Category: Old Dish

Just to address a few issues before heading out to lunch. Here’s one overlooked part of the president’s remarks yesterday on amending the Constitution: You’ll notice he did not say that any amendment should allow for civil unions. The words “civil union” have never passed his lips. His spokesman yesterday said that in Texas, Bush would never support civil unions for gay people. (And it’s important to recall that Bush himself suppported the criminalization of private gay sex while governor.) This is deliberate. If Bush came out for civil unions, Gary Bauer would be appalled. What Bush said is that the amendment should allow for “legal arrangements other than marriage.” I think what that could mean is any ad hoc legal arrangement two spouses can put together – arrangements that the religious right amendment would make unenforceable in court. Clever, no? Almost Clintonian. To respond to Jonah’s question about why I keep calling the FMA the religious right amendment: the reason is that it is their amendment. The people pushing hardest for this have been people like Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, Carolyn Musgrave. If they’re not the religious right, who is? Lastly, there’s some confusion in the blogosphere about Kerry’s position. Ramesh Ponnuru seems to think that Kerry has come out for the religious right amendment, if it were to contain explicit provisions for civil unions. But Ramesh is confusing (understandably in context) Kerry’s remarks about a state constitutional amendment in Massachusetts and the federal one. Kerry has said quite clearly that he will vote against the federal amendment. So will Edwards. I cannot see over a dozen Democrats voting against their nominee in the Senate in an election year. Hostility to gay relationships is not that intense an emotion any more – expect for old Klan members like Robert Byrd. But even Byrd might balk at amending the constitution over this.

KIRKPATRICK CORRECTS: It took a while but David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times has now corrected his previous assertion that the current version of the religious right amendment would not bar civil unions. At the very least, there is confusion about it. At best, it would invalidate Vermont’s civil unions and any civil unions law that emerged as a result of court prodding or action. At worst, it would gut – and some of its authors obviously intend it to gut – every civil protection now held by gay couples.

FROM A SOLDIER IN SPECIAL OPS: “Well … And so it now begins. My more liberal friends told me a day like this would come, and now I am forced to eat crow. Words cannot express the hurt and anger I feel for the man’s blatant constitutional and moral attack on a segment of our population. And for the still wobbly among us, make no mistake … this is an attack… I realized long ago I am (was) a Republican solely for foreign affairs. But that’s not good enough anymore. I’ve helped feed the Kurds in Northern Iraq, I’ve slept in the mud and rain to enforce peace treaties in eastern Europe, seated in 100 percent humidity in southeast Asia, and I dodged too many bullets and remote controlled bombs in and around Mosul to count. But I gladly did this (and will do it again) to protect the rights and liberties of ALL Americans, not just those of my family.
I voted for this man … despite what my family said, despite how many times I was smeared because I am African American and (was) a Republican, despite his joy in being an anti-intellectual … they warned me, they warned me and I didn’t listen … and now I am ashamed of myself. By all that I hold Holy it will never happen again!”

HOME NEWS: No, this blog is not going to become devoted to civil marriage issues for ever. But this is a burning question right now and I feel a real responsibility to address these questions, especially since I played a part for the last decade or two in pioneering this issue. I keep being told that people will stop reading the blog if I continue. Fine. There’s plenty else to read out there. And a blog doesn’t have to be as comprehensive as the NYT or even NRO. But as a purely factual matter, there’s not much evidence that people have stopped reading. Yesterday was the biggest traffic day in the history of this site: 110,000 visits. Our average weekly readership has increased every single week this year. People are interested in this important matter. And although I’m obviously invested in one side, I think it’s a good thing that a blog can provide in depth coverage in a way other outlets cannot.

It behooves me to wrestle with a question that many of you have asked me about. I have long been a strong supporter of this president’s extraordinary leadership in the war on terror. He has made some mistakes, but I stand by his broader record entirely. This isn’t because of some personal liking for Bush (although I’ve never been able to loathe him). My support for the war is inextricable from my love for America. When this country was attacked, like many others, I was distraught. I was enraged because America’s promise of a new world had been threatened by a murderous gang of theocratic thugs. Call it the wrecking of an immigrant dream. I still believe passionately in taking this war to that enemy, of not apologizing for the United States, of opposing appeasement and weakness in the face of evil. As a gay man, I could also uncomplicatedly support a war against some of the most brutal homophobes on the planet, men who also targeted Jews and women and anyone who dissented from their theological bromides. It was because I believed in the Constitution of the United States that I felt no qualms in backing this president and in fighting rhetorical wars on his behalf – because that Constitution was under attack. I grew up in a country where there was no separation of church and state and had to attend a public high school that was anathema to my own religious faith. America has therefore always signified religious and political freedom to me. So when I wrote after 9/11 about the threat of religious fundamentalism abroad, this is how I finished my essay:

In this sense, the symbol of this conflict should not be Old Glory, however stirring it is. What is really at issue here is the simple but immensely difficult principle of the separation of politics and religion. We are fighting not for our country as such or for our flag. We are fighting for the universal principles of our Constitution, and the possibility of free religious faith it guarantees.

The religious fanatics of 9/11 despise the American Constitution exactly because it guarantees equality under the law, freedom of conscience and separation of church and state. The war I have supported is a war, ultimately, in defense of that Constitution. And that is why I am so committed to it.

THE PRESIDENT’S CONTRADICTION: So you can see, perhaps, why the bid to write anti-gay discrimination into this very Constitution provokes such a strong response from me – and so many other people, gay and straight, and their families. It robs us of something no one in this country should be robbed of – equality and inclusion in the founding document itself. When people tell me that, in weighing the political choices, the war on terror should trump the sanctity of the Constitution, my response is therefore a simple one. The sanctity of the Constitution is what we are fighting for. We’re not fighting just to defend ourselves. We are fighting to defend a way of life: pluralism, freedom, equality under the law. You cannot defend the Constitution abroad while undermining it at home. It’s a contradiction. And it’s a deeply divisive contradiction in a time of great peril.

THE NEED FOR UNITY: To those who say that this amendment is merely a codification of existing marriage law and doesn’t target homosexuals, the answer is obvious. If it weren’t for the possibility that gay couples might become equal under the law, this amendment wouldn’t even exist. Pro-marriage amendments could have been introduced before now every year for decades – to ban no-fault divorce, for example. But none was. This one is entirely designed to single out gay couples for Constitutional exclusion. It therefore seems to me that I’m not the one who needs to defend his position. It’s the president who has to answer to the charge that in wartime, he chose to divide this country over the most profound symbol there can be: the Constitution itself. I refuse, in short, to be put in a position where I have to pick between a vital war and fundamental civil equality. The two are inextricable. They are the same war. And this time, the president has picked the wrong side. He will live to be ashamed that he did.

Another gut-wrenching email:

“I organized my life around four institutions: my family, the Presbyterian Church, the Boy Scouts and the Republican Party. They summed up what seemed to me a sensible view of life and the world, embodying loyalty, unconditional love, a quiet, thoughtful exercise of faith, a commitment to ethical behavior, and a limited government that did the things it needed for the public good but otherwise left people alone to be all they could become and savor the victory of having done so.
Then I came out, and one by one those four institutions turned their backs on me.
My parents were embarrassed by me and stopped nearly all communication, though they said they loved me and in some way considered me part of the family.
Then my church got a new minister who had hardly arrived before he started preaching on the marriage issue and rooting out gay staff members. Commissioned a Stephen Minister, I was told I would never be assigned anyone to walk with in their troubles. But of course the church loves me and in some way considers me part of the family still.
Then the Boy Scouts went to court and said that even though I am an Eagle Scout, people like me are not good role models for the program and cannot be leaders. But of course they consider me a Scout still and are happy to ask me for my money.
And now the head of the party I’ve stuck with through thick and thin for 36 years says the prospect of my being able to marry is so threatening to society they have to ban it in the constitution. But the president says God loves me and I got an email from him today telling me about his campaign kickoff speech. So I guess in their compassionate conservative way the administration still thinks of me as sort of a Republican.
I don’t. You can only feel the love of people and institutions who fend you off with a barge pole for so long. Today I changed my registration from Republican to independent.”

