The Case For .. Whatever.

It has been almost 1.5 years since I got angry over an editorial at the National Review Online about the "Future of Marriage." In case you haven't read that piece, let's just say that that "future" didn't have much room for gay couples. And in case you haven't read my reaction, let's just say it was not peaceful.

This month, the editors have gifted us with another think piece on gay marriage, this one titled "The Case for Marriage." And while my insides were boiling while reading it, after thinking about it a little, I was overcome by a gratifying sense that it illustrates that we're winning. Consider the fact that the NRO feels compelled to make the case in the first place. It shouldn't be surprising, of course - they are making the case for a position they held for a long time. And yet, it feels like an act of desperation: they are trying, yet again, before it's too late, before the events around them render them completely obsolete, to say their piece. Of course, that is my interpretation, but check this out: In their article from April 2009, they start out by saying:

"Contrary to common perception, however, the public is not becoming markedly more favorable toward same-sex marriage. Support for same-sex marriage rose during the 1990s but seems to have frozen in place (at least according to Gallup) since the high court of Massachusetts invented a right to same-sex marriage earlier this decade."

In today's editorial, we read this:

"If it is true, as we are constantly told, that American law will soon redefine marriage to accommodate same-sex partnerships, the proximate cause for this development will not be that public opinion favors it, although it appears to be moving in that direction."

Nice shift. Here's what happened during the time between the two articles:

- Federal judge in California declares Prop 8 unconstitutional

- CNN poll finds that 52% of Americans are in favor of gay marriage

- AP poll finds that 52% of Americans are in favor of gay marriage

Clearly, the NRO is on the defensive here, and oh how good it feels:

"It may be that the conventional wisdom is correct, and legal recognition of same-sex marriage really is our inevitable future. Perhaps it will even become an unquestioned policy and all who resisted it will be universally seen as bigots. We doubt it, but cannot exclude the possibility. If our understanding of marriage changes in this way, so much the worse for the future."

Gay Marriage & Logic, continued.

A while back I wrote about the futility of arguing with gay marriage opponents because their "arguments" are not based on logic or anything remotely related to argumentation but are instead disingenuous excuses or covers for a purely emotional pre-disposition.  At the time, this was inspired by an NRO editorial "arguing" against gay marriage.

Yesterday, Jonathan Chait at the New Republic posted an article that expands on this theme brilliantly, also mentioning the NRO editorial:

Dismissing the argument that marriage might foster more stable gay relationships, the magazine's editors replied curtly, "[T]hese do not strike us as important governmental goals." There's a word for social policy that disregards the welfare of one class of citizens: discrimination.

Some hard-core conservatives are willing to openly discriminate like this, but most people aren't, which is why public opinion is warming to gay marriage. Most opposition arises from simple discomfort. When I first started hearing about gay marriage, I didn't oppose it, but it seemed sort of strange and radical--and only after several years did I realize I supported it.

The line "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" is an expression of that sensibility--a reflection of unease rather than principle. As people face up to the fact that opposing gay marriage means disregarding the happiness of the people most directly (or even solely) affected by it, most of us come around. Good ideas don't always defeat bad ideas, but they usually, over time, defeat non-ideas.

The World Is Flat.

That the passage of gay marriage in Iowa and Vermont would produce a response from the conservatives was not a surprise at all.  Nor was its utter head-in-the-sand ridiculousness.  The NRO editorial on the subject is a beautiful case in point.  

Why people even feel the need to respond to it employing the tools of reasoning and logic, however, is a mystery to me.  Sullivan and Anonymous Liberal are the cases in point.  They both make very solid logical points that are, well, in a deep sense pointless (borrowing from the illustrious language of NRO).  For to me, arguing with the essence of the NRO article, is like arguing with the someone who believes that the world is flat.  Not because I think that my position is superior and right (and I do), but because someone who believes the arguments assertions in the NRO piece, will not care what enlightened logical arguments you have to offer and will never change their mind.  The only thing that a sane person can do is laugh and update their Facebook profile with funny excerpts.  

