 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/25/2003 6:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | Gay marriage looms as issue
http://www.msnbc.com/news/984936.asp?0cl=c3
Push for constitutional amendment is a dilemma for Bush
By Mike Allen
THE WASHINGTON POST
WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 — Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are making plans to turn gay marriage into a major issue in next year’s elections, with some Christian groups saying that banning same-sex unions is a higher immediate priority for them than restricting abortion.
PARTY STRATEGISTS said the issue could be a bonanza for mobilizing conservatives to fund campaigns and turn out to vote, particularly in the South. Conservative groups said they plan to challenge candidates to sign a pledge in support of a constitutional amendment precluding gay marriage, then use the results — along with votes Republicans hope to force in the House and Senate — as a wedge against Democrats.
Watching the Episcopal Church roiled over whether openly gay bishops should be confirmed, politicians in both parties are beginning to see gay marriage as a potentially key issue for candidates in a 50-50 nation.
“It’s becoming a bigger issue by the day,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group with many friends in the White House. “It’s going to have a big impact on this election cycle. And we’re going to help it become a front-burner issue at the state and national level, if it doesn’t become one on its own.”
Some worried administration officials said gay marriage may turn into an issue on which President Bush’s reelection interests diverge from those of his party’s activists and congressional candidates. Democrats contend — and some officials close to Bush said they fear — that the issue could hamper efforts to portray the president as a compassionate or tolerant conservative, a crucial part of his appeal to suburban women and swing voters.
CONSERVATIVES DISMAYED
The most conservative members of the Republican party have expressed dismay about Bush’s reticence on the issue so far, fearing a rerun of his low-decibel approach to abortion during his campaigns.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is considering a case that could lead to a ruling this fall calling for the legislature to set up a system for same-sex unions such as that in Vermont or Canada.
If Massachusetts recognizes such unions, a blizzard of lawsuits could be expected to force other states to recognize the Massachusetts ceremonies. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages. But some leading Republican lawmakers say they worry the federal law could be struck down as unconstitutional, and the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the act in September. GOP sources said the purpose was to build a case for additional “safeguards.”
POLITICAL BATTLE EXPECTED
Recent polls have shown that a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, and activists on both sides predicted that the prospective Massachusetts ruling could reignite the nation’s culture wars at an intensity not seen since the Clinton administration.
A coalition of conservative groups plans designated the week of Oct. 12 to 18 as “Marriage Protection Week,” to call attention to their drive for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which says marriage in the United States “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”
Focus on the Family, the group led by James Dobson, has begun raising money and excitement about the issue with a mailing warning that “the institution of marriage is about to descend into a state of turmoil unlike any other in human history.” He asks for a contribution for a costly battle that “could very well be a turning point in our nation’s history.”
Another powerful conservative lobbying organization, Concerned Women for America, is circulating talking points called “Why Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Is Wrong,” saying it “is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister.” TWeb thread
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) endorsed the amendment this summer after a landmark gay-rights ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down Texas’s ban on sodomy. Bush has stopped short of an endorsement but signaled his support for conservatives, disclosing that administration lawyers are studying ways to codify marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Administration officials, in private conversations, sounded skittish about the issue and said there is no chance Bush will take any further position on the issue before the Massachusetts ruling. After that, the president will have to make a high-stakes legal and political decision about how aggressive a response he will support.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
A House Republican aide said congressional leaders would likely push for a constitutional amendment next year, “if there is a confluence of court rulings and a groundswell of public opinion.”
“Some conservatives who usually are reluctant to support constitutional amendments wouldn’t stand in the way of the will of the House if courts are distorting the essence and purpose of marriage,” the strategist said. “In an election year, it would be good to get folks on the record. Democrats who usually would be tempted to vote against us might join us out of fear of looking extreme.”
A GOP strategist said gay marriage is viewed in the party as a valuable “opportunistic issue” — that is, one the party can play up in key races and ignore in others.
