Gay Marriage and Hetero Divorce

I have made this link in verbal arguments with my fellow conservatives but haven't actually written anything about it. Don't have time to analyze, but this article makes most of the points I would have. And since it is published by a subsidiary of Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministry, it has more credibility than I do for people that think in such terms:

Divorce is in the background of the gay marriage debate in at least three ways. First, gay marriage is the end of the trend that no-fault divorce began. The legal innovation of unilateral divorce began to reduce marriage to nothing but a temporary association of individuals. If marriage is merely a free association of individuals, there is no principled reason to exclude gay couples, or even larger groupings of sexual partners. The permanence of marriage was one of the key features that distinguished it from an ordinary contract.

Second, the high divorce rate and the resulting non-permanence of marriage made the institution of marriage more attractive to same-sex couples than it otherwise would be. If marriage still meant one to a customer for life, I seriously doubt that we’d be hearing about same-sex marriage today. Gay couples evidently have a more relaxed concept of both permanence and fidelity than do heterosexual couples. Gay activists would be much less likely to invest time and energy working for the right to marry, if divorce were available only for adultery or cruelty.

Most importantly, the high divorce rate has made it difficult to articulate opposition to gay marriage. People who have been divorced may feel hypocritical if they voice opposition to a system they felt they had to use. People who secretly fear they may need a divorce someday are reluctant to bad-mouth the easy availability of divorce. People who are not confident in their own ability to keep their marriage together for a lifetime, won’t speak out against the culture of divorce. A significant subset of such people will be reluctant to voice their opposition to gay marriage. People who have lost confidence in marriage as an institution of exclusivity and permanence are simply not going to have the heart for a fight over gay marriage.

Just to emphasize my point: note that in the rest of the article Ms. Morse does not advocate a Constitutional ammendment forbidding unilateral divorce, but has some helpful cultural suggestions on how to confront it. Legal issues, of course, are important in this as in the gay marriage debate, but a mature and effective Christian response need not resort to demagoguery or panicked extremism.

The Anti-Gay Vote?

There has been a fair amount of buzz to the effect that Bush won because he (or his evil mastermind/architect Karl Rove) managed to get several state constitutional initiative baning gay marriage on the ballot. The theory seems to be that Republicans would have stayed home if not for the fact that they were up in arms over this issue. Case in point this talking point from Josh Marshall:

As many other have already noted, Rove and Co. cleverly managed to get anti-gay marriage initiatives and referenda on the ballot in a number of key swing states. And that seems to have played an key role in mobilizing 'peripheral' evangelical and culturally conservative voters.

In the article that Marshall links to the exit-poll survey number 22 crops up -- as in "22 percent of voters named "moral values" as the most important issue to them", a clear indicator to many people that gay bashing was the number one reason that Bush won.

OK, forget for a moment that these are exit polls and that they predicted a win for Kerry that was wildly off the mark. Forget also the obvious fact that in addition to sexual behavior, "moral values" include such matters as integrity and trustworthiness which have been key distinctives in the campaign against Kerry. Is it possible that these ballot initiatives really did push Bush over the top?

Early on, Andrew Sullivan seemed to think so, and has been struggling with the issue ever since. But a recent article in Slate seems to definitively debunk the notion that the Gay Marriage issue helped Bush at all. As with most statistical arguments, the reasoning may be a little hard to follow, but here is the crucial text:

The evidence that having a gay-marriage ban on the ballot increased voter turnout is spotty. Marriage-ban states did see higher turnout than states without such measures. They also saw higher increases in turnout compared with four years ago. But these differences are relatively small. Based on preliminary turnout estimates, 59.5 percent of the eligible voting population turned out in marriage-ban states, whereas 59.1 percent turned out elsewhere. This is a microscopic gap when compared to other factors. For example, turnout in battleground states was more than 7.5 points higher than it was in less-competitive states, and it increased much more over 2000 as well.

It's true that states with bans on the ballot voted for Bush at higher rates than other states. His vote share averaged 7 points higher in gay-marriage-banning states than in other states (57.9 vs. 50.9). But four years ago, when same-sex marriage was but a twinkle in the eye of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Bush's vote share was 7.3 points higher in these same states than in other states. In other words, by a statistically insignificant margin, putting gay marriage on the ballot actually reduced the degree to which Bush's vote share in the affected states exceeded his vote share elsewhere.

[...]

Much has been made of the fact that "moral values" topped the list of voters' concerns, mentioned by more than a fifth (22 percent) of all exit-poll respondents as the "most important issue" of the election. It's true that by four percentage points, people in states where gay marriage was on the ballot were more likely than people elsewhere to mention moral issues as a top priority (25.0 vs. 20.9 percent). But again, the causality is unclear. Did people in these states mention moral issues because gay marriage was on the ballot? Or was it on the ballot in places where people were already more likely to be concerned about morality?

The article goes on to point out that a far bigger reason for the Bush victory was his trustworthiness regarding the war on terror. So, once again, the evil Republican jihad seems to be a conjuration of fevered left-wing paranoia. What a relief.

Gay Marriage II: First Things and First Principles

The current issue of First Things includes an article by Judge Robert Bork titled "The Necessary amendment". Unfortunately the article itself is not available on-line so I will have to limit my comments to excerpts. This presents a serious problem for me since there is much in the article that I agree with, but due to considerations of space I will have to focus on the specific areas of disagreement. Since I am already cutting against the grain of most conservatives on this issue, I am not eager to continually emphasize the negative. And then there is the fact that of all the conservatives with whom I would expect to disagree over an issue of constitutional law, Bork has got to be at the very bottom of the list. But a bad argument is a bad argument and we are not doing ourselves any service by allowing our political fortunes to be bound to such a policy as the FMA, even if it is advocated by such an authority of Judge Bork.

He begins his discussion with a more or less accurate summary of the controversy. His position, as anyone familiar with his work (especially The Tempting of America which you ought to buy several copies of, if you haven't already) will recognize, is that the fundamental issue is one of judicial activism. He ends the first paragraph by noting that

As an example of judicial incontinence, it will rival Roe v. Wade, and will deal a sever and quite possibly fatal blow to two already badly damaged but indispensable institutions -- marriage and the rule of law in constitutional interpretation.

Having made this wholly accurate claim, however, he jumps a few paragraphs later to the conclusion that

The only real hope of heading off the judicial drive to constitutionalize homosexual marriage is in the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution. [...] Given the stakes riding on the outcome of the effort to adopt the [FMA] are so high, it is surprising that so many social conservatives have expressed opposition. [...] Their mistake, it seems to me, derives from a conservative constitutionalism which, though laudable in the past, is now, most unfortunately obsolete. [...] Conservative constitutionalism today requires taking back the original constitutional order and representative government. If that requires amending the Constitution to recall the judges to their proper function, so be it.

But surely this is a non-sequitur. If the root cause of the problem is judicial activism, why not focus on the cause, rather than its effects? Furthermore, if the judiciary is so untrustworthy with the Constitution as it currently stands, how will adding another amendment for them to misinterpret help matters? I don't wish to sound flippant about such a crucial issue, but there are always alternatives in politics and I strongly suggest that the conservative leaders who are advocating this amendment suffer from a failure of imagination. I will have more to say on what I see as some possible alternatives and why they are better than the current course of action in a later post, but for the present, I will point to my earlier comments regarding Rep Ron Lewis' proposed federal legislation. (See also here.)

After detailing some of the reasons that judicial activism will thwart any attempt to provide a legislative solution (with which, again, I am largely in agreement) Bork goes on to criticize Michael Greve's proposed alternate amendment.

This amendment would leave states free to give effect to the acts of other states or not, as they see fit. [...] There seem both legal and sociological problems with this proposal. The language leaves out of account what state courts may do with state constitutions.

