Whither the Bush adminstration on homosexuality?

Great Debates
1

This current hubbub (which seems a tad overblown, considering that it should come as no surprise that some Republicans, and almost certainly some Democrats, hold the sorts of views expressed) seems like as good a time as any to consider the direction of the current administration on issues of homosexuality. Where is it likely to go? Where would it be smart to go?

I’m assuming, of course, that the administration will ever take any open stand on a divisive issue. I don’t think any side in this pony race can claim that simply calling Santorum “inclusive” says much at all about Bush’s stance on issues pertaining to homosexuals. Obviously, homosexuality is something of a political live wire: you can never be too apologetic for gay activists, and you can never defend traditional mores enough for Family Research Councils. It isn’t really worth the trouble of losing focus on other major issues.

But let’s pretend that it WAS an issue that the administration needed to formulate some coherent policy on. What could that policy be? If the President was going to agree or disagree with Santorum’s comments, how would/should he do it? How can he do it, and what would the repercussions be?

Let’s lay down several claims here about what Santorum said:

-he calls the abuse of a minor (priest on “post-pubescent men”) “a basic homosexual relationship” and says that the “world view sense” he’s discussing, it;s perfectly fine as long as it is consenting
-he not only supports state’s rights to legislatively determine their own laws free of overreaching judicial power (which is a respectable Constitutional view), but also implies that he IS for criminalizing homosexual acts (and he, in case we missed it, IS a legislator)
-he asserts that legally allowing certain acts, including homosexuality and sodomy, hurts strong, healthy families
-he believes that homosexuals can be separated from their “acts” and should not perform said “acts”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL

We can debate my take on those claims, but I think they are pretty solidly established not only by the AP story, but by his history of comment on these issues. The most contentious is whether he’s taking theory of the law, or his actual views on the matter about what the law should be. I think it’s pretty clearly the latter: he’s not simply defending state’s rights to outlaw homoexual sex, but saying that it’s the right thing to do.

I ask this question because plenty of Republicans, especially the more libertarian wing, don’t support such statements, and have been making noise to counter the “traditionalist” organizations which are complaining that Bush is being too tepid.

For instance, Andrew Sullivan, who would defend Bush’s decision to poop on the Pope’s head, is making major noise about how tolerant people can’t put up with this. Of course, he gets worked up like this all the time, but I still think its significant that he’s getting letters from people saying that they hate what their party is doing and feel that this is a make-or-break issue for them. It’s clearly, amazingly, something of a make-or-break issue for Sullivan, and he goes as far as to say that the President’s recent non-comment “indicates that the White House still doesn’t understand the damage that this incident is doing, the fact that it is beginning to make it simply impossible for gay people and their families - or any tolerant person - to vote for the president’s party.”
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_04_20_dish_archive.html#200201467

Bill O’Reily has made waves as well, defending Santorum against witch hunts (which are apparently only acceptable when conducted by O’Reily or organizations with which he approves): “America does not need a sex police. It’s a waste of time and resources.” And says that if Santorum wants a sex police, then the voters of Pennsylvania should “vote him out.” (an idle command, seeing that such an election is eons away in political spin-cycle time)

Of course, the Log Cabin Republicans have weighed in: http://www.lcr.org/ but so have some Republican moderates (though not prominant ones)

Now, we all know what your own personal “ideal world” scenario would be for a position that the administration to take: that’s not really the issue. The issue is to justify a particular stance in terms of it being political workable. Could the administration really ever go out on a limb and defend even a libertarian view like “we do not think anyone has to tolerate or accept homosexuality, and we do not agree with it, but we should not criminalize homosexual sex or partnerships as a matter of pluralism.” Or would even that outrage both sides (one because it came out and said that it didn’t agree with homosexuality, and the other because it appears willing to tolerate it)?

I’ll note additionally that the administration HAS made some quiet moves that can be taken as acceptance of homosexuals: in 2001, Bush nominated an openly gay man, Michael Guest, to be the next ambassador to Romania. Guest was confirmed by the Senate (unlike some previous Democratic nominees who have been gay), and at the swearing-in ceremony his gay partner, Alex Nevarez, not only stood by him, but was specifically acknowledged by Colin Powell. Family values seemed to survive intact. Cheny’s gay daughter seems not to have destroyed his own family so far.

