kretakor theater), who summarized the stakes of the conflict over the constitution.

Today more than ever, the principles of the Hungarian Revolution echo through the ages; and reminds one that democracy has a very long history in Hungary; let us hope that it has a long future as well. 

Happy March 15, Hungary! 

Seriously, What is Up With Extreme Grooming in South Korea?

Despite all the hand-wringing about America’s youth- and beauty-obsessed culture, it turns out that the U.S. ranks only sixth in the world in cosmetic surgeries per capita.  Number one on the list? South Korea.  As many as one out of every five women has gone under the knife—the most common surgical procedures include double eyelids to give Koreans the Caucasian crease associated with western eyes.  Also common are nose jobs and liposuction (because Asian women are so fat :S).  The (frankly western) beauty standard also includes thin, tall, light skin, and "v-shaped" face.

I first learned about this phenomenon on a recent episode of This American Life, where an American schoolteacher in South Korea spoke with Ira Glass about the intense beauty obsession common to young girls in particular; full length mirrors and bathroom scales had been installed all around the school where she taught (see here for a similar reflection on extreme South Korea obsession with looks).  As it turns out, looks make a material difference in South Korea, possibly beyond what is common in the west.  Jobs and even places in universities hinge at least in part on whether women meet these fairly western standards of beauty; photos are typically appended to job applications, and their appearance factors into the selection process.

By the way, I learned almost by chance that there are ways of creating the double eyelid naturally by wearing some sort of plastic tape on the eyes for a few months, coaxing the eyelid into the characteristic double eyelid.

(The above video is long and the hosts a bit precious for my taste, but you get the idea…)

Then there are the hardcore surgical makeovers that make many women unrecognizable.  These guys are not messing around when it comes to surgery—you get the sense that “subtle change” is not one of the things they ask for during their surgery consult, even shaving their jawbones to make their faces less round.  A South Korean company, Korea BigEyes, also makes "circle lenses"--contact lens specifically designed to extend beyond the wearer's natural irises, which creates an anime look; many similar products by Korean companies can be found here.  The following before and after photos of South Korean women went viral recently:

(There is a Tumblr called Korean Plastic Surgery, which features more before and after photos.)  Commentators have remarked on how "unsettled" they are about the apparent drive toward a singular beauty ideal; others have noted that the "after" pictures, while not exactly Anglo-Saxon, are certainly far more western in appearance than the "before" pictures.

Nor is extreme grooming restricted to women.  Following South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun’s 2005 operation to get a double-eyelid, cosmetic procedures for men have been skyrocketing. The aesthetic is, strangely enough, feminized features such as a narrow face, and small chin and nose.

Weirdly, South Korea also ranks first in the world for men’s makeup.  South Korean "flower men" consume 21 percent of global production (nearly half a billion dollars) of items such as men’s skin products, foundation, eyeliner, bronzer, and blush.  They see it as a way of getting ahead in the business world.

Despite the apparent freakshow that is South Korean beauty industry, I actually think that South Korea represents the future of body modification.  We are already moving to a place where people (particularly women) are expected to do a great deal to improve their appearances.  Beyond keeping fit and thin, we are expected to care for our hair with regular appointments to the salon, use makeup, shave/wax/otherwise remove body hair, sculpt our brows, straighten and whiten our teeth, get manis/pedis, etc. And this is without even touching the wide world of cosmetic procedures that begin with botox and end with butt implants.

The question is whether we will eventually be morphing into an army of anime characters…

Why No New Progressive Movement in the Second Gilded Age

During the First Gilded Age of the 1890s-1920s, vast economic inequalities in America spawned two robust mass movements, the urban Progressive Movement and the farmer/laborer Populist movement--both dedicated to leveling the playing field by combating monopolistic business practices and ensuring that consumers, workers and the most vulnerable people in society have basic rights and protections against abuses of powerful corporations. 

Out of this period came the great Progressivist (Republican!) trust-buster, US President Teddy Roosevelt, who, decrying the “malefactors of great wealth,” established the Departments of Labor and Commerce to rein in big business, set about breaking up trusts in oil (namely, Standard Oil--the Microsoft of the day), railroads, and steel, and pushed through regulations of the meat and drug industries.  He was also a conservationist who declared huge tracts of lands protected from mining, logging or manufacturing interests.