One point I would like to advance, however, has less to do with the arguments in the article and more to do with its title and the way it contradicts the very essence of the conservative view.  The title The Future of Marriage, suggests that marriage is something that has a past, a present and a future; in other words, that it is something that evolves.  The very fact that the article defends the currently prevailing legal construct of marriage as the right one, suggests that marriage is fluid and certainly not "by nature the union of a man and a woman."  

A few more bon mots:  

One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals.

Same-sex couples will also receive the symbolic affirmation of being treated by the state as equivalent to a traditional married couple — but this spurious equality is a cost of the new laws, not a benefit.

So too is the governmental recognition of same-sex sexual relationships, committed or otherwise, in a deep sense pointless.

In fact, the more I read and think about it, the more I feel like argumentation is futile not because the points advanced by the NRO don't even meet the basic requirements for argumentation, but rather because they are disingenuous.  This is not about what marriage is and isn't supposed to be, this isn't about kids, this isn't about what is natural and what is right.  Actually, this isn't about marriage, kids, or laws at all.  Instead, encoded in these paragraphs of garbage are the following clear messages:  YOUR COMMITMENT IS NOT IMPORTANT, YOUR EQUALITY IS A COST and YOUR RELATIONSHIPS ARE POINTLESS.

FINALLY, after all these years, it is clear to me that these faux arguments are are nothing more than a wordy veil around a simple singular emotion: WE HATE YOU.

And good luck arguing with that.

On a Roll ..

Vermont done and DC says ME TOO!  

And the world, shockingly, hasn't come to an end.

Some Legal Opinions Are Fun To Read in Full

Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time. The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” and equality.

Thank you, Supreme Court of Iowa.

Change.

I just got an email from the big brother, I mean, change.gov, and I urge you to read it and act accordingly.

Hello Alexander,

We wanted to let you know that the first round of voting for the Ideas for Change in America competition will end this Wednesday, December 31 at midnight Pacific Time.

The idea you have voted for, "Equal Immigration Rights for same sex binational couples," is currently in 2nd place in the Immigration category. The top three ideas from each category will make it into the final round, so if this idea remains in 2nd place, it will qualify.

We expect a lot of last-minute voting, so you may want to consider making a final push on behalf of this idea to ensure it remains in the top three. The easiest way to increase the number of votes for this idea before the deadline is to email the following link to friends and encourage them to vote:

www.change.org/ideas/view/equal_immigration_rights_for_same_sex_binational_couples

You may also want to try posting the link on Facebook or any blog you may write.

If you have any questions, please let us know. Also note that the final round of voting will begin next Monday and end just before the Presidential Inauguration in mid-January.

Best of luck!

- The Change.org Team

Thanks.

Calling In.. Whatever.

365 Gay asks "Was 'Calling in Gay' a bust?"  It is referring to Day Without a Gay which was supposed to take place yesterday.  I am saying "supposed to" because I don't know anyone who took it seriously.  It could be that people aren't willing to put their jobs on the line because unemployment is already spreading around like a virus.  However, it got some coverage in the media which by itself is not bad.  This interview, for example, is kind of cute.

Follow Ups.

It's turning out to be a rich day on a variety of fronts, for many issues that I have written about in the past, so why not simply round it all up in one post?

Immigration:  How timely that there is a new study out from NCPA about the $52 trillion in government program liabilities from Medicare and Social Security.  Their conclusion?  "Social Security and Medicare can be reformed so that each worker saves and invests funds for his own post-retirement pension and health care benefits. The burden for the current generation of workers would be substantial: saving for their own benefits while at the same time paying taxes to fund the benefits of current retirees. However, over time Social Security and Medicare would be transformed from pay-as-you-go programs in which each generation is dependent on the next generation of workers/taxpayers into funded programs in which each generation pays its own way."  Or, as I suggested, you could also expand the pool of young bright attractive (kidding) workers by importing them.  

