IGF CultureWatch

With just one word, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah revealed last week what really lies at the heart of the anti-gay marriage agenda. Hatch assured his fellow lawmakers in a debate over the Marriage Protection Amendment:

This might not be a major issue for those who live inside the beltway, but for my neighbors in Salt Lake City, my constituents throughout Utah, and good, decent, clean Americans across the country, this is a critical issue.

"Clean?" What, pray tell, does that make those who of us who oppose the amendment? You do the math.

Remarkably, this slip was hardly remarked upon by the media. The only journalist to note it was Michael Crowley of the New Republic, who mentioned it briefly on the magazine's blog (here and here).

A day after posting Hatch's comment, Crowley discovered that Hatch had erased the word "clean" from his remarks in the Congressional Record. Whatever Hatch meant by the remark, he and his staff decided it was best for his reputation and his cause that the public not know what he actually said.

Those who oppose gay marriage talk about how extending the institution to gay couples will destroy it and lead to polygamy, out-of-wedlock births, higher divorce rates and other horrors. Hatch's insinuation that those who support gay marriage - and more specifically, gays - are dirty, is something conservatives used to say openly but now hardly do.

It's certainly possible to find homosexual sodomy to be a revolting practice personally, and not be homophobic. Many gay-friendly straight men would probably fall into that category. They have gay friends, support gay marriage, watch "Will & Grace," but would rather not think about two men having sex. Who can blame them?

Likewise, gay men who find sex with women to be disgusting could hardly be faulted as heterophobic. After all, that is what makes them gay. But to employ your personal distaste about someone else's private, consensual sexual preferences in an attempt to deny them rights is bigotry pure and simple.

Of course, not all those who oppose gay marriage are bigots. If this were the case, Howard Dean and most otherwise gay-friendly Democratic members of Congress would be bigots.

One Democrat who does support marriage equality, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, did not help constructive debate when he said a vote for the amendment was "a vote for bigotry." With the vast majority of Americans opposed to gay couples marrying, we will win little sympathy by smearing everyone who disagrees as a bigot.

There are legitimate arguments against allowing gay couples to legally wed, some of which have been put forward by gays themselves. Kennedy painted with a broad brush.

But he is nonetheless right that bigotry motivates at least some of those who oppose marriage equality. Kennedy's remark infuriated Hatch, who asked whether the Massachusetts Democrat "really wants to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots."

Not half the Senate, maybe. It's difficult to know what sort of attitude lies in someone's heart but every now and then, oftentimes unwittingly, they drop us clues. Hatch did just that on the floor of the Senate last week.

A question for Senator Hatch: How is homosexual sodomy (which, I assume, is the act that Hatch finds so detestable) any different from heterosexual sodomy - a practice in which many heterosexual couples regularly engage?

What about those heterosexual couples who partake in other consensual sexual activities of which the senator disapproves? Should they also not be allowed to get married and enjoy the benefits thereof?

More importantly, why do politicians seem to care so much about what grown people do in their bedrooms? If Hatch believes gays and our allies are not "clean," then he ought to explain how that impacts the policy issues surrounding marriage.

Hatch and his supporters might pretend he was defending his constituency from the likes of Kennedy and all those who would denigrate the character of those supportive of the MPA.

I have no doubt the citizens of Utah are "good, decent" citizens, and that they wash themselves on a regular basis. But so are gay Americans. It's hardly unusual behavior for a politician, but something tells me that Hatch was playing dirty.

"A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple." So said Senator Ted Kennedy in response to the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment," which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and preempts the right of states to interpret their own constitutions regarding marriage and civil unions. (The amendment failed on a procedural vote.)

Reaction to Kennedy's remarks was swift and predictable. "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?" griped Senator Orrin Hatch. Columnist Maggie Gallagher scolded, "Conducting this debate in a spirit of mutual respect and civility would be a lot easier if gay marriage advocates stopped pretending that only fear, hatred or bigotry is at the root of these disagreements."

It's tempting to respond, "But'cha ARE, Blanche. Ya ARE a bigot." Please resist the temptation for just a moment.

What is bigotry? As is often the case on controversial terms, the dictionary is of limited help here. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a bigot as "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Webster's definition is similar: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Now there must be a difference between merely disagreeing with those who differ and being "intolerant" of them. By definition, everyone disagrees with "those who differ"--that's just what it means to "differ." And everyone is presumably "devoted" to his own opinions in some sense (otherwise, why hold them?).

