I’m glad that Glenn Reynolds backs everyone’s right to marry the person they love, just as Dick Cheney does. But he’s way too soft on Bush about this. First he says Bush is “vague” in his opposition to gay marriage; then, realizing this won’t wash, he says Bush is “lukewarm” against marriage rights. Then he wants to change the subject and say that Kerry is just as bad (I’ve made a similar but less glib argument myself with regard to the awful Kerry). Then he wants to dismiss the Federal Marriage Amendment as “certain to fail.” (Just don’t hold your breath waiting for Glenn to criticize those Republicans now preparing to get another vote on it in the House). I’m afraid Glenn is wrong on all of this. The truth is: Bush’s longstanding opposition to marriage rights, (and indeed any measures to help gay people) is not the issue here. Heck, I endorsed him in 2000 fully aware of his position and his very anti-gay record. I’m not a one-issue guy. But what did it for me (and many others) was Bush’s swift, unnecessary and ill-informed support for an amendment to the very constitution that would bar any state from even allowing domestic partnerships, let alone civil marriage, for gay couples. That’s unnecessary at this point, extremist and unconservative. The fact that Bush has said nothing conciliatory or even compassionate about gay people even while he takes this position is just as telling. He treats gays as political pawns, not human beings. Besides, the FMA violates so many principles conservatives hold dear that it is an alarm bell for how far this president has gone in handing over conservatism to the Roundhead right. Heck, even Cheney has no influence when it comes to the demands of James Dobson, Rick Santorum and Richard Neuhaus.
THE CLOSET TOLERANT: Now you might argue that Bush has to do this and that he is really a closet tolerant. But, to my mind, that makes his position worse. Give me a sincere opponent of gay equality over a cynical manipulator of homophobia any day. My frustration is that you can make all the civil, constructive arguments you want (and I’ve spent two decades doing exactly that). But this administration is utterly uninterested in argument, won’t meet with or listen to anyone who backs marriage rights, and has made no real argument on the issue – except that civil marriage is “sacred” (is this Iran?) and that heterosexuality deserves to be “honored” simply because it should (laughable). Moreover, they refuse to curtail any of the truly hateful anti-gay rhetoric of their allies; and have allowed their own party platform to incorporate the most extreme anti-gay position in history. What’s the use of constructive arguments against that? It’s like debating with a tank. My fear is simply that Bush and Rove want to re-make Republicanism into a big-government, Christian right movement. To his credit, the president is very candid about this; and the people he backs (from Marilyn Musgrave to the fanatically anti-gay Zell Miller) would go much, much further in stripping gay citizens of even basic rights. I know Glenn opposes this movement too. He’s a humane and civilized fellow. It’s just sad that he’s so vague and lukewarm in his opposition to what Republicanism is becoming under this president. Maybe he will return to criticism once this campaign is over. For some of us, that may be too late.
The Dish 