Stephen Miller's post links to a CPAC video discussion of same-sex marriage that deserves some comment.
One of the classic uses of humor is to release tension, and the discussion shows that even conservatives who want to address the question of gay marriage seriously are still uncomfortable with the subject and need a bit of comic relief. The results are revealing.
The first speaker, Scott Ott, tries to diminish gay marriage arguments he finds fatuous, mentioning hospital visitation rights. He dismisses this is a real argument, saying he's been to a lot of hospitals, and no one's ever asked him if he's "having sex with a sick person."
That got a big laugh, and I'm sure he's correct. But it entirely misses the point. Hospitals frequently have special rules permitting greater visitation rights for family members than others, for example outside of normal visiting hours, or in intensive care units where non-family members are not permitted. It would be the rare spouse who would be refused these small mercies. But because same-sex couples cannot get married, more than a few of them have, in fact, been told they cannot see their partner, the reason being that they are not a member of his or her family. More and more hospitals have seen the cruelty such a policy imposes on someone who's obviously grief-stricken, as any loved one would be in a hospital, and have taken a more common sense approach.
Ott's dismissal of this as a problem is a cheap shot, and does him no justice if, as other parts of his comments suggest, he wants to be viewed as fair-minded in this debate. Anyone who does not understand how the lack of any recognized family status could be a problem for same sex couples who cannot marry is not thinking very hard about the other side.
Later in the discussion, Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds says his ideal world is one where "happily married gay couples have closets full of assault weapons." This, too, got a huge laugh. It's a fine line, and pretty welcome around these parts.
It is, however, the prelude to a dream, and Reynolds then moves on to his position that the state should recognize all willing couples as civil unions, and leave marriage up to the churches.
There are several people I respect who take this principled ideological position. But to those of us toiling in the real political world, it looks like a way of avoiding the question, which is what to do about the laws we have in the world we live in. I am glad to have whatever rhetorical support we can get from conservatives like Reynolds. But the rubber does sometimes meet the road, and as a thoughtful and often contrarian conservative, Reynolds must know that more of us want to get happily married under existing laws (with or without closets full of assault weapons) than want the state to stop recognizing marriages of any kind.
I'd rather hold him to his punch line than to his serious proposal. But the punch line, I'm afraid, is just that.
14 Comments for “Punch Lines”
posted by Jorge on
Very well said. I was a little miffed at how superficial most of that discussion was.
posted by David Link on
To be fair, they are — at last — trying. Not so long ago at a conservative gathering, gay marriage would have been either ignored or universally mocked. The fact that even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives would have this as a specific topic is an almost inconceivably large step forward. The discomfort, I think, is a bit of a reality check for them. They’re not out of the Denial and Anger Stages of grief and are slowly coming up to Bargaining and Depression. Soon enough we’ll get even them to Acceptance.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
David, I very much appreciate and agree with your feet-on-the-ground approach to this. Various gay people over the years (including Steve Swayne here on IGF) have advocated civil unions for all on the civil law side and leaving marriages to religious organizations. I disagree with him, partly because I don’t think that has much chance of happening, and partly because marriage is not the sole province of religon (no matter how many times that is claimed) and I am unwilling to concede it to religion as religion’s exclusive turf. But he and I do agree that we want legal equality, and he says that he will settle for marriage if that is the only way to get it.
posted by David Link on
Richard, I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve read the phrase, “. . . he will settle for marriage if that is the only way” to achieve equality. I’d be happy to “settle” for marriage, too! BTW, Steve Swayne is a great guy who did yeoman’s work in Vermont during the great Civil Unions Debate. And let’s not forget that Vermont, as far as I can tell, *gave* us the term “civil unions.” Much less clunky than California’s “domestic partnerships.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
David, yes, I like that “I’ll settle for marriage” line of Steve’s. And his thoughts on the subject do carry extra weight because of his own efforts on behalf of the cause. He and I also share a devotion to Stephen Sondheim, who was the subject of his doctoral thesis. There isn’t anyone I have been sorrier to disagree with on the marriage issue. But I think it boils down to a strategic difference more than a substantive one.
posted by Carl on
“To be fair, they are — at last — trying. Not so long ago at a conservative gathering, gay marriage would have been either ignored or universally mocked.”
Isn’t that what Ott is doing? It’s a classic way to dehumanize gays and their relationships. Oh, of course we don’t care about seeing sick or dying partners. It’s all about the sex.
posted by Fitz on
Patient advocacy forms are free. They give the advocate greater protection than marriage carries and indeed most spouses get one as necessary.
posted by Grendel on
“Patient advocacy forms are free. They give the advocate greater protection than marriage carries and indeed most spouses get one as necessary.”