A note of pure politics
I very much doubt that Santorum will face much trouble over this, for two reasons. First of all, a large number of people support his views. While there may be some that remember segregation fondly, they have adopted an attitude of accepting that they should probably keep quiet about it in public/national company. So it’s not even close to the same thing, and people who think that the administration is hypocrticial if Santorum doesn’t face Lott’s fate is fooling themselves. They just aren’t the same sorts of views at all, from the standpoint of social mores in our society. Secondly, Lott was considered trouble utterly regardless of anything to do with segregation: he bucked the administration and tried to be more indepedant than was wanted. Santorum is and remains loyal and deferential. Lott wasn’t worth keeping around for the price it might cost. Santorum is. So let’s not be silly and pretend that the administration is going to can a loyal soldier. We’re talking about public criticism/support for his opinions, not substantive action against him like they took against Lott (who, by the way, I still think got kind of a bum rap, and was certainly not as openly or unapologtically offensive as Santorum has been).

2

I should add that, to support my note about how this isn’t an issue that Republicans want much play on, it’s been reported that the White House and Republican National Committee have advised Republicans not to comment on Santorum’s remarks when asked about them.

Fliescher has been particularly coy about completely avoiding the issues involved. So were definately talking hypotheticals here, unless something major changes.

3

This article I just commented on in the BBQ Pit might have some hints. Granted, the Administration itself isn’t quoted, but if a lot of his party is going to go this way, I don’t think he’d object, no matter what he believes, which could be seen as tacit approval (as in the Santorum case).

4

Smoke and mirrors. As you’ve noted, they are perfectly happy to let one of thier own make offensive comments, signaling to the Morbidly Righteous Right “We’re with you!” and keeping thier votes solidly on board. They won’t, however, go so far as to suggest any oppresive legalisms, as that might energize the liberals and even alienate some of the more sane Republicans, who will support thier fiscal policy but would draw the line at oppressing gays.

A similar nuance is the “partial birth abortion” crapola. The Bushistas know they can’t turn the clock back twenty years, but they can get away with this, signal to thier base “Darn, we’re trying, but those darn Liberals…”. At the same time, they don’t go so far as to offend the moderate wing of the Republican party, who are already a bit nervous about the kind of people they find themselves in bed with, politicly.

Net result: not much.

5

I’m inclined to agree with elucidator in terms of results. But my thought is that the entire issue does not loom at all large in the minds of Bush and his advisors – it’s negligible, much like environmental concerns, to him; his core constituency is not going to get too hyper about either so long as he does not rock the boat. However, he’s quite well aware (and Mary Cheney will make that clear if he loses track) that what his Religious Right backers want will cost him heavily in the long run, and (I think) is prepared to concede the morality of recognizing gay rights, very slowly and without publicity, in order not to offend his anti-gay supporters. So what one can expect is a very slow Fabian gradualism in terms of gay rights acceptance, with minimal publicity. (And HRC and GLAAD should recognize the dilemma they present him when they trumpet issues in major mass-distribution press releases, and simply publicize their work and its results through house organs and releases to the gay media, for the duration of his presidency.)

6

The biggest problem seems to be for Sullivan who has finally noticed with whom he’s been making his bed.

7

I think it should be noted that many of the comments being made above regarding homosexuality are also true with regard to racism and a number of other kinds of intolerance (i.e. the religious variety, Graham’s people, etc.). It’s not exclusive to Republicans, but they have a number of these groups attached to them and its a grave disservice to everybody.

8

o o … o o o
o … o … o o
o … o … o … o
I just thought I’d share with you, Mandelstam, what my monitor screen looks like now, thanks to a cup of pretty good Colombian coffee I was drinking when I read that! :smiley:

9

Two more points of interest.

As the WP points out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50280-2003Apr28.html

Fliescher’s comment about how the President “never” comments on pending Supreme Court cases is just flat out wrong: the White House has had much to say about the Michigan affirmative action case. So, there’s another excuse gone.

Sullivan also pointed out that, as of April 9 the president has nominated Bill Pryor, the current Alabama attorney general, to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Pryor is essentially of the same mind as Santorum: defending anti-sodomy laws (even some that HAVE been struck down by the courts) and has associated homosexual relationships with “prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be 'willing).”

