Andrew Sullivan has been ripping and snorting about what a do-nothing Obama is on gay rights, and approving quotes this from Glenn Greenwald:
"It's often forgotten or obscured, but the central political fact now is that the Democratic Party controls everything in Washington -- from the branches of government to favors doled out to lobbyists to the policies that Congress and the President enact. Wars that are fought and bills that are or are not passed and policies that are maintained are, by definition, Democratic actions. The dreaded Right can't dictate or stop anything. That's the burden of having massive majorities in all areas -- everything that happens is the result of what the Democratic Party does, and that's why the divisions and conflicts that truly matter are ones with the party itself. The "right v. left" and even "Democrat v. GOP" drama dominates most of our discourse, yet at this point it is a distracting and largely irrelevant food fight. It's the Democrats who have won the last two elections by large margins and wield all the power, and increasingly the defining conflict is between those whose overarching allegiance is to Obama and the Party as ends in themselves, and those who see those things as mere means to more important ends."
It's true, isn't it? I can't say that I'm all that surprised over Democratic foot-dragging on gay rights. The Republicans did the same thing when they held all the power in Washington. Back when they held the Senate and the White House, it was the best chance they'd ever have to pass out of the Senate and to the states an amendment to constitutionally define marriage as one man and one woman. The GOP pretty much ran on this in 2004, but when they had their best, and probably last (given the demographic shift in the pipeline) chance to protect traditional marriage in the Constitution, they balked. The president, an Evangelical Christian and social conservative, only gave it half-hearted support, and the Federal Marriage Amendment died in the Senate. The Republican Senate.
And now Democrats who care about this issue are discovering what their Republican counterparts on the other side found out: that deep down, neither party establishment wants to deal with this thing. It involves forcing them to make choices they'd rather not make. But the truth is, Washington is probably closer to where the American people are, all things considered, than convinced partisans on either side. I believe a majority of all voting-age Americans don't believe in same-sex marriage. But I believe the momentum is in the opposite direction, and I believe there's a meaningful difference between those who oppose same-sex marriage, and those who want the government to do something about it.
UPDATE: If you're going to leave a comment that amounts to some version of the by now classic "Somebody explain to me how my marriage to my same-sex partner threatens heterosexual marriage," just don't. We've been over this a million times before on this blog. The topic here is not gay marriage, but political support for gay marriage in Washington, and among Democrats. Anybody who wants to repeat the legitimacy of gay marriage argument will find their postsunpublished on grounds that you're boring me to death.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
“I know us poor agnostic homosexuals are incapable of acting morally (we all know morality is impossible without God standing over your shoulder), but still, keeping up appearances, our simulation of ethical behavior, sometimes requires a little self-sacrifice.”
Who said anything about God? The distinctions I refer to do not require God at all. I am sorry you cannot see those distinctions; it never –the- less does not mean they are “undefined”. They are quite clear.
Furthermore, I know many homosexuals who are very moral. I hope you have fun on your trip...well...as much fun as is possible while helping someone move!
Siarlys--"By the same token Hannah, why do you define yourself, your life, your purpose, your future, by a hormonal preference? I am sick of heterosexuals defining certain men and women as "homosexuals" merely because they are different in this one way. It doesn't make any more sense that you would define your entire self by this one characteristic. You are a woman (unless you are a man using a traditionally female name). Whatever your sex, homosexual emotions would have no meaning or context if you were not. You can have a career, own property, vote, spend your money, and live with whomever you please (as long as they agree) with or without legislation to officially enshrine your choices in life. There are many things to a full life."
I don't define my entire self by this one characteristic. Society and laws, however, says that this one characteristic should be muted or should not exist if I want to be honest about who I am in the workplace. It's perfectly legal to fire me in 29 states for being a lesbian. Talking about a partner I may have in the future, or having her picture on my desk (what any heterosexual in a serious relationship would do) is grounds to fire me in over half of our states, including all of the ones I've ever lived in. Society says that, even though relationships in our society have an end goal of successful marriage, that the people I am attracted to and wish to build relationships with are not welcome to have this end goal. It doesn't matter that I pay taxes and make a family with someone of the same sex, I'm not welcome to marriage in more than six states. Even in those six states, I'm not welcome to over 1,000 federal benefits that come with the marriage package. Society and law has defined and narrowed my life choices. I am being defined for my "hormonal preference;" it's not me defining myself that way.
