THIS may get my blogger license yanked, but I haven't the faintest clue whether Barack Obama's endorsement of Dick Cheney's 2004 position on same-sex marriage hurts or helps his re-election prospects, or hurts or helps the fight for marriage equality. For all I know, Mr Obama has summoned the wrath of Jehovah and a horde of locusts is descending upon the South Lawn even as we speak. What I do know for certain is that Mr Obama's announcement made me a little cranky, and in much the same way it made Radley Balko cranky:
Obama's statement doesn't change a single policy. He has basically adopted a federalist approach to the issue. To my knowledge, gay marriage also happens to be the only issue in which Obama embraces federalism. Obama apparently believes the states should be able to discriminate when it comes to marriage benefits, but if they allow cancer and AIDS patients to smoke pot, he asserts the supremacy of federal law, and sends in the SWAT teams. What a twisted set of priorities.
[...]
As leadership goes, it's little more than acknowledging the direction the wind is blowing. It hardly merits a new chapter for Profiles in Courage.
Still, I think it was the right thing to do, and I'm glad he did it. One only wishes his views on other civil-liberties issues were evolving, or evolving in the direction of justice.
Having declared my total ignorance of the net cash value of Mr Obama's flip-flop about legal gay nuptials, I will say that it seems quite sure to distract American voters somewhat from the economic recovery, such as it is. And one would expect this to force Mr Romney to spend rather more time than he'd like awkwardly imitating a conservative culture warrior. So Andrew Sullivan argues:
If this is a choice election, and social issues are salient, then Romney's in trouble. Every day he loses his economic message, his referendum on Obama gets shunted back a bit. So no surprise that Romney would rather not discuss immigration, gays, or marijuana.
I'm rather less confident that the salience of social issues ultimately redounds to Mr Obama's benefit, but I do think Mr Sullivan is on to something, and that Mr Romney's reluctance to serve up a second helping of primary-season red meat does suggest that the long, justice-bending arc of the universe confers upon savvy conservative Democrats certain advantages.
The cosmetic significance of Mr Obama's Biden-biddened evolution is that it allows a molecule's breadth of breeze to pass between the contenders' substantive positions on immigration, gays and marijuana, which are, otherwise, practically identical. Angling for the same median voter, the left and right candidate can generally be expected to more or less converge on most controversial social issues, all while winking to their more vehemently partisan supporters with coded rhetoric. However, in advanced liberal democracies, social change goes almost all one way: from right to left. The hazard for the Republican is to get too far on the wrong side of history—too far from the median voter—by sticking to the immutable conservative principle that granny's ways were the best ways. The hazard for the Democrat is to position himself too close to the hated mincing freaks at the far edge of tectonic cultural drift. As the centre shifts liberalward, as it's wont to do on social issues, the Democrat can tack to the middle by confessing enlightenment while also winning the fawning applause of his partisan base. If this is timed right, and it is best by far to err on the side of caution, both flanks of support, centre and left, can be reinforced. The Republican, in contrast, can move to capture the shifting centre only by abandoning his far right to the harsh judgment of history. It's not surprising that Mr Romney, who isn't working with much if any slack, isn't eager to mouth culture-warrior tropes at a time when he needs to butter up the median voter with his sensible centrist appeal.
So doesn't this all add up to advantage Obama? I remain agnostic because I don't feel well placed to accurately judge Mr Obama's timing. Apparently he'd planned to do this a bit later, and maybe he should have. As belated as his announcement may seem to some of us, it's not at all clear that it won't at this juncture do more to energise Mr Romney's previously enervated base than to rally the centre and left to Mr Obama's banner. I guess we'll have to have an election.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
all about history of america and the culture of the great nation
removetags.com!
Interesting. Look like Americans cannot find other topics to discuss other than abortion and gay marriage during election. I guess the recession just didn't hit harder enough
Obama's 'coming out' was a gift to Romney. Every evangelical will be refinancing their house so they can donate to a Romney SuperPac. On the other side, very few really, really care about gay marriage to fight for it with time and money. Nor are most moderates actually willing to solely vote based on this one issue.
How does all this play out electorally? Evangelicals will vote for Romney. There was never any doubt about that. They have no choice. And gays will vote for Obama. They never had any choice. The interesting question is swing voters. Does the idea of gay marriage offend them sufficiently to vote for Romney even if they dislike the rest of his platform? What about ethnic communities? The Black community is split. Latinos aren't all that supportive of gay rights. So electoral gains for Obama are unclear. What is clear is the financial gain for Romney. What's a few thousand in donations to the SuperPAC when you consider the sitting president to be the anti-Christ?
So you're cranky at the President because he's playing politics during an election year, with an opponent that is eager to crush him in a culture war if he doesn't play politics?
I'm pretty sure that's what I read.
OK then.
Oh, Will. Must you sound so pretentious?
In general social issues aren't a game changer in economy/foreign policy elections and gay marriage really isn't likely to stir up anyone on the left or right who isn't already stirred up.
As for federal power versus the rights of individual states in reality I don't think there has been a single president in a very long time who actually viewed things as being purely good if it increased federal power or purely good if it increased individual state power*. Every president (and in every politician really) supports federal power when it helps policies they like and then they support individual state power when it helps policies that they like.
As an example, the Republican party was overjoyed to have the Supreme Court rule in favor of Bush in 2000 even though this was an increase in federal power and effectively meant that the election was decided in a court and not at the ballot box. However the Republican party reduced the power of the E.P.A., and with it federal power, because general Republican ideology and the preferences of pro-Republican rich dislike environmental restrictions. The Democrats have done much the same during their time in power.
*Again, for newcomers to U.S. politics the word 'state' has a different meaning in the U.S. Here state does not just mean 'government' but also individual political units inside the nation. Federal means national government and state means province. The oddity of the names goes back to the start of the nation when we planned for each individual state to be a sovereign nation allied with all the others. That fell apart quickly and we reorganized but the names stuck.
If your blogger credentials were ever in danger, Will, your use of "Biden-biddened" restored their foundation. :-D
It's precisely that "confessing enlightenment" shtick that has liberals blasted as trimmers, as flip-floppers, as untrustworthy. I have to admit I think that rationalization of the ideologically popular is one of their more repellant traits. A Democratic politician might say they're foursquare for business and capitalism, but how much pressure from the left will that withstand? Many on the left seem to be pro-business only to the absolute minimum necessary to be able to throw the resulting tax money at social solutions and take credit for it.
Romney doesn't have to do a darn thing -- he can simply continue to say "it is a state matter, and I defend DOMA because if a state doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, why should it be forced to". The left obviously won't like this position (he is not catering to them anyway), but more importantly it won't alienate the far right, and the moderates and libertarians in the middle won't be driven away by this affirmation of basic federalism.
Romney's best bet is to simply ignore the issue for the most part, and let the far right super PACs beat the drums of war on this one.
By "liberalism" I mean the elimination of social engineering from the criminal and civil statutes in favor of the tax code.
That's why I am allowed to smoke pot and eat ecstasy. Shucks!
Also, your "liberalism" sucks. I don't want to be social engineered at all!
What and not even get somebody to select a good wardrobe for you?
can
Pundits talk. The world fell on its knees. Wasnt it the Liberals and Democrats who always advocated from keeping the 'socials' out of politics? Sullivan and the rest are just dancing to the new tune because that is what their political bias tells them to do.
Romney has always come out as a social moderate regardless of what he does or say. He was after all, the governor of a very liberal state. So dont bring Romney into your mud. The guy is obviously more comforatable talking economy - Obama instead, is a radical on economic issues as well and a "I dont care about those social stuff' kind of guy, and doesnt feel comfortable either talking social issues; tha is why took him so long to 'evolve' - but now that he is 'evolved' (mostly urged by the circunstances and part of his base dissapointed, and needing those votes), he has no choice but to move ahead with it, then his adoring followers have no choice either but to follow in the lead as well.
He didnt do the 'right' thing on this particular social issue. He do the 'expedient' thing.
Intrade didn't move at all. It probably has little or no effect.
in advanced liberal democracies, social change goes almost all one way: from right to left
Whiggism! Actually, I think our society has become a lot more "socially conservative" over time. Adultery is much less acceptable than in the seventies, as Douthat is wont to point out. Prostitution has become a less and less accepted part of society. Our culture swings back and forth with "great revivals" or whatnot. If you define everything against the 50s sure, maybe we are more liberal, but the 20s, the 1880s, the 60s?
We accept gay people, but drug use is way down. And what do gay people want- to get married. That's pretty conservative. These are good things. I think the whole "steady road to libertinism" narrative doesn't do the liberal cause much good. It's not accurate. We are not on a "slippery slope", we are simply changing what we should be conservative or liberal about with greater reflection.
Good point. But I think the legal path is towards greater liberalism even if the social path reverses. This is probably how it should be too. I mean, once gay marriage is legal it will probably not become illegal just like segregation did not become legal and emancipation and women's right to vote were never under legal threat once granted.
I think social engineering is inefficient and once undone sensible people don't see the point of using their energy that way. That might also be why there is so much outrage when things first start to change.
Affirmative action, too. Once we mostly all felt kinda segregated, nobody's really had the gumption to set that clock back either.
Emancipation and women's right to vote were both highly religious issues, part of the third and fourth great awakenings respectively. The suffragette movement was highly tied to the prohibition movement.
Segregation was too. I think you could see all of these as conserving the principles of the country, "all men are created equal". When you think about it, the 13th amendment is something that stops people from doing something, namely owning slaves. As we shouldn't! Just to be clear.
It depends on how you define "liberal" or "conservative". If you define liberal or progressive as anything that's new or modern, that's cheating. Of course there will be more things that are different with time.
If you mean less government interference in people's life, "liberalizing", then there is no real clear case to be made here. The government gets involved in people's private lives no less now, with drug enforcement, or *achum* taxes and spending.
We used to be able to do all sorts of things that are now prohibited, George Washington could grow hemp, distill alcohol, grow tobacco, smoke wherever he wanted, buy a gun without a license, and develop his property. Hamilton didn't need to get approval to immigrate, practice law, or open a bank. They payed almost no taxes.
If you mean "liberal" as what the democratic party supports, that's just bumf, it goes back and forth. Our flirtation with a big technocratic government in the 50s and 60s is far bigger than now. Neither part has been on the "right side of history" more than the other. Removing the Cherokee, supporting Secession or the Soviet Union, and the War in Vietnam all seem pretty wrong now.
