Andrew Sullivan has penned an
excellent column, originally published in the Wall Street
Journal, taking American conservatives to task for their
un-conservative opposition to gay participation in "integrating
social institutions." Sullivan asks:
If two lesbian women want to share financial responsibility for each other for life, why is it a conservative notion to prevent this? If two men who have lived together for decades want the ability to protect their joint possessions in case one of them dies, why is it a conservative notion that such property be denied the spouse in favor of others? ...
In all these cases, you have legal citizens trying to take responsibility for one another. By doing so, by setting up relationships that do the "husbanding" work of family, such couples relieve the state of the job of caring for single people without family support. Such couplings help bring emotional calm to the people involved; they educate people into the mundane tasks of social responsibility and mutual caring. When did it become a socially conservative idea that these constructive, humane instincts remain a threat to society as a whole?
We know that the theocratic "wingnuts" will never be convinced, but mainstream conservatives are going to have to grapple with these issues sooner or later.
Marriage Wars.
Yes, it's disappointing that the Bush administration issued an
official declaration proclaiming October 12-18 as "Marriage
Protection Week." Right-wing
religious groups that oppose gay marriage -- and support the
proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Act (FMA) -- cooked up the idea
for Marriage Protection Week in order to mobilize their minions to
lobby Congress in support of the FMA. But the
text of the White House proclamation never mentions the FMA.
It's intent is to once more placate the religious right on the
cheap, without doing anything concrete that could seem too
intolerant (read "anti-gay"). So while the proclamation declares
that
"Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America"
and Bush calls on all Americans to "join me in expressing
support for the institution of marriage," it also states
that
"we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect."
No doubt, the proclamation adds legitimacy to those groups fighting against gay marriage, but it also must be disappointing to them that it fails to directly mention, much less endorse the FMA, and even repeats language Bush has used previously to separate himself from the virulent anti-gay rhetoric of the religious right -- which clearly doesn't "welcome" gay people into society, or believe we should be treated with "dignity and respect."
But, of course, Bush can't have it both ways. And his call to welcome all (read "gays") into society while denying us the right to society's bedrock institution -- marriage -- is an internal contradiction too vast to smooth over.
Nevertheless, the rhetorical response to the proclamation by activist groups such as the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force is way over the top. NGLTF terms Bush's proclamation "shocking and appalling" and Marriage Protection Week a "weapon of mass discrimination and fear-mongering" that aims to "demonize and defame gay people and our families." The President is "catering to wealthy and politically power organizations intent on permanently relating a minority to second class citizenship." NGLTF's statement ends with a call to "stand beside gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender America in this terrible and frightening time."
One thing is clear: both sides in the marriage wars are eagerly
engaged in "fear-mongering" aimed at keeping their donors blood
pressure up -- and their wallets open.
Split Decision.
American public opinion is now split nearly evenly on gay
marriages, according to
a new
USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll. It found that 48% say "allowing two
people of the same sex to legally marry will change our society for
the worse," while 50% say it would either have no effect or be an
improvement. These stats aren't encouraging to those who'd like to
amend the Constitution to ban gays from marrying or otherwise
receiving the legal benefits of marriage.
More Recent Postings