Posts - July 2003

This made me mad. It’s from the Washington Times, so no wonder.

“This tendency toward judicial activism in the last 50 years is a result of our institutional abandonment of moral absolutes. Judicial activism is grounded in moral relativism and sustained by the notion there are no moral standards that cannot be bent or broken to conform to society’s ever-changing moral condition.

“When our constitutional freedoms are planted in the unstable footings of moral relativism, they are but a step away from extinction….”

And here’s a beaut:

“Regardless of what you think about the propriety of state laws criminalizing sodomy, under our constitutional system, it is a matter for the state governments to decide.”

Let’s do a thought experiment:

Regardless of what you think about the propriety of state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, under our constitutional system, it is a matter for the state governments to decide.

Regardless of what you think about the propriety of state laws prohibiting women from voting, under our constitutional system, it is a matter for the state governments to decide.

Sodomy is not immoral. Gay sex is not immoral. Expressing your love for someone is totally moral.

Being ignorant of your HIV status and having sex without a condom, that’s immoral. Should it be illegal? I don’t know. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. Some people don’t get that. Some people see this as all or nothing, like if we allow gay marriage, we’re going to throw all rationality out the door and start having sex on the floors of kindergarten classrooms. Maybe they’re afraid of admitting their own inner passions. Or maybe they just don’t trust other people to stay rational.

It’s all about fear.

I think it’s immoral to prevent two people who love each other from legally protecting their relationship.

I’ve thought a lot about my political beliefs lately. I think it’s easy to confuse the question of whether one is a liberal or a conservative with the question of whether one is a Democrat or Republican. The Democrats and Republicans are not ideologically pure parties; the members of those parties are not ideologically pure. To decide whether one is a Democrat or a Republican does not necessarily answer the question of where one’s political beliefs lie.

I’m gay, and I’m Jewish, and I’m from the Northeast, so the probabilities point to me being a Democrat. But lately I haven’t wanted to just mindlessly accept the package of beliefs that go along with the Democratic Party. Am I really a liberal deep down, or is it just that I associate conservatism with lots of people who annoy me? Party affiliations have been based on stupider things. “I’m a Republican because my daddy was a Republican and because my neighbors are all Republicans.”

I wanted to read more about conservatism, just to see if I was having a knee-jerk reaction. I wanted to honestly see if the tenets of conservatism appealed to me. So I managed to find the Conservatism FAQ, as well as the Sexual Morality FAQ by the same author. I read them.

I am totally not a conservative.

Are these the best arguments conservatism can make? Because from reading these FAQs, I can sum up conservatism as follows: Traditions and traditional morality are important, because they have worked in the past, and if you tamper with them, there might be unintended consequences.

But how about the counterargument? Traditional morality has not always worked in the past. Not for everyone. There have been lots of unhappy people through the centuries who were oppressed by traditional morality, but either they spoke and nobody listened to them, or they were too afraid to speak, or they didn’t even consider speaking because they didn’t realize there was an alternative to the lives they were living in the first place.

It’s true that we can’t live in a society in which everyone is happy. But if we’re going to choose between making you happy by keeping me from doing something that has no effect on you, or making me happy by letting me do something that has no effect on you, which is the right choice? Which is more valid: me being angry that I can’t get married, or you being angry that I can? Which anger is easier to get over? Yours. If I can get married, you can get over my marriage and tend to your own garden. If I can’t get married, what am I supposed to do?

And don’t think preventing gay marriage is going to make you, the conservative, happy anyway. If you’re worried about the downfall of society, stopping gay marriage isn’t going to keep you from finding other things to worry about.

So you, the conservative, are going to be unhappy in either scenario. And I’m going to be happy in one of the scenarios. So why don’t we pick the scenario that at least lets me be happy? Or are conservatives just like Puritans, who, according to H.L. Mencken, are afraid that “someone, somewhere may be happy?”

I think we should live in a society that allows for the maximum amount of happiness. And sometimes that requires making some changes.

But conservatism seems to be motivated by a fear that the sky is going to fall if we tamper with things.

