A Pragmatic Pick

Pragmatism has a name, and it's Joe Biden.

When Barack Obama announced his running mate late last week via text message, I nodded. Yep.

Biden is a smart choice. A practical choice.

But also an interesting choice.

First, to the practical. Biden has broad and deep foreign policy experience, something Obama lacks. This is important in the America of the present, the America that is fighting wars in Afganistan and Iraq while the Russian and Iranian governments continue to make disturbing noises.

Biden has a long, Washington-insider history, something which Obama had fought against during the primaries, with all his talk about change and a new way of governing.

Biden also is popular among blue collar workers and Catholics, constituencies that Obama has found tough to woo.

So the choice of Biden is a safe choice. It's safe for most of Obama's liberal constituency as well, without being too scary to conservatives, the way a Hillary Clinton or Dennis Kucinich would have been.

Take the gay and lesbian example. Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, but also said that he thought gay marriage "was inevitable." And he said that in 2003, five long years ago.. He is for civil unions, and voted against the bill that would written "marriage is between a man and a woman" language into the Constitution.

A year ago, when asked about 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he responded, "I've been to Afghanistan, I've been to Iraq seven times, I've been in the Balkans, I've been in these foxholes with these kids, literally in bunkers with them. Let me tell you something, nobody asked anybody else whether they're gay in those foxholes. Our allies - the British, the French, all our major allies - gays openly serve. I don't know the last time an American soldier said to a backup from a Brit, "Hey, by the way, let me check. Are you gay? Are you straight?" This is ridiculous."

He voted yes to including sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He was integral in helping rid the country of the discriminatory HIV travel and immigration ban.

In short, his positions on gay issues are a lot like - Obama's.

Now to the interesting.

Biden isn't always careful about what he says.

For example, he called Barack Obama "clean and articulate," which has a racist edge. And last year, he declared that he didn't think Obama was ready to be president.

But Obama was able to put aside these insults and slights and look to the bigger picture. Joe Biden is someone he agrees with. Joe Biden is someone he admires. Joe Biden is someone he believes he can work with.

The pick of a running mate is said to have very little impact on an actual election - instead, it's seen as a candidate's first presidential decision, the way to get a small taste of what a candidate's presidency would be like.

What Obama shows here is a willingness to move beyond petty grievances for the common good.

And this is an important trait.

We need a leader who can work with people - in this country and others - who believe all sorts of things and who say all sorts of things.

We need a leader who is not afraid that he will highlight his weaknesses by hiring people who know more than he does in their particular area of expertise.

We need a leader who can bear up under insults and not take them personally.

So, I'm impressed by Obama's choice of Biden. Biden is not who I was hoping for - I was crossing my fingers for the very unlikely pick of Hillary Clinton, or the very possible Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who made it to the final top three.

But Joe Biden is a choice I respect and can live with. And it shows some very interesting things about Obama - that he can be practical when he needs to be, and that he won't just try to surf the unsteady winds of oratory; that he can look at the big picture, instead of being focused on issues of personal loyalty or slights; and that he isn't afraid to be surrounded by people who may know more than he does.

These are the sorts of differences that make a difference. These are the sorts of things that show us the kind of president Barack Obama will be.

Marriage for Us—but Not for Me

"So ... How come you're not married?" a heterosexual friend asked me some time back. Since he knows I am gay, obviously "married" meant something like "in a partnered relationship."

And, of course, now that two states, including the most populous U.S. state, formally permit gay marriage, not just civil unions or domestic partnerships, and a few other states such as New York recognize out-of-state gay marriages, the question can have some additional significance.

I've heard the question before from others, phrased in different ways, but they all come down to putting the burden of explanation on the unpartnered guy. "Why is a nice guy like you still single?" or even "Don't you want to get married?"

And sometimes I hear a little more bite in the question, as if the questioner is expressing something like moral disapproval that I am still single-and at my age, too. Or they are actually wondering, "What's wrong with you that you don't have a partner?"

I don't suppose I have a really satisfactory answer to any of these questions-satisfactory on their terms, anyway. You ask married couples-straight or gay-why they got married and they say something like, "Well, we fell in love and wanted to spend our lives together." In fact many gay couples getting married have already been together for years and are just formalizing the relationship. So I suppose the parallel response from me would have to be, "I didn't fall in love with anyone I wanted to spend my life with."