This is certainly true, but I do not see that this is a good reason to amend the Federal Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment already goes too far, in my opinion, in applying Federal jurisdiction over State laws and constitutions. The creeping dominance of the national government is at least as big a threat to liberty as autocratic judges. However good the motives, and I concede that the motives of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment were among the highest, there always comes a pharaoh who knoweth not Joseph to misuse the additional power that well meaning people gives him. Better to abandon the field entirely than to fight under this flag.

Bork goes on to examine the idea of jurisdiction stripping per Article III, Section 2. His objection is pretty much identical to this roundup of the issue that I posted on July 22. See especially Eugene Volokh's comments.

He then turns to the social consequences of gay marriage.

Amending the United States Constitution to save it and marriage from freebooting judges would be extremely difficult in the best of circumstances, but it is made immeasurably more difficult because so many people ask: How does homosexual marriage affect me?

Since this is one of my questions as well, I had hoped that Bork might be able to provide an answer that was more robust than what I have seen to date among conservative commentators. Alas, it is not to be:

Studies of the effects of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands by Stanley Kurtz raise at least the inference that when there is a powerful (and ultimately successful) campaign by secular elites for homosexual marriage, traditional marriage is demeaned and comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others. The symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family is broken and there is a rapid and persistent decline in heterosexual marriages.

The problem with using this study is that it has been called pretty seriously into question by Lee Badgett:

Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.

It is difficult to determine whose experts are more correct in these sorts of controversies, but at best we can say that Kurtz's (and therefore Bork's) case is not made. Andrew Sullivan has some further comments

Then Kurtz tries to argue that there is a causation effect between registered partnerships for gays and the decline of traditional marriage. He proves nothing. There are so many independent variables - from secularism to contraception to cultural gender roles and on and on - that such a conclusion is intellectually preposterous. Kurtz does his best to hide this obvious truth. Check the words: the decline in marriage and gay registered partnerships are "linked"; they are both "an effect and a cause"; in the same paragraph, same-sex marriage has "undermined" marriage - then it has simply "locked in and reinforced" an "existing trend;" the decline of marriage "closely tracks" the emergence of gay registered partnerships. Please. The decline of smoking in America "closely tracks" the success of Republicans in Congress in the 1990s. So what? These kinds of unsubstantiated correlations, slippery links and simple associations would be laughed out of a freshman social science class. Did no one edit this? The truth is that for several decades, revolutions in contraception, feminism, the economy have all severed the linkage between marriage and procreation. If you want to take the institution back, go ahead and try. Or go visit Saudi Arabia (or Muslim enclaves in Scandinavia) where those connections are still tightly bound. But to pin all the change in marriage on gay couples - the only group that has had nothing to do with marriage decline in this century - is grotesque. And given that coupling - not procreation - is what civil marriage now is, we have two options. Accelerate the decline by devising new and more elaborate marriage-lite options for gays and straights (which is now, bizarrely, the position of National Review); or arrest it by bringing gays into the real institution and ask the same standards of them that we ask of everyone else. Then get rid of all the counterfeits. The great sadness of the last two decades is that many of us tried to persuade conservatives that they should put their defense of marriage before their fear and loathing of gays. For most, but not all, conservatives, we failed. What's left is a Republican party devoted primarily to exclusion and fear - and to undermining the very institution they want to defend. And they still don't see it. Maybe it will take their own destruction of civil marriage before they do.

Despite the snide tone this is the argument to beat. So far, I have not seen any conservative up to the task, and Bork adds essentially nothing to the debate. I would like to try my hand at refuting Sullivan at some point, but not in the context of the FMA.

Bork's conclusion is particularly unconvincing. Having detailed all of the obstacles to an amendment, he nevertheless justifies it on the grounds that

Finally, it is worth considering that a vigorous campaign for the FMA could have a salutary effect on the American judiciary. The debates, win or lose, might also lead the public to a more realistic view of the courts.

I am sorry but this is mere madness. If the debates could be thus salutary as a side-effect of the discussion of homosexual marriage, how much stronger could the effect be if we focused on the real issue? But an attempt to amend the Constitution is far too serious an undertaking in the hopes that, even if we lose, we might at least have raised the public consciousness. And I suspect that his "win or lose" is a confession that we probably will lose the debate. In that case there are some political consequences, such as reinforcing the association of conservatives with perceived bigotry and mean-spiritedness, that will overwhelm any supposed salutary effects.

Judge Bork does issue a very meaningful challenge with which I would like to end this post:

Abandoning resistance here might nevertheless be seen by some as an intelligent strategy, but that would be true only if there were a more defensible line to fall back to. It is difficult to see what line that might be.

I would never advocate abandoning resistance, but I do think there are some opportunities for counter-attack that might prove fruitful. I will detail these in my next post on this subject.

Bad Idea

The House Republicans have passed legislation restricting the federal courts from ruling on state bans on gay marriage by stripping their jurisdiction. Contrary to those quoted in the article, this is probably constitutional due to the provision in Article III, Section 2:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

That doesn't make this a good idea, however. I will have more to say on this, when I get a free moment but Eugene Volokh already made some excellent points back in February:

But just how useful would that be? Even if federal courts lose jurisdiction over objections to some statute, state courts would still be able to entertain them -- state courts must enforce the U.S. Constitution just as much as federal courts do (that's in art. VI, sec. 2). If people are worried that the U.S. Supreme Court may strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, then they should be worried that state supreme courts may do the same; and even those state supreme courts that might n t take this view on their own might feel moved by precedents from other states, since courts throughout the country tend to try to interpret the U.S. Constitution consistently with the decisions of other courts.

What's more, if a state supreme court does hold DOMA unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, then there'll be no remedy (short of impeaching the state supreme court Justices). Amending the state constitution, which is a remedy for state supreme court decisions based on the state constitution (such as the Goodridge gay marriage decision in the Massachusetts) will do nothing to change the state court's interpretation of the U.S. constitution. And an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court won't be possible, because the Court has been stripped of jurisdiction to hear the case. (I suppose one could strip the Court of jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions upholding DOMA but not from decisions invalidating DOMA, but then if the Court upholds a decision invalidating DOMA, DOMA will be invalid throughout the country.)

UPDATEA: Eugene Volokh has reposted his original remarks with some further comments here. An interesting fact about his second point

Such a jurisdiction-stripping statute would nonetheless probably be constitutional, because of article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution

is that he emphasizes the word "probably". As I noted above, a plain reading of the text makes it perfectly obvious that Congress does have the Constitutional authority to do this, but Volokh is rightly cautious. The original intent of the Constitution was to make the laws clear to every citizen, but the days when we could rely on judges and lawyers to see the obvious are long gone.

UPDATE: And -- just when you thought the waters were muddy enough -- French judges have just anulled the first Gay marriage:

Members of the ruling conservative party, Roman Catholic church leaders and some opposition Socialists have opposed gay marriage on the grounds that children need a mother and a father. The couple's lawyer, Emmanuel Pierrat, said the court had based its ruling on the argument that marriage is traditionally considered the foundation of the family and that one of its main functions is to have children.

I wonder if this will make the Democrats stop drinking Bordeaux.

On a more realistic note, I don't think this argument will survive long. As the article continues:

Mr Pierrat said the judgment was based on an extremely traditional concept of the family, given that over half of French children are born outside of marriage.

However praiseworthy this decision may be, the very fact that that it comes as such a surprise suggests that it will be overturned on appeal. And in this country, it will take a huge effort to bring the culture back around to the point where marriage, sex and children form a natural progression rather than a collection of unrelated options. The courts are not the best battlefield for the traditional position, and will not be until there is a popular consensus on the subject.

