Via Sullivan, another
first-person account on marriage.
The Federalist Society has posted a
"Debate on Same-Sex Marriage" that turns out not to be much of a debate. Arguing in favor are Andrew Koppelman and Dale Carpenter (natch), against Robert Nagel and Amy Wax, neither of whom I find terribly persuasive.
Nagel's argument seems to hinge not on the rightness or wrongness of legalizing same-sex marriage, but on the mechanics -- who is going to do the honors?
Tocqueville’s “singular principle of relative justice,” however, can have special problems when applied by a court. If publically accountable institutions had extended the rights afforded homosexuals to include the designation “marriage,” the dignity and respect that goes with that term might have been convincingly bestowed. But dignity and respect are not necessarily bestowed by judicial decree. Indeed, now that a court has required that homosexual couples be included within the circle of marriage, such couples may feel increased sensitivity to any remaining signs—including signs less overt than the possible passage of a proposed amendment prohibiting gay marriage-- that many Americans do not view homosexual marriages as being worthy of as much respect as traditional marriages. If so, this remaining hurt will seem even more intolerable than older inequalities.My real problem here is two-fold: first, the flaw inherent in much of the arguments from both sides is simply that neither the courts nor the legislatures are "extending" or "granting" a right -- they are confirming a right that is intrinsic. Second, Nagel's contention that somehow confirmation by the legislature is going to automatically grant validity to same-sex marriage is chancy: he is right that social acceptance will probably incline the courts to extend the boundaries of what is necessary, but extending those boundaries by legislation is not going to make an appreciable difference in social acceptance. Forty-odd years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we are still battling racism in America. I don't see that
Brown vs. Board of Education held anyone back -- in fact, it provided the impetus for the civil rights movement of the '60s.
Amy Wax loses any credibility in her first few sentences:
Here are a number of concerns with legalizing same sex marriage.
First, whether we like it or not, a big part of the gay agenda for decades has been to repudiate what are regarded as overly restrictive expectations of monogamy and sexual fidelity.She has no basis here. None. She has, however, managed to combine a red herring and a straw man in new and interesting ways.
One of Andrew Sullivan's readers provides
this insight:
She worries that gays will destroy marriage by bringing a lack of sexual monogamy to it. How can you accuse a group of not practicing monogamy while arguing against giving them the legal right to enter into life long, monogamous unions? Once marriage is on the table, monogamy becomes the goal.
Sure, we'll enjoy sleeping around just as much as any other male in their twenties, but every gay male I know of my generation seems to be in a constant search for someone he can move to the suburbs and raise a family with. Unfortunately, Wax's specious contentions dominate much of the discussion. Carpenter and Koppelman take way too long to call her on the bullshit; when they finally do, she has nothing left.
From Good As You,
a report on a poll that I find encouraging: the majority of
Californians against Proposition 8 is holding pretty steady.
And then, of course, there's the
Manhunt brouhaha.
This OpEd by James Kirchik seems to be the center point of this.
Frankly (and I urge you to read Kirchik's piece), the OpEd is no better than I would expect from Kirchik, beginning with what I think is a misrepresentation of the issue: a donation to John McCain is not a donation to a "Republican" -- it is a donation to the campaign of someone who has been consistently against equal treatment for gays throughout his public life. Why should anyone put money in Crutchley's pocket if it's going to serve the interests of people who want us treated as less than full participants in this society? and why shouldn't that be an issue for those of us who, for example, do not have the option of leaving the country if we're not getting what we think we're due?
To say that I find Kirchik's reasoning less than persuasive is understating things. He does have his supporters, most notably Chris Crain, who has done a series of posts on the controversy (
here,
here,
here, and
here). As you might guess, I don't particularly agree with Crain -- I think Kirchik's essay is shallow and really nothing more than a propaganda piece, and I think Crain has a tendency (particularly now that Hillary-bashing is so early 2008) to bash the gay community when it doesn't fall into line with his own rightist tendencies by typifying it as "leftist" and "activist." (It's the conjuction that's important here, I suspect -- the only rightist activists are those that no one wants to be associated with.)
Backing off a little bit, let me make some observations: Of course the gay community at large is going to tend to support Democrats. In spite of their failings, they have been consistently pro-gay, if not always as much as we would like. Frankly, in a contest in which one candidate (McCain) offers nothing but a continuation of policies that have been uniformly disastrous for the country at large, why shouldn't a candidate's stand on gay issues be a factor? It's not, as far as I can see for most of us, the single overriding factor at all. For Kirchik and Crain to damn the community because of the actions of activists is patently silly: they're activists, for Christ's sake -- what does anyone expect from them?
Now, Crutchely may sincerely believe that McCain offers the potential for the best leadership in this "dangerous time." I think Crutchley is seriously deluded, but hey, it's his nickel. By the same token, I'm not going to put money in the pocket of someone who's going to turn around and give it to a candidate whose stated policies I disagree with in toto, and I'm going to urge my friends and acquaintances to follow my lead. I don't think that constitutes a "witchhunt."
And can I mention the fact that casting it as a witchhunt is highly prejudicial? But somehow I suspect that was the intent. (See above under "bashing the gay community.")
To be quite honest, I can't say that I'm surprised to see this response from gay "conservatives" (not to question their identity, but to point out that I'm not sure what that word means any more, and I'm not sure anyone does -- it seems to have entered the realm of "it means what I say it means until I change my mind"), who, as events develop, have less and less apparent justification for their political stance. (The irony here, under the category of "beware of labels, because they will turn around and bite you") is that the Democrats seem to have moved more and more into the territory once occupied by conservatives as the conservatives have abandoned everything that made them conservative to begin with.)
I may come back to this later, if I decide there's more to say. Right now, I'm sitting here staring at a bunch of CDs for review and remembering that I promised those reviews today.
Dessert today
courtesy of Queerty:
