Symbolic Politics
People who are upset about a politician doing something they don’t like that’s essentially symbolic in nature — like the selection of Rick Warren — often have difficulty articulating to skeptics exactly what the nature of the problem is. Simply digging up more and more quotes of the offending person’s offending activities doesn’t answer the reply “so what? it’s just symbolism?” These arguments can get especially difficult in the progressive community which is shot through with a heavy dose of nominal commitment to rationalism. If you’re ever interested in seriously exploring the issue, I would recommend Charles Taylor’s essay on “The Politics of Recognition,” ably collected along with a variety of additional commentary in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition.
A brief point to make is that it’s very easy for a person who isn’t part of the minority group that’s being symbolically dissed to dismiss someone else’s concerns as merely symbolic and not that big a deal. But it’s worth considering how much public policy acts consistently to reaffirm the symbolic commitments of majority groups. If Barack Obama were proposing to eliminate Christmas as a national holiday and end the White House Easter Egg Hunt, nobody would be surprised to see people get very upset even though the concrete stakes would be low. And it matters a lot to potentially vulnerable minorities to see their own concerns symbolically reaffirmed for members of the majority. When you see the reverse taking place, and being done by the erstwhile leader of the political coalition that’s supposed to be taking care of your interests, that’s a very disturbing development.
76 Responses to “Symbolic Politics”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 19th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Another good look at what exactly ideas of representation (and their opposite) are is:
Hanna Pitkin, the Concept of Representation
December 19th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
A slap in the face may be symbolic, but it still hurts.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
“When you see the reverse taking place, and being done by the erstwhile leader of the political coalition that’s supposed to be taking care of your interests, that’s a very disturbing development.”
Obama came out against gay marriage during the campaign, so why the surprise?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
What are you talking about!?
Removing Christmas as a national holiday would cost me a day off. That’s high stakes, man.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
It’s not a question of symbolism, it’s a question of empowerment. Obama is empowering Warren. What happens if a year from now Warren slams Obama in a public way? The headlines: Obama’s new pastor says he’s a creep. Or what if he endorses the Republican presidential candidate in 2012? How does Obama handle that?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
My personal problem here is that antiwar progressives in the area of foreign policy weren’t just symbolically dissed, but were substantively dissed. For our efforts on behalf of Obama we were rewarded by a mix of centrists, hawks and interventionists on his top foreign policy team – not even one goddam token figure from our camp. And these were actual appointments to actual government position! And yet when I bitched about those appointments, most of what I heard from fellow Democrats were instructions to pipe down. So now I’m supposed to get worked up about a shaky appointment to the Department of Offering One-time One-minute Prayers?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Wow, Matt. I was just starting to get over this. Now you’ve given me another reason to feel bad.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Michael Berube makes some pretty good points on why the Rick Warren symbolism is worth being upset over.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I think the analogy is inapt. The pro-gay analog of having Rick Warren speak at the inauguration is not canceling official recognition of major Christian holidays; it’s having Gene Robinson speak at the inauguration.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
This was a stupid pick for so many reasons. First, Obama promised to tone down the culture wars. And this poured gas on that fire, and fired up the liberal outrage machine. Second, Obama is now providing cover for Warren–a guy who compared homosexuality to pedophilia, compared abortion to the holocaust, branded us pro-life Democrats as Nazi appeasers, and claimed that progressive Christians are really just Marxist (Godless) tools for the Democratic Party–to claim he’s a “model of civility.” So Obama has redefined that as “acceptable civil dialogue,” with his stroke of idiocy.
Worse, they should’ve known that progressives were upset. There has been low-level rumblings about the Labor Secretary not being announced with the economic team, about a lack of progressives in the cabinet (though I think that Holder, Richardson and maybe Daschle are progressive), etc. They already had a sneak preview of the left’s uprising when Steve Hildebrand told people that they didn’t have a right to be concerned.
That post only solidified the left’s desire to stand up to Obama the next time he crossed them. And while it is too early to judge how the policy will be–if they pursue stuff like a public option on health care, getting out of Iraq, focusing on Afghanistan, and creating jobs progressives will be happy–there is still an unease. But progressives really wanted to be able to celebrate Obama’s inauguration. They have been through a lot. And now the first thing they see is a typical right-winger who made outlandish statements about gay people in order to sell books and promote himself?