After a brief return to the excesses of the Gilded Age in the 1920s, the Progressive Era returned in full force in the 1930s as a result of public outcry due to the mass deprivations caused by the Great Depression.  This paved the way for the New Deal and a host of other government programs/acts that are still in effect today, including the all-important Social Security and FDIC.

With economic inequalities again approaching historic highs, the post-1980s era has been dubbed the Second Gilded Age, where corporations largely drive public policy while the public interest is excluded from political negotiations.

Les Leopold at Alternet recently published a fantastic (and quite horrible) list economic calamities over the past year, namely: the net worth of the median income family has declined by 35 percent, going from around 100K in 2010 to 66K just two years later.  Meanwhile, the top Fortune 400 has increased their collective wealth by 200 billion USD.  4.7 million Americans have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks, and 21 percent of children live under the poverty line. 

With so much wrong and becoming worse, many are left scratching their heads over why there has been no mass political reaction or viable movement comparable to the reaction spawned by the First Gilded Age.  The weak and relatively short-lived Occupy movement notwithstanding, the biggest populist upsurge has been the Tea Party movement—aimed (incredibly) at improving the already ample corporate bottom-line at the expense of the public purse.  More for corporations and the rich and powerful, less for the common man—Tea Partiers have indeed “gone Galt.” Or something…

  

At a recent seminar on economic inequality, Economic Historian Brad Delong was asked this very question (why no New Progressive movement has sprung up to counter the Second Gilded Age); here is his (greatly abridged!) response:

“…And here I'm simply going to throw up my hands and say that I don’t know why…It’s in [sic] a great mystery to me.”

With all due respect to Professor Delong, I think we owe it to ourselves to try and answer this question—because it is at the core of what is wrong with American politics today.

The answer, I believe, lies in the culture of consumerism and the mainstream media. 

Decades ago, Chomsky explained that the mainstream media have the effect of distracting our attention from most important political and economic questions, focusing on relatively minor differences of opinion that draw attention away from the most pressing problems in our lives.  The media also delude the public into believing that there is a limited range of acceptable solutions to public policy problems.  With the “sphere of legitimate dissent” artificially restricted, social and economic issues are defined as trivially as possible so that the underlying power structure remains unquestioned. 

He writes:

"You don’t have any other society where the educated classes are so effectively indoctrinated that controlled by a subtle propaganda system—a private system including media, intellectual opinion forming magazines and the participation of the most highly educated sections of the population.  Such people ought to be referred to as “Commissars”—for that is what their essential function is—to set up and maintain a system of doctrines and beliefs which will undermine independent thought and prevent a proper understanding and analysis of national and global institutions, issues, and policies."

Chomsky has observed that American politics is all theatre, designed to lull the public into believing that they really are in control of public policy and governance in America:

"In the US, there is basically one party—the business party.  It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies.  By and large, I am opposed to these policies.  As is most of the population."

Could anything be more true?

Just think of the stories that have dominated the news headlines over the past several weeks.  Benghazi/Susan Rice, school shooting in CT, War on Christmas, and now: FISCAL CLIFF FISCAL CLIFF FISCAL CLIFF!  Most major political debates in the mainstream media amount to the narcissism of petty tribal differences—gun control/rights, prayer in school, and the like.  This is not to say that these debates are of no consequence, only that they are of marginal importance when compared to the most urgent problems of our day. 

To illustrate, Google’s top 10 trending news stories of 2012 are (in order of popularity):

1.Hurricane Sandy

2. Kate Middleton pictures released

3 Olympics 2012

4. SOPA debate

5. Costa Concordia crash

6. Presidential Debate

7. Stratosphere jump

8. Penn State scandal

9. Trayvon Marton shooting

10.  Pussy Riot

With the exception of the Trayvon Marton shooting and the SOPA debate, these “stories” are nearly all irrelevant to the larger questions concerning our collective economic, social and political welfare.

By the way, this is what Chomsky has to say about sports:

"[Sports] offers people something to pay attention to that’s of no importance. That keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it’s striking to see the intelligence that’s used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]."

The second (related) piece of the puzzle of political apathy is mass consumerism.  Ernest Dichter argued that “the strategy of desire” was crucial for creating a stable modern society.  Thus, a common identity is forged within a national population that is built upon the products they consume.  He writes:

"To understand a stable citizen, you have to know that modern man quite often tries to work off his frustrations by spending on self-sought gratification.  Modern man is internally ready to fulfill his self-image, by purchasing products which compliment it.”