Traditional conservatives seem to long for the past. But how can anyone know what the past was like? You can only know what your own past was like. You can learn about other people’s pasts, and you can learn about history, but you can’t claim that the past was better unless you actually lived through it. And even if you did live through it, nostalgia is an unreliable judge. Sure, the past was better in some ways. But it was worse in some ways, too.

Human beings are resilient creatures. The sky isn’t going to fall if we make some changes in society. Will those changes lead to unintended consequences? Of course they will! But you know what? We can discuss the changes before we make them, and we’ll deal with the consequences. They won’t be disastrous. Again, we’re resilient. We’ll have more discussion. We’ll figure out what to do.

But change is necessary. It’s necessary in order to achieve maximum human happiness. Not universal human happiness — attempts at utopia end in failure — but as much happiness as we can possibly have. Don’t be afraid of happiness.

Change is natural. Morality changes. Society changes. Everything changes. The universe expands. Change is the law of the universe.

Good Lord, you traditionalist conservatives.

Relax a little.

One of the most beautiful words in the English language is “negative.”

I tested negative for HIV today.

Well, technically, I tested negative sometime between Friday, when my blood was taken, and yesterday, when the results arrived at the doctor’s office. But I found out today.

Hallelujah.

I go through this once a year, just to be sure. Each time, I know it’s incredibly unlikely that the result will be bad, but I still worry.

So I’ve been kind of nervous these last few days.

I get to the point where I start calculating percentages in my head. I usually realize that based on what I’ve done, the possibility of getting HIV is way less than one percent, but that’s not always reassuring. These things are so hard to quantify in one’s head. So I pull out my old percentile dice — I used to be a Dungeons & Dragons dork — and I pick a number between 1 and 100, and I roll the dice over and over. And my number never comes up. That usually makes me feel better. Because if I can’t even hit 1 in 100, the chances are even less that I’d hit 1 in 500, or 1 in 1000, or whatever.

Of course, that’s just dice. There’s no reason to take any more chance in the real world than I have to.

Because when it counts, I really don’t want my number to come up.

But enough of that for now. Right now I can relax.

I’m so relieved.

Hallelujah!

From the Washington Times (yeah, I know): Privacy’s Rebirth.

From Slate: Abolish Marriage.

Oh, enough already.

“[Justice Kennedy] asserts that religious beliefs, history, tradition and even the desires of the majority to set parameters for the moral climate in which they wish to live are irrelevant…. That can lead to anarchy.”

What did I tell you? It’s like the sky is falling.

And look, I don’t mean “enough already” in an I’m-suppressing-your-First-Amendment-rights-and-I’m-being-hypocritically-intolerant sort of way. I’m not the government, so this isn’t a First Amendment issue. And I don’t have any actual power to make you shut the fuck up, so stop whining. What I mean by “shut the fuck up” is, do some thinking. Do some actual thinking. I’m intolerant of arguments that have no basis in reality.

I think Mike said it brilliantly: if you can’t come up with good arguments to distinguish bestiality, prostitution, and polygamy from private consensual adult sodomy, maybe those things shouldn’t be illegal in the first place.

(OK, that’s not quite what he said, but that’s where I would take it. And doesn’t it make you titter to see the phrase “slippery slope” used in relation to anal sex? Hee hee.)

And don’t give me any of this “I think it’s a symbolic gesture of traditional values” shit. (So much for W. not taking a stance.) You want to make a “symbolic gesture,” get out a paintbrush. Don’t pass laws unless you’re willing to enforce them. Before Lawrence v. Texas came down, I thought that the best way to abolish sodomy laws would be to enforce them vigorously. Once people saw cops beating down doors and arresting their friends, neighbors, children and coworkers, they’d call for abolishment faster than you can put on a condom. I think this was Teddy Roosevelt’s strategy when he was New York City police commissioner; in order to hasten the repeal of New York’s Sunday alcohol ban, he had the law vigorously enforced.

You know, nothing gets the ink flowing (or the keyboard tapping) better than reading something you disagree with.

Three weeks ago, in anticipation of the Lawrence decision, I bought a book called Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court. I finshed it two weeks ago. It was engrossing, and it made the victory in Lawrence that much sweeter.

Today my book from Ralph Nader finally arrived.

Yeah, I think you know the rest of the story.

Same book.

Inside the front cover it says,

TO [me]

FOR JUSTICE

RALPH NADER

And then in smaller letters:

GOOD LETTER IN NY TIMES

One step ahead of ya, Ralph. But thank you nevertheless.

This year I went to a wedding on the Fourth of July.

The theme was red, white, and blue. It was neat.

And I’m pretty sure I got hit on by a lesbian at the reception.

This intuition was seconded by a lesbian friend of mine who was also there.

The notion of a gay man not only being hit on by a lesbian, but also being rather turned on by it, is almost too confusing for words.

An editorial from today’s Boston Globe: For Gay Marriage.
—–

This must be what Scalia was talking about: The Gay Agenda.

I want to go on vacation. I want to just rent a car, toss a suitcase and a couple of really big books — such as the one I’m currently reading — in the trunk, drive up to the hinterlands of New England, and check into a motel room for a week. I want not to think about money or the fun that other people are having.

It’s weird. I was relieved after I got my HIV test, but now I have this nagging sense of something else bothering me. It feels health-related, but I think that’s only because I’m a hypochondriac, and we often use our health as a metaphor for other things that are bothering us in our lives. What more must I do to convince myself that I’m healthy? Nothing more, really. It’s all psychological.

I’m planning to move to Brooklyn this fall. So many of my friends seem to live there. My one friend in Jersey City moved to Atlanta last week, so I’ve currently got nobody in town. Actually, I ran into a local acquaintance last night in Jersey City while getting dinner, which not only belies the fact that I know nobody in Jersey City, but also gives me some hope that I might be able to get out of my lease early. My lease ends on November 1. I mentioned to my acquaintance that I was planning to move, perhaps even before my lease ended, and he told me he’d be interested in my apartment, even if I leave early. Perhaps a readily available replacement would encourage my landlord to let me break my lease two months ahead of time.

I want to live near my friends. I want to be able to spontaneously call someone and see if he wants to grab dinner or see a movie. I don’t want to have to schlep across the river into Manhattan just to be social. People don’t call me. They seem to forget about me because I live across the state line.

Brooklyn has beautiful Prospect Park, too.

My commuting time would increase, and my living expenses might increase, but I think it would be worth it.

Money is something else I’m worried about lately — or at least my somehow-decreased ability to pay off credit card debt, which I’d wiped out but now have again because I bought a new computer in March. I want a raise.

I think I’m finally going to join a chorus this fall.

I need more friends, I need to write more, I need to be more disciplined and organized with my time, I need more money (or I need fewer expenses).

I wish that time would stop.

Just so I can empty out my brain for a little bit.

I can’t believe it’s been five days since I last blogged. But my previous entry is dated Wednesday, July 9, so I guess that’s the evidence right there.

I went to Park Slope yesterday and looked at three apartments, but one wasn’t that great and none were actually in the part of Park Slope that I want to live in. And from scanning through ads in the Village Voice, the Times, and online for apartments in Park Slope and Carroll Gardens, there’s barely anything out there at $1100 or less.

So I think I might bite the bullet and look into a roommate. I think it might be fun to live with a nice, cool, female roommate. Maybe a lesbian. Definitely not a chirpy sorority sister. I’d probably be able to live in a nicer place than I would by myself, and I’d also probably be able to lower my rent by $200-300, which would be wonderful. Plus, it could be a boost for my social life, which would be good.

It could also be a nightmare, of course.

I had a really bad roommate experience in the winter of 2000. I was working at some random job in Hopewell, NJ, about 15 minutes from Princeton, so I decided to move to Princeton. I found a roommate through the classifieds. He was a straight guy with a dog, but I think he was sexually confused (the roommate, not the dog), because I always got this weird uncomfortable vibe from him, and we wound up getting along horribly, because I think he sublimated his sexual confusion by yelling at me. So I moved out after four months.

After that, I had a really great roommate situation with a male friend of mine. So maybe I need to live with a friend.

At any rate, I responded to an ad today from a woman in Park Slope looking for a roommate, and she wrote back. In describing herself, she said that she works from home for a nonprofit. I’m not sure I’d want to live with someone who works from home. She’d always be there.

So I don’t quite know what I’m going to do.

Anyone need a roommate in Brooklyn, maybe September 1 or October 1, or know someone who does? Let me know.

Oh, I love it.

“Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson urged his nationwide audience Monday to pray for God to remove three justices from the Supreme Court so they could be replaced by conservatives.” More here.

As for the letter to which the article refers, here it is: the Supreme Court Prayer Shield! (See title bar.)

Batteries not included.

Unfortunately, the symbolism of a “shield” is all too apt. There are too many people out there who want to shield themselves from the complexity of critical thinking, from the light of independent belief, from any form of change. What’s worse, they don’t just stick to shields. There’s also a big sword right now — the proposed anti-gay-marriage amendment to the Constitution.

There’s a post waiting to be written here about how both sides feel beleaguered, about how one person’s defense causes great offense to others, about whether it’s morally right to interfere in other people’s lives when it has nothing to do with you, about how so much of what has happened is related to fear, and only to fear.

I hope to write that post someday.

An example of why I love the book I’m reading:

There have been some differences among the authorities on the question of James McHenry’s competence as Secretary of War. The most recent judgment appears to be that his performance was not as bad as has been claimed, though of course such words if carved in marble would do little to immortalize anyone.

And this too about McHenry:

Distinction on his own independent merits was a thing always a step or two beyond him, and one of the many attractive traits of his character was the grace with which he seems to have understood this. Insidership was thus a fully acceptable, and indeed indispensable, functional substitute.

I love this book.
—–

The problem with living in an apartment you love in every respect except its location (and maybe its rent) is that in order to move to a better location, you have to give up something you’ve already got. I feel like if I move, I’m either going to have to live with a stranger, or live on a crappy street, or live in a smaller, uglier space, or all three.

I almost wish I didn’t live in such a great place now, so that I wouldn’t have to give something up. That sounds weird.

Damn this government salary.

If a tornado would just lift my apartment, carry it across the Hudson River, and gently set it down in either the West Village or brownstone Brooklyn, I’d be as happy as a clam.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a gentle tornado.

Maybe whatever I’m giving up is just temporary, and some day I’ll have a higher salary and can live in an apartment as charming as the one I have now, and in a great location.

Or maybe I’ll just keep looking.

I just went to the post office, and on the counter containing change-of-address forms and other things, I saw a tray of free America Online CDs.

I thought, isn’t this tantamount to the U.S. government promoting one ISP over others? That just doesn’t feel right. What about Earthlink? MSN? Verizon?

And then I realized that it makes sense. After all, it’s a perfect description of what happens at U.S. post offices all over the country, every day.

America, on line.

Ba-dum-pum.
—–

Tonight (Saturday night) I went out to Brooklyn for a party at Chris’s apartment.

Before I left, I checked the Evite so I could write down the address.

I took the PATH into Manhattan and then the F into Brooklyn. I got off and found the address. Door to door, it had taken me about an hour.

I rang the buzzer.

No answer.

I rang the buzzer again.

Still no answer.

I began to suspect something and hoped it wasn’t true.

Then an apartment door inside the building opened. A female came to the front door and looked at me through the glass, puzzled. Then she opened the door.

It turned out Chris wasn’t there.

Because the party is next Saturday night.

D’oh.

At least I know what my plans are next weekend.

A couple of days ago I read Virtually Normal by Andrew Sullivan. Brilliant. I’d heard him propound his thesis at UVA a few years ago, and I’d taken issue with some of what he said at the time. But with his argument laid out in front of me in a book, I could take time to reflect upon his ideas. They make sense, and he’s a beautiful writer; the book contains such crisp, elegant sentences.

And now, today, we have A Defense of Lawrence, which appears in the latest New Republic and which Sullivan has reprinted on his website. He addresses a reservation I’d had about Lawrence, a reservation that had been nagging me in the weeks since the decision was announced, but which I hadn’t gotten around to discussing here: the possibility that the Court had overstepped its bounds. Sullivan explains why the Court did not.

I really need to get cracking on my writing. I’m tired of letting my political thoughts go unsaid.