The reaction is natural, and should’ve been anticipated. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I’m not that impressed with the transition. I think approval ratings are high for two reasons: first because nobody is paying attention; second, because now Obama is being compared to Bush and no one thinks anybody can possibly be worse than Bush.
It’s one thing to cross your friends. All politicians have to do that at some point. But the smart ones call ahead, alert people (Obama’s team was denying it was his choice in the initial uproar), and figure out ways of accommodation. It’s another thing to cross your friends for no discernible reason, and have them find out about it in a press release.
Obama needs the left, whether he realizes it or not. He’s talked about including everyone, but the left feels like they don’t have a seat at the table. He argues he is the left’s seat. Clinton argued that too, and the left became disappointed. So the left is flexing its muscle, and prepared to sit out battles. With an economic stimulus to be passed, with breaking a fillibuster on the public option for health care in the near future, and with a looming confirmation fight over Holder, the last thing Obama needs is problems with his base stemming from symbolic issues.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
For what it’s worth, I’m gay and I still can’t join in the outrage. The Rick Warren pick makes complete political sense–it sends a message of inclusiveness to evangelicals at no cost in terms of policy. What should I be worried about? That this means Obama won’t push repealing DADT, or that he’ll suddenly support the FMA? I’ll be worried about his position on gay rights when he actually does (or doesn’t) do something about them.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
what do you mean by “erstwhile” here?
December 19th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
First, Obama promised to tone down the culture wars. And this poured gas on that fire,
huh?
inviting a representative of the opposition to your party is exactly what “toning down the culture wars” entails.
that people don’t seem to want to end those culture wars – that the left is more than happy to turn this into yet another idiotic purity battle – is the problem. Obama trying to work across the divide is not the problem.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I notice a bunch of right wing gasbags who scream in violent rage this time of the year every year that people, particularly businesses (stores) might suggest employees say “Happy Holidays” versus “Merry Christmas.” That not only seems to be mere symbolism, it’s utterly unimportant to any rational being whatsoever. And yet they rage about the “War On Christmas.”
December 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Great post, it captures all of my frustrations with the decision and response as well.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Dan Kervick, the same people saying “Don’t complain about the appointments” are the ones saying “don’t complain about Warren.” Let’s not divide ourselves more than necessary.
Mitch: I’ll see your “I’m gay and I still can’t join in the outrage” and raise you a “I’m straight and married and I’m mad as hell.” I volunteered 3-4 days a week for the No on 8 campaign, and that still hurts. I’m astounded that Obama, after letting himself be used by the Yes on 8 people, would publicly accept a homophobe quite so casually.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“If Barack Obama were proposing to eliminate Christmas as a national holiday and end the White House Easter Egg Hunt, nobody would be surprised to see people get very upset even though the concrete stakes would be low. And it matters a lot to potentially vulnerable minorities to see their own concerns symbolically reaffirmed for members of the majority.”
This is not analogous to what is going on with the Warren invitation. Closer would be if the President-elect invited someone who espoused those positions to speak at the inauguration after having clearly stated his personal opposition to the speaker’s views.
Obama is empowering Warren to the extent that he is treating him as representative of the “civil” opposition that should be dealt with in a civil and inclusive manner. I get this to the extent that Warren’s style is far more civil than his conservative Christianist brethren, even if the content of his positions is quite similar. I also get that Obama is really trying to defuse the cultural wars of the last 30+ years with a powerful symbolic statement. Still, the problem remains that Obama is legitimizing Warren as a “reasonable” member of the loyal opposition, when in fact Warren holds to some extremely distasteful viewpoints on gay rights, abortion, and a variety of other issues.
The real problem, however, is not with the Warren invitation per se, but rather with the policy implications of defusing the culture wars. To keep the Democratic party broadly united and defuse the political power of the religious right to peel off a number of the party’s natural economic issue allies in 2010 and beyond, Obama will undoubtedly choose to avoid direct confrontations on gay rights, abortion, etc., and limit his administration’s initiatives to actions that don’t require legislative action or judicial intervention. Ending “don’t ask/don’t tell” is one possible action (somewhat high profile, but supported by many people, including senior military officers). For others, look to how the Bush administration is using its administrative rule-making power to change some government policies and practices for the worse in ways that will be difficult to reverse, at least in the short term. The Obama adminstration can certainly do the precise opposite, hopefully creating substantive progressive change in ways that largely fly below the media and political radar.
Unfortunately, all of this really means that the left cannot count on the new administration for anything more than benign neglect when it comes to promoting major social issue initiatives such as gay marriage or civil unions. It appears that these issues will have to be fought on the state and local level for the foreseeable future.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Obama is not empowering Warren. People who are imputing some great significance to who says one of the prayers at the inaugauration are empowering Warren. I see Warren described as a Dominionist, and probably he is – but he exercises no Dominion over one who does not allow it. I’m not a gay person, but am an atheist and Warren’s opinion of me is pretty low, but why should I care about that? He is nothing to me. If the California Prop ten thing is an issue for some, recall that the voters of the state and the Mormons had a lot more to do with that outcome than did Warren.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Cleek, the problem is that Warren isn’t being cast as a “member of the opposition.” In fact, he’s doing his best to take the role of America’s Mainstream Pastor, not just religiously but politically (who else could moderate a church “debate”?). Obama is confirming that impression by having him be The Pastor at The Swearing-In. He’s sending the message that Warren’s views are indeed moral and mainstream, which they absolutely are not.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“If the California Prop ten thing is an issue for some, recall that the voters of the state and the Mormons had a lot more to do with that outcome than did Warren.”
First, it’s Prop 8, not “the Prop ten thing.”
Second, Warren leads the most prominent church in the state and not only got his entire congregation to vote yes, but also supported it on the airwaves. In a list of public figures and groups that are responsible for 8 passing, Warren would have to come in #2, behind the Mormon Church and ahead of Barack Obama.
Beyond which, how ridiculous is it that we’re having this conversation? As others have said, if Obama had picked a Holocaust-denying pastor to speak, would people here be saying that it’s okay, Jews shouldn’t be offended, it’s important to have a dialogue? Shouldn’t we refuse to let homophobia be mainstream?
December 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Not religious myself, but can’t they find a “man of the cloth” who is better than this? What kind of person goes into this field nowadays, anyway?
December 19th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“This was a stupid pick for so many reasons. First, Obama promised to tone down the culture wars. And this poured gas on that fire, and fired up the liberal outrage machine.”
Maybe he wants the liberal outrage machine fired up. He just doesn’t want to be seen as doing it.
I am reminded of Roosevelt’s “I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it.” line.
While Obama has said that he opposes gay marriage, he has also said he plans to repeal the DOMA. That would essentially force all states to honor gay marriages performed in any state that allows them.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Njorl: So, with the Warren pick, he’s showing his support for gay rights using reverse psychology? I knew he was a sophisticated politician but I guess I never grasped the scope of it.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I keep hearing that it isn’t important who speaks at the inauguration. It’s no big deal. Who cares? Alright, fine. If it doesn’t matter, then drop Warren from the bill like most Obama supporters want.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
While Obama has said that he opposes gay marriage, he has also said he plans to repeal the DOMA. That would essentially force all states to honor gay marriages performed in any state that allows them.
Highly unlikely. There is no precedent establishing that states are constitutionally required to recognize each other’s marriages, and it is highly unlikely (to say the least) that this Supreme Court would find such a requirement. The big thing about the repeal of DOMA would be that it would remove a statutory ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
But the problem is, he says he’s going to do it. I’m willing to give him the opportunity, but color me skeptical. Meanwhile, his stated opposition to gay marriage, his refusal to lift a finger on Prop 8, and (now) this honor for Rick Warren — and please, will people stop saying that this is a triviality, Obama didn’t do it because he thinks it’s meaningless, for God’s sake — are actual things Obama has done, not what he says he’s going to do. I’m still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but let’s not pretend like his promises are anything but that.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Glenn, good point, but don’t forget Donny McClurkin. That was a “dialogue” too, remember? It’s so nice of these homophobic religious leaders to keep sharing the stage with Obama for these little “dialogues”!
December 19th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
will people stop saying that this is a triviality, Obama didn’t do it because he thinks it’s meaningless, for God’s sake
No, I won’t stop saying that. This is a trivial courtesy that would have been quickly forgotten had it not turned into an occasion for a power play. If you think otherwise, please provide me
I will grant that Obama’s selection of Warren is not without intention and meaning. But the intention, as best I can figure, was (a) to give Warren a trifle rather than a tribute–a token of respect without a policy concession attached to it–in the hopes of coopting some of his followers and (b) to position Obama in the broad middle between an angry left and an angry right, again without actually having to settle for centrist policy.
In either case, Obama is trying to leverage a trivial favor into a much more important symbolic benefit. In my business, it’s like bringing potential clients to see a baseball game and pouring them some nice scotch after dinner. The cost of the game and the whiskey are trivial if you can get them to sign up for $500 million worth of business later in the week. My point being: Baseball and whiskey and getting to say grace at the inauguration or whatever remain trivial even if they are deployed in order to cheaply win someone’s favor.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Sorry, forgot to finish my thought in the first paragraph; should be:
“If you think otherwise, please provide me with an example of an inaugural invocation that had a significant impact on national policy or the political fortunes of an administration.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Obama doesn’t support gay marriage. He said that specifically during the campaign. Those who chose to ignore that fact can disagree with him, but they shouldn’t be surprised.
And yes, this is part of Obama’s new politics and open dialogue.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Obama may not support gay marriage, but he does support full civil unions and equal rights in all other ways. I support gay marriage, but understand why it’s not politically savvy to do so right now. I think, when all is said and done and the dust has cleared, this episode will do more to highlight the shallowness of the anti-gay bigotry of Warren’s ilk by putting it in the spotlight.
These bigots need the harsh light of day to expose what they’re all about. I applaud this shrewd move by Obama.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I don’t support allowing blacks to “marry” whites, but I do think they should be allowed to get civil unions, and equal rights in all other ways. Interracial “marriage” just isn’t politically savvy right now.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
A federal court of appeals has found that states must respect adoptions recorded in other states. The case (Finstuen v. Crutcher) was about a lesbian couple that had adopted a child and moved to a state that outlawed adoptions by homosexual couples. The court ruled that the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the constitution demanded acceptance of the adoption. The case, as far as I know, has not been sent to the Supreme Court…yet
December 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Glenn,
You don’t appear to be particularly knowledgeable about moral philosophy, if you insist on the tired equation of gay marriage, and interracial marriage. So let me quickly try and educate you. Prohibiting interracial marriage is wrong for the same reason as gay marriage is wrong, because it adulterates the natural goods for which marriage is intended (the union of complementary and distinct sexes, and the procreation of children.) Homosexual acts are, I believe, against the moral law because they undermine distinct gender identities and because they are unable to produce children through the normal process. Interracial marriages, on the other hand, were only ever condemned in a few societies (South Africa, the southern United States, and a few others), which generally sunscribed to deficient and non-apostolic forms of Christianity, and was never condemned in any writings that I know of from the Apostles, Church Fathers, or Doctors of the Church.
I think that gays should be allowed to get civil marriages in the United States. We are not a Christian country, and if voluntarily childless couples (also a sin, of course) should be able to get married than I don’t see why gays should not be. But accepting gay marriage as a _civil_ and _legal_ matter is different than my accepting that such marriages can ever be equal in the eyes of God or His Church. I do not.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Hector, I may not be knowledgeable about “moral philosophy,” but I am knowledgeable about bigoted fuckwits who try to couch their hatred in neutral-sounding philosophical terms.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Njorl, the difference is that an adoption decree is a judgment. It is well-settled that judgments are entitled to full faith & credit as a matter of constitutional requirement. A marriage is not a judgment.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that there are no good arguments for requiring interstate recognition of marriages. I did one of my law school major papers making precisely the argument for it. But, I’m just realistic about the likelihood of that position being adopted by this Court, and therefore, the likelihood that a DOMA repeal would actually have the effect you claim.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Glenn,
Again, you simply further demonstrate your ignorance. Please read Plato. Your feeble “arguments” do, however, demonstrate the essnetial incoherence of Enlightenment liberalism, and demonstrate why any liberal civilization is eventually doomed to collapse of its own contradtictions.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Re: Or what if he endorses the Republican presidential candidate in 2012? How does Obama handle that?
Warren is being offered the post of Unofficial National Pastor, formerly held by Billy Graham. Graham was a nominal Democrat, but he understood that his role required non-partisanship in public. If Warren doesn’t get this, he will lose the position in favor of someone else who does, and become a has-been outside the ghetto of evangelicalism.
Re: Second, Obama is now providing cover for Warren–a guy who compared homosexuality to pedophilia
Billy Graham was a segregationist, though he ditched that once he became the First Protestant. Warren will find it incumbent to ditch his divisive opinions too, or lose his new eminence. I don’t know enough about Warren to guess if he’ll follow that course. But Warren does at least seem a bit teachable. He’s not simply a GOP knee-jerk hack like James Dobson or Fr. Neuhaus.
