Kiss Me, Stupid
After the last two Readers, I vowed not to write about anything gay or political this week. Then George Bush held a press conference and left me no choice.
Given his druthers, I’m sure the president would avoid the issue of gay marriage altogether. That was his tack last month when asked about a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriages. At that time he said, in essence, that an amendment might not be necessary. But reporters will be reporters, and one brought up the issue again during a press conference this Wednesday. Mindful of the criticism he received from conservatives when he dodged the issue last time, this time he took the bait. He was reserved, but said, “I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.” In short, the president is suggesting a preemptive strike, but for him that’s nothing unusual.
The issue of gay marriage has reared its ugly head in wake of the Supreme Court decision to strike down sodomy laws. It was Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, who suggested that legalizing one would lead to legalizing the other. Right now, cases considering the issue are before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial and a New Jersey Superior Court. When you add in the recent decision by the Canadian government to recognize gay marriages, you’ve got a swelling of homosexual panic.
One problem with this issue is that it’s impossible to approach as anything other than a religious concern. President Bush highlighted that when he commented that “I am mindful that we’re all sinners,” and went on to paraphrase the Gospel of St. Matthew, saying, “I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own.” One is reminded of Jimmy Carter’s admission of looking at women with lust and committing adultery in his heart. Bush’s intention was to be inclusive, but quite a few gays understandably prickled at the notion of being considered sinners for wanting to get married, especially since in a quarter of the states they have just stopped being criminals. Mr. Bush received support from Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, who praised him for taking a courageous stand “when the courts are conspiring with anti-family extremists to undermine our nation's most vital institution.” Get your homosexual agendas while they’re hot.
Personally, I think conservatives should be all in favor of gay marriage. What could be a better way to show support for traditional family values than by legally coupling up as many people as possible, regardless of sex? In a strictly moral sense, promiscuity, rather than homosexuality, is the greatest threat. Rather than enjoying endless bouts of indiscriminate sex, wouldn’t it be better to encourage gay couples to practice monogamy by offering them the opportunity to marry? It’s one thing for churches to debate which unions they recognize, and quite another for governments to do the same. The criteria for such decisions should be radically different.
I also find it odd that the Republican Party, which claims to stand for smaller government, should consider marriage and morality their special provenance. If there is any place to cut government, it is in its intrusion into private life. It seems to me to make sense legally, as well as morally, to endorse all marriage. Rather than suffering a slew of laws regulating both marriage and domestic partnership, wouldn’t it make sense to lump them all together and cut the red tape? It would remove the problem of domestic partnership altogether. Married couples would enjoy the benefits of their relationship, and domestic partners, whether gay or straight, would have an added incentive to marry.
No matter what laws are passed, eventually gay marriage will be legal. I’m willing to stick my neck out on this. Remember that less than 50 years ago, 16 states carried laws that made it illegal for mixed-race couples. Many of the same arguments were applied to miscegenation that are now used against homosexual unions: it was immoral, it flew in the face of natural law, it defied God’s will. Not until 1967 did the Supreme Court strike down those laws. By then, much of “reasonable” society recognized that even if it found mixed marriages distasteful, it could no longer find them illegal. (In light of this, that year’s release of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner comes across as a bit more prescient.)
Similarly, American society is running out of reasons to oppose gay unions. Children born today will have been so exposed to homosexuality by the time they come of age that the idea of outlawing gay marriage will strike them as absurd. According to a CBS/New York Times poll, 55 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage and 40 percent support it. That support is much higher than it was just ten years ago. This week, an informal survey conducted by CNN.com asked the question, “Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?” In that poll, only 32% voted yes, while 68% voted no. This was an unscientific sampling, and as such allowed multiple votes, and only reflects the views of users of the CNN online site. But it indicates what I believe is a common thread in American thought: most people don’t care what you do, as long as you keep up your lawn. I think most people are opposed to the idea of gay marriage, but they are just as opposed to the government defining what constitutes a marriage. In 20 years, many of the folks opposed to gay marriage will have died off, and many of the rest won’t understand what the fuss was all about.
At the same time, there’s no politician today who has the guts to come out in favor of gay unions. Gay marriage may be inevitable, but I can’t blame any pol who doesn’t want it to happen on his watch. While actively opposing it may be politically expedient in the short run, it all but guarantees you a place in history alongside such folks as Lester Maddox. Bush tried to straddle the issue by saying, “I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage.” I have no problem with anyone opposing gay marriage as an individual. George Bush needs to remember he is the president.