Whig history is the approach to historiography which presents the past as an inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in modern forms of liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy. In general, Whig historians stress the rise of constitutional government, personal freedoms and scientific progress. The term is often applied generally (and pejoratively) to histories that present the past as the inexorable march of progress toward enlightenment. The term is also used extensively in the history of science for historiography that focuses on the successful chain of theories and experiments that lead to present-day science, while ignoring failed theories and dead ends. Whig history has many similarities with the Marxist theory of history, which believes that humanity is moving (through historical stages) to the classless, egalitarian society of communism.
-
Whig history is a form of Liberalism, that puts its faith in the power of human reason to reshape society for the better, regardless of past history and tradition. It demonstrates the inevitable progress of mankind. Its opposite is conservative history or "Toryism." - Wikipedia
-
You are being whiggish!
My comment above was meant to go here. And that's "waggish" to you, bubba.
@ publius50: "Our culture swings back and forth with "great revivals" or whatnot. If you define everything against the 50s sure, maybe we are more liberal, but the 20s, the 1880s, the 60s?"
Heh, that is a good point. One of the things that I got most strongly out of history class was the cyclical nature of social and religious mores. :-)
"Affirmative action, too. Once we mostly all felt kinda segregated, nobody's really had the gumption to set that clock back either."
No one will roll back the legal clock, but no one should ever assume that merely making things legal will change social attitudes. Segregation has been officially illegal since 1964, and I live in an east coast city that is probably as flamingly liberal as San Francisco, yet my city is also probably one of the most heavily racially segregated you will find -- not because of any laws, but because the communities self-segregate. Even the noted liberals in my town recognize this fact, and have no explanation for the phenomenon.
Sadly, when communities self-segregate, it really eliminates the need for any segregation laws -- through people's voluntary behavior, you end up with a "soft" version of Jim Crow without lifting a finger.
Doug, I think social liberalism is an almost direct function of societal wealth. Which in a nice bit of irony means right-wing businessmen and investors are in the bigger picture reducing future resistance to socially liberal programs. And if communism or socialism ever triumphed in the U.S. it would be the worst thing for non-economic social ideas like gay marriage. But if our prosperity ever collapsed, then the "progress" of the past century would go away too (though it would take a little longer to happen).
You live in D.C., Lex?
Yes. Many liberals are just so opposed to segregation, but when it comes to changing zoning laws so that some minorities might actually be able to move to their neighborhood... not so much. Liberalism: "defending your rights in the abstract, from a comfortable distance because you kind of scare me".
Handworn,
Yes, this is what I'm saying. Big business is your friend. They care about nothing except money, not black or white, just green. All they want is money, not to persecute gay people, just money. That is bad for money. Immigration is good for money. War is bad for money (yes it is, you are all wrong). Education is good for money. If government was run on a pure pro-business agenda, we'd all be so much happier.
I chose "liberalism" because I thought "right to left" misses the fact that sometimes the people on the right are in favor of liberty and sometimes the people on the left are and I wanted to agree that time seems to prefer less regimentation where its least useful regardless of who the rent-seekers are.
Handworn, I agree with that 100%. Efficiency defends diversity better than leadership ever has.
LexHumana, I was talking about legal segregation. I don't care what people choose as long as they to chose.
Necessity is the mother of invention and the stepmother of red-headed rent-seeking.
heh, that's good. I'm gonna remember that. :)
Big business is your friend if you have money, can borrow money, or can lend to you, otherwise you are fertilizer.
this blog gives m the knowlegde about communism and liberalism.about the history and tradition
removeskintags.com!
Whatever this does or doesn’t do for same-sex marriage, it’s still downright astonishing to me that a sitting Democratic President can say, publicly and on the record, that he’s in favor of same-sex marriage, and the primary criticisms leveled against him are obviousness and lack of courage.
I knew that there was increasing public support/acceptance on this issue, but I had no idea the change was this profound and irreversible. Definitely one of those moments where the direction and force of the winds are made obvious by all the reeds of the field.
I don't have the data but I guess its generational replacement rather than a change of mind.
I think that had Mr. Obama not addressed and said his opinion on this matter he would have been asked repeatedly until he answered. So I rather he get it out of the way - though I agree he didn't change a single thing - so that we can then focus on the economy, defense spending, and social programs etc.
So in other words, this situation is a lot like the birth certificate issue in your judgement. (Not a criticism, just a remark.)
"Obama's endorsement of Dick Cheney's 2004 position on same-sex marriage"
Mother of All Canards? If Cheney's opinion on gay marriage has somehow shifted the political landscape in the GOP, I haven't observed it in the past 8 years. Unlike Cheney's other opinions, which will continue to accrue interest, payable to America's various creditors, for he forseeable future.
"Rumsey Dumpsey
Rumsey Dumpsey
Col. Johnson
Killed Tecumseh"
The above jingle, which referred to Dick's Johnson's alleged role in killing Tecumseh and was part of the 1840 presidential campaign, has been considered the low in American electioneering -- until now.
Mr. Obama's "evolution" has been page 1 of the NYT and virtually every page between front and back covers of TE for several days now. The evening news broadcasts are lathered with the story and we won't even mention talk radio.
Never before in the course of American politics has so much been made of so little done on behalf of so few.