Gay right and useless NY democrats:  Via JMG, we're hearing that we will be, after all, shafted by the Democrats in NY state senate.  "And thus ends our hope for marriage equality in New York in the near future. In 2010 there will be a redistricting in New York state, a process that the Democrats will at least now be able to control. Therein may lie our hope for marriage equality in 2011."  Really, no comment at all except to say that I pray every night for the Republicans to magically transform into a decent party and kill the Democrats in the next election.  

Healthcare: Ezra Klein and Andrew Sullivan have spent the last 2 days exchanging jabs on the topic, and it's delightfully full of clashes: progressive vs libertarian, personal vs theoretical, American vs British.  One of the ironies in the exchange is that Klein, an American, defends the UK system of healthcare, while Sullivan, a Brit, likes it Americana style.  It started with this post by Klein about rationing, and it quickly got personal when Sullivan responded: "I prefer freedom and the market to rationalism and the collective. That's why I live here."  Klein comes back saying the Brits are more satisfied with their system than Americans are with theirs, ergo it must be better, to which Sullivan goes all metaphysical: "there is a cultural aspect here - Brits simply believe suffering is an important part of life, especially through ill health. Going to the doctor is often viewed as a moral failure, a sign of weakness.. It was one of my first epiphanies about most Americans: they believe in demanding and expecting the best from healthcare, not enduring and surviving the worst, because it is their collective obligation. Ah, I thought. This is how free people think and act. Which, for much of the left, is, of course, the problem." Of course it doesn't stop there and it goes on and on.  The beauty is that while Klein tries to argue with data, Sullivan operates with ideology, personal anecdote and cultural relativism - and yet Klein continues to humor him - with reason and data - for which he deserves some props.

Veganism:  OK that one has been completely neglected here for a long time, but there's a nice article over at the American Prospect about the environmental benefits of eating less meat - and the unpalatability of the argument: "Why are environmental groups and even politicians willing to tell Americans to drive smaller cars or take the bus to work but unwilling to tell them to eat less meat?" 

Argument for Federal Marriage Equality Legislation..

.. if anyone ever needed one:

"Three-quarters of U.S. adults (75%) favor either marriage or domestic partnerships/civil unions for gay and lesbian couples."

That's it, done.  Thanks GLAAD.

Politicalism.

Via Sullivan, an interesting quote from James Richardson, the RNC online communications manager:

My support for gay adoption will surely be met with hostility and, no doubt, charges of RHINO’ism by many of my colleagues, but the Grand Old Party is at a crossroads and now is not the time for an echo chamber. Homosexual demagoguery is not the answer to the Party’s woes, particularly when gay men and women represent the only demographic in which John McCain bested President Bush (27% to 19% based on exit polling). And as Daniel Blatt notes, gay-hostile rhetoric no longer resonates in suburban areas with soccer moms, many of whom have gay friends or family members, and plays even worse with young voters, 61% of which voted against stripping gay couples of the right to marry.

I have a strategic idea for the Republican Party, as they are soul searching right now, trying to figure out a new direction for the Party in the new millenium: go gay.  And I don't mean literally, of course, I mean: make gay rights one of your top priorities.  

Weird, I know.  The reality is that the party needs a game changer and it needs it fast.  Given current demographic trends (eg, old conservative people are.. um.. dying), if the party stays on the same path, it could completely implode.  They need to pick an issue to completely redefine the landscape.  Remember how the party came to prominence over anti-slavery?  

Could gay be the new black?

OR could someone else come in and fill the void?  Why isn't someone - I don't know, the libertarians maybe - thinking about this?  Remember that there used to be another party before Republicans?  Couldn't fiscal conservatism combined with social liberalism be the unbeatable force of the new millenium?

Yes, Backlash.

This rhetoric from Andrew Sullivan is starting to piss me off.  First, after Prop 8 passed, he said it was a small loss we need to accept on our way towards winning a greater war.  He said we shouldn't be angry about Prop 8; with time and education, a majority will emerge that will institute gay marriage.  He said, we shouldn't oppose it in courts because that would be somehow illegitimate (even though Prop 8 is precisely the kind of issue that the supreme court is meant to address in the US construct of constitutional democracy).  Then, he saw the wave of protests that ensued and finally embraced that as a creative force, something that will propel us towards equal rights.  To those us who don't live in California, that entailed a greater sense of urgency to address equal rights in our own respective corners of the US as well as on the Federal level - hence the anger over what appear to be sign of the exact opposite effect in the NY state legislature, which I wrote about the previous entry.  But Mr. Sullivan tells us not to worry.  Backlash against gay marriage, he says, has inspired its own backlash in its defense.  The implication seems to be that letting NY go is also a good thing, because it is a small loss in a greater war.  However, as he is complacently watching our hopes slip, I have to ask: when do small losses start adding up to a momentum that becomes too hard to stop?  At what point does political strategism suffocate the goodwill of those minorities that seek equal rights?  Exactly how many poster children of oppression do we need?  

Mr. Sullivan says "Winning illegitimately or prematurely could be worse."  I am confused: since when is legislation by simple majority of the populace the only legitimate way to pass a law?  What exactly is the legislature for?  And premature by what measure and whose judgement?  He concludes by saying "It is the fitful, messy process of moving forward in a democracy where everybody gets a say. I'd rather lose and live in such a democracy than win by violating it."  Makes sense, but I hate to inform him that to live in such a democracy, he needs to do one simple thing: move.  The US is a constitutional democracy, not a direct democracy.  

Can NY Dems Ever Grow Some Balls?

“I think the California proposition and the recognition that entities with large amounts of money who oppose same-sex marriage have decided to be large players in this have a lot of people going back to the drawing board.”

Wait, really?  I do not know if I should be pissed off by the logic of dropping a gay rights issue because of large amounts of money behind groups opposing it, or give the Senator props for her blunt honesty.  I can appreciate the tension between policy and politics but I fail to understand why in two years reelection will no longer be a concern?  Can the Democrats ever grow some balls and pass the legislation as fast as possible - not despite the reelection risks, but exactly because of them?  The sooner they do it, the more time will pass - and passage of time is a good thing when it comes to gay marriage, as its opponents are no longer able to exploit the threat of the unknown and the issue becomes dull.  On the contrary, postponing the vote promises to both keep the issue controversial during the next election and lose at least some of the democrats the gay vote.  

Hope.

If I had a few million dollars to spare I would put this on every TV network in America.  Where can we find a gay T Boone Pickens?

Back 2 Court.

Good news from the Golden State: the Supreme Court will hear the legal challenges to Prop 8.  Unlike Sullivan, I think this is important.  Not only does it sound intuitively wrong to me that a simple majority should be able to take a vote on the issue of the rights of a minority group.  It is also a legitimate constitutional issue and a matter that is at the core of the American form of democracy.  Those who claim that issues like this should not be decided by the courts ignore the fact that this is precisely the point of a constitutional democracy: to have a framework and mechanisms in place to ensure that certain fundamental principles are maintained no matter what the majority thinks.    

I just hope that this does not deflate the movement that has formed since the passage of Prop 8 or diminish the urgency of having Federal marriage equality legislature passed. Speaking of which, see here for the Queerty guide to Obama's gay rights agenda. 

It Could Be Worse.

At least we're not Ukraine.  

"Only 15% of the population are supportive of the existence of gay couples."

Existence.  

What Now?

