Are Gay Republicans Hypocrites?
Posted by MichaelW on 24 Oct 2006 at 3:44 am | Tagged as: MichaelW's Page, Domestic Politics
[UPDATED: Links corrected, per Kav in the comments; I had inadvertantly left out one link (to FDL), and misplaced another (to Greenwald). Now corrected.]
It is often amazing to me just how seriously some people can take themselves, how they can get so caught up in their own rhetoric so as to forget to look at the logic of their arguments. Recently, amidst the hue and cry over the Foley Follies, there emerged a threat to expose gay Republicans (no, not the “happy” kind) via “the List.” This, of course, led to the inevitable debate as to whether outing anyone was ever kosher or whether gay Republicans have it coming because they’re hypocrites.
On the one hand, I can see the pro-outing argument that those who actively hold theselves out as straight to the public certainly set themselves up to be exposed as being hypocritical. It comes with the territory of being a public figure, I suppose. I’m not sure that makes it right to do so, but I see the argument nonetheless (although, the outing of staffers does not seem to fit neatly into this rubric). But while the pro-outing crowd (or at least, those who believe that Republicans do this sort of thing too, so goose, gander, etc.) asserts that those being outed are hypocritical, it’s not being in the closet that makes them so, but the fact that those outed are Republicans. The logic I have seen presented is that the Republican party en masse routinely pursues policies that harm gays, highlighting two policies in particular: (i) anti-sodomy laws, and (ii) anti-Gay-Marriage initiatives.
With respect to the first, anti-sodomy laws, I don’t think there is any question that such policies are inimical to freedom in general and specifically harms gays. However, I am aware of no such law being proposed in federal legislation, and am confident that any such law would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, anti-sodomy laws at the state level have all but been entirely eliminated by Lawrence v. Texas. Therefore, resting the mantle of hypocrisy on gay Republicans based on support for such laws is misplaced at best, and downright dishonest at worst.
The second policy dealing with the Gay Marriage debate is equally unavailing. It is true that Republicans are pushing this agenda, and at times they push it entirely too far (such as proposing to amend the Constitution, which I find ridiculous). Yet, Republicans didn’t raise this issue out of the blue, and in fact it first entered the federal realm back when President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, after it passed through the Senate by a vote of 85-14 and through the House by 342-67. Obviously the voting was not along party lines, yet there is no call to out closeted Democrats. If gays had not been forcing this issue in the first place (in the courts instead of through the legislature or referenda where the it routinely loses), there would have been no reason to enact such laws as DOMA.
In addition, being against Gay Marriage does not make one bigoted or anti-gay. Opposition to it stands on solid legal ground which supports important public policy with respect to nuclear families. Changing the definition of marriage to suit the preferred personally activities of some seems like a bad reason to mess with such a venerated and historical cultural norm. Despite some gay advocates’ suggestion to the contrary, marriage has nothing to do with sex or even love (go ahead and ask any married person). Marriage is of primary importance in the bearing and raising of children. Maggie Gallagher, founder and president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, explained it this way:
But fundamentally marriage is sustained by culture, not biology. Why then is it universal? Because it is the answer to an urgent problem that is biological and innate: sex makes babies. Nature alone won’t connect fathers to children. Children need a society in which both men and women are committed to their care.
Briefly put, marriage is a cultural norm that the state has an interest in promoting for reproductive and child-rearing purposes. Gallagher also provides a smattering of cases laying out the connection between children and marriage, such as:
From U.S. law.
