Kristol can indeed be tendentious. I tend to share many of his reservations with regard to the gay-rights question, especially marriage. Any change, regarding marriage, military service, adoption by same-sex couples, or what-have-you, is sure to provoke backlash. However, momentum on behalf of this particular change has been building for some time, and I am afraid the opponents’ case has some weaknesses.

More serious than that of Kristol may be the case for the opposition made by Mackubin Thomas Owens of the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s journal Orbis in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. Mr. Owens allows this much: “There are many foolish reasons to exclude homosexuals from serving in the armed services. One is simple antihomosexual bigotry.” Nevertheless, he insists that there are good reasons for keeping the prohibition in place, most notably a threat to unit cohesion.

The problem is that I don’t know whether the perception of threat to cohesion can be separated from the simple bigotry. The perception of threat may be based upon a sort of innuendo to which gays and lesbians, and those who advocate for them, will object: namely, that gays and lesbians are sexual predators, moreso than their heterosexual counterparts.

If this policy change is made, I’m sure it will represent something of a burden for the military. Many personnel will react viscerally against it. And, its opponents may yet be able to fight it off. But, while acquiescence may be a burden, acceptance of it may turn out to be a consequence of maintaining a military force that is representative of the United States….

The reporter wonders why gay candidates would prosper at the same time that causes that gays might support have suffered. I would speculate that it makes a difference whether we are talking about a municipal or a statewide election — since cities almost always reflect more cosmopolitan attitudes than the remainder of the states within which they are located….

Let me take just a moment to explain as carefully as I can my perspective on matters such as this. I encountered this issue in the aftermath of decades of backlash. There was backlash over the race issue. There was backlash over abortion. I came to feel that it was being demanded of me that I absolutely must entertain the maximum amount of backlash, and must take every opportunity to provoke backlash from voters in “flyover country.” If cleaning up the collateral damage from this backlash became a problem — well, as far as the progressive community was concerned, as far as I could tell, if that was a problem I wanted to take on, I could do so if I wanted to.

Subsequently, we have lived through a number of election cycles in which voting patterns have come to bear little relation to income level. Barack Obama’s “Bittergate” voters, to whom I would have thought progressives would have felt a special responsibility, came to be treated as just another narrow demographic category. Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama presided over presidential administrations that were extremely accommodating to Wall Street interests. We endured the Richard Nixon phenomenon, the George Wallace phenomenon, the Ronald Reagan phenomenon, the “values voters” of 2004, the contemporary “tea party” phenomenon, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Bear with me for just a few more moments. There exists an organization called the World Federalist Movement. It advocates world government — or, at the very least, stronger global institutions. As a college instructor, I mentioned to students that it is significant that the organization describes itself as advocating “world federalism.” The point was that, although the institutions being advocated would be global, it would not amount to an oppressive totalitarian structure, because it would incorporate federalism — which means decentralization.

Suppose there were indeed a world government, and every four years everyone around the world went to the polls to elect a president of the world. It could be that the vote in the rest of the world would be so one-sided that the North American vote would turn out to be a “wash.” Under those circumstances, gentle reader, you might not think you are living in much of a democracy. Instead, you might think you were living in occupied territory….

This form of government that we call “democracy” originally was supposed to operate on a small scale. That’s why I felt compelled to tell students that there is a degree of ambiguity attaching even to something like the civil rights movement — described as the “second Reconstruction” by those who were less than completely enthusiastic about it. Whenever you impose a policy by fiat or decree on a continental scale, by a Supreme Court decision or a change in the Democratic Party platform, you run the risk of provoking massive devolutionary pressures. These pressures  then will carry implications for absolutely every other thing you attempt to accomplish….

If legal recognition is extended to same-sex couples, I am sure that a great number of people will be helped. However, even in as “blue” a state as Washington, the electorate stopped short of equating these relationships with marriage. Apparently, the people simply do not want to do it, at least not in vast regions of the country. Any recommendation I have to offer with regard to the matter will have to take account of that….

It’s not surprising that he has put some of these matters on the back burner — given that he is so far out on a limb on Afghanistan, health care, spending and deficits.  Once again I feel obligated to express my reservations  on matters such as these, given that I would hold that our primary commitment and overriding obligation concerns the economic question.

At the same time, it must be conceded that the notions of tolerance and equal rights in this area have gained momentum, and without a doubt there are many people who benefit if the changes Obama and the Human Rights Campaign seek are attained. Perhaps wary members of the public will “come around” if the changes take place, and the dire consequences predicted by opponents do not follow.

Still, it is a matter for concern that vast regions of the country will not accept these changes willingly. Urban, cosmopolitan attitudes toward gays and lesbians — to be adopted in the “Bible Belt”? At one level, the prospect boggles the mind. Is this something that people of sober judgment would attempt? At what point would it be judged that the collateral damage might outweigh the benefits?  “Just asking….”

Since Mormons have been so heavily implicated in the controversy, the Post article examines the efforts of Equality Utah, an advocacy group working in the state where the LDS Church is domiciled. The Post notes that, after the passage of the California proposition, LDS headquarters issued a statement to the effect that “the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.” Equality Utah has ceased upon this to push for the passage of five bills along these lines in Utah.  But, to get everything they want, Equality Utah would have to secure the repeal of Amendment 3, a marriage-definition amendment that was added to the Utah Constitution in a statewide referendum earlier this decade.

