Just to follow up on Jonathan's fine post below, when someone labeled a "social conservative" like David Blakenhorn opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, he's a bigot. When Barack Obama takes the same position, he's a "fierce advocate" for gays and lesbians.
This same hypocrisy was evident over the brouhaha regarding Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, leading to Donald Trump's assertion of an inconvenient truth: that when Prejean said she believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, she "gave a very, very honest answer when asked a very tough question at the recent pageant. It's the same answer that the President of the United States gave."
We don't know how Prejean would have responded to a question about civil unions (or, as Obama likes to put forth as a major sign of his pro-gay sympathies, his support for same-sex hospital visitation rights). Liberals like to claim that the difference between gay-marriage-opposing conservatives and gay-marriage-opposing "progressives" is really, really important (really), involving tone and nuance.
Regardless, it shouldn't be much of a surprise following so many denounciations directed at Prejean that, in response, she does become a spokeperson for the anti-gay marriage movement. And wouldn't that make all sides feel happy and vindicated.
5 Comments for “Polarization: The Desired Outcome for Cultural Warriors?”
posted by Bruno on
Despite the fact that Perez Hilton is a publicity whore who set up Prejean and denigrated her, I fail to see how anyone but Prejean herself should bear responsibility for her subsequent actions. It’s she who didn’t take the high road and started down the road of becoming NOM’s robocall beauty queen, and no one else.
posted by Southern Decency on
“When Barack Obama takes the same position, he’s a “fierce advocate” for gays and lesbians.”
Had Miller actually read any left-wing gay sites recently (Queerty, Pam’s House Blend), he would know that they’re giving him hell over his inaction on DADT and his anti-marriage stance.
“We don’t know how Prejean would have responded to a question about civil unions”
Yes, we do:
http://www.queerty.com/carrie-prejean-doesnt-have-answers-about-civil-unions-gay-adoption-20090501/
If gay-rights advocates are guilty of “sanctimonious extremism”, as Rauch claims, this blog post might be described as sanctimonious cluelessness. Try conducting at least a minimum of research before you post, Miller.
posted by esurience on
I think there is a legitimate and fair distinction between Obama’s position and Prejean’s (or Blakenhorn’s for that matter).
Obama, in practice, has seemed to take the position that it’s a matter for states to decide (and as far as the federal government is concerned, he supports civil unions to recognize those relationships recognized by the state). Obama opposed prop8. He hasn’t condemned any state that has legalized marriage equality.
In contrast, Prejean and Blakenhorn are part of organizations that oppose recognizing marriage equality. Not only are they rhetorically against it, but they’ve actually taken it up as a cause. That’s a big difference.
There’s also reason to think that Obama, far from giving an honest answer when he says that he believes marriage is between “one man and one woman,” is actually just choosing a politically expedient path (he said he supported same-sex marriage “unequivocally” in 1996).
On the other hand… I understand that making this distinction makes some uncomfortable because it seems like we’re giving Obama a free pass by doing so. I’m not trying to give Obama a free pass. His opposition to marriage equality, even if it’s just in words and not action (and even if it’s not truly what he thinks), is wrong.
Stephen H. Miller’s post seems to contradict Jonathan Rauch’s earlier post, however, and he seems to be oblivious to this contradiction. Rauch was arguing *for* nuance in discerning our various opponents positions (not all of them want to burn us at the stake). Miller seems to be arguing against it.
posted by Bobby on
Come on, esurience, Obama did say he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
I don’t know whether he’s being sincere or a political opportunist who reads the polls. But his lack of courage is deafening.
Outside of the economic changes Obama has brought, on gay rights he remains a do-nothing president.
If I was a democrat, I would be angry. This is a crucial moment in gay history, very few republicans have the balls to piss off the evangelical base, so the hard decisions of same-sex marriage and ending DADT have to be done by the president.
For God’s sake, even the pseudo-republican daughter of John McCain supports same-sex marriage!
posted by Greg on
This would have been more appropriate if Miss California’s 15 minutes of Fame weren’t already practically over.