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.†Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859). “he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law†is one of the “two principal ends of marriage.†Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1 (1888) (quoting Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 103. “Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation.†Davis v. Davis, 106 A. 644, 645 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1919). “The great end of matrimony is . . . the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father.†Laudo v. Laudo, 197 N.Y.S. 396, 397 (App. Div. 1919); Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F.2d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 1975) (“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage. . . .â€); Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. App. 1974) (“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.â€); Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.â€); Heup v. Heup, 172 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Wis. 1969) (“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.â€); Zoglio v. Zoglio, 157 A.2d 627, 628 (D.C. App. 1960) (“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.â€); Frost v. Frost, 181 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (Supr. Ct. New York Co. 1958) (discussing “one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species.â€); Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 108 (Fam. Ct. Div. Richmond Co. 1942) (“The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order.â€); Stegienko v. Stegienko, 295 N.W. 252, 254 (Mich. 1940) (stating that “procreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimonyâ€); Gard v. Gard, 169 N.W. 908, 912 (Mich. 1918) (“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.â€); Lyon v. Barney, 132 Ill. App. 45, 50 (1907) (“[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded, at least theoretically, as the primary purpose of marriage . . .â€); Grover v. Zook, 87 P.638, 639 (Wash. 1906) (“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.â€); Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982) (observing that a “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the raceâ€);
For more of Gallagher’s posts on the Volokh Conspiracy see here. Also see University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter’s posts in favor of Gay Marriage here (you can also find at VC his excellent anlayses of current court decisions on the subject and how such decisions affect the overall debate).
From a legal standpoint, which is the ground from which Gay Marriage should be debated, marriage is primarily about providing for offspring. If there is a chance that allowing same-sex couples to marry will weaken that policy (see rebuttal view here), then the state has an important interest in regulating such a combination of persons. Accordingly, opposition to Gay Marriage is not necessarily about being anti-gay, but in fact has much more to do with shielding a traditional social norm that benefits society overall (so much so that the state has a compelling interest in promoting such activity) from anything which may weaken its foundation. This may be an antiquated notion, but it is a deeply ingrained one, and it is not something that most people want changed without their explicit approval. When the issue is forced upon them, they will react in a defensive manner. That’s not meant to hurt gays, but to protect themselves.
The point is that, while some people certainly oppose Gay Marriage for bigoted reasons, not all opponents have such a nefarious motive. By the same turn, while some proponents of Gay Marriage are motivated by a desire to harm the institution itself,
Legitimizing gay and lesbian marriages would promote a democratic, pluralist expansion of the meaning, practice, and politics of family life in the United States, helping to supplant the destructive sanctity of The Family with respect for diverse and vibrant families. . . . If we begin to value the meaning and quality of intimate bonds over their customary forms, people might devise marriage and kinship patterns to serve diverse needs. . . . Two friends might decide to “marry†without basing their bond on erotic or romantic attachment. . . . Or, more radical still, perhaps some might dare to question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek some of the benefits of extended family life through small group marriages arranged to share resources, nurturance, and labor. After all, if it is true that “The Two-Parent Family is Better†than a single-parent family, as family-values crusaders proclaim, might not three-, four-, or more-parent families be better yet, as many utopian communards have long believed?*
these people do not make up the whole of the movement. The fact remains that there are legitimate, reasonable and logical underpinnings to both sides of the debate, such that choosing one side or other should not subject one to demonization.
Furthermore, ascribing bigoted motives to Republicans for backing laws that are wildly popular with the voters misses the obvious explanation that it is just good old fashioned pandering. Such name-calling is nothing more than an attempt by the pro-outing crowd to poison the well and make their efforts to hurt gay Republicans seem more palatable. But don’t be fooled. Being gay and a Republican is no more hypocritical than having Cystic Fibrosis and being against embryonic stem cell research, or being a pro-life Democrat.
And being in the closet, while some may find that lamentable, is still a personal choice that does not make one a hypocrite. I can think of no good reason why the whole world needs to know about each and every person’s sexual attractions and appetites. Mostly, I don’t want to know, and I am incredibly unlikely to share such information. Why should that change because of someone’s political affiliation? Betraying such confidences, however, is just pathetic and petty. Those who partake in such activities, and those who countenance the outers, should feel ashamed. Unfortunately, it is already obvious that the outers and their fellow travellers have no sense of decency or decorum, that they are narcissistic and delusional, and that they are as unacquainted with honor as they are with feeling shame.
*Judith Stacey, Gay and Lesbian Families: Queer Like Us, in All Our Families: New Policies for a New Century 117, 128-29 (Mary Ann Mason, Arlene Skolnick & Stephen D. Sugarman eds., Oxford U. Press 1998)
Technorati Tags: the List, outing of gays, gay Republicans, hypocrisy, gay marriage, Defense of Marriage Act
23 Responses to “Are Gay Republicans Hypocrites?”
Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed
Tsk. Tsk.
