chrisishardcore.com

« Bush's Wonderful Ideology vs Kerry's Grim Reality | Main | Georgia Deadlocked? »

October 14, 2004

Shhhh - she's gay

I agree 100% with Andrew Sullivan's analysis of Kerry's answer to the gay question in last night's debate. Watching the debate, I thought it was one of Kerry's best answers. Only later, when right wing pundits began harping on it did it even occur to me that it was controversal. Call me out of touch if you want, I think it just means that I'm part of a younger generation that views the world differently.

Imagine it is 100 years ago and the candidates are debating women's suffrage. Bush says he's just not sure if women are first class citizens or not -- he doesn't know, the jury is out. And Kerry says I think women should vote, women like the Vice President's daughter. Now, if you think calling someone a woman is an insult, then you would think it was a cheap shot to call someone a woman. Fast forward 100 years. If you think being gay or lesbian is an abomination, then pointing out that someone is gay or lesbian is an insult.

Here is the problem with the right wing attack: Being gay is not a choice and there is nothing wrong with it. No question illustrates Bush's lack of leadership ability better than the question of homosexuality last night. Some time ago, Bush gained a reputation as a leader of morality in America. As a cynical ploy, Bush supported the FMA. Now, plenty of Americans are uncomfortable with homosexuality and also concerned in general about marriage and traditional values.

However, only a minority of Americans that will soon be looked on as dinosaurs actually want to restrict the rights of those different than them. This is what Bush's Federal Marriage Amendment does, it is also the biggest problem with Georgia's constitutional amendment. Bush has attempted to hijack a wrong but mostly uninformed fear about marriage and values to crystalize the second-class rights of an entire group of Americans by writing the current status quo into the Constitution.

Kerry has disapointed many liberals with his statement that believes marriage is between a man and a woman. That's something that people on the left have to factor into their judgement. What he has done is oppose the President's FMA for all the right reasons, and he has articulated them. Those same liberals that are upset with Kerry's stand on "marriage" may want to ask themselves whether they thought one year ago that the Democratic nominee for President would stand up for civil benefits for gays and have a good shot at winning and weigh that against any uncomfortability with Kerry's other positions.

Back to Bush, though. The question that the moderator asked was whether Bush believes homosexuality is a choice. Now here is an interesting one. All scientific research over the past 20 years has pretty clearly shown that it is not. The idea that being gay is a choice or that gays can be converted to being straight is quickly losing favor, the major faction that still clings to this fantasy is the religious right (along with some older Americans) and this group also happens to be Bush's strongest supporters.

Personally, aside from politics, I do not believe that Bush thinks homosexuality is a choice. Mary Cheney has made a good living as a gay woman, first working for Coors on gay outreach and then working in politics to try to bring gays into the Republican party. Do I think that Mary Cheney saw that a gay woman could make a lot of money doing this type of work so she chose to be gay? No. I don't think Bush does either.

But Bush is unwilling to stand up to his supporters and tell them what he plainly believes and also what would plainly begin to heal the country -- to unite it instead of dividing it. The religious right trust Bush. They like him. And if he cannot tell his biggest supporters when he believes they are wrong and when it might be a good idea to look within and accept change, how can you expect him to try and influence anyone else?

Kerry, on the other hand, according to the conventional wisdom has everything to lose when the question of gay marriage or gay rights comes up. But he doesn't pander. He says what he believes, and what an increasing number of Americans know is the truth. And he talks about his personal relationships with friends who have struggled to accept what they can not change -- that they are gay. This might upset a housewife in rural Missouri, but so what. Bush clearly knows how to get votes in a campaign, but I think these debates have shown that while he may be good at auditioning for the role of President, he clearly isn't good at being President, or Presidential.

In the debates, and especially in his honest answers to tough social questions on gay rights, abortion and religion, Kerry has shown that he too is good at auditioning for the job of President. But he has also shown something else -- he is Presidential and I believe he has the capacity to be a great President. If you believe that being gay or lesbian is a sin, then you probably don't see eye to eye with me on this matter -- Bush is your guy. But if you're undecided, do you really think that you should be making the same decision as a shrinking group of bigots who truly want to divide this country and world instead of uniting it? It's something to think about.

UPDATE: A commenter bases their objection on the fact that Cheney is a family member and family should be off limits. Certainly if a family member has a DUI then that would have nothing to do with the race (unless the candidate has proposed 0 tolerance on DUI's but pulled strings to get his own son to avoid jail time, etc). The problem with the family thing is that this issue specifically relates to family values and more specifically to making certain Americans second class citizens. The fact that Bush thinks Mary Cheney should be a second class citizen and Kerry thinks she shouldn't is valid because it shows how hypocritical Bush is when it comes to "values." Additionally, you could make a de-facto argument that even though Laura Bush and the twins campaign actively for George's election they are "off limit." That's probably true, but no one seemed to get upset when Kerry said good things about the Bush twins and Laura, and in fact if you look at what Kerry said about Mary Cheney I believe he was also complimenting her.

The real problem with this argument though is that Mary Cheney is a paid employee of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Now, she probably wouldn't work for the campaign if she truly thought her father and Bush wanted to pass the FMA amendment. I think they don't really want to, they are just pandering to their base. And what better way to point it out then to point out that Mary Cheney works for a campaign that holds the official position that she should not have the rights that other American citizens have. The real issue should be directed to the President -- how can you support the FMA and tell Mary Cheney that the way she was born was a choice she made, or how can you cynically say you support the FMA when it's pretty clear that you're just using it as an election issue.

The bottom line: If you think family is off limits then it should be off limits across the board. If Kerry can't pay a compliment to Mary Cheney because in doing so he has to mention that she's gay, then Bush shouldn't be allowed to talk about how great Kerry's daughters are because they are strong women.

Ask yourself this, if Kerry had said the same thing about Mary Cheney but hadn't said the "l" word, would they still be outraged. And would it be right? And finally, when Alan Keyes said that Mary Cheney was a "selfish hedonist" Dick Cheney didn't say anything. When Kerry said she was a strong woman he respected who was a lesbian and that that was the way she was born he said he was an "angry father." Some value system.

Posted by Chris at October 14, 2004 11:23 PM

Comments

Posted by: jimmy at October 15, 2004 12:03 PM

Posted by: tk2 at October 15, 2004 04:50 PM

Post a comment