The legalization of same-sex marriages in Canada, plus impending legal decisions from Massachusetts and New Jersey regarding same-sex couples seeking to wed, puts marriage front and center on the Culture War front -- even as we await the Supreme Court's ruling on whether state sodomy laws that outlaw mere sexual relations between gay partners are constitutionally permissible.
Peter Steinfels, who covers the religion beat for the New York
Times, traces some of the fault lines in the marriage debate (at
least among the non-wackos in the religious community) in A Too-Hot
Topic. Among others, he quotes David Blankenhorn, director of
the Institute for American Values, who remarks: "People who haven't
had much positive to say about marriage are suddenly enthusiastic,
as long
you put the words 'same sex' in front of it."
True, to some extent. But "Gay marriage isn't a repudiation of the values conservatives prize. It's an affirmation," writes syndicated columnist Steve Chapman in Embracing Age-Old Monogamy, via the Chicago Tribune.
Over at the libertarian-minded Reason magazine, Cathy Young
opines in Gay
Rights Go To Court that:
Until attitudes change, gays have a difficult road to travel. There will be clear-cut victories for human dignity, freedom, and privacy, such as the likely demise of sodomy laws. And there will be complicated and frustrating compromises on issues like marriage.
Well, no one ever said life was meant to be easy.
Equal Time.
Having noted a column over at Tech Central Station that defended
the none-too gay friendly views of Sen. Rick Santorum, the Tech
Central folks point out they've also run several pieces critical of
Santorum, including
Democratic Plant
("The only explanation") by James Pinkerton, and
Information Sexternalities ("It's not like incest at all") by
James D. Miller. Plus lots of other interesting views on politics
and culture with a pro-liberty streak make this site worth checking
out.
Internally Conflicted
I missed this, but andrewsullivan.com pointed out a Washington
Times op-ed by conservative commentator Jonah Golberg that
offered this observation:
Earlier this month, Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly tried to cancel a scheduled Gay Pride Month celebration at the Department of Justice for lesbian and gay employees. He failed. Despite pressure from social conservative activists, DOJ reversed course in the face of protests from gay groups and a sympathetic media (and, probably, pressure from the White House).
When the most famous and powerful member of the Religious Right in the U.S. government can't stop a gay pride event in his own office building, held by his own employees, you know that social conservatives are losing this fight.
It's too soon to declare victory and the looming marriage battle
is sure to be tumultuous -- but that the trend of history is toward
greater freedom can't be denied.
--Stephen H. Miller
Yet Still More Balancing by Bushies.
This headline from the Missoulian (of Montana) says it all: Racicot takes Bush campaign helm: GOP gays applaud, Christian right boos. As the story reports:
Rumors that [Marc] Racicot would lead the re-election campaign have already provoked much gnashing of teeth among Christian conservatives who oppose Racicot's efforts to bring homosexuals into the Republican family. "
"Marc Racicot is so out-of-touch with George W. Bush's most loyal and committed voters that his qualifications to serve as chairman of the president's re-election campaign must be seriously questioned," Family Research Council president Ken Connor wrote in a May 15 e-mail. "Mr. Racicot appears to be utterly tone deaf -- or openly hostile -- to the concerns of the GOP's pro-family voters."
Give a little to the religious right (by ending official sponsorship of the Dept. of Justice's gay pride), and take a little in the hope of widening your appeal to centrists and independents. That's the Rove (er, Bush) strategy.
Why the Right's Not Right.
The interesting Tech Central Station website has a column by a U
of Texas at Arlington prof titled
Why Liberals Think Conservatives Are Stoopid. Unfortunately,
it's a pretty shallow piece that even seeks to defend Sen. Rick
Santorum's pro-sodomy law comments. The column triggered some
interesting online comments, though, and I think
this fellow's remarks get it just about right:
Sen. Santorum did not merely say that if the Supreme Court held that states lack a right to pass sodomy laws, they would also lack a legal basis to pass laws against incest, bestiality, etc. (and, by the way, Texas abolished its laws against bestiality at the same time it PASSED a same-sex only sodomy law).
What Santorum went on to say was that he personally supported state sodomy laws, that states should have the right to enact them or not, but he favored enacting them. That is, he believes gay people should be treated as a criminal class. THAT's what created much (albeit not all) of the storm of protest. THAT's why you could mock the idea that Sen. Santorum is an 'inclusive' man. THAT's why he was called a bigot.
Right on.