Bush, Iraq, and Gay Marriage

Okay, now that I've got your attention ...

This is something I've been meaning to address for a while, and I think it's time now. Regular readers of Dreams Into Lightning (yes, all three of you) have probably figured out where I stand anyway, but it's a good idea for me to spell it out here.

First of all, let me be really clear here: I disagree strongly with President Bush about a number of things, and gay marriage is one of them. Probably the biggest one. Bush has gone on record as endorsing a constitutional amendment to, as its supporters claim, "preserve the sanctity of marriage by defining marriage as between a man and a woman". That is, a constitutional amendment that would enshrine straight folks' "right" to protect themselves from understanding the truth: that relationships are to gay people what they are to straight people.

"But if we let gays get married, what next? What's to stop a brother and sister from marrying each other?" Well, if you define marriage as "between a man and a woman", nothing. Of course, out here in the real world, people recognize that gay marriage has everything to do with commitment, growth, and responsibility - just like straight marriage - and nothing whatever to do with incest. (That's why many domestic-partner laws stipulate that the parties not be related to one another.)

The New York Times' conservative columnist David Brooks has written eloquently in favor of gay marriage. Even National Review seems to be coming around: there's an excellent essay in the June 14 print issue, "Perversion" by Roger Scruton, which seeks to "rehabilitate the concept of perversion". Taking the case of pedophilia as a starting point, Scruton argues that the question of "consent" is merely a diversion: the true evil of pedophilia lies in the nature of the act, and in its consequences for the victim. His words on homosexuality worth quoting verbatim:

"Conservatives ... might be troubled by a concept of perversion that lets homosexuality so easily off the hook. Of course, there is the rampant bath-house promiscuity that some might reasonably liken to pornography, in its fetishistic and phallic focus. But we can legitimately regard this as a perversion while refusing to accept that the perversion stems from the homosexuality. And I think that this is part of what underlies the pressure towards gay marriage - namely, the wish to distinguish the normal from the perverted, without assuming that homosexuality is in itself the cause of either. A normal homosexual desire seeks union with another person just as does the normal desire of man for woman or woman for man. It becomes perverted in the same way, by being deflected from this interpersonal relation towards an act that demeans, objectifies, and desecrates its object. And the normal desire seeks to vindicate itself in a moral commitment, in homosexual just as in heterosexual relationships."

I can add nothing to this. However, Scruton goes on in his concluding paragraph to condemn gay marriage on the grounds that the real purpose of marriage is to have children! This is surely one of the weakest arguments against gay marriage, and I can't help feeling he tacked that single paragraph on at the end simply because he couldn't bear to face the conclusion that his own essay demands. Marriage, he proclaims, "marks an existential transition, a move away from the concerns of one generation towards a concern for the next." Presumably referring to falling European birthrates, he observes that "without marriage, as we are beginning to see, societies do not reproduce themselves." (How, then, does this explain teen pregnancy in social groups where marriage is rare?)

Picking apart this dazzling display of sloppy reasoning would really demand a full post, but I'll just touch on a few of the obvious points here. Is the true purpose of marriage, then, to have and raise children? That's what Scruton seems to be saying, but he doesn't spell it out in so many words because he can't. If marriage is only worthwhile for the purpose of procreation, then infertile persons should not marry fertile persons, because that would waste valuable reproductive resources. Infact, infertile people should not get married at all, because a marriage that cannot produce children is a "desecration"! Conversely, what about lesbian couples who conceive through donor insemination? What about adoption, for heaven's sake? What about birth control? Scruton is not really giving us anything new here: it's simply the "marriage for procreation only" argument, worded opaquely enough to discourage any of the difficult questions that such an argument invites.

Now back to Bush.

The President has no official role - NONE - in the constitutional amendment process; he's just a citizen like any other in that regard. And the likelihood of such an amendment passing is, I think, very close to zero. But as a member of the gay community, I cannot feel anything but disgust at President Bush's position.

But here's the thing. Gay marriage is an important issue, but it is not the only issue in the world. It is not even the most important issue. Gay marriage - whose outcome depends scarcely or not at all on the person of the President - pales into insignificance against the campaign against fascism in the Middle East and elsewhere, which depends on the President in great measure. The battle for freedom in the Mideast outweighs gay marriage by so many orders of magnitude that I can't even conceive of setting one against the other.

In Iran, homosexuals do not even have the right to live, much less marry. In Palestine, gay people are subject to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture, and execution. These things are symptoms of the totalitarianism that still holds most of the Mideast in its grip. And that same fascism threatens all of us - gay and straight - in America.

Unlike the fine writers at National Review, I don't have to worry about losing my conservative credentials because I don't have any. I've been a liberal all my life and my basic values haven't changed. But the world has changed. The Democrats have sold out their ideals to the mafias of the Mideast, and it is the Republican Party - slowly but surely coming round to enlightenment on social issues - that we must look to for the defense of the freedom, dignity, and responsibility that we all hold so dear.

So that's where I stand: queer, liberal, Republican, and proud.

Let's Blogroll!

Ginmar is in rare form, with a thought-provoking rant on women who collaborate with male sexism. The book "Woman's Inhumanity to Woman" by the feminist Phyllis Chesler examines some of the dynamics between the phenomenon Ginmar is talking about.

A Small Victory has some thoughts about Iraq and 9/11 that are worth reading.

In one of several related posts, Andrew Sullivan responds to questions (raised by Jonah Goldberg at The Corner, among others) regarding his position on President Bush. (And the view here at DiL? Glad you asked. If it's possible to be the opposite of two opposites, that would explain why I'm supporting Bush. I'll explain better soon - watch this space.)

The robots are coming!