Many Democrats plan to avoid the issue when possible. An ABC News poll in September found that 55 percent of adults surveyed think same-sex marriages should be illegal, and 37 percent think they should be legal. The poll also found that 51 percent of adults opposed legally recognized civil unions, which would give gay couples the same legal rights as married people in areas such as health insurance, inheritance, pensions and hospital visitations.
Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster, has been conducting focus groups on the subject for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay political organization, and said he finds that middle-of-the-road voters “would prefer to talk about almost any other subject.” He said the issue could boomerang on Bush’s efforts to come across as moderate.
“Even when they agree on the substance, voters often become uncomfortable with politicians who raise the subject,” Garin said. “While Americans certainly don’t embrace the idea of gay marriage, they’re uncomfortable with identifying themselves with policies that smack of discrimination and unfairness.”
Elizabeth Birch, the Human Rights Campaign’s executive director, said her group’s strategy is to educate people about the differences between the religious ceremony and the legal protections of a marriage certificate.
CANDIDATES RESTRAINED ON ISSUE
Several Democratic presidential candidates have tried to navigate that terrain by opposing a constitutional amendment but endorsing civil unions. Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), former Vermont governor Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark all support the concept of civil unions, according to their campaigns.
Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John Edwards (N.C.) oppose gay marriage and think the issue of civil unions should be left to the states. The only supporters of gay marriage are Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), Al Sharpton and former senator Carol Moseley Braun (Ill.).
Gephardt’s daughter, Chrissy, who is gay, has been a highly visible supporter of her father’s campaign and goes further than he does, supporting gay marriage. Gephardt said at a Human Rights Campaign candidates’ forum in July that civil unions are attainable, and suggested that approval of gay marriage is not. “We haven’t passed a lot of things that we need to pass,” he said. “We’ve got a ways to go here.”
Bush has been restrained in his comments on the issue. After the Supreme Court’s sodomy ruling in June, Bush said about an amendment, “I don’t know if it’s necessary yet. Let’s let the lawyers look at the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court hearing. What I do support is the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Asked again at a news conference at the end of July, Bush did not condemn homosexuality, saying he is “mindful that we’re all sinners.”
“On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage,” he said. “I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we’ve got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”
Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, connected the dots of Bush’s remarks at a breakfast for reporters in September. Pointing to “a lot of energy out there, a lot of concern about gay marriage,” Gillespie said he would not be surprised if the issue is addressed in the party’s platform next summer.
Gillespie noted that he is a committed Catholic. “I accept people for who they are — and love them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean I have to agree or turn my back on the tenets of my faith when it comes to homosexuality.”
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/26/2003 3:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by philalethian
I can not believe that the country i onced loved is in such a state where we are trying to reverse the prograssion of human rights. The has been much success in the area of race, sex and gender (with much more work to be done), but we are moving backwards and trying to limit the rights in which our citizens can have. It is sick and disgusting. I am just amazed that there are still countries that try to dictate morality to there citizens and tell grown adults who love eachother and aren't hurting anyone what to do. And all in the name of a teacher who taught the need for love of prostitutes and those hated by society for their sexuality. I think christians should be at the forfront of issues of human rights. Christians should be pushing harder than anyone else for issues of human rights and dignity irregardless of ones age, sex, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
SOrry for that digression but it just makes me sick. Man i want to get my Canadian citizenship.
As you may have guessed, this has been a hot-topic in the past on this board and most people have been rather burnt out on it, it has been so heated.
1. Making homosexual marriages unconstitutional doesn't remove civil unions with most of the rights/benefits given to married couples.
2. In Canada, there already are civil union benefits for homosexual couples, the whole marriage thing is a matter of public social approbation of homosexuality as an equally valid form of sexuality as heterosexuality. It is true that constitutional homosexuality is not chosen, but the fact that something happens naturally doesn't make it socially desirable. I was born with a hole in my heart, but that doesn't mean I had an alternative heart-formation. My heart healed, but my early development as a child was strongly affected by this, I developed a low self-esteem regarding my ability to do hands-on physical tasks and grew disinterested in sports etc.. The point is that gay-marriages has taken on wider significance regarding views about human sexuality. One can perceive homosexuality in two ways, as analogous to left-handedness as something that has been the basis for past discrimination but is in fact neutral or correlated with many positive attributes, or as analogous to having a genetic propensity to alcoholism or schizophrenia. It isn't the individuals fault and they do need to be loved but the trait is not a desirable one.
