Month: July 2004

A first-hand account.

A list – in his own words.

A belated response to Rich Lowry’s accusation that I am an intolerant, preachy moralist. His main points:

1. Santorum, he argues, is not in favor, as I argued, of direct application of Vatican principles to the civil law. Give me an example. On what issue does Santorum dissent from Vatican teaching on civil law? And by what principle would he draw that distinction? Please show me where Santorum has upheld secular values over theological ones.

2. Lowry then denies that the Allard-Musgrave amendment would bar civil unions and domestic partnerships. So why the second sentence that on its face bars not just marriage but all the “legal incidents”? And, yes, I do believe that there is disingenuousness on this. The religious right doesn’t want to go to the lengths of a constitutional amendment purely for the word “marriage.” The drafter of the amendment, Robert George, has said that it would effectively end any civil arrangements that mirrored marriage. Am I crazy to believe the guy who wrote it? Many Republican senators can read as well – and that’s one reason the vote against Allard-Musgrave would have been so devastating. If the backers of the FMA wanted to make sure that it allowed for civil unions, they could have drafted an amendment saying exactly that. They don’t and they didn’t.

3. Again, there is no reasonable dispute about the Virginia law. It was rooted quite clearly in animus against gay couples, was passed in a welter of furiously anti-gay rhetoric and is viewed by everyone except water-carriers for the far right as the equivalent of a new Jim Crow. But Lowry won’t criticize it or touch it. No enemies to the right.

4. Lowry then accuses me of bigotry, because I have described fundamentalists as a bloc motivated by anti-gay animus. Actually, I’m relieved that so many evangelicals are uncomfortable with this measure. But the leadership is foaming at the mouth about this. If Lowry were to watch Christian television lately, I’d love to see how he could believe otherwise. If he read my email in-tray, he might get a better idea. But I have long defended the fundamentalists’ religious freedoms, support their civil rights in every respect, would fight for their right to marry, to serve in the armed forces, be protected against discrimination and on and on. But they would deny all of that to gay people. So who’s the real intolerant here?

5. Lowry continues:

He says he supports my civil rights and I oppose his. Is Andrew capable of writing anything on this topic that’s not question-begging? Opponents of gay marriage like myself don’t believe that a civil right to marry someone of the same sex exists. We obviously aren’t for denying to gays the rights to speak, vote, own guns, etc. If Andrew reformulated the point in neutral, non-question begging terms, it would be something like: Lowry and I disagree about the definition of civil rights in this instance.

Yes: but it has long been a tactic of those who oppose civil rights to argue that they don’t. Those opposed to education integration denied that they were against black civil rights – they just wanted separate but equal education for both blacks and whites. Those who opposed inter-racial marriage said exactly the same thing – since blacks and whites were equally constrained by the anti-miscegenation laws, there was no discrimination, etc. It wasn’t that Bull Connor opposed civil rights. It’s just that he had a different conception of civil rights than his opponents! What cannot be denied, however, is that Lowry does indeed oppose a gay person’s right to enjoy the same rights he has – the right to marry, the right to serve your country, the right to be protected from workplace discrimination, and so on. It couldn’t be starker. Lowry believes that heterosexuals have civil rights as citizens and as heterosexuals. But gays should have no rights as homosexuals at all. He is defending his own privilege, while posturing as someone who believes in equality. It’s an old gambit. But it is as transparent as it is intolerant.

“I agree with your post on the Younger Generation not being able to vote Republican! I’m 18 and this will be the first time I have voted. How can I vote for them when my Brother is Gay and has been in a solid relationship for 5 years and President Bush sees them as a threat to marriage! HOW can they be a threat to other people’s marriage? A secretary having an affair with a married man is a threat to a marriage; my Brother and his partner are not! Homosexuality isn’t even an issue for my friends!”

The real story from the bloggers on the scene.

Which brand of Ketchup is more Republican? Yes, there’s a debate.

Wonderful piece in the New York Post today. Reading how the GOP hopes to use fear of gays to rev up their base across the country really makes me feel ill. Money quote:

When it’s one of your first presidential elections – as it is for me – it’s no trivial matter that voting Republican means a vote for a party catering to the worst prejudices about our brothers, sisters, friends from high school, college roommates, co-workers, bosses, drinking buddies and the like.
I’m not sure I can do it. And, if it weren’t for the War on Terror, I know few for whom it would even be a question.

The fact is: the GOP is using an attack on members of their own families to get a few votes in rural parts of swing states. They’ve used race in the past to achieve this kind of effect. Now gays are the new blacks.

One woman’s experience – and the vulnerability we still have to Jihadist terror.

FIFTY-SIX DECEITS: In “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Dave Kopel has the goods.

