Crunchy Con

[Erin] Friendly advice to pro-gay marriage Dems

Monday November 19, 2007

Categories: Democrats

As of last week, Hillary Clinton had received the endorsement of Congress's two openly gay members, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Both members of Congress expressed the belief that despite her opposition to gay marriage, Senator Clinton had been the best supporter of gay rights:

Baldwin acknowledged at the time, however, that she and Clinton do not see eye to eye on the issue of same-sex marriage. The New York senator supports domestic partnership initiatives and civil unions, but has opposed moves that allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.

"It's not my position," Baldwin said of Clinton's stance. "I support full marriage equality. We will voice encouragement for (Clinton) to be open to changing her opinion."

Clinton's chief rivals for the Democratic nomination, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, share the front-runners (sic) opposition to same-sex marriage.


So none of the three Democratic party front-runners openly endorse gay marriage; in fact, they seem to make it clear (when someone really forces them to talk about the issue, that is) that while they support various other gay rights' initiatives ranging from the minimal to the hopelessly vague they draw the line at marriage.

Of course, I don't support gay marriage either; but if I were a gay Democrat, I'd want to know why these presidential candidates don't. More than that, I suppose, I'd want to know why the leaders in my community were rushing to support people who didn't see eye-to-eye with me on one of my most important issues.

In a sense, the way the Democrats are treating the gay-marriage supporters is almost identical to the way the Republicans have treated us pro-life Americans for years: pretend we don't exist for three and a half out of every four years (unless you're in the House, in which case you only get eighteen months of that convenient amnesia), throw a few nice-sounding speeches and token legislative gestures our way just often enough to keep us on the hook, and then spend election season trying to convince us that they're on our side, and that Things Would Get Done...once we voted them back into office, along with all their cronies, of course.

I may not support gay marriage, but even less do I support politicians being able to get away with this strategy of maximum promises, minimum efforts for the foreseeable future. So my friendly word of advice to people who are very, very far removed from me politically is: don't fall for it.


Comments
recovering ex-Pentecostal
November 20, 2007 10:27 PM

All this talk about the "right" to marry, and how that "right" isn't in the Constitution for the homos (I guess it's not in there for str8s then either, eh?), but what about the FREEDOM to marry? What about the right to the pursuit of happiness? Are those gone too now?

Cleveland
November 21, 2007 12:01 AM

My point, recovering ex-Pentecostal, is that the "right" to marriage per se is not a Constitutional right. Under our system of government, it's a matter for the legislature to create such a right and the conditions under which it may be exercised, and Rudy's strict constructionist judges would so rule. Only after a legislature creates such right can the judiciary become involved.

Larry Parker
November 21, 2007 12:31 PM

By encouraging people to take a "my way or the highway stance" with politicians, aren't you encouraging the increasing polarization of politics (almost all the Republicans who are retiring this year are moderates) to ultra-right and ultra-left that I thought crunchy cons AND crunchy libs should oppose?

Larry Parker
November 24, 2007 11:53 AM

Wow, that shut down the conversation ...

recovering ex-Pentecostal
March 10, 2008 1:21 PM

Cleveland,

"Only after a legislature creates such right can the judiciary become involved."

I doubt you're (or anyone is) reading this anymore, but in light of the fact that the California legislature has TWICE now voted to approve same-sex marriages, you may want to revisit that thought.

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement