Queer News
March 14, 2007
March 13, 2007
March 12, 2007
December 31, 2006
In Texas Monthly, libertarian pundit Virginia Postrel writes of the residents of Plano, Texas, that:
These solidly conservative, mostly Christian families are not about to launch a pogrom against their gay neighbors. "I have yet to know somebody on finding out that an educator or volunteer was gay in to say, 'Oh, gosh, I can't have them working with my child,'" Kelly Hunter says. "I have known them to say that about the mom who drinks before she goes some place." By the standards of twenty years ago, and certainly by those of Peoria, Planoites are positively accepting....Plano residents aren't "wildly exercised about sodomy," notes a gay friend who last year moved from Dallas to Los Angeles, "but most anti-gay people aren't. They are wildly concerned with making sure their kids never hear the word 'sodomy'; never ask, 'Mommy, what's a drag queen?'; and never have to deal with anything even remotely related to sex....He exaggerates, of course. But Plano parents want to determine when and where they talk to their kids about sex, and they assume that explaining that some men fall in love with other men is "about sex.""We don't have control over a whole lot in the world, but hopefully the education of our children is part of it," Hunter says.Hat tip to Kausfiles, wherein Mickey Kaus uses the above to snipe (again) at Andrew Sullivan and argues:
Even in a highly Republican town like Plano, in other words, the religious objection to gay marriage isn't the crucial objection. Fear that moral entropy will envelop your family's children is the crucial objection. I don't see how that fear is addressed theologically. I would think it has to be addressed practically, over time, by repeat demonstration. But time is one thing a rights-oriented, judicial route to gay marriage doesn't allow.And another hat tip to Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds), who adds: "As I've said before, I support gay marriage, but I think the move to accomplish gay marriage via judicial action is politically unwise and likely to be counterproductive."
These fears of "moral entropy" and even sexual anarchy may be without merit, yet they're heartfelt and must be addressed, not simply dismissed with disdain. That's why I generally concur that the judicial strategy is misguided. In fact, it wouldn't seem like such a bad idea if the Massachusetts legislature would follow the procedure set forth (as argued here) in that state's constitution and allow the voters to weigh in on keeping gay marriage. A "pro" vote could do wonders to actually advance the cause of marriage equality.
Perhaps a decade from now, when gay unions are accepted by a nation that has witnessed that they strengthen rather than weaken the moral norms that bind families and societies together, a future Supreme Court will rule that the remaining state amendments that deny gays the benefits of marriage (and especially those that ban civil unions and other partnerships) are unconstitutional. And in that future era, the reactionaries won't be able to mobilize an effective backlash, for as with earlier civil rights movements they will no longer have a majoirty of the folks in places like Plano on their side.
More. B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest) writes that gay activists have missed the boat by demanding marriage equality in terms of rights denied, instead of (with few exceptions, mainly linked to this site) making a positive case for why marriage for gays is good in and of itself, for gay people and for society. He encourages activists to "make clear to the world at large that gay people who choose marriage are willing to live up to the obligations of this ancient institution. And to our own community, they need show the benefits that arise from meeting those obligations."
