home | glbt center | news: gay marriage is a problem for Bush

Why Gay Marriage is Nothing but Trouble for President Bush

An interesting op-ed piece on why the issue of gay marriage may prove to be nothing but trouble for President Bush.

'Til November Do Us Part

by Paul Waldman, Editor-in-Chief
3.03.04

When William F. Buckley founded the National Review, he defined its mission, and thus that of conservatism itself, as standing "athwart history, yelling Stop." This is precisely what much of George W. Bush's party is now doing on the issue of gay marriage. But like any smart politician, Bush knows that standing athwart history is never a wise move.

It would be easy to assume that gay marriage will be the Republican wedge issue of 2004, the "cultural" bludgeon the Bush campaign uses to define everything Democratic, including the nominee, as a "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show," to quote an ad aired in Iowa by the conservative Club for Growth attacking Howard Dean. But in fact, there's nothing George Bush wants more than for the gay marriage issue to just go away.

To be sure, Democrats need to tread carefully on gay marriage, but as events move forward in this campaign and beyond, this will be much more fun for progressives than conservatives. Here are some reasons why:

On one side are abstract predictions of doom and the end of civilization as we know it; on the other are concrete stories of real people showing their love for one another. Sadly, we have not yet had the pleasure of hearing Rick Santorum predict that without a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, "man on dog" sex will become the next Macarena (Of course, the debate is just getting geared up. We eagerly await the good Senator's comments). But since conservatives can't say exactly how allowing gays to marry undermines heterosexual marriages, they stick to vague, unpersuasive arguments about the importance of tradition.

Gay marriage advocates, on the other hand, have real stories of real people to tell. There are few rhetorical weapons on this playing field more powerful than the story of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, the first gay couple given a marriage license by the city of San Francisco. Lyon is 79, Martin is 83, and they've been together for 51 years, a model of lifetime commitment in a society where divorce is all too common. When conservatives try to argue that these two grandmotherly women constitute a threat to our way of life, they sound a little silly. Gay marriage supporters, on the other hand, have a far more comforting message: relax, your marriage will be fine.

Gay marriage advocates have a wealth of back-in-your-face arguments to use. Here's a sample: "For years, conservatives have been telling us how important marriage is, that it provides a stable environment for raising kids and makes for strong communities. Sounds good to me. I'm pro-monogamy and pro-family. That's why I support gay marriage. Aren't you pro-family?" Toss that one at them and watch em squirm.

This issue makes conservatives look like puritanical scolds. To listen to some of them talk about gay marriage, you'd think that conservatives were pining for a return to the 50s and the 1650s, that is, when sinners were given public punishment under the approving eye of an angry and vengeful god. One of the most striking reversals of the past decade or so (the Clinton impeachment notwithstanding) is that Republicans have defined themselves as the party of individual freedom, while many liberals have come off as humorless scolds who want to tell you what words you can use and how to live your life (typical joke: "How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? That's not funny!"). Gay marriage brings us back to the good old days when the Democrats were the ones advocating freedom and Republicans wanted to snoop around in your bedroom to see whether you're having the right kind of sex. And that can only be good for Democrats, particularly among young voters.

And most importantly...

Bush has been forced to the extreme position, while the most prominent Democrats (e.g. Kerry and Edwards) have adopted a moderate position. Obviously against his will, the President has knuckled under to the most conservative elements of his party. It's conventional wisdom that the Democrats preside over an unruly collection of narrow interest groups unwilling to put aside their parochial interests and help Democrats get elected, while Republican interest groups are disciplined and focused, never letting their feelings get in the way of seeking and holding power. While this picture is an accurate one most of the time, in truth Republicans have plenty of under-the-radar intramural contentiousness, too. In this case, the religious conservatives simply weren't satisfied with the nudge-nudge-wink-wink to a constitutional amendment Bush gave during his State of the Union, implying he was in favor of it without actually saying so. So they kept the pressure on, and Bush realized they weren't going to shut up until he gave them a full-throated endorsement.

On the other side, Democrats are adopting the middle position, not coincidentally the one closest to the center of American opinion: in favor of civil unions, but against gay marriage. While this isn't exactly a model of political courage or philosophical coherence, they haven't paid a price with their supporters. Gay rights groups aren't threatening to withhold their support from the Democratic nominee unless he endorses marriage (nor, for what it's worth, are any progressives I know, gay or straight), while Bush knew that unless he came out in favor of a constitutional amendment, he ran a serious risk of losing important parts of his base.