Given his druthers, I’m sure the president would avoid the issue of gay marriage altogether. That was his tack last month when asked about a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriages. At that time he said, in essence, that an amendment might not be necessary. But reporters will be reporters, and one brought up the issue again during a press conference this Wednesday. Mindful of the criticism he received from conservatives when he dodged the issue last time, this time he took the bait. He was reserved, but said, “I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.” In short, the president is suggesting a preemptive strike, but for him that’s nothing unusual.
The issue of gay marriage has reared its ugly head in wake of the Supreme Court decision to strike down sodomy laws. It was Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, who suggested that legalizing one would lead to legalizing the other. Right now, cases considering the issue are before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial and a New Jersey Superior Court. When you add in the recent decision by the Canadian government to recognize gay marriages, you’ve got a swelling of homosexual panic.
One problem with this issue is that it’s impossible to approach as anything other than a religious concern. President Bush highlighted that when he commented that “I am mindful that we’re all sinners,” and went on to paraphrase the Gospel of St. Matthew, saying, “I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own.” One is reminded of Jimmy Carter’s admission of looking at women with lust and committing adultery in his heart. Bush’s intention was to be inclusive, but quite a few gays understandably prickled at the notion of being considered sinners for wanting to get married, especially since in a quarter of the states they have just stopped being criminals. Mr. Bush received support from Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, who praised him for taking a courageous stand “when the courts are conspiring with anti-family extremists to undermine our nation's most vital institution.” Get your homosexual agendas while they’re hot.
Personally, I think conservatives should be all in favor of gay marriage. What could be a better way to show support for traditional family values than by legally coupling up as many people as possible, regardless of sex? In a strictly moral sense, promiscuity, rather than homosexuality, is the greatest threat. Rather than enjoying endless bouts of indiscriminate sex, wouldn’t it be better to encourage gay couples to practice monogamy by offering them the opportunity to marry? It’s one thing for churches to debate which unions they recognize, and quite another for governments to do the same. The criteria for such decisions should be radically different.
I also find it odd that the Republican Party, which claims to stand for smaller government, should consider marriage and morality their special provenance. If there is any place to cut government, it is in its intrusion into private life. It seems to me to make sense legally, as well as morally, to endorse all marriage. Rather than suffering a slew of laws regulating both marriage and domestic partnership, wouldn’t it make sense to lump them all together and cut the red tape? It would remove the problem of domestic partnership altogether. Married couples would enjoy the benefits of their relationship, and domestic partners, whether gay or straight, would have an added incentive to marry.
No matter what laws are passed, eventually gay marriage will be legal. I’m willing to stick my neck out on this. Remember that less than 50 years ago, 16 states carried laws that made it illegal for mixed-race couples. Many of the same arguments were applied to miscegenation that are now used against homosexual unions: it was immoral, it flew in the face of natural law, it defied God’s will. Not until 1967 did the Supreme Court strike down those laws. By then, much of “reasonable” society recognized that even if it found mixed marriages distasteful, it could no longer find them illegal. (In light of this, that year’s release of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner comes across as a bit more prescient.)
Similarly, American society is running out of reasons to oppose gay unions. Children born today will have been so exposed to homosexuality by the time they come of age that the idea of outlawing gay marriage will strike them as absurd. According to a CBS/New York Times poll, 55 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage and 40 percent support it. That support is much higher than it was just ten years ago. This week, an informal survey conducted by CNN.com asked the question, “Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?” In that poll, only 32% voted yes, while 68% voted no. This was an unscientific sampling, and as such allowed multiple votes, and only reflects the views of users of the CNN online site. But it indicates what I believe is a common thread in American thought: most people don’t care what you do, as long as you keep up your lawn. I think most people are opposed to the idea of gay marriage, but they are just as opposed to the government defining what constitutes a marriage. In 20 years, many of the folks opposed to gay marriage will have died off, and many of the rest won’t understand what the fuss was all about.
At the same time, there’s no politician today who has the guts to come out in favor of gay unions. Gay marriage may be inevitable, but I can’t blame any pol who doesn’t want it to happen on his watch. While actively opposing it may be politically expedient in the short run, it all but guarantees you a place in history alongside such folks as Lester Maddox. Bush tried to straddle the issue by saying, “I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage.” I have no problem with anyone opposing gay marriage as an individual. George Bush needs to remember he is the president.
posted by John Bliss at
9:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home