I have some sympathy for those religious believers (Christians aren’t the only ones) who object to being called bigots and haters. Damon Linker is not wrong to be put off by the lack of “charity, magnanimity and tolerance” of our own haters. Some lesbians and gay men are poor winners.
But this might be a good time for those who oppose same-sex marriage in good faith to think a bit more about the enormous change among heterosexuals who now disagree with them. They, too, grew up in a world where same-sex marriage was unimaginable — and for most of the same religious reasons as Linker, Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher and others continue to articulate.
Andrew Sullivan provides a catalogue of the good reasons some people continue to support what is often called “traditional marriage.” But even the best intentions don’t always lead to good results. The disconnect is what leads to skepticism or cynicism about whether opponents are truly acting in good faith or out of something far less noble.
It comes down to a simple question: If homosexuals cannot get legally married, what should they do?
The hard-liners have always said tough luck. Marry someone of the opposite sex or stay single. The nicest hard-liners say same-sex couples can live together, but shouldn’t expect any social recognition of the relationship.
In 2014, where same-sex couples are known and accepted, those options are inhumane and literally intolerable. For most of history, though, these pathetic options were pretty much all there was, and no one needed to inquire much deeper. But today it is fair to push the rhetoric. “OK, if you won’t let same-sex couples marry, you’re really content to let same-sex couples live in social and legal limbo?”
True moderates can accept some legal recognition, like domestic partnership or civil unions. Even the new Pope has suggested that this might be a feasible civil option, or at least an option the church need not object to in the civil realm.
But now that civil marriage itself is not only imaginable but quite real, Marriage-Lite looks less like a compromise and more like a fig leaf. And it isn’t just lesbians and gay men who say if the civil rules for marriage don’t demand procreation as a prerequisite, why go to all the trouble of maintaining a two-track system?
When Linker, Dreher, Douthat and others complain about how homosexuals are being mean to them, they are leaving out those heterosexuals who have changed their minds. Part of their discomfort may come from the fact that the questions from fellow heterosexuals are getting harder. Lesbians and gay men obviously have the lead in the debate, but we wouldn’t be winning if we were all alone. Blaming us for the change is, itself, a bit of — well, I won’t say bigotry or hatred. But it isn’t nice.
50 Comments for “The Fig Leaf”
posted by Mark on
I believe the best description of the Dreher/Linker/Douthat philosophy comes from Justice Kennedy, in the Garrett case: “Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.”
If we define bigot as holding a deep moral animus against someone, then the trio, and “Christians” like them, aren’t bigoted. But their attitudes toward gays and lesbians certainly fit the definition of prejudice as articulated by Justice Kennedy.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Marriage equality in civil law is upon us, and will be the law of the land — all of the land — within a few years. Civil unions are no longer a viable option.
It isn’t an issue. Most Americans will accept civil marriage equality, just as most Americans no longer view civil remarriage after divorce as adultery.
Almost 60% now do, according to recent polls, and we can expect that number to grow relatively quickly to about 70%, if our experience is similar to that of the Canadians.
We have to accept the fact that a minority — 20-30% would be my guess — will not — will never — accept civil marriage equality as acceptable.
So long as they treat civil marriage equality like civil remarriage after divorce — that is, speak out against it but respect the law — so be it.
Lesbians and gay men obviously have the lead in the debate, but we wouldn’t be winning if we were all alone. Blaming us for the change is, itself, a bit of — well, I won’t say bigotry or hatred. But it isn’t nice.
I am happy to accept my share of the “blame” for moving the country in the direction of civil marriage equality. I hope all gays and lesbians who fought for “equal means equal” over the years are happy to accept the “blame”, too. It is something we should be proud to have helped accomplish.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It comes down to a simple question: If homosexuals cannot get legally married, what should they do?
If you listen to the shrinking minority of those who continue to fight marriage equality, we should sit down, shut up and stop acting like two-year-olds.
posted by Jorge on
But this might be a good time for those who oppose same-sex marriage in good faith to think a bit more about the enormous change among heterosexuals who now disagree with them.
If it is all the same to you, since I oppose a judicial ruling that the US Constitution mandates legal recognition of same sex marriages (and the more numerous related findings that lead to such a conclusion–i.e. that there is no rational basis for limiting legal recogntion to heterosexual couples), I would like to spend that time thinking about the new legal reasoning coming from our courts.
In 2014, where same-sex couples are known and accepted, those options are inhumane and literally intolerable. For most of history, though, these pathetic options were pretty much all there was, and no one needed to inquire much deeper. But today it is fair to push the rhetoric. ”OK, if you won’t let same-sex couples marry, you’re really content to let same-sex couples live in social and legal limbo?”
“Inhumane” and “literally intolerable” does not, I think, apply to marriage-lite. Legal limbo I would probably lose on, with difficulty. I do not consider social limbo relevant to the law.
Yet this country must look to the best interests of the people. We have now seen significant differences in mental health and well being among gays in different states depending on the amount of legal rights they have, including legal recognition of their marriages. (My source here is Family pride: What LGBT families should know about navigating home, school, and safety in their neighborhood, Michael Shelton, 2013.) It’s the black children wanting to play with white dolls, as presented in Brown v. Board of Education, all over again. That is, it is a significant social harm.
I care little for equality that stands for nothing, neither am I swayed by economic injuries that are really just restatements of what the social order is. But when you move beyond that, when you have to justify not only a social order but harms that have nothing to do with the law’s intent, I think there I have to accept that a need will be answered.
If this were a country where a majority of religious figureheads had taken a moderate or even a conservative view over the past 20-25 years, things would be different. But the recent history of “traditional” power has been too ugly and insidious. It is truly too much to bear to ask people to be content.
posted by Houndentenor on
Sorry, but that ship has sailed.
Back in 2004 I was often asked “what about civil unions?” to which I always responded, “is that an actual offer?” It never was. It wasn’t a real compromise. It was the typical ploy of the modern right wing. They get everyone else to start with a compromise position and then they move their hard line position even further to the right. I think some gay groups would have jumped at a marriage-light option that provided at least some legal protections for gay couples back then. Full marriage equality was looking impossible until a couple of years ago after all. Of course the other problem with that (aside from it was never something anyone really offered us) is that the lawsuits that are now being won were brought by individual gay couples over the objections of many gay rights “leaders”.
In any case, that ship has sailed so if conservatives are finally offering less when we are within reach of having the whole thing, that’s just laughable. Sorry, you should have made that offer a decade ago when it might have seemed like a good offer. Half a loaf may be better than none, but half is certainly not as good as the whole thing.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Of course the other problem with that (aside from it was never something anyone really offered us) is that the lawsuits that are now being won were brought by individual gay couples over the objections of many gay rights “leaders”.
Exactly.
The flaw in the “Civil Union Compromise” line of thinking has always been that, short of an amendment enshrining marriage inequality in our federal constitution, the compromise could not hold in the face of individual citizens seeking redress. And even an amendment enshrining marriage inequality in our constitution would not hold forever in the face of the instinct for “equal means equal” that seems engrained in the American psyche.
I don’t know how anyone who has even a minimal grasp of the unruly history of the struggle for gay and lesbian rights in this country — a struggle in which ground-up pressure for equality laid wreck to the careful, go-slow plans of the “leadership” time and time again — could have thought, even for a minute, that such a compromise would hold.
If anything can be said of gays and lesbians in this country as a whole — and this is something we have in common with our straight countrymen — it is that we are not “sheeples”.
posted by Houndentenor on
I was rather agnostic on the issue of civil unions at the time. I understood the push for full marriage equality but as that seemed impossible I also thought it was unreasonable to ask gay couples to have no legal protections in the meantime. As I know couples with horror stories about what happened in an emergency or when one of them died and they had no legal status at all, I couldn’t ask them to take that risk when marriage seemed so far in the future. Fortunately my concernstipation was ignored and couples pressed on.
More than anything, however, I changed to being for full marriage equality now because so-called moderate Republicans seemed to want gays to make all the accommodations to placate the anti-gay bigots (and imho sometimes using that to hide their own bigotry…”It’s not me, of course, but you know those other people just aren’t going to accept this so why don’t you just lay low and not upset anyone.”) . Ugh. And if you think the religious right is changing course, I have news for you. The cover of the latest DECISION magazine (published by Billy Graham’s organization) is an article praising Putin for being so pro-Christian. (They don’t seem to understand that his regime is pro-Russian Orthodox and not so crazy about any other religion. I guess they’ll figure that out when their own missionaries start getting the same treatment currently only reserved for gays and Jews.)
posted by MR Bill on
Here in Georgia, the Republicans ran on a law that would ban Gay marriages, and added provisions when it reached the Legislature that ended civil unions and ‘common law’ marriage (which had been part of settled law since the state was founded) in the process. Georgia’s egregious Governor Nathan Deal squeaked out a primary win over then Sec. of State Karen Handel (you remember her, she got burnt trying to use the Susan Komen Breast Cancer Foundation to sandbag Planned Parenthood), who had had the opinion that, even if conservatives found businesses giving domestic partnership benefits to gays (and straights) obnoxious, they probably had that right. Deal’s commercial attacked this position…see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSRbSnrtOHo
And, of course, North Carolina’s current Teabagger Republican supermajority Legislature got elected in an off year by getting conservative turnout with a state amendment against gay marriage….And threw civil unions over the side as well: see http://youtu.be/gugwteCiK38
posted by Sonicfrog on
Hound said earlier:
“Back in 2004 I was often asked “what about civil unions?” to which I always responded, “is that an actual offer?” It never was.”
Bingo.
The same people who are now saying this, are the same people who fought tooth ans nail against this very thing before the concept of marriage started gaining steam. Even today, you would be hard pressed to find examples of them pushiing laws promoting civil unions.
I’m gay and have been with my Mate for almost 18 years (anniversary is in July). For much of the time, I did not support the push for same sex marriage. People look at me curiously when I tell them this and question why. My answer – It simply looked unobtainable. I’m not a visionary or protester type. I kind of go with the flow. As society was changing though, so was I. I supported the idea, but I was never willing to go on record and advocate for it. Civil unions were already in place. I could bide my time. The thing that woke me up was the success of the anti-same-sex marriage law out here in California, Proposition 8.