Re: Obama will undoubtedly choose to avoid direct confrontations on gay rights, abortion, etc., and limit his administration’s initiatives to actions that don’t require legislative action or judicial intervention.
I’m perfectly OK with that (and I’m gay too). In case the culture warriors haven’t noticed the country and the world have a number of pressing matters of far greater concern and urgency than gay marriage, FOCA and the like. If Obama can defuse the current economic crisis, return us to a sane foreign policy and enact universal healthcare I will count my vote for him as well-cast even if he never says a word about gay marriage.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Glenn, could you make the effort to read Hector’s piece again? He disagrees about the morality of homosexuality, but he has a pretty high bar there anyway. Then he says he’s fine with gays having access to civil marriage, on the grounds that his religious beliefs shouldn’t dictate law. Which makes him kind of liberal, actually, as many who follow Hector’s moral line also make (fairly tendentious) arguments about the common good as grounds to oppose gay civil marriage.
If that piece of reasoning strikes you as hatred, then i can only conclude that you think anyone who disagrees with you (and me) on the moral issue is motivated by hatred. Which, alas, would not make you that uncommon here.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
So Hector, you’re for gay marriage…congratulations! You and Andrew Sullivan are bedfellows (in the ideological sense, lest you get the heebie jeebies at the thought of your own participation in “acts [that] are…against the moral law because they undermine distinct gender identities.”)
Anyhoo…seriously, I don’t think anyone is seriously demanding that the Pope or any other religious authority to bless same-sex unions. The pro-gay marriage movement is about nothing more than seeking equality in the eyes of the state and the law.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Hector, what you need to realize is that in many people’s mind marriage = (1) screwing and (2) living together. They don’t see it as anythign more than that so they don’t see why there should be any limits on who can marry whom.
December 19th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Hector,
Your argument is infuriatingly dumb. So dumb, Glenn is a better person than I for just dismissing it and not stooping to its level to address it. But here I am, infuriated.
My pastor thinks gay marriage is OK. You don’t? Your pastor doesn’t? Fuck you and your pastor. Your pastor would never be forced to officiate over or bless a gay marriage any more than a Catholic priest would never be forced to bless a marriage between two baptists.
My pastor, in line with his religious beliefs, should have the right to bless a marriage between two men, just like a Baptist pastor has the right to bless a marriage that is not allowed by Catholics.
If you do not oppose marriage for heterosexual couples that for whatever cannot or will not procreate, and do not oppose marriage for homosexual couples in the same situation, the only thing left as an explanation is that you have some animus towards homosexuals.
Then have the audicity to mention Plato.
December 19th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Wow! That was probably the most coherent and correct post Matt has made in months.
Hector is a religious fanatic – ignore him. He’s ignorant of ninety percent of human existence over the last hundred thousand years. He thinks the fucking Christian religion is the only valid way to exist. People like him need to be eaten by lions.
December 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Prohibiting interracial marriage is wrong for the same reason as gay marriage is wrong, because it adulterates the natural goods for which marriage is intended (the union of complementary and distinct sexes, and the procreation of children.)
Once more, Hector makes it plain why he’s going to remain a virgin for a long, long time.
December 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Billy Graham was a segregationist, though he ditched that once he became the First Protestant.
Actually, you can look at Graham during the 50s, and while he wasn’t exactly a Civil Rights leader, he got off the Southern Baptist segregation bus before many of his peers. Prick Warren, being more impresario than minister — much more money in platitudinous bookery and TV Christians, Inc. these days — hasn’t really been prepared to put his livelihood in question for his beliefs.
And a quick quote for Hector the hector: “Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.”
December 19th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I don’t know, Matt. Obama is not just the Democrats’ guy anymore. He’s the President of the United States.
If we wanted a guy who was just going to govern for those who voted for him, why not bring George W. Bush back? That’s how he did it.
December 19th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Plato was a trollop.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Oh boy…
I really believe Obama’s heart is in the right place on these things, and yes, I understand there are lots more important things going on right now, so that he’s not going to pick a fight anytime soon on DOMA or DADT (which requires a change in the law, not just an executive order). My worry is that, once the immediate crises are passed (and some form of health reform is enacted), the political operation will say, “Don’t do anything about that now – it’s too close to the mid-terms.” And once the mid-terms are past, it will be, “Not now – you don’t want to screw up your re-election campaign.” So by the end of another eight years of a Democratic administration nothing substantive will have been done at the national level. The key is whether he will be willing to lean on some Senators to break a filibuster. We’ll just have to see.
