Centerfield

No law was ever passed to grant these protections under Clinton, so no law is needed to reverse them. Clinton only issued this executive order in 2000, just before Bush took over. It's quite common for last minute executive orders to be turned over by the next administration. Gay rights have never been acknowledged in any federal law. Gays have never been a "protected class" in federal civil rights law.

Andrew Sullivan is a pro gay marriage single-issue voter, placing himself well outside the mainstream center on these issues.

It's true that if you defined centrism to mean the opinion of the "median voter" then the center would be against gay marriage.

But the centrism we advocate at the Centrist Coalition is a forward-thinking one, trying to synthesize the best of left and right. Marriage has a conservatizing effect, and marriage is likely to make gays more bourgeois.

A number of conservative writers are "soft" on gay marriage. I've even spoken to an anti-abortion activist who thinks the anti-gay marriage movement won't succeed in the long term.

Gay marriage is a new concept, and it takes a while to adjust to it. But it's likely to be accepted in the long term, and politicians who oppose it are likely to remembered in the same way that segregationsts are now recalled.

"Gay rights have never been acknowledged in any federal law. Gays have never been a "protected class" in federal civil rights law."

That's thinly veiled rhetoric for "we want to be free to discriminate against gays and lesbians".

I understand completely.

I guess there's little hope for honest discourse from Erasmus today.

Rick, you said gay marriage was forward thinking. How do we determine what is forward thinking, versus backward thinking? You said this site picks the best ideas from the right and left -- can we objectively say what those are, wouldn't there be strong disagreement in america which ideas are best, even among centrists? Or do you just assume by fiat that the best and most forward thinking ones are your own? Which ideas are stinkers or winners? Small government, socialized medicine, college admission racial preferences, gun control?

Seems to me that the actual ratio of current popular opinion has to be considered in determining what a "centrist" position is, otherwise it is subjective to the point of being totally arbitrary.

So is gay marriage forward or backward thinking? Anti-abortion activists think they are forward thinking. Perhaps one day, society will look back on abortion with the same embarassed revulsion as slavery. Maybe our descendants will ask, "How could you butcher millions of unborn babies without any consideration, as if they weren't even human at all, like a slaveholder treats its slaves?" Then again, maybe the future government will offer tax breaks to women who offer their aborted fetuses as materiel for life extending operations. Who can say with confidence which direction opinion and governance will move in America? The people who agree with an issue think it moves the country forward, those who disagree, backward.

You said with some confidence that gay marriage will be accepted in the long term. That's what prohibitionists thought, and they had the huge popular majorities required to pass a federal constitutional amendment. In contrast, gay marriage has huge majorities voting to ban it constitutionally in state after state. No state legislature has ever passed a law sanctioning gay marriage. The legal movement towards gay marriage has only come from inventive courts.

Today, prohibition is remembered as a doomed experiment that defied human nature. Perhaps the introduction of gay marriage would be remembered the same way. I think the central issue is the perspective of their children. Will society view gay parents as equally good for the children they adopt and artificially inseminate? Regardless of our opinion, what will be the opinion of the children who actually grow up with gay parents? Would they wish it on other children? That will probably influence the outcome.

There are no guarantees in life, so I could be wrong in my assessment that gay marriage will be accepted and conventional in the future.

But I distinguish between what I call "forward-thinking centrism" from liberalism by looking analytically at the issue and at the underlying principles.

A typical left-wing response to gays is to assume that, being oppressed, they are the vanguard of morality. What follows is an endorsement of radical gay practices, like multiple sex partners and anonymous sex. Such a position has no appeal to centrists. On the other hand, marriage, which its implied monogamy and contractual responsibilities, does draw on the principles which centrists value.

Gay parenting (and adoption) is a slightly different issue than marriage. I'm confident that two lesbians can make swell parents (and I know of a few cases personally). I'm not confident that two gay men can make good parents--not because they're gay but because they're men.

Rickheller said, "Gay parenting (and adoption) is a slightly different issue than marriage. "

It's not a different issue at all, it is an inseparable issue, because the two are a package deal. With actual marriage, comes the absolute right to adopt at will and raise artificially inseminated children. Lawsuits would quickly make it so for any agency or clinic that disagreed.