The research indicates that, while genetics may play some role, the key thing to one's sexual orientation is the hormonal balance that is formed in the fetuses' brain during pregnancy. In fact, although it is well accepted that post-birth change is very difficult, pre-birth operations can prevent a homosexual orientation from being formed later in life.
The question is should we test and correct for this, depriving people of their "natural" sexuality.
3. No one is saying that gay couples can't get married in churches that allow for gay-marriages.
4. Prohibiting gay-marriages isn't the same thing as advocating homophobic gay-beatings and discrimination. Tell your gay-rights activists friends(I've told mine) that it would be better for them to strive for civil unions w/ benefits/rights geared at for long-term relationships at the nat'l level, since that will go better with the general population and engender less opposition and we won't have this be an election-year issue, which can only help Dubya get reelected.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/20/2003 4:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Decision on Gay Marriage Creates a Thorny Issue for 2004 Race
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: November 19, 2003
ASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on gay marriage Tuesday forced President Bush and his Democratic opponents onto difficult political ground, as they struggled to deal with a polarizing issue that is critical to their most fervent supporters but that has confused and divided much of the nation.
The decision galvanized conservatives. Led by Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, denouncing what he called a "runaway judiciary," they vowed to seek a constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage between gays. "This is not going to stop here — this is going to be in the forefront for a long time to come," said Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition.
For Democrats, such declarations raise the unwelcome prospect that next year's presidential contest will be fought, at least in part, on the kind of cultural issues that have repeatedly put them at a disadvantage over the last 20 years. And it seems certain to add to the burden they are already carrying as they contemplate competing with President Bush in the once solidly Democratic South, aides to several Democrats said.
Most of the Democratic presidential candidates went to great lengths on Tuesday to emphasize that they opposed gay marriage, even as they restated their support for some forms of legal rights for same-sex couples. But the candidates also voiced strong opposition to any constitutional amendment barring gay marriage; supporting it would be nothing short of suicide in a Democratic primary. But that stance provides what even Democrats said would be a clean target for Republicans to hammer next year.
As it is, the Democratic candidates are clearly identified with supporting at least some form of legal protections for gays. Howard Dean signed a state bill authorizing civil unions while he was governor of Vermont, while Senator John Kerry, is from the state that produced the decision. And the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York frequently says that he would proudly perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.
"This is going to be an issue next year because Bush wants to make it an issue," said a senior aide to a Democratic candidate who spoke only on condition that his candidate not be identified. "I have a feeling this is going to come up again and again."
In addition, if the swell of reaction among conservative leaders on Tuesday was any indication, the decision erases doubt — if there was any — that conservative voters would sit out this election the way many did when Mr. Bush's father ran for re-election in 1992. Anticipating this very decision, key Republican leaders had described gay marriage as the abortion issue of 2004, a certain way of igniting their supporters.
For all that, the issue is hardly an unambiguous gift for Mr. Bush. More than most, this issue has complicated his effort to attract moderate voters by presenting himself as a "compassionate conservative," while at the same time reflecting the views of his conservative base.
Beyond that, several Republicans said on Tuesday that Mr. Bush had to be wary, in taking on gay marriage, not to repeat the mistake his father made in 1992 and become too closely identified with conservative and religious leaders whose attacks on gay rights at the party's convention scared off moderate voters.
The president issued a terse statement repeating his view that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and saying he "will do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." But once again Mr. Bush did not specifically endorse a constitutional amendment.
Several conservatives expressed concern at Mr. Bush's apparent reticence on the issue, and noted that Vice President Dick Cheney has an openly lesbian daughter and has expressed apprehension about legal restrictions on same-sex relationships.
"If the leaders of Christian organizations become unhappy with him on this issue, it will be very dangerous for him," said Howard Phillips, head of the Conservative Caucus, a lobbying group.
Officials with Mr. Bush's re-election campaign did not return telephone calls.
Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said he believed that the American public overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage. But asked if he believed that the issue would automatically help the White House, he suggested that this was one cause neither side was looking to get involved in.
"Sometimes you get to pick your fights, and sometimes your fight picks you," Mr. Gillespie said. "I suspect that because of the Massachusetts court, combined with gay activists who see this as a way of nationalizing gay marriage, it could be an issue."
The problem is clearly more vexing for Democrats, who have been aggressively seeking gay support.
A poll of 1,515 Americans, conducted Oct. 15 through Oct. 19 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and released on Tuesday, found that 59 percent of respondents opposed gay marriage.
It also found that opposition among highly religious Americans, who Mr. Bush's advisers have increasingly viewed as pivotal to his re-election, is now at an overwhelming six to one.
"This will set them off and running on a huge scale to get the constitutional amendment," said Elizabeth Birch, the executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay political action committee. "This will replace choice. This will be it during this election."
And the decision could to some extent drive a wedge between the Democratic candidates and gay leaders, many of whom were already divided over how hard to push elected officials over an issue that they acknowledged had little chance of winning widespread public acceptance any time soon.
Still, in the end, gay leaders argued that the damage to the Democrats could prove minimal.
"Anybody who feels intensely about this issue, where this is a priority issue when they go into the voting booth, are already going to vote Republican," said David Mixner, a gay activist who is supporting Representative Richard A. Gephardt.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/20/2003 6:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is what a friend wrote when he read the above article and saw its coverage on Hardball MSNBC.
When I read yesterday (Tuesday) on the Washington Post site about the
Massachusetts supreme court demanding that legislators make provisions for gay marriage under the Massachusetts constitution, my first thought was, "Well, David, so much for detente in the culture wars." Then I thought, "No, this can't be that important of a story." Yet last night on the news, the main story on all the news programs was indeed gay marriage. Chris Matthews, as usual, was the most perceptive of the talking heads on MSNBC. He pointed out that almost immediately George Bush stepped forward in London to say that he believes the federal Constitution should be amended to affirm marriage between a man and a woman, but that the Democrats have been dissembling or even oddly silent on the issue. He asked the gay rights advocate representing that side of the issue, "Doesn't yesterday's ruling really hurt only the Democrats?" Of course the activist wouldn't admit that; he kept repeating the bit of wishful thinking that he thinks the majority of Americans want to see gays allotted the full range of benefits allowed heterosexual couples. The conservative activist Matthews interviewed was somewhat more eager to see yesterday's ruling as a win for the Republicans, and Matthews agreed with him. In a debate, George Bush is not going to be the one ducking this issue, it will be the Democrat, whether he is Howard Dean or Dick Gephardt or Wesley Clark. Karl Rove
must be clicking his heals with glee over on Pennsylvania Avenue. The Democrats just got a shot in the foot by one of their constituencies yesterday.
On the other hand, it is rather disgusting how the media handles this
issue. If I were gay, I'd be a little offended. Chris Matthews kept
referring to marriage as the "sacrament" of marriage, until the gay
activist corrected him and correctly pointed out that the kind of
marriage under debate is not a sacrament of the church, but a civil
marriage, the same as two heterosexuals going before a JP and getting
hitched by law. I think Matthews was unintentionally slanting the issue in the direction of the conservative guest by referring to marriage as a sacrament. Additionally, as the debate went on, footage on the screen showed a gay wedding. Two old, withered **** who looked as if they were about to drop dead of AIDS descended the steps of a church, one of them dressed in full white female wedding regalia. They walked down the steps and along a line of male supporters dressed like cheerleaders and shaking pom poms while other supporters threw rice. By just about any standard the footage would be considered prejudicial, and yet I've seen similar footage on other news stations. They show only the most outrageous scenes of gay weddings they can find. First of all, the footage reaffirms in the minds of Those Who Don't Pay Attention that gays want church weddings; second, it places them in the most deviant light, and linked to that, the protagonists themselves just look ugly
and disgusting; third, the suggestion is that gays are naturally
cross-dressers, which isn't true, either.
