Demosophia

Man, I don't know. The more I hear arguments from the crowd that apparently thinks of gay marriage as just another entitlement they have a right to expect from society the more I think we probably should not even start down this road at all. I realize I'm flip-flopping, but I can't really see how society is harmed by denying gay marriage, and I see lots of ways it can be harmed by allowing it. Clearly the advocates aren't going to be satisfied with having it legalized in a few states, and they aren't even remotely concerned about negative consequences. Andrew Sullivan is clearly the exception rather than the rule. So, lets give it a few years and see how it works out in France and Australia (and probably Massachussets).

It makes me feel lously to be on that side of things. I wonder if the situation is being fed by the fact that there have been lots of folks like me who really weren't paying much attention to the controversy, and basically have a "live and let live" attitude. And one of the things that's beginning to smell "fishy" is the way people seem to be making demands on a society they don't really respect, or even like very much. Are these San Franciscans whose sympathies really sort of sided with Saddam in the recent conflict going to like and respect America more if they have their way? Really?

Why on earth would you think that's NOT how gays view marriage? Sure, not all of them do, but neither do many hets. I believe in any poll you would find the same percentage of gays and straights expressing the same view of marriage as Andrew. Where ya been?

"I wonder if the situation is being fed by the fact that there have been lots of folks like me who really weren't paying much attention to the controversy, and basically have a "live and let live" attitude. And one of the things that's beginning to smell "fishy" is the way people seem to be making demands on a society they don't really respect, or even like very much."

I think that's the problem - you weren't paying attention to the issue, so now you link "gay marriage" with people who "don't respect my society very much." You don't know about all those boring mainstream suburban gay couples with SUVs and kids in Girl Scouts in all the red states, who have been hoping they could get married for the past 30 years.

I think that's the problem - you weren't paying attention to the issue, so now you link "gay marriage" with people who "don't respect my society very much."

I admit that these folks have pissed me off, but my attitude is really more nuanced, and ultimately I think it's more consistent than Andrew's. I still think it's possible that gay marriage might be OK, or even beneficial, but I just don't see how we could have the luxury of running isolated social experiments to get more purchase on those questions if it's regarded as a "right." I see Andrew's position as internally inconsistent in that regard. If something is an inherent right how can you experiment with it, limiting the right in some places and not in others? I no longer agree that federalism could provide the context of social experimentation, because I think the press would be on to make the "right" universal. That's what recent events in San Francisco tell me. And Andrew's recent comments about that weren't very reassuring. I guess I decided that even he was less than sincere about the federalism thang.

My impression is that if gays backed off the demand for marriage, and concentrated on "civil union" we'd have a system of social experimentation that could provide some answers to critical questions about the effects of the shift on family and child-rearing (or, in other words, the effect of gay marriage on heterosexual marriage). Granted it's not perfect knowledge, because civil union is only an approximation of marriage. But it could be a closer or more distant approximation depending on jurisdition, which would actually give us more variation and therefore answers to more nuanced questions. I doubt that a marriage amendment would pass if such a strategy were adopted, either. But given Andrew's recent statements, and the position that gays have taken (which is understandable on an emotional level) I have my doubts that they'll settle for that and take a long term perspective. I'm just not ready to run an irreversable global social experiment yet, and if the amendment is the only way to stop that then I'd be for it. However, I admit it amounts to something of a travesty, and I really hope we can stop short.