In the Wall Street Journal, it’s dueling op-eds by my friend Walter Olson (“An Amen for Albany“) vs. Maggie Gallagher (“New York’s GOP Let Down the Base“).
The struggle is not just between the left and the right. There’s a fight within the right as well. And since those who lean to the right of the political spectrum consistently represent more than half of the nation, it’s a fight that must be made and won.
22 Comments for “Gay Marriage: Two Views from the Right”
posted by Tom on
And since those who lean to the right of the political spectrum consistently represent more than half of the nation, it’s a fight that must be made and won.
Well, get to it, conservative gays and lesbians. We’ve done our part on the other side of the spectrum, and will continue doing so.
posted by BobN on
And since those who lean to the right of the political spectrum consistently represent more than half of the nation
Yeah, right (ahem). A majority say they lean right, but when you ask them policy questions, they actually lean left (not that that’s surprising, since right seem to get more right every year — most folks just standing still would find themselves to be socialists! after a few years).
A large majority of Americans support same-sex-couple rights. In a choice between CUs and nada, CUs win hands-down. Of course, it’ll play out like DADT, the repeal of which was supported by percentages in the high 70s. Still only got a handful of GOP senators to support it.
posted by Tom on
Of course, it’ll play out like DADT, the repeal of which was supported by percentages in the high 70s. Still only got a handful of GOP senators to support it.
I’ll grant you that will be the likely outcome. But it isn’t inevitable.
A strong conservative argument can (and has) been made for marriage equality. The argument is different than, but complimentary to, the civil rights argument.
The problem is that the conservative argument has been made, but next to nothing done in the trenches to push the argument within the Republican Party and among Republican politicians, or even among gay and lesbian conservatives on the ground.
With respect to the latter, let me make two observations in support of that point:
(1) I attend the pride events in Wisconsin, as part of a team from the LGBT Caucus of the DPW. We run across conservative gays and lesbians at the events. The line from conservatives almost always runs something like this: “What good is marriage when you have to pay taxes?” Admittedly, this is something of a parody, but what I find remarkable is that the conservative gays and lesbians are surprised when I make the conservative argument for marriage equality to them. The reason they are surprised is that they haven’t heard it. That speaks volumes.
(2) Think about IGF. What percentage of the posts on this blog, other than an occasional reference from Jon Rauch, articulate that case? Even more telling, I have yet to see a single post on IGF (at least that I can remember) that addresses the ways in which that conservative case for marriage equality can be made within the Republican Party — the strategy to, say, convince Republicans in Minnesota to vote against the anti-marriage amendment in 2012.
The reason, I suspect, is cultural. The Republican Party has traditionally been a top-down operation rather than a ground-up operation, and most gays and lesbians within the party seem to come from the traditional Republican wings of the party.
I suspect many of them are stunned by the grassroots operation that took over the party in the last twenty years and turned it into the party of massive resistance.
But stunned or not, conservative gays and lesbians don’t seem to have grasped the lesson: Republican gays and lesbians have to get active in the party, organize at the local and county level, and push hard from the ground up.
Things won’t change in the Republican Party until conservative gays and lesbians get into the fight, slugging it out with the social conservatives county by county. At least in my county and the surrounding five counties, that isn’t happening on the Republican side.
It is happening on the Democratic side — the local Democratic parties in my county and the surrounding five counties each have active, vocal gay and lesbian members, pushing for “equal means equal” within the party and among local Democratic politicians.
The question is why isn’t it happening on the Republican side?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Probably because we recognize Obama Party operatives like yourself as violent bigots who exhort people to “punch a Republican”.
Hilarious. Gays and lesbians like Tom shriek about “violence”, but then pledge fidelity to a party apparatus whose state-wide Communications Director is calling for violence against people with different political views.
Pure hypocrisy, Tom. And that’s why no conservative gays and lesbians want anything to do with you or your violent bigoted Obama Party.
posted by Rob on
NDT, tell me how many years has it been that you’ve been using the Guilt by Association fallacy?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yawn.
But really, the conservative movement is powered by hick voters, and I don’t think that’ll change anytime soon.
Funny how gays and lesbians like yourself simply can’t abide by or enforce the rules you demand of others.
By the way, nice try to avoid condemning the behavior of your Obama massas in demanding violence against Republicans. But, as always, ultimately futile — and harmful, given that it shows how gays and lesbians like yourself won’t abide by or enforce the rules you demand of others when it comes to violence, either.
posted by Wilberforce on
Exactly what is that conservative argument for gay marraige?
But really, the conservative movement is powered by hick voters, and I don’t think that’ll change anytime soon. Republican economic policy is a disaster, so without wedge issues to energize the hate fest, the party would be sunk. To think otherwise is living in fantasy land.
It’s a shame. I so miss the old school party in which educated business people called the moves. Now it’s a coalition of rubes and hyper selfish, monied rubes with no tradition of social responsibility.
posted by BobN on
While I join in most of your lament, I think it’s naive to think the “grassroots” are acting independently. Educated business people are still running the show, but it’s not the same group. You’re right, though, they have no sense of responsibility, social or otherwise.
posted by Wilberforce on
I disagree on one point. The business class these days are not educated. I’m sure they’ve had technical training, but that’s not what some would call a proper education.
I was trained by a business man in Western values, American high culture, noblesse oblige, and taught that ‘from whom much is given, much is expected.’
This current crowd are hopeless rubes with one thing on their minds. They’re so far off the scale ignorant, it’s hard to tell if their selfishness is not really common sadism.
posted by BobN on
A strong conservative argument can (and has) been made for marriage equality. The argument is different than, but complimentary to, the civil rights argument.
I get so tired of this. This is a marketing ploy to garner support from “conservatives”.
The argument for same-sex marriage is a liberal argument.
The argument for traditional marriage is a conservative argument.
Traditional marriage isn’t man-w0man marriage. It’s a particular kind of m/w marriage, one that is going the way of the dinosaur, though still available to those who feel they need it, of both sexes, I might add.
The argument for both modern marriage — with a greater sense of teamwork and equality in the marriage — is a liberal argument. Extending that sort of marriage to same-sex couples is also a liberal argument.
Some on the right make the claim that gays used to be against marriage while failing to note what kind of marriage they were against. When my partner and I first met all those years ago, we certainly didn’t want, and didn’t expect to have, a traditional marriage. If nothing else, neither of us looked very good in a house dress.
Marriage has changed.
posted by Wilberforce on
Good point. I’m still waiting to hear that strong conservative argument.
posted by Houndentenor on
Google and ye shall find. Ted Olson makes the conservative case for gay marriage.
posted by Tom on
Tom: A strong conservative argument can (and has) been made for marriage equality. The argument is different than, but complimentary to, the civil rights argument.
BobN’s Response: The argument for same-sex marriage is a liberal argument. The argument for traditional marriage is a conservative argument.
Notice, first, BobN, how you have shifted ground, from “marriage equality” to setting up “same-sex marriage” and “traditional marriage” in opposition to one another, as of the two things were distinct. That is the linguistic trap in which we find ourselves at this point in the argument, speaking as if there are distinct kinds of marriage, one for same-sex couples and the other for straight couples. That is the position of social conservatives, who contrast (in their terms) “marriage” and marriage, the former applying to same-sex couples and the latter to straight couples.
Under the law, there is but one type of civil marriage, period. Properly framed, the argument over marriage is whether civil marriage should be extended to include same sex couples, not whether we should create same-sex marriage.
The linguistic difference between the two models is important, because the former (the two-type model) frames the argument to produce the results that your response posits (setting same-sex marriage and marriage in opposition).
The linguistics of the question, so framed, effectively limits the argument to a question of “rights”, that is, whether same-sex couples should be granted an equal right to the benefits and protections of marriage (as well as the responsibilities, but indirectly) should be extended to same-sex couples. The “civil rights” argument works well with the two-type model, but the conservative argument (which I’ll get to in a bit) does not work as well.
