Right & wrong & gay & straight

Very thought-provoking article by Tammy Bruce which makes some devastating points, with questions for the liberals who heedlessly support SF mayor Gavin Newsom:

On one hand you have the reckless law-breaking behavior of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom bestowing marriage licenses on gay couples. A few of my gay friends have voiced their support for this. I reminded these friends, who are also pro-choice, that Fresno, California has a pro-life mayor. How would they feel if that mayor decided to ignore the law and keep women from accessing their legal abortion rights?

and a gentle rebuke to Andrew Sullivan:
Gays ultimately need to stop looking to government for unconditional love and approval of who we are. Andrew Sullivan, a political commentator and writer many of you know and respect, wrote a piece for Time magazine where he actually equated governmental recognition of gay marriage as a necessary element to all gay people feeling accepted and wanted. He claimed that anything other than marriage will “build a wall between gay people and their own families.”
While his story was personal and moving, the argument was, frankly, nonsense, and representative of the general mentality among the gay elite. It also gives the government and other people’s opinions far too much power over the quality of our lives and effectively eliminates our own responsibility for our happiness.

Frankly, that’s the wisest thing I’ve heard about the whole gay-marraige debate in six months of blather by both sides. If nothing else, it should give libertarians some true pause; to beg for self- realization and completeness from the same government that gives us the Department of Agriculture and the IRS?



  1. Skip Oliva

    Sullivan’s argument for gay marriage ultimately fails because it’s a *conservative* argument–it views individual rights as a product of institutions rather than man’s nature as man. Sullivan ultimately cannot bring himself to renounce the very institution that rejects him and his ideas (he makes this same error with respect to the Church).
    The real danger in the gay marriage debate is not the issue itself, but in the potential for government expansion it could bring.

  2. Craig

    I agree with Skip’s warning, above.
    One of the wiser, more rational points on this issue was a remark I heard on NPR’s All Things Considered (of all places): government should recognize civil unions only, and back away from recognition of marriage altogether. That would take care of the “sanctity” argument, which is based on religion anyway.

  3. Michael Brazier

    Skip: there’s nothing conservative about the view that rights are created by institutions. That’s a trope of the Left, associated with the view that all the world’s evil can be banished by changing institutions. Those conservatives who talk of rights at all, derive them from “man’s nature as man”, beyond the reach of institutions.