A little background is in order. My Mate’s parent are very Mormon, and do not support gay marriage at all. They were very active in getting Prop 22 passed back in 1998. By the time Prop 8 came around, the Mates Dad was ill (he has since passed on) and could not do the same work organizing and mobilizing that they did in the passed, but they did give money to help with the pro-Prop campaign. So I saw first hand exactly how well the Prop 8 folks were opperating. Still, I pretty much figured that since this was liberal California, there was no way that prohibition would pass.
And, of course, it did.
It was a real kick in the gut. I though we had it, and then, over night, we didn’t. That was a real wake-up call. That defeat changed me. I no longer pull my punches on a lot of things. And now, I totally get why the victories we’ve had in the last few years are causing the traditionalists to go crazy. I get it, cause I know what it’s like to lose too.
Unlike many on my side of the table, who are the reactionaries and activist, and, quite frankly the reason we are having the success on this issue, I don’t hold ill against many who don’t want to see this change in society. Why? As I mentioned before, my in-laws are very Mormon. Even though they were a part of the campain to deny me, and their son, the priviledge to marry, they have treated me with more respect than many who were not fighting so hard against gay mariage. When I first met Greg 17 plus years ago, he was just breaking up with a mistake, his first boyfriend. Greg was not open with his parents about this side of his life, and when the new friend… me… began hanging around, I don’t think they knew what was behind the new friendship. When the mistake realized Greg was not going to take him back, he called Gregs Mom and told her everything!…. Including the few times that Greg had experimented with some serious party drugs, and that Greg was HIV +, a discovery we made after we had gotten together, which the cheating mistake had transmitted to him. Through all that…. The very Mormon familly has treated me with nothing but respect. A relatively short time after all hell broke loose thanks to the mistake, after the familly realized that I was indeed a permanent part of Greg’s life, they started inviting me on trips and familly gathering. It wasn’t too long until they were letting me and Greg sleep in the same bedroom on over-night trips….. Yeah, the first few times were AKWARD!!!!! But, with the exception of their view against same-sex mariage, a posision still held by Gregs mother, that familly has treated as part of the familly. They have been as respectful as anyone regarding our life together.
posted by Jorge on
I think some gay groups would have jumped at a marriage-light option that provided at least some legal protections for gay couples back then. Full marriage equality was looking impossible until a couple of years ago after all.
And then before that Houndentenor says:
It wasn’t a real compromise… They get everyone else to start with a compromise position and then they move their hard line position even further to the right.
…
…
The flaw in the “Civil Union Compromise” line of thinking has always been that, short of an amendment enshrining marriage inequality in our federal constitution, the compromise could not hold in the face of individual citizens seeking redress.
Before I realized I was gay, for a short time I used to agree with the late Ann Landers (d. 2002) who wrote that gays and lesbians should have legal and social recognition, but for traditional reasons, she does not think it should be called marriage. After that I came to believe that nothing short of full recognition by the churches would be satisfactory.
Houndentenor and Tom, what was the will of those in the gay community in those days? I hear many stories about people who have been together for many decades. What would have done them justice?
There are two possibilities. One, that their own answers to the metaphysical and societal question on what their relationships ought to be would allow them to be happy with marriage-lite as a final answer. It is because the religious right did not offer any way for gays to be happy that they did not look to marriage-lite in the end.
Two, that in the days of AIDS, hate crimes, and career and social blacklisting, the social and personal validation needs (and injuries) from (lack of) living in a true marriage were secondary to those needs related to survival. When the survival needs are met, people come to realize and want to fulfill the higher order needs. Equal marriage was, is, and always will be a need.
Equal marriage became such an important goal so quickly. Something important must have happened rapidly to cause the switch.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Houndentenor and Tom, what was the will of those in the gay community in those days?
I can’t speak for “the gay community” or anyone else. I can speak for myself, and others might speak for themselves, too.
I didn’t even think about marriage equality until the early 1990’s, when the Hawaii case was decided. I read about the decision in the newspapers, and then I read the actual opinion. A light went off in my head as I read the decision. We might, just might, have a constitutional right to marriage on an equal footing with straights. It took me a year to think it through, to work through the legal theories and implications, but once I’d done that, I was committed to marriage equality as a goal and never looked back.
Before then I was working on other things — dampening police harrassment, non-discrimination laws and ordinances, ending disrimination in the law firm in which I worked, obtaining decent medical treatment for HIV/AIDS patients, working with the gay kids who got kicked out of their Christian homes and ended up on the streets in Chicago, electing “gay supportive” officials like Barbara Flynn Currie, and so on. I haven’t stopped working on those things — in fact, if anything, I’ve worked harder on some of them over the years — but since my epiphiny on marriage equality, my goal has been marriage equality.
I hear many stories about people who have been together for many decades. What would have done them justice?
I’m at an age where I know a lot of couples who have been together for a long time. Eugenia and Mary were together 64 years by the time Mary died a few years back. John and Sam have been together 41 or 42 years, Miriam and Hannah at least as long, John and Art around 40 years, and so on. Just about every couple I know my age has been together a decade or more, and 15-20 seems to be about the norm.
The thrust of the gay rights movement, from the very beginning and no matter what the focus from time to time (from getting the cops out of our bars, to being judged for employment on the basis of our performance, to marriage equality) has been to dismantle the structure of legal restictions and impediments imposed on gays and lesbians but not imposed on straights, to put us on a level playing ground, to let us live under the same rules. Marriage equality is, perhaps, both cornerstone and keystone, but it is just part of a larger movement working for equal treatment.
So if you want justice, work for equality. To me, it is that simple.
posted by Houndentenor on
I think we have a problem of definitions. What exactly does each writer or speaker mean by “civil unions”? Would it be the same rights and responsibilities as marriage just with a different name? That seems comically nonsensical, but I personally wouldn’t object to that and said so for a couple of decades now. (Others have every right to disagree. Personally I’m more concerned with what something IS rather than what it’s called.) But if it’s a lesser status without the same legal protections then we have to discuss which ones are omitted before I can say whether or not I’d find that acceptable.
My point was and is that even 10 years ago this compromise would probably have been welcomed by most gay people. But back then the same people who are still against marriage equality were also fighting against Civil Unions. Go back and read about the debate when Vermont added civil unions in the late 1990s. It wasn’t as if civil unions was an offer that we were refused. It’s that the people who don’t want us to have marriage rights fought AGAINST civil unions. Offering them now that we are winning on marriage as if they are in a strong bargaining position is hilarious. It doesn’t surprise me that such nonsense would come from the Catholic church which for some reason still thinks that after decades of enabling child rapists that they are some sort of moral authority. Catholics are actually the most likely religious group to support same sex marriage. They don’t pay attention to the pope, cardinals or bishops. I’m not sure why the rest of us would.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
My point was and is that even 10 years ago this compromise would probably have been welcomed by most gay people. But back then the same people who are still against marriage equality were also fighting against Civil Unions.
It is a good point, but I just have to laugh.
In Wisconsin, we (meaning a half dozen couples represented by Lambda Legal, since the Republican Attorney General won’t) are defending against a lawsuit brought by the principals of Wisconsin Family Action (the dairy air version of the FRC) challenging the constitutionality of our 2009 Domestic Partnership Act.
The Domestic Partnership Act grants a few (inheritance rights, end-of-life decisions, medical decisions, and few other extraneous rights) of the rights granted by marriage in our state, and even that limited recognition was too much for the anti-marriage crowd.
You’d think that the social conservatives would be happy to see us bury each other. But not so.
There are three things you can be dead certain about: You will die. You will pay taxes. When social conservatives start talking “compromise”, the only cross anywhere near is the one they are making with their fingers behind their back.
posted by Doug on
Can a person oppose equal treatment of african americans in good faith and not be a bigot? IMHO the answer to that question is NO. Same applies to equal treatment of gays and lesbians. This country is secular, not religious, and everyone should be treated equally.
posted by Lori Heine on
This whole “we’re persecuted because we’re Christians” routine is just the latest attempt to cram us into a neat little box and keep us there.
What’s really going on is that they want to keep us out of church. Even for those who are not religious, this should be a matter of concern because it is yet another attempt, by those who wish us ill, to restrict our options and limit our choices.
There is a battle, right now, in most major religions over whether LGBT people will be welcomed and fully included — treated like whole human beings — or not. I support every LGBT person of faith in the fight for full equality in religious bodies — whether I agree with their beliefs or not. It is selfish and short-sighted to say, “Well, I don’t believe, so I don’t care.”
Though I no longer want anything to do with conservatives, I likewise support the right of LGBT people to be conservative — because, again, I don’t think our choices should be restricted by others.
That is, I believe, a major theme of the articles on this website, and I applaud it. We have the right to be full human beings.
Though our government is secular (or supposed to be), we are a religious people. I have no problem with that, being a Christian myself. But the whole “let’s surrender religion to the straights because we don’t care about it” mentality is unworthy of anyone who sincerely cares about equality.
We shouldn’t surrender one blade of grass to people who oppose our full humanity. Not one.
posted by Houndentenor on
There are quite a few gay-friendly (to varying degrees) denominations and congregations. It’s not that hard to find one of those. I regularly refuse gigs in churches that are anti-gay, especially Catholic and certain other denominations. You don’t get my talent without the gay. It’s a package deal. (I’m not exactly wearing rainbow flags at church gigs, in case that’s what anyone is thinking. I just don’t want to be disrespected. I don’t think that’s too much for ANYONE to ask.)
posted by Lori Heine on
Yes, I’ve made the entire tour of the local gay-friendly churches. (Sounds like the idea for a book!) My main concern is that those that do not welcome us should no longer be able to be seen as the default position — or the “real” Christians — who get to totally define the faith for everybody, including in the law.
posted by Houndentenor on
People have every right not to like me for any reason. I just don’t have to oblige them by showing up and taking their abuse. And I certainly don’t have to give them my time, money and talent. I wish more gay people felt that way. I know plenty of gay musicians (organists mostly) who endure the most heinous commentary Sunday after Sunday. I can’t imagine what that does to one’s self-esteem over years and years. Oh wait I can because I endured it myself until I was in my 20s.
posted by Kosh III on
“When Linker, Dreher, Douthat and others complain about how homosexuals are being mean to them”
St Paul Galatians 6:7
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. “
posted by Houndentenor on
In that case someone should ask them if they are ready for a truce. ENDA, repeal of the rest of DOMA and full marriage equality in exchange for some (in 99% of all cases completely unnecessary) protections for the religious bigots? Are they willing to call off their dogs if we call off ours? Yeah, didn’t think so.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But this might be a good time for those who oppose same-sex marriage in good faith to think a bit more about the enormous change among heterosexuals who now disagree with them.
It might also be a good time for “those who oppose same-sex marriage in good faith” to contemplate the things which they allowed to said and done in their name while sitting back quiet, going along:
(1) The Republican Party planned and executed a national campaign to enshrine marriage inequality in the constitutions of thirty-odd states. As the history of that campaign is revealed, we are learning what we suspected, which is that the campaign was not driven by moral principle or animus, but instead by cynical political calculation, manipulating fear and loathing about gays and lesbians for short-term political gain. The campaign was reprehensible, as a number of the architects of that campaign are beginning to acknowledge.
(2) The anti-marriage campaign unleashed a torrent of lies, fabrications and hateful speech from hard-core social conservatives. During the campaigns, and afterward, the American people were told that gays and lesbians were diseased, unstable, mentally ill, unfit parents, pedophiles and child abusers, children of Satan, destroying family, faith and country, determined to destroy marriage, and so on. The list is long. Gays and lesbians became fair game for every form of hysteria. Although increasingly shoved to the fringes, if anything, anti-gay speech has become more hateful and less reasoned as we get closer to victory.
It is not surprising that the virulent anti-gay campaigns conducted in this country during the last decade have created a residue of deep anger among gays and lesbians. It is not surprising that it has driven a few to hateful counter-speech.
While it would be unfair to attribute the hateful words and actions of the anti-equality movement to “those who oppose same-sex marriage in good faith”, I do not think that it is unreasonable to hold them morally accountable for not speaking out against what has been said and done in their names, for sitting quiet in the face of injustice.
I think that “Where were you when this was being done in your name?” is a reasonable question to ask such people.
I ask that question. The question makes “those who oppose same-sex marriage in good faith” very uncomfortable. It should.
posted by Doug on
“The Republican Party planned and executed a national campaign to enshrine marriage inequality in the constitutions of thirty-odd states. As the history of that campaign is revealed, we are learning what we suspected, which is that the campaign was not driven by moral principle or animus, but instead by cynical political calculation, manipulating fear and loathing about gays and lesbians for short-term political gain.”
And let us not forget which president is responsible for this campaign: George W. Bush.
posted by Lori Heine on
“I think that “Where were you when this was being done in your name?” is a reasonable question to ask such people.”
That is such a good idea that I intend to begin doing it at the first possible opportunity.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A side note: The Republican Party of Oregon has officially disavowed the young Republican effort to move the Oregon Republican Party toward supporting marriage equality, and reaffirmed the state party platform.
The party’s statement reads in relevant part:
The reaction, I suppose, was inevitable. But sooner or later, the Republican Party will turn, and we all owe thanks to the young Republicans who made the effort at the Dorchester Conference. With young people like standing up, the party has a future.
posted by Jorge on
Maybe if I ignore this incident I can pretend Tom is making things up about lies about gays in the name of the Republican party.
Actually now that I think of it the “we don’t want government to interfere with your right to make social institutions” has some truth to it. If you’re an anarchist. Urgh. I’m going home.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The statement is certainly Orwellian, I’ll say that for it. It is hard to read any two sentences in sequence without logical disorientation. I hope that the statement isn’t the direction in which the party is now headed nationally, but I fear that it is.
Be that as it may. I’m just glad that young Republicans are starting to fight. I suspect that we’ll see more of it going forward. I don’t expect social conservatives to roll over, and I think that the fight will be hard. I know from long experience (it took us thirty-plus years of hard slogging to turn the Democratic Party) that the young Republicans will lose a lot more times than they will win during the next few years, but young people are resilient and will prevail in the end.
It is heartening, though, that the younger generation of Republicans is not making the mistake of the older generation, staying silent.
I wonder whether the Republican Party would be in the mess it is in today if “gay supportive” (that seems to be the Republican term) Republicans had put up a fight a decade ago, instead of rolling over and letting the social conservatives shape the party’s policies and politics.
Maybe the social conservatives would have rolled them (the social conservative wing had made long inroads into control of the party’s internal structure by that point), but at least the social conservatives would have had a fight on their hands instead of surrender and collaboration.