Correct me if I’m wrong, here, Councilor, but wasn’t Lawrence a revisit on Bowers v. Hardwick? And it wasn’t just a short seventeen years ago that sodomy laws were held up as Constitutional? And wasn’t the three dissenting views coming from Lawrence none other than Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist?
And seeing as how it is the agenda of the Republicans to appoint Justices that would mirror these types of foul creatures, it would at least make sense that some would view gay Republicans as being somewhat hypocritical.
I think that mantle could rest quite nicely up there if one were so inclined.
You don’t think that promoting an agenda that would appoint Justices who would make to criminalize one’s own behavior hypocritical? How exactly?
Especially since,
Oh, Scalia is a real charmer,
Lawrence v Texas
Oh, but that’s settled law, right?
Stare Decisis you say?
Stare what? Stare this.
Tsk. Tsk.
I’m doing my best here not to seem adversarial, but… Who are you, or Maggie Gallagher, to define marriage?
My wife and I have no children. We don’t plan on having children. Is my marriage somehow invalid? Is our commitment to each other irrelevant and meaningless?
I mean… cuz… If I’m not breeding, well then… screw it!! What am I doing here?
Gee, thanks Ms. Gallagher. I’m thrilled that you think that my wife and I “still can really be marriedâ€. That’s really kind of you.
Well I think that Maggie Einstein “sex makes babies†Gallagher can go stuff herself. It is not hers, yours, or the State’s business to define the relationship between my wife and I.
Riiiight.
And she can continue to pull yarns of case law right out of her a$$. It means nothing. It does nothing to affirm her claim that allowing gay marriage would have any detriment to traditional families.
This is the same problem that many of the “gay marriage will hurt families†knuckledraggers run into all of the time.
They HAVE NO EVIDENCE.
Massachusetts, the sky didn’t fall.
Western Europe, studies prove positive. Despite Kurtz’s fantasies.
Yet, that still doesn’t stop pure, baseless speculation.
No evidence. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
Why should anyone give any credit to arguments that do nothing but pull this stuff out of thin air?
Stanley Kurtz
Maggie Gallagher
Both idiots
It is not the business of the state to prescribe the conditions for which I compliment my spouse. If the state should center itself as the legal arbitrator for the marital contract between two individuals, it should not have the authorization to limit the contract to individuals of the opposite sex.
It’s just not the state’s role.
Oh, and regarding the question about are gay republicans hypocritical…
Maybe. It depends.
Hmmm…..
Works just as well for me.
Good point, which makes you a pain in the butt.
I do think the inclination is key. So let me whack at this to start.
Let us pretend that allowing a state to legislate against sodomy is the same as criminalizing it, does that make one a hypocrite? Not if they found that on most issues they believe in federalism. Since allowing the state to legislate against sodomy is not the same as supporting sodomy I think we can say the inclination to paint it as hypocrisy is more clear than the hypocrisy itself.
That pain in my butt is getting a little less uncomfortable now.
Nor is there a push to enact such legislation at the federal level as Michael points out. So I think that lets Republican staffers on the hill off the hook.
I am not sure what Michael’s personal views are, but quotes such as:
and
show that Mike is trying to make the case that the marriage debate has reasonable non-bigoted aspects as well as lay out the intellectual case for the idea that the state has a role. Certainly we are free to disagree with Gallagher and still acknowledge she has concerns which are not about bigotry. Beliefs which are shared by a majority of Democrats and Democratic politicians as well, or at least they say they share thse beliefs and sign legislation codifying such beliefs.
Well, that is something you may have noticed some sympathy to from me, but if they have a role at all it is probably only under the protecting children’s rubric. Remove that and the states role should be very small. Democrats certainly are not behind any movement for that, so I suggest their position is incoherent. So are a lot of things, but I can’t exactly give them points either.
Seems to me the argument comes down to:
The Democrats believe in a right to privacy, except when it is politicaly “neccessary” for them to invade someones privacy in order to smear them. Then it’s all alright. So, they are being hypocrits by targeting people they deem hypocrits.
Of course, if it’s a closeted Democrat, it’s not really a smear. But if it’s a closeted Republican, then, since according to those doing the outed, Republicans are all homophobic bigots, it is a smear.