There's a sense of urgency - and hardball politics - coming from Bush's right flank, while the message from the Democrats' left flank has been, "Do what you gotta do." Why? Because both sides know which way history is moving. Gay Americans and sympathetic liberals understand that they can afford to be patient on this one, while the religious right understands equally well that if they don't get their amendment now, it'll be too late.

Last year, the United States Supreme Court finally got around to declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional, overturning a 1986 ruling in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick. Justice Lewis Powell, who sided with the 5-4 majority in the case, said to one of his law clerks at the time, "I don't believe I've ever met a homosexual." Unbeknownst to the Justice, the clerk to whom he was speaking was gay, as were a number of other clerks he had hired during his years on the Court. To his credit, after retiring Powell said that he regretted his decision in Bowers.

Less than twenty years later, Powell's ignorance seems absurd. We are now in the midst of a virtuous cycle whose continued progression conservatives are powerless to halt. The more legal and cultural acceptance there is of every American's sexuality, the more gays feel comfortable in being open about their sexuality. The more openly gay people there are, the more straight people know someone (or more accurately, know they know someone) who is gay. The more straight people there are who know a gay person, the more public opinion moves away from the conservative position.

In the last five years, television and movies have included more and more real gay characters who are more than walking stereotypes. Although we may still be waiting for the gay action hero wielding a righteous assault rifle, the controversy over Ellen DeGeneris' televised coming out, though it happened only a few years ago, today seems like an absurdly overblown brouhaha, ancient history. In every corner of America, even people who don't personally know an openly gay person nonetheless know plenty of them from the tube, on popular shows like NYPD Blue and ER. And remember the wrenching argument at the outset of the Clinton administration over gays in the military? In May of 1993, a Time/CNN poll found only 36% of Americans saying gays should be allowed to serve in the military. In a Gallup poll last month, the figure was a remarkable 79%.

The critical factor in public opinion is not how many support or oppose gay marriage right now; it's where opinion will be in five years, ten years, and twenty years. Although public opinion polls are showing wide disparities on these questions depending on how questions are worded, a few things are clear. Right now about a third of Americans favor gay marriage, and the public is split closely on whether the constitution should be amended. But on this as on almost any question related to gay rights, from whether gays should be allowed to adopt children to whether they should be protected from discrimination in employment and housing, younger Americans are far more supportive of gay rights than older Americans (and they're far more likely to say they know someone who is gay). The 18-29 age group is evenly split on gay marriage, and chances are the next generation will show a majority in support.

Ironically, gay marriage became an issue in the first place only because right-wing activists used the specter of two men walking down the aisle as a scare tactic, saying that moves to obtain civil rights for gays would inevitably lead to gay marriage. Soon after, something gay activists themselves once thought was too pie-in-the-sky to be advocated publicly actually became a matter of debate. The right grossly miscalculated Americans' commitment to equality, and their nightmare scenario is coming true.

Which brings us back to the President. Bush has invested a great deal of energy into convincing voters that he's a moderate. That's what "compassionate conservatism" is all about - not implementing compassionate policies, of course, but putting together photo-ops where Bush can give hugs to blacks and Hispanics, and talking about issues in a way that just feels nicer than those mean Republicans of the past.

When he was asked in one of his debates with Al Gore whether he supported a law that would prohibit employment discrimination against gays, he said, "I'm the kind of person - I don't hire or fire somebody based upon their sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, I'd like to take the issue a little farther. I don't really think it's any of my - you know, any of my concerns what - how you conduct your sex life - I'll tolerate people." You might say, "Isn't that nice, he's against discrimination" until you realize that this was a round-about way of saying he opposed protecting gays from discrimination.

Much to his chagrin, Bush has found that his own supporters won't let him pull that kind of two-step this time around. Boxed into a corner, he had no choice but to come out for the radical step of amending the Constitution to shout "Stop!" to history. We'll never know if religious conservatives would have stayed home had Bush not done so. But the real wedge being driven by gay marriage is within the Republican coalition, and that giant sucking sound you hear is moderate voters pulling away from the President.

From: http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=27