|
Thursday, September 08, 2005The Democrats: They love gay issues. But what about gay people?The California legislature is at it again. They can't figure out what to do about workers' comp, about state outlays for social services, about funding the universities or about making the objectives of our schools align with the needs of students, as opposed to teachers' unions (not to be confused with teachers, who are also out of the equation). But what can the California legislature do? They can pass a "gay marriage" bill that contravenes the will of the people as expressed pretty strongly in a referendum. Because this, after all, is at the top of the agenda. What's at the top of the agenda? Gay marriage? No, gay issues. The Republican governor is unpopular right now. All the headlines report this. They don't report that the primary reason the legislature's popularity hasn't plummeted is they never had any to begin with. In a war of the bases, this is a move to shore up San Francisco and L.A. What about gay marriage? The governor will veto it. And rightly so. Whatever you think of the issue, the people of California spoke on this one not that long ago and the message was pretty clear. The latest move will do little other than to make those who are squeamish about gay marriage but sort of okay with civil unions nervous. And it will bring out enough fundamentalist nutcases to whip up some electoral hysteria in the Castro district of the City. What if you favor gay marriage? I'll say this for Bush. When it comes to abortion, he talks about a culture of life. He pushes little measures that nibble at the issue around the edges while highlighting the worst excesses of the view he opposes. Those who support gay rights and gay marriage should be watching Bush and creating a "culture of tolerance." Bush is working within a culture that supports abortion rights to foster repulsion towards abortion. The long term result is less abortion with little ammunition available for pro-abortionists to use to counter-attack. One day - if the strategy works - people will not be upset about new abortion regulations and limitations when they're proposed; they'll be surprised that they weren't in place already. Gay supporters, likewise, should be working to create a culture where the more obvious issues - the rights of adults to divide and will their property as they please, eg - are addressed, creating social structures in which gay couples are reasonably granted rights also associated with marriage. If they do it right, just as Bush's culture of life is truly working to make abortion safe, legal and rare, so the culture of tolerance will make the differences between gay and straight couples smaller, less life-affecting and finally largely symbolic. At then end, when asked if gays should be allowed to marry, the response will be, "Aren't they already?" On the abortion issue, pro-lifers owe a lot to President Clinton. His "safe, legal and rare" may have seemed to them to be a cruel joke, but it set a tone that made Bush's culture of life an easier sell. Likewise, Bush and Schwarzenegger's efforts to avoid charges of homophobia, whatever you think of their policies, are setting a tone: GOP leaders have determined that standing against gays is not a principled moral stance rooted in the Pauline letters; it's just another embarrassment of bigotry they'd rather not get tangled in. In her Advocate interview, Portia di Rossi gushed about the idea of getting married to Ellen. It may yet come to pass. When moderate Republicans are splitting hairs about opposing gay marriage but certainly not civil unions, when our supposedly right-wing president goes out of his way to define his "marriage is between a man and a woman" stance as not anti-gay but merely rooted in tradition and when a new cultural openness is gradually forcing people to choose between an abstract opposition to homosexuality and their relationships with friends who have come out of the closet, the times they are a changin'. In high school, I knew one lesbian. I was astonished when I found out, which is stupid because, in retrospect, it was pretty obvious. In college, I worked with gay advocates in the student senate. After a couple years in California, I no longer stop, surprised, on seeing two men or two women holding hands. I'm more likely to think, "cute couple," or "how'd they get together?" Wandering from liberal universities to the Bay Area of California, of course, is not necessarily a typical experience. But it's not entirely atypical. In time, gay couples are going to wind up in that category of things that get a few hysterics going but that most people regard as either mildly interesting or mildly troubling but not worth thinking too much about when there are so many other things to worry about. Following Kaus' first rule of journalism (always wildly generalize from personal experience), I expect that in twenty or thirty years, people will mostly be irritated that we're still talking about this and will express mild support for gay marriage because a) though they aren't too sure about it they can't say that to Judy and Sue who are always so sweet and b) if they take that last step, maybe the whole political issue will go away and they won't have to think about it anymore. In the meantime, if you're a smart gay, you know your best friend is Pat Robertson. Who could be a better enemy than the screwball who thinks there's a Jew in every closet and a touch of justice in the work of Muslim terrorists? If you want a straw man to knock down, can you beat the guy leading Republicans try to distance themselves from every other time he opens his mouth? But, if you're a smart gay, you have to know deep down that your worst enemy is folks like the Dems in the California legislature who love sticking it to Schwarzenegger and shoring up the base but don't really watch how softening attitudes towards you harden every time we have one of these brouhahas. Have to know that the California legislature does not have the moral authority to bring people into the streets in denunciation of whatever injustices you are asked to bear. Have to realize that they aren't pulling you up on the force of their good name, but are trying to pull themselves out of the muck by aligning with your cause. In twenty to thirty years, gay marriage will be a fait accompli through much of the union. The last holdouts will not be in the deep south, where they'll adopt it to prove they're not backwards, but in the midwest, where they'll take their time since no pol dares to diss the cornbelt. The big question for the moment is whether it will take thirty years, as culture warriors on the left entangle it in a larger agenda the right can attack, or whether true supporters of gay rights and gay marriage can untangle themselves from the eco-socialists and thus more quickly wear down opponents increasingly at odds to oppose their cause without first explaining how much of that cause they support since they aren't after all, bigoted homophobes, just prudent folks being careful about how fast society moves... Here's the kicker: When courts and legislatures force the issue, citizens' initiatives pop up to squelch the moves. But when the big symbolic gestures are put on hold, attitudes soften as the political becomes personal and the status of gays becomes a matter of individual openness as opposed to social policy. So, which do the Democrats prefer? Big, blaring symbolic victories that harden attitudes and lead to defeat for the gay cause - but solidify their base? Or something softer, calmer, that brings gradual improvement but nullifies the political issue? Plainly, the Dems in Sacramento care as much about gay rights as the "pro-lifers" who undermine Bush's subtler moves toward a culture of life care about reducing abortions now - they want their moral victory and their grist for fundraising letters too much to think through getting from point A to point B: it's all politics and it's all focused on the next election. So, one cheer for Governor Schwarzenegger's upcoming veto. It's not a great moral victory so much as an affirmation that when the people vote something in a referendum it should be respected. But be that as it may, it is a proof that "those people" can't shove their moral agenda down the throats of an unwilling populace so easily after all. That, at least, will hopefully bring down the paranoia levels enough that gays can fall off the political radar screen in a few months and get back to leading lives that are, in the main, boring enough that people will have to find something else to fuss about. At which point, the real progress comes. 
posted by gbarto at 9:56 PM |
Archives
|
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.Old TurkeyBlog here.