On the other hand, despite the incitive footage, I think Matthews did a good job on the question. He said in conclusion that he felt this might be the make or break cultural issue of the campaign. I know that you don't want to hear that, David--none of us do--but the culture wars are not going away this campaign season, no matter who is running. Both Clark and Dean have come out the strongest in favor of gay marriage, after yesterday's ruling. The Republicans are going to tear them apart, you wait and see.
Matt
dlw:Given the money-advantage the Republicans have and the importance of taking the presidency, I don't see how the Democrats can afford not to seek a real detente in the cultural wars, by compromising on abortion and
homosexuality.
Matt:They can't seek detente. As I wrote yesterday, the Democrat party is too diverse, too conflicted from within. You wouldn't see a Republican constituency shooting the party in the foot the way the gays have practically blown off the foot of the Democratic party. That Massachusetts ruling is the biggest boost Bush could have received. As Chris Matthews and others have pointed out since Tuesday, this may be the cultural issue of the campaign, bigger than abortion.
dlw:Sure, I agree that the issue isn't going to just go away.
However, that doesn't mean that the Dem positions have solidified and there isn't room for moderates to seek to promote middle ground, focusing on the facts of the situation.
If anything there is more of a need for such than before....
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/22/2003 6:43 AM (GMT -6) | | The debate over gay marriage
JIM LEHRER: All right. Speaking of disagreement, back to this country and the decision of the Massachusetts court this week on gay marriage, what do you think of it?
MARK SHIELDS: I think the decision was not a real surprise, Jim. The question is what happens to it in the campaign of 2004. As long as you are talking about civil unions, you are talking about tolerance, legal rights and the same benefits not being denied to any class of Americans. Once you say gay marriage, it's toxic politically. It becomes the church, it becomes sacramental, it becomes a threat to a lot of people. It is an issue that Republicans 80-20 are against and Democrats are divided on. So if you are Karl Rove, the president's campaign manager, you don't want to bring it up, but you want the issue brought up.
JIM LEHRER: By somebody else.
MARK SHIELDS: By somebody else and certainly -- maybe the same group that did the South Carolina primary campaign against John McCain might be reactivated.
JIM LEHRER: How do you see the politics - first of all, what do you think of the decision?
DAVID BROOKS: I support the decision. I'm for gay marriage. I'm for gay marriage; I not only think gays should be allowed to get married, I think they should be expected to get married and encouraged. We should consider it a disgrace if people fall in love and don't want to get married. Being conservative, I'm for marriage. Making a life long commitment worked for me and my character. Everyone should do it. I haven't told that to my daughter. She's only nine. The politics I think are tricky. I agree with Mark completely.
JIM LEHRER: The position you just expressed is minority in the country.
MARK SHIELDS: And among Democrats.
DAVID BROOKS: And among democrats, too.
JIM LEHRER: So how does it play?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think it plays exactly as Mark said in the next election and I think if Howard Dean is the nominee, it really makes it harder for him because it will remind people in his endorsement even if it is only a civil union that he is a New England liberal out of touch with the country. In the long run, I really worry for the Republicans that it turns into their Proposition 187 which you will recall was the anti-immigration proposition in California.
JIM LEHRER: Pete Wilson was big on it.
MARK SHIELDS: Got him elected in that election.
DAVID BROOKS: Very popular at the time. But in proposing that, proposing it that way, the Republican Party seemed unattractive and alienated important constituencies and that proposition destroyed the Republican Party in California. And I think if it is proposed the wrong way, and now I'm talking about the gay marriage issue, it really could have long-term lasting effects for the Republican Party.
