Finally -- catching up with myself. It's mostly about marriage, still, which is a good thing. Do you think maybe the defeat in California woke us up a little bit? First, a reality check, via Andrew Sullivan:
Well, some of us. There are others who still have their heads off in some alternative universe. Dale Carpenter, for example. It's hard to know what part of his post to start with -- it's pretty incoherent:
But when you enter the political fray, you are not exempt from public criticism and protest just because you are a religion or have religious reasons for your advocacy. It's not anti-religious bigotry to call attention, loudly and angrily, to what you have done. . . .
Nevertheless, I am uncomfortable with pickets directed at specific places of worship like the Mormon church in Los Angeles. It's too easy for such protests to degenerate into the kinds of ugly religious intolerance this country has long endured. Mormons, in particular, have historically suffered rank prejudice and even violence. Epithets and taunts directed at individuals are especially abhorrent. Individual Mormons (and blacks and others) bravely and publicly opposed Prop 8. Even those who supported Prop 8 are not all anti-gay bigots, though I saw plenty of anti-gay bigotry when I was in California last week. As I've repeatedly argued, there are genuine concerns about making a change like this to an important social institution. Those concerns are misplaced and overwrought, but they are not necessarily bigoted.
There's a certain unreality to these statement: Yes, Mormons have the right to express their views and work for such a campaign. No, they're not beyond criticism for doing it. But we shouldn't criticize them because that looks like religious bigotry, even though they should be held accountable for their own religious bigotry. Oops -- that last part was mine. It's interesting that Carpenter nowhere addresses the religious bigotry that was the foundation of Proposition 8 and the campaign of lies that led to its victory.
His solution: good ol' sixties style sit-ins -- at government offices. Did he notice that members of the state government of California were among the most visible supporters of No on 8? Did he notice that the whole Yes on 8 campaign was organized and funded by religious bigots? The same ones who are now claiming that their religious freedom is being violated by being held accountable for their actions? (And on that score, see these comments by a reader of Andrew Sullivan.)
It seems that Carpenter is talking out of both sides of his mouth here, and that's not what we need right now: we need people with his kind of visibility and acumen to call it what it is, not pretend it doesn't exist.
Someone like Andrew Sullivan, for example. He's been an advocate for same-sex marriage from way back, but sometimes he just doesn't seem to get it. Take this, for example. Now, Michael Medved, in spite of Sullivan's spin, is not advocating for full civil equality for gay couples, and it's strange to me that Sullivan, who otherwise has revealed himself to understand very well why marriage, including the word itself, is the key practical and symbolic issue in gay civil rights, can miss what's going on here.
But not the M-word. A key member of the religious right backs civil unions containing all the rights - federal and state - that apply to civil marriages. So if the far right now favors comprehensive civil unions at the state and federal level, why won't Obama propose a federal civil unions bill? Or will the Human Rights Campaign try to dissuade him?
If you read Medved's post, which is basically quoting Elton John being contrary, it's painfully obvious that Medved doesn't back "full civil equality" for gay couples.
And yet Sullivan seems to be able to grasp the philosophical basis for the conflicts, he just can't seem to find the bridge between that and the everyday world. Perhaps it's just that he's too willing to let the logically challenged, such as Ramesh Ponnuru, frame the questions.
Some Republicans believe that their reputation for intolerance is costing the party the votes of the next generation of Americans. But that argument got harder to make when California, one of the most liberal states in the country, passed a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage.
But the next generation of Californians, even after the dreadful No on 8 campaign, still favored marriage equality by huge margins. Ramesh may be right that gay-bashing can still produce some small gains for the GOP (although in most states, it cannot be banned any more than it has been), but California sure didn't disprove the generational argument.
That's not the basis on which I would have challenged Ponnuru: his proposition is deeply flawed, based simply on the reality of the Yes on 8 campaign, which was a Rove-style campaign from beginning to end. I mean, Sullivan's right, as far as he goes, but he doesn't go far enough. And gods know, Ponnuru is an easy enough target.
The reasons for the defeat are manifold. Analyses are running rampant (here, here, and here are some good ones). I'm inclined to side with Chris Crain on it.
Change may well be coming to HRC, for no other reason but that many of its leaders are no doubt jockeying for jobs in the incoming Obama administration. (Query whether they will be embraced by the White House, given how obviously they sided with Hillary Clinton during the primaries. It's noteworthy that none of the seven out gay politicos with roles in the Obama transition team hail from HRC.)
Either way, the gay rights movement is moving on with a retooled HRC or without it. The question is whether the D.C.-based gay groups want to remain relevant to the constituents and the movement they claim to lead.
I still remember vividly opening my e-mail on November 5 and seeing a glowing report from Joe Salmonese on our "victory" on November 4. I think if I hadn't been over HRC for years already, that would have finished it. Can you say "Out of touch"?
Crain is absolutely correct on this, as far as I'm concerned: every gain we have made on this issue has been in spite of the national leadership. Maybe it's just that it's too real for them, but one thing is becoming painfully obvious: they're now part of the problem.
And speaking of people who are now part of the problem, I hate to say I told you so, but get a load of this:
President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.
This is one of those times I really hate to be right, and I wish my cynicism about politicians were a little bit less grounded in reality. Brian Doherty points to some other realities:
It has been an extraordinary decade of progress in public acceptance of gays, with gay marriage, for example, going from a Falwellian horror fantasy to gin up donations for halting American moral decay to something courts are willing to grant as a right, and the voting public can get close to supporting when asked. And as the article mentions, "Today, gay activists cite national polls that show public sentiment, unlike in 1993, support removing the ban." See one such poll here, from early 2007, with 55 percent support for open gay service in the military.
The last figure I saw said 70% support repealing DADT. How close to consensus to we need to come? Andrew Sullivan cites 75%, as well as some other concerns on Obama's commitment to equal rights for gays:
Two major Clinton hacks are among the transition team - Fred Hochberg, perhaps the central pillar of the Human Rights Campaign and Clintonite dead-ender, and Roberta Achtenberg, formerly at HUD. The legacy of these people was DOMA, a doubling of the rate of discharges of gay servicemembers, and the perpetuation of the irrelevant Human Rights Campaign. Appointing people like these Clinton retreads and establishment Dems is of a piece with pushing DADT repeal back years.
Let us review the politics of this: the most recent poll shows 75 percent of the American public favors lifting the ban, including 64 percent of Republicans. But Obama cannot go there until 2010. It's sooo controversial. I understand the need not to repeat Clinton's errors, especially at the very beginning of an administration. Delaying and consulting is fine. But the way in which gay servicemembers, risking their lives for their country as we speak, are still regarded as radioactive in the Democratic establishment, enabled by the internalized homophobia of the Human Rights Campaign, is appalling.
Is this change I can believe in? Is this change at all?
Digby has a post that throws the whole issue into a wider perspective, addressing the "center-right" mantra, of which Obama's probable course on civil rights is simply one facet:
This is an article of faith among the political establishment. In fact, it's one of the greatest successes of the conservative movement to persuade these villagers that Democratic presidents are doomed to failure before they even begin.
So, this "center-right" trope is just their way of preserving their belief system in the face of a repudiation by the people. It's not a problem in and of itself, except to those of us who actually identify as liberals and progressives and feel that it's useful to take political credit for policies that actually help humans. The problem is that Democrats take them seriously.
Well, this dessert will wipe that taste out of my mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment