The War and the Constitution (Li'l Andy Chooses "Gay Rights" Over Fighting War On Terror)

AndrewSullivan.com -- The Daily Dish ^ | 2/25/04 | Andrew Sullivan

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

THE WAR AND THE CONSTITUTION: It behooves me to wrestle with a question that many of you have asked me about. I have long been a strong supporter of this president's extraordinary leadership in the war on terror. He has made some mistakes, but I stand by his broader record entirely. This isn't because of some personal liking for Bush (although I've never been able to loathe him). My support for the war is inextricable from my love for America. When this country was attacked, like many others, I was distraught. I was enraged because America's promise of a new world had been threatened by a murderous gang of theocratic thugs. Call it the wrecking of an immigrant dream. I still believe passionately in taking this war to that enemy, of not apologizing for the United States, of opposing appeasement and weakness in the face of evil. As a gay man, I could also uncomplicatedly support a war against some of the most brutal homophobes on the planet, men who also targeted Jews and women and anyone who dissented from their theological bromides. It was because I believed in the Constitution of the United States that I felt no qualms in backing this president and in fighting rhetorical wars on his behalf - because that Constitution was under attack. I grew up in a country where there was no separation of church and state and had to attend a public high school that was anathema to my own religious faith. America has therefore always signified religious and political freedom to me. So when I wrote after 9/11 about the threat of religious fundamentalism abroad, this is how I finished my essay:

In this sense, the symbol of this conflict should not be Old Glory, however stirring it is. What is really at issue here is the simple but immensely difficult principle of the separation of politics and religion. We are fighting not for our country as such or for our flag. We are fighting for the universal principles of our Constitution, and the possibility of free religious faith it guarantees.

The religious fanatics of 9/11 despise the American Constitution exactly because it guarantees equality under the law, freedom of conscience and separation of church and state. The war I have supported is a war, ultimately, in defense of that Constitution. And that is why I am so committed to it.

THE PRESIDENT'S CONTRADICTION: So you can see, perhaps, why the bid to write anti-gay discrimination into this very Constitution provokes such a strong response from me - and so many other people, gay and straight, and their families. It robs us of something no one in this country should be robbed of - equality and inclusion in the founding document itself. When people tell me that, in weighing the political choices, the war on terror should trump the sanctity of the Constitution, my response is therefore a simple one. The sanctity of the Constitution is what we are fighting for. We're not fighting just to defend ourselves. We are fighting to defend a way of life: pluralism, freedom, equality under the law. You cannot defend the Constitution abroad while undermining it at home. It's a contradiction. And it's a deeply divisive contradiction in a time of great peril.

THE NEED FOR UNITY: To those who say that this amendment is merely a codification of existing marriage law and doesn't target homosexuals, the answer is obvious. If it weren't for the possibility that gay couples might become equal under the law, this amendment wouldn't even exist. Pro-marriage amendments could have been introduced before now every year for decades - to ban no-fault divorce, for example. But none was. This one is entirely designed to single out gay couples for Constitutional exclusion. It therefore seems to me that I'm not the one who needs to defend his position. It's the president who has to answer to the charge that in wartime, he chose to divide this country over the most profound symbol there can be: the Constitution itself. I refuse, in short, to be put in a position where I have to pick between a vital war and fundamental civil equality. The two are inextricable. They are the same war. And this time, the president has picked the wrong side. He will live to be ashamed that he did.

[Miss Marple]

Lots of grandiose whining here. I would say that the President was forced to deal with this issue now by the actions of the mayor of San Francisco and the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Why isn't Andrew asking why they chose this, of all times, to bring the matter to a crisis?

I think that perhaps there was an effort to sneak this through when we are at war, thinking that gay support was critical to the president's reelection.

If that is so, the gay community has been reading their own PR too long.

As far as Sullivan's lack of support....well, we will have to live without it. The president NEVER gave the impression he was a supporter of gay marriage. There are several quotes from the 2000 campaign that illustrate this. Perhaps Andrew thought that the President could be changed on this issue. Well, he was wrong.

If Sullivan wants to support Kerry, fine by me.

[Kerberos]

"It's a contradiction. And it's a deeply divisive contradiction in a time of great peril."

I've got to agree with Andy on this. The gay marriage issue is taking on a life of it's own now and is spreading quickly. It is looking now like this is going to become a major campaign issue.

So I have to ask, is this really what we need during this time. Not only are our enemies trying to destroy us from the outside, we're now trying to help by alienating each other from the inside.

[Miss Marple]

As I said, the President didn't choose to bring this up at this time. The forces of the left chose to do so.

[Brandon]

There's no need for the president to take up the issue, though. If ever there was an issue that fell strictly into the sphere of state's rights, it's marriage. Why anyone who believes in federalism would want the national government interfering is beyond me.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

... and whom do we blame for this, properly? The President, for responding to a sudden tsunami of elected official-sponsored lawlessness, in San Francisco, Massachusetts, etcetera... or said officials, who actively encouraged and (more importantly) abetted others to engage in the aforementioned lawlessness...?

This "divisiveness" needn't have manifested at all, ultimately... had those most desperate to advance their own noxious agendas only restricted their efforts to lawful, small-"d" democratic means in the first place, rather than attempting what amounts to (all obfuscation aside) an intensely public, meticulously planned-and-initiated coup.

[Kerberos]

"As I said, the President didn't choose to bring this up at this time. The forces of the left chose to do so."

You're right he didn't, he just choose to make it center stage.

[Kerberos]

"rather than attempting what amounts to (all obfuscation aside) an intensely public, meticulously planned-and-initiated coup."

Which we just couldn't wait to help them with. What would have been wrong with just ignoring the whole matter, after all none of these so-called licenses are legal.

Let the gaybies have there 5 minutes of a tantrum and then let's move on to important issues. But no we have to go into reactive mode, which played right into their hand, and now this thing will be a predominate issue right up to the election.

[Miss Marple]

Well, I suppose you could look at it that way, although I personally think the issue has been center stage for about two weeks, given the nigihtly media coverage on how many gays are lining up to be married in San Francisco.

[Miss Marple]

One can't ignore it. Massachusetts is writing a law legalizing it right now, and based on that, other states would have to recognize it or it would go to the courts, and we all know how safe that route is.

An amendment makes it fairly permanent and out of the scope of judicial activists. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

[beckysueb]

What was he supposed to do? Ignore it and let it spread like a cancer? Polls show the majority of the people are opposed to gay marriage. How is this going to hurt the president by taking action? If people cry out for the President to do something and when he does and then they turn against him, then they deserve a dimorat in the white house.The gays didn't have to make an issue out of this but they did. They are a very small percentage of the population but yet they have made an all out effort to destroy our country with their sick agenda. And yes it is sick. They claim they were born that way, well why are they trying to recruit our cchildren who weren't born that way? Because they can't breed and they need new people to keep their sick lifestyle going!

[Kerberos]

"although I personally think the issue has been center stage for about two weeks, given the nigihtly media coverage on how many gays are lining up to be married in San Francisco."

Well sure they have been keeping it in the media for as long as they are hoping to elicit a negative response, then they can claim discrimination and play the whole done trodden bit. To me the whole thing was a non-event and we would be better off if we had treated it as such. Now we're stuck.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

What would have been wrong with just ignoring the whole matter, after all none of these so-called licenses are legal.

Precisely my point, thank you: because the issuance of said "licenses" was blatantly, flagrantly ILLEGAL; and our elected officials (ideally; in places other than San Francisco and Massachusetts, at any rate) don't normally encourage and abet such calculated mass lawlessness, even by benign neglect; nor squeeze tight shut their eyes, in desperate, frightened hope that it all just "goes away in five minutes or so."

That's the conservative view on matters such as these, in any event.

Incidentally: below is a photo of the individual genuinely responsible for bringing this entire distasteful matter "front and center," rather than President Bush. You may, therefore, wish to direct all future scoldings towards him, and him alone:

[longtermmemmory]

It is not writing discrimination into the constitution. It is writing Millenias old common law into the consititution. It changes nothing to the law. (at least until May 17 in Mass.)

I saw this idiot demonstrate is stupidity on CNN for the first time yesterday. He comes across as a say anything to win an argument clintonoid.

He chose this because it will facilitate his access to more sex partners. If homosexuality is leglated to acceptance, the public education will be affected, children will be more easily recruited to homosexual sex, which will lead to more sex partners for homosexuals.

For homosexuals it is ONLY about sex.

[Amelia]

If ever there was an issue that fell strictly into the sphere of state's rights, it's marriage. Why anyone who believes in federalism would want the national government interfering is beyond me.

The Federal government would have to be involved sooner or later, because one of the things the gays want is spousal benefits under Social Security.

It's all about the money.

[garylmoore]

As a gay man, I could also uncomplicatedly support a war against some of the most brutal homophobes on the planet,

---

Andrew, I know as a gay man it's hard for you to believe that anyone who disagrees with your perverted ways is not a brutal homophobe, they just have morals.

[CatoRenasci]

The deliciously ironic part of all of this is that by choosing to oppose Bush because of the homosexual marraige issue, Sullivan and his ilk are supporting the success of those who would not even suffer them to live. It is only in the West that homosexuals are even tolerated.

[prion]

What would have been wrong with just ignoring the whole matter, after all none of these so-called licenses are legal.

Because, next up: polygamy. I've always been surprised that we've managed to keep polygamy out, frankly. It is legal in many places, it has a long history, and it is arguably a religious practice. Given how touchy we are about infringing religions, I'm amazed we stuck to our guns on this one.

If we bend to allow gay marriage, which is legal nowhere, doesn't have a history, and isn't arguably a religious practice, on what possible grounds do we forbid polygamy?

I don't like messing with the Constitution, and an amendment wouldn't have been my first choice, but they aren't ceasing and desisting in San Fran, so what're we going to do?

[Always Right]

The right to stick one's penis up the anus of another man and have it endorsed by the government shall not be infringed....

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

but they aren't ceasing and desisting in San Fran, so what're we going to do?

Just bend over; grab our ankles; and take it, apparently.

Kinda ironic, under the cirumstances, really... :)