Scholarly estimates of the "real" gay population puts it at between 2.5-3% of the overall population and a reasonable guess is that only about half of these are in "committed relationships." A reasonable guess is that only half of that fraction, in turn, wants to legally marry. So, by a process of arithmetic we arrive at a constituency of slightly more than one-half of one-percent of the adult population.
The "oppression" of which this population complains is so trivial as to resemble one of those over-wrought sob stories on the old TV program "Queen For A Day." It is mostly about property rights and $300 will hire a good attorney that can draw up a contractual agreement that takes care of nearly all of that.
We can summarize the situation thusly: a tiny slice of the population has some complaints about a few matters of inheritance that are easily solved via contractual law. There are a few other items, such as hospital visiting rights, that can be handled the same way.
Whether we choose to call it gay marriage, civil union or Tea for Two, any legislation that corrects this "problem" on a global basis will be enacted at the state level. Thus, Mr. Obama's statement favoring gay marriage is constitutionally meaningless. Although, to be fair, it may produce some moral impetus for "his" side.
Many of us are baffled at how, with all the other problems we confront, this dopey little issue took stage center in our political life. Or, why, to cite another example, several Christian denominations charged with maintaining "the faith once delivered to the saints" have chosen, instead, to cripple themselves over this petty item.
It seems likely that the election of 2012 at the presidential level will turn on one's opinon of homosexuality. That was not, I'm sure, Mr. Obama's intent but that may be what transpires. I cannot remember a previous politician who ran successfully for national, or any, office on a pro-homosexual platform. Perhaps this will be the first.
There is no real reason to oppose gay marriage -- it hurts no one --and the anger of those who do oppose it is a bit baffling. But, as a national issue, this one ranks with such pressing concerns as whether we should cease minting the penny.
Apparently we have entered the Bizarro Phase of American politics in which any issue, regardless of how minor, can be elevated to national debate. Well, not all the artistic verisimilitude in the world can add to luster to this otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
Rumsey dumsey, rumsey dumsey . . . .
I will vote for anyone who wants to stop minting the penny. It demonstrates a willingness to put sound policy before personal political gain.
How about the American Anti-Penny Pirate Party? I'll join.
"The above jingle, which referred to Dick's Johnson's alleged role in killing Tecumseh and was part of the 1840 presidential campaign, has been considered the low in American electioneering -- until now."
I always thought it was allegations of Cleveland siring a bastard child. The swiftboating of Kerry was also some nasty business.
But, as a national issue, this one ranks with such pressing concerns as whether we should cease minting the penny.
While I take the wasteful nature of penny-minting more seriously than you do, I still think preventing the marriage of one class of citizens is a terrible thing. I grew up in the United Church of Christ, which ordained its first gay minister 40 years ago. It's always seemed like an infringement of religious liberty to prevent a church from marrying who it wants to. Or at least a noxious mixture of church and state that should be distilled and separated.
When you say "many of us..." it sounds like you're referring to the set of people who doesn't know or care about gay families.
Pirate Metal Music too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_Wild_(band)
NPWFTL
Regards
That would considerably raise the currency of American discourse. I'm not sure we're ready to grapple over anything as grand as a penny.
I completely agree with you that all human rights issues should be put on hold until the economy has recovered since we as a society are completely unable to address more than one problem at a time, and besides which when a group of people is sufficiently small it really doesn't matter that much whether we are treating them as second-class citizens or not.
I find myself in the unusual position of having to say "AMEN!!!" to your comment.
Well, it's an honor for which there is a lot of competition.
During the Cleveland campaign the GOP chanted:
"Ma, Ma . . . where' my Pa?"
To which the Democrats added the line:
"Gone to the White House, Ha-ha-ha!"
The Swift boat business was nasty -- but nasty does not necessarily mean assinine.
In 1928 the GOP alleged that Al Smith would put the Pope's portrait on the dollar bill in lieu of Washington's (after he had lost, Smith claimed he sent a one-word telegram to the Pope: "Unpack.")
When Polk became the first dark horse candidate in American presidential history the Whig slogan was, "Who the hell is James K. Polk?" (They found out on election day.)
Presidential elections have turned on major issues (limiting the spread of slavery/1860; keeping out of war/1916 and on minor issues such as "Were you born in a Log Cabin?"/1840.) I think, however, that this may be the first in which the Big Issue was homosexuality -- at least during a time of deep economic trouble.
Rumsey-dumsey,
Rumsey-dumsey . . . .
Gays are a tiny sliver of the population and they are not treated like "second-class citizens." The ones I know have decent jobs, own houses, putter about their garden -- and at least one couple likes to take an extended vacation in Mexico every year.
Not having everything you want doesn't make one second-class. It just makes one annoyed.
Yes, as we used to yell as 'teens when we saw an occifer of the law:
WHAT ARE OLD PENNIES MADE OF? DIRTY COPPER!
(Of course, we also yelled: "WHAT ARE PEACHES COVERED WITH? FUZZ!!")
Ah . . . the olden days!
If the agree to abstain from voting on all issues other than abolishing the penny and IP reform, they have my vote.
Yes, yes, just like blacks not being able to marry whites wasn't a human rights issue, it was just a matter of them not being able to get what they wanted.
Personally, I'd rather have the right to marry than the right to vote and I wouldn't support anyone who would deny me either. But I don't consider gay marriage a right. There are rights attached to marriage that I think should either be expanded to include gays or abolished for all though.