I want to clarify what I wrote yesterday about Andrew Sullivan. One reader e-mailed me, in part:

What I’ve managed to glean from [Sullivan's] writing is that the basic middle-class, monogamous, law-abiding model that has been handed down to us as the American ideal is pretty much the only way to go, as long as same-sex couples are allowed to participate in it as fully as heterosexual ones. In this, Sullivan is deeply conservative, and I’m a little surprised that you write with unreserved approval of someone who spouts the Republican party line in so many other matters.

Let me make clear that I don’t necessarily agree with everything Sullivan says — I was mainly writing about Virtually Normal. I’m not sure how I feel about the rest of his views, including his views on foreign policy, the White House, etc. And setting aside his views, I still think he’s a terrific writer, aesthetically speaking.

Here’s a quick summary of Virtually Normal. It’s a political treatise, not a social one. Sullivan begins with the premise that homosexuality exists, that it’s not a choice (which, true, is not necessarily relevant to the argument), and, most importantly, that it’s not going anywhere. Given that there will always be gay people, how should society deal with them? In the next four chapters he summarizes four different positions on the matter, and he discusses why each of them has problems. Then, he sets forth his thesis: government should permit gay marriage, allow gays in the military, abolish sodomy laws, and generally treat gays equally, but it should not take any role in the private sector — i.e. no antidiscrimination laws, etc. His ideology is very taut and elegant. It’s the last part that I’ve had problems with — no antidiscrimination laws in employment, housing, etc. But after reading his book, I see that he does have a point. I’m not completely convinced that antidiscrimination laws are wrong — but he has at least made me confront the question.

I want to distinguish his political views from his social views. He might believe that monogamy and marriage are the best way to go, but he makes it clear that these are his personal views and should not be imposed on everyone. That’s part of his point — the government should guarantee equality in the public sphere and leave everything else up to us, all the choices about how we live our lives. Marriage should be available for those who want it, but he’s not trying to force all gay people to get married. He’s not spouting the Republican party line, if the Republican party line is one of an activist government encouraging a single moral and social value system. I find Sullivan more of a libertarian — more of a classical liberal, actually.

So what I find appealing are not necessarily his social views (not that I necessarily find them unappealing, either), but rather his political thesis, which makes a variety of social views possible.

Not that everyone has to agree with this. In fact, after Sullivan spoke at UVA a few years ago, a friend of mine wrote a spirited response.

This post is going to make me look like a total nerd.

I’m feeling inadequate. Intellectually.

I don’t think I know enough.

And as for what I do know, I’m wondering what the point is.

I regret the deficiencies in my education. I graduated college without ever learning Greek or Latin, without ever reading Plato or Aristotle or Virgil or Dante or Milton, without taking a single philosophy course, without ever having read the Bible, which, even just from a literary standpoint, is probably the most influential work in Western history.

I’ve been trying to make up for all this in the last couple of years. Two summers ago I learned a great deal from reading a fascinating survey of Western philosophy, The Passion of the Western Mind, by Richard Tarnas. Then I bought How to Read a Book and The New Lifetime Reading Plan, both of which contain lists of recommended “great books” of Western literature. With those as my guide, I read the Iliad, having already read its sequel, the Odyssey, back in high school. The Iliad didn’t do much for me; I got through it just to get through it. I’m still glad I did, because it was an experience I wanted to have, but I’ve since wondered if there’s something wrong with me for not having appreciated it more. That summer I also bought and began reading the Histories of Herodotus, but I gave up out of boredom after about 40 pages. Perhaps fewer.

Then 9/11 happened, and the world was shaken up, and I didn’t return to the so-called “great books” until last summer. I read Plato’s Republic and several of his Dialogues, I read two plays by Aristophanes. Aristophanes bored me (maybe the translations were crap, maybe they’re just boring plays). But I learned a lot from Plato’s Dialogues — not from their content, but from their structure. They taught me the importance of questioning everything; they taught me how important it is to use well-defined, accurate terminology when discussing something, and the intellectual ossification, danger and mind control that can occur when you do not (witness the lazy use of the term elitism here, and consider the mischief that results when people unquestioningly accept such a premise). I began teaching myself Ancient Greek, but I gave up after the first 18 lessons because of diminishing returns: once I’d learned how to read and write the Greek alphabet and gotten a general sense of the language’s grammatic and syntactical structure, I was satisfied. This is another example of tackling something merely because I wanted to see what it was like.