And we run off for an impromptu weekend in Savannah and don’t stop by the local Savannah hospital to sign the appropriate forms in advance, we just screwed, huh, if one of us has an accident down there?
posted by Fitz on
“And we run off for an impromptu weekend in Savannah and don’t stop by the local Savannah hospital to sign the appropriate forms in advance, we just screwed, huh, if one of us has an accident down there?”
No Grendel -Your PAF is good for the duration. You dont need one for every hospital visit & you get them at the library(or on the internet) not the hospital.
posted by Pat on
I have an idea then, Fitz. Since obtaining all these forms is so conveniently. And, of course, all the legal work is so inexpensive and convenient as well. I propose the following. Keep marriage only for those who procreate children, and only provide the rights that involve children. Anything involving hospitalization, rights of inheritance, etc., let those married couples do that those who cannot marry (but want to) do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I have an idea then, Fitz. Since obtaining all these forms is so conveniently. And, of course, all the legal work is so inexpensive and convenient as well.
Hmmm….so the same gay community that regularly drops tens of millions of dollars on pointless lawsuits, losing ballot campaigns, and endorsement of politicians who support gay marriage bans is now complaining that wills, healthcare proxies, and all the other things that gay couples can access right now are too complicated and expensive.
That’s a bit like the parents who complain they don’t have enough money to feed their Nike-clad, Juicy Couture-wearing kids while sitting in front of their plasma HD TV that’s flashing a premium-channel movie.
It’s all a question of priorities.
posted by Pat on
Hmmm….so the same gay community that regularly drops tens of millions of dollars on pointless lawsuits, losing ballot campaigns, and endorsement of politicians who support gay marriage bans is now complaining that wills, healthcare proxies, and all the other things that gay couples can access right now are too complicated and expensive.
You make it sound like the gay community is one person, NDT. I’m willing to bet that most of the money for these campaigns come from the more well-to-do persons. And how horrible that they would want other persons who don’t have the resources to have the rights. We all should be selfish pricks.
What’s interesting is the married folks who selfishly want to leave marriage to straight persons, saved tens of thousands of dollars, can afford to donate those thousands to anti-gay causes.
That’s a bit like the parents who complain they don’t have enough money to feed their Nike-clad, Juicy Couture-wearing kids while sitting in front of their plasma HD TV that’s flashing a premium-channel movie.
It’s only like for only those gay couples who spend tens of thousands on these initiatives, but then say they can’t afford those legal procedures.
It’s all a question of priorities.
It sure is.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And how horrible that they would want other persons who don’t have the resources to have the rights. We all should be selfish pricks.
Which is why, of course, those people are giving money to FMA and state constitutional amendment supporters.
Or, put differently, the gay community would rather spend millions of dollars supporting political candidates and pointless lawsuits than it would on actually paying for the poor gay couples that it sniffles over to have wills and healthcare proxies.
But it’s understandable. Paying $5k for the privilege of attending a campaign fundraiser or helping out a campaign that bashes religious people is far more exciting and glamorous than giving $5k to one of those poor gay couples so that they can have their protections right now.
posted by Pat on
Which is why, of course, those people are giving money to FMA and state constitutional amendment supporters.
NDT, we’ve been over this before. So let me restate my position to your macroed statement. I personally would not give money to those who support FMA and state constitutional amendments. Some people have, because they believe that it is better, in the short run and long run, to have that candidate win over another candidate who is even worse on gay rights. We may disagree with those person’s strategy, but they believe it works.
But it’s understandable. Paying $5k for the privilege of attending a campaign fundraiser or helping out a campaign that bashes religious people is far more exciting and glamorous than giving $5k to one of those poor gay couples so that they can have their protections right now.
Aside from your snipe about attacking “religious” people (poor victims), you’ve made a good point. But before I get to that, most gay people are religious. And when most gay people bash a religious person, it’s not the religion. It’s those who use religion as an excuse to bash gay persons, so sometimes people bash back. Not all people are Jesus and turn the other cheek.
To get to your point, I can’t even imagine spending $5000 on any political campaign (I would rather spend it on my own legal rights, etc.), but there are people apparently that can afford to do such a thing. Maybe it would be better for them if they donate it to one individual couple to get some of the legal protections. Perhaps they believe that such a donation, though, would more likely bring ALL of the legal protections to ALL gay couples that want marriage.
But you know what. Since getting these wills, healthcare proxies, etc., is no big deal, then, for example, the Mormons (or other religious groups) could have insisted that they don’t want federally recognized marriages for themselves anymore. Then they could have taken the $20,000,000 they donated to Prop. 8, and spent it on themselves for wills and healthcare proxies. That’s what you seem to support.