The New Republic’s James Kirchick has an illuminating piece on the Wall Street Journal about the curious lack of gay-rights commentary in this year’s election.
Republicans might also have noticed the opinions of their own party members and realized that attacking the “gay agenda” would prove unpopular. On the eve of the convention, a New York Times/CBS News poll reported 49% of Republican delegates were in support of either civil unions (43%) or marriage (6%) for gay couples. While 90% of Democratic delegates support either marriage (55%) or civil unions (35%), Republican delegates — the party’s conservative base — are actually more liberal on this issue than Republican voters, only 39% of whom support either option. With 58% of the American public in favor of some form of legal recognition, Republicans are actually closer to the national mood, and are hopefully beginning to understand that Buchananite “cultural war” rhetoric is fast becoming a thing of the past.
Although I tend to be uncertain about the gay marriage campaign’s ideological casting, tactics and rhetoric, I can’t say I have any opposition to gay marriage. Nor, does it seem, an increasingly large portion of the national population. That being the case, I can also understand some people’s hesitancy to allow homosexual relationships to be officiated at the level of heterosexual marriage. But I think that the concern about gay marriage stems less from ‘intolerance’ and ‘hatred’ – words too often thrown about – than an inability to separate sacred, traditional interpretations of the institution from a government’s acknowledgment of legal union.
This isn’t surprising. If one looks at the polling among Republicans, the numbers overwhelmingly favor civil unions to marriages, although government backed civil unions would likely be legally indistinguishable from marriages (which is what rendered civil unions a moot instrument by the California Supreme Court). Why is this? Marriage and all that it denotes – especially to more traditional voters – is apparently important as a distinguishable cultural term.
‘Pro-Family’ advocates seem to favor permitting heterosexual partnership to remain distinctive from a homosexual unions in presentation if not substance, which in this context does not seem completely unreasonable given the relative youth of the gay marriage movement. As more people move from being dismissive of legal recognition for gay couples to acceptance of their legal rights, the intolerance charge will begin to ring increasingly hollow, and might even serve to harden opposition against gay marriage.
Although it does seem, on some level, sensible that some would bristle at officially expanding the definition of marriage to include gay couples, a bruising cultural battle would not benefit anyone and could only stoke further acrimony. Instead, it seems pretty obvious to me that the best solution is to divest the government’s role as an executor of marriage and leave the naming of the ritual to the couples. Instead, the government could offer civil unions to two consenting adults of whatever sexual orientation and be done with it. This devolves choice to the individual – where it ought to be anyway – and possibly even removes the issue as a cultural flashpoint.
Either way, Kirchick’s commentary illustrates the evolving dynamics of the debate and the emerging inadequacies of the old arguments and slogans. As for the Republican Party, let’s hope that their platform evolves sooner rather than later as time does not seem to be on their side; however, lest they wait for the issue to be force on them later, the GOP would be better served by pulling the government out of the ritual sacrament business.
3 Comments
September 10, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Although I greatly appreciate your viewing of this issue from an open mind, I strongly disagree that the words “hate” and “intolerance” are simply “thrown around”. As a gay man, who does NOT fall into any of the stereotypical slots so many have as preconceived notions ( I play sports, am very athletic, am not effeminate in my mannerisms or dress, am not a hair dresser, florist or stylist ) I have, on more than several occasions, experienced first hand the “hate” and “intolerance” that you claim are just terms that are thrown around. I have been fired for being gay, as there are no laws stating you can’t be fired for sexual orientation. I have been physically beaten by a group of men who were intolerant of gays, and I have been judged and discriminated against on several occasions for being gay. As humans, we possess the ability to empathize, however, unless we are in a situation, we will never know what that situation is like to be in. Again, there is a great deal of hate and intolerance that has, and continues to be endured by the GLBT community. I see it everyday.
September 10, 2008 at 5:26 pm
[...] Read the rest by clicking here. [...]
September 10, 2008 at 6:00 pm
James – thank you for your comment. I appreciate your perspective and I have no doubt in my mind that intolerance does exist and is still a very large problem. Nonetheless, I’d be inclined to believe that it’s less (or more tempered) than, oh, four years ago, and even more so than 10 or 20 years ago.
My point, essentially, has been that the country seems to be moving in one direction on the issue. As authentic intolerance wanes, the electorate will have to contend with the question of semantics. Should the franchise of marriage be extended to homosexuals? This will stem less from hatred and intolerance than from a belief in the unique quality of heterosexual relationships (which is a personal belief).
I contend, then, that we should move to remove the issue from federal oversight and return the question of ‘marriage’ to the individual, where it belongs. If you and your partner believe you are married, why should a legislator be able the one to acknowledge or deny that reality?