Backbone, Marriage, and Democrats: A Ramble

Gavin Newsom, in Rolling Stone:

Not every Democrat in Washington agrees with gay marriage. But I will make the case — based on some strong evidence — that an overwhelming majority do. But they just can’t say it. And that is a limitation that is causing more damage than the issue. Because, again, it shows a weakness of character.

This is really one of the great final civil rights struggles, and again I say to my colleagues in the Democratic party: Why are you a Democrat if you can’t stand on a fundamental construct that has always distinguished our party. That we didn’t sit around. We advanced the issues of equality. We engaged the American people head on.

From Matthew Iglesias, who falls into the Democrat trap:

If I might throw in my two cents, I would further strongly urge Democrats who don't believe marriage is between a man and a woman but who feel they ought to pretend to believe this in order to win elections (a plausible position) need to do a better job of pretending. I've heard a shockingly large number of politicians say things, in rooms where journalists are present, that make it perfectly clear that they think gay marriage is just fine but that the voters aren't ready for it. That's a sensible thing to believe, but you can't go around saying it if you're trying to win votes. If you're going to lie, then lie -- and lie convincingly!

My advice to Democrats: no matter what you believe, take a position in line with the Democratic tradition of individual liberty, take it forcefully, and stick to it.

The discussion after Iglesias' post is most interesting, particularly some comments by Equal Opportunity:

On a personal note, it's also the only way I've found to reconcile my deep moral beliefs (that same-sex unions are an affront to the divinely-created institution of marriage) and my political ones (that government has no business giving my moral beliefs preference over other people's).

I wish more on the Christian Right felt that way, except that I still have problems equating morality with being against gay rights (and note that EO doesn't say he supports gay rights, just that he doesn't feel the government should be legislating his brand of morality). EO actually does note that the Christianists are using this issue for demagoguery, but perhaps in not strong enough terms. The exchange following his post is interesting (although for some reason, I don't seem to find the all reflexive Bush-hating and people-of-faith bashing that all the conservative pundits tell me must be there).

Note also this comment by jhaber:

I have a big problem with Matt's approach, quite aside from the immorality of lying, the likelihood of getting caught, or the need to run on principle. It accepts the framing of electability around "values" and of "values" around a rigid worldview most Americans don't really hold. Then it struggles to win by convincing voters that you, too, are rigid.

Which is close to my own position.

And, as these sorts of posts tend to take on a life of their own as I surf a little further, some comments from GayPatriotWest:

Gay marriage advocates could do a better job of taking on opponents of gay marriage if they made clear that they recognized monogamy as an essential aspect of marriage for same- as well as different-sex couples. I agree with them that gay marriage per se doesn’t threaten the institution of marriage as we have long understood it in our culture, the monogamous lifetime union of one man and one woman. But, because advocates of gay marriage have, by and large, failed to address monogamy, I do see where the social conservatives are coming from.

When pushing for gay marriage, too few of its advocates talk about standards. Without standards, gay marriage does represent a threat to traditional marriage as it creates a union that is little more than two people shacking up with the same freedom they enjoyed before they took their vows.

My first reaction, of course, is "Why should gay couples be held to a higher standard than those who oppose same-sex marriage?" Considering that some of the most high-profile opponents of gay rights, including marriage, have been divorced, are known to have had extramarital affairs, or have been caught soliciting other men for sex, why hold us up to the "monogamy/divorce" question? (And keep in mind that the divorce rate is highest among conservative Christians.)

My second question is "Why impute to us motives in wanting to get married that are not in step with everyone else's?" GayPatriotWest is simply buying into the anti-gay rhetoric that gay men are all about sex and nothing else. There is no basis for that, and never was. I think we're just a lot more honest about sex.

I think his next paragraph just supports my viewpoint:

To show that advocates are aware of the life-changing meaning of those vows, it is of paramount importance that we discuss monogamy and other standards recognized as essential to marriage (as it’s currently understood) when we advocate extending its definition to include same-sex couples. When we make clear that monogamy is an essential aspect of marriage, we show that we recognize that this sacred institution represents a deeper level of commitment than just two people shacking up.

He's putting us on the defensive from the beginning by regurgitating the right-wing talking points without question. What gay conservatives should be saying is not "we have to prove we're as good as everyone else," but "they have to prove we're not" and nail the Dobsons, Wildmons, Santorums and fellow travelers with their lies and distortions. I'm much more with Newsom and Feingold on this one.

And there, in a nutshell, is my problem with gay conservatives.

(There was another post at GayPatriot about the "continuing attacks on gay conservatives" and how you could lose a boyfriend from politics. I have a feeling there's a little bit more to it.)