In the meantime, as was mentioned above, if we can withdraw expeditiously from Iraq, make progress on fixing the economy, and return to a semblance of constitutional government, I will consider my vote for Obama well-cast. I at least have confidence he won’t preside over a worsening of conditions for us LGBT people as did the last Democratic president.
Regarding the present controversy, inviting Rick Warren to speak at the Inauguration feels to me about the same as if David Duke was invited to say a few words. It goes way beyond same-sex marriage – I really don’t care how he wants to define marriage in his church, anymore than I care about how the Roman Catholic or Mormon churches do (at least if they would confine their opinions to which marriages they bless, and not try to impose their views on the rest of us – after all, the RC church doesn’t try to keep divorcees from being re-married, they just won’t bless the unions thenselves). He appears to believe my relationship is immoral on the level of child molestation, and my understanding is his church has an active ex-gay/conversion ministry (substitute “jew” or “black” for “gay” to get an idea of how that feels).
Now, maybe giving Lowery the last word will prove to be the masterstroke, as I’m sure he won’t be shy about making a comment about all of our families being important. We’ll just have to see how this plays out.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“These bigots need the harsh light of day to expose what they’re all about. I applaud this shrewd move by Obama.”
I hope you’re joking. If not, then we all owe John McCain a debt of gratitude, as he exposed more bigots in a six-month campaign than most leaders do in their entire lives.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
You know what you guys remind me of?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE
December 19th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
“ Interracial marriages, on the other hand, were only ever condemned in a few societies . . . which generally sunscribed [sic] to deficient and non-apostolic forms of Christianity, and was never condemned in any writings that I know of from the Apostles, Church Fathers, or Doctors of the Church.”
Technically speaking, gay marriages have only ever been condemned in a few societies, and my guess is that such a practice was never condemned in any writings by the gentlemen mentioned. Of course, that’s because gay marriage generally wasn’t (and in some places, still isn’t) really thinkable – and not just because of various regimes of suppression, secrecy, violence, and repression. Which gets us back to what I value about Hector’s culture-war comments – how they so clearly illuminate (one brand of) the ideologies that drives these movements. (Every now and then I wonder if “Hector” isn’t a piece of political performance art, a bit of edu-agit-prop-utainment performed by a very clever feminist 20-something lesbian with tattoos and piercings. I mean, take that Plato comment. Pure comedy gold . . . .)
Ideologies that – if you peer into them, give some meaning to the otherwise nonsensical yells about ‘defending marriage’, the never-answered question of how a wedding for the nice same-sex couple down the street could possibly hurt anyone’s marriage, etc.’(insofar as it goes past demonization, tribalism, and ‘things are changing quickly and it scares/confuses me’). As other folks have pointed out, SSM is, merely by existing, a kind of implicit threat to a specific, very narrow conception of what marriage is: a societal act for the purpose of perpetuating lineages, with rigid, tightly policed, and exaggerated gender roles, involving strict, authoritarian hierarchies of dominance and submission, often linked both to political affairs and reified as part of the natural/divinely ordained order.
And in truth, it is pretty traditional. Just not our tradition. That, on the other hand, is one that over the last few centuries has been developing into something quite different – something that approaches marriage as an egalitarian bond specifically woven out of romantic love and companionship, one where children can be a beloved and cherished choice. I even tend to imagine it’s one specific & very contingent working out of certain traits and processes that go back to before our ancestors were what we’d call human – indeed, that play a major role in making us human. (You could see it as a secular version of natural law – but that only gets us so far; “naturalistic fallacy” doesn’t mean David Attenborough making a factual error. ) And of course, it’s why gay marriage just so simply makes sense. And (one reason) why it’s horrifying for people for whom marriage is tied up with power and dominance and ecological/socioeconomic structures that are wildly out of place in (some parts of) our society and etc.
But I’m brutalizing the poor ideas I’m trying to convey. Very interesting take here, in an essay on “Red Family, Blue Family”L
“Same-sex marriage. The husband/father and wife/mother roles in the Inherited Obligation model are timeless, unchangeable, and necessary. Someone has to be the husband/father and someone has to be the wife/mother. Same-sex couples just can’t cover both roles, no matter how well-intentioned they may be.