Sorry . . .not equivalent. If this is such a second-class thing then why do millions of couples (pretty much a majority these days of young people) live together, as we used to say, "without benefit of clergy?"
Their position is no different from that of gay couples. I know any number of heterosexual couples (my relations included) who live together -- and some have done so for decades. How are THEY able to live, even voluntarily assume, such second-class status?
Living together without being married is now almost the norm (gays were cutting edge!) Just no longer all that important.
I am not opposed to gay marriage -- but I resent the phony-baloney attempt of middle-class gay couples comparing themselves to blacks under segregation.
i remember the segregated world of the postwar era -- and what gays "endure" is nothing --NOTHING! -- like it. They have simply filched someone else's suffering and peddled it as their own.
So your argument isn't that it's wrong, it's just not wrong enough to be bothered with. Gotcha.
Like abolishing the penny, I have yet to hear one convincing argument as to why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married. Do you have one?
You know, buggery used to be a crime punishable by death. Until relatively recently many states would take your kids away from you if you were gay. Half don't allow gay people to adopt today.
By the way, as for the 1840 election, Harrison's children weren't recognized as his either, that is the six children he had by his female slave Dilsia. His grandson went on to be the head of the NAACP.
You are right. Lots of things are wrong (the tail light on my car is out) but they aren't moral issues.
In the middle years of the last century, back 'ven I vas a boy, there was a denomination called the Congregationalists. It was a major Protestant denomination -- not one of the really big ones but, still, quite active and growing. Most towns had Congregational Churches and most people seemed to like its bland, generic Protestant faith.
Shortly thereafter, the Congregationalists decided to Save the World. After a merger it became the UCC and was "cutting edge" on every conceivable issue right down, and including, gays.
The UCC today is nothing more than a sect. I haven't see a new UCC building going up in decades. Its membership has not only stagnated, it has dropped precipitously as a portion of the population. A UCC service that I attended a few years ago was essentially just a meeting of the Rotarian Club with a cross as wall-decor. There was a lot of aimless milling around near what passed for the altar and then everyone left before the ancient, and ill-kept, edifice could collapse around our ears.
Life is full of choices. Many churches chose to keep the focus on Christianity and eschewed politics. The UCC did not -- it decided that while Christianity is all very well in its own way -- nice carols . . . Christmas cookies are good . . . that sort of thing -- it would accept a conversion experience that left it a pimple on the butt of the Democratic Party.
"Gay rights" is in the process of eviscerating one denomination after the next. These have been hornswoggled (by themselves, I might add) into believing that gays face huge civil rights issues if they cannot marry -- all this during a time when a near-majority of young Americans are abandoning marriage altogether and living together. (Where, after all, is there sense of oppression!?)
I will cheerfully admit there is no objective reason why gays should not marry. But, there are organizational and political reasons why for churches it is a loser of an issue. As I say -- life is full of choices. A church can put gay marriage above community and Christian fellowship. Most of us will think that is peculiar since tens of millions of Americans live together "without benefit of clergy." One can commit hari-kari on behalf of a tiny population that suffers some trivial inconveniences, easily rectified by a good lawyer, or one can say, "Not worth it --- we have bigger fish to fry. Like Christianity."
Gay marriage isn't just an issue -- it's a really, really unimportant issue.
I may just attend the next UCC convention -- if I can find the phone booth in which it is held.
@ A. Andros: "Sorry . . .not equivalent. If this is such a second-class thing then why do millions of couples (pretty much a majority these days of young people) live together, as we used to say, "without benefit of clergy?""
So your point is that because millions of couples that could marry choose not to exercise this option, therefore it is not a denial of rights to *not allow* other couples to have the option of marrying at all?
@ A. Andros: "i remember the segregated world of the postwar era -- and what gays "endure" is nothing --NOTHING! -- like it."
Well then, I am glad that we have established that any group that is not suffering as much as the blacks did under segregation cannot possibly have a legitimate claim to being discriminated against by society at all.
Dear publius50
I don't have a convincing argument why gays should not marry and I haven't heard one from anyone else. But, in my opinion it is not JUST a moral issue -- it is a really UNIMPORTANT moral issue!
Gay marriage -- in fact the whole business of gay chic -- is largely a fraud and those who whip themselves into a frenzy over this issue (either way but especially on the "pro" side) are like those dopes who competed against each other to bid up the price of Enron stock.
For, that is what gay chic is -- the Enron of our time.
If not being able to marry is so horribly oppressive, why do tens of millions of couples live together "without benefit of clergy?" Marriage, in fact, is losing out and the NYT (2/12) documented that now more than half the mothers under thirty are not married. What have they figured out that gays have not?
And, as I have written, any competent attorney can quickly draw up a property/living will agreement that will solve virtually all the alleged problems that gays encounter but that, mysteriously, tens of millions of couples who choose to live together do not.
In short . . . it's trivial. I don't mind if gays marry. But, I am appalled at the number of people who have made this a national issue.
It has become so bizarre that Mr. Obama (for whom I voted) will now be the first president in history to run on a pro-homosexual platform. Perhaps he'll win on that platform - but it will be a "first."
In the last few years there have been thirty states that have let the voters decide on gay marriage -- and in every single one of them (the last was this week) the pro-gay faction has been annihilated. In NC, the "pro" vote was barely one-third of those cast. (Draw up a trend line on thirty consecutive defeats and get back to me on what it looks like. I'll save you the trouble -- it looks like a falling anvil.)