The older generation of gay and lesbian Republicans (with the notable exception of LCR) went AWOL right when they were needed most. And to their undying discredit, many, like Mehlman, actively collaborated, working on behalf of social conservatives.
Someday, as the memoirs and histories are written, we’ll know the “what” and “why” of that disgrace. I just can’t understand it.
posted by Jorge on
I wonder whether the Republican Party would be in the mess it is in today if “gay supportive” (that seems to be the Republican term) Republicans had put up a fight a decade ago, instead of rolling over and letting the social conservatives shape the party’s policies and politics.
Ken Mehlman led the Republican National Committee during the Bush presidency. There is no shame in anything he has done. Bush started pushing the Republican party significantly leftward with regard to how it acknowledged gays from when he was campaigning. This website spoke to much of the hope that gays from the center and rightward had during the Bush presidency, as well as a sense of checked fury about the implications of the Federal Marriage Amendment and its introduction. I remain a very big fan of President Bush.
The gay right functions best when it swears fealty directly to the cause of gays (LBTs), rather than to any specific political goal or controversy. There has never been a time in history before the Bush presidency when the Republican party was serving the cause of civil rights for gays, and so I believe gay Republicans were right for believing. Among the contributions of gay Republicans and their straight allies, I give the most credit to the Bush administration for choosing to stand on a principle that gays are Americans entitled to social respect, to administration positions, and to the protection of law enforcement, regardless of its position on particular controversies. The harms of trusting the Republican party after President Bush supported the Federal Marriage Amendment are minor in comparison.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Ken Mehlman led the Republican National Committee during the Bush presidency. There is no shame in anything he has done.
You can interpret Mehlman’s role in executing the anti-marriage amendment strategy any way you want to, Jorge, but before you go too far out on a limb, you might consider reading what Mehlman himself has had to say about that effort and his role in it.
posted by Jorge on
I have. I think he’s too hard on himself.
posted by Doug on
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Jorge, you can believe anything you want but you cannot change the facts. Mehlman himself has said he is ashamed of what he participated in, so for you to say otherwise is willful ignorance.
posted by Kosh III on
“The older generation of gay and lesbian Republicans (with the notable exception of LCR)”
Really? Maybe in blue states where it’s safe. Here in TN they don’t exist, nor do they in several states(MS/AL/AZ) dominated by the GOP–the very places they should be most active.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
LCR has never had a chapter in Wisconsin, either, as far as I know, but at least on the national level, LCR issued statements, resisted, brought the DADT lawsuit, refused to endorse Bush (before caving in on McCain and Romney), did something.
Perhaps the reason why LCR stands out in my mind is because the group’s doing anything was a such a stark contrast to the dead silence otherwise blanketing the Republican political scene.
I’m not saying that LCR was particularly effective — it never got involved in the hard work of intra-party politics, for example, which is what Democratic gays and lesbians did — but at least it was doing what Alphabet-Street bar Washingtonians think of as political action, and that was better than doing nothing at all or collaborating.
I don’t know what strange twist of my mind brought this to the front, but I suddenly thought of the Mattachine Society while I was writing this.
A year or two before Stonewall, at a time when it was illegal in New York city for bars to serve drinks to homosexuals (a relatively common law at the time, which aided police all over the country in raiding our bars), the Mattachine Society organized a “sip in” at a posh bar in the city. I remember seeing a picture of it someplace a year or two ago — a bunch of men, in suits, demurely sipping cocktails, so polite and respectable-looking as to be painful. Contrast that picture with Stonewall, a year or two later, when the street gays and lesbians finally had enough and exploded. My head conjured up LCR as the Mattachine Society, and the Democratic groups as the latter.
I wonder if that odd thought isn’t actually a hint at an important difference between the dynamics of gays and lesbians in the two parties. It might be unsupported bias on my part — it probably is — but I’ve always thought of LCR as a bunch of guys in suits, and Democratic activist as a bunch of guys in jeans.
In any event, the strange wanderings of my mind aside, it is beginning to look like younger, mostly straight, Republicans are beginning to do what Republican gays and lesbians would not do for themselves in the past, and stand up and take some lumps for equality. I just hope that it continues.
posted by Kosh III on
I did a quick look at the LCR website section on Allies. They have McCain as an ally. Really? IIRC he supported DADT and opposed it’s repeal, opposed ENDA and is opposed to marriage equality.
With friends like him, who needs enemies.
posted by Doug on
I would add Orrin Hatch to the ‘With friends like that. . . . ‘ category as well. I’m sure that many of those on the Allies list are NOT real Allies either, but they probably listen politely and then throw us under the bus without a second thought.
posted by Jorge on
John McCain was a major opponent of the Federal Marriage Amendment. He deserves his due.
As for Orrin Hatch, if someone is going to support even one so-called progressive gay rights law, I think it is important to pay attention to the reasoning behind it.