So it's not bigotry merely to disagree with someone: one must also be "intolerant" of those who differ. But what does that mean? That one wishes to silence them? Surely, that applies to many gay-rights opponents, who would like very much to push us back into the closet. That one is willing to use force to silence them? Surely, that's too strong a criterion. Those who believe (for example) that the races should be separated are bigots even if they stop short of advocating using police power to achieve the separation.

It seems, rather, that to call someone a bigot is at least in part to express a value judgment. It is to suggest that the bigot's views are beyond the pale. So the dictionary definition only gets half of the picture: it's not merely that the bigot doesn't tolerate those who differ, it is also that we ought not tolerate him. In a free society we should not silence him, but we should certainly shun him. Thus, to call someone a bigot is not just to say something about the bigot's views, it's to say something about your own.

Where does this leave us with respect to the marriage debate? Some opponents of marriage equality do indeed hold views worthy of the utmost contempt. Take for example the view that the government may imprison gays and lesbians for private, consensual acts of affection--a view held publicly by our own president, who endorsed anti-sodomy laws before the U.S. Supreme Court struck them down in 2003.

Or consider the view that gay partners should not be permitted to enter contracts allowing them to make health care and funeral decisions for each other--a view that will likely become part of Virginia's constitution as voters decide this November on an amendment that, among other things, prohibits recognition of "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage." (Intolerant? Who are you calling intolerant?)

Certainly, not everyone who supports the federal marriage amendment deserves the epithet of "bigot." Many are decent folk. Some endorse civil unions while opposing full-fledged marriage. A good number base their views on sincere religious convictions. But let's also recognize that basing a view on religion doesn't exempt it from critical moral scrutiny. (Slaveholders quoted the bible too.)

Let's grant that calling people names--even ones that accurately express our convictions--is no substitute for reasoned argument. But let's also grant that, in politics, leaders often influence citizens by drawing strong rhetorical lines. Think of George W. Bush's frequent references to those who "hate freedom" in the 2004 presidential race. A fair and balanced assessment of the motives of the terrorists? Not really. Rhetorically powerful? You betcha.

Now, Kennedy didn't exactly call supporters of the amendment bigots. Rather, he called the amendment "bigotry." (It's a fine line, not unlike "love the sinner/hate the sin.") It's certainly possible for a political maneuver to be unacceptably intolerant even though some of its supporters fail to realize as much.

But in calling the amendment "bigotry," Kennedy was not merely describing it. He was also exhorting others to oppose it, in the strongest rhetorical terms. Amen to that.

(Washington, D.C., July 4) President Bush will announce today that he has decided to retract his support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, says a source within the National Security Agency who monitored a presidential telephone call to congressional allies on the subject.

According to the NSA source, the president will make the following statement:

"Throughout my time as your president, I have made difficult decisions because I thought they were in the best interests of the country. I have stood by the principles that make this country great, and that have served it well for more than two centuries, regardless of the political consequences to me and my party. I believe the people should keep more of their money and that low taxes produce prosperity for everyone, so I have backed tax cuts that were demagogically denounced by members of the other party as helping only the rich. I believe you can plan better and invest more wisely for your future than the government can, so I have supported Social Security reform that many say is the 'third rail' of politics. I believe immigration has made this country great and that people who come here to make a better life for themselves deserve a chance to become Americans, so I have backed a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants despite the intense opposition of many members of my own party. And I think this country has a moral duty to help fledgling democracies and to carry through on its commitments, so I have refused to pull our troops out of Iraq despite the rising unpopularity of the war.

"Two years ago, I announced my support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. I strongly believe that's what marriage is and should be. If I were a state legislator or a governor, I'd oppose defining marriage in any other way. I supported the amendment because, at the time, I feared that uncontrollable judges and local officials were recklessly and lawlessly playing with the foundation of the American family.

"But I was wrong. Like others, I overreacted to what seemed like an emergency. I did not have sufficient faith in the historic processes of American government. The local officials who were defying state law in 2004 have been brought into line. DOMA is still good law. The states have begun amending their own constitutions to define marriage. I have appointed many federal judges, including two to the Supreme Court, who will not tamper with marriage. And while I still fear that some state courts will attempt to redefine marriage in years to come, I am confident that the people in those states can deal with their own courts if that is what they choose to do. After all, that is what we have always trusted them to do.