Then I put the “great books” aside again for another year, in favor of contemporary books such as Word Freak by Stefan Fatsis, the New York Trilogy by Paul Auster, Nabokov’s Lolita (OK, I guess that actually counts as a great work), and Look at Me by Jennifer Egan. In January I got tired of reading altogether, and I read no more books until the beginning of May.

Lately I’ve been reading American history, and then Virtually Normal, and then last night I finished reading John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. What did I begin reading this morning? Dante’s Inferno. I can’t seem to read something that’s not “edifying.”

Last night, having just finished Mill’s On Liberty, I popped online and read the first part of his Autobiography. Mill was reading Greek at age 3, learning Latin at 8. He was taught by his father, and he read great book after great book after great book. I was so envious, and I sank into despair, thinking myself unworthy. But, as Mill writes:

I remember the very place in Hyde Park where, in my fourteenth year, on the eve of leaving my father’s house for a long absence, he told me that I should find, as I got acquainted with new people, that I had been taught many things which youths of my age did not commonly know; and that many persons would be disposed to talk to me of this, and to compliment me upon it. What other things he said on this topic I remember very imperfectly; but he wound up by saying, that whatever I knew more than others, could not be ascribed to any merit in me, but to the very unusual advantage which had fallen to my lot, of having a father who was able to teach me, and willing to give the necessary trouble and time; that it was no matter of praise to me, if I knew more than those who had not had a similar advantage, but the deepest disgrace to me if I did not.

So it’s not that I’m less worthy; it’s just that my circumstances were different. Had my parents made me learn Greek and Latin, perhaps things would be different. At any rate, I’m glad I’m learning these things now. I’m glad I’m reading what I’m reading, widening my intellectual experiences. And yet — there are others who know so much more, who have read so much more. Some of my readers, perhaps. How can I hope to keep up?

On top of that, knowledge alone does not make a good life. If I’d grown up learning Greek and Latin, would my life be any better? Would I be happier? Would I be smarter? Didn’t I already know how to think before I read several of Plato’s Dialogues?

And what’s the point of learning all of this stuff unless I’m going to do something with it?

And what about cultivating the other areas of my life?

I seem to be under the delusion that books and knowledge alone will make me happy, when really, I’ve just put myself into an imaginary competition with imaginary people. I will always know more than I used to know, but I will always wish I knew more.

I think the solution is to enjoy all of this learning for what it is, but not to make it the be-all and end-all of my life. Happiness requires more than knowing.

Someday soon, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will issue its decision in its gay marriage case, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health. The court missed its own internal deadline of July 14, so the decision could be announced tomorrow, or next week, or next month; who knows. To those who are curious, the court does give some advance notice on its website of the decisions it will announce on any given day. At 8:00 every morning, the site lists the opinions to be announced that day, and the opinions are released two hours later at 10:00. (Not much notice, but better than nothing.) More information here (from last Tuesday’s Boston Globe).
—–

Here’s an editorial from the latest National Review in support of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban gay marriage. The editorial deserves comment.

First, I enjoy some of the rhetoric the writers use. “There is every reason to expect that liberal legal activists will sue…” Oh, those liberal legal activists, always stirring up trouble! Notice they didn’t say, “There is every reason to expect that married gay couples will sue.” Heavens, no — if they did that, readers might get the impression that this is an issue that actually affects real people.

I also like, “We would object to judges’ taking it upon themselves to impose a national regime of gay marriage.” Regime. Nice one. What comes to mind when you think of a regime these days? Dictionary.com defines the term and includes two sample phrases: a fascist regime and suffered under the new regime. Nice connotation. You’d think we were trying to force straight people into same-sex marriage, when really, people would suffer only under a regime that would ban gay marriage. I saw a line a few weeks ago: “If you’re against gay marriage, don’t have one.” Pretty simple.