If Mr. Obama wants to fly his plane into a battleship on this, good for him. However, the rest of us are strapped onto the fuselage with him. He has chosen to make as his signature issue a minor inconvenience that MAY affect perhaps a little more than 1/2% of the nation's population (committed gays who wish to marry), which is NOT seen as the least bit deleterious by countless millions in the same situation who far outnumber gays, and which has led to electoral defeat in thirty consecutive plebicites.
Gay marriage is not immoral or harmful. It is also not important. If you are going to tilt with a windmill, try not to make it a charge into a food processor.
Like Enron, this is a case of inflated values on a matter of little real substance, bid up by a gay lobby led by the NYT. This particular game just is not worth the candle. It does, however, stand a fair chance of taking liberalism down with it come November.
So, no . . . gay marriage is not harmful and I favor it. But, the bottom line is that it is a hell of a trivial issue on which to bet the Democratic Party.
Regards
Well, perhaps it is bad for the democratic party. I don't think so. Even if it is unpopular now, think of it as a long term investment. Us young 'uns are really pro. I'm concerned that the republicans are on the wrong side of this. The democrat's stock of voters has longer shelf-life- that's a problem.
Also, if I'm wrong and it really is a tradeoff, gay marriage is much more valuable to me than the democratic party, which I want to burn. If gay marriage gains acceptance at the cost of the President's reelection, that's just a twofer as far as I see it.
Dear Republicans,
I propose that if gay marriage costs Barack Obama reelection, we should legalize it as a thank you gift for gay people.
It's good to know you find discrimination against 9 million Americans is a minor matter.
Read my posts. I favor gay marriage. I don't, however, think it is an important issue. If it is "discrimination," and you can make a good argument, it is of a trivial and unimportant nature.
@ A. Andros: "I don't, however, think it is an important issue."
For someone who does not think it is an important issue you have sure written a lot of words about the matter...
And, I will be happy to stop doing so if everyone else will quit clogging up the airwaves, the newspapers, websites, etc., with this fandango.
Ever hear of Gresham's Law? Ancient rule of economics -- "Bad money drives out good."
Gay marriage falls under that law. A minor issue has now taken over public debate and bids fair to drive out far more worthwhile issues.
A minor issue has now taken over public debate and bids fair to drive out far more worthwhile issues.
That reminds me of when the Senate decided to hold hearings on baseball. That was perfect- they couldn't do too much and it was something that the American people were informed enough about that they couldn't mess it up too much. It would be nice if the things government did were less consequential.
I think we should buy congress something shiny for them to play with. To distract 'em. Or put a sign on the pull-open doors to the Senate that says "push to open". Then we'd be free!
I still don't think it's inconsequential. But I wish it was.
Excuse me, but your ignorance of what goes on and what people endured is wanting.
I have a friend who still sports a bullet in his leg, having been shot while standing in a park talking to some other gay friends, for being gay. One of the other ones had his head blown off. I don't believe the police did anything about it. You can also look up Matthew Sheppard.
The whole point of the Stonewall riots was because people were tired of being beaten for sport.
@ publius50: "I think we should buy congress something shiny for them to play with. To distract 'em. Or put a sign on the pull-open doors to the Senate that says "push to open". Then we'd be free!"
So would be fine with the current level of taxation never going down because Congress never does anything of consequence anymore?
I think the argument goes that forbidding gay marriage has no rational basis for the distinction that it makes between people(for a distinction that confers benefits). Or at least, none that is not based on religious conviction.
Children below the age of legal autonomy cannot marry. If the age were raised to, say, 49 that probably would raise a principled objection.
Well . . . I don't think you meant to say that my "ignorance is wanting." Maybe what you had in mind was my "knowledge is wanting."
Sorry about your friend . . . skeptical about the one who had "his head blown off" . . . downright disbelieving that the police would have ignored it, had it happened. Don't have to look up Matthew Shepherd -- terrible thing that I remember from many years ago and it hasn't happened since.
One encounters gays every day of one's life. The senior officers, after the pastor, of our parish are gay. I have former students who "came out" and are doing fine. And so on . . . these people have their heads on their shoulders and no bullets in their legs. There are no "Gays not served here" signs in stores, as there were during segregation, and no Pink Crow laws that disenfranchise gays. Gays are not hit with a poll tax, interpretation test, grandfather clause . . . etc. . . . when they try to vote and gays are not excluded from juries, told they cannot use certain public parks or beaches and so on. (Gays really should stop looting the sufferings of others, especially blacks.)
Meanwhile, a gay who protests that he can't get married has to return to his apartment and nod "hello" to the dozen or so "straight" couples in his building who have been together for years without marrying -- and somehow seem to cope with the Horror Of It All.
I hope gay marriage is accomplished. It will hurt no one -- not the country, not gays, not "straights," not the "institution of marriage," . . .not even the Cubs chance of winning the pennant. Then, once we rid ourselves of this meretricious issue altogether, we can go on to something more pressing: like jumping Asian carp in our rivers.
This is like when of my friends who had "worked in construction" offered to fix my door lock. Then offered to fix what he had fixed. This continued until I decided to just stop and live with the results. After all, who really needs a roof? At least it stopped before anything was on fire.
Same with Congress. If they will just stop making things, that would be an improvement.