Of course, contrary to that stereotype, many Republicans think the state should stay out of peoples bedrooms, and that other people should keep private what goes on in their bedrooms. They are Republicans because they believe in small, fiscally responsible government. They may be upset with the current practices of the Republicans in power, but they aren’t going to be deluded into believing voting for Democrats is a magic pill that will solve anything. Except maybe shock Republicans into acting like true Republicans.
Fair enough, Pogue (and it’s “counselor” BTW), but has the Court gotten more liberal or conservative since Bowers? Even leaving that aside, I can’t think of a single instance where the Court reversed a prior decision and then reversed itself again. That’s not to say that it couldn’t happen, just that the likelihood is near zero.
Furthermore, there are no plans in Congress to enact or even propose any such laws of which I am aware. So how can it honestly be said that gay Republicans are supporting such laws? In fact, to do so is an attempt to paint with a very broad brush a minute amount of paint. That produces a thin and garish veneer to say the least.
Again, it’s a fair enough comment and worthy of discussion. But is it fair to use the dicta of Justice Thomas to intrude upon the privacy of individual staffers? At present there are no cases or laws being presented that would challenge Lawrence, so how is a discussion of stare decisis relevant exactly? Broad brush; thin paint.
Allow me a “Heh!” here.
I might well ask you and proponents of Gay Marriage the same question: “Who are you all to re-define marriage, a centuries old cultural tradition that has nothing to do with sexual proclivities?” As for your decision to have or not have children, that’s your choice. The fact remains though that you may change your mind or perhaps there will be a surprise on which you hadn’t counted. That can’t happen with same-sex couples.
That’s not to say that your committment to each other is meaningless, but the state’s interest in promoting your union has nothing to do with how much you all love one another. It has to do with encouraging and supporting nuclear families which are the best environment for raising children.
Frankly, I don’t know the answer to that. I really don’t see the point to marriage unless you are going to have kids. But if that’s what you want, so be it. That does not at all provide a rationale for Gay Marriage.
The State isn’t defining your relationship. It is defining a relationship in which it has a legitimate interest — i.e. the one’s where making babies is possible.
The libertarian argument that the government should not be in the business of marriage at all sounds right (at least to the libertarian ears) but it fails to address the issue of whether there is a legitimate reason for the state to take an interest in seeing that children are best provided for. Providing a bundle of rights to a state-sanctioned relationship seems like a pretty non-invasive way to accomplish that policy. I do think promotion of nuclear families is important, and I don’t find the state sanctioning of marriage to be offensive. My reasons for opposing Gay Marriage are primarily based on a skepticism of the motives of the proponents and upon concerns about the unintended consquences of taking such steps. Of course, if my state legislature were to allow same-sex couples to get married I’d live with it and there is a likelihood that it wouldn’t make any difference (certainly not to my own marriage, and perhaps not to my own childrens’ decisions to get married in the future). But you can’t pretend that there is NO reason to suspect that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have SOME effect on marriage decisions.
No, but it does clarify for edification that state sanctioned marriage is about children and not about trying to harm gays. Again, there is a difference between individual interests in marriage and the state’s interest.
Well, let’s just say that the evidence is inconclusive. Marriage in Sweden, for example, has been on the decline for some time, while co-habitation between parents has risen. Is that the fault of allowing gay marriage? Possibly no, but the results are inconclusive at best. Is that a reason to prevent gay marriage? Possibly yes, but we should at least be able to agree that there are consequences to such a policy shift, which consequences may lead to undesirable results. Consideration of such consequences should not be automatically labeled as “bigoted” or lend to the accusation of being a “knuckle-dragger.”
Furthemore, with respect to the topic at hand, there are legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with being anti-gay (making it unfair to label gay Republicans hypocrites) for opposing Gay Marriage. This is especially true where proponents of such are trying to force their views on the electorate through court decisions instead of the legislatures.
This is just silly. The state is not defining how you feel about you spouse, nor saying that you can’t have a certain relationship in the eyes a church or God. It is simply saying that it wishes to promote a certain combination of persons that is most beneficial to the raising of children, and it does that by providing for a bundle of rights (developed through centuries of common law mind you) and making such available to such combination.