JIM LEHRER: But the short run, it could be really -
DAVID BROOKS: Tremendously positive for the Republicans --
MARK SHIELDS: One Republican, very able Republican said this afternoon that what drives this is that in the last election, you recall, Karl Rove and the Republican campaign thought that President Bush was going to win with 53 percent or 54 percent. It's one of the reasons they broke their schedule to go to California, sort of a fruitless thing in the last 36 hours of the campaign. They were let down by the fact that four million evangelical conservative, religious conservatives didn't vote and this fellow said to me, he said, I know at the White House they're viewing this as manna, as the key to 2004 because this would activate and energize this issue, religious conservatives who may have been politically indifferent, to get involved.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/23/2003 10:22 AM (GMT -6) | | This article provides a call-to-war from the gay-rights activism community. It positions the conflict as fundamentally about equality similar to the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement. It argues that, while the majority of the US citizens may oppose gay marriages, the younger generations are more favorable to them and that the tide is shifting in their favor. The tone is very manicheistic and it argues that moderates will find that they will eventually have to choose sides and the upcoming conflict is going to be a grim and ugly fight.
Overall, the author is very presumptive about the nature of the homosexuality debate. He could have written, "Give Us Equality or Give Us...well, you know what I mean!" It could also be argued that in writing such an article at this point, he contributes to making homosexuality an important issue in the upcoming election. There is a cost to doing this since when any issue looms large it to a degree crowds out other issues and there are a lot of important issues that ought to be dealt with in the upcoming election. Hence, one probably should question whether striving for equality, as opposed to more rights/benefits, for homosexual couples is responsible or politically astute.
dlw
Op-Ed Contributor: Small-Town Gay America
November 23, 2003
By ADAM GOODHEART
CHESTERTOWN, Md.
A year ago, I moved out of the Dupont Circle neighborhood
of Washington, the heart of the city's substantial "gay
ghetto," where I'd spent most of the past decade. In Dupont
Circle - a mile or so from the White House - the sight of
same-sex couples holding hands is a common one, and by the
time I left, it no longer surprised me to see two men
pushing a baby carriage.
When I resettled in a small town across the Chesapeake Bay,
on the rural eastern shore of Maryland, some of my friends
- straight and gay alike - worried that I was moving to
enemy territory, to a place where, as an openly gay man,
I'd be shunned, or worse. But I quickly discovered that
there are plenty of gays and lesbians here, too. You won't
see couples holding hands on High Street, but a quiet
tolerance prevails; when two men held their commitment
ceremony in a nearby farming town a few weeks ago, there
were no protesters, just 200 guests on hand to celebrate.
Now, with both liberals and conservatives girding for a
cultural Armageddon over gay marriage and gay rights, the
battle lines are being staked out not just in the courts
and legislatures, but also in places like this. Perhaps
more than any other national political struggle since the
Civil War, the fight for gay equality has been waged
community by community and family by family. Last Tuesday's
ruling by Massachusetts' highest court in favor of gay
marriage will put personal relationships as well as
political principles to an unprecedented test.
The rapidly growing acceptance and visibility of gays and
lesbians over the past 30 years can be explained by simple
exponential math: each person who comes out of the closet
brings at least some of his friends and family over to the
pro-gay camp, and this in turn makes it easier for others
to live openly. It's a phenomenon alien to the politics of
race; rarely, alas, does a racist wake up one morning to
discover that he has an African-American son or brother.
The most difficult obstacle that the foes of gay marriage
face is that no matter how they choose to frame their side
of the debate - "traditional family values," "defense of
marriage," "our Judeo-Christian heritage" - they will be
pitting a mere abstraction against millions of very real
people across America who have told their friends and
relatives and co-workers that they are gay.
While the majority of straight Americans tell pollsters
they oppose gay marriage, these attitudes may well change
if the grounds of debate shift from vague constitutional
and religious principles to more emotionally tangible
questions. The "defense of marriage" side has no poster
child as compelling as the plaintiff in the Massachusetts
case who, when her partner was in a hospital giving birth,
had to pretend that the two were sisters in order to be
allowed into the neonatal intensive care unit.
