November 5, 2004


The Moral Factor in the Election (David Horowitz, 11/05/04,

Andrew Sullivan, a strong voice of support for the war in Iraq and the war on terror, defected from the President’s camp largely on [the issue of gay marriage] (although there were others). In a post-mortem on the election, Sullivan writes, “I’ve been trying to think of what to say about what appears to be the enormous success the Republicans had in using gay couples’ rights to gain critical votes in key states.” This formulation puts the proverbial cart before the horse. It was gay leaders and gay advocates like Andrew Sullivan who forced this issue into the election battle. By circumventing the legislative process, by selecting an arrogant and undemocratic judiciary and an anarchist mayor to attempt to force a victory on this issue the gay left also forced the President and his party to seek a legislative remedy to defend the interests of their conservative and religious base. This is the origin of the eleven initiatives in eleven states that defeated the Democratic candidate.

Sullivan continues: “In eight more states now, gay couples have no relationship rights at all. Their legal ability to visit a spouse in hospital, to pass on property, to have legal protections for their children has been gutted. If you are a gay couple living in Alabama, you know one thing: your family has no standing under the law; and it can and will be violated by strangers. I’m not surprised by this. When you put a tiny and despised minority up for popular vote, the minority usually loses.”

Sullivan is dead wrong about this. The American people – the American majority – is a compassionate majority, and minorities, including gays have gained many rights and other benefits in the last several decades as a result of the good will of that majority. The wound inflicted by this election on gay Americans who want to live in stable couples is self-inflicted. On the eve of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s reckless decision to defy a California marriage law that had been passed by a 60% majority of Californians and illegally “marry” gay couples, polls showed that a near majority of all Americans were in favor of civil unions for gays. I firmly believe that if the gay political leadership and spokesmen like Andrew Sullivan had pressed for the recognition of civil unions, which would have granted all those rights Sullivan refers to in his column, the American people would have granted them. It was the gay community’s contempt for the sensibilities of religious Americans who consider marriage a sacred institution and for others who don’t think that a 5,000 year old institution should be remade overnight by a handful of judges in Massachusetts and an arrogant mayor in San Francisco that led to the election debacle for gay Americans and for John Kerry.

The compromise here is pretty easy and had already been offered by the majority--we wouldn't interfere with their private behavior so long as they kept it private. It was the demand for the public imprimatur--open service in the military, adoption rights, marriage, etc.--that broke the deal.

Kerry refused to take Clinton's antigay advice (The Advocate, 11/05/04)

A new report from inside the John Kerry campaign suggests that in the final weeks of the campagin former president Bill Clinton advised Kerry to come out in favor of ballot measures that wrote antigay marriage discimination into the constitutions of 11 states. According to the latest issue of Newsweek, "Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the red states, former president Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, 'I'm not going to ever do that.'"

The advice is not inconsistent with Clinton's record: He is the chief executive who signed the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and leaves gay and lesbian couples legally married in Massachusetts since May 17 in legal limbo. The federal DOMA also prevents those couples from acquiring access to the Social Security and other benefits that other legally married couples have.

And he left office with approval ratings in the 60s. Mr. Kerry's refusal to heed his own moral beliefs is inexplicable.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 5, 2004 4:46 PM

I'm not so sure the wound was accidentially self-inflicted. The initial goal of a guerilla campaign is not victory, but to provoke the oppressor into a reprisal that will unify your people against him.

Posted by: mike earl at November 5, 2004 5:00 PM

Let's see if Newsweek or any other major publication asks Bill if he's going to give Hillary the same advice for 2008 if she decides (or more properly, when she announces) to run for president.

Posted by: John at November 5, 2004 5:47 PM

I smell a "we were too principled to win" leak. Or a "Kill Bill" leak. Regardless, I can't quite square Kerry's high-mindedness with this:

August 7, 2004

KANSAS CITY, Mo. Drawn into a Missouri debate over same-sex marriage, Sen. John F. Kerry said in an interview published Friday that he would've voted for the gay marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by state voters.

The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days campaigning across Missouri, told the Kansas City Star that the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.

In a separate interview with Kansas City's NBC affiliate, Kerry reiterated that both he and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, are opposed to gay marriage, though they favor civil unions.

"We support nondiscrimination against our fellow Americans," Kerry said. "We've always argued the states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves. Massachusetts and Missouri are proving they are capable of taking care of it by themselves. [That] I think bears out that we didn't need a [federal] constitutional amendment in order to do what's right."

Posted by: Tom Maguire at November 5, 2004 6:57 PM

How does "principle" square with "Mary Cheney is a lesbian!"

Posted by: Mike Morley at November 5, 2004 7:37 PM

"The compromise here is pretty easy and had already been offered by the majority--we wouldn't interfere with their private behavior so long as they kept it private."

Given what large majorities have done to minorities in the past, this compromise ranks as angelic.

Much as I think Christians are morally wrong in their opposition to gay marriage, it just doesn't matter.

What gays needed to do was wait another twenty years, living honorable lives.

That would make fighting against gay marriage then as tenable as fighting against miscegenation would be now.

There simply is no gain to be had by trying to force a vast majority of people to acquiesce to something they simply can't abide.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 5, 2004 9:30 PM

Heck, the President and Vice President support civil unions, if adopted voluntarily by state legislatures.

Posted by: David Cohen at November 5, 2004 10:24 PM

All of Kerry's so-called "flip-flops" become perfectly defensible and clear once you realize that the man is an ironclad radical leftist.

Once this is understood, it no longer makes sense to accuse him of "lacking moral center". It is far more obvious that all of his contortions and reversals were a verbal shell game designed to mask his ideological dedication to extreme (nearly IWW) beliefs.

Once in power, he would have made every decision based upon a nearly (photographic) negative image of Reagan/W.

i.e. How can I undermine US power? (surrender Iraq to the UN & give N. Korea & Iraq Nuclear Fuel)

How can I undermine US cultural values? (Put Holder & Tribe on the SCOTUS)

We dodged Ho Chi Mihn's revenge by 140,000 Ohio votes. This is too close for comfort, OJ's "emerging majority" nothwithstanding.

Posted by: BB at November 6, 2004 1:09 AM

Wouldn't you know, out of 10,000 advisors, Clinton was the one guy Kerry wouldn't listen to.

Posted by: AC at November 6, 2004 8:12 AM


They aren't a minority, they're transgressives.

Posted by: oj at November 6, 2004 8:15 AM

One thing I'd like to know is how many gays actually got married in Mass.?

It's pretty obvious that their desire has always been to destroy the institution that describes their activities as sinful, hoping the majority would be complacent enough to allow the cathedral to tumble because, after all, termites deserve to eat, too.

Posted by: Randall Voth at November 6, 2004 10:02 AM

To all of you who voted to ban gay marriage across this nation (191,099 of you in Jefferson County, Kentucky, alone, or 3 out of every 5 voters), I have this to say: SHAME on you! With your vote, you have chosen to intentionally and maliciously hurt people simply because you disapprove, youre offended, youre afraid. You have passed judgment, and have decided that homosexuals are not deserving of the same basic rights as you.

This ban was mean-spirited and hateful from the outset, and your yes vote has brought your hatred right to my front door. But what have you really accomplished with this measure? How has destroying my rights protected your marriage? Is your family truly better off because mine has been marginalized? Do you honestly feel good about your decision, knowing that, because of you, the person I love most in this world can now be prevented from carrying out my dying wishes, perhaps even from being at my bedside when I am gravely ill, and that we can never have the benefits and protections under the law that you take for granted?

There is talk of healing the divide in this nation, but I, for one, cannot imagine such a healing. As I walk through my neighborhood, shop for groceries, order dinner at a local restaurant, I now KNOW that 3 out of every 5 of you have consciously chosen to hurt me and mine. I am acutely aware that you consider me to be lesser than, undeserving of even basic human rights. I also know that most of you will continue to smile and maintain the pleasantries of a civilized society when you encounter me, and, in all probability, I will do the same. But things are NOT the same, because now I know how you really feel. Youve known you felt this way all along; I didnt know it until Tuesday.

The simple fact it this: this ban wont affect your life AT ALL, but it will most certainly affect mine.


Susan McKellep

Louisville, KY

Posted by: Susan McKellep at November 6, 2004 11:06 PM

Ms McKellep:

You never had a right to marry the person of your choice--you've lost nothing. We've preserved, for now, one of the central institutions of human civilization. It's not about you.

Posted by: oj at November 7, 2004 8:41 AM

Ns. McKekllep:

Marriage is a gift from God. Because God designed and defined it, neither you or I have the right redefine it to fit ourwhims or fancies.

I do empathize with your viewpoint and your anguish over the election results. Please don't let this consume you or lead you into despair.

Posted by: D. P. at November 8, 2004 11:07 AM