Moreover, the state has always had a say in which combinations of persons shall be legally recognizable. Remember, corporations and alternative entities are creatures of the state (i.e. created through the legislative process). There are rules that govern such combinations and prevent others. If the state has no interest whatsoever, doesn’t that make laws against polygamy wrong? Are these combinations okay as well? Maybe to you they are, or perhaps you don’t care. That’s all well and good, but do such relationships have any affect on the rest of society? On children? Shouldn’t we consider that before granting rights and privileges to such combinations?
Well, OK, but to the outers the only thing it depends upon is whether the person is a Republican. That’s pretty foul reasoning in my opinion.
The only thing you are trying to say Keith that I might take issue with is the true Republicans part. Party’s are what they are. They mutate and change over time. Different people have different ideas about what a true Republican is as well.
I make the same point about Democrats and liberals all the time. Many believe, or at least talk as if, the reasons they consider themselves liberals or Democrats track nicely with why most do. That is rarely the case. On this very issue that couldn’t be more clear. Democrats are not as a whole very tolerant of gays. In fact the constituencies that are opposed to gay rights within the Democratic party in my experience are far more likely to be motivated by sheer dislike of gays than your average evangelical.
That does not mean that Republicans are better on this issue (defined as being more amenable to the main issues of mainstream gay activists) but it is not true Democrats are institutionally or demographically in line either.
I think that is an important point to make. I certainly don’t want to be viewed as carrying water for the way that Republicans (at least of the socially conservative stripe) treat gays. But the Democrats get an awful lot of credit just for not being Republicans. They don’t have a very stellar record on gay issues either, so it is not very clear to me why gay Democrats should get a pass on the hypocrite charge.
I think there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around in this whole thing. I always take the view that a person’s sexuality is their business and not mine (except in very limited circumstances). Outing to score cheap political points is wrong; in fact I cannot think of a realistic time when it might not be wrong.
One point though. Having gone and read the Greenwald post that MichaelW linked though, I have to take issue with him using it as an example of ‘republicans having it coming’. Greenwald seems to be pointing out the hypocrisy of the reactions of some without defending (or advocating) the actual outing.
Thanks, Kav. I forgot to include another link in that sentence about the “had it coming” part, and to move the Greenwald link to another phrase (”Republicans do this sort of thing too, so goose, gander, etc.”). It’s now updated.
Kav,
Maybe that is what Greenwald is saying. However, that doesn’t seem to be how his readers interpreted it, until he claimed as much later. I’ll take him at his word, which is generally unwise, but if you are going to spend that much time pointing out how hypocritical Republicans are being (and generally the issues are different anyway) then one might write one single line saying you are opposed to outing to dispel the impression to at minimum his own readers. Otherwise they might (and many did) take it as meaning they had it coming. Or, he could just say he thinks they do.
My guess, Greenwalds rather shrunken conscience doesn’t support the outing, but he can’t quite allow himself to disappoint the kind of audience he has built up, many of whom believes any depraved thing you attribute to others or politically do is justified to stop the Bushitler regime. So implying that Limbaugh is a pedophile is okay, claiming Megan McCardle engages in violent eliminationist rhetoric is okay, claiming Walter Williams or Michael Ledeen want genocide is okay.
He probably figures rightly that many of his fans feel the same way about outing and so he wants to change the focus to avoid a huge argument among his fans (and the inevitable angry attacks which will head his way whichever path he chooses.) So he ignores the outing itself and concentrates on the ways to attack Republicans hoping to keep people unified. That is my guess. We will have to see how it plays out. I think it will be hard for him to not make a choice about his stand on the matter. Nuanced moral ambiguity is not a trait he has inculcated over there. Having it both ways will be tough.
Good, Michael is taking him at his word as well.
Lance,
On those occasions that I read Greenwald I mostly avoid the comments, this time included, so I was unaware that so many of his commentators lacked reading comprehension ;-).
You may well be right in what you say. I admit to being somewhat suspicious that he wrote a post without offering an opinion on the act of outing itself. However, it could be that he is making an ambiguous point over the past kerfuffle over whether one has to condemn an act from one on ‘your side’. One can talk about reactions to things without having to condone or condemn the action in question. I don’t know.
Indeed.