The Century of Self, the superlative documentary by celebrated film-maker Adam Curtis, “is the story of the rise of an idea that has come to dominate our society: it is the belief that the satisfaction of individual feelings and desires is our highest priority…this rise of the self was fostered and promoted by business.”  The film explains that advertisers have “used the ideas of Sigmund Freud to develop techniques to read the inner desires of individuals and then fulfill then with products.”

Thus, the modern society (no more so than in America) is built upon the commodification of human desires--turning wants into needs, which are satisfied by pre-given choices made by the corporations that make up the edifice of the modern consumer society.  People derive their private and public identities from products that in turn give them a sense of individuation and thus atomization from others in society.  With everyone seeking identity fulfillment through product purchases, there is no room for recognition, much less activation, of collective interests--even in the face of outrageous economic and social injustice.

Given these twin threats to democracy, how could any effective mass movement emerge?  So many more pressing issues demand our attention…such as whether Mischa's new BB cream really delivers on its multi-purpose promise to serve as an all-in-one tinted moisturizer/suncreen/pore-minimizer. (Yes, please!) 

Why Commonsense Gun Reform is Doomed in Today's Political Climate

In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, in which 26 people (including 20 small children) were gunned down with an assault rifle in a Connecticut elementary school, some believed America had reached a turning point in its tolerance for gun violence.  Senators Mark Warner of Virginia, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia (all pro-gun enthusiasts) each spoke out in favor of tightening gun regulations.  Encouragingly, the National Rifle Association (the biggest gun lobby in the States) remained silent in the days following the massacre, breaking form with its previous M.O. following mass killings.  The NRA then announced it would be making an important statement in a press conference at the end of the week, provoking speculation that the organization would finally concede the need for some modest gun control.

On Friday, NRA Spokesperson Wayne LaPierre reminded us what country we were living in and what the NRA was all about--protecting guns, not people.  Rather than strike a conciliatory tone, LaPierre spent the entire press conference blaming everything but guns for the violence, concluding that we needed a "national active database" not of gun owners, but of "the mentally ill." He further proposed that the nation put armed guards in schools, as "the only thing that stops a bad guy is a good guy with a gun." 

It is a well-known fact (at least outside America's borders) that the U.S. has a gun problem.  Among rich industrialized countries, America has far and away the highest number of gun deaths per year, with 32,000 dead last year alone--that is nearly eleven 9/11s every single year; gun homicides were 8775 in 2010, compared with 58 gun homicides in the UK (290 when adjusting for population size).  Gun deaths in the U.S. are expected to surpass traffic fatalities by 2015. Worldwide, America's gun violence is right up there with South Africa, the Philippines and Mexico.  Max Fisher from Washington Post published the following chart, noting that the U.S. has 20 times the average rate of gun murders of all other OECD countries.

How to account for America's off-the-charts gun violence?  Opponents of gun control are desperate to blame it on a whole slew of factors, claiming that the problem is that the U.S. has too many (1) immigrants, (2) ethnic and religious fractions, (3) mentally ill people, and (4) violent video games and movies.  

These hypotheses are mostly weak and easily refuted.  Most OECD countries have as high or higher percentages of foreign-born residents and as significant ethnic, religious, and social divisions.  Japan is awash in violent media, but has a negligible homicide rate (guns or otherwise).  Apart from mental illness (which is higher in the U.S., but not by orders of magnitude), the U.S. is well within the norm on all of the above factors.  Where the U.S. is way outside of the norm (for OECD countries) is in terms of gun ownership.  Max Fisher of the Washington Post published the following chart, noting there are almost as many guns in America (270 million) as there are people.

The sociological research has demonstrated a definitive link between lax gun laws and deaths due to guns.  You would think a school child would understand that more guns increases (rather than decreases) the chances of death from firearms.  Even within the U.S., gun violence correlates very strongly with the per capita gun ownership by state.

 

Matthew Herper at Forbes has a great list of links to a number of excellent studies on the relationship between guns and rates of gun deaths, writing:

“The Harvard School of Public Health  has a long list of publications on guns and homicide and suicide. Most make the argument that reducing the number of guns would decrease the rate of both suicide and homicide, so it is worth reading them with that in mind.”