For those interested in knowing what to now that Join the Impact has come and gone, here's what:

1. From the creators of Join the Impact comes Day Without A Gay.  Call in gay on Dec 10th!

2. From the screenwriter of Milk, Dustin Lance Black, and one of Harvey Milk's friends, Cleve Jones, comes the 7 weeks to equality campaign: "We call on all supporters of equality to sustain and intensify the nationwide campaign of mass protests and non-violent civil disobedience, for seven weeks, starting on November 27, 2008, the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination of Harvey Milk, and to then gather together in mass, from all corners of our country, in Washington, DC on the morning of Tuesday, January 20, 2009, to honor the inauguration of our President, Barack Obama."  What I particularly like about their initiative is the redirection of efforts towards the Federal government, as opposed to piecemeal state-by-state approaches.

I will keep me eye out for other campaigns, initiatives and protests.

Join The Impact NYC Protest

Just had to lead off with a flag picture, like I did last time.  After a stormy morning, the sky opened up just in time for a gay protest.  Go figure.

The whole set is here. 

More Savage, Better and Sharper Than Ever.

CNN surprisingly pulled in Dan Savage for tonight's debate on Larry King Live moderated by Joy Behar and he kicked some serious bigoted ass: Rev. Harry Jackson and Rev. Jim Garlow.  On his side they also had San Fran major Newsom.  They originally advertised Cynthia Nixon who ended up being included via a pre-recorded interview (and was so eloquent and charming, btw, it made miss Sex and the City for a quick second) so I'm guessing Savage was a replacement for her.  But, oh, did he do good.  Unlike in his previous CNN appearance, he was more collected and sharper.  

After 40 minutes of back and forth, it was clear that there is no argument that the proponents of Prop 8 can bring that is not easily refutable (sanctity of marriage; tradition; majority rule); what is more complicated, even for Dan, is responding to the accusations of hostile behavior and rhetoric by the gay demonstrators towards members of that church and black people.  Faced with a logical refutal of the non-sensical arguments, anti-marriage folks are quick to point that out.  This is troubling and there has to be some sort of response to set the record straight.  HRC or LAMBDA or some other well funded organization should launch a nationwide campaign to clarify that this isn't an issue of race and it isn't an issue of religion.  It's an issue of basic human decency and that is not a zero sum game.

NYT, Where's the Love?

After the protest on Wednesday it felt like we were making history when on a random weeknight several thousand people (anywhere between 4,000 and 10,000, it seems) gathered and marched down Broadway from the Mormon temple by Lincoln Center to Columbus Circle.  It seemed big enough to get some sort of mention in the New York Times, so last night I looked through the print edition of the paper to find nothing.  What gives, NYT?  Don't feel the need to cover the protest of a big portion of your readership that is making national headlines elsewhere?

Shoutout to CNN, which has been dedicating some serious airtime to the issue (on AC360, among others).  Tonight at 9pm, Larry King Live is fully dedicated to a same-sex marriage debate: "Same-sex marriage! Voters in California banned it -- now the backlash! Joy Behar, Cynthia Nixon, Pete Wentz, Mayor Gavin Newsom, Rev. Jim Garlow and others debate the pros, the cons, and what happens next in the fight over Proposition 8!"  

In case you don't know who Jim Garlow is and the "Rev." isn't clue enough (I was secretly hoping it's some excommunicated Reverend, but no such luck):

"We’re watching California and the vote on marriage. Because if you fail there to stop it, if you fail to stop it, what will be unleashed across the world will be a spirit worse than radical Islam."

Will Joy, Cynthia and Pete tear him to shreds first, or just eat him alive?

Savages Everywhere.

Can't not point out that the world has seemingly exploded with Dan Savage, which is awesome.  The guy is hard at work speaking out for our rights.  His segment on Colbert was hilarious, which isn't always the outcome no matter how good and witty an interviewee you are, given Colbert's slippery slope of ironic sarcasm.  The appearance on AC360 side-by-side with Tony Perkins, the personification of everything that is wrong with the Christian church, was much more heated and I felt aweful for him.  A funny post about those 2 appearances here.  Then there was his piece yesterday in the Times and his appearance at the protest last night.  Finally, a great post yesterday explaining why it took us until after Prop 8 was approved to get all riled up.  Props to Dan!