Okay, I am REALLY excited about the new movie "I, Robot" (starring Will Smith) based on the short story collection by Isaac Asimov. Asimov is one of my favorite writers, and he had a special gift for exploring the ambiguous relationship between humans and technology. I'm also glad to see a sign that thoughtful science-fiction cinema is not dead. There is so much more to science fiction than "Star Wars". Great SF films like "Soylent Green", "2001", and "Blade Runner" are visually and mentally stimulating, and also good "people stories". I'll try to write more about this later.

Morning Report: June 17, 2004

MORNING REPORT - June 17, 2004
Questions about 9/11 Commssion. (various) The September 11 Commission has contradicted President Bush's claims about the alleged ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam's Ba'athist regime in Iraq. But is this an indictment of Bush, or of the Commission? Debka examines omissions and discrepancies in the Commission's report.
Andrew McCarthy's article in NRO raises some questions as well. And
CNN reports that Tony Blair's office is standing by its position, asserting that Saddam "created a permissive environment for terrorism and we know that the people affiliated to al Qaeda operated in Iraq during the regime".

Leftist Homophobia

"Members of the gay group OutRage! and the Queer Youth Alliance took part in a London demonstration May 15 urging greater respect for human rights in Palestine. they also carried signs urging the Palestinian Authority to stop arresting and torturing homosexuals, which led to friction with other demonstrators.

"When they arrived in Trafalgar Square to join the protest, the gay activists were surrounded by Islamic fundamentalists, Anglican priests and members of the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign who called them 'racists', 'Zionists', and 'CIA and MI5 agents', according to Peter Tatchell of OutRage!. He said the gay activists were told to move to the rear of the demonstration and, when they refused, the protest organizers blocked their placards and shouted down their interviews with reporters. ..."

- Just Out (Portland, Oregon), June 4, 2004

The L Word: Fascism and the Left

THE L WORD: LIBERALISM IN CRISIS
Fascism and the Left

Notice how all the leftists' arguments hinge on the idea of a devious leader (GWB) manipulating an ignorant and unthinking populace - the "sheeple", as the DU are fond of calling Americans. Think of the worldview that this attitude implies: a fundamental contempt for humanity and for democracy, and faith only in the power of a "supreme leader". This is the essence of fascism on the Left.

These people despise Bush precisely because he is NOT like Saddam Hussein; and had they the power, they themselves would strive to be like Saddam.

Dreams Into Lightning has an Official Position on Item # 3

... and it may be found in the text of the Iran regime change petition.
You haven't signed the petition yet?

Well, what are you waiting for?

Mideast Objectives

The same post in The Belmont Club also suggests six points that US policy should clarify in the pursuit of democracy and freedom in the Middle East:

1. The desired end state in Saudi Arabia: whether or not this includes the survival of the House of Saud or its total overthrow;
2. The fate of the regime in Damascus;
3. Whether or not the United States is committed to overthrowing the Mullahs in Iran and the question of what is to replace them;
4. How far America will tolerate inaction by Iraq security forces before acting unilaterally;
5. The future of the America's alliance with France and Germany;
6. The American commitment to the United Nations.

Hat tip: Michael in SC.

House of Saud divided against itself?

The Belmont Club gives credence to Michael Doran's theory, published in Foreign Affairs, that Saudi Arabia is in a "virtual state of civil war" between two factions: that of Crown Prince Abdullah and that of his half-brother, interior minister Prince Nayef. Abdullah tilts toward pro-Western reformism, while Nayef courts the islamist clerics.

Morning Report: June 14, 2004

MORNING REPORT - JUNE 14

UN: Iran compliance "less than satisfactory". (Debka) Debka reports that United Nations weapons inspector el-Baradei finds Iran's cooperation on weapons inspections "less than satisfactory". The US is pushing for a deadline.

Arab reaction to Greater Mideast Initiative. (Iraq the Model) Now blogging from home, Omar posts more responses to the American push for political reform in the Middle East, translated from the BBC Arabic service. He reports that, predictibly, the most positive responses came from Iraq and the most negative from Palestine. The one surprise was the number of positive responses from Saudi Arabia.

Sudan: Victims of silence. (Jane Novak - Yemen Times) Bombings, crop destruction, well poisoning, mass executions, rape and torture are well-documented, ongoing atrocities in Sudan. Where, Jane asks, is the global action and outrage?

Change of tune for Saudi clerics? (Fox) Fox News reports that six Saudi clerics with former terrorist ties - including two, Safar bin Abdul Rahman al-Hawali, and Salman al-Awdah, who supported Osama bin Laden - have issued a statement condemning attacks on Westerners. The statement explicitly declared that "it is a sin to kill a life without a right, be it Muslim or non-Muslim" and warned against labeling other Muslim nations "infidels". No explanation has yet been offered as to why these six have now joined the Saudi government in opposing terrorist attacks.

Morning Report: June 10, 2004

MORNING REPORT - JUNE 10, 2004

- Ronald Reagan dies. (various) Former president Ronald Reagan died last Sunday, after a long battle with Alzheimer's disease. He is remembered favorably for his uncompromising stance on national security, which led to the US victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. More problematic was his support for repressive regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Central America because of perceived American security interests.

- Banned Iraqi missile parts found in Jordan scrapyard. (AP) UN weapons inspection teams, on the trail of an Al Samoud 2 missile engine found in a scrapyard in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, discovered more than 20 banned Iraqi missile engines in a scrapyard in Jordan, according to a briefing given by weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos whose text the AP said it had obtained. The AP article says Perricos stressed the large quantity of scrap metal being exported out of Iraq.

AP: missile parts found

Sully on Reagan

Andrew Sullivan admired Reagan's brand of conservatism. In recent posts, he defends Reagan's record on homosexuality and AIDS.