Gay Marriage: Preliminary Remarks

It looks like the gay marriage issue has begun heating up again. Eugene Volokh has made some trenchant comments on the slippery slope to polygamy

So the Court has been willing to depart from the very core of Griswold's argument (the limitation to marriage) and from the express assurances by the concurrence that the decision in no way affects homosexuality. Why should we have any confidence that the Court — or lower courts or other influential bodies — will feel limited by Griswold's supposed stress on the inherent "binar[iness]" of "intimacy," something that is much less expressly dwelt on by the Griswold opinions? (To the extent the opinions suggest anything about the binariness of intimacy, that comes from their focus on the married couple — a focus that the Court has long abandoned, see Eisenstadt.)

and why he doesn't think it is politically likely.

Andrew Sullivan cites some statistics demolishing the notion that legalization of gay marriage in Northern Europe has led to the decline of hetero marriage:

Stanley Kurtz's argument that marriage rights for gays in Scandinavia somehow led to a decline in marriage rates for heterosexuals or an increase in children born out of wedlock is thoroughly rebutted by M. V. Lee Badget in the current Slate. The evidence, to put it mildly, simply doesn't exist. In fact, heterosexual marriage rates have stabilized and even increased after gays were allowed to marry.

I will respond to all of this in greater detail as soon as I get time to get my thoughts organized (God willing, this weekend). But in the meantime, the formidable Cal Thomas may have saved me some trouble by neatly summarizing my general take on the matter:

"Pro family" groups have given it their best shot, but this debate is over. They would do better to spend their energy and resources building up their side of the cultural divide and demonstrating how their own precepts are supposed to work. Divorce remains a great threat to family stability, and there are far more heterosexuals divorcing and cohabiting than homosexuals wishing to "marry." If conservative religious people wish to exert maximum influence on culture, they will redirect their attention to repairing their own cracked foundation. An improved heterosexual family structure will do more for those families and the greater good than attempts to halt the inevitable. A topical solution does not cure a skin disease whose source is far deeper.

I think the conservative arguments deserve more detailed treatment, but this is the bottom line. We have already lost significant ground on this front and we need to pick our battles more carefully than we have done so far. Otherwise, in the words of my friend Pastorius, we will be only left with a choice of which hill we want to die on.

Targeting Procreation

In an attempt to "think outside the box" in combating Gay Marriage, Allan Carlson of the Family Research Council is proposing the possibility of restricting marriage benefits to couples who actually have children:

Are there other political acts that would reconnect procreation and marriage? Perhaps, if we are prepared to think "outside the box." For example, we could turn one of our opponents' key arguments back on them. Perhaps we should restrict some of the legal and welfare benefits of civil marriage solely to those married during their time of natural, procreative potential: for women, below the age of 45 or so (for men, in the Age of Viagra, the line would admittedly be harder to draw). The idea is not without recent political precedence. Back in 1969, Representative Wilbur Mills--the then-chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee--wanted to respond to complaints by unmarried adults that existing tax law unfairly favored the married. It was true that the existing practice of "income splitting" by married couples on their joint tax returns, in the context of high marginal tax rates, did give a strong tax benefit to marriage. Importantly, though, Mills stated that he wanted to preserve this "marriage bonus" for the young and fertile, while still helping those whom he labeled (in now-archaic language) as "spinsters." Accordingly, he proposed maintaining the benefits of income splitting only for married persons under the age of 35. (This approach, I note in passing, went nowhere. The Nixon administration and Congress chose instead to reduce the benefits of income splitting for all married persons; and they so unwittingly created the "marriage penalty" with which we still grapple today.)

Another, and perhaps more realistic way to rebind marriage and procreation would be, counter-intuitively, to take some of the benefits currently attached to marriage and reroute them instead through children. Allow me one practical example here. Whatever the future, it is likely that most households with two or more children will continue to be married-couple, natural-parent homes. These are still, and always will be, the places most open to what we once called "a full quiver." We could encourage them by tying retirement benefits to family size: that is, the more children that a couple brought into the world, the higher their later monthly Social Security benefit. Or, we could create a new tax credit against payroll taxes:rebating, say, 20 percent of the current 15.3 percent tax facing parents for each child born. Again, these ideas would indirectly favor child-rich homes; and most of these, in the American context, would predictably contain a married couple.

Andrew Sullivan, somewhat mystifyingly but perhaps ironically, applauds this as an honest admission that procreation and marriage have been inescapably severed:

Can we still defend the purpose of marriage as procreation? No, not in the current constitutional climate. It is now clear that the "right of privacy," conceived by the Supreme Court nearly four decades ago, is the enemy of both marriage and procreation separately, and is especially hostile when they are united. It is also clear that we lost the key battles in defense of this union decades ago, long before anyone even imagined same-sex marriage. And we lost these battles over questions that--to be honest--relatively few of us are really prepared to reopen. How many are ready to argue for the recriminalization of contraception? How many want to argue for a strict legal and cultural imposition of the word illegitimate on certain little children?

I acknowledge that this admission is somewhat more astute than I had expected of the FRC, but it seems to highlight exactly why conservatives ought to drop the whole issue. As I argued in July 2003 on the Ranter's Guild:

Having said all that, I think conservatives have already lost the argument over homosexual marriage. When we supported no-fault divorce in the 70s, we lost all credibility for political arguments based on protecting the sanctity of marriage. The only ground left would be to argue that the fortunes of a nation depend on obedience to God, which currently will not get a consensus even among religious conservatives.

Carlson's autocratic thinking outside the box has even less chance of actually occurring, but amply demonstrates the tortured lengths some will go to impose their vision on society. If there is to be any progress on this issue, it must come from within society, by means of changed hearts and minds, not be forced upon it in such heavy-handed proposals. Remember that, however we may seem to be in control at the moment, there may yet come a Pharaoh who knows not Joseph. And he who lives by the State can just as easily perish by it.

Blaming Heterosexuals

Russell Moore of Touchstone's Mere Comments blog links to an op-ed by Stephanie Coontz who points out that at least part of the blame for the current movement to redefine marriage to include gays belongs to ... religious conservatives:

Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, argues that homosexuals didn't start the revolution. Heterosexuals did, a long time ago. Writes Coontz:

Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked and the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.

[...] Coontz is precisely right that the redefinition of marriage didn't begin with social revolutionaries in Massachusetts and San Francisco. This is why it will never work for Christian churches to stand against same-sex "marriage," while remaining silent about working mothers, daycare, the contraceptive culture, and egalitarian marriage roles.

[...]

Coontz diagnosis is on target, while her antidote, surrender to a malleable definition of marriage, is deadly. The answer is for counter-cultural churches and families to model something alien to both Ozzie and Harriet and Will and Grace: marriage that points to the mystery of Christ and his church.

Forgive me for feeling somewhat vindicated by this acknowledgement of a point I have made previously (see here and here) from such a bastion of orthodoxy and conservatism as Touchstone. It has been rather lonely trying to point out that the "defense of marriage" theme is a two-edged sword that really points out the shame of our own sorry performance. In fact, in one off-line debate I remember an oponent specifically citing Touchstone as an authority that I ought to respect in considering a change in my position. I am glad to see Touchstone and I are now making the same point.

In the interest of full-disclosure, I must admit that the debate was about the Federal Marriage Ammendment and as far as I know Touchstone has not rescinded its support of that proposal (moribund though it may be). Also, I would not like to be understood as supporting either gay marriage or civil unions. But if we are to defeat either of those ideas, we must have a more robust rallying cry than "defending traditional marriage" when we really have no intention of doing anything of the sort.

