LOWRY GETS TETCHY

Rich Lowry objects to my use of the shorthand phrase, “Santorum theocrats and old-school conservativess.” Perhaps I should have been clearer about what I meant. By “old school,” I mean simply those who think the states should have primary responsibility for dealing with family law, that the federal Constitution should not be amended for social policy or electoral reasons, and that everyone – including gays – should be asked to live up to the same levels of responsibility in America. The Santorum wing, in contrast, is a relatively new one in conservatism. Its origins lie in the Dixie Democratic party and the Francoite conservatism embraced by Opus Dei founder, Monsignor Escriva. It beieves in the literal application of Biblical or Vatican views to the civil law of the United States – and amending the very Constitution to achieve this hardly troubles them at all. And yes, in my view, writing into the constitution a measure that would deny gay couples not just marriage rights but also domestic partnerships and civil unions is indecent. And using fear of homosexuals to galvanize a party base is indecent. And passing laws, as in Virginia, that try and take away even the right of private contract from homosexual couples is indecent. And tolerating outright bigotry, as Lowry does in his own online magazine by publishing John Derbyshire’s rants against gays, is also indecent. If that’s preachy, so be it. I’m not denying Lowry’s right to say or publish anything. I am eager and happy to defend his civil rights and First Amendment rights, and have often defended the right of individuals and groups to uphold private discrimination against gays and voice hate-speech without fear of the law. But I also believe that gay citizens should have equal rights as well. Lowry doesn’t. That’s the difference between us. I support his civil rights; he opposes mine.