Proven extrajudicial LGBT murders happen about once to twice a year. The Shepherd case got an unusual amount of attention, but it is not unusual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_...
Yes, there were numerous laws of the same period that targeted gay people with much worse. It was itself a crime. It was also diagnosed as a psychological disorder, to be treated by shock therapy.
I will grant my friend more credibility than your disbelief. The police just didn't collect anyone. Some people just goddamn tired of being shat on.
But all this stuff will blow over, its pretty much election year heat and I am exceedingly doubtful that the topic's passing is ever going to move the topic onto leashing the financial sector or indeed any pressing environmental issues. financial laws were passed then gutted, or sidelined, or the institutions have found a workaround. The casino economy roars on.
My sympathy for your friend teacup. I don't know about you, but you and I agree. At least we can move onto those other issues.
I also agree with you, I too want to start talking about repealing Dodd-Frank, keeping our workers in the coal industry employed, removing restrictions on fracking, expanding drilling, protecting property rights, right to work laws, reducing regulation, cutting spending, simplifying the tax code, expanding free trade, tort reform, repealing Obamacare, and reducing the corporate tax rate. :)
Well like most things there is some overlap. Although I'd expect you'd be horrified of the level I'd go to, as I strip business and the public naked of any molly coddling bs. The safety will be there. It just won't be pleasant.
BTW it is not the gubnits bidness to expand drilling. No more sops to petro complex. No more gubnit office to rent them land at ridiculous prices. They can pay for security overseas too with a middle east war tax.
Tort reform? Don't you know the major reason people sue their doctor is because they face bankrupty even after insurance "coverage"? Doctors must be shorn of their death grip on the industry.
"...in advanced liberal democracies, social change goes almost all one way: from right to left."
Yes, this has been so for the last 60 years.The problem is that the balancing opposite side of this equation is that Economic change goes more and more from left to right.
In the end we will all be participants in a giant late-Roman orgy.The caveat is that most people will participate as slaves.
Better a slave at an orgy than a VP-account services, I always say.
Until the 80's one could've claimed that economic change goes from right to left. The world went too far to the left and pulled back. The same thing happens with social change. Free love hippies on communes thought it was only a matter of time before everyone joined them.
"Free love hippies on communes thought it was only a matter of time before everyone joined them."
Indeed-- though their mantra was to never trust anyone over the age of 30, the boomers couldn't help to move the age requirement as time marched on...
The caveat is that most people will participate as slaves.
Only because they live Credit Card Payment to Credit Card Payment.
Debt is a form of bondage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
NPWFTL
Regards
Kinky. And I'm pre-approved!
"...Mr Romney...isn't eager to mouth culture-warrior tropes at a time when he needs to butter up the median voter with his sensible centrist appeal."
Sure, if he actually tried a centrist appeal.
However, the last I heard he was still against the Dream Act, same sex marriages, higher taxes on the one percent, Planned Parenthood, keeping funding for Head Start and Meals on Wheels at present levels, and any number of sensible policies which the middle supports.
I think the flaw in your presentation is that you don't know where "the center" is.
Hmm, it is a matter of perception. As an ex-Republican, my notion of the center is decidedly left of the notion that R. Limbuagh and Karl Rove promote. Arguably the center has moved to the right after 9/11 and the Bush regime, but I suppose some of us still pine for a center as it existed in the mid-90s, which also differed from centers from other periods. I think you've opened Pandora's Box.
Yes, I too wish the era of big government was over. Darn Obama.
Romney has come out in favor of gay couples adopting children. Pretty much the only difference between Romney and Obama now on the issue is the word "marriage."
-
In other news, Fox News is acting very gay-friendly. Their usual partisan right-wing Republicans are pretty upbeat about Obama's evolution.
And jointly filing taxes. And all the benefits that entails. According to the United States General Accounting Office, as of 2003 there are 1138 federal benefits that are dependent on marital status.
src: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
So the language may be close, but there's a great deal of difference between the two positions.
If Obama for changing that? Didn't he say it should be a state's issue which is exactly Romney's position.
I see gay marriage as a unique case because advocates and opponents aren't really talking about the same thing when they say "marriage." To opponents procreative intent is a necessary precondition to marriage. By itself, it's not at all discriminatory. BTW, the Catholic Church will not marry the impotent either. So really what I and many but not all opponents are saying is that we agree that homosexuals should be allowed to do what they are advocating for but what they're advocating for is not marriage.
Contrast with interracial marriage where opposition was on the grounds that it's immoral or harmful, not impossible for a non-discriminatory reason.
Fine distinction RR.I could support that intelligent twist if I cared about marriage at all, which as you probably suspect has not been the case for many years now.
"BTW, the Catholic Church will not marry the impotent either."
The above statement is not correct.
Canon 1084.3 Without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.
Canon 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.
As long as both are aware of the sterility (or both completely unaware), the couple can marry.
Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
You need not actually procreate but you gotta be able to at least do the deed.
You seem to be confusing "reasons I oppose gay marriage" with "reasons all opponents everywhere oppose gay marriage". It's wrong and just a bit arrogant to attribute your own motives to a fairly large and diverse group. I'm also not sure why you believe that refusing to allow a sterile couple to marry is anything but discriminatory. It may be a religious institution's perogative to discriminate in such a manner, but not the government's, and they're the ones that make marriages legal.