Gay Marriage I: Cheney in the Middle

During the Primary of 2000 I wasn't a Bush supporter. In the early days of the season, I was campainging for Dan Quayle, a much more conservative candidate than either the current president or his father. I only came into Bush's camp because of what I perceived to be the dishonest centrism of John McCain. I knew that Bush was running as basically a Kennedy liberal: tough on foreign policy, especially with regard to restoring the military, but far too willing to spend money on social programs.

But as the campaign wore on, I began to notice the kind of people Bush surrounded himself with and began to allow that he might actually make a decent president. First and foremost, of course, was Condoleeza Rice whom I would still like to see someday at the top of the ticket. But almost as impressive, to my mind, was Dick Cheney who provided what at the time was trendilly referred to as gravitas.

Now that the Bush administration is nearing the end of its first term, I am pleased to note that I was pretty much right on all counts. Bush has exceeded expectations with his foreign policy, has outspent Clinton on domestic social programs (OK, maybe "pleased" wasn't the right word in the previous sentence) and he has generally been well served by his staff, including Mr. Cheney.

I say all of this by way of introduction to my real topic which is Gay Marriage and the deplorable way the Republican party has allowed itself to be maneuvered into an untenable position on the issue. Since this is a rather daunting topic, I have been waiting for an event that would provide an appropriate entre. I think the controversy of which Mr. Cheney currently finds himself at the center will serve that turn as well as any.

For those of you who are not familiar with the issue, there are a few facts that you should know. First, Mary Cheney, the Vice President's daughter and sometime campaign director, is openly lesbian. Second, the president, Cheney's boss, has reluctantly but firmly thrown his support behind the attempt to amend the Constitution to define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. I have not been able to ascertain whether or not Mary supports gay marriage, but even if she does not, this would seem to place Mr. Cheney in a rather awkward position. During the 2000 debate with Joe Lieberman, Cheney expressed the federalism argument that such things should be left up to the states, but since Bush has come out in support of the Federal Marriage amendment (FMA), Cheney has been mostly silent on the actual issue, stating merely that he supports the president.

But all that changed this afternoon at a rally in Iowa:

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

"The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage," he said.

There are two points to note at this juncture. First, as I stated above, Mr. Cheney is reiterating his basic position in the 2000 campaign. That shows a certain amount of integrity and consistency that is refreshing, even a bit shocking, this close to an election. But second, I think it illustrates a properly conservative attitude toward government. I will have more to say on this later, but for now let us note that revolutionary measures are rarely warranted by a mature political philosophy.

Cheney goes on to explain the President's position and his own attitude toward that position:

"I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved," Cheney said. "The courts were making the judgment for the entire country."

Addressing Bush's position on the amendment, Cheney said: "At this point, say, my own preference is as I've stated, but the president makes policy for the administration. He's made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue."

Notice the concise way Cheney has managed to spell out the relevant issues. Judicial activism, anti-democratic tendencies and his own personal respect for the president's office are all referenced in not many more words than it took me to list them. If you are looking for nuance coupled with conservative principles, look no further. This is the proper way to express disagreement over particulars towards people with whom you fundamentally agree.

So, you would think that conservatives, whether or not they agree with Cheney, would at least respect the careful way he has phrased his responses in order to minimize conflict. If you did think so, you would be wrong, at least as far as some conservative are concerned:

Those comments drew criticism from the conservative Family Research Council, with President Tony Perkins saying: "I find it hard to believe the vice president would stray from the administration's position on defense policy or tax policy. For many pro-family voters, protecting traditional marriage ranks ahead of the economy and job creation as a campaign issue."

This is an unwise gambit on several levels. Bringing up the contrast between the social and fiscal conservatives at this point plays into the Democratic canard that conservatives are all about money. I don't know what Mr. Perkins' views on tax policy are, but I doubt he would be happy if Cheney did stray from Tax policies so I don't see what purpose this innuendo serves. Ditto on the defense issue.

But more problematic still is the notion that there is only one way that reasonable people can view the issue of homosexuality. I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Cheney's "live and let die" defense of his position, having heard way too much of that sort of thing growing up in the 70s. But, as I mentioned, I think he makes some substantive points and they deserve to be addressed directly. The attempt to short-circuit the debate by appealing to the president's authority (or worse still to the infamous "party line") will merely serve to confirm in many a skeptic's mind that the Evangelical wing is not ready for prime-time.

But it gets worse:

Perkins added that if Cheney sees a problem with activist judges, "then how can he not endorse the same solution the president and his pro-family allies have proposed? We urge Vice President Cheney to support President Bush and a constitutional amendment on marriage."

What was implicit in the earlier quote is now quite blatant. Mr. Perkins clearly does not want any intellectual debate on the matter. He wants his agenda pushed and will brook no dissent, informed or otherwise. Persuasion and dialogue are evidently not legitimate tools for achieving those goals.

Before I go too much further, I need to point out that I probably share many of the moral presuppositions of Mr. Perkins as against those of Mr. Cheney. I believe that homosexuality is a grievous sin, and that its practitioners are more in need of repentance than acceptance. I also believe (which possibly Mr. Perkins does not) that the only way to secure a just and free society is for that society to base its laws on the precepts of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. But I also recognize that such a society will not be achieved through compulsion but through persuasion and prayer. In coming posts I will explore how those themes mesh with the current political milieu and, hopefully, shed some light on what steps conservatives can and should be taking to win the debate.

One final note: Since it has become common to question the timing of any political utterance in this contentious election cycle, I hereby do so. It occurs to me that the Vice President's going off the reservation this close to the election may be paving the way for a realignment of the Bush administration with regard to what can only be called a doomed policy. I do not believe that wishful thinking should play any significant role in political analysis, but since I do fervently wish that we had never wandered into this hornets nest, I will say that I hope Mr. Bush is positioning himself to at least a partial retreat from his support for the FMA. I am only a small voice among the greater clarions of the blogosphere, but if anything I say can help to achieve such a rethinking, I shall not fail to attempt it.

Sullivan Finally Gets It

In a post early Wednesday morning, Andrew Sullivan had this to say about the relation between judicial activism and gay marriage:

I don't believe that we should give up or change the fight for marriage equality. But I do think it behooves people like me to listen to what the other side is saying. I'm struck by how many of you have told me that your real objection is not with the issue of marriage equality itself, but by the means of achieving it. Court-imposed mandates rub people the wrong way, even those who support including gay couples within the family structure. Extra-legal tactics like Gavin Newsom's particularly rankle. I wasn't sanguine about this at the time but minimized it because I was so swept up in the emotion of seeing gay couples finally getting the respect they deserve. I should have been stricter in opposing Newsom's grandstanding. I'll have more to say in a forthcoming TNR piece. But it's important to hear what others who disagree with me are saying. I'm trying harder.

Exactly. The rule of law should not be abrogated no matter how worthy the cause. Some of us tried to explain this to Sullivan at the time, but he brushed it aside. I am glad to see that he now admits the error. Time will tell if he sticks with this committment, but we all get overcome by our passions from time to time, so I am willing to cut him a little slack.

Of course, there are some people who do not think that judicial activism is the main problem here and would be perfectly willing to use it to further their conservative agenda if they could get away with it. But I don't consider such people to be truly conservative, just radical in a different direction.

And finally, the question of whether public acknowledgment of homosexuality is actually good for society (or for homosexuals themselves) is completely different. Sullivan's position is based on the assumption that homosexuals are in some sense born that way, so his comparison to black civil rights movements follows naturally. However, if you reject that premise (as I do) then the notion that gay marriage is a civil right collapses. But I think that is a case that should be made by persuasion, not force.

Big Media Unfair to Churches

This story seems like it should be getting more attention by the religious right than it apparently has:

The CBS and NBC television networks are refusing to run a 30-second television ad from the United Church of Christ because its all-inclusive welcome has been deemed "too controversial."

The ad, part of the denomination's new, broad identity campaign set to begin airing nationwide on Dec. 1, states that -- like Jesus -- the United Church of Christ seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation.

According to a written explanation from CBS, the United Church of Christ is being denied network access because its ad implies acceptance of gay and lesbian couples -- among other minority constituencies -- and is, therefore, too "controversial."

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

Josh Marshall has been following the story (here, here, here and here for instance) and Andrew Sullivan has mentioned it but I haven't been able to find this story on any of the conservative blogs that I read regularly.

It seems to me that if we are going to criticize the media for being unfair to Christians, that should include liberal Christians as well. I don't agree with the United Church of Christ on the issue of homosexuality, and the equation of moral disapproval with racial bigotry is dishonest, but they ought to be able to advertise on public airwaves just like the condom companies and Frederick's of Hollywood. People who don't want to watch the ads can change the channel. (Or, better yet, sell the fricking TV!) And the ad itself does not seem particularly offensive. Surely this is another example of the media's arrogance and blindness, which we have not been shy at pointing out when it affects us personally. Of course, this isn't a First Amendment issue: Viacom has every right, as a private company, to refuse to run anything it wants. But so do we, as consumers, have a right to protest such decisions.

And, if the argument from principle is not sufficient, consider this: it may well be in our best interest to protest. Is it possible that the ad was refused in order to make the religious right appear the villain? Josh Marshall points out the following rationale:

The CBS memo to the UCC includes three basic points.

1. The alleged policy of not running ads which address issue of public debate or controversy.

2. An alleged rule against ads from religious organizations which can be said in any way to proselytize.

3. And the fact that President Bush has recently called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Reason #2 seems like the best argument (though it's pretty weak in itself). But the CBS memo specifically says that this isn't the reason they're rejecting it. Reason one, they say, was an entirely sufficient reason for rejecting the ad.

But having enunciated this bar against ads which discuss or take a position on any "current controversial issue of public importance" they then gratuitously add this line about President Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

[...]

I would think that the general rule, if evenly enforced, would be sufficient. I cannot think of any good reason why President Bush's (who's now apparently been renamed 'Executive Branch') stated position should have any bearing at all on whether the ad should run.

Can you?

Actually, yes, I can. By including that sentence, CBS is suggesting that it is afraid that it may suffer at the hands of the Bush administration if they air an ad the administration finds offensive. They are invoking, without actually mentioning, the spectre of Right-wing Thought Police. This has the benefit of being perfectly deniable, since no actual charges against Bush have been made, but people will still gain the impression that Things Are Getting Scary.

This is actually a rather common tactic in political rhetoric and is frequently used to sow resentment. Throughout history it has been a cause of anti-semitism when the discontent was aimed at a successful Jewish class, and Evangelicals are becoming as safe a whipping boy as the Jews in certain circles.

I would much rather that we were on record as objecting on principle to the sort of soft censorship that CBS is perpetrating against our fellow Christians. But, for whatever reason, we ought to speak up.

Are Gay People Sinners?

Pastorius has a typically thoughtful post on recent comments by someone named Tim Hardaway. Not being a sports geek, I really don't know who that is but his comments are pretty ugly:

I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States.

Read Pastorius' post for further details (including discussion of a rather interesting possible change of heart on the issue by Louis Farrakhan).

Pastorius and I have been friends for many years, and one of the things I like about him is that we can argue, often heatedly, and never get pissed off at each other. (Well, some times we do get pissed off, because we have that testosterone thing going. But we never hate each other, which is what I'm trying to say.) Here is my reaction to something Pastorius says about a quarter of the way down:
They are gay. And, they go to church. My church is not pro-gay. But, these men go anyway, because they believe that Christ was the Messiah, and that he died for their sins, and they are thankful for that fact.

And, so they go to church and contribute to our worship services, and their contributions are beautiful and appreciated.

Just as a thought experiment, substitute the word "sinners" for "gay" and see what you get:
They are sinners. And, they go to church. My church is not pro-sinners. But, these men go anyway, because they believe that Christ was the Messiah, and that he died for their sins, and they are thankful for that fact.

And, so they go to church and contribute to our worship services, and their contributions are beautiful and appreciated.
Still agree with that? Me too. And it applies to you and me both (except that my contributions are probably a lot less beautiful than yours, but whatever...)

But here is where I have a problem: when people say "my temptations are not really sins, or at least are not as sinful as yours." This is pharisaism, pure and simple, and Jesus had a much bigger beef with such people than he did with garden variety sinners who confessed their faults.

From Hardaway's quote, he seems to fall into that camp and a lot of people on the anti-gay-marriage band wagon do also. More's the pity. But my point is that gay Christians often do as well, and seem especially sensitive to have the term sinner applied to that particular part of their lives. Maybe the folks in your church don't think that way, which would be a great blessing, but there are enough out there who do that being clear on the issue is important.

I think gay people deserve to go to hell because I think I deserve to go to hell, as do all human beings, and I can't quite believe that gay people are not human. Christ's atonement is big enough for all of us, but the price of admission is confessing the sin.

NOTE: I left this comment on CUANAS but I have changed the last paragraph here for emphasis.

Have the Neocons Saved Us from Ourselves?

Andrew Sullivan is relieved that Bush will not use the White House to push for a Marriage amendment:

The Post: Do you plan to expend any political capital to aggressively lobby senators for a gay marriage amendment?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that the situation in the last session -- well, first of all, I do believe it's necessary; many in the Senate didn't, because they believe DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] will -- is in place, but -- they know DOMA is in place, and they're waiting to see whether or not DOMA will withstand a constitutional challenge.

The Post: Do you plan on trying to -- using the White House, using the bully pulpit, and trying to --

THE PRESIDENT: The point is, is that senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously.
[...]
I'm extremely relieved. The FMA has gone unmentioned by Bush since the election - and it appears more and more like a pre-election ploy rather than a principled stand. (Of course, that's a relief but it's also an indication of how bald-faced a political maneuver this was in the first place). But this piece of sanity from the President deserves praise and reciprocation from those of us who support equality in marriage. [...]

I never really thought that Bush was all that keen on supporting the amendment. I don't think the FMA was a political maneuver as such -- it was more an ill-considered response to judicial activism in Massachusetts -- but I do think the president's support for it sprang more from an attempt to placate the social conservatives than from any deep conviction. In the quote above he is still trying to cover that base ("well, first of all, I do believe it's necessary") but he is clearly positioning himself for a passive role on this issue.

I don't particularly like that sort of political calculation, which looks weak and unprincipled from any point of view. The proper thing for Bush to have done last February was explain to Mr. Dobson and anyone else who tried to pressure him for an endorsement that the office of the president does not have a direct role in constitutional amendments and that the argument would have to be made on its own merits, not as a test of party loyalty. But if we have to put up with triangulation, I am at least glad that it seems to have produced a viable result. I haven't quite given up on hoping for heroes and geniuses in politics, but I can live with muddling through.

An interesting question is whether the left will allow Bush to let the matter be. Matthew Yglesias is already sneering at "Bush's sudden betrayal of the gay-bashing movement":

This is what social conservatives deserve to get sneered at for. They're the great suckers of American politics, whipped into a frenzy every two or four years and ordered to vote Republican in order to hold back the tide of libertinism, and then the Republicans don't lift a finger to do so. For one thing, their financers don't support the social conservative agenda. For another thing, if social conservatives ever had anything done for them, they might not be so mad all the time. But last and by no means least, social conservatives get screwed every time because their willingness to get screwed and then come crawling back begging for more next time there's an election on is well-established.

I am chagrined to admit that Yglesias has a point, but fortunately -- and typically -- he misses the true significance of the data he is processing. It is true that social conservatives are often subject to manipulation, but not by their Republican masters. It is our reactive stance toward the left that gets us into trouble. A case in point would be fellow Reformed blogger Upward Paradigm, who takes Yglesias at face value:

While I would not go so far as to say that social conservatives are the “great suckers” of American politics, I have believed that Christians in general, were used by the administration and the campaign in order to gather the votes needed to win a tight election. The folks that Bush surrounds himself with are not exactly social conservatives; ala Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

I think the fact that Bush's early 2nd term agenda seems to be devoid of any concern for the issues that social conservatives voted on is a testament to the point made by Yglesias. Politics is no savior -- and as Christians, we need to learn to engage the world at all levels with better ideas, abundant hope, and stronger conviction. Christians need to be able to see through the obfuscating murk put forth as reality. To date, we seem unable to do so, blinded by what sadly seems as a more tangible and immediate victory than that promised by Scripture: legislation which governs and enforces "Christian" morals. Perhaps in thinking that we have heeded Christ's call to be "salt and light" we have actually become of the world and not just in the world.

In fairness, I think that the theological point is a valid one and consistent with Upward Paradigm's general philosophy. I particularly like his (her?) point about "better ideas, abundant hope, and stronger conviction". But in conceding that we have been betrayed by Bush (or at least "used" by him) I think the author is falling into the trap of allowing the left to set the terms of the debate. No, politics is not salvific, but we Christians have a responsibility to use our gifts to benefit our fellow men and this applies to political spheres as well as any other.

But the excellence of politics consists in establishing justice and peace by exercising wisdom. This is not achieved by merely reacting to issues and applying the first solution that presents itself, but by a careful, thoughtful and prayerful attempt to get at the root of the problem. I promised in August that I would present some alternatives to the FMA that would better promote the cause of conservatism. I dropped the issue because the FMA didn't seem to be playing as big a role in the campaign as I had feared it would, but I think it is time to dust off that argument. Now that the FMA looks, God willing, to be permanently moribund, we should start considering things we should do to improve the moral and political health of our nation.

Sanity about the FMA

John Tabin writes in the American Standard:

Federalism lights the way out of this conundrum. The recognition of gay unions should be entirely a matter for the states, and state parties should be free to differ as to the proper political approach; if a constitutional amendment is necessary, it is to restrain the courts rather than to define marriage for the nation. (Senator Orrin Hatch was toying earlier this year with introducing an amendment that would be ideal.) Likewise, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade ought to be the end-point of the pro-life movement on the federal level; abortion after Roe should become -- as it was before Roe -- a state matter.

I'd better admit that I'll be on the opposite side of many conservatives in these state-level battles: I favor gay marriage, and though I'd love to see a judiciary that would overturn Roe, a proxy for so much judicial mischief, I'd prefer to see early-term abortion stay legal. But we'll remain bound on foreign policy and economic issues in a strong Republican coalition despite our differences. And that's the point, isn't it?

(Emphasis mine)

Even if you think that abortion should be illegal at the Federal level (as I rather do) making it a state issue seems like a good first step. But my real point in citing this passage is that this is one of the few times I have heard a proposal in support of a constitutional ammendment to restrain the judiciary. To be sure, it is in the subjunctive mood and I suspect that Tabin might not agree that it is necessary. But at least the notion is on the table, hmm?
(Via Randy Barnett at the Conspiracy.)

Also note this interesting study on why the FMA has not produced the groundswell of support that some religious conservative leaders have predicted:

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press completed a poll of 1,703 American adults concerning the FMA and other topics. Margin of error is about 2.4%.

In question 37, they found that:

32% favored allowing same-sex couples to marry
59% opposed allowing SSM
9% had no opinion or refused to answer.

They then asked only the 59% who opposed same-sex marriage for their opinion on the FMA:

36% favor the FMA to ban SSM
21% oppose the FMA
2% had no opinion or refused to answer.

So, over a third of people who oppose same-sex marriage also oppose the FMA. I would like to see that number climb, of course, to the point where we can safely ignore the matter and focus on conservative approaches to establishing a just society. Time will tell.

House Defeats Gay Marriage Ban

I don't have time to comment, but this should come as no surprise:

The House followed the Senate in decisively rejecting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, ending for this year debate on what has become the dominant issue for the Republican Party's conservative base.
The 227-186 vote in the House Thursday was well short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment, but fulfilled a promise by backers to get lawmakers on the record on the highly sensitive issue in the run-up to Election Day.

A Chivalrous Enconium for George Bush

From HillBuzz a blog of gay Hillary supporters:

Thank you former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush

If you have been reading us for any length of time, you know that we used to make fun of “Dubya” nearly every day…parroting the same comedic bits we heard in our Democrat circles, where Bush is still, to this day, lampooned as a chimp, a bumbling idiot, and a poor, clumsy public speaker.

[...]

Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush. We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11. He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone. More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.

Honestly, we don’t think President Gore would have been much better that day. The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indominable spirit that day…and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.

As we will always be grateful for what George and Laura Bush did this week, with no media attention, when they very quietly went to Ft. Hood and met personally with the families of the victims of this terrorist attack.

FOR HOURS.

The Bushes went and met privately with these families for HOURS, hugging them, holding them, comforting them.

If there are any of you out there with any connection at all to the Bushes, we implore you to give them our thanks…you tell them that a bunch of gay Hillary guys in Boystown, Chicago were wrong about the Bushes…and are deeply, deeply sorry for any jokes we told about them in the past, any bad thoughts we had about these good, good people.

You may be as surprised by this as we are ourselves, but from this day forward George W. and Laura Bush are now on the same list for us as the Clintons, Geraldine Ferraro, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and the other political figures we keep in our hearts and never allow anyone to badmouth.

Criticize their policies academically and intelligently and discuss the Bush presidency in historical and political terms…but you mess with the Bushes personally and, from this day forward, you’ll answer to us.

Read the whole thing, then, when you are done, read this earlier post, written on teh ocasion of Obama's inauguration, which they referenced above (warning: it's long). There are a lot of qoutable bits in that piece, but this is probably the best summary:

After we watched the 747 formerly known as Air Force One wing into the air and bank right towards Midland, Texas this afternoon, we were struck by just how bizarre it is that a bunch of Democrats who positively hated this man eight years ago were proudly a little teared up to see him off to retirement. That’s a fairly good measure of a man right there, if he can, without knowing or trying, change strong opinions of him in the most unlikely of places.

These expressions of praise are truly mature and civilized -- not to mention well-written and gramatically correct. Even in the passages where they criticize Bush's policies and lost opportunities (which criticisims are spot-on, by the way) they present a balanced and reasonable analysis that puts most media writing to shame.

I have seen HillBuzz quoted here and there by the conservative sites I frequent, but I never really paid much attention to them. On the whole, I cannot endorse their preference for Clinton over Obama because I see both as distortions of the Democratic party and wish they would go away. (In my dreams, John McCain/Rudy Giulliani would be on the D Ticket and Fred Thompson/Tom McClintock would be on the R, but I digress....) In trying to educate myself a little about their site I found out that they supported Clinton in the primaries then switched to ... McCain/Palin for the general. It takes some guts to walk away from the Gay Left (as Andrew Sullivan has noted on multiple occasions) and their account of the process is thoughtful and well worth reading. Obviously, I don't agree with many of their political stances, (though their article on Gay Marriage emphasizes some points that I have also tried to make), but I find this attitude of civility and even-handedness refreshing. To close, here is a quote from the comments on the January article, along with a response by HillBuzz:

Tammy Says:
You see, hillbuzz guys?
A lot of conservatives feel the same way that you do, and they’re not full of hate.
Can’t say the same thing about the Left after hearing that President Bush was Boo’d when he was introduced.
Can you possibly teach your side manners?
I will show you the utmost respect if you do.
I’ll show you respect even if you don’t, but could you pass the word on?
Hmmmm?

hillbuzz Says:
Tammy,

We try every day. It’s a promise we made when the Left treated Hillary Clinton so badly during the primaries, then did the same to Sarah Palin.

You can criticize a politician’s policies, achievements, and other choices — but name calling won’t be tolerated. Irrational hate won’t be tolerated. And no party deserves blind loyalty.

And if you want to attack a woman and call her sexist names and think you are going to get away with it — you’ve got another thing coming. That’s our mission from here on out.

Amen.

(Via: Alphecca)

Pink Storm Rising

Reading Andrew Sullivan's review, Log Cabin Republican of C. A. Tripp's The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln one is almost convinced that the case has been definitively made that Lincoln was gay. The crux of Sullivan's defense is the following two paragraphs:

That Tripp has an "ax to grind" is to my mind unfair. Yes, he sought to understand the homosexual experience better. But he was a Kinseyite social scientist, not a New Left propagandist. His database of Lincoln material is regarded as superb and invaluable to Lincoln scholars everywhere. He had a PhD in clinical psychology; and a mastery of the facts of Darwin's life as well. Yes, he [Tripp] was gay. But being gay can also be an advantage in this respect. The contours of a closeted gay life - the subtle effects of concealed homosexuality on behavior, public and private - are most easily recognized by other gay men, for the simple reason that many have experienced the same things. And the very nature of a closeted life is that it is hard to discern from the surface. I don't doubt that my own view that Lincoln was obviously homosexual is affected by my personal recognition of some aspects of the story, especially in his early years. The danger, of course, is over-identification and projection. But the danger of under-identification is also there - and it may well have impeded real research into what made Lincoln tick. Certainly if you're looking for clear evidence of sexual relationships between men in Lincoln's time in the official historical record, you'll come to the conclusion that no one was gay in the nineteenth century. But of course, many were.

But was Lincoln? Here's what I'd say are the most persuasive facts. Lincoln never developed deep emotional relations with any women, including his wife. Even the few snippets we have of early romances, or his deeply strained courtship of Mary Todd, suggest a painful attempt to live up to social norms, not a regular heterosexual life. His marriage was a disaster, by all accounts. Why? Well, ask Brookhiser in the NYT, who tries to exonerate Todd from charges of being cruel and psychopathic as well as corrupt: "Explosive, imperious, profligate, she may well have been mad. But in fairness to her, Lincoln was maddening -- remote and unavailable, when he was not physically absent." Hmmm. Remote, emotionally unavailable, running away to hang with men whenever he could. Ring a bell? Not in Brookhiser's mind.

I am always very leary of arguments that turn on insight rather than evidence, but I am willing to concede that I am not really in a position to judge, not having read the original book and not being particularly interested in the subject in general. It does strike me that, given the circumstantial nature of the case, which both Sullivan and Tripp concede, it is unfair to conclude, as Sullivan does that the primary motivation for dismissing it is prejudice:

But today's right-wingers are right about one thing. The truth about Lincoln - his unusual sexuality, his comfort with male-male love and sex - is not a truth today's Republican leaders want to hear. They are well-advised to attack and suppress it. They are more closely related to the forces Lincoln defeated than those he championed; and his candor, honesty and brave forging of a homosocial and homoerotic life in plain sight would appall them. The real Lincoln is their greatest rebuke; which is why they will do all they can to obscure the complicated, fascinating truth about the man whose legacy they are intent on betraying.

However, this is the sort of diatribe one has come to expect from Sullivan on this issue and I really have begun to despair that anyone in the public light is still capable of judging a case on the merits rather than looking for ideological use. Spin is in, truth is out, even among conservatives whom I otherwise respect.

But this piece by David Greenberg suggests that I may have been too quick to concede the factual side of this case:

The most surprising thing about The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, the new book that claims the Great Emancipator was bisexual, is how charitable the reviews have been. Even skeptical reviewers have allowed that the author—the late psychologist C.A. Tripp—may have a point and have retreated to the safer position that Lincoln's sexual orientation doesn't really matter anyway—that Tripp's project is a trivial one.
[...]
Alas, both notions—that Lincoln's sexual orientation is unimportant; and that Tripp's book raises powerful circumstantial evidence to support his claims—are wrong. On the one hand, if it could indeed be shown that Lincoln was "predominantly homosexual," as Tripp puts it (after all, Lincoln was married and had four children), this would be significant. No, it wouldn't directly alter our understanding of his political opinions or actions as president. But it would give us a fuller sense of the private man and thus in indirect ways might revise our understanding of his psychology. Tripp, however, doesn't even begin to make a persuasive case in this tendentious, sloppy, and wholly unpersuasive farrago. In more than 300 pages, he gives us no convincing reason to believe his central claim.
[...]
To bolster the case for his preferred interpretation, Tripp willfully reads fact after fact to support his conclusions and to ignore or explain away other possibilities. So, for instance, Tripp insists that the anxiety that Lincoln and Speed expressed to each other about their wedding nights proves they had a sexual relationship, when such worries were hardly unusual in the days before widespread premarital intercourse. Likewise, Tripp finds what he calls a "smoking gun" in the way Lincoln signed one letter to Speed: "Yours Forever." But in an honest afterword to the book, historian Michael Burlingame reminds readers that David Donald found cases of Lincoln using the same closing in letters to at least a half-dozen other friends. One could go on. Tripp produces not circumstantial evidence but facts that resemble evidence only if one starts with a closed mind.

I am, for the record, equally troubled by the assertition that "one could go on". My usual response to this is, "Well, why don't you?" Such assertions usually indicate that the author wants to suggest a large body of supporting evidence, but lacks the confidence to actually produce it for scrutiny. I obviously don't know the details of Slate's editorial policy nor of Greenberg's obligations as a columnist, but it seems that a bit more detail would have been much more persuasive.

Nevertheless, this is the sort of argument I like to see. Facts are extremely important in historical assessments, especially when the subject matter is expected to be controversial. If Tripp lacks the facts to support his thesis conclusively, he should not have foisted this issue onto the public forum. Greenberg makes telling contrasts with other controversial issues such as the bisexuality of Eleanor Roosevelt and the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. In both arguments the case is based on concrete evidence, not interpretations based on priveleged insight. Again, I haven't read Tripp's book and don't really feel inclined to, but it sure would be nice if the scolarly world would return to a more rigorous standard of evidence. I don't care if Lincoln was gay or not. But integrity is vastly important.

Democrats are pro-Union...

... but are Unions pro-Democrat? Mickey Kaus discusses the question in response to Criticism from Yglesias. Here are a few of Kaus' better points:

[...]It's no accident that unions have shrunk. The clumsy, legalistic mechanism of the Wagner Act--where seniority rules and firing incompetents requires elaborate negotiation--turns out to be a good way to fail to keep up in modern, technology-driven capitalism.

[...]they make the private sector more efficient than government at virtually anything both of them do. The result is a pervasive public cynicism about government efficacy that has done more to undermine the case for government action than union lobbying can ever do to support it.

[...]

