Tuesday, May 08, 2012

Political courage on the same-sex "marriage" issue

President Obama has traditionally been against same-sex "marriage," but, some report, his position is "evolving." More specifically, his press spokesmen seem to be positively confused on the matters since Vice President Biden seems like he's come out in favor of it.

Like many other politicians, Obama's opinion on the marriage issue will probably continue to "evolve" until the political benefit of being in favor of it clearly exceeds the political benefit of being opposed to it.

Then, when the political winds have fully shifted, he will announce his new position to accolades by his secular liberal supporters who will call him courageous for taking the new position--the one that would have been courageous had he made it when there was a real cost (rather than a political benefit) to taking it.

The fact is, there are few social costs to being gay and few political costs in most places to being in favor of same-sex "marriage." With the exception of much of rural America, where, for the most part, boys are expected to act like boys and girls like girls, being gay is positively celebrated and same-sex marriage seen as social progress.

The only real courage is among those who continue to believe what they've always believed on these issues and whose opinions, being based on solid moral convictions, don't change because of shifting political winds.

13 comments:

Lee said...

The odd thing is I haven't heard anyone calling the President a bigot.

That's what I get called for opposing gay marriage.

I don't know. Maybe he gets points for insincerity...?

One Brow said...

Lee,

I'm not sure of your position, but the President supports civil unions for homosexuals, a common compromise position.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"there are few social costs to being gay"

Richard Grenell and bullied LGBT high school students may beg to differ.

The future won't remember you as being courageous Martin, anymore than we view committed segregationists as courageous.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Right. Because race is just like sexual behavior. Keep repeating it. Maybe it will become true.

KyCobb said...

" Because race is just like sexual behavior"

No,

Because young people don't have the same hang ups about other people's sexual orientations. In 20 years, most people will no more care about same sex marriage than they care about multi-racial marriage now.

KyCobb said...

Or, if you prefer a non-racial analogy, in 20 years people will no more care about same-sex marriage than they do cohabitation by unmarried heterosexual couples now. There were still laws on the books against cohabitation in some states in the 21st Century.

Lee said...

> Or, if you prefer a non-racial analogy, in 20 years people will no more care about same-sex marriage than they do cohabitation by unmarried heterosexual couples now.

That's an optimistic viewpoint, I think. It presumes, among other things, that liberalism will not have succeeded in completely destroying the country in twenty years, so that we will be here in our present civic form to recall these pleasant debates.

But as Islam continues to expand its influence into the Western democracies, my only regret is that I won't be here to listen to extension of this pleasant debate that liberals will be having with the imams on the glories of gay marriage.

Bruce Bawer is something of a gay conservative, a former reviewer of movies for the American Spectator, among other things. He grew tired of the anti-gay sentiment in the U.S., though, and moved to Europe. There he experienced the tolerance of Islam and how it affects the gay community. And wrote this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Surrender-Appeasing-Islam-Sacrificing-Freedom/dp/038552398X

And this one:

http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying/dp/0767920058/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336595143&sr=1-4


Of course, I don't know what form the post-U.S. American society will take. I mean, when liberalism has succeeded and the U.S. as we know it as kaput. Maybe the liberals' worst fears of a redneck fascism will come to pass. Maybe the conservative redneck's worst fears of godless communism will win. Maybe we'll just degenerate into anarchy like Argentina did when their currency collapsed in the Nineties.

But whichever direction it takes, gay marriage's best shot at flourishing is the survival of America in its current form. Further weakening the institution of marriage won't help that.

Sorry if this seems a bit off-topic, but KyCobb's speculation about what's going to happen in twenty years opened this can of worms. If he can speculate, why, I can speculate too.

Lee said...

Well, at least the President is no longer a bigot.

> Obama: "I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

That's all in one sentence, too. But the key part... "I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm...." Now, that's a full-throated defense of gay marriage right there.

It's right up there with other great declarations in history.

Patrick Henry: "But as for me personally, I think it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that you can either allow me an appropriate degree of liberty, or at some point consider terminating my functioning as an organism."

Thomas Jefferson: "We feel the time has come when it is important to us to go ahead and affirm that we hold certain truths to be personally relevant, that all men, and women too, are created equal, that they are endowed by such a creator as would be congruent with our personal belief system, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are human life (where it is wanted), liberty -- of course, in the sense that we should all be liberated from want -- and the pursuit of happiness so long as it doesn't conflict with the more important goals of the government, and involves no bitter clinging."

FDR: "I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who have been living in fear, that at a certain point I've just concluded for me personally that we have little in the way to fear, actually, except for the generic fear in and of itself that can paralyze a positive response to the threats that I, personally, perceive as facing the country."

KyCobb said...

Lee,

180 years ago, many Americans had the same hysterical fear of Catholicism as you have about Islam. Somehow the nation has survived all the influx of immigrants that nativists were afraid of, and I would dare say has actually thrived because of immigration.

Lee said...

> 180 years ago, many Americans had the same hysterical fear of Catholicism as you have about Islam.

I wonder if it's akin to your fear of "homophobics"...? Well, no, I guess some fears are well-founded. Just not mine.

> Somehow the nation has survived all the influx of immigrants that nativists were afraid of, and I would dare say has actually thrived because of immigration.

So gay marriage is good because America has prospered through immigration. Thanks, KyCobb, I would have never made that connection without your help.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"So gay marriage is good because America has prospered through immigration."

I was just following your tangent on the threat of Islam, one of your favorite bogeymen along with gays. The GOP has successfully used a variety of scary people to wedge middle class whites into voting against their own interests. Unfortunately for the GOP, they have wedged almost eveybody out of their party except a shrinking cadre of old, straight, christian white men. Which means that very soon the GOP is going to have to radically change its message to remain relevant. If Romney doesn't win this year, the next time a Republican is elected president, homosexuality, immigration and healthcare for women will no longer be issues. You can bet Romney desperately wishes they weren't issue this year.

Lee said...

> I was just following your tangent on the threat of Islam, one of your favorite bogeymen along with gays.

As I pointed out, at least one of my bogeymen sees the other bogeymen as clearly as I do.

But as I also pointed out, you have your bogeymen too.

> Unfortunately for the GOP, they have wedged almost eveybody out of their party except a shrinking cadre of old, straight, christian white men.

The 2010 elections seemed to indicate that there are a lot of old, straight, Christian white men in this country.

> Which means that very soon the GOP is going to have to radically change its message to remain relevant.

What would be a pleasant change would be if the GOP were to radically change their message to adopt correct viewpoints and defend them vigorously.

Unfortunately, even in their morally benighted state, they're usually better than Democrats.

> You can bet Romney desperately wishes they weren't issue this year.

I think the desperation is coming from the other camp. The issues you suggest the Republicans would like to go away are the issues the Democrats keep bringing up to distract everyone from Obama's record.

One Brow said...

Lee,

I certainly agree Obama's position was rather tepid. He's probably too Christian to give full-bodied support to same-sex marriage.