10

Here’s more on those “inclusive” judges:
http://www.southernvoice.com/national/030425judges.php3?pub=atl

11

If the question is, How would you advise GWB to glean best political advantage, morals and ethics aside–pretty much the Elucidator/Polycarp approach. Lots of “no comment,” lots of “gee, we know Rick is a very fair-minded inclusive guy, not a hater,” and especially “let’s concentrate on the issues that unite us as Americans, not these politically-motivated teapot-tempests about somebody’s choice of words.” And send fourth-hand ambiguous easily-deniable signals to the libertarian set that GWB is a modern guy, not Jesse Helms, and after all blah-blah-blah, so just be patient.

The central issue, idealism aside, is “who gets to say.” The perception is that various “certified” minorities are granted a vitual veto over what is said about them by public officials of either party, but hey, gays don’t yet make the cut. So for now ENDA is “special rights,” gays are disposed to go after high-school boys, “would you want a BJ forced on your son during combat?” etc etc ad nauseum.

All in the good cause of making sure Ashcroft doesn’t enter the primaries against GWB.

12

Is this surprising to you? The Attorney General’s job is to defend and enforce the laws passed by the legislature.

Here’s the full quote from your article:

I don’t agree with Pryor’s constitutional analysis, especially on child pornography and pedophilia. But I also don’t agree with your attempt to take his statement out of context. Pryor wasn’t saying that they were morally equivalent; he was talking about the constitutional ramifications. Specifically, Pryor was saying that if the court finds a constitutional right to privacy covering bedroom activities, society is going to have a hard time prohibiting any bedroom activities based solely on morality.

I disagree with Pryor on this issue, but maybe in your attempt to demonize Pryor you shouldn’t become a demon yourself.

13

Well, I don’t think I’ve ever linked to a National Review editorial in GD before, but there is always a first for everything.

I happened to come across this article independent of this whole Santorum episode, but recalled it when I read this thread. It addresses much of what this OP questions - what are the longer term political implications?

I can’t agree with all the implications that Kurtz draws, but I find some of the predictions interesting, to say the least. He had another column, also in National Review, just a few days earlier.

I struggle with this column more than the one I linked above, but it goes to the heart of the Santorum debate, and must admit it addresses some valid criticism of the response to Santorum’s comments.

All this makes me question whether “traditional family values” are all they are cracked up to be.

14

While some critics have it wrong, the real issue with Santorum is NOT the issue of constitutional “who gets to decide.” The issue is that he, personally, supports criminalizing gays having sex.

I reject utterly the idea that people should be programatically “punished” for expressing views other people find “offensive.” But it IS legitimate to criticize those views, ask if we really want someone with those views making decisions on our behalf.

I also think that Kurtz is clearly wrong unless he’s defining “family stability” in a strange and self-sealing way. Can he show that there is less “family stability” in states without sodomy laws? Indeed, from my cursory memmory of things like divorce rates accross the country, the first brush presumption looks exactly the opposite. Indeed, gay marriage is more of a threat to the traditional family structure than sodomy is (I still don’t see where Kurtz makes a case for allowing sodomy actually harming family stability), but only because there will be a lower percentage of marriages will be “traditional.” That, however, isn’t the same thing as say that anyones right or ability to have a traditional marriage is hurt, or even that less people who would have had such marriages would now not do so.

At issue is not having to do his job, but the fact that in this case, he seems solidly in favor of that job. People have a right to care about the views of people who serve them in public office, especially when they are in positions that allow them to make decisions that affect policy.

I didn’t say that the question was straight up moral equivalency: but association. I object to the association made here in the same way that I would object, “if we give women the right to vote, then what’s next: children?” The “logical” connection in these conclusions is simply the willingness to ignore all the different issues involved in the different cases, associating them only along the fact that they all involve sex (and, maybe, just coincidentally, that Pryor thinks that they are all immoral).

And in your rewording of Pryor’s view (which I’m not sure is an accurate restatement) the presumption you seem to be allowing is that there is some collection of things called “solely on morality,” and if we reject the law’s domain over one “immoral” thing, then we reject the rest. But that’s nonsense. We certainly use our sense of morality to decide what should and should not be a law, but things become law because of the power of the government to make them so in line with standard proceedures and the constitution, nothing more. Simply because someone lumps “homosexuality” under the classification “immoral” doesn’t make it any sort of slippery slope in the law to allowing all immoral things. That’s because not everyone shares the same sense of what is moral and immoral.

15

Regarding little Bush himself (not “the Bush Administration”) – a relative who worked in the Texas statehouse says Dubya is “genuinely blind to color, race, gender, religion and sexual orientation” in the people with whom he works. Goes on to say that this is because Dubya “genuinely doesn’t really give a damn about people.”