Don't Press Dems On Same-Sex Marriage

The New Republic: Gay Community Shouldn't Force Candidates To Be Martyrs

(The New Republic)  This column was written by James Kirchick.

---

During last week's gay issues forum, broadcast on the cable television station LOGO and sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), all of the Democratic presidential candidates expressed their support for legal equality for gays via civil unions. But, with the exceptions of former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, they opposed calling those relationships marriage.

This seeming hypocrisy doesn't sit well with gay rights advocates. Evan Wolfson, head of the Freedom to Marry coalition and one of the intellectual fathers of gay marriage, says that, just as previous American presidents made the civil rights struggle into a national issue through the power of "moral suasion," presidential candidates ought to voice support for gay marriage today because it "creates a political, cultural and moral space for America to rise to greatness." HRC's vice president of programs, David M. Smith, says that "The most important role the presidency plays in public policy debates is the bully pulpit, to sway public opinion." And as HRC President Joe Solmonese put it after the debate, "The next president must be committed to not only doing what's achievable, but also what's right."

It would certainly be refreshing to hear a leading presidential candidate come out in favor of "what's right" and support gay marriage. But gay marriage advocates are actually doing their cause a disservice by pushing the Democratic candidates on the issue.

Of course, for those who see gay marriage as a moral right, calculations of political expedience are not the correct grounds on which to judge their tactics. But it's worth pointing out that their insistence that candidates side with them publicly carries a high cost. According to a Quinnipiac poll released the week of the gay debate, 34 percent of voters in the crucial swing state of Ohio said that if a candidate were endorsed by a gay organization it would make them less likely to vote for that candidate, while only 10 percent said it would make them more likely to vote for him (voters in the other swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania responded similarly). Gay marriage is still opposed by a substantial majority of the country. In the past 10 years, 26 states have passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and a May 2007 poll found about 60 percent of Americans opposed to gay marriage. It is for this reason that gay Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank recently said of the candidates' evasiveness on gay marriage, "It's not wrong for people trying to become president to take political considerations into account. I don't want a bunch of martyrs on my side." Even Jonathan Capehart, one of the debate panelists, who scolded Bill Richardson in The Washington Post for flubbing the question of whether homosexuality is a choice, agreed with the New Mexico governor's assessment that "The country isn't there yet on gay marriage."

Furthermore, while the president could be a powerful advocate for gay rights, gay marriage's prospects lie with the states, not the federal government, since it is the states that hold the power to issue marriage licenses. Throughout the debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), one of the most important arguments put forth by gay marriage supporters was the federalist one: that the federal government ought not meddle in what has historically been a state issue. Last year, Wolfson wrote that the FMA "would intrude the federal government into the regulation of marriage to prevent all states and all future generations from making their own decisions on ending sex discrimination in marriage, just as they ended race discrimination in marriage a generation ago." HRC's Smith echoes the point. "Legal marriage is a creature of state governments," he told me.

Aside from being legally sound, stressing federalism is a smart political tactic. It appeals to conservatives who oppose gay marriage (like former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr) but agree that it is a subject best left for states. It also acknowledges that the president's power to enact legislation on gay marriage is extremely limited. The most a Democratic president could do is repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. This law explicitly prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay unions. It's a terrible law: Even though gay couples are equal before the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and gay couples in Vermont have the same rights as straight couples, they are still denied over 1,100 federal marriage benefits. A president could fight for its repeal, which would be a considerable accomplishment and would open the door to granting federal benefits to gay couples in states where such unions are recognized. But marriage laws themselves are still within the purview of the states.

Perhaps once elected, the next president could take a courageous stand in favor of gay marriage via a televised message to the nation, or he could express support for a gay marriage bill were one to arise in a state legislature or criticize state attempts to ban gay marriage or civil unions. As the leader of his party, a Democratic president who voiced support for gay marriage would immediately render such a position more politically viable for state legislators and rank and file party members. Smith says of the candidates, "These people are managing a political problem. ...We just need to change the political dynamic." He's right. Gay marriage advocates need to convince a substantial majority of the country that gay marriage is a moral good before pressuring presidential candidates to take a position on such a highly charged issue.

But in the present climate, asking that presidential candidates support same-sex marriage — while serving an important moral purpose — demands a significant political sacrifice. At most, gays should expect a president to act as a bulwark against congressional attempts to limit their rights and to support congressional attempts to defend those rights. This means pledging to repeal anti-gay laws like the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell and to sign pro-gay ones like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which all of the Democratic candidates have explicitly promised to do. Seeing the Democrats squirm on the issue of gay marriage may make for good political theater, but it does not make good politics.

