Nice work there.

Have to say that I think passing that bill would have saved everybody from serious headaches. Republicans made a humongous mistake by not doing that, BUT they did NOT bring upon themselves the West scandal or the Microsoft version of the John Kerry dance.

I have inside scoop on the Jim West affair. Call me at 718-982-5055. Go ahead, I dare you.

Artemis Gordon

Matt,

[ I wrote this comment on SoundPolitics in response to one part of your post about Jim West. You didn't respond there, and I'm interested in your thoughts about this, so I'll post the comment here in case you missed it. I'd love to hear what response you would have. ]

It's not quite accurate to call the belief that homosexuality is immoral "outdated". Unless, of course, morality itself is "outdated", which is often held to be true. If morality exists, then it never gets outdated.

If your point is to change our "public expression toward gays", I'd be interested to know specifically what you have in mind. If I, as a public statement (like this one), assert that I believe homosexual behavior to be immoral... does that inherently "make wedge issues sharper"? Is it "condemning"? Do I need to be more "accepting"?

I don't believe it is. Condemnation and Acceptance are descriptive of my attitude toward an individual, toward the person involved. My belief about Morality is my attitude toward the activity. Being an individual who still engages in activity that I myself consider immoral, I have a pretty good handle on the separation between the two concepts.

I have close friends who are homosexual. Just like I have close friends who cheat on their taxes sometimes. Both activities are immoral. I can say that, and say it openly, without being "condemning" or not "accepting" them, and without needing to tone down my message to keep from being offensive.

I think this is a critical distinction in the current climate of discourse in our society.

Mark

Mark, thanks for your response. You say you believe that homosexuality and tax-cheating, for example, are both immoral, but you do not at all necessarily condemn, or not accept, the person who might practice either, and that this is a crucial distinction.

I hear what you're saying.

BUT, I wonder if this is not roughly akin to the "love the sinner, hate the sin" viewpoint some people have toward gays. I think it is.

At any rate, while your gay and tax cheat friends (and I'm sure your gay friends would object to your lumping together of the two categories, no?) might be enlightened enough to understand you still accept them while declaring their activities immoral, I don't believe it is in the interests of the GOP voters and legislators to emphasize they find homosexuality "immoral."

I am all for making judgements, but you REALLY have to pick your fights carefully in a dynamic political environment. And in a marriage, or in the office, as well - although no direct analogies are really intended.

Anyway, my point: Rather than waste time and energy debating whether homosexuality is "moral," I choose to focus, in this issue sphere at least, on the notion that voters and legislators opposed to gay marriage and/or gay anti-discrimination laws deserve a fair hearing. That they are NOT de facto "homophobes," as so many urban "progressives" automatically declare; there are things to discuss here. But concerns about "morality," no matter how deeply felt, throw the dialog irretrievably off track.

The highest priority to me in this arena of debate is not declarations about highly-charged morality concerns, but rather defending the right to try to uphold state DOMA laws, and advance ballot initiatives for state constitutional amendments to uphold the intent of state DOMA laws when they are challenged in court.

And I dare suggest, it should be to you, too. There is a case to be made for traditional marriage as an institution, and it should rest more on what the voting populace has approved in 38 states, than "morality."

It may be all the same in the end, but the discussion neeeds to be framed in terms of public opinion and voter declarations. It is politically naive to take any other approach. Deflect the morality argument to the masses. Far from being disinigenuous, this is the essence of our democratic system. Let not you or I be judge and jury, rather, let VOTERS decide. And, as it happens, they are quite unenamored of gay marriage, on the whole.

Whereas declaring you "accept" or welcome as friends gays whose sexual practices you nonetheless find "immoral," is, I believe, an exercise in feel-good religiosity which squanders valuable - and limited - political capital, especially if replicated on a widespread basis.

Matt,

If your point is to say that my morality should stay out of public political discourse, I'm completely on your side. In arguing for the DOMA or other legislation, I will argue not from my sense of morality, but from my beliefs of what is best for society.

In your original post, it seemed that you went much farther than that. In calling the idea that homosexuality is immoral "outdated", for instance, you went farther than just saying "keep it out of politics".

You wrote: "Your bible's not the last word; sorry. Gays are here; they're queer and they're not going away. You may in your heart still believe they're sinners, and "immoral," and pray for them, but as a public expression toward gays, that only makes the wedge issues sharper. Some of you will have to be more accepting and less condemning of gays, despite the discomfort and disapproval."

Possibly by "public expression" you meant "political expression"? Those are very distinct. A shift in focus from "don't call homosexuality immoral, just think it in your mind" to "don't argue politically from your sense of morality" would have made all the difference in the world in your original post.

Mark