Many lesbians and gays feel that the Massachusetts ruling
has come at a politically inopportune moment, that
activists should have waited for a more favorable social
climate rather than risk provoking new anti-gay legislation
in response. Yet I suspect there are also very few who do
not inwardly believe that in being forbidden to marry, they
have been denied a basic human right. As the issue is
debated at family dinner tables and office Christmas
parties in the weeks ahead, many may find themselves
staking out a more radical position. For all the talk of a
"straight backlash" against gay marriage, the prospect of a
gay backlash in favor of it is just as real.
If conservatives continue their push for a constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage - a movement that is already
gathering steam - they have to be prepared to slog their
way, state by state, through a brutal grassroots battle
that will divide families and communities. Even if the
proposed amendment dies in Congress, there will most likely
be a similar struggle in the event that Massachusetts
starts granting marriage licenses to gays, which will force
other state governments to decide whether to honor them.
With full marriage rights now at stake, it's going to
become much harder for moderates - straights who favor some
form of domestic partnership, gays who just want to keep
their private lives to themselves - to maintain their
stances. As with those well-meaning 19th-century Americans
who favored gradual emancipation of slaves, or eventual
resettlement in Africa, their positions may become
increasingly untenable: ultimately, questions of equality
admit no shades of gray.
Individual politicians' stances on the issue may end up
being determined as much by personal and family loyalties
as by party affiliations. Republicans, after all, are as
likely as Democrats to have gay children. Vice President
Dick Cheney, who treats his lesbian daughter's partner as a
member of the family (the couple sat among the Cheneys and
Bushes in the presidential box at his inauguration), came
tantalizingly close to supporting gay marriage in a
campaign debate in 2000.
Even President Bush, who this week pledged to oppose the
Massachusetts ruling, has in the past spoken publicly about
the role that his gay friends and acquaintances have had in
influencing his views on homosexuality. It is difficult to
imagine President Bush's father - who exploited gays as
cheap targets in his 1992 campaign - making a similar
admission.
Indeed, the generational divide is a critical fault line
when it comes to gay rights. An October survey by the Pew
Center for the People and the Press found that Americans
overall are against gay marriage by a nearly two-to-one
margin. But it also found that members of what might be
called the "Will & Grace" generation - those between 18 and
30 - are evenly split on the issue.
And while there aren't poll numbers yet, there are plenty
of informal signs that the next generation of Americans may
end up squarely in the pro-gay camp. In one small-town
Maryland high school this week, two girls - both
heterosexual - made headlines by kissing each other atop a
cafeteria table as a protest against homophobia. (The
principal suspended them, which prompted the news media
attention - as well as further protests by their peers.)
I was born the year after the Stonewall riots, in 1970.
That was also the year of "The Boys in the Band," a movie
that depicted gays as lisping, suicidal freaks. It all
seems very far away from 2003, which even without the
gay-marriage ruling might fairly have been called the Year
of the Queer - as in, ". . . Eye for the Straight Guy."
(Who could ever have imagined so many heterosexual men
wanting to be more like us?)
It's often said, among gays as well as straights, that
America still isn't ready for full acceptance of us, that
such seismic shifts in attitude can't happen overnight. But
in fact throughout American history, whenever a sweeping
social change has occurred, it has tended to occur within
the span of a single generation.
In 1830, very few Americans favored the abolition of
slavery; by 1860, they elected an antislavery president. In
1960, help-wanted ads were still routinely segregated by
sex; by 1990, a myriad of state and federal laws protected
women in the workplace. What gays and lesbians have
accomplished since 1970 is almost as dramatic and
remarkable a story.
None of this is to diminish the enduring force of
deep-seated cultural and religious aversions to
homosexuality. Whichever side ends up prevailing on gay
marriage, it's going to be a grim and ugly fight. But no
matter what happens, it's also far too late to turn back
the clock. Gays and lesbians have already infiltrated not
just fashionable urban enclaves, not just prime-time cable
programming, but thousands of American communities and
millions of American families. And perhaps - to a degree
that is still uncertain - millions of hearts and minds as
well.
Adam Goodheart is a fellow at Washington College's C.V.
Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/opinion/23GOOD.html?ex=1070621035&ei=1&en=c593fbd73c103927
ps, I did cc my comments to the author and so maybe he'll respond to me.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:56 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|