[alanrobisch]

hawks spring amen liberals don''t want issues decided at the ballot box but by judges or executiive fiat. That''s why they are so afraid of judges who are conservatives

[hawksprings]

Again, as I''ve said before, this article is further proof that a Liberal Politician cannot campaign on what they REALLY believe and get elected in the US. Americans don''t want a liberal president.

The article even recommends that AFTER the liberal is elected, THEN they can be the champion of Gayy Marriage rights, just keep it quiet during the election.

Sounds hypocritical, but it goes perfectly with the Situational Ethics of Liberalism, doesn''t it.

...

[krotec54]

I just think that this is sad to see your brothers and sisters not being able to accept what they have been born to be.
It''s like they are saying that they are, %u201Dunstable%u201D and they do not have the %u201Cconfidence%u201D of being the person they are born to be and wants to escape to another %u201Crole%u201D to get the attention they crave.
And I totally agree that there is no social purpose for gay marriages.

[kansas1946]

I agree with the premise of the article. I think *** have made tremendous strides in acceptance, and I think the future looks bright for them. Let''s get domestic partnerships in place and then either change the language in all of the federal tax codes, government benefits, etc., and add the words "domestic partnerships" everywhere it uses the word "marriange"
Most of the problem arises in the language of the federal statutes using the word marriage. I don''t think *** care as much about being "married" as they do about equal protections for financial, legal, end of life, matters etc.
If the word marriage is going to send the righ-wing loonies off the cliff, then lets just call it something else in the states and federal statutes.
This will come. A survey of young people find that this is a non-issue with them and they are very accepting of ***.

[alanrobisch]

Dragonmouse I totally agree with you. there is no social purpose for gay marriages

[alanrobisch]

please every gay person out there who believes that *** should be allowed to marry should force the issue with every democratic candidate especially Hillary. smoke them out. I want Hilary to declare for gay marriages and state she will work for a federal law making it legal or an amendment to the constitution.

with this declaration her candidacy would go up in smoke. I''d love to see the flames. No candidate who seriously wants to get elected or at least expects to get elected can declare for gay marriages. for this reason I hope the dems make support for gay marriages a part of their platform. Gauranteed high turnout by republicans resulting in probable defeat of dem candidate.

[bennyblack1]

Zendigity
There is a difference between self-righteousness and God-righteousness. I am nothing more than a messenger. I only relay the message from the Bible to you, since you won''t read it. God made his judgements already way back in the Old Testament. It can be seen that His judgements have carried over to the New Testament. He''s given us time to get straight with Him, but that time is running out. Do I judge you? Nope. That''s not my job. It''s my job to tell you the truth about how God feels about sin, and what you can do about it to save your soul. The only judgement I''m to make is to determine whether a person''s actions would damage me or not by hanging around them. Then decide to be their friend or not. People will drag you into a sin, even though it''s not what you want.

[bennyblack1]

Roger;
I''m not kidding. Homosexuality is an addiction. Like I said before, you have a choice to be a homosexual, but you can''t just decide not to be one once you have crossed the line.

[bennyblack1]

You have your faith definitions screwed up. The first Faith is a belief in something so strong that you will act upon it even before it comes to pass. It is a verb. Faith demands action. It is not just wishing in the wind. It is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

The second Faith that you are using is a noun used to reference religion in general. This faith only means that you subscribe to a particular belief system, such as Mormon, Catholicism, Islam...and so on. It doesn''t necessarily mean you hold those values as true.

I am of the first Faith, and so happen to be going to a Methodist Church (right now).

[zendigity]

I love the way people strut their self rightious judgements of people while talking about what is or isn''t moral. What ever happened to the concept of allowing GOD to be the one to judge? Have the Christians of the world actually convinced themselves that Jesus meant?

When faith becomes CERTAINTY, This is when God foresakes his people.

[dragonmouse-2009]

I vote just freakin'' "give it up". Marriage between a man and a woman has worked rather well for 5000 years. Nothing is perfect, but for the most part it''s FINE. For all those that end up "complaining" that Man/Woman marriages ya-da ya-da...end up with problems...do they think same gender marriage will CURE this? I don''t think it''s a "THREAT" to standard marriages but I really don''t get what the "benefit" is.

