No, not Krugman. Kristof. He meanders for a few hundred words about the possible hereditary and environmental factors in homosexuality (including an aside about “lesbian seagulls”), and then he hits you with this:
The bottom line is that same-sex love is a mystery far more subtle than just a matter of Biblical injunction — just as interracial love has turned out to be. A 1958 poll found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites (Deuteronomy 7:3 condemns interracial marriages). In 1959 a judge justified Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage by declaring that “Almighty God . . . did not intend for the races to mix.”
Someday, we will regard opposition to gay marriage as equally obtuse and old-fashioned.
No force is more divine than love, and if some people are encoded to love others of the same sex, how can that be unholy? To me, the blasphemy is not in those who want to share their lives with others of the same sex, but rather in anyone presumptuous enough to vilify that love.
Jon Stewart and his “big, gay audience” also did a great job taking Daschle to task on DOMA on the Daily Show tonight, in addition to christening Howard Dean with a new nickname (Garp.)
I wonder if and when the push for a marriage amendment begins? I wonder if Bush is forced to take a position?
Kristof is right: Put me down in the pro-gay marriage camp (though, as I’ve noted before, I favor a legislative rather than judicial solution to gay marriage.) Two further thoughts, though:
First, Kristof’s cite Deuteronomy 7:3 is weak. Read in context, Deut. 7:3 is a prohibition against inter-racial marriage that applies to a particular group (the Jews) in a particular context (their conquest of the promised land). Here’s the relevant context for the quote:
Kristof’s wrong to equate this narrow, circumstances-dependent prohibition on interracial marriage to the Bible’s clear teachings against homosexuality.*
Second, this piece of homophobic crap is bugging the heck outta me. (Found via Andrew Sullivan.) We’re getting rid of Arab linguists ’cause they’re gay? C’mon, fools — we’re losing dedicated soldiers with skills vital to the war on terror. Eliminate the ban on gay soldiers.
von
*One could take the position that this really amounts to the argument that “prohibitions against racial intermarriage are OK when coupled to a command to commit genocide.” Of course, such a position would require us all to acknowledge that Islam does not, in fact, contain unique and unusual commands to its practioners to wage war against infidels.
I’m wondering if Dick Cheney is going to do the right thing as a responsible and proud father and take the stance that all of his children deserve equal treatment under law…
Seriously. It would actually make me have a good and positive feeling about Dick Cheney if he did actually take a positive stance with regard to gay marriage.
If he takes a negative stance… well, it’ll show how much he really cares for family values, won’t it?
Wow, you know your bible. You’re right. Though I’m guessing that passage was cited to condemn interracial marriage.
If it’s a civil rights issue, as most people who favor gay marriage believe it to be, what’s wrong with the courts making the decision? (If you don’t think it’s a civil rights issue, why don’t you?)
I heard last year about the army discharging 9 gay linguists. I can’t believe they’re still doing it. For that matter, the policy as a whole is doubly ridiculous at a time when there’s a shortage of military manpower & people are starting to talk seriously about a draft.
Bush could take care of this–the application to Arabic linguists if not “Don’t ask, don’t tell” as a whole–with the stroke of a pen. But I’m not holding my breath.
Sure Deut 7:3 in original context meant as von describes, but what if we decide we have a “living” Bible? Then Kristof can still be spot on!
As for wondering if Bush is forced to take a position, for me the far more entertaining question is (presuming his position will be unequivocably that marriage is between a male and a female) what logical contortions the various Democratic candidates will use to try to finesse the issue to placate the gays’ rights faction without alienating the core voter who may be less enthusiatic about the idea. Bush’s position at least will be easily coherent, though, inevitably condemned as “simplese”.
Mike makes an interesting point. One of the more opposed groups in the nations to gay rights is the African American community. Dems need gay money and black votes. An circled that must be squared, or something like that.
Bush can say something alongs the line of what I have been saying. This is an issue that should be decided at the state level, in the normal legislative process. It is wrong for the courts to interfere. Protects his base while not really coming out against it.
This is a wedge issue that isn’t cut and dried beneficial to the Dems.
Katherine, an interesting point to contemplate with regard to the possible resurrection of the draft is that it will be impossible to draft anyone who does not wish to be drafted in today’s political climate unless the military gives up its treasured policy of anti-gay bigotry.
Because if all you have to do to get out of being drafted is to show up at your draft board hand-in-hand with your best buddy (who also does not wish to be drafted) and French kiss him (or her) with heavy groping in front of the draft board… well, who’s not going to do it? It’s a damn sight easier than fleeing to Canada or Mexico, carries little social stigma, and (the way the world is going) seems unlikely to impact badly on your future life.* Just tick the Yes box next to Homosexual?
*Unless, of course, you intend to run for election as a Democrat**.
**Future Republican politicans appear to have an endless supply of medical deferments or can simply go AWOL.
Actually, whether you believe in a living Constitution or you’re an originalist, you’re not supposed to take quotes out of context. The originalist approach would be to break out the Mishnah or the Babylonian Talmud on that passage, I suppose….and you’d certainly have to learn Hebrew or Aramaic. (No, I don’t know which one. Biblical ignoramus here.)