Married or partnered couples see marriage as the most natural thing in the world. I just never did and so never particularly sought it. But that seems a feeble answer, so I've tried to come up with some snappier ones.

"No one ever proposed." "I'm still waiting for Mr. Right to come along but he hasn't yet." "Maybe I'm just not good-looking (or interesting, or charming) enough to attract someone." "I guess I'm too individualistic; I like living alone-my life is my own." "Maybe I don't send out the right erotic signals, whatever they are, to attract someone." But all these amount to the same general response: "I assumed it might happen at some point, but it didn't." Nor have I ever felt that there was a hole in my life that I needed another person to fill.

Sometimes I am tempted to instruct-or remind-my questioner about the pleasures of the single life. My time is my own. I can go to bed early or late, as I like. I can eat when and what I want. I can be moody without anyone else asking me what's wrong. I can go places without having to check with another person if it's OK. I don't have to put up with another person's whims, moods, problems and "issues." I'm never lonely: I have interests that fill my mind and occupy my time. If I want company, I can call a friend to go somewhere or do something.

But these reasons seem to cut no ice with partnered people. And some of my reasons refer to things they explicitly reject or regard with distaste, even fear.

Some people seem to need-I don't know what else to call it-the validation of being with another person, as if that proves they have some value-to whom? to themselves?-otherwise insufficiently evident. I've never felt that need. Or they feel the need for another person to somehow complete themselves. But, of course, even if they wonder what is wrong with me that I am single, I am far too polite to turn the tables on partnered gays and ask them what is wrong with them that they feel the need for someone else. Or, more bluntly, how come they cannot thrive being single.

I'm sure I'd be pleased if some handsome, fascinating man wanted to spend more time with me yet somehow allowing me all that autonomy I value. But I am a fairly quiet, ruminative man. I live almost entirely inside my head. And there is no way I could manage to be equally interesting or attractive to some such person. Yes, they say opposites attract. But I reply, "Not enough." And I am comfortable with that fact.

Do not misunderstand. Partnered relationships are fine for people who want or need them, and many people obviously do. And no one is more pleased than I that gays and lesbians can now actually marry. I have over the years argued repeatedly for legalizing gay marriage, and I am gratified that it is finally happening, at least in some states. It just doesn't seem to be something I want for myself.

Mandatory Insemination?

Over at Overlawyered.com, in No conscience clause for California fertility doctors IGF contributing author Walter Olson questions a recent California Supreme Court ruling that would require the fertility doctors in question, against their religious convictions, to inseminate (artificially) a lesbian patient. (Just why the lesbian patient wants to force the fundie doctors to do this when San Diego isn't lacking alternative fertility services appears more a matter of bile than babies.) Olson writes:

The ruling also allows doctors to excuse themselves on the basis of religious scruples if there is a second doctor within the same practice-but not, apparently, a doctor across town at a different practice-willing to perform the work in question. And of course the legislature in Sacramento could readily help bring peace to the culture war by inserting into the law a generously drafted conscience clause-if it wanted to.

But then, how would that stick it to the 'phobes?

More. In certain respects this case brings to mind the suit brought by a lesbian couple who wanted the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights to order the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church to rent their seaside pavilion for the couple's commitment ceremony. Or the Canadian pastor ordered by a government Human Rights Commission to apology and pay $1000 in fines for his anti-gay letter published in an Alberta newspaper.

Across the page, IGF contributing author John Corvino argues in When Tolerance Isn't Enough that acceptance, rather than tolerance (or, I assume, mere legal equality) should be our goal. But expressions of acceptance must be voluntary and achieved via convincing arguments and moving examples, not coerced through threat of punishment by the state.

With Friends Like This…

To me, the most striking moment in the Federalist Society's online debate is when Amy Wax, a law prof who argues that gay promiscuity will undermine the norm of monogamy in marriage, backs herself into a corner where she says this:

One also has to ask -- why is same-sex marriage so unpopular with voters? I think they see that once we start redefining, all bets are off. And I actually think that all bets ARE off. In the end, marriage is arbitrary, a construct, and a restrictive one. So why have it at all?