The editorial says, “Gay marriage would cut the final cord that ties marriage to the well-being of children.” Except that there are gay couples who adopt and raise children and love them just as much as any other adoptive parents would love their children. And children receive just as much love and attention when raised by same-sex couples as they do when raised by different-sex couples. Many conservatives still, in 2003, are unconsciously wedded (as it were) to the idea that all gay people are irresponsible, bed-hopping, club-hopping drug users. And even if most gay couples did fit this mold (a premise I will not accept without first seeing a direct survey of all gay Americans, closeted and uncloseted, urban and rural, religious and atheist, bookish and stupid, independent-minded and herd-minded) — don’t these particular conservatives realize that any couple that wants to adopt a child must be evaluated by an adoption agency first? Or do they think Bruce and Sven are going to pop into Prada, pick up some shoes and a baby, and head out to the clubs?

The editorial states, “Our cultural forgetting of the meaning of marriage has already had too many sad consequences for children and adults.” One would therefore expect conservatives not just to accept, but to enthusiastically support gay marriage as a positive consequence for children and for the adults who raise them.

I wish people would think through things more clearly before publishing something like this.

How about the final paragraph? “But conservatives retain a healthy resistance to fiddling with our basic political document. Judges have, unfortunately, displayed no such resistance in recent decades. On an issue where the stakes could hardly be higher, they need to be resisted.” How would permitting gay marriage be “fiddling with our basic political document?” Where in the U.S. Constitution is there any statement at all about marriage?

If you’re against gay marriage, don’t have one. It’s pretty simple.

“In other words, the Supreme Court might never be forced to declare gay marriage a constitutional right under the due process reasoning of Lawrence. Rather, the majority justices can sit back, let momentum from their decision take hold in the states, and then use a relatively obscure passage of the Constitution to nudge the ball across the line.”

- from A More Perfect Union: Will Lawrence Lead to Gay Marriage?
—–

I’d been meaning to link to this Village Voice article for a while, but I couldn’t figure out how to say what I wanted to say about it. The fact is, Mike pretty much said it already, so go read him.

My friend Kevin has just moved to Atlanta, and now he’s got himself a blog.

The Dolphin Stress Test.

I’m not a big fan of the Washington Times as it is, but what really annoys me is that whenever the paper carries an article about gay marriage, it puts the word “marriage” in quotation marks, as it does here:

A month after the Supreme Court decision legalizing sodomy and Canada’s recognition of same-sex “marriage,” analysts say an almost casual acceptance of homosexuality pervades the media.

Okay — I might, might be inclined to agree with this policy, to a point. It acknowledges that gay marriage in the United States is currently just hypothetical. But the paper also uses quotation marks to refer to legal Canadian marriages. That’s just obnoxious. It’s implicitly saying, “Canada might have made gay marriage legal, but we still think it’s a ridiculous idea.”

Particularly galling and insulting is the paper’s reference to “the ‘marriage’ of Deb Price and Joyce Murdoch in Toronto last month.” (Price and Murdoch, incidentally, are the co-authors of the book that Ralph Nader sent me.)

Price and Murdoch don’t have a “marriage.” They have a marriage. They’re legally married. Just because the Washington Times doesn’t like it doesn’t make it any less legal. Nice try though.

What’s also annoying — no, just plain awkward — is the paper’s refusal to use the word “gay” unless it’s embedded in a quotation. I’m sorry — it may not be technically incorrect, but it’s really weird to refer to “Will & Grace” as NBC’s “homosexual-themed sitcom ‘Will & Grace.’”

They really need to lighten up at that paper.

“Stirring up a gay-marriage panic serves the interests of activists who support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But decisions made in a panic are seldom wise. With its federalist structure, the United States is uniquely positioned to settle gay marriage the right way: at the state level.”

From The Supreme Court Ruled for Privacy—Not for Gay Marriage. It’s worth a read.

Incidentally, Andrew Sullivan, too, is floating a balloon about a similar idea — in this case, a hypothetical compromise gay marriage amendment that would leave the decision up to states and not impose one state’s recognition of gay marriage on other states.

From the U.S. Senate’s Republican Policy Committee: The Threat to Marriage From the Courts. Nothing substantively new here — more support for the Federal Marriage Amendment — but scary, because this could form the Republicans’ policy in the Senate, as one purpose of the RPC is “helping shape the GOP game plan.”
—–

Yay! The latest edition of the Lesbian & Gay Law Notes is out. It comes out monthly except during the summer, so this is the first issue since Lawrence was decided. So, um, it should be no surprise what the top story is.