There’s a brand new dance, and I don’t know its name . . .
–David Bowie, “Fashion”
All I can say is, “whew.” It turns out that we gays are not immoral after all. That’s a relief. One thing that absolutism and party loyalty are good for is that they relieve us common folk of the responsibility of thinking for ourselves. Which is why was soooo glad to see these headlines on the HuffingtonPost this morning (note the sarcasm, people) :
Admittedly, I’m happier to see the Dem’s reaction tilt this way instead of toward the current Republican mantra. Remember, the R party platform affirms that “homosexuality is incompatable with military service” and “protecting marriage.” I have a hard time, though, discerning if these are actual personally held views or mere political triangulation. Because while they were quick to criticize the comments of General Pace, (and his comments were certainly inappropriate at the least–feel how you like, General, but don’t express personal views like that when representing in Uniform), Democrats were not quite so forthcoming with their own personal and policy feelings on the matter. Unlike former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who penned an editorial for the Washington Post vehemently condemning DADT–and, respectfully, Pace’s comments–despite his own party’s platform:
Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that “gay” is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman’s on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation.
No such straightforward answer from these two Democrats. Only yesterday the nets were pervasively abuzz with criticism of Senator Clinton for hedging her answer and saying she’d “leave that for others to conclude” when asked if she thought homosexuality was immoral. Many gay activists and bloggers considered her remarks”lukewarm,” at best, and so, dutiful Hillary released her “clarified” version of a statement today:
“I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don’t ask, don’t tell policy. I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner’s statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe.”
Senator Obama took his sweet time rehearsing his footwork and finally release his own carefully tailored statement meant to offend the least amount of people:
“As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years.”
A commenter named Joan had this succinct bit of wisdom to consider:
I don’t care whether Barack or Hillary think I am immoral, what I want to know is whether they will work to insure that I have the same rights as everyone else. I haven’t yet heard that.
Bingo. Neither one of these candidates has endorsed marriage equality, and as a gay man in a long-term relationship, that’s a very important issue to me. Senator Obama has said multiple times that he does not endorse gay marriage.
Now, I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Having read his statements that marriage is an issue best left to the states, and his strong statement against those using the FMA in order to “break a consensus that is quietly being forged in this country,”I once might have thought Obama’s position was one of principle, but it becomes more and more apparent that he is just as carefully calculating in his expressed opinions as his competing Democratic ally.
And so the dance of trepidatious triangulation–what I’m now calling the Democrat Scramble–continues–while, like the wallflowers of the Democratic Party, we homosexuals wait for our own turn to boogie.