In context, it's fairly clear she doesn't mean the question rhetorically. She doesn't know the answer and she doubts there is one.

So marriage is arbitrary. It stands on nothing but blind acceptance of tradition. No moorings at all. Thus do conservatives, in their determination to put marriage on a slippery slope, join radical egalitarians in pooh-poohing the idea that it has any coherent rationale. Rad-egals say, "Marriage is arbitrary so let's change it." Conservatives, "Marriage is arbitrary so we can't touch it." Take yer pick; we're all deconstructionists now.

With friends like that, it's no wonder marriage is in such precarious shape.

Debating Same-Sex Marriage with the Right

The Federalist Society, "a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order," hosted an online debate about same-sex marriage featuring IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter. What jumps out at you about this exchange is just how obviously weak the anti-gay marriage arguments are. Gay marriage advocates, including Dale and IGF co-managing editor Jonathan Rauch, among others, have done a masterful job of developing arguments in favor of marriage equality that are based on conservative, even "Burkean," perspectives (basically, same-sex marriage strengthens marriage as an institution and thus society as a whole).

Social conservatives have a hard time countering that. Gays on the left side of the spectrum, in contrast, too often merely assert that they should have the benefits of marriage (or even, as in the "Beyond Marriage" manifesto, marriage benefits for whatever sorts of loose domestic relationships they may choose to enter). That's not going to win any arguments with those whose greatest fear is that substantively changing the social order can have destabilizing and destructive consequences.

Saddleback

Thus spake the candidates:

Though the candidates came down on opposite sides of the California initiative that would ban gay marriage, both stressed that they opposed same-sex marriage. Obama called marriage "a sacred union," drawing applause when he added, "God is in the mix."

Sen. McCain, despite his praiseworthy opposition to the anti-gay federal marriage amendment (on which Sen. Obama was mostly silent), gets demerits for supporting the California anti-gay initiative. But really, wouldn't an objective observer have deep doubts about both, rather than singling one out for near-reverential praise and the other for abject demonization?

More. Reader "Timothy" writes (in response to our Aug. 17 post):

I have noticed during this political season that some purportedly gay websites have dedicated themselves to be anti-McCain sites. They aren't even as pro-Obama as they are anti-McCain.

And I would have to say that about 80% of the time the attacks on McCain have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation or gay equality whatsoever.

At times the accusations are so far-fetched that if anyone made similar accusations against a gay person many of us would be horrified at the blatant homophobia. It really does go into the hatred category.

And I have to wonder why.

While I don't think McCain is particularly supportive of the gay community and while I think that he "doesn't get it" sometimes, the guy is certainly not a homophobe. He's not even an anti-gay opportunist like Bush, who probably isn't a hater either but is willing to sell out principle for political gain (in my opinion).

He's just some politician who gets nervous around gay questions and wishes he didn't have to address the issue at all. I may not vote for him (I'm waiting for the two Veep picks to decide) but he's not a heinous villian.

And really McCain's gay positions are not all that far from Obama's. If McCain were a Democrat, he'd fall into the "acceptable" category - though there would be some concern over his bumbling of the adoption issue and I think he's flat wrong on DADT (his position is to rely on the advice of the military leaders).

So why the hate?

All I can conclude is that McCain is completely and entirely evil without a single redeaming quality because he has an R in the parentheses after his name.

I think that nails it.

Focus on China

Tom G. Palmer has an interesting post on China's gay scene, its connection to the development of free markets and property rights, and the efforts by U.S. fundamentalists such as Focus on the Family to thwart these new freedoms (they're in China promoting the view that homosexuality is a disease/sin that can be cured/repented). I suppose the fundies would prefer to have China go back to its communist-era anti-gay ways but leave them free to proselytize their hidebound distortion of Christianity.

More. China, of course, is still far from a land of liberty for Chinese gays and for Chinese Christians, as well as for U.S. proselytizers, some of whom may not understand that working against freedom for some results in less freedom for all.

When Tolerance Isn’t Enough

"Why do you need other people's approval?"