The marriage-extension (or one-type model) does not set “marriage” and marriage in opposition. The question is framed differently, in terms of whether marriage (whatever that may be from time to time) should be extended to include same-sex couples. This model works with the “civil rights” argument (of which I am a proponent, and hence the phrasing “marriage equality”) but also works with the conservative argument for including same-sex couples in marriage.
The conservative argument is, essentially, the argument Jon Rauch made in “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America”. The focus of the argument is not on individual rights — “equal means equal” — but instead on the results that can be expected from extending marriage to include same-sex couples — the benefits to same-sex couples, the benefits to the children of those couples, the benefits to our cultural institutions (e.g. schools) and, though maintenance of marriage as a “gold standard”, the benefits to society as a whole.
I don’t think that it would be fair of me to try to reduce Jon’s argument to a few sentences, but I assume that you have read his book and understand the nature of the argument he puts forth in the book and in subsequent writing on the subject.
The two arguments — rights and results — are complimentary, not in opposition. I am a strong proponent of “equal means equal” and I frame the argument for marriage equality, almost always, in those terms. (Jon discusses the civil rights issues in the book, but the case for marriage is distinct from that discussion.) I think everyone involved in the controversy over marriage equality understands that core constitutional issues are at stake.
But that is not the heart of the conservative argument for marriage equality. The heart of the conservative argument for marriage equality is that marriage is critically important to our society, and that argument does not logically depend upon (or is anything, really, other than indifferent to) the question of “equal means equal”.
I agree with those who suggest that the conservative argument described is a difficult argument to make in our society at present. As you note, “Marriage has changed.“, to which I would add, “not necessarily for the better”.
When I say that, I am not talking about the “a greater sense of teamwork and equality in the marriage” you refer to in your response. My view is that the shift toward married couples as “equal partners” is a good thing.
What I am talking about when I say “not necessarily for the better” is the change in cultural and individual expectations surrounding marriage — a shift away from the expectation that marriage is the norm for couples living together and (particularly) raising children, a shift away from the expectation of lifelong marriage, a shift away from the expectation that the entire community (family, friends, institutions) will support a couple in staying married.
I recognize that those expectations are no longer the norm in our culture — few marry these days, half of those that do marry divorce, and the old adage “If you want to live together, get married, and if you have children, stay married …” is no longer a desired, let alone an expected, goal for most people.
It is for this reason that the conservative argument for marriage equality is difficult to make. Nonetheless, I think that it is an important argument.
The conservative argument is the argument that marriage is important enough to our society that it should be the expectation for all couples, and, in particular, for couples raising children. I believe that, as fully as I believe “equal means equal”.
posted by BobN on
For what it’s worth, I almost typed “extension of marriage to same-sex couples is a liberal suggestion”, but went with the shorthand instead.
I believe that, as fully as I believe “equal means equal”.
As to I. I routinely tell straight couples who have kids but aren’t married that they’re foolish. (I’m more diplomatic than that, of course.)
posted by Tom on
Tom: The conservative argument is the argument that marriage is important enough to our society that it should be the expectation for all couples, and, in particular, for couples raising children. I believe that, as fully as I believe “equal means equal”.
BobN: As [d]o I. I routinely tell straight couples who have kids but aren’t married that they’re foolish. (I’m more diplomatic than that, of course.)
So do most Americans, I suspect, and it is impossible to help but notice how closely the foundational premises of the conservative argument for marriage equality parallels the foundational premises of the social conservative argument against marriage equality, absent, of course, the hysterical hyperbole of the social conservative case.
The difference between the two arguments is not the foundational premises (marriage benefits couples, children of couples, cultural institutions and society at large) but in the conclusions reached. The social conservative argument against marriage equality draws the conclusion that the benefits of marriage will be maintained if and only if marriage is confined to straight couples, and irrevocably weakened if marriage is extended to include gay and lesbian couples. The conservative argument for marriage equality draws the conclusion that the benefits of marriage will be maintained if and only if marriage is extended to include gay and lesbian couples, and irrevocably weakened if marriage excludes gay and lesbian couples.
To my mind, the latter of the two conclusions is the correct conclusion. I think that the conservative argument for marriage equality is a very strong argument, and I think that it is strongest in areas of the country that are culturally conservative — the Midwest, the inter-mountain West, and the South, areas where the argument most needs to be heard.
So why, then, is the conservative argument for marriage equality not being made?
I don’t know, but I know that it isn’t being made.
My guess is that several factors are involved:
(1) Because the argument begins from foundational premises similar or identical to the foundational premises of the social conservative argument against marriage equality, conservative gays and lesbians are uncomfortable with the argument.
(2) Many, if not most, conservative gays and lesbians have gravitated toward the libertarian wing of the Republican Party (e.g. Cato and all that), and the argument (which entangles law with social policy) is an anathema to that line of thinking about the role of government.
(3) Many, if not most, of the conservative gays and lesbians who are vocal live in areas of the country (the District of Columbia, the Northeast and California) where the argument has the least persuasive force.
(4) Because the argument rests on foundational premises similar to those of the social conservative argument, at first glance the argument can seem to drag along all the baggage of the Religious Right (e.g. “headship” and all that crap), baggage that is used to relegate women in marriage to a subordinate role.
I’m sure that there are many other possible reasons, and I’m not nuts enough to think that I can get into the heads of conservative gays and lesbians. But I think that conservative gays and lesbians are missing a tremendous opportunity to make the conservative case for marriage equality, and I think that it is a case that needs to be made.
posted by BobN on
Not to get all stereotypical, but many of the “conservative” gay men I’ve known talk about what they want to talk about when they get together. They focus on what is important to them. Now, some might call it selfish, or myopic, or selfish, or rational, or selfish, but they talk about lowering taxes!
On some level, it makes sense. Because life has changed so much for gay people in this country, we’re much more able to self-select with regard to relationships. The days when the closet and the bars led to whimsical pairings of individuals — banker with butcher, mechanic with doctor — are largely over, at least in big cities. The new gay power-couple might be perfectly happy without the guaranteed protections of marriage and it’s responsibilities. They might logically prefer spending a few thousand a year in legal and accountant fees to provide each other as much, or as little, mutual protection as they desire. Fighting for actual marriage or CU rights isn’t as important.
posted by Doug on
According to the most recent data incomes taxes are at the lowest since the 1950’s. Maybe they would be happier living in that era too.
posted by Houndentenor on
“I routinely tell straight couples who have kids but aren’t married that they’re foolish. (I’m more diplomatic than that, of course.)”
Yes, and also couples who are not married but have purchased a home together or are otherwise financially entangled in ways that will be difficult to dissolve if they split up or create tax complications if one of them dies.
posted by Jorge on
I find people’s confusion interesting because my understanding of the conservative argument for gay marriage came largely from this site. Most of you guys weren’t here for it.
The argument is that long-term gay relationships are beneficial to gays and beneficial to society. They are socially stabilizing, lead to the same positive financial correlations, protect gays from STDs, and contribute to the ability to raise children successfuly. It notes that all the predicted negative effects of gay marriage toward society simply are not true and that there is simply no dispute that long-term gay relationships are beneficial to gays themselves. And therefore we should encourage and reward such relationships, such as with legal recognition.
The case has also been made that given the ongoing deterioration of the family, emcouraging gays to marry further promotes and strengthens the institution of marriage as a whole.
There are libertarian arguments as well.
posted by Doug on
Gay marriage won’t protect gays from STD’s anymore than straight marriage will protect straights from STD’s.
posted by Jerry on
You are right that marriage itself doesn’t protect against STDs. At best in might encourage men str8 and gay to have fewer sexual encounters outside the relationship thus reducing the risk of infections. For some it might change their habits and promote the use of condoms with those outside encounters. As an argument for marriage either gay or str8, it’s the weakest one I can imagine.
posted by Jorge on
The idea that marriage is a good thing is a weak argument???
I’d like to hear a stronger one!