Many think of gay marriage only in terms of the desires of two adults -- but the foremost concern is the perspective and best interests of the children they would raise. What will the children who grow up in this new type of family say, would they wish it on their children?

Are civil rights issues the forward and centrist ones? But aren't all the following a question of civil rights, and which side is the forward and centrist one?
* Racial discrimination, epidemic in college admissions (and scholarships) nationally.
* The right to own guns, a 2nd amendment civil right.
* The right of bigamists to marry as many spouses as they choose, as occurs worldwide in Islam (4 max for them).
* The right of adults to marry young children, as occurs in many societies. The right of consulting adults to marry their brother, sister, parents.
* The rights of unborn children, butchered without their consent.
* The right of an individual to sell their own kidney for money.
Don't assume my perspective on any of the above, just a rhetorical question.

Suppose for the sake of argument I grant that he's a single issue voter. How does this address the
substance of his posts on other issues?

I'm well aware that the impressions you describe are the "widespread impressions" of conservatives who have read his material for a long time, but it's not my impression that this reaction is shared by all his readers.

And even if I go much further and grant that Sully's feelings on gay marriage have, as you put it, somehow "tainted" his views on all other issues, exactly how does this taint relieve you from the honest critic's burden of showing that his nevertheless cogent views on issues like Iraq and fiscal responsibility are incorrect and not worth considering?

Even if you are right that he is a one-issue voter _AND_ that his views are tainted, pointing this out is simply a lazy way to dismiss his now seemingly apostate views out of hand. Without addressing them.

In other words, if you disagree with his take on one of the issues, tell us why what he says is off the mark. To simply claim that his view can no longer be trusted because he's obsessed with gay marriage is gross misdirection, and in my opinion it's aimed particularly at people who disagree with him on the issue of gay marriage. It's designed to grant such people permission to dismiss his views on other issues as no longer trustworthy, as dismissable without evaluation, without addressing the content and substance of his ideas.

The guy didn't become a moron overnight, you know.

BK, hopefully you aren't in the habit of putting words in people's mouths, and arguing ideas that no one put forward to begin with. Those aren't the habits of an honest debater. But that's all your previous post consisted of.

Falsely attributed to me by BK:
* Because Andrew's views on gay marriage colors everything he writes (I did say this), his views on non-gay topics are incorrect and not worth considering. (I did not say this, non-gay topics not addressed here anywhere at all)
* Andrew's extreme views on gay marriage mean his opinion should be dismissed and not addressed (earth to bk, I did this at great length here)
* Andrew is a moron (ugly, BK)

"In other words, if you disagree with his take on one of the issues, tell us why what he says is off the mark."
I did this at considerable length above.

Here's what I said in my first post here: "Andrew Sullivan is a pro gay marriage single-issue voter, placing himself well outside the mainstream center on these issues. "

I said this because, Andrew is an extreme single issue voter on this issue, making him a poor starting point for discussion on a nominally centrist site. Just my opinion. I do not believe Andrew's views on this subject (or any other) are automatically incorrect and not worth considering or discussion. Obviously, since I discuss and address it at length above.

I do believe Andrew has become a single issue voter, and increasingly let this stance color much of his opinions and writing. That's just my subjective opinion developed from years of reading him -- he's really changed. Because I perceive this strong bias and slant, his opinions have become less interesting and compelling on a variety of subjects, I take them less seriously, as I would for anyone who rejects a candidate based on a single issue, and lets that color discussion of other issues surrounding the candidate. You keep them in perspective.

The above doesn't mean his opinions are automatically invalid, or not worth considering and discussing. I will consider and discuss them on the merits, just as I did his opinions on this subject. Good ideas can come from anyone, no matter how extreme and biased.

I think what's happened to Sully is that, having made a break from the conservatives who he's been flirting with these last few years because of the issue of gay marriage, he's no longer giving them the benefit of the doubt on a number of other issues where he previously might have.

BK is our psychologist, so perhaps he can come up with some words to describe it.

I'm no psychologist...but I'd call it "growing up".

But them I'm a liberal. Sometimes it takes folks awhile to mature into liberalism. :)