|
|
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
|
|
MORE THOUGHTS ON GAY MARRIAGE
I know, I know....I'm going on entirely too much on this topic.
While I've made no secret of my support for gay marriage, I've mostly concentrated on the political aspects of it. I do feel what the president did this morning was a brilliant political move. It polls well, puts the opposition on the defense (for example, John Kerry today said that if the amendment included a provision allowing for civil unions it would be a "good bill") and, as the FMA has no realistic chance of passing, there is no long term effect. The president's speech, on these grounds, was a political masterstroke.
But I can't and won't pretend that it wasn't morally repugnant.
What the president did today was send the message that it was perfectly acceptable to continue to ostrasize homosexuals from American life. After 9/11, President Bush went out of his way to describe Islam as "a religion of peace." He forcefully rejected ascribing collective guilt to all Muslims for the evil of the 19. It was among the greatest uses of the presidential "bully pulpit" in my lifetime. I gained a great respect for this president in those days. It was a respect that I lost this morning.
Gays and lesbians are the last group that it is socially acceptable to persecute and the President of the United States today reinforced that message for no other reason than to corner what I believe to be an eminently beatable opponent. John Kerry has taken too many positions on too many issues, and is so utterly lacking in any kind of personal charisma, to pose a serious threat to this administration and it's projected $200 million campaign war chest. I'm sure that Karl Rove's political reading of this issue isn't all that different from my own. This is an easy tactical win, and ultimately, who does it hurt really?
Well, for one it hurts the prestige of his office. What the president did today was basically embrace the malignant philosophy of Plessy v. Furgeson. Plessy was a Supreme Court decision following the Civil War that propogated the concept of "seperate yet equal" that was the very foundation of segregation. This yoke had only begun to be lifted with Brown v. Board of Education and the scars of segregation have yet to fully heal.
The position of the Democratic National Committee and all of it's candidates, save Kucinich and Sharpton exemplifies Plessy perfectly. Their attitude toward gay marriage is far more cynical than that of the Republicans. Republicans, honest to God, don't like gay marriage. They're honest about it. The Democratic party is afraid and, as a measure of their fear are perfectly willing to ghettoize some of their most loyal voters. As much as one may support the concept of "civil unions," it should be looked at in it's proper context. Any politician who says, "I oppose gay marriage but I do support equal rights and civil unions" is really saying "Listen, I personally think you should fuck from the chandeliers on your wedding day, but the hillibillies in the midwest and south can't handle that. So take your civil unions and be thankful you get that." If this isn't "seperate but equal" I'd be hard pressed to describe what is.
Well, Senators, guess what? The hillbillies in the south and midwest aren't really big fans of civil unions either. As a matter of fact, if I remember my history properly, they weren't all that enthusiastic about desegration. Want to hear another secret? For the most part, the hillbillies , despite their screaming, they learned to live with it.
Before I continue, I know that many of my readers from certain parts of the country will take exception to my use of the word "hillbilly." I use that word because that is precisely how the political class views them. Their attitude demonstrates that southerners and midwesteners cannot be talked to about the issue like adults. So they pander and equivocate. They come up with cute, little bite sized slogans that are as empty as they are appealing. And everybody feels better.
I'm not entirely sure whose cynicism is more stomach-turning. But anyone who pretends that the Democrats are any less hypocritical on this than the Republicans is hallucinating. In some ways, the Democrats are much worse on this issue. There used to be a time when Democrats elected presidents of courage like Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson who, when presented with the great issues of civil rights in their times, did the right thing and were completely prepared to lose their office to do it. Every single one of President Truman's advisors begged him not to desegregate the military in 1948 and he did it anyway. Lyndon Johnson knew he was handing the Republicans the south for generations when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and he did it anyway. If this generation of politicians, both Democrat and Republican faced issues like those, neither would have been done. The discrimination would have continued but under a cute, poll-tested, new name.
I'm not gay and I'm not that great a proponent of the institution of marriage. I'm not even an American. As most of you know, I'm Canadian and we had this debate not quite a year ago. Gay marriage was legalized by judicial fiat and it was a big deal.....for about three weeks. It has hardly been mentioned since. People vented their spleens and got over it. I can't imagine that it would be much different in the United States. Lunch counters were desegregated in the south and, in less than five years, no one seemed to notice. Within a decade, most people refused to admit that they ever felt segregation was proper in the first place. Americans are better equipped to deal with rapid social change better than most people.
I don't know if I'm swaying anyone with these arguments and I doubt that I should expect to. For the most part, I think I'm preaching to the converted. But I do think that this is the right argument to make morally and politically. In a roundabout way, I feel better for having made it without resorting to cheap, unfunny humor.
Don't get me wrong, though. The cheap, unfunny humor will be back in the morning.
In any event, I don't think I've been anywhere near as eloquent as Andrew Sullivan and his readers have been on this issue. You can read his views here and here
|
|
|
| |