Another emailer puts his finger on it:

“We’ve witnessed a shift in Republican politics. The Republican establishment used to pay lip service to religious conservative interests while openly courting independent voters with moderate policies because it knew it could get the religious conservative vote regardless (who were they going to vote for, Clinton!?). But now, it seems Bush is paying lip service to independent interests while openly promoting religious conservative policy. Who are we going to vote for, Kerry?

Well, yes.”

He’s not alone.

Interesting details from the AP story:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he appreciated Bush’s “moral leadership” on the issue, but expressed caution about moving too quickly toward a constitutional solution, and never directly supported one. “This is so important we’re not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this,” Delay said. “We are going to look at our options and we are going to be deliberative about what solutions we may suggest.”
However, California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.
“I will say that I’m not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue,” said Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush’s campaign in California in 2000. “I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we’re at a point where it’s not necessary.”
Lewis said, “At this moment I feel changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.”

All true conservatives need to rally to protect the Constitution from being used unnecessarily for wedge politics. I’m delighted some are. More will.

I’m posting because I’ve now received over a thousand. And because as a document of the initial response to the president’s shocking embrace of discrimination in the Constitution, they’re worth recording. Most are appalled, angry, hurt, betrayed. Some, obviously, are not. Here’s a selection of the more recent ones:

“I can feel your depression through the computer monitor, but if it makes you feel any better, I’ve been married to my wife for 26 years, and let me tell you something, you ain’t missing a goddamn thing.”

“I am (or, I never thought I’d say it, was?) a dyed-in-the-wool Republican who (much like you) has spent the last two years proselytizing my liberal friends for GW. I am also a woman who has been in a committed same-sex relationship for 25 years. I feel like I was body-slammed today. What a quandary: I don’t know for sure that the Dems will be worse in the war on terror, but I do now know for sure the Republicans will be worse in protecting my equal rights. This is just a depressing day.”

“I cannot express more eloquently than you already have my disgust with President Bush’s support of the Federal Marriage Ammendment. I feel betrayed. I have always felt more comfortable with the Republican take on issues, even though I knew that Democrats tend to be better on gay issues. Until today, though, I found defense and fiscal issues more important than gay issues. Bush’s support of the FMA trumps everything else. I now have no choice but to vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination. I blame Bush for stealing the party that I called home. I cannot foresee when next I’ll vote for another Republican.”

“I would rather not amend the Constitution as President Bush proposes. In an ideal world, I don’t think the Constitution was really meant to prescribe the definition of marriage.
However, those of us who oppose so-called “gay marriage” feel we have no options left.
The rogue judges in Massachusetts and the arrogant, law-breaking mayor of San Francisco make it clear that same-sex “marriage” advocates will stop at nothing to impose their perversity on America.
Your hunger for anal intercourse and official state affirmation of it — even to the point of deeming your sexual behavior a reason to “marry”! — trumps your respect for fundamental American values. Your perverse sexual ethics have led inevitably to perverse and destructive political ethics.
All of this has led me to conclude that you and your sodomy-loving cohorts are totalitarians, plain and simple.
And you must be stopped.
If that takes a Constitutional amendment, so be it. It’s regrettable, but that’s the way it goes.”

The latest polling from Annenberg’s Public Policy Center on the religious right amendment to the Constitution to ban marriage for gays shows that the public opposes the amendment 48 to 41 percent. The highest opposition is in the West and Northeast but the Midwest opposes it by 47 to 41 percent. The under 30s oppose it by 58 percent to 30 percent. Only those over 65 support it. And that’s despite majorities against marriage rights for gays in general. Bush has therefore decided to move the marriage issue from a context in which he gets majority support to a position where he splits the country down the middle. More genius from Karl Rove. Rove has now succeeded in ensuring that almost no gay people will vote for or support the Republican party for a generation. And it was completely avoidable.

“I don’t quite know what to say. I’m a 21 year old gay student at Wesleyan University. I have no affinity for President Bush. I have little respect for him. I knew, on an intellectual level, that he might eventually support this amendment. But to hear him say it aloud – I wasn’t prepared for the emotional response I would have … this is truly, truly devastating. Truly devastating.”

