Wednesday, August 29, 2007

I Still Don’t Get It   [Jonah Goldberg]

I’m with Mark and John Hood on this one. But, let me take it in a slightly different direction.

Every liberal and libertarian in the world seems utterly convinced that Sen. Craig is a hypocrite for voting against gay marriage while (allegedly) periodically indulging his carnal desires to get jiggy with men in bathrooms and, presumably, other romantic hotspots.  For example, Nick Gillespie writes:

It is easy — because it is accurate — to savor the rank hypocrisy of Craig's personal and public behavior. An arch-social conservative, Craig voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that barred national recognition of gay unions, and he is a strong supporter of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. It seems nothing short of pathetic that Craig, who had brushed off rumors of homosexual activity for years, would deny the option of matrimony to some of the same men from whom he supposedly sought sex in restrooms.

Now, I think it’s clear that Craig’s (alleged) behavior is terrible. And Nick is surely correct that it’s nothing short of pathetic. But I’d like someone to walk very slowly through the argument that it’s hypocritical to A) indulge in anonymous gay sex in seedy locations and B) oppose gay marriage. Last I checked, the common definition of hypocrisy involves saying one thing and doing another. Well, Craig  wasn’t trying to marry anybody in stall #3 was he?  In all the news reports I’ve seen he was propositioning some random dude on the crapper.*  But maybe there’s been a sea of typos out there and Craig was actually proposing? I kind of doubt it.

In fairness, there are two definitions of hypocrisy, one involves contradicting a specific principle (denouncing adultery while cheating on your wife, for example) and the other is looser, suggesting mere low behavior from someone who pretends to be morally high-minded. So sure, I guess I’m with you if you’re going by the second definition – assuming, as Mona suggested , that he really did pretend to be a morally superior guy.

But that’s not what Gillespie and others seem to be saying. The hypocrisy charge seems to depend entirely on the assertion that opposition to gay marriage is “anti-gay” and therefore Craig is a hypocrite because he’s (allegedly) gay himself. But, that’s not very persuasive to me on both counts. One, I’m basically opposed to gay marriage – for the time being – but I don’t think that makes me anti-gay. Indeed, I’ve known lots of gay people who don’t care a whit about gay marriage. And, until recently, gay marriage itself was defined as “anti-gay” by the gay left. More broadly, one can simply believe as a matter of principle or faith that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that’s that while at the same time having much love or sympathy  in your heart for gay people.

That being anti-gay marriage and anti-gay are synonymous is a entirely a political argument that people are confusing for a philosophical truth. It remains “not proven” as Arlen Specter might say.

Moreover, aren’t there worse and more accurate labels for someone in Craig’s situation? Self-hater, fool, sex-addict, adulterer, pervert, sinner: all of these come to mind. But the problem for the left is that hypocrisy is the politically useful charge while  archaic concerns like sin, perversion or adultery are at minimum problematic. The left doesn’t – as a matter of passion or strong principle – really mind gay cruising, they mind people who really disapprove of gay cruising. If Craig’s personal conduct really offended liberals, Jim McGreevey – a seedier man personally than Craig by any conventional standard – wouldn’t be a hero. But, no, it’s Craig’s political conduct, not his personal conduct, that offends the left. And so, they take up the well-worn hypocrisy cudgel not to condemn cruising bathrooms, but for voting against gay marriage.

* Kathryn: "Crapper" may be archaic, but it is acceptable English! 

08/29 04:30 PMShare