Eliot Sherman: Trying to fathom the call against gay unions

My old faithful, The Weekly Standard -- in an attempt to move on from the uncomfortable position of publishing a Saddam-Osama revelation that the White House, the president and the Department of Defense have denied -- moved on to a much more palatable issue this week: gay marriage, which the magazine opposes.

The article, which paints the struggle to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman as an epic battle between the forces of good and evil (guess who the bad guys are), has the following to say: "But civil unions are one unwise step down a path away from a marriage culture. Gay marriage is the end of the road."

Perhaps they didn't get the memo, but I was under the impression that it was cool to be gay these days.

The writer is the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. (Have you ever noticed that with advocacy groups, the more benevolent they sound, the more radical their agenda is? Not necessarily this particular example, but in general. If I ever run across anyone from the Institute of Teddy Bears and Easy Listening Music, it would strike fear into my heart. Ugh, easy listening.)

In any event, the author apparently does not care for the grooming tips of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, the light humor of Will and Grace, indie movies like Kissing Jessica Stein and all the other things I'm forgetting. Now I'm not saying there's a social movement going on, but recently people seem to be finding homosexuality a bit more palatable. I appear to be immune though, since I'm still scruffy and I still don't know what a loofah is.

For me, like many guys, the issue of homosexuality falls firmly into the Seinfeld-esque category of "and-there's-nothing-wrong-with-that." Because there isn't, and it doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. You know. Most of the time.

My feelings on the subject may be in the minority, however, as a Washington Post article this month quoted GOP strategists as saying that they intended to make gay marriage a wedge issue in this presidential election. And thus, the new southern strategy was born.

The way many politicians treat this issue is very revealing. Since it is no longer polite to publicly denounce homosexuality, politicians take the "compassionate" approach to the subject (unless, of course, you're Rick Santorum, in which case you take the appallingly honest approach and end up talking about "man on dog" with a young AP reporter). But when it comes time to pass legislation, that compassion is not reflected by action.

You know the routine. Reach out in your rhetoric, because after all, gay people vote too. Talk of fairness and equality and acceptance. Talk about your gay friends, or if you're Dick Cheney, the gay daughter you damn near disowned. But can the Log Cabin Republicans get a table at the convention? Heavens no, that simply wouldn't do.

In fairness, this sort of behavior is not limited to the Republican Party. Joe Lieberman, a man I will not be voting for, looks extremely ill at ease whenever anyone brings up the issue of gay marriage and, when pressed, has said that he is opposed to it. As for the over-under on Dean's position, well, have fun with all that.

I can understand looking at this issue as a purely political one. What I really can't understand is why it matters so much to some people. What earthly bit of difference does it make to me if my next-door neighbors are both named John? Why does the party of laissez-faire government feel the urge to peek into bedrooms and make sure everyone is having good, clean, old-fashioned sex?

More importantly, where do politicians get the audacity to believe that they can legislate the hearts and souls of their constituents? Stop me if I sound Republican, but what earthly business does the federal government have meddling in people's lives like that?

I don't think there's really any effective way to take the pulse of the country -- since everyone basically disagrees about everything -- but to the extent that any sort of consensus will be reached on this issue, I think that the Republicans' strategy may backfire. Especially with younger voters (in the event that they vote, of course), I think that this is almost a non-issue. I can only hope.Eliot Sherman is a junor English major from Philadelphia, Pa and editorial page editor-elect of The Daily Pennsylvanian.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.