The Obama Project@WindonWater.net

I may say something totally different 3 days from now, and of course, history still has to be the final judge. But here’s what I wrote in other online incarnations, and I want to capture it here:

I had a bit of an epiphany about the whole gay marriage thing this weekend, and I can say with some degree of certainty that there is a lot of ambivalence on the subject of “gay marriage” though most people want to ensure “gay rights.” Even Sarah Palin wants to ensure gay rights – that’s why she spoke as she did in the debate. The glitch comes in when the assumption is that there is a right to “marriage.” People start getting uncomfortable there.

On another board I wrote this:

The grand idea that enabled us to shake off the idea of a monarchy was that government exists largely to uphold a social contract and nothing more. That we cede to government ONLY what we must to preserve the social contract, and otherwise would rather be left to our own devices. That is the fundamental conceit of the American political identity. Liberal or progressive ideas gain favor when we perceive a threat to the social order (as do conservative ones like sanctity of marriage acts) because that’s the role we envision for government. Involving government where we don’t have to is counter the American identity. Liberals are perceived as always wanting to change things by means of government intervention and expansion – the very opposite of the social contract theory of government upon which the nation was founded.

This was in answer to a question “Why do the American people favor liberal ideas but refuse to identify themselves as liberals?” But I quoted it because it occurs to me that at least some resistance to gay marriage has nothing to do with bigotry, and everything to do with identity. Americans identify heterosexual marriage as part of what American society is about and perceive any effort to change that as a threat to the social order – an area in which government is supposed to intervene. Meanwhile gay rights activists are trying to expand the horizon of what it means to be American. And for the most part – that’s what this entire election has been about. What does it mean to be American? And it has everything to do with why those folks in Appalachia, who self-identify as “American” as opposed to “white” or any other ethnicity, are struggling… the definition of American has been shifting for the past two years, and that’s really hard work.

There are other more intellectual arguments about gay “marriage” – but the reