CHANGING RHETORIC ON GAY MARRIAGE: Paul Varnell

Although little noted at the time, one of the most interesting aspects of last year's Senate debate on the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment was the relative absence of overt criticism of gays and lesbians and their relationships.

Instead, amendment supporters focused primarily on how the amendment would solidify the association of parenthood with marriage and would benefit children by assuring them an optimal family of two opposite sex parents. ...

In a fascinating article ("The Federal Marriage Amendment and the Strange Evolution of the Conservative Case against Gay Marriage" (PDF) in the April issue of the journal PS: Political Science and Politics), former GOP intern Frederick Liu and Princeton University Professor Stephen Macedo suggest that one reason surely is that just a year earlier the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas had struck down all state anti-sodomy laws, removing any judicial legitimacy for conservative efforts to legislate anti-gay animus.

Perhaps more importantly, there was virtually no public outcry following the decision. One need only contrast that reaction with the uproar that followed the court's Brown v. Board of Education anti-segregation decision, or the Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision, still controversial after more than three decades.

A third reason would have to be that public opinion polls have shown a gradual decline in the number of Americans who view homosexuality as "always wrong" from nearly two-thirds (73 percent) some 30 years ago to barely half (53 percent) today. ...

In interviews with a number of aides to Republicans senators, co-author Frederick Liu found that there was a deliberate and concerted effort by Senate Republicans to avoid explicitly moralistic and religious arguments associated with the Religious Right.

One GOP legislative aide described her senator as "a religious man" whose opposition to gay marriage came first but who then "put words to it" afterwards that completely avoided any religious arguments. ...

In a way it is good news if nationally prominent politicians feel that they cannot with impunity directly attack gays and lesbians or even gay and lesbian relationships.

But there is a downside as well. If legislators--and voters--reach their positions about gay issues on the basis of a religious commitment but offer only what we might call "social policy" arguments for their positions, then any counter-arguments we make to refute or disprove those arguments will have no effect on their position.

more
posted by Eve at 10:21 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home