“While it may mean little in the face of the hatred and discrimination expressed by our nation’s leader today, I want you to know you have my wholehearted support. How can it be that two people expressing their love for each other and asking society to recognize that love be a bad thing? How can a couple choosing to spend their life together in a bond of love possibly harm our society? It is beyond my apparently meager comprehension to anticipate the consequences that allowing gay marriage will bear. All I can anticipate is love and acceptance.
It shouldn’t be an important fact, but I am straight. One of my close friends is gay. I’ve watched him experience heartbreak, hope and love over the last few years. His emotions are no less real than mine. His love is given as truly as mine is. Why should we not recognize this? And how dare we amend a document that gives hope and freedom to the world to deny hope and freedom to a group of our own citizens?
It offends me as a straight man, as an American citizen, but more importantly as a human being who believes that each one of us deserves equal dignity, that our president seeks to cloak a beacon of liberty with a veil of intolerance and discrimination. I only wish that President Bush would have turned to the words of a great Republican president and heeded the better angels of his nature to oppose this amendment. It saddens me that his actions do not come as a surprise.”

“What a strange juxtaposition, almost surreal. Today we get “The Passion of Christ” delivered. A bloody, gory, historically inaccurate film sure to stoke religious fundamentalism in America, ironically the same folks who refuse to accept modern science and any notion that homosexuality is anything but a behavioral choice. We get Bush calling for a Constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage. It does not outlaw no-fault divorce, or cheap 5 minute weddings performed by Elvis in Las Vegas. Instead it is a cheap political exploitation, but unlike most others (from both sides of the isle) would attempt to enshrine in the Constitution religious fundamentalism. And finally, we get two new Al Qaeda tapes. How ironic that those fundamentalists in the Arab world may have a more positive view of America because its President will now push to permanently stigmatize gays as inferior and not worthy of full citizenry? Those who really believe in the ideals of this country must now speak up.”

“Islamists want to keep human understanding and progress trapped in the 8th Century. Keeping it trapped in the 20th is surely just as awful. History will not look kindly on George W. Bush, even if his foreign policy ends up being what saves the future. We will take that for granted. But future generations will look back and see how he demanded the Constitution’s alteration to discriminate against a minority group. This is what he will be remembered for. This will be his legacy.”

“Log Cabin Republicans are more determined than ever to fight the anti-family Constitutional amendment with all our resources,” said Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero. “Writing discrimination into our Constitution violates conservative and Republican principles. This amendment would not strengthen marriage – it would weaken our nation. As conservative Republicans, we are outraged that any Republican – particularly the leader of our party and this nation – would support any effort to use our sacred United States Constitution as a way of scoring political points in an election year.”

HEADS UP: Tonight, I’ll be on World News Tonight with Peter Jennings; and on CNN’s Newsnight with Aaron Brown.

More emails. Hundreds and hundreds of them. The theme is pretty consistent. Here’s one:

“This issue goes so far beyond politics, for many of us it is about fundamental fairness, compassion and even patriotism. I love my country, and was saddened as the president spoke this morning. This isn’t a liberal or conservative issue. It’s about our basic humanity, or lack thereof. Making political hay at the expense of both the Constitution and the Gay community smacks of Willy Horton, and is simply dangerous and wrong. People will be hurt, lives may be lost, and everyone loses with tactics of this sort. I cannot speak for all Americans, but there are millions of liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Greens etc. who will stand with you on this issue. I get so angry when GWB speaks of compassion, to hell with compassion, All Americans deserve their place at the table with the rest of us, fully vested citizens of this country with no asterisk, hyphen or apologies required. I often find myself at odds with your conclusions on the issues, but I have respect for your thoughtfulness, and your lack of mean-spirited acerbity so common today.”

I wonder if the Bush administration even thought about how mean-spirited this was going to appear. And how nakedly political. Some journalists are reporting that White House sources are telling them that they do not expect this to pass but they need to fire up their base. They’d go this far for purely political reasons? I guess I really was naive.