"Historically," as Yglesias notes, unions have selflessly helped Democrats solve a number of national problems (Social Security, medical care for the elderly, civil rights, worker safety, unemployment insurance). Unfortunately, what's left are the national problems where this New Deal pairing didn't work because unions actively stand in the way of solutions. Two of these problems, in particular, are among our biggest: a) Unionized teachers stand in the way of the educational changes that might ameliorate our twin education crises (inner city disaster and suburban mediocrity). And b) unions stand in the way of the best solution to the welfare problem (and hence the NewOrleans-style underclass problem, and hence the persistent-poverty problem), namely public jobs programs. Unions have always disliked public jobs programs because public jobs workers threaten to perform work that municipal unions and construction unions now perform for far more money (thanks, in part, to the Davis-Bacon Act). In my ideal of liberal activism, we make sure everyone who wants a job has a job. Then we worry about making those jobs pay $40 an hour rather than $8 an hour.

Kaus' suggestions are geared toward strenghtening the Democratic party, which I am not particularly interested in doing. However, depriving the Unions of their political influence would seem to be a good thing for the country in general.

I would particularly like to see the teachers' unions disabled. Kaus does not suggest this, but I have argued before that it would make sense to outlaw all government unions. This would be fair since, unlike private sector employment where regulation actually interferes with commerce and the right to private ownership, government employees work at the behest of the public and the public should be able to control their compensation. No one, in other words, has a right to a job at taxpayer expense. And if it is ruled unconstitutional, why not push for an ammendment? Doesn't reducing the influence of liberalism in public schools make more sense for a social conservative than pushing for a ban on gay marriage? Wouldn't the improved efficiency be more appealing to a fiscal conservative?

This strategy is far too bold for the current Republican leadership, who seem determined to squander their control of two branches of government, but I keep mentioning it in the hope that the proposal will be picked up by someone with the vision to see its advantages.

(Cross-posted at Love America First)


UPDATE: I just noticed Rosemary's post from Tuesday about California Propostion 75 and the CTA's diverting of funds to advertise against it. The measure seeks to give union members the opportunity to keep their dues from being used in political campaigns they don't approve of. This is a much less visionary proposition than mine, but it seems like a step in the right direction.

Lessons from the Punic Wars

Pastor Dave at JollyBlogger has posted an excellent article on how the culture wars should be fought. The actual article was written by a friend of George Grant, but neither the friend's article nor Grant's is directly linkable. JollyBlogger quotes the article in its entirety and it is certainly worth the read, but here is an excerpt of the main point:

Christ promised us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church. We tend to read it as though it says that we shall not be totally defeated by the enemy who is camped at our gates. Jesus issued a victory-oriented image, not a defeatist or underdog or loser image.

Christians need to learn from Fabius (and even from the Fabian Socialists). We need to fight long-term battles, avoiding foolish defeats, destroying enemy resources, and using time and patience to our advantage. Why battle for prayer in public schools? The Fabian approach would be to build a Christian school and concentrate on changing the next generation or the one after that.

Wear down the opposition. Preach, pray, evangelize, build churches, and support Christian education, read Christian books, live Christian lives. Abortionists and homosexual unions and hedonists and atheists cannot produce either families or culture. Don’t despair if unbelieving modern-day Hannibal’s are camped outside the gate. Hannibal never got inside Rome’s city limits and Christ’s church will never succumb to His enemies.

Aim toward producing Godly grandchildren. Have a long-term vision of victory. Be Fabian, be Augustinian, be Medieval, be anything, but impatient. Focus on Cathedral building and be multi-generational in expectations.

Along with this, Christians need to learn from Scipio. Study about and from our enemies. If unbelievers develop better universities, write better novels, create taller skyscrapers, and make more money, learn from them. Anything they do right, they accomplish because they have stolen from God. Take back the technology and artistry.

Find the sources of the enemies ‘metals and money’ and win it back. Again, Christian schools are battlefields for confronting the enemy—both short-term and long-term. Mel Gibson’s movie has done more to draw the enemy out of Italy and back to North Africa than anything else Christians have done in decades.

Whether it’s Hannibal’s elephants or Mordor’s oliphants, the bloated enemy forces are vulnerable. It may take a few more arrows than usual, but big ugly things die when punctured enough times. Fascism and Marxism did not last out the last century. Darwinian Evolution, Freudianism, Nietzsche’s notions, unbelieving Existentialism, Humanism, Feminism, Abortionism, Homosexual fanaticism, and whatever other deviations are lined up for battle, are all easily outflanked or directly defeated by a vigorous Christian confrontation with faithful doctrine, life, and culture.

Victory is often simply a matter of not having a culture of defeat.

I am kind of stealing my own thunder by posting this, because this is essentially the conclusion I am building toward in my series on gay marriage. But this article is so well written that I couldn't pass up the opportunity to link to it. Once again, JollyBlogger has justified his position on my blogroll by relaying this. (Not bad for a non-theonomist, eh?) If you haven't been reading him every day, you should start.

Jacoby on Education

Jeff Jacoby's article in Jewish World Review highlights an issue that is in danger of being overlooked in all the furor over the war on terror.

Of the roughly 50 million children enrolled in American grade schools, all but about 5 million attend government-run public schools. Of those 5 million, approximately 800,000 attend secular private schools. That leaves just 4.2 million who attend the nation's religious schools — only one American child in 12.

That isn't much, particularly for a country in which more than 60 percent of adults say that religion is very important in their lives. The United States is by far the most religious of the world's industrial democracies. Yet the vast majority of American parents would no more think of sending their children to a parochial school than they would of sending them to an orphanage.

Two Americans who aim to change that attitude are T.C. Pinckney, a retired Air Force brigadier general, and Houston attorney Bruce Shortt. Lay leaders in the Baptist church, they have drafted a resolution — which they hope to bring before the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis next month — urging the denomination's 16 million members to take their children out of public schools and either homeschool them or send them to parochial schools. Their argument is straightforward: Christian parents owe their children a Christian education, not the relentlessly secular and often anti-religious instruction provided in public schools.

Frightening as the prospect of being blown up or gassed while going about our daily lives may be, the true threat to American society is not terrorism but our increasing cultural and spiritual illiteracy. We cannot hope to establish peace in the Middle East if our own value system is based on nothing more enduring than a secularized live-and-let-live tolerance and a gee-whiz fascination with technology and material prosperity. Teaching unbelievers to turn away from the easy dead-end path of revenge and walk the hard road of love and self-sacrifice will require that we ourselves understand that road and are prepared to walk it.

This is a challenge for generations and we must begin with our own all but bankrupt education system. Opposing gay marriage can wait and we cannot allow ourselves to get so caught up in the election cycle that we lose sight of the long-term goal. All of our current social problems are bound up with, if not directly caused by, the growing ignorance of and lack of interest in the robust truths of Christianity.

In the past two and a half years, I have heard no better prescription for winning the war on terror than that uttered in a moment of fury by the lovely but volatile Ann Coulter: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Our government has made a good start on the first point, and has had some success with the second. But the third point cannot be achieved by force of arms or by government activity of any kind. If Islamic culture is to be Christianized, it must be done by persuasion and example. And both are impossible without an educated and attractive Christian culture.

The Collective IQ of the Blogosphere Just Went Up

Tammy Bruce joins the revolution. It was just a matter of time until Tammy joined the blogosphere. She has a voice made for blogging: individualistic, smart and passionate. Here is an excerpt of her bio on Talk Radio Network:

Tammy Bruce is an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Reagan progressive feminist. Ms. Bruce eviscerates the Feminist Elite's hatred of men, marriage and motherhood, the Black Elite's championing of violent rap, the Gay Elite's "grab for children" by insinuating let-it-all-hang-out Sex-Ed programs into schools, the Academic Elite's nihilism and anti-Americanism, and the Entertainment Elite's "moral depravity beyond measure."

If there were more Democrats like Tammy I might not have left the party.

Update: Oops, fogot to mention the most important fact: I found out about her new blog through Pajamas Media, where she is on the editorial board.
(Via Instapundit)