The White Peril 白禍

I've done enough ragging on John Kerry that it's only fair to point out that I was mostly impressed with what he said in this interview with The Washington Blade. His response to this question strikes me as sounding genuine rather than evasive:

Blade: OK, last question. I�m curious: If you had been born gay [SRK rolls eyes], how different do you think your life would be?

Kerry: I can�t tell you the answer to that question because I don�t know what my � you know, I just can�t tell you how I would have responded to it. Would I have been at the forefront of the crusade in the 1960s or would I still be, as some people are, living a double life or something, I don�t know.

And his last word on the marriage debate is also one of the clearest statements I've heard from him yet about anything:

I think, you know, and I�ve said this before, I think marriage raises a different issue in the minds of a lot of people because of its deep religious foundations and institutional structure as the oldest institution in the world.

It is the oldest institution in the world � older than country, older than our form of government, older than most forms of government. And people view it differently.

What�s important to me is not the terminology or the status; what�s important to me are the rights. The rights. That you shouldn�t be discriminated against in your right to visit a partner in the hospital. You shouldn�t be discriminated against in your right to leave property to somebody, if that�s what you want. You shouldn�t be discriminated against if you have a civil union relationship that affords you the same rights.

Now I think that�s a huge step. There�s never been a candidate for president who has stood up and said I think we should fight for those things. And you�ve got to progress. Even that, I take huge hits for.

And you know, I stood up on the floor of the Senate and voted against DOMA because I thought it was gay bashing on the floor of the United States Senate. I was one of 14 votes. The only person running for reelection who did that.

If only he addressed every issue, including how he plans to keep terrorists from incinerating us all, as clearly.

Glenn Reynolds has decided to take a break from posting about contentious things like the election and tackle gay marriage. It's an uncharacteristically long post, and I agreed with most of it. I especially liked this passage:

Now, of course, any question beginning "what is John Kerry's position. . ." is a tough one. But — correct me if I'm wrong here — the only real difference between Kerry and Bush is that Bush has offered vague support to the certain-to-fail Federal Marriage Amendment. But it's, er, certain to fail. Now that's a difference, I guess. But it's not a huge one, and to me it doesn't seem to be a big enough difference to justify the vitriol. (Kerry's been, maybe, more supportive on civil unions, but I wouldn't take that to the bank.)

I support gay marriage, of course, though I'd be lying if I said it was as important to me as it is to, say, Andrew Sullivan. But if you look at the polls, it's opposed about 2-1 by voters. What that means is that you're not likely to see much difference between the parties until somebody thinks they can pick up enough votes to make a difference.

I think that gay marriage is good for everyone. Marriage is a good thing, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be just as good a thing for gay people as for straight people. Judging from the gay couples I know, it would be a good thing — and I'm entirely at a loss to understand why people think gay marriage somehow undermines straight marriage. But to get there, you need to make that case, not just accuse opponents of being closedminded-biblethumping-bigotsoftheredneckreligiousright. (Andrew Sullivan made some of these positive arguments quite well in Virtually Normal, but I don't think the tone on his blog has been as constructive of late.)

That last sentence is tact of the most delicate. Somehow over the last few years, gay marriage went from being something to work toward, as current gay life recovered from its origins in the social upheavals of the '60's and '70's, to being something that the government has to provide right now if we're to stop being "second-class citizens." And, of course, it's not just Andrew Sullivan.

Stephen Miller has posted his own non-endorsement of Bush on the IGF Culture Watch blog:

I wish I could support Bush, since I'm in his camp on a wide range of issues (the War on Terror, entitlement and tort reform, pro-investment tax cuts). But I can't. He's sold my vote to the religious right.

Yet I won't be voting for Kerry, with whom I disagree on most foreign and domestic policies, not to mention his wishy-washy position on topic G (he opposes gay marriage and supports state amendments to ban 'em, but claims he also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment � just not enough to vote against it).

That's nice, but who does it leave? Lyndon LaRouche? Also, as Reynolds pointed out, the fact that the FMA looks pretty certain not to pass should be factored in, but few people do so. Whether it changes the character of Bush's election-year endorsement of the amendment is an open question, but a question that has to be given due consideration. (Many gays, of course, twist themselves Tantric trying to excuse Kerry's endorsement of the Massachusetts amendment and failure to vote on bringing the FMA to the table.)

And then there's the fact that the religious right is not the only constituency that opposes gay marriage. I know a number of married people who have personally, and in public, treated Atsushi and me as a perfectly "legitimate" couple but don't believe all the implications of gay marriage have been thrashed out sufficiently.

If I keep going, I'm in danger of producing yet another anagram of my usual gay marriage rant. That would be a dull old thing for everyone, so I'll cut it out and just hope once more that people can stop talking past each other sooner rather than later.

[pause]

Well, okay, I would like to point out just one more tangentially related thing that's been bothering me lately. Last week, I left a rather intemperate comment on this post at Classical Values, and immediately thought I'd been out of line and kind of panicked. Rereading it, I suppose it fortunately wasn't as belligerent as I was feeling. But the issue (of anonymity, not of outing) came back this afternoon when I received an e-mail from Janis Gore pointing out this story, which mentions short-fused lawyer John Rawls in connection with the proposed SSM ban in Louisiana. There's a picture of a gay couple in their living room, addressing envelopes for a drive to oppose the ban.