The question came from an old (straight but gay-supportive) friend, as we sat over breakfast discussing progress in the gay-rights movement. He meant it sincerely.

"After all," he continued, "if you like rap music, and I hate rap music, you don't need my approval to pursue your tastes. Indeed, even if I think listening to rap music is a mind-numbing waste of time, so what? Live and let live."

That's true. But when it comes to gay rights, "live and let live" may no longer be enough.

The difference between what he describes and what I seek is sometimes described as that between tolerance and acceptance. Roughly, "tolerance" involves leaving people alone to live as they choose, even when you don't approve, whereas acceptance involves somehow affirming their choices.

But even "acceptance" seems too weak here. Acceptance sounds close to acquiescence, which is scarcely distinguishable from tolerance. Gay people don't want merely to be tolerated or accepted, we want to be embraced and encouraged-like everyone else in society.

The shift from tolerance to acceptance is apparent in the movement's goals. When I came out in the late 1980's, we were still fighting to make gay sex legal. As late as 2003, homosexual sodomy was criminal in over a dozen states. That's when the U.S. Supreme Court finally declared sodomy laws unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas, overturning Bowers v. Hardwick. Suddenly, tolerance was legally mandated.

Then things changed-rapidly. Just a few months later, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Gays and lesbian Americans began legally marrying the following year, and marriage became the predominant gay-rights issue in this country. Now California's doing it (despite the threat of an amendment overturning that decision), and a handful of other states have civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Legally speaking, when it comes to marriage, "tolerance" may be enough. A marriage is legal whether people approve of it or not. Socially speaking, however, marriage requires more.

That's because marriage is more than just a relationship between two individuals, recognized by the state. It's also a relationship between those individuals and a larger community. We symbolize this fact by the witnesses at the wedding, who literally and figuratively stand behind the marrying couple. Marriage thrives when there's a network of support in place to reinforce it.

Beyond that, marriage is a life-defining relationship that changes those within it. This is why the claim "I accept you but I don't accept your homosexuality" rings so hollow. When my relationship is life-defining, rejecting it means rejecting me. "Tolerating" it is better, but not by much: nobody wants their life-defining relationship to be treated as one would treat a nuisance, much less "a mind-numbing waste of time."

And so the rap-music analogy falters in at least two ways. First, listening to music doesn't require the participation of others (beyond those who produced it), but marriage does. At least, it does in order to work best. Marriage is challenging, and it needs community support. Second, no one wants their life-defining relationships to be merely "tolerated." Ideally, they should be celebrated and encouraged.

Obviously, not everyone will approve of everyone else's marriage. You politely applaud at a wedding even if you think the groom is a jerk. But the ideal is still one where others' participation is crucial. I've even been to wedding ceremonies-straight and gay-where the minister turns during the vows and asks, "Do you pledge to support Whosie and Whatsit in their marriage?" and the audience responds "We do!"

That's one reason why same-sex marriage is so contentious. We are not simply asking people to "tolerate" something we do "in the privacy of our bedrooms." We are asking them to support and encourage something we do publicly. We are asking them, in effect, to participate.

We should not be ashamed of asking for that. We're social creatures, and it's natural for us to seek others' support. It's especially natural for us to seek it from our friends and family. But insofar as we desire such support from people not ready to provide it, we need to make the case for it.

Unsurprising Result of LGBT ‘One Party’ Strategy

Maryland's Gov. Martin O'Malley is "too busy" to meet with a group of children of gay parents. O'Malley, a Democrat, courted gay votes during his 2006 campaign for governor, including at Pride events, and received support from LGBT activists. But, as the Washington Blade story reports,

after moving to Annapolis, O'Malley last year greeted a court ruling upholding Maryland's ban on same-sex marriages by noting the state shouldn't tell "any faith how to define its sacraments."

Many Maryland LGBTers opposed the re-election of moderate GOP Gov. Bob Ehrlich, citing Ehrlich's lack of support for gay marriage.

More. (Moved up from below) Are Republicans more tolerant of gays than gays are of Republicans? The Politco reports that the board of Manhunt, a gay hookup site, forced its chairman to resign after it became known that he gave $2,300 to John McCain.