I don't speak for all LGBTs. I'm an assimilationist. I would love to blend into the background, just as soon as the law stops limiting my future.
Hannah, that is a very coherent, rational, response. I live in a state where the Fair Employment Act has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation since about 1982 or so. I would hope we can soon develop anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination on any basis irrelevant to job performance and basic courtesies, safety , etc., without having to present a laundry list of protected classes. As for photos, I would hope I could put a photo of a male friend up without any assumptions that he is or is not my lover. He wouldn't be, I don't have any idea what makes a man attractive -- I'm not sure why women put up with us.
My state also voted for a "defense of marriage" act. I voted against it. As a conservative Christian woman also voting no observed "If God said it, we don't get to vote on it, so why are we voting on it?" The entire campaign was a matter of cynical political manipulation. But, I think "Your Name" has a valid point about marriage. Union of a man and a woman is the biological norm for the human species, and it does have a subtle purpose and meaning, however badly distorted in every human culture, that the union of two men or two women does not. Darwin is sufficient to establish that, much less Genesis, to those who find Genesis important. I'm sure there are also godless atheist creationists who believe all life just happened, all at once, on the same day. After all, there are godless atheists for life.
Maybe we have too many federal benefits for marriage. I simply do not find that because a certain relationship between a man and a woman is recognized as marriage, means that any other emotional relationship, e.g. yours, is automatically entitled to identical recognition. I'm not strongly opposed to it either. I definitely believe that any two individuals should be able to grant each other mutual rights, e.g. hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, and disgruntled relatives should have no right to interfere. Ideally, that should have no bearing on what the nature of their relationship is.
Siarlys,
"Union of a man and a woman is the biological norm for the human species"
No, that is only the "biological norm" for heterosexuals of the human species. DUH!
"it does have a subtle purpose and meaning"
An unspecified one, apparently.
" I simply do not find that because a certain relationship between a man and a woman is recognized as marriage, means that any other emotional relationship, e.g. yours, is automatically entitled to identical recognition."
Except it isn't "any other relationship"; it is our marriages that we are discussing. You have yet to explain why your marriage(s) is/are any more deserving of "recognition" than our legal marriages are.
Sorry, "Another Opinion," but you are indulging in wishful thinking. If you got to design a universe, some version of SIM City, you could MAKE things the way you recite them. But, like it or not, we were born into a world that is what it is. I wish I had three arms and wings, but I don't.
Heterosexual is the NORM for the human SPECIES no matter how much I like or you dislike that, or vice versa. If all humans were homosexually inclined, there would be no humans. The pieces fit, heterosexually, and all the homosexual variations are just that, a variation. It is basic biology, not a matter of preference. It is pretty obvious that sexual emotions exist because nothing so big and complex as a mammal would go through those difficult and invasive contortions unless it felt awfully good. Offering what makes you personally feel good, and calling it "the same thing," followed by "duh" doesn't cut it.
Now when you say "it isn't ANY other relationship, it is our marriages..." you have skipped a step. It isn't a marriage. It never has been, in the entire history of humanity. Alexander the Great french kissed Darius's Persian boy, but neither of them ever considered marrying him. Greek warriors loved their partners in war more than the wives they kept to bear them legitimate children (why do you think Achilles cried so hard over Patroclus?), but they didn't call that a marriage. Japanese daimyos had both women and boys, but they never married the boys, only certain of the women.
Getting back to the original point of this particular post, as long as a substantial half or so, perhaps slightly more, of your fellow citizens don't care to give official public recognition and endorsement to whatever it is you are in pursuit of, you won't get that recognition, and there is nothing much that a man who is merely the elected magistrate of the nation can do about that. Its not a constitutional right. If my state legislature votes to either redefine CIVIL marriage to include what you desire, or to create some broad civil unions that create a framework for sharing everything with your partner, I wouldn't object. As long as you have the right to live your life as you choose, I also won't put much effort into demanding that my state legislators provide you any more. In any case, churches are constitutionally protected from being forced to annoint what you share with your partner AS a marriage -- therefore, I'm not sure why churches work so hard to deny you civil marriage. Its not that big a deal.
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.