Bob, I think it's a little more subtle than that. What Bush, (Lynne) Cheney, and Bloomberg are after is to alienate Kerry from that portion of the population that would feel embarrassed about having a gay child, and would not want that fact broadcast on national TV (viz. Robin's mother). This is a substantial portion of the electorate, and importantly, it overlaps with the portion that Kerry has specifically targeted in putting forward his "no gay marriage, but domestic partnerships" compromise position.
What does it say about your personal beliefs if you would feel embarrassed about having a gay child? Does it mean you hate your child? No, I think you probably still love them, very much... in particular, for most parents this is a purely hypothetical question, so it is easy to say/think you would. Does it mean you are a homophobe? Yes, I think it probably does. But comparing this background-cultural homophobia to the institutionalized racism we had throughout the country within living memory overstates the case against homophobia. The white people who hated black people were meeting and interacting with black people every day - walking right past them on their way to the whites-only lunch counter, as it were. The straight people who feel a bit queasy about homosexuals, on the other hand, go about their daily lives without knowingly interacting with any gay people at all. The first person, then, must consciously think that whites are superior to blacks and be willing to argue that in order to justify his seat at the lunch counter ("States' rights!"). The second person, however, can think, "If I'm not allowed to marry a woman, and gay women aren't either, that's equal rights, right?"
(N.B. - This is why I think the path forward for gay marriage lies simply in letting gays marry. Once people see the sky not falling they will be able to make their own decisions, independent of what their church leaders and family-values politicians are saying.)
Politically then, Bush-Cheney are on the winning side of this so far (no surprise, they have been pounding the table on it for four news cycles). Even if you think that their attempt to shame Kerry over his mention of Mary is homophobic divisiveness - and I agree that it is - this still puts Kerry in a losing position. What is he going to do, accuse Bush-Cheney of homophobia? Accuse their supporters of being homophobes? That gains him Zero Votes. So he is in a bind.
What he and Edwards and their spokespeople need to do is explain that Mary Cheney is a co-director of the Vice President's campaign, therefore in the public eye. Everyone knows she is a lesbian. Few people know that she has a prominent role in the Republican campaign - and fundamentally, this is what makes her fair game.
Alternatively, as William Rubinstein points out today in the NYT, they can make the case that Bush-Cheney are fighting to enshrine the inequality of one of their own daughters in the Constitution of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Here's the contrast that swing voters see:
Kerry : I think it's great that the Cheney's believe in family values, and embrace their daughter, who we all know is a lesbian.
Cheney: You say my daughter's a lesbian one more time I'm going to smack you.
The battle here is for swing voters. I see Bush/Cheney on the losing side of this -- not the winning one, as Derek does. Swing voters don't like angry and intolerant people. They like happy and tolerant people. And, by depicting Cheney has tolerant of homosexuals, it separates Cheney from his base. It's a winning tactic for Kerry/Edwards.
Post a Comment