I''m not sure WHY all of society has to make amends to what should be "PRIVATE RELATIONSHIP" for a "minority" of the population that prefer a different "lifestyle" than what''s the average norm.

There are civil partnerships and wills to pass on the goods to a "partner" or your "golden retriever". Whatever floats your boat.

Right now we have plenty of REAL problems to concentrate on like Iraq, Health Care, Immigration, *** from China...The LAST thing we should be concerned with is who can get married and who can''t.

Good Grief

[angelfire69]

While being an openly gay man myself, I DO NOT go around flaming all the time all *** ARE NOT flaming. It is just a personality type I would think. I wholeheartedly agree with another comment I read beign gay is not a choice, if it is than all you hetrosexuals who belive this should just try and choose to be gay.

[jjp735i]

I agree with Mr. Kirchick 100%. Sometimes a group trying to make changes can go to far to early and cause more damage than good.

I never undrstood the cries of gay men telling others to stay out of their bedrooms, yet hold Gay Pride Parades half naked, in drag or in leather screaming this is who we are. Sorry but you cannot have it both ways. Straight people get naked, wear leather and yes, even go in drag. The differance is it is not thrown in your face. People don''t need to see your private life like that. I don''t want to see anyone''s private life like that, straight or gay.

I don''t have an issue with public holding of hands or kissing by either *** group. But I do have an issue when it''s crosses the public line and a lot of times gay pride does.

You can be your self, but do gay men really have to be flaming all the time? Do you really need that much attention? You want us to treat you the same, yet cannot seem to grasp that being gay does not mean all gay men are queens or need to be. Sorry, dressing in BDSM clothing with your behind haning out is public is not pride. Do you really believe kids should see that?

We know your there and yes you do have a right to work for changes, but until you also change a little the change you seek will be a long time coming.

Not all gay men are screamers in public. It turns people off and gives all gay men a bad image.

[roger3815]

Like crack? That has to be the dumbest thing I''ve ever read. Are kidding or trolling?

[bennyblack1]

My opinion is based on the polls that say that 80% of Americans believe in God. Of those, 40% claim to be born again. That means that 40% of Americans are traditional Christians. Both types of Christians still hold to the traditional belief that homosexuality is wrong along with other forms of promiscuity, and should be avoided like the plague.

[bennyblack1]

Native Woman;
To be truthful with you, I wholeheartedly believe that 75% - 80% of Americans believe that homosexuality is wrong and immoral. And that number is low compared to what I believe it was 50 years ago, when it was still a shame for a woman to wear a dress above the knee and illicit *** was inappropriate to talk about. Since then, our morals have been in a state of disintegration. Clothing was conservative, and modesty was a crown. Now, a woman will literally walk out of her house, down the street, and into the store in her pajamas and house slippers in the midde of the day. A guy will do the same thing. Now, I don''t know about you, but that means either one of two things. That they are too lazy to get into something appropriate or they are prostitutes. And here, where I live, it means they are prostitutes. And to my amazement, people actually pick them up, in broad daylight.

[brianbwb-2009]

"...Bill Richardson in The Washington Post for flubbing the question of whether homosexuality is a choice,"

All acts of an erotic nature are done by choice. To be homosexual, or heterosexual, or even celibate is a choice. Not "doing it" or "doing it", with whomever one chooses is obviously choice. If it is an uncontrollable compulsion, then the person so compelled fits the definition of having a mental problem, and is a potential rapist.

The instinct to reproduce is real and natural, but since same gender unions cannot reproduce, those practicing same gender erotic stimulation become practitioners of nothing more than mutual non reproductive gratification, which is neither right or wrong.

It could be humorously argued that a man masturbating is technically "doing it" with a man (himself) therefore is engaging in a homosexual act, same goes for females.

[nativewoman]

Furthermore, our beliefs should not be swayed by people''''s opinions, but on truth. Posted by bennyblack1 at 01:44 AM : Aug 17, 2007

Our "beliefs" should be swayed on truth? What truth? Whose truth?

Belief is a synonym for the word opinion. Look it up in the dictionary.

I agree with your point about polls however. All polls could possibly be geared to favorable groups.

So what is the source of the percentages you stated at 11:22 PM : Aug 16, 2007?

And if, as you say, polls can be geared to specific sections of the populace and are not to be trusted, why would you cite poll percentages at all? They don''t mean anything right?

[bennyblack1]

Well, g''nite krotec...got be up early.

And Goodnight everyone.

[bennyblack1]

Andrew;
said like a true hypocrite! LOL