Tone is off, but point is valid
Granted I think he's being a little too hostile and defensive with a college newspaper reporter, but I also believe Andrew Sullivan is giving Bill Clinton way too grief over his record of fighting for gay rights.
Arguably the political climate in the 1990s - shoot even in 2004 - is much different than it is today, so it's hard to accuse the Clinton Administration of not acting within the political context of the time, which was more hostile to gays. And, truth be told, the first thing his administration did was pursue 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the military which was quite controversial at the time.
Not that I don't completely sympathize with the point the student is attempting to make - that without bold, sometimes unpopular, actions, change can be hard to achieve - but Clinton's point, even if he made it poorly, that forcing states that ban gay marriage to recognize gay marriages from states where it is legal would lead to a severe backlash is valid (and, on a philosophical level, one I tend to agree with).
Arguably the political climate in the 1990s - shoot even in 2004 - is much different than it is today, so it's hard to accuse the Clinton Administration of not acting within the political context of the time, which was more hostile to gays. And, truth be told, the first thing his administration did was pursue 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the military which was quite controversial at the time.
Not that I don't completely sympathize with the point the student is attempting to make - that without bold, sometimes unpopular, actions, change can be hard to achieve - but Clinton's point, even if he made it poorly, that forcing states that ban gay marriage to recognize gay marriages from states where it is legal would lead to a severe backlash is valid (and, on a philosophical level, one I tend to agree with).
posted by Jmac at 11:09 AM
6 Comments:
It looks like an upside down and backwards replay of the fugitive slave law situation from the 1850's to me.
Gay couples who marry where it is legal to do so, wish to be recognized as married by every other state. Congress passes a law that allows states not wishing to recognize gay marriage to do as they wish. The Supreme Court refuses to hear relevant cases, so we don't yet know about the constitutionality of DOMA.
Way back when, some in Dixie wanted northern states to recognize their slave rights (so that T.R.R. Cobb, for example, could take his slave for a romantic summer holiday to Martha's Vineyard) but now that the shoe is on the other foot, they've got cold feet about this federal extension of state power.
Treating marriage as a state-by-state issue has always seemed a little odd to me.
Treating marriage as a state issue, period, seems strange to me.
Treat it as the religious institution it is, and take the state out of the marriage business. Issue civil union permits for anybody who wants them: you and me, you and your girlfriend, you and me and your girlfriend, whatever.
But let churches be the sole arbitors of marriage.
Reggie
Two thoughts on this for me:
1. It was not the original intent of the people who made the laws to recognize marriage between the same sex. If they want the laws changed, they need to lobby their government plain and simple. Obviously this will never happen.
2. I really don't want to have any problem with letting homosexuals have a recognized union by the state that would confer the same benefits a man and a woman enjoy. It comes down to the fact though, that we do in fact legislate morality and what we think is best for the health of our country. It's accepted in other areas of our law, so why shouldn't it be accepted here? It just seems healthier to promote relationships between same sexes. But will this really affect people's decisions about same sex relationships? Probably not. There is also the slippery slope that once the argument prevails allowing same sex marriage, what about incestual relationships, etc.
It just seems healthier to promote relationships between same sexes.
Why?
Let marriage be a religious institution only. The churches can recognize marriages in any way they see fit - that's none of my business.
Get government out of people's family relationships. It becomes my business when tax policy, property rights, medical decisions, etc. are codified in law based on a religious institution that bases legal rights on something that should never have legal standing.
Why do we confer legal rights based on personal relationships? That seems pretty invasive to me and I'm as liberal as one can get.
Al
Post a Comment
<< Home