David Frum, a usually fairly reasonable conservative, expresses his discomfort with the recent mini-same-sex marriage legalization boomlet in The Week, and in abbreviated form on The New Majority. He doesn't really touch the substance of the issue, but is concerned about a) starting another round of a cultural war in the midst of a depression, two wars, and nuclear threats from Iran and Korea, and b) the different state laws result in confusion about the rights of gay married couples and their children in various states. Which are both very convenient arguments to make when momentum is shifting against you.
Does anybody remember the year 2004? We were losing badly in Iraq, and fighting in Afghanistan. Terrorists attacked the transit system in Madrid. Suicide bombings were common in Israel. We were in the midst of a very tendentious presidential campaign. Howard Dean screamed. Yet the Republicans, led by Karl Rove, orchestrated the addition of 11 anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives to the presidential election.
In fact, the initiatives were added to take advantage of all that was happening in society. The sub-text of the ballot initiatives was not subtle: "America is under attack from home (activist judges!) and abroad (Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11)! The world is going crazy! You must vote against gay marriage (and for George Bush, BTW) to maintain law,order, and stability in this country!" And guess what? It worked. (Although it is debatable whether the ordinances had any effect on the election)
Other than hypocrisy, the other problem with this argument is its familiarity. Just wait, gay folks (blacks, women), until things are a little bit easier, little less excited, then we can address your concerns. But when the economy gets back in gear, and we are out of Iraq, and the Middle East situation is magically solved, the argument will be - but things are so great now? Why are you rocking the boat?
Frum is right to characterize this as another "round" of the culture wars. Like boxing, rounds are followed by one another inexorably, each side adjusts to the other's tactics and counterattacks, and each round has a winner and a loser, culminating in an ultimate decision. Unlike boxing, however, (or more like old-fashioned boxing) the fight doesn't end until one side scores a knockout.
As for the patchwork of laws and resulting confusion between SSM and non-SSM states - how is that different from real marriage? Every state has different laws concerning divorce, adoption, marital privelege, and inheritances. Outside of the marriage context, consider another controversial issue - gun ownership. Despite some guidance from the constitution, state laws concerning gun ownership vary greatly. One can lawfully carry an unlicensed gun in state A and be arrested and jailed for possessing that same gun in state B.
More importantly, aren't the Republicans supposed to be the party of Federalism? Federalism envisions - nay, encourages - variation among the states. Federalism requires some amount of confusion.
There will never be a right time, nor an easy path, to the resolution of social questions. The issue of gay marriage will only take longer to remedy if the side losing at the time is allowed to call a time-out.
Posts
