Sullivan knows that the current political climate is a crucial day in the cause of homosexuality. With Canada's legislation approving gay marriages and the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas ruling an anti-sodomy law unconstitutional, the drumbeat of the homosexual war movement grew louder. Then the gay marriage debate lit the fuse and the war began. Sullivan, from what I can discern, is their best print captain.
In a poignant essay published in the Wall Street Journal late last year, entitled “What Are They For?” Mr. Sullivan asks what seems to be a fair question:
What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? Amazingly, the current answer is entirely a negative one. The majority of social conservatives oppose gay marriage; they oppose gay citizens serving their country in the military; they oppose gay citizens raising children; they oppose protecting gay citizens from workplace discrimination; they oppose including gays in hate-crime legislation, while including every other victimized group; they oppose civil unions; they oppose domestic partnerships; they oppose… well, they oppose, for the most part, every single practical measure that brings gay citizens into the mainstream of American life. This is simply bizarre.
In short, Mr. Sullivan says social conservatives are merely negative, and have nothing positive to offer to the debate. It's all negativity and, by implication, merely the rantings of cranks.
Toward the end of the article he writes: “If this debate is to move forward, a few simple questions therefore have to be answered: What is the social conservative position on civil unions? What aspects of them can conservatives get behind? What details are they less convinced by? These are basic public policy questions to which social conservatives, for the most part, have yet to provide an answer. It's well past time they did.”
Mr. Sullivan's allegation about social conservatives' negativity requires a response, especially when written in such a civilized tone.
As a preliminary, it must be understood that social conservatives view homosexuality as a disorder. A criminal disorder? Probably not. A disorder along the lines of, say, alcoholism? That's closer to the mark. Although the evidence is layered and complex and sometimes contradictory, the best conclusion with our current level of understanding says homosexuality results from a combination of factors, some beyond the individual's control — like genetic make-up and early childhood experiences — and some that the individual cultivates.
This is a conclusion, incidentally, that can be embraced logically, even if a person agrees with the outcome (if not the rationale) in Lawrence. Merely because something is a disorder, it doesn't mean that it should be outlawed, just as the drunkenness of an alcoholic is generally tolerated as long as the person doesn't drive, get abusive, or appear too inebriated in public.
This understanding is crucial in order to respond to Mr. Sullivan's assertion that social conservatives are merely negative. And it's crucial because it highlights the futility of arguing with Mr. Sullivan on those terms.
Mr. Sullivan criticizes the social conservatives for lacking a positive agenda toward homosexuality. Well, yeah. Social conservatives view it as a negative thing, so their response to its proliferation is generally negative.
By analogy, let's say a group of citizens want to open a full-scale brothel, complete with a bar in the front and bedrooms in the back. Another group of citizens in town opposes it because they believe the indulgence of illicit sexual activity is a disorder that creates misery, both for the practitioners and the people near the activity.
It would be disingenuous for the pro-brothel folk to say, “All right, how about if we just have a bar where johns can hook-up with the ladies, but the actual sexual activity must take place in hotels? No? How about if we get rid of the bar and just have a bunch of bedrooms? No? Come on guys, you're entirely negative on this. What positive ideas do you have for getting a brothel into the community?”
Likewise, the social conservatives' response to the range of pro-homosexual proposals — gay marriages, domestic partnerships, gay adoption, civil rights legislation to provide special protection — is opposition. That's the logical response given the respective positions.
If Mr. Sullivan expects social conservatives to have “positive” ideas for their position, I'd challenge him to come up with some negative ideas for his position. In other words, what ideas does Mr. Sullivan have to oppose the spread of homosexuality? He may be able to scramble for a few, but in general, his agenda must be filled with “positive” ideas.
Incidentally, lest anyone think that I'm ceding the “positive/negative” advantage to Mr. Sullivan (by letting him call his ideas positive and social conservatives' negative), I should hasten to add that this entire analysis depends on how one frames the issue: If the goal is more homosexuality, then Mr. Sullivan's ideas are “positive” and social conservatives' are “negative.” If, on the other hand, the goal is less homosexuality, then Mr. Sullivan's ideas are “negative” and social conservatives' are “positive.”
Social conservatives should avoid ceding the “positive” high ground to Mr. Sullivan and his followers. But first and foremost, they need to make sure they don't cede the entire battle by forgetting that homosexuality is a disorder that ought not be encouraged.
© Copyright 2004 Catholic Exchange
Eric Scheske is a freelance writer, a Contributing Editor of Godspy, and the former editor of Gilbert Magazine. You can view his work at a www.ericscheske.com .