This is the LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS you are talking about. Hello? They think like Republicans who were born in a rickety old log cabin. They eat bears, pee in the grass, and read the Bible. If that scene is too primal and dangerous for you, you are always free to move into a snuggy smoggy stone wall building where you can eat chicken, call a maintenance man, and socialize by the corner store.
posted by Doug on
McCain is only against the Federal Marriage Amendment because he thinks it should be done by states and not the federal government. McCain is against marriage equality. He is not a friend of the LGBT community.
posted by Jorge on
McCain is only against the Federal Marriage Amendment because he thinks it should be done by states and not the federal government
Good point.
posted by Houndentenor on
It must be a very low bar. I guess it has to be to come up with more than 2-3 members of Congress as Republican allies.
posted by Mike in Houston on
The real agenda — beyond the fig leaf — was eloquently voiced by Linda Harvey:
“We aren’t fighting to protect marriage because the term and tradition are important. Let’s be honest that the only reason for this dispute is because people want to engage in anatomically challenged behavior that is observably unnatural, medically risky, improper as an example for children, and changeable.
And it’s a behavior God calls sin. There is no other biblical description of homosexuality except always and only a big taboo.
So in view of marriage law or public accommodations, could the immorality of homosexuality be a rationale for refusing to honor same-sex nuptials? Absolutely, it should be.”
She goes on @ http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/sin-vs-service-the-issue-is-virtue/#lBFworm3QZQYreFf.99
But you get the drift. The real agenda is complete erasure of LGBT people… which is why Civil Unions or any other “compromise” or half-step towards civil equality were never really in the mix for the NOM, AFA, FRC, etc. team — they can’t be.
posted by Lori Heine on
“And it’s a behavior God calls sin. There is no other biblical description of homosexuality except always and only a big taboo.”
Mike in Houston, I didn’t realize you were a hetero troll. Do you seriously have such a low opinion — and know so little — about “homosexuality” (as you are so broadly defining it) that you think of it merely as sex, sex, sex?
The Bible says NOTHING about committed relationships between two people of the same sex. Nothing. And the handful of times it mentions anything pertaining to same-sex activity, read in the context of the places where it appears, what is clearly referred to is promiscuous, lust-driven behavior between people who are probably heterosexual and engaging in the pagan fertility rituals Israel was told to avoid.
I fail to understand why so many LGBT people choose to mindlessly accept the anti-gay social Right’s ignorant assumptions about this issue. LGBT’s of faith insist on educating themselves about what religious texts actually say, and refuse to engage in a tennis match with homophobes that allows them to make the matter one of “God vs. Gays.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Lori, stop, breathe, think. Mike was quoting Linda Harvey.
posted by Lori Heine on
Okay! Sorry, Mike.
Still good to make sure anyone reading this commentary thread knows what the other side of the argument is.
There are young people getting kicked out of their homes and committing suicide over this issue. Because they are being told what this Linda Harvey person thinks. The misinformation is re-quoted — over and over and over again — even by mainstream opinion-shapers who mean us no harm but buy the propaganda.
I got into a tangle on Gay Patriot once, with a person calling himself Heliotrope, because I presented the other point of view. He took it as a battle of egos, so there followed much blather, from him, about all sorts of wonderfully interesting things, including the fools he didn’t suffer gladly and ghosties and ghoulies and things that went bump in the night.
I was actually neither surprised nor particularly concerned that he had the opinions he did — that any church that would welcome gays had to be “the church of what’s happening now.” I was speaking past him, really, to anyone out there who might read his words and for whom they might be the last straw.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Not hetero and not a troll — but I’ll try to use some bolding or italics next time.
My point was / is: there has never been a real credible “compromise” offer from the likes of NOM, AFA, FRC, etc. — they simply believe that we (LGBT people) don’t really exist… it’s a behavioral choice that with enough genuflecting (time on our knees, I suppose) we can be cured.
With THEIR basic assumption in place, i.e., LGBT people don’t really exist, then it’s perfectly reasonable to utilize both social and political power to modify bad behaviors.
Unfortunately, despite all evidence to the contrary, they are in a closed epistemic system… and like the mythic mule, the only real way to get their attention is with a 2×4 to the head.
posted by Kosh III on
“I fail to understand why so many LGBT people choose to mindlessly accept the anti-gay social Right’s ignorant assumptions about this issue.”
Because they’ve been beat up so much and so often by avowed Christians that they do NOT give a frak about what the Bible does or does not say-Christ/Bible/Church is irrelevant in their lives except in the ways that it impacts them negatively.
posted by Lori Heine on
I understand, because of course I get the same bludgeoning with the Bible that everyone else does in our community. And we’ve all been scolded and lectured enough, so even more scolding and lecturing is obviously neither smart nor helpful.
All I can say is that a relationship with God is a priority for me. Other people need to decide for themselves (A) whether it is a priority for them and (B) how to make sense of that.
The Religious Right has done incalculable spiritual damage to people in the LGBT community. They have done a hundred thousand times more scolding and lecturing than anybody else. So they are, of course, in the very last position to be getting puffed up about where they think they stand with God.
The people in Christ’s day for whom religion was easiest ended up condemning Him to death. That ought to have been a lesson for the modern-day Pharisees, but for some reason it is not.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Part of the problem — socially — is that people who use religion to justify anti-gay attitudes or ‘men have a place/women have a place’ attitudes are generally the type of people who many lay men and women grew up with/interact/socialize with.