You know, when I see people from little regional cities--and I want to make it clear that I'm not tarring the South here; there's just as much busybodying in the Mid-Atlantic--who are willing to have their names and faces put in the paper in relation to gay issues, I think of these anonymous website commenters who bitch about gay marriage and the ineptitude of the HRC and hostile politicians and the meanies on the religious right and blah blah blah, and I want to backhand them.

There are plenty of honorable reasons not to use your full name on-line--from fear of identity theft to the trade-offs you might be making to work in an environment that's not gay-friendly. The fact remains, though, that our gains are mostly made by people who are willing to be unsecretive and take whatever sacrifices go along with that.* It's they who are going to make things better for the gays of the future, assuming our pushy activists don't spoil it all by issuing straight folk a new ultimatum every five minutes. For that matter, even the activists, tiresome as they can be, are putting themselves out there for what they believe, using their real identities. I don't think there's any ethical obligation for people posting under a pseudonym to absent themselves from discussions of gay issues. I do wish they'd show some respect and stop griping that other people aren't doing enough to make their lives easier.

* Especially if they aren't among those of us who live in super-big cities where there's already a lot of pressure on people to appear hip and gay-positive, which is why I say "they" rather than "we"

So. The question clearly is: Are Republicans willing to let gays contribute to the American economy for a few overtaxed years of working life before herding us into death camps, or will they have us all exterminated the very moment after a reelected Bush is sworn in? At least, that's the clear question to some people I've talked to. If you're interested in other possibilities, Rex Wockner seems to have about the best summary I've seen of what happened during convention week. We already know that the platform backed up Bush�s endorsement of the FMA and specified that homosexuality is �incompatible with military service.� And we know that the speakers (Giuliani and Schwartzenegger are almost always named together to demonstrate this, sometimes with Pataki and McCain) put a more moderate face on the convention regarding social issues.

The most cynical interpretation of last week's events is that the platform was calculated to get the hard-right vote, the speakers were trotted out to get the centrist vote, and one of the two is a scam. (Which one depends, naturally, on your own ideology.) I don't have the energy I'd need to get into my views of the gay marriage controversy yet again.* Suffice it to say that if its proponents wanted a showdown, they basically got it, with the predictable result that the minority that constitutes less than 5% of the population had less leverage than everyone else.

Don't misunderstand--I ache for the Log Cabin Republicans people. They have a whole set of problems that are not their own fault and are not specific to this election year. The noisiest gay liberals--using the word colloquially--have spent the last three decades hammering home the messages that (1) gayness and leftism/Democratic party affiliation go together like bacon and eggs, (2) gays demand to be loved for what we are, and (3) no one must ever be allowed to speak a word against gay people without getting hell for it. In that context, it's hard to blame some conservatives for believing that gay advocacy stands for nothing but entitlements, special protections, and intrusive public school programs. And it's correspondingly hard to imagine that LCR people don't get sick of constantly having to go out of their way to be the nice gays that everyone can do business with. I know that would drive me nuts. I was not impressed by the content of the ad that everyone got so heated up by last week, and I'm not LCR myself, but I made a donation just for the sake of moral support. They're our guys and gals, and they're working for us in the way they think best, and they felt kicked in the teeth.

I do have to ask, though, do people still think making marriage the focal point of gay advocacy is a good idea at this point? There is nothing close to a consensus among gay activists on why we need it--some talk about equal protection, some talk about inheritance and hospital visitation and taxation, some talk about the health benefits of long-term relationships, and some talk about the taking of one's place in adult society (in a sort of anthropological sense). That's not a criticism, BTW. I think debate is good. But the fact remains that it is still a debate. In the wider society, marriage and childrearing have gone through all kinds of destabilization in the last 40 years or so. We shouldn't be suckered by those conservatives who say that with the WOT and current state of society, "Now is not the time" to be discussing gay marriage, in the clear hope that we'll just go away and forget about it. On the other hand, if we get pushy and really cause a backlash, we could succeed in making life suck for those who come out several decades from now. Is that what we want?

I have no affection for the Republican Party. But my sense is that many of its members are genuine live-and-let-live types. They may not be pro-gay, exactly, but they recognize that part of being an American is the ability to choose your own happiness, and they can't look at two people who clearly nurture and sustain each other and tell them that society should stand in the way of their relationship. They may be immovable on marriage but open to persuasion on, say, hospital visitation and social security transfers.

Whose voices were loudest during the drafting of the RNC platform, I don't know. But it's possible that some who supported the FMA clause and the part about "the accompanying benefits afforded couples" were willing to do so because they were aware that they're unlikely to come to anything. That is to say, perhaps the message sincerely was to back off this particular issue right now, not that you can't be gay and Republican. For those who adhere to the denying-gays-marriage-rights-keeps-us-second-class-citizens line, I realize that that's a non-distinction. But we and those who come after us have plenty to lose if we try to change people's minds by fiat. Much as it offends my crabby loner sensibilities to say so, we need to choose our battles and capitalize on goodwill where we can find it; persuasion takes longer to accomplish, but its effects last longer, too.

* Sorry for the flurry of self-linking. Got started and couldn't stop.

Added on 7 September: And the link to the 365gay.com page is fixed. (Thanks for letting me know, Mike.) Confounded smart quotes! I could've sworn I'd un-selected them....