Santorum on the three-way, bigots on the left

Here we go again.  This afternoon Rick Santorum was booed loudly and roundly at a collegiate event (hello?  fellow professors?) in New Hampshire when, challenged on his rejection of civil marriage for gays and lesbians, he suggested that such a right might also include marriages consisting of three or more partners.

(In the past, he has, idiotically, also suggested that the argument for gay marriage might be extended to "man on dog."  I'm not even fond of dogs in the conventional sense so, yes, this does seem like a different case to me.  Call me conservative.  But for heaven's sake, don't call this guy Mr. President.  Nevertheless...)

Those on the left of him (most of the room) seemed to think that introducing the idea that the grounds for gay marriage and the grounds for plural marriage are similar constitutes a smear campaign designed to make gay marriage seem radical.  But the grounds for these two cases are not similar, they are the same.  If marriage is to be understood as a civil institution joining two people together in a contract that includes things like commitment and intimacy and fulfillment and a communion of support, well, why would this be limited to duets?

I'm not being sarcastic here.  I can readily imagine a home of two men and one woman, maybe with a child or two from a previous marriage or one of the sexual unions, in which the three adults are genuinely committed to a community of intimacy and partnership.  We always imagine the suggestion of plural unions as swinging sexy "three-fers," when in fact, I'm guessing, in real life these communities may well develop out of a web of long-term friendships and support (you know, the way your marriage did).

You are disagreeing, saying we outlawed this already.  Didn't I just see the trial, with oppressed pale women in oversize Laura Ingalls Wilder get-ups and a really sick misogynist at the helm of it all? Well, yes.  But these sins are not unique to people living in compounds in rural Idaho, bad romances are all over my lovely Connecticut suburb.  If the guy on TV had been happy with just one abused woman, of course, this would all be on the up and up.

The point here is that we have already, in the civil realm, re-defined marriage in such a way that plural marriage is simply another form of Heather's two mommies and Tommy's life with his single dad and your cousin's two-person straight marriage on the beach with a Universal life minister. The consensus at the moment is to regard civil marriage as a private deal about the happiness of those involved, and the rest is none of your business.

Santorum is quite right to point this out, and those who boo to shut down thinking are the bigots in the room.

Election results

No global statement on the not-yet-midterm elections here, we make only modest observations. 

John Dickerson, posting in Slate just after midnight, offers nuance, rejecting the notion of Obama coat-tails one way or another.  "But," he adds... 

... all this talk about Obama also obscures a better message: For the GOP, the stronger argument coming out of the 2009 elections is that voters are embracing Republican ideas. The GOP won in a purple state and in a solidly Democratic state.

Ideas matter.  Peter Bienart (Daily Beast) points to the economy -- which, by the way, is an idea (so, not just an "objective" reporting of facts, it's a concept, it's numbers in a specific context, we have an image of how it functions, etc.), and to the fact that culture war talk didn't seem to be much of a factor.

For example, the culture war didn't get much traction in Virgina (Palin was not invited to visit and rally the Republican troops). But, sleeper alert:  yesterday's Washington Post had this short profile on the Catholic formation of the Republican winner (coming soon to a national race near you?) in the Virginia governor's race:   Bob McDonnell.  I note that while he was a Domer as an undergrad, his graduate work in law and public policy was in the Pat Robertson mode, so don't blame us.  Seriously, though, this evangelical-Catholic combo is very common outside the Northeast, and merits a lot of attention.  There are ways in which it is problematic -- for example, it too easily reduces Catholic social teaching to a list of neo-con talking points.  But this sensibility has also re-engaged Catholics in many parts of the U.S. in terms of core Christian beliefs, which is good.

Same-sex marriage lost, narrowly, in Maine.  We recall that this was a test of whether the general public, not courts or legislatures, would vote to make same-sex marriage legal. It's not unprecedented to have the courts "ahead" (guess that's a loaded word) of the general sensibility on social change.  I, for example, would consider voting in favor of same-sex marriage at the state level only if there really were a firewall between the civil and religious orders, because I think the Catholic hand should not be forced here -- if same-sex relations are to be part of the Catholic Christian sacramental imagination, this will take time.  In a similar way, as marriage is a question of civil community, it is important that we allow some time for the community sense about gays and lesbians to emerge in the civil order. So I disagree with Linda Hirshman who, confining the question to "equal rights," says we should "Get Gay Marriage Off the Ballot."

UPDATE:  In terms of how this is framed as a "loss" -- check out the thoughtful tmatt:  "Maine Point:  Someone Loses, Someone Wins."

I announced the strong Republican showing to the spouse, who muttered darkly about someone named Huns (perhaps a consultant of some kind?).

Odds n' Ends

I observed two entries ago the rising number of young adults who are comfortable with gays and lesbians AND call themselves pro-life. This is surprising only to us old people who are obsessed with red state/blue state categories.

Young viewers of contemporary TV have been fed a steady high-sugar diet of friendly lesbians and celebrity teen bumps, all shot with gorgeous production values. And certainly -- given that both homosexuals and unmarried mothers have been portrayed for decades as selfish, sinful, deviant and/or mentally ill -- allowing a few other folks on the set of "Leave it to Beaver" is only fair.

For example, Matt Bai, in today's Times [HERE], notes that acceptance of gay marriage is growing so quickly that political figures' positions are lagging behind the grassroots; most leading Democrats, for example, are on record as in favor of gay unions but opposed to having the state affirm gay marriage.  Expect some revisionism as November 2010 approaches. 

And yes, "pro-life" is increasingly a socially acceptable default position, which does not mean that one rejects all abortion on principle, as observed in a piece featured in this blog's Today's Reading section two days ago (you do check out Today's Reading everyday, yes?). One could argue that this is problematic:  as the label goes mainstream, it loses its tight focus and becomes a bigger tent -- not all self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" are opposed to all abortion; some want to overturn Roe, some don't; some think there's a difference between early and late-term cases, etc.  But this lack of precision is an issue only if you're a pollster. For the rest, the fact that many are casually claiming to be pro-life makes it more likely (I hope) that they will be open to a consideration of the genuine claim that the unborn have on us. It's not a rigorous position, but it's a start.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

It may not surprise you to hear that shopping at the local mall sends my soul into free-fall. Margaret Faith, age 8, and I, walking through the local mall a few weeks ago, decided that Victoria sure can't keep a secret. And last night's eye-roller, dress shopping with a teen, was a store devoted to young women's fashion with a distinctly "come hither" tone. The store is called "Maybee" but should really be known as "Quite Likely," if not "A Sure Thing."

All of which is lite chuckle material. But then I find that the tween aspirational fashion store Limited Too is now called ... wait for it ... "Justice." A pink-and-purple bottoms n' tops store called Justice, that sells "looks you luv for less."

So, yes, it's possible to "mainstream" a term into George Orwell territory.

*****

ALSO, on the SCOTUS pick: With regard to the President's widely-assumed preference for a second female justice and his stated claim that the next justice needs "empathy," Rodger Citron and Dahlia Lithwick argue HERE that "Conflating judicial empathy with gender is bad for both women and the law." Let's hope Obama's not channeling John Paul II on this one. In his more direct remarks today, Obama chooses instead to use language of "a common touch" and "a practical sense of how the world works."  Better.