At the risk of being labeled a bigot, Party of 1 is hesitant to take the plunge and commit all the way to supporting “marriage equality.” If such a thing were to come about, would benefits accrue to a significant number of couples? Perhaps so. However, Party of 1 sees no way of getting Utah, and the many other states similar to it in some respects, to accept this willingly. We have a decentralized political system that provides for matters like this to be decided on a state-by-state basis, other things being equal. We are emerging from 50 years of backlash, due to a series of provocations over matters related to race and religion.

I suppose that with the election of Barack Obama, some people perceive the onset of a political realignment that will clear the way for the acceptance of absolutely any “progressive” initiative whatsoever.  Party of 1 is gun-shy, because conservatism has been  coming on like a runaway locomotive all his adult lifetime. Has this conservatism run its course? It could be too early to tell. In the meantime, Party of 1 questions whether the whole country can be made over to conform to “bicoastal” preferences. Were Party of 1 active in Utah, more than likely he would be inclined to stop short of taking on Amendment 3.

It is annoying to be treated like a bigot, after you have stopped just short of giving people everything they want….

– The author, Sarah Posner, insists that the results “disprove the idea that voters are comforted by hearing a candidate or his surrogate explain how his policy positions line up with the Bible.”

– “The real headline is not how religious voters propelled Obama into office but how alliances between religious groups and progressives can be used to advance a progressive agenda on issues on which they may agree, such as the economy, the environment, or international human rights.”

– “… Third Way, which has tried to defuse culture-war issues like abortion by formulating an abortion-reduction strategy, touted Obama’s reduction of the ‘God gap’ in the polling results. Jones noted Obama’s slashing of Bush’s 29-point advantage among voters who attend church more than once a week, narrowing it to a 12-point advantage for McCain.”

– “Even though Obama was not successful nationally in breaking the Republican hold on white evangelicals, he did make modest gains on Kerry’s percentages in North Carolina, Ohio, and Colorado. Although many evangelicals say they are embracing an agenda beyond the culture wars, Obama’s position on abortion rights is still a deal breaker for many white evangelicals who were considering voting for him….”

The whole thing is worth reading. Looking between the lines, however, the rhetorical pressure I perceive from the author is that of someone who is not especially happy with any sort of religious outreach, “narrowly tailored” or not. Posner is, to say the least, uncomfortable with “hearing a candidate or his surrogate explain how his policy positions line up with the Bible.”  Speaking for myself, I am not especially eager to hear candidates do such a thing. What is more important is to make clear that you respect other people’s views, even if they’re not your own. I run into too many people who insist that the would-be targets of “narrowly targeted religious outreach” are to be belittled, humiliated, and more or less utterly smashed.

I have noted elsewhere on the site that our current situation is one in which “everything has to be pitched to one side or the other.” There’s probably not much that can be done about that for the short to intermediate term. By expressing my views I suppose I amount to little more than a voice in the wilderness, at least for the time being. I am afraid, however, that I will have to insist on opposing a “progressive” line that permits absolutely no dissent on abortion and “gay marriage,” no matter how much collateral damage is done by these “progressive” positions.

“In our last dialogue on gay marriage in May, I expressed concern that the California Supreme Court’s decision to impose gay marriage by judicial fiat might trigger a backlash that would overturn the decision by popular initiative. Now that the California anti-gay marriage initiative has passed, I take no pleasure in seeing that prediction vindicated. With their overreaching, the California justices have set back the cause of gay marriage across the country.”

Party of 1 often leans left, but readers may find that this an issue that gets my right-of-center dander up. With the country needing to achieve consensus on economic recovery, reform of the financial system, health care, education, entitlements, climate and environment, I don’t really understand why people in possession of any degree of practical judgment would have chosen to make this a non-negotiable issue. There are vast areas of the country that will never swallow it unless it is imposed by fiat. By the way, as I noted a day or two ago on this site, I notice that this proposition passed in California due largely to the support of minority voters who broke in favor of Barack Obama in the presidential election.

Here is Party of 1’s take on the matter: there have indeed been hardship cases involving couples who had lived together for decades but were unable to obtain visitation rights when one partner was hospitalized on his or her deathbed. That’s not the only area in which such couples have suffered hardship. By all means, take steps to alleviate the hardship — but you will never achieve a national consensus on it if you insist on referring to the steps as “marriage.”

I run into people who belittle the right for abandoning a Burkean “true conservatism.” I wonder what a “true conservatism,” or any other kind of conservatism, would say about proposals that overturn understandings that must go back for hundreds or even thousands of years. I have made some effort throughout my career to study political philosophy. In the Platonic dialogues, going back some 2500 years, we see clear indications that same-sex relationships were tolerated and winked at — but it never occurred to them to grant legal recognition to marriages between people of the same sex. Furthermore, up until just a decade or two ago, gays and lesbians were among the most antibourgeois individuals ever to come down the pike. I don’t know whether there was any indication from them until very recently — that they had any truck with such an institution as marriage. But that appear to have been reversed over the past decade or two — they have changed the tune they want to call, and everybody has to jump to it.

If you want to grant some kind of recognition, as long as it is not called “marriage,” there are even religious conservative activists will go along with it. That would be Party of 1’s take on the matter. Furthermore, can we please refer to the matter as “legal recognition of same-sex couples” rather than the sensational “gay marriage”? Well, I suppose the former term is a little cumbersome….