Poor Mags. She’s been having a rough go of it lately. The Prop 8 trial was a disaster for her side. Marriage equality was finally achieved in Washington, D.C. She came across as knowledge-less in her debate with Andrew Sullivan. So much has gone so wrong so quickly that she has, as many a gay would, turned to the male member for wisdom, guidance, and solace.
You see, Maggie is afraid of a new bill being considered Massachusetts, one that would ban circumcision of any male below the age of 18, without religious exemptions. The bill, debated earlier this week, was introduced by state Sen Michael W. Morrissey (D-Quincy) who filed it on behalf of Charles A. Antonelli, who says that the procedure is painful unnecessary, and violates a baby’s human rights. “For some reason society feels fit to make surgical amputations to somebody’s body without their consent,” continues Antonelli. And, Dr. Paul Fleiss, Assistant Clinical professor of Pediatrics at UCLA, explains that complications from the amputation are grossly under reported.
And this is where Maggie steps in. Without regard for the infant or any mention of the nuances surrounding the choice to circumcise an infant, Maggie writes in a new column first and only about how her view of religion will be overturned if children’s bodies can’t be hacked:
New legislation now being proposed in the Massachusetts state legislature to ban circumcision of any male children, including Jewish children, comes very close to saying, “Yes, it should be a crime.” Circumcision of infant males has been a requirement of Jewish faith and identity since the time of Abraham.
. . . How did we reach the point where powerful people seriously consider such outrageous intrusions on religious liberty?
If the right to religious liberty — a right clearly and explicitly established in our U.S. Constitution — were being supported and enforced equally with other First Amendment rights, traditional faith communities would not be as worried as they are about the coming attempts to misuse government power.
It is notable that Maggie is getting worked up over a law that would privilege civil rights above religion. This has been her M.O. all along — bodies must be subjected to religious interpretations. Gay bodies, young bodies, bodies. For her, religion determines the value of a body, not the other way around.
I would be interested to know how Maggie feels about female genital mutilation, also known as “female circumcision,” in places where that is the religious custom.