Also, of those who do cite lack of procreative abilities as reason to obstruct a marriage, I have in fact seen them treat such marriages as immoral behaviour by the couple and harmful to the human race in general because it will not lead to the all-important baby making.
(Oh and just for the record, two sides of an argument not quite agreeing over the meaning of a term is far from unique and probably as old as argument itself.)
I specifically said, "what I and many but not all opponents are saying..."
Both opponents and proponents of interracial marriage agreed on what marriage is. Opponents and proponents of DADT agreed on what military service is. They disagreed on whether it's desirable. What I'm saying is that even if gay marriage is desirable, it's impossible. And not only is it impossible, but it's impossible for an entirely non-discriminatory reason. It's impossible like non-consensual marriage is impossible.
The Catholic Church will marry couples where the woman is past menopause. There will be no children from those marriages. In any case, I've been to a few gay weddings, including the one between my brother and my brother-in-law (took place in DC about 5 months after legalization). My brother's wedding used a judge, the other I went to used another civil official. No one is asking the Catholic Church to marry them. BTW, a few of the gay couples at the wedding, had their children with them. Not just the lesbians. So, clearly, they found a way around the non-procreation issue (they hadn't adopted).
Marriage is a civil contract in the US. The fact that there are actually religious ceremonies that go along with it in some cases is entirely beside the point - and people need to get over it. The marriage license is issued by the government, not the religious authority. And allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't stop heterosexuals from marrying and procreating, or not marrying and procreating, or marrying and not procreating, or not marrying and not procreating, or, quite frankly, doing anything they damn well please. The problems with heterosexuals' marriages in the US have been caused by, well, heterosexuals. The fact that they take marriage so lightly and are lousy parents is their own damn fault.
Marriage isn't merely a contract as evidenced by the fact that you can't privately contract to get married. It requires public recognition. It's a public act with public benefits and obligations. As such, it's parameters are determined by the people. I'm all for private same-sex contracts as far as they go.
The special recognition we give procreative marriage is impacted by gay marriage. You can argue that it shouldn't receive special treatment. In that case, the solution is to abolish all civil marriages, homosexual and heterosexual.
Private contracts don't work. That became obvious when it was tried, in NJ and one of the partners in the contract became ill. When his partner tried to make medical decisions for him, he was blocked from doing so by the parents of his ill partner, who got a court to declare the contract null and void because, guess what, they weren't married. Please, let's stop pretending this is all about the children. "As far as they go" for private contracts is absolutely nowhere.
I've never wanted to get married, but I respect it as an institution, more than many of my friends who have gotten married. And procreation has nothing to do with it. Most of my friends who have married have never had children - and all of them are straight. Perhaps they should all get divorced because clearly, in your mind, they are somehow impacting your marriage. Oh, yeah, two of the couples were married in the Catholic Church and I know that at least one of them went into it knowing for a fact that they were never going to have children because my friend wanted them and her husband (the Catholic) absolutely did not and she gave up her hopes of having children to marry him. It's all a load of crap.
You're the one who called it just a contract!
"And procreation has nothing to do with it."
That's a very dogmatic statement. I don't subscribe to your religious beliefs though.
Your Catholic friends who got married without procreative intent have grounds for annulment.
It's still a contract. It's simply a marriage contract. It allows the spouse, not the parents, to make medical decisions, among other things - and it is the civil authorities, not the religious authorities, that issue it. Ask Terri Schiavo's parents. It also doesn't require you to have children, no matter what the Catholic Church says, and no matter what benefits the government may give you for having them. BTW, don't you get to take the tax credit for kids even if you aren't married?
People who get married with procreative intent - and have children - also have grounds for annulment, if the Catholic Church likes them enough.
What's really going on is the issue of equal protection under the law. But, if you don't really think a certain group of people are equal, well, it doesn't really matter. And religious beliefs do tend to get in the way of that. And I grew up Catholic, so I understand the Catholic Church fairly well. The pagentry is lovely. The rest of it I can do without, but you are welcome to it...but your religious beliefs shouldn't impact whether someone else can have a marriage contract recognized by the civil authorities. Nobody is asking the Catholic Church to perform the ceremony.
I stand corrected. You have to "at least do the deed", however, the ability to "procreate" (because of sterility) is not a requirement as long as the intended spouse is aware before marriage.
CORRECTION
I stand corrected. You have to "at least do the deed", however, the ability to "procreate" (because of sterility) is not a requirement as long as the intended spouse is aware (or both unaware) before marriage.
"in advanced liberal democracies, social change goes almost all one way: from right to left."
The tendency I see is from inequality to equality to reverse inequality to a pull back to equality. I'm for stopping at equality. The left wants affirmative action.
I don't think anyone has proposed affirmative action based on sexual orientation. The position of equality would seem to be somewhere left of the president's - actual recognition of same-sex marriage in all states.
The president is still evolving.
Fair nuff.
If I recall, Nixon was the one who brought us racial quotas...
"I don't think anyone has proposed affirmative action based on sexual orientation. "
That´s an idea! The way people are, you would have millions suddenly becoming gay in order to collect whatever benefit they could.
Was that part of his Southern Strategy?
I'm not sure what affirmative action means in terms of marriage, but I don't like the sound of it.
Well if it has anything to do with supermodels having to date nerds, I'm all for it.
What about tough guys gone to seed?