Every now and then, gay politics makes strange bedfellows.
Conservative attorney Ted Olson and liberal attorney David Boies (last seen arguing against each other before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore) have joined forces to file a lawsuit opposing California’s ban on gay marriage. This whodathunkit romance is supposed to illustrate a point: that the issue of same-sex marriage transcends the familiar categories of liberalism and conservatism. In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Boies asserts:
We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.
That sounds sweet and all. But there is a problem with the gauzy, feel-good sentiment that Boies embraces. It’s wrong.
The issue of gay marriage does not transcend ideology. Rather, it is precisely about ideology. It rather neatly encapsulates the contrast of how liberals and conservatives tend to see the world and approach public policy. On one side we have civil libertarians who don’t give a whit what people do in their romantic lives as long as it’s between consenting adults. On the other side we have conservative traditionalists who want their preferred social arrangements (often derived from cherry-picked biblical strictures) to be legally binding. It’s the live-and-let-livers against the live-as-I-sayers.
This fundamental divide is a major part of what our nation’s politics has been about for the last generation. Anyone who has failed to notice an entire movement of right-wingers dedicated to regulating people’s private behavior (from sodomy to birth control to pornography) simply hasn’t been paying attention. The effort to beat back this movement is, to some extent, what progressive politics has become. It’s not some supra-political matter, even if the occasional conservative like Olson decides to jump ship on one issue or another.
Even Boies’ suggestion that people of all political persuasions can agree on following the Constitution sounds quaint today. Has he not noticed that virtually the entire political class in Washington DC is against enforcing anti-torture laws if it means investigating top officials from the Bush administration? Has he not heard members of that administration repeatedly channel Richard Nixon’s infamous contention that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”? Those who favor the rule of law have been tagged as radical leftists, not as mainstream Americans who have risen above the political fray.
Indeed, numerous issue areas that are supposed to be above politics have instead become knee-deep in the stuff. Take the humble idea that schools should teach science in the classroom. Or that sex education should convey facts. Or that our government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Or, heck, that financial policy should be based on real-life numbers rather than the numbers that banks would like to pretend are real. We are at a point where it’s no longer clear that a large, vibrant conservative movement exists outside of policy areas that are supposed transcend conventional political divides. The constellation of interests that now define conservatism include being anti-science, anti-privacy, anti-Constitution, anti-transparency, and anti-equality-before-the-law.
Consider the various wings of the conservative movement; or, as Mitt Romney liked to call them when he was running for president, the three legs of the conservative stool. (Please, no scatological humor.) We’ve got the moral crusaders, who are the ones trying to keep the queers apart. Then we’ve got the kill-’em-allers—the foreign policy neocons who haven’t the slightest interest in Constitutional or statutory limits to executive power. And finally there’s the gimme-gimme-gimme crowd, which ostensibly stands for fiscal restraint (a genuinely conservative principle), but recently has been more interested in keeping the public from knowing what financial institutions are doing with the trillions of dollars we’re giving them.
So what exactly does it mean to suggest that gay marriage, or any number of other issues of the day, are beyond politics? It is, I submit, an absurdity. For the debate between the real and the surreal now dominates our political discourse. To neglect that fact is to be blind to one of the great political narratives of our era; and, crucially, to ignore the high level of organizing and firepower that progressives will need to defeat conservatism today.
To be sure, there are cleavages within the conservative movement. Some cultural conservatives are willing to support contraception and comprehensive sex-ed in the name of reducing the need for abortion. Some hawks who supported the Iraq war nevertheless oppose torture and executive secrecy. And many fiscal conservatives are as disgusted with the lack of transparency in our financial policies as liberals are. Reaching out to such conservatives is essential for the progressive movement to build broad coalitions and to win the policy changes that will make this world a more humane, egalitarian, and free place. If Ted Olson wants to join liberals on the gay marriage issue, that’s certainly better than if he doesn’t.
And of course, that’s likely the real reason Boies and Olson are joining forces: to give permission to anti-gay conservatives to change their mind and pro-gay conservatives to, um, come out of the closet. That’s a worthy effort. But along the way, we need not pretend that the skewed and surreal nature of our current political divide doesn’t exist. We cannot afford the luxury of thinking that merely claiming to be above politics will make it so.
Rather, we must engage the political debate head-on, recognizing that the future of America and the world will depend in large measure on the kind of politics that our fellow citizens embrace. Will it be a politics of tolerance, of compassion, of truth, of empowerment? Or will it be a politics of bigotry, of imposition, of imperialism in all of its protean guises? These are the questions of politics today. And politics, ultimately, is about choices.
Tags: boies, california, olson, politics, prop 8, same-sex marriage
pretty conservative in general; he's just taking a liberal position on this one issue. He and Boies seem to think that that makes gay marriage a suprapartisan issue that transcends political ideology. In reality, it just makes Olson an outlier. We've still got a lot of movement conservatives out there who are looking to illegalize private behavior they don't like.
As a conservative Christian fundamentalist, I am consistent and without the contradictory hypocrisy that Schaeffer so wrongfully depicts Christians as being... I am one that thinks homosexuality is immoral and against Biblical principles. I also don't prefer "civil unions," and don't "cherry-pick" scriptures.
The Bible is unilaterally opposed to Sodomy and same-sex marriage, and it doesn't allow for "selectivity." God considers both an abomination, sinfully aberrant behavior, unclean, vile, dishonorable, unseemly and worthy of death in the Old Testament--do I need to go on? Additionally, Schaeffer wrongfully seems to feel that God and the Word of God reside in a "live-and-let-live" world. Rather, God maintains a "live-as-He says" world, and Schaeffer's somehow either chosen to ignore or forgotten that principle!
Marcharino must read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to be able to interpret the bible with such accuracy and certitude. I am just amazed. In fact, some words in the bible describing disfavored sexual practices occur only once and never occur in other contemporary works, kind of like one-off made-up jargon. Seems like any definition of these words must lack any certainty. Too bad "M" missed those biblical verses that praise the meek and warn against the sin of pride. Seems like he has a peculiar definition of "cherry picking" too.
1 Samuel 18:1,3
"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."
And immediately afterward, Jonathan disrobed before David
1 Samuel 20:41
" . . . they [David and Jonathan] kissed one another, and wept one with another . . . "
2 Samuel 1:26
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
As you can see, they were very much in love. The Bible shows them kissing one another -- not a normal activity for heterosexual men. To make sure you don't miss the sexual aspect, the love is compared (favorably, by the way) with the love of a woman. Their souls were knit together in love, and they made a covenant because of their love. Just think about how many covenants are made because of love. The covenant of marriage sort of sticks out. The actions immediately following that declaration of love are also unmistakable. Not many covenants made because of love result in the participants disrobing in each other's presence, but one such covenant -- the covenant of marriage -- does.
© 2000, by JRichards
Don't mean to be a stickler, but what does Frank Schaeffer have to do with this article?
As for selectivity, I would like to give you a little pushback on this idea that you're consistent. You note that homosexuality is deemed worthy of death in the OT. That's true. But so is talking back to your parents. So is eating shellfish. And so is wearing clothing made out of two kinds of cloth. (Have you ever worn a cotton-polyester blend? Death!) So unless you're just as vehemently opposed to those things as you are to male homosexual activities, I think we can safely say that you don't seriously think we should follow OT strictures.
So now, as for other things. Do you believe Jesus is still going to come back some time in the future? If so, you are saying Mark was wrong when he predicted that Jesus would return within the lifetimes of some of those living in Jesus' day. Do you believe that it's OK for people to be rich? If so, you disagree with both James and Jesus (and perhaps Matthew), who were pretty clear that God has a big problem with rich folks and the Kingdom of God is for the poor.
As you said, do I need to go on?
I agree Marchirano. Aren't we as disciples, supposed to tell people what the bible says about a peticular subject? and then help them to obey it? what the live-and-let-live mentality describes, is really live-and-let-those-who-don't-obey-perish-in-flames. Weather they believe in Jesus Christ or not is immaterial, they will be held accountable. I also believe that we will be held accountable if we act like its okay
As christians we should not act as though homosexuality is okay. Turning a blind eye to that is disasterous. If we are going to save our immortal souls we have to stop worrying about hurting everyones feelings with the truth.
Have you seen the definition of Bigotry? Sounds a lot like you...
Marcharino might not be irrational when viewed from a Christian point of view. I am not saying the Christianity is wrong, and I do not try to put down the believe, but others do not have blind faith. This would lead to Marcharino's views to be seen as irrational and based on blind faith.
The last comment was aimed at Marcharino... not the article.
No where in the scriptures does God or the Apostles or hate the rich, nor is there any promise that poor go to heaven.
There are verses that say the meek, lowly, and poor of heart will inherit the Kingdom of God. Thats about humility, not financial position.
The lust for money is evil, not having it. The rich are warned not to love money more than God. Many of God's followers and prophets were wealthy.
Speaking of which...
Matthew 19:16-24 (New International Version)
The Rich Young Man
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[a] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]"
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Now what were you saying again?
Blak Thundar hit it on the head with one obvious Scriptural reference in which having wealth (rather than giving it away) is attacked ON PRINCIPLE. There are countless references in the NT to the poor referring specifically to financial position, not humility. And the book of James harshly attacks the wealthy -- again, on principle.
What I'd suggest is people need to come to grips with what's really in the Bible rather than just trying to read our political preferences into it.
Homosexuality is still a sin no matter how you want to put a spin on it. While it's not our place to judge, it is the almighty's place. By the way He does punish, but maybe just not you, good luck.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.