FDL, however, is clearly fair game in this instance.
MichaelW, you are welcome.
By the way I have been a long time reader of QandO and came here via them. I like the site. Keep it up.
Kav,
I think that is a fair point. I have just recently posted about the issues that that kind of pressure can have on myself. Sometimes it is perverse.
On that count let me just say that he hasn’t been a very good model. If your new, just check out our archives on that.
You might find this a surprise, but I don’t thin that Gay Republicans are automatically hypocrites. People have conflicted values all the time.
Well, perhaps a better way to say it is that there is usually not a complete lack of available evidence to make a case for hypocrisy, but evidence enough to create the perception of hypocrisy does not equal genuine hypocrisy.
Mark Foley was a genuine hypocrite.
The real problem is that the Republican party as a whole is hypocritical about gays, and that large-bore perspective spills over among the less discerning to tar every individual Republican.
However, Mike, I think you underplay the gay marriage point here signficantly. Marriage is not just a religious ceremony. It confers all kinds of legal and institutional rights between one partner and another - from tax advantages to hospital visitation rights to custody battles. Republican leaders in a variety of states are supporting draconian “anti-gay-marriage” bills that, in some cases, bar civil unions and deny parternship status of any kind to a pair of gay people. These people are actively homophobic and discriminatory. No two ways about it.
Are the federal Republican staffers, you think, campaigning against these people? Or are they directing funds and resources to these anti-fay Republicans?
I think, if you’re a Republican with a political job, hypocrisy charges are fair game. Now, I haven’t said that outing is fair game - for non-politicians - because I’m not sure. But there is a level of hypocrisy there.
I’m not out to beat you guys down or anything, but here’s *another* example. Really, the worst yet.
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/oct/24/in_08_bizarre_hostettler_radio_ad_says_dems_will_advance_homosexual_agenda
Does Hostettler have gay staffers? How do they feel about helping these ads to be run?
You have to look for this sort of thing, guys, otherwhise the reality homophobic bent of the Republican party becomes abstract and mushy.
How so, glas? I ask because I genuiniely don’t know. I was under the impression that it was fairly common knowledge that he is gay. Unless, of course, you are referring to his work on laws punishing online predators — that I can’t pretty well understand.
How are Republicans as a party hypocritical about gays? I just understand to what you are referring.
I know, glas. That’s exactly what I pointed out. The state confers a bundle of rights upon a union in whch it sees an interest. It has nothing to do with love. It has nothing to do with sexual proclivities. It has to do entirely with the beraing and raising of children.
I’m glad you raised this issue. I agree that some of the anti-gay marriage bills are draconian and intrude upon the contract rights of individuals. Specifically, here in Virginia there is an amendment to the state Constitution proposed that would limit marriage to “one man-one woman”, but it would also serve to void contractual arrangements that simulate marriage (despite claims to the contrary by proponents of the amendment). That goes entirely too far, IMHO, since civil unions would effectively be outlawed. Describing such laws as bigoted or homophobic may be over the top … but not by much (if at all).
You raise an interesting issue, glas. I think it is entirely plausible that at least some of these gay Republicans are working to change party attitudes from the inside. Is it fair to subject them to suhc an invasion of privacy?
Agreed.
Again, there may a level of hypocrisy, but we can’t say for sure, and even if we could I don’t know why that justifies intruding upon the lives of these people. Moreover, thusfar the outing of these people has been entirely based upon their political affiliation. It’s a crass political move designed to hurt the Republican chances in the upcoming election by seeking to destroy the lives of a few people. Pretty lame reasoning if you ask me.
What was the first example?
And while the pandering is pretty obvious, are you trying to say that there is no “homosexual agenda”? Whether you agree with it or not, can you really deny that there is a coalition of people seeking to gain governmental preferences and protections based upon sexual identity?
To be clear, the ad sounds like it probably pretty sleazy, but no more so than most political ads. You seem to think that if one is a homosexual, then one MUST in all circumstances and in all situations agree with the “homosexual agenda.”
Isn’t it at least possible that some gay people just wanted to be accepted for who they are as doctors, or lawyers, or teachers or firemen, or soldiers, or Republican staffers, or tow truck drivers, or baseball coaches, or artists, or lab technicians, or sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces? Why MUST they be identified by their sexual orientation?
