I realize that people can have principled opinions about gay marriage on both sides of the issue, but I'm getting a little tired of Andrew Sullivan's ambiguity on the principle. On the one hand he supports the principle of federalism, or at least says he does; while on the other he seems to hold that gay marriage is a civil right on par with inter-racial marriage. Well, it is or it isn't. If it's a civil right then federalism is an unprincipled position. End of story. If federalism is appropriate, and we can trust it to provide us with the "laboratory of democracy," then let's stop talking about it as a civil right... because doing so undermines the federalism argument. Those willing to support federalism, but who have reservations about gay marriage writ large have reason to accuse Andrew of duplicity.
Sorry Andrew, but you can't have it all ways at once.
Posted by Demosophist at June 2, 2004 12:45 PM | TrackBackSupport for federalism is nothing more than a tactic to stop the debate now until gay marriage takes hold in one or more jurisdictions. I will predict now that all arguments about federalism will be thrown out the window by current proponents of this argument the first time that a full and credit case reaches the courts.
Posted by: Ben at June 2, 2004 03:53 PMCharles Murray adopts a rather bizarre stance on all of this. He argues, on the one hand, that the studies in Scandivavia that purport to show that the institution of marriage is undermined and diluted by gay marriage are flawed in the sense that what's institutionalzed there isn't "marriage" but a form of civil union; and that Scandinavia had already gone pretty far along the highway to the dissolution of the family and of marriage anyway. In fact, so far that it probably can't be compared to the US.
Nonetheless he believes that gay marriage will undermine the family, and child rearing... but he supports it anyway. It's probably more accurate to say that he fears it will undermine child rearing, and would not be surprised if his fears are realized. He supports it, I guess, because he never was all that good at reasearch (having mis-identified the "race gap" as a genetic attribute, rather than an artifact of child-rearing) so just hasn't thought through the ramifications of the "not-invented-here" literature on child rearing and the race gap (David J. Armor).
John Lott (the same guy who supports strict Second Amendment, and firearm ownership) is about the only major research voice opposing gay marriage now. This really could have devastating consequences for society, so we really do need the protection of federalism. And for Sullivan to adopt such a duplicitous position means that he simply doesn't give a damn about the potential consequences for society. And that's the truth of the matter.
Posted by: Scott (to Ben) at June 2, 2004 04:51 PMAndrew Sullivan uses logic to support his arguments for gay marriage like Paul Krugman uses statistics to support his leftist economic ideas. Both are disengenuous.
I remember a blog entry by Sullivan that argued for nature (as opposed to nurture) as the cause of homosexuality, and used the example of two apparently gay penguins in a zoo. I am not making this up! Now, I happen to think that homosexuality is far more attributable to nature than nurture, but I don't think gay penguins buttress the argument.
Sullivan is a bright fellow, but he allows personal interest in this issue to cloud his thinking.
Posted by: Publius at June 10, 2004 12:25 PMWelcome, and thanks. Have a nice look around.
Posted by: Demosophist (to gay) at September 22, 2004 08:21 AM