If you have the time/resources to study scripture in-depth (and look at the extensive academic research), then such sexist and homophobic attitudes do not hold much Biblical water. However, not too many people have the time/resources to do that.
Instead, people tend to look up to the friendly local pastor who good with public speaking, does charity work and has well-behaved kids….That this pastor views on women/gays are totally Biblical BS does not matter — to many people — as much as the fact that people like him and most of what he believes in ….
Many local churches — I notice in the Midwest — are getting a bulk of their dollars resources from the (a) the Catholic Church (which is not cash poor) or one of the many (b) right-wing televangelist or Pentecostal. The money flows in and helps with advertising, fun events, public speakers and a bit of charity work.
Religious groups that are not sexist/homophobic tend to be vastly, VASTLY underfunded. Some of this is because — for example — many Lutherans (esp. them with money) moved over to the more Missouri Synd wing after the ELCA began to rid itself of its homophobia.
Other times you have a small Unitarian Church or a Reform Jewish Synogugue operating on a much, much small budget and less resources to go out into the community and challenge the sexism/homophobia.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A federal judge in Tennessee today ordered state officials to recognize the marriages of three same-sex couples during the consideration of their lawsuit challenging the validity of the state’s ban on recognizing such marriages. This is a temporary order pending trial of the case, and will likely be appealed.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
True moderates can accept some legal recognition, like domestic partnership or civil unions. Even the new Pope has suggested that this might be a feasible civil option, or at least an option the church need not object to in the civil realm.
Just out of curiosity, is there anyone even talking about civil unions other than Pope Francis and the Catholic bishops?
I follow the anti-marriage movement with reasonable attention, and hadn’t heard anything that would suggest that anyone was talking about civil unions any more, so and did an internet news search on “civil unions”.
Except for a single letter-to-the-editor in the Indianapolis Star, I found nothing that didn’t involve Pope Francis’ recent statement.
Certainly we’ve heard no “civil unions compromise” from Damon Linker, Ross Douthat, or Rod Dreher, who are claiming to be much abused “moderates”. Maybe that was David’s point.
posted by Jorge on
If I remember correctly, even Pope Francis at least implied that he was talking about civil society as a whole, not the Catholic Church.
Only those in the Church who will discuss matters pertaining to non-Catholics are relevant in your inquiry (perhaps one could argue this should include non-observant Catholics), and very few of them make public statements.
Cardinal Dolan of New York, when asked recently, expressed that civil unions make him “uncomfortable.” That’s a little underwhelming.
When it comes to observant Catholics, the Catholic Church still advocates primarily celibacy (although at least one bishop in another country suggested straight marriage between gays and lesbians), and still has a ministry in the United States that attempts to minister to Catholic gays in a way that counsels them toward celibacy.
I think we will find very quickly that the evidence of the social impact of gay marriage will reverberate throughout the Catholic Church, whether it’s from the top-down, the bottom-up, or both. I do not predict that will change its doctrine. Look for what the bishops say about Catholic politicians who vote in support of gay marriage vs. those who vote in support of abortion. Although, if the latter condemnation also vanishes…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am fine with Christian teaching as it applies to Christians — Catholic teaching as it applies to Catholics, Evangelical teaching as it applies to Evangelicals, Mormon teaching as it applies to Mormons, and so on. It is up to Christians to decide what they teach and what they don’t, and what they expect of their adherents in terms of observance.
Where I draw the line is at civil law. Under our constitutional system, laws should be based on the common good, and should be religiously neutral, grounded in religiously-neutral fact and religiously-neutral reason. Christians have no business trying to used civil law to impose their theology, whatever it may be, on non-adherents or on the government. Nor, for that matter, do adherents of any other religion, including mine.
In my opinion, in failing to recognize that line, the anti-marriage movement has fallen.
For a long time, the movement, which is and always has been essentially religious in nature, tried to pawn off its religious objection to marriage equality as based on religiously-neutral fact and religiously-neutral reason. It was never more than chimera. The effort to pawn off religious belief as religiously-neutral failed, miserably, as the courts exposed the emptiness of their supposedly objective arguments to trial and the light of day.
In the most recent trial (Michigan), Sherif Girgis was removed as a witness because all he had to offer was opinion, and the other key witness, Mark Regnerus, was walked through the process of admitting that all of the methodological criticisms of his study were, in fact, justified, forced to admit that his study had nothing at all to say about the outcome of children raised by married same-sex parents, and was reduced to arguing that same-sex marriage should not be permitted without a long-term study of the outcomes for children raised by married same-sex parents, which, of course, would be impossible unless same-sex marriage were permitted. Even my deceased dog Buddy, who was a lovely dog but a total moron, could understand the circularity of that argument. If anything, the Michigan trial was a bigger disaster for the anti-marriage movement than the California trial, and that’s saying a lot.
All that is left now for the anti-marriage movement is religious objection, and that dog won’t hunt under constitutional scrutiny.
At this point, if the anti-marriage movement had even minimal honesty, they would fold the tent.