The White Peril 白禍

What Michael said:

While the outcome would be right if marriage were enacted in CT, the method is clearly wrong. If the state refused to do anything for gay couples, that would be one thing. Yet here we have a state that democratically gave gay couples most, if not all, of the rights of marriage. Why not let that sink in for a few years, then petition the legislature for marriage?

Here’s the thing: Civil Unions give you all the rights of marriage in Connecticut. What are you accomplishing by pushing for marriage rights? Answer: Nothing. Because any rights beyond what you have are Federal. And there is nothing that state can do about that. In effect, what these gay couples are doing is ruining it for the rest of us. They are ensuring that state legislatures will remain queazy about enacting civil union legislation in the future.

He's talking about the news that there are eight gay couples in Connecticut using the state's recent passage of a civil unions bill to sue for the ability to marry. I'm not sure that even breaking the argument down into the shortest possible clauses, as Michael obligingly did, will make people get it. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure his prediction is correct.

BTW, he didn't quote the most unpalatable part of the article:

"We really believe marriage best reflects what we've had together. We have a deep love and commitment, and civil unions don't reflect that," said Janet Peck of Colchester. She and her partner, Carol Conklin, will celebrate their 30th anniversary later this year.

"Civil unions just kind of feel like you're not good enough," Conklin added.

Other couples, such as Jeffrey Busch and Stephen Davis of Wilton, will apply for a civil union reluctantly. They feel they cannot pass up the legal protections the arrangement will provide--such as the right to sue for wrongful death and the ability to file taxes jointly--but they do not plan a celebration.

"Civil unions are humiliating. We're embarrassed by it," Busch said. "We will in essence be agreeing to be officially marginalized. I'm very hopeful that is a temporary step on our way to being considered a full family deserving the same respect as other families."

Sometimes I would love to break my own rule about not using any but the mildest four-letter words here. Would everyone be so kind as to imagine my letting fly with a stream of loud and hideous profanities right now?

Joe has his thoughts up on Jon Stewart's Rick Santorum interview last night:

My belief is that we can win the debate, we don't have to denigrate. So that's what Sanotrum believes and I don't agree. I don't believe that good parenting requires one man and one woman and I find that the studies back me up.

I also don't agree that the only societal interest in marriage is children. It's one interest, even a primary interest, not the only interest. Stable relationships are themselves an interest. They foster a stable society, public health and safety, and better economics, which are all in our societal interest.

Joe also links to a transcript of the interview at Towleroad. I thought the infamous man-on-dog comparison from a few years ago was just silly--not only insulting but also poorly judged because it gave shrieky political activists an excuse to excoriate Santorum without paying the slightest attention to any distinctions he actually did make usefully.

Some people may find their brain fried at this segment of the interview:

Santorum: I would say that certainly people who are homosexuals can be virtuous and very often are. The problem is that when you talk about the institution of marriage as the foundation and building block of society which I say the family is, and the marriage is the glue that holds the family together. We need to do things to make sure that that institution stays stable for the benefit of children.

Joe disagrees in specific ways with Santorum that I do not, but his comments are, as always, respectful and worth reading.

Congratulations, Canada:

Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin signed the legislation making it law, hours after it was approved by the Senate late Tuesday night despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders.

...

Churches have expressed concern that their clergy would be compelled to perform same sex ceremonies. The legislation, however, states that the bill only covers civil unions, not religious ones, and no clergy would be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies unless they choose to do so.

Charles McVety, a spokesman for Defend Marriage Canada and president of Canada Christian College, said he was "very sad that the state has invaded the church, breached separation of church and state and redefined a religious word."

Well, buddy, this is what you get when the religious word in question is closely tied to a government goodie bag. I still think there's reason for caution about a blanket extension of the legally designated category of marriage to cover gay relationships, but not all the opportunism in argument has been on the pro-gay side. And the sense of entitlement that has animated many gays in this debate is something that's been picked up from the general culture, not invented by our team and foisted on it.

Happy anniversary, Michael and Robert. (Touching picture, too.)

I don't want to give anyone a heart attack, but I think Andrew Sullivan's post about gay marriage yesterday was pretty temperate and mostly well-reasoned.

There, I've said it.

Christianist Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said of the Canadian decision, supported by a majority in the polls: "Similar to tactics here in the U.S., the move for gay 'marriage' in Canada was driven by a small minority and liberal activist judges." And a parliamentary and popular majority, Mr Perkins. And please refrain from those scare quotes around the term "marriage." Whether Perkins likes it or not, there are now no differences between gay and straight marriages in Spain, Canada, Holland, Belgium and Massachusetts. His scare quotes - and those routinely used by the Washington Times - apply to heterosexual couples as well. Are their marriages now phony, according to the religious right?

In Canada (where the bill still needs Senate approval) and in Spain, gay citizens and their sympathizers have been able to get a majority of legislators on their side to effect changes in legislation. Who was originally "driving" the movement doesn't alter that. And as for "activist judges," I believe the decision that was reached a few months ago was that gay marriage would not itself violate the Canadian constitution--not that denying marriage to gay couples was unconstitutional. The part about scare quotes is shakier, but the point that the law routinely and legitimately defines words in ways that are different from their ordinary usage is a good one.

I'm still skeptical about gay marriage as policy--for reasons that include those Sullivan raises at the end of his post, which are never far from my mind because of the kind of household I live in. But I'm unreservedly happy that barriers to our being able to form enforceable bonds with our partners are being removed. Neither piece of legislation affects Atsushi and me, of course, but they make a nice lead-in to the weekend. (He's coming home tomorrow morning.)

I get the sense that I have few readers who are interested in both gay stuff and Japan stuff, but for those interested in the brief Nikkei article on the Spain vote, it's here. The Yomiuri's is here, and it also has a report up about the Canada vote. Congratulations on Canada Day, BTW.