BUSH’S MEANS: Jon Chait tackles what he believes are the undemocratic impulses of this administration:

Bush and his allies have been described as partisan or bear-knuckled, but the problem is more fundamental than that. They have routinely violated norms of political conduct, smothered information necessary for informed public debate, and illegitimately exploited government power to perpetuate their rule. These habits are not just mean and nasty. They’re undemocratic.-

Read the whole thing. (Speaking of which, it’s good to find that the poor souls arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts were finally released.)

THE TORIES CRUMBLE: It should have been easy: Tony Blair is on the rocks and a protest vote in two by-elections should go to the main opposition party. But it went to the left-wing Liberal Democrats. The Tories sank from second place to third, winning only 17 percent in one seat. Bottom line: Blair’s main threat is from his own party, not the opposition.

ARTHUR “KILLER” KANE: Of early punk rock fame in the New York Dolls. Another classic Brit obit – this time of an American. Money quote:

Their music was brutal, degenerate, loud – amplified by maximum distortion and feedback, and terribly, terribly bad; their one-time manager Malcolm McLaren (who went on to manage the Sex Pistols) described them as “chaos incarnate”. They released only two albums, including the presciently-entitled Too Much Too Soon.

Nice one.

“I’m wondering if you could answer for some of your politically torn readers a question. I know I speak for myself and a lot of GOP Undecideds, when I ask you this question in all sincerity: I voted for Bush, was pro-war, and now, along with many others, concede that Iraq has become a debacle and (unlike yourself) think the War on Terror (not Iraq) would have been more efficient, better funded, and as a whole more successful if we had not marched into Baghdad. I know you don’t agree with this, but let me tell you, this is the sentiment of a lot of moderate, even conservative Republicans who are disgusted by Bush’s arrogance. A lot of my friends like to say that Bush would be better on the War on Terror than Kerry, and I want to believe that, I really do, but no one has convinced me of that, much less the president himself. No matter how “single-minded” (obtuse, in my opinion) the president is, he’s done nothing to shore up support in his REAL BASE–southerners and midwesterners like myself–who don’t see how a lunatic fiscal policy, right-wing social policy, and a general F-U to the world in general improves America or its War on Terror. My point is this: I really loathe Kerry, but when it comes down to it, if you exclude Bush’s support for the war, why does he deserve four more years? And to all those who think this administration dropped the ball in Iraq, how can we believe that that they will make us safer? I haven’t voted for a democrat since Kennedy (at the time I lived in California and knew what kind of moral idiot Nixon was) and I don’t want to–but frankly, can someone please make the case for Bush? Because no one has, and frankly, to the Republican faithful like myself who roll our eyes at Sean Hannity, Bush has a heck of a lot of convincing to do.” This reader has a point. It certainly helps explain the July gay-baiting campaign. More feedback on the Letters Page.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “No true believing Christian or Jew can afford to sit this fight out. The fight is not over. You must continue to speak up to ensure Washington understands we want the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage clearly and formally recognized in our Constitution. You must keep in mind where your Senator stood on this vote as Election Day approaches. This past weekend many Christian churches held “Protect Marriage Sunday” to make certain their congregations understand the importance of marriage before the expected vote later in the coming week. More actions like this will keep the issue on the political front burner. It’s important that those who believe in marriage as a covenant between a man, a woman and God emphasize to Washington that the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) remains a priority.” – Paul Weyrich, in his latest newsletter. Civil marriage is now between a man and a woman and God?

I am too quick sometimes to ascribe to the mass of evangelical Christians the views of their “leaders.” There are, in fact, many Christians who do not endorse the gay-baiting campaigns of, say, the Traditional Values Coalition. They are Christian libertarians, like Josh Claybourn, or simply those who believe that religion is best served when it isn’t merged with politics. Here’s a typical email from one such reader:

I am a Christian and for the life of me cannot understand how the FMA is protecting what my wife and I share together. People should take a good look at what heterosexuals are doing to marriage. (example: Brittney, J-LO, and the reality TV shows that toy with marriage) It makes me sick when some leaders of this country get on a crusade that would limit freedom for certain individuals. I am from a very small town in West Tennessee. The first time that I ever went to school with someone from a different ethnic group was in college. The first gay person that I meet was in college. I never once had any trouble accepting the differences that we had. So how can the people, who have sworn to protect the Constitution, want to add an amendment that would limit freedom? I hate that I have to cut this short, Andrew, but remember that there are Christians that support your right to live free and open. I assure you that I will raise my children to keep their beliefs and faith strong, but never judge someone for being themselves.

That, indeed, was how I was brought up. But it highlights again the damage the political-religious right is doing to Christianity and the country.