And what if they don’t want any special rights based on that orientation? What if they wanted to be recognized for their talents and abilities instead? Perhaps they see a barrier to be accepted for those talents and abilties in receiving preferential treatment because of their private sexual lives? Does that make them a hypocrite, or just principled?
There you go again, we don’t look for this kind of thing. Oh well. [Shrug]
I did like this comment from TPM:
How true in some cases, and that is not even counting how many don’t really believe in it in the first place, nor the many who are standing up even though they don’t believe in it because they are pandering to people who think like you! Then we get the minority who both believe in it and are standing up. We all have our crosses to bear glasnost.
I can’t read Harold Ford’s mind for example, but I suspect that a big part of the reason he is so opposed to gay marriage is that his largest constituency, african-americans, are adamantly opposed to both gay marriage and the equating of it with their own struggle. Maybe it is a principled stand based on extensive readings of Maggie Gallagher. Either way, the cross is heavy.
Luckily I have no party and can sit above the fray looking down on the moral midgets running around me and hurl thunderbolts of indignation. I won’t though. Regardless of whether you think the arguments sound or not it cannot be reduced to bigotry. Certainly Eric Scheie can’t be considered either a bigot or self loathing. So try his defense of being anti gay marriage on for a try.
I think I just figured out which one of you was the Catholic. That leaves Omar the Muslim, and Lance the Heathen.
I’m sure that when this debate is finished, we’ll end in stalemate (and the tie always goes to the malcontent. Which would be me, of course.). We’ll politely agree to disagree like gentlemen and return to our respective loams of ideas. One returning to where individual civil liberties are embraced and believes that the role of the state should be diminished, and one returning to… well… wherever. ;)
Right.
Counselor. (I knew that, dagnabit. I hate it when my fingers move faster than my brain.)
And I would assume that it would be in the best interest of homosexuals to keep it that way. And working to aid Republicans may not be the best way to do that.
Yes. But such laws would pass in a heartbeat in certain states, and you know it. Anti-sodomy laws would still be on the books here in Texas had not the court ruled the way it did. It would seem foolish to me for homosexuals to call Lawrence the Coup de grace and to not seek to hinder additional Justices that would rule with Scalia and others.
I too, condemn the outing of gays within the Republicans, or anywhere else for that matter. But it is understandable how some would call gay Republicans, hypocrites.
That said,
Moving on.
Then that is a contradiction. If the sole reason, as Gallagher claims, of marriage is to raise children, then how can you breed without “sexual proclivities� The act of breeding is all about sexual tendencies. Also, according to yours and Gallagher’s definition, my wife and -right now- are redefining it with absolute consent from the state and society. Therefore, who am I to deny rights and privileges to others who wish to define their relationship the way they see it. Besides,
You’re wrong. Lesbian couples, through in vitro and other means, can spit out puppies all day long. And gay men, while of course being unable to actually birth the child, can find other ways to have their DNA descended.
Also… If they’re going to be gay, anyway. And they’re going to be in a homosexual relationship, anyway. And they’re not going to breed, anyway. Why deny them rights and privileges toward each other that everyone else gets. It’s not as though denying a gay man the right to marry another gay man will result in the men breeding somewhere else, does it?
There’s just no logical reason to deny them the privilege.
Maybe so. And the state may promote heterosexual marriage until the cows come home. But again, to allow gay marriage does not countermand promotion of heterosexual marriage. People will still want to have babies.
Actually, you’re right. I give no pretends. I base my suspicions on evidence, or in this case, lack of. There’s just no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to wed would have any effect on traditional marriage. None whatsoever.
You make fair points pertaining to the state having an interest in promoting marriage and families. But like so many others, you fail to demonstrate how allowing same-sex marriage would harm that promotion.
I disagree. There is no evidence at all. How can evidence be inconclusive if there is no evidence at all? And Sweden’s decline in marriage, as you entertain the possibilities, provides no evidence to suggest that the reasons are same-sex nuptials. Scandinavia also has unusually high suicide rates… May as well blame that on gay marriage. Or the ice and snow.
(and the knuckle-dragger comment was a cheap shot and not intended at you.)
Silly? It is exactly what you and Gallagher are doing. You are defining what is the “sole reason†for marriage. And thereby defining my relationship with my spouse.
Michael, I think the primary difference between you and I over this issue is as follows:
You wish to deny rights and privileges to millions of Americans based solely on suspicions that such rights and privileges will harm families and children.
I do not wish to deny rights and privileges to millions of Americans based on the lack of evidence suggesting that it would harm anyone.
You mention,
And those creatures are created and governed based on – or should be based on – evidence. Not suspicions.
Cheers.
Pogue:
Just briefly, I am not seeking to deny anybody anything. I don’t see why the LEGAL definition of marriage has to be changed to suit people who don’t fall within the policy reasons for promoting marriage.
The real difference between you and I is that you are fixed on your individual interest in marriage and I am concentrating in the state’s interest in marriage. I think it would be fair to say that, regardless of what the state does or says, it will have no bearing on your and your wife’s feelings for each other, nor will it change how you view y’all’s relationship. Why do you even need recognition by the state?
What I am arguing is that the state’s interest in marriage is narrow and defined: promotion of a natural, child-rearing institution. That’s it. Extending the bundle of rights to others who don’t fall within that policy, suddenly opens the door to other extensions, to the point that the policy no longer has much justification.
Does that necessarily mean that marriage will just die? Probably not (although there really is evidence to suggest that, so I’m not sure where you’re going with the whol “no evidence” thing), but it it’s at least worth looking at before making any big policy shifts. Instead, gay marriage is being jammed down people’s throats by force and they are fighting back only to hear the audacious cries of “bigot!” As I intimated above, I’m not firmly wed to the idea that gay marriage shouldn’t ever exist, but I certainly am not happy about the way its proponents are going about it.
Certainly Eric Scheie can’t be considered either a bigot or self loathing. So try his defense of being anti gay marriage on for a try.
Well, Eric’s case is, as I can see, being anti-gay marriage doesn’t have to be bigotry, because bigotry involves hatred, and you don’t have to hate gays to be anti-gay-marriage.
Well, I agree with the third one. The rest is pretty subjective. It depends on how you define many things. But in my mind, the most important one is “marriage”.
Perhaps back in some fabled day, marriage involved simply religious blessing on an otherwise identical relationship between two people and between them and society. I’m just conceding this point here, even though I’m sure that this was not the case, but what the hey, let’s use the libertarian frame… and then the state came along and codified a bunch of privledges. Oh, and some potential behavioral penalties under circumstances.
Well, a lot of people want to have that package offered by the state that is synonmous - fair or not, classical use of the term or not - with marriage.
Gay partnerships can’t have it.
Thus, whatever it is, it’s discriminatory.
Eric’s other line of argument (why would gays want to be married? All they get is state intrustion!) is fine and interesting as speculation, but the fact remains that a lot of gay couples obviously do want the package, and they can’t have it.
Fine, but he isn’t a bigot unless he is bigoted against himself, and he is not. It is also not hypocritical, though he is not a Republican as far as I know.
As for the argument from a gay perspective, it is not unique, though the line of reasoning has been used to argue against state sanctioned marriage period many times as well or even as a rationale of gay marriage being a trojan horse to delegitimize marriage, as Michael notes. It just isn’t as simple as people want to make it out to be.
When I say “true Republican” I mean, living up to the principles they espouse. These principles are why I could consider myself a Republican. If those elected would actually write laws and vote on these principles, I think many libertarians would find a home with them again.
Republicans ought to be for equal rights, but gay marraige is less about equal rights, and more about redefining what marraige is. Being against redefining what marraige is, isn’t bigoted or homophobic.
As far as I know, a gay man or woman has just as much right as I did to get married to a person of the opposite gender. (And I use the past tense for myself because I am married.)
Now, I’m all for getting the government out of legislating what marraige is, other then saying that it must be between consenting, competent adults. After that, it is a religious thing. And so, not within the purvue of the state. Now, if the state wants to grant privilages based on one having a family or not, they ought to do so in a non-discriminatory manner.
I differ from many Republicans because I am much more socially liberal. If an act is private, and between consenting, competent adults, the state should have little interest in preventing or regulating the act.