But no comparable difficulty exists in the Negotiated Commitment model. A child has needs, and the parents have to negotiate a plan to meet those needs. Whether the parents are a mixed-sex couple or a same-sex couple – or even a single parent with a lot of committed friends – the problem is the same.
If the government recognizes same-sex marriages and same-sex couples as parents, then it is tacitly siding with the Negotiated Commitment model of marriage and parenthood, and undermining the Inherited Obligation model. This is why conservatives believe that marriage needs to be “defended” from same-sex relationships. But from the Negotiated Commitment point of view, “defense of marriage” is nonsense. How a same-sex couple negotiates its relationship has no effect on the negotiated relationships of mixed-sex couples.
And, of course, Amanda:
“Homobigots realize they can’t come out and explain what “protecting traditional marriage” means. To the non-crazy, the statement reads as if you’re saying that your marriage is somehow less committed and less loving, and when you confront the homobigots with this, they’re sort of stuck because the only legitimate answer is to admit that, to the religious right, marriage is less about love and companionship than it is about social order and subjugating women.
Not to say that they don’t think love and companionship are important, because they do. But when you prize love and companionship over female subjugation and social order, then you are also forced to approve of premarital sex, homosexuality, cohabitation, reproductive rights, and even openly impermanent relationships, including young people’s. Love—erotic and friendly—gives people ideas. Men who value love over female subjugation are easily recruited as feminist allies, because their love of the women in their lives inclines them to want to see those women do well.* “Traditional” marriage is about policing love and keeping it within its place in the hierarchy. But in modern times, we define love in romantic terms to a degree that’s so popular that conservatives have to work within that framework and refuse to admit, perhaps even to themselves, that they see it otherwise.** Same-sex marriage supporters see this issue about love, and opponents see it about hierarchy, so we’re talking past each other.
Opponents see same-sex marriage as the final nail in the coffin for “traditional” marriage, and I don’t think they’re off track on that. Some proponents of same-sex marriage have declared traditional marriage dead already: Women have a right to own property and sue for divorce. Wife beating isn’t tolerated as a man’s basic right. Women can have jobs, and keep the money they earn if they want to. Women can keep their names if they want to.”
(although she thinks they’re being rather optimistic here)
December 19th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Although, to do a quick reach across (not -around, don’t worry) the aisle – Hector, I’m completely with you (and appreciate, even admire, your non-theocratic restraint) when it comes to “I think that gays should be allowed to get civil marriages in the United States. We are not a Christian country“. So many folks with views roughly similar to yours completely don’t get this. And likewise – the other side of having a secular government – in the unlikely circumstance that the state tries to force your church to recognize (/perform) same sex marriages, I’ll be right behind you, although all the folks from the ACLU will probably end up being more helpful.
And it’s issues like this that show the importance of the “secular” in “secular democracy” – I’d want to try convince you that those specific aspects of our modern society – egalitarian loving commitments, etc. – aren’t sick, wrong, and evil, but I mostly don’t think we really have much in the way of ontological common ground to sit and talk on. (As, your stance is based at least in part in a specific & particularistic religious ideology (as I’m sure you’ll agree, just with the caveat that it’s correct), not something one can reach by logical or ethical reasoning)) It’s a private language, not a shared one, and hence not a good fit for our “public thing“.
(Although you know what they say about merely speaking, even if you’re bilingual in human and angelic . . . )
And – what one hand giveth, the other taketh away, I have to kinda disagree with nolaboyd that there’s no hatred here. Although I don’t know if that’s the right word. It’s not hot, red-faced and spittle-spraying, but rather comes across as cold, cerebral, tightly contained, even impersonal. Not sure that’s not sometimes the worse kind.
… ok, I suppose I have to try at least a little token halfhearted discussion.
* What’s your reply to the “reasoning” that if God wanted different races to intermarry, he wouldn’t have placed them on different continents?
“Homosexual acts are, I believe, against the moral law because they undermine distinct gender identities
* what does “distinct gender identities” have to do with moral law?
“ and because they are unable to produce children through the normal process”
* what does this have to do with moral law?
What if science advances to the point that same-sex couples are able to produce children themselves?
(Etc.)