Interestingly, although there has been an uptick of mass shootings, gun deaths overall have dropped significantly since the early 1990s, coinciding with the federal ban on automatic weapons a well as state bans on these weapons.  With the federal assault weapons ban now lapsed, gun deaths have again been creeping up.   Particularly interesting is the fact that gun ownership overall has gone down since the early 1990s (particularly among Democrats).  Obviously, correlation is not causation, but the data are strongly suggestive of such a relationship. 

Despite the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that loose gun laws are a public safety hazard, restrictive laws in this political climate are highly unlikely, mainly because the conservative right have lost their collective minds over this issue and are already convinced that Obama is taking away (or wants to take away) their weapons, despite the fact that he has not once called for more gun restrictions.

To wit:

This kind of git-yer-stickin-government-paws-off-my-gins hysteria has been circulated the interwebs since the very day of the massacre.  Some have made the contorted argument that gun-restricted zones make kids less safe because they are "magnets for mass shooters" who deliberately target undefended schools.  Extending this logic, others have made the rather insane suggestion that teachers should be packing heat, which should make their pupils safe from armed madmen (those people have clearly never met my tenth grade math teacher, who suffered from Vietnam-related flashbacks).

I have also heard the ridiculous argument that there would be just as many suicides with as without guns, because deprived of guns people will simply kill themselves with knives (because obviously suicidal people are just as likely to painfully mutilate themselves with sharp objects as they would be to put a gun to the head).  And also that one could stab and kill a whole mass of people if they don’t have guns, so apparently kitchen knives are just as dangerous as military assault rifles.  One wonders how an intelligent person could buy into (much less dream up) some goofiness, until you realize that these same people also believe that global warming is a hoax and that the best economic policy (always and ever) is cutting taxes and de-regulation.  But I digress…

Some (notably liberal Joe Bageant, author of Deer Hunting with Jesus) believe that gun control is a no-win proposition for Democrats, as America's gun culture is in our Scots-Irish DNA—you can pry their guns out of our “cold dead hands,” as the NRA slogan goes.  However, American views on gun control have shifted dramatically, with a record low percentage of Americans now favoring gun restrictions.  As with anything else, it turns out that public opinion is highly plastic.

No, the real problem (as with every other pernicious myth that a large segment of Americans buy into) is that there are strong business interests in making it as easy as possible for people to buy guns.  After all, ex-felons, the mentally ill, and the criminal are also good customers.

 It is in this context that the NRA's statements against gun control and gun violence make sense.  Once a truly grass roots organization aimed at promoting gun safety, the formidable lobby group has long since been taken over by the gun industry.  Well over half of its 200+ million dollar annual revenue comes from corporate sponsors and advertising rather than program fees or membership dues.  Of its corporate sponsors, 74 percent are in the firearms industry, including "Arsenal, Inc.; Benelli;  Beretta USA Corporation; Browning; Charles Daly (now out of business); DPMS Panther Arms; Doug Turnbull Restoration, Inc.; FNH USA; Glock, Inc.; H&R 1871, LLC; Investment Arms; Krieghoff International Inc.; Marlin Firearms; McMillan Group International; Nosler; ParaUSA;  Remington Arms Co., Inc.; John Rigby & Co.; SIGARMS, Inc.; Smith & Wesson Corporation; Springfield Armory; and, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc."

Is it any wonder, therefore, that the NRA lobbies against any and all firearm restrictions, including registration of guns, criminal background checks on gun purchases, and banning the most lethal firearms?  (It is worth noting that LaPierre, their chief lobbyist, receives almost one million dollars a year in salary.  His services are highly beneficial to the gun industry bottom line.)

The NRA mantra, "More guns = more safety," makes about as much sense as "peace through war" or "Arbeit Macht Frei."  But more guns = more $$ for gun manufacturers, which are, sorry to say, the bread and butter of the NRA.  In its "corporate partners" brochure, NRA Executive Vice

President Wayne LaPierre promises that the “National Rifle Association’s newly expanded Corporate Partners Program is an opportunity for corporations to partner with the NRA....This program is geared toward your company’s corporate interests.” 

Just like defense contractors, the gun lobby (and their paid hacks in the right-wing media) has learned to short-circuit the frontal lobe and reach right into the reptilian Republican mind--feeding the fear centers of right-wing insurgent leaders and their base.  

There are major corporate interests at stake in the gun control debate, which is why military spending is off the table (even with the economy-endangering "fiscal cliff"); this is also why sensible gun reforms are pretty well doomed at least for now, public safety be damned.