Month: April 2009

National Review's new editorial comes out firmly against even civil unions for gay couples, and continues to insist that society's exclusive support for straight couples is designed

to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households.

This is an honest and revealing point, and, in a strange way, it confirms my own analysis of the theocon position. It reaffirms, for example, that infertile couples who want to marry in order to adopt children have no place within existing marriage laws, as NR sees them. Such infertile and adoptive "marriages" rest on a decoupling of actual sex and the rearing of children. The same, of course, applies much more extensively to any straight married couple that uses contraception: they too are undermining what National Review believes to be the core reason for civil marriage. Now, you could argue – and I suspect NR's editors would – that society nonetheless has a role in providing moral, social and legal support for couples with children, however those children came about, and to provide "a non-coercive way to channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living." I agree with this, actually, which is why I do not want to alter or weaken traditional marriage in any way, and regard it as a vital social institution that deserves our support. But what of "channeling homosexual desire into civilized patterns of living?" Ah, there's the rub.

National Review clearly believes that gays exist beyond the boundaries of civilized life, or even social life, let alone the purview of social policy. But, of course, a total absence of social policy is still a social policy. And such a social policy – leaving gay people outside of existing social institutions, while tolerating their existence – has led to some rather predictable consequences. We have, for example, lived through a period in which around 300,000 young Americans died of a terrible disease that was undoubtedly compounded by the total lack of any social incentives for stable relationships. Imagine what would happen to STD rates or legitimacy rates if heterosexual marriage were somehow not in existence. Do you think that straight men would be more or less socially responsible without the institution of civil marriage?

This is not to deny the responsibility of those of us who contracted HIV. It is to make the core conservative case that culture matters, and that in so far as we can non-coercively encourage and support committed relationships, society, which includes gay people, will be better off. But National Review, stunningly, regards the well-being, health and flourishing of gay people as unworthy of any attention at all. Here is the passage that reflects the core homophobia – and yes, I see no alternative to using that word – in that magazine:

Same-sex couples will also receive the symbolic affirmation of being treated by the state as equivalent to a traditional married couple — but this spurious equality is a cost of the new laws, not a benefit. One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals.

Ponder those sentences for a moment. The fact that gay Americans may feel equal because of inclusion within their own families and societies is now a cost to society, not a benefit. Encouraging commitment, fewer partners, and greater responsibility are important governmental goals with respect to heterosexuals but not with respect to homosexuals. As far as National Review is concerned, homosexuals can go to hell. Their interests and views cannot even be accorded respect. They are non-persons to National Review: means, not ends.

Flip this around and you see what the theocon right actually believes: that society has no interest in the welfare of its gay citizens, and an abiding interest in ensuring that they remain unequal, feel unequal and suffer the consequences of a culture where family and commitment and fidelity are non-existent. And they write this within living memory of an appalling and devastating plague. This is how the social right is responding to our times, and to put it personally, my life and the lives and deaths of countless others. One day, they will understand the callousness and bitterness and willful ignorance they currently represent. As civilized society leaves them increasingly behind.

Well, it worked (for a while) in Iraq:

Piracy flourishes because it is successful in bringing in income. Pirates perform a Somali version of trickle-down economics because ransoms that are paid for hijacked ships provide an income stream not only in terms of donations to clans and religious leaders, but also supporting the entire infrastructure for piracy, down to paying the families of those who guard, feed and house captured sailors. If clans, however, could be paid (in cash and services) for serving as “coast guard auxiliaries”—with a clear understanding that payments would continue only if there was a corresponding drop in the number of pirate attacks—this might help to undermine the economic rationale for piracy.

Nassim Taleb made a list of "ten principles for a Black Swan-proof world," and it is bouncing around the econiverse. Felix Salmon wonders how this wish list corresponds with reality:

Taleb’s first principle is that “nothing should ever become too big to fail”. But all economies have too-big-to-fail institutions; they always have, and they always will. Looking at the rest of the list, how on earth do you stop the financial sector from awarding its employees bonuses, or creating complex products? Derivatives are, at heart, bilateral contracts: how can you ban two consenting adults from entering in to such a contract?

Another Zakaria coup.

Fairlee, Vermont, 3.23 pm

John Cole has some questions for Dreher:

What on earth is [Dreher] talking about in regards to an additional amendment protecting religious institutions? Isn’t the 1st amendment still operative? Does he mean things like the “institution of marriage” and not religious institutions like the church itself? And if the SCOTUS makes gay marriage constitutional, what would an amendment do anyway?

And I am not trying to be snarky, but what is he talking about? Am I just not understanding the new codespeak for the religious right?

My own new response to Rod, "Vermont and Rod's Giant Sigh," is here.

A reader writes:

I found Robert Stacy McCain's comment "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile", to be more than ironic.  Throughout the 90s, the civil union compromise was on the table.  Had conservatives taken this option, they could have de-coupled the "marriage" issue from the "civil rights" issue.  Better yet, we could have eliminated civil marriage altogether and handed out civil unions for all citizens, leaving the M-word to the churches.  Even as recently as this year, conservatives rejected yet another such opportunity in Utah, as you reported.  Now, it's too late for compromise.  As you say, the gay community can see the mountaintop.

Because they would not give that inch, social conservatives will now lose the whole mile.

Yglesias contemplates the difference:

What’s interesting in particular about the militia mindset, however, is that its narrative sources are very different from those of left-wing radicalism. People who believe in violent revolution and the murder of American soldiers and policemen generally, if on the left, appeal to basically anti-patriotic attitudes. Which is about what you would expect from advocates of the violent overthrow of the established political order. But the militia crowd exhibits much more the attitudes one would expect from a coup leader—a Franco or a Pinochet who’s actually appealing to the concepts of patriotism and nationalism as justification for violent revolution.

Massie responds to Dreher:

The idea that permitting a tiny number of people to marry one another is likely to be the tipping point that finally destroys the institution of marriage seems to grant enormous power and influence to gay couples. I confess I find this improbable. No-one is forcing Rod to be happy with same-sex marriage, merely that the state grant certain right and responsibilities to those who marry one another under a civil, not a religious, blessing.

And if Federalism means anything, it means embracing the idea of live and let live.This may be especially true when the matters being legislated upon are controversial and arouse fierce passions. There's virtue in a state-by-state and incremental approach. And of course, states may also say no, even if one might prefer them to legislate otherwise.