Left Brain/Right Brain: The battle over gay marriage, rights

By Lisa Coffey and James Gillen

Lisa: It's official. Alan Keyes has a sexual hedonist liberal queer sinner in his family. I was about to say in his house, but apparently Mr. Keyes doesn't countenance any nonsense under his own roof, so his 19-year-old daughter, Maya, has recently been banished--sexual orientation, liberal opinions and all. This shows that Mr. Keyes is abiding by his pseudo-biblical conservative principles, and is no hypocrite. A man of lesser substance (Dick Cheney, for instance) might succumb to the temptation to re-evaluate his commitment to gay-bashing when it comes to bashing his own daughter. He must then decide whether to adjust his political stance accordingly. If he does not, he is a hypocrite (Dick Cheney, for instance,) and if he does, he is a liberal.

James: See, this is why I can't call myself a "conservative." I don't see why you're obliged to cast out your family for not having your religious beliefs, or for being gay. However, I reluctantly point out that the girl is of legal age, and Keyes doesn't have to support her anymore. If her gay status is so offensive that he can't tolerate her in the house or in his political organization, he is indeed standing up for his principles. Such as they are.

Lisa: Now here's irony! The very premise of our witty repartee is that I'm a liberal and you're a conservative. Apparently, you yourself have fallen prey to the usurping of symbolism for which many of your "conservative" brethren and their PR thugs are notorious.

Perhaps we can agree, then, that patriotism and the American flag are not the property of right-wing zealots; that "pro-choice" does not mean "anti-life"; that there are legions of Christians who are ashamed of Jerry Falwell. You are obviously an intelligent, thoughtful man whose genuinely compassionate conclusions tend to be conservative in nature. Go ahead, James--call yourself a conservative!

James: The other reason I don't call myself a conservative is that the standard definition of the term is William Buckley's: "standing athwart history, yelling: Stop." By that standard, regarding taxes, regulations and Social Security, the group most scared of change, scared of progress and scared of relinquishing control is the Democrats.

Lisa: Yes, many smug, aristocratic heirs to vast fortunes do seem to exhibit a curious penchant for standing athwart history and yelling Stop. (Apparently the view is fantastic from up there!) What scares me are the neo-conservatives' curious penchant for standing athwart history yelling Stop, About Face, Backwards March, and then employing innovative tactics to advance their archaic objectives. A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would be a downright innovation. How clever of them to think of being first to use the kindly old constitution as a vehicle for advancing the cause of bigotry.

James: For one thing, we have a Defense of Marriage Act--signed by President Clinton, no less--that ensures that any gay marriage in one state will not be recognized in another. Then consider that gay marriage initiatives proposed in the last election failed in every state where they were on the ballot. A constitutional amendment isn't necessary, and isn't going to go any farther than the ERA did. It's something that the Republicans use to rile up their base without being able or willing to do anything about it--like the Democrat positions on civil rights and free trade. It's a good thing the Constitution is NOT a "living document," eh?

Lisa: If the Constitution isn't a living document, then it must be rolling over in its grave. Yeah, it turns out they were just kidding about that constitutional amendment; but they weren't too proud to pretend long enough to "rile up their base." Neither are they too proud to cultivate a base that will vote against its own best interests in every other respect, as long as they can sleep at night knowing that the Republicans are keeping them safe from the Gay Menace. I don't understand how gay marriage threatens children. If someone would explain it me, I might change my mind.

James: This two-party system is screwy anyway. For instance, the Democrats attack Bush for not supporting the Kyoto Treaty, which they didn't when Clinton was president--even though it gives exemptions to China and India, making it that much more likely that industries will "outsource"--which is what Kerry kept complaining about. Talk about "voting against your own best interests." I can't explain why people think that gays threaten their families, but that example helps explain why one group of hypocrites keeps beating the other in elections. Democrats focus on the economy and Republicans focus on morals. And frankly, Democratic hypocrisy does more damage to the country than the Republican variety. I don't need a government to give me my morals, but what government does affects the economy.