Thursday, March 04, 2004
Something I thought I would never do….
A fisking of Andrew Sullivan. I guess when one jumps into the water, one had better make it worth while.
Read on....
Andrew’s article is in bold....my answers are in standard text:
THE RULE OF LAW: I am moved beyond words by the sight of gay couples taking their lives and rights into their own hands and getting civil marriage licenses.
It is amazing how AS paints this as a great civil rights movement, on a par with Rosa Parks, and how the homosexual couples are heroic. It is common knowledge that there will be little or no repercussions against the individuals getting these bogus licenses, and that they actually have the political momentum behind them. Note: Homosexuals are not, by definition, a minority, or an economically oppressed group. Comparing homosexuals getting illegally married to historically-oppressed minorities is emotional and intellectually dishonest.
I believe they will be vindicated in the light of history.
He continues to compare these marriages to the Boston Tea Party, or the men and women that ran the Underground Railroad.
But I also believe in the rule of law. That law will protect civil marriage for gays as it does now for straights; and disrespecting it undermines it for all of us, now and in the future.
Note..he talks about “..that law..”, and says that “...disrespecting it undermines it for all of us, now and in the future.” He has NO problem disrespecting laws that exist right now, because they “disrespect” HIS idea about what the “rule of law” should be. Also, note the use of “civil marriage”, as opposed to “civil unions”. As I’ve said before, same-sex marriage proponents don’t want civil unions.
Where such civil marriages can legitimately take place under the law (as appears to be the case in Oregon), there’s no problem. Where they are being used to dramatize current oppression, they are justifiable only so long as the officials responsible are prepared to face all the legal consequences (as in New Paltz, with the remarkable young mayor). That is called legitimate civil disobedience: violating the law in order to be arrested.
Maybe someone can tell me where the “oppression” is? And, if the situation in California is any indication of what consequences these politicians will face (it’s against the law, but what charge is the Mayor of S.F. facing? Has he been arraigned? What is his fine?), then they are sacrificing NOTHING. There is a disregard for the law, because there is no threat of real enforcement or punishment.
And if they are a means to challenge discrimination and are performed with the full intent of abiding by the final legal and constitutional judgment, then that too seems to me to be legitimate, (as in San Francisco).
There is nothing in this situation, as so far as Andrew Sullivan sees it, that is civily, morally, or ethically wrong. What happens if a gay couple assaults a straight man who is protesting these marriage.....is that justified? The straight guy is standing in the way of Sullivan’s “rule of law”. Is the next logical step armed resistance?
It is how change happens. If a state decides to recognize civil marriages for gays performed in another state, then that too is perfectly within the law (as yesterday’s momentous ruling by Eliot Spitzer revealed.) But it is vital in our struggle for legal equality that we do not, as gay people, show contempt for the rule of law itself.
As Andrew Sullivan said earlier in the column, the law he thinks needs respected is “...That law will protect civil marriage for gays as it does now for straights; and disrespecting it undermines it for all of us, now and in the future.” That law does not exist. However, showing contempt for the law that exists right now (as same-sex couples are doing in California, Massachussets, Oregon, and New York) is OK. By his own words, Andrew Sullivan has made it clear that gay people are showing contempt for the laws that exist in society, and that he holds those laws in contempt as well. In short, he is saying to only follow the laws you find acceptable.
It is our only recourse and our only respite.
No...that is wrong. Read on, because Andrew Sullivan states exactly what needs to be done.
Legitimate civil disobedience is one thing. Blatant disrespect for the law is another.
Then, please, tell me what exactly is going on in San Francisco? Civil disobedience or disrespect for the law?
We are on the verge of a real and solid victory for equality in Massachusetts. It has been achieved through years of legal and political argument and civil demonstrations.
That is the answer. Not politically motivated hyperbole or stinging, personal, vapid, and insulting criticisms of the President’s idea to codify the definition of marriage and allow the states to decide what they wish to honor and what they wish not to. The same process can occur in many states, in the same way, and that does the same thing the FMA does, without the FMA.
We need patience now as well as anger, calm as well as determination. Above all, we must respect the law itself.
Again, whose law? The one that exists, passed by voting and by elected legislatures, or the one you say should exist? It’s important to know, because the one you WANT to exist hasn’t been voted on or signed into law. And, as an afterthought, why do you need to be angry? In order to shunt votes away from Bush? In order to vote in a man who you have said doesn’t address our War on Terror? Right. Stay angry, so that the Republic is weakened in a time of crisis.
It is the fabric of our democracy. If we trivialize or violate its importance, civil rights are meaningless. For gay people and for everyone.
Again, again, whose law? And, how is the importance of the law being violated? If Andrew Sullivan doesn’t understand that governments have always implicitly favored marriage and families, he’s choosing not to. Mother-father families (traditional) tend towards being more secure, more economically stable, and better for the children to be raised in. I’m staying away from the moral arguments on purpose, but even where morality isn’t being argued, what does the FMA do to violate the rule of law?
I have said many, many times that AS is starting to get really irrational about this. He has made it a habit to compare this same-sex marriage thing to other, true civil rights battles, and it doesn’t hold water. Fact is, Andrew is gay, this is a subject that is close to his heart on an emotional level (for whatever reason), and he is reaching into his formidable intellect to pull out every great social event in history to compare this to. He is working hard to prove this same-sex marriage situation is comperable to the American Revolution, or the liberation of the death camps, or the student uprising in China. He is also, unfortunately, wrong.
That being said, he knows that the process to get this changed is via the courts and the changing of laws. Breaking the law in order to change it smacks of arrogance, as does his comparison of this situation to the civil rights movement. How is he so much more morally superior than a heterosexual, just because he want’s homosexuals to get married?
Don’t let people like Andrew Sullivan cloak this subject in the civil rights movement. It isn’t a civil rights issue. It’s a states’ rights issue.
Comments
If there’s one thing I can’t stand...it’s a self-righteous bitchy queen.
I can just see him...looking down the bridge of his nose over his bi-focals...flicking his Virginia Slim in mock disgust.
Go ahead and marry your Filipino houseboy Andy darling...just shut up about it already.
Andrew loves being gay, not being gay.
Kind of like J. F. Kerry and Vietnam.
Wish I had done that fisking. “Law’s are good only when we choose to obey them”? That seems to be Sullivan’s main thesis.
Seriously if I hadn’t already made my mind up on this issue Sully’s incoherence about what the “rule of law” actually means would have marked him as an idiot in my eyes and I would tune out anything the man has to say.
Shame too, his formerly logical arguments were so important to shaping the debate on this issue. Now he just sounds like a cry-baby.
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://www.drumwaster.com/index.php/trackback/6493/pgbLYTcj/