"We may not like the choices some states make about these matters, but if our nation's historic commitment to federalism means anything, it means that the states should, within constitutional limits, be allowed to go their own way on important policy matters. That has been the dominant practice and theory of our federal design for more than two centuries.

"Never before in the history of the country have we amended the Constitution in response to a threatened state court decision. Never before have we amended the Constitution to preempt an anticipated federal court ruling. Never before have we adopted a constitutional amendment to limit the states' ability to control their own family law. Never before have we dictated to states what their own state laws and state constitutions mean. Never before have we amended the Constitution to restrict the ability of the democratic process to expand individual rights. This is no time to start.

"I know this decision will not be popular with many members of my own party. But it is a president's responsibility to lead, not to follow, especially when it comes to matters of important principle. As on so many other decisions I've made, I will not bow to political pressure when I know better. Two years ago, I should have known better. Now I do."

Standing by his side at the news conference will be :

• Vice President Dick Cheney, who said in 2004 that he opposes an amendment because states should be allowed to decide the issue for themselves and that "freedom means freedom for everybody.
  
• Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the leading contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.
  
• Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), the main House author of DOMA.
  
• Conservative commentator George Will, who announced on ABC's This Week that he opposes an amendment because state experiments with gay marriage may produce valuable information about whether the reform is worthwhile.
  
• Conservative policy analyst James Q. Wilson, who likened a federal marriage amendment to that conservative bete noire, Roe v. Wade, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal .
  
• And numerous other life-long conservatives who have consistently championed federalism.

Also present will be First Lady Laura Bush, who recently said that the gay-marriage issue should be discussed "sensitively" and should not be used for political purposes.

Karl Rove, the president's senior political advisor, could not be reached for comment.

The news report comes from HSEPA, the Hope Springs Eternal Press Agency.

Listening to President Bush, you'd never know that the nation is having a debate over gay marriage. His Saturday radio address to the nation had no mention of gay couples - or even homosexual individuals. Instead, we hear such things as "Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith … the commitment of a husband and a wife."

Apparently, for the president, this is an argument of heterosexuals, by heterosexuals and for heterosexuals.

But heterosexuals already have marriage. The reason this debate is going on is because homosexuals do not - and, for the first time, have made the argument that they should.

There is certainly room for disagreement on that point. But to carry on the discussion without even mentioning one entire side is to conduct half an argument.

In this, at least, the president's Christianist supporters - those who use their religion as a political tool - are honest. They do not like homosexuals. Or, when they are being charitable, do not like homosexual "activity."

Their attitude toward lesbians and gay men ranges from hostility to mere condescension. But at least they acknowledge the debate is about homosexuality.

Compare them to the president. He has now addressed this issue publicly in a State of the Union address, in his reelection campaign and in the context of congressional debates over two proposed constitutional amendments that would bar same-sex marriage. But he has yet to address any comments directly to same-sex couples.

The closest he comes to it is to invoke "activist" courts and judges. In a speech Monday, he said that "an amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice."

But they are "activist" precisely and only to the extent that they have ruled in favor of same-sex couples. In the contorted politics of this issue, courts are subjected to attacks on their good faith and credibility because politicians are not willing to say they do not believe that lesbians and gay men are entitled to equality.

But the irony gets thick when the president purports to be evenhanded in conducting this half-debate. Bush said this in his most recent address on the issue: "As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard."

What Americans is he talking about? The ones he consciously never named in his speech? Does he seriously think lesbians and gay men are being treated with "civility and decency" - much less "tolerance" or "respect" - when he will not meet publicly with a gay or lesbian group on this issue and will not even mention that the debate over same-sex marriage is about them?

It is beyond laughable at this point for the president to say that "all people deserve to have their voices heard" when he is the chief person who will not hear those voices.

If homosexual Americans are not entitled to equal protection, then an honest president would say so and explain why.

We are, perhaps, beyond believing this president to be honest. But if he is to be congratulated by the Christianists for bowing to their wishes, shouldn't they, at least, require him to say what he means?

The answer, apparently, is no. They know exactly what he means and exactly who he is talking about. And if he is less manifest in his dismissal of gays and lesbians than they, his may be the greater insult for being so much more indifferent.

For decades now, lesbians and gay men have been open about our sexual orientation. But the president's message to his supporters is that we should just stick with what worked for so long - at least for heterosexuals. If lesbians and gay men won't go back in the closet, he will do what he can to impose one.