December 20th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Re: If you do not oppose marriage for heterosexual couples that for whatever cannot or will not procreate, and do not oppose marriage for homosexual couples in the same situation, the only thing left as an explanation is that you have some animus towards homosexuals.
I do agree that couples who voluntarily choose to be childless- to the extent of not even having ONE child- should be denied the rites of marriage by the Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental-Christian, and Anglican faiths. (As for other Christian denominations, since they are not apostolic and therefore not churches in the strict sense, as Pope Benedict has pointed out, I don’t care what they choose to bless, or not.) Father Michael Nazir-Ali has pointed out, with his usual brilliance, that childbearing is a necessary part of sacramental marriage, and not an optional choice. SO yes, they should be denied marriage in an apostolic Christian church. On the question of whether they should be denied _civil_ marriage, it depends on whether the state is a Christian state (like, say, Peru) or a secular state like modern USA.
I agree with you that if marriage is allowed to voluntarily childless couples, then it should also be allowed to homosexuals. Both are wrong (much as, say, masturbation, or open marriages, or marriages in which neither party would be willing to die for the other as Christ died for the church, are all gravely wrong) but we already know that the laws of the United States already have rather little to do with morality.
Re: one where children can be a beloved and cherished choice.
Therein is the basic and pernicious error at the heart of the anything-goes, 21st century U.S. morality. Children are not a choice, they are an obligation. Procreation is the basic _natural_ good of marriage, and is also one of the three reasons that marriage was sanctified when Christ turned water to wine at Cana. The reason to have children is not because you like children, rather it is because our lifestyle preferences are less important than divine commands. You are not obliged to have a lot of children, and that could be wrong for other (environmental) reasons, but the choice not to have any children, while legal, is also deeply against natural law and the law of Christ.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:57 am
To those in this thread who have argued that its a good thing for Obama to reach across the aisle and create dialogue with reasonable opponents, but that Warren is not a reasonable opponent and is therefore a poor choice for said dialogue- Warren’s opinions are the other side’s opinions on gay marriage. If he doesn’t count as being reasonable enough to engage, then there’s no one. You can’t have it both ways.
December 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am
To the folks who think this 1-2 minute prayer ‘validates’ Warren: I used to run a bookstore (it closed in ‘06), and Warren is already validated. That Obama would do the Saddleback forum (unfair ‘cone of silence’ and all) was one reason my evangelical folks swallowed hard and vote for him. Warren’s role and statements in the Prop 8 vote (not to mention his blithe willingness to assassinate foreign leaders) are poison, but those positions are lost in this ‘battle’, and progressives and gay leaders are being to made look small, especially on cable. At this point, Pastor Rick is just not compromised enough for the general population to understand why he should be persona non grata.
I’m a gay man, and it really felt bad for this choice to come crawling in in the news. I’m worried about the cabinet picks.
I’ve written letters and emails to indicate my unhappiness.
But I’m also a single parent, in construction and worried about making the month’s rent. I really need a successful Administration turning the economy around, or at least, take some of the fear out of the economy, ’cause its gettin’ bad in the boonies where I live.
I hope it’ a tempest in a teapot, because I’m having outrage fatigue. FISA, now there was an outrage, and the Left should have been on notice. I think steady application of pressure beats drama in the long run.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Patrick, do you care to tell us how Obama is “engaging” with Warren, “creating a dialogue with the other side,” etc.? It seems for me that he’s just throwing his arm around him, without any substantive concessions at all to the pro-gay marriage side. This while he publicly opposes gay marriage and allowed himself, through his silence, to be used by the Yes on 8 side. So where’s the dialogue?
December 20th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
http://liginmaclari.blogcu.com/galatasaray-besiktas-canli-izle-galatasaray-besiktas-macini-canli-izle-galatasaray-besiktas-lig-tv-izle-galatasaray-besiktas-macini-canli-seyret-galatasaray-besiktas-maci-galatasaray-besiktas-macini-izle-galatasaray-besiktas-macini-seyret_31670811.html
February 11th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Great blog! Most blogs on this topic are not even close in detail as yours is. If you keep posting I’ll definatly be comming back.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 17th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I dont usually comment, but after reading through so much info I had to say thanks
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:18 am
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://ypxoiea.com/qyrqrq/4.html
April 9th, 2009 at 4:18 am
Very nice site! [url=http://ypxoiea.com/qyrqrq/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
April 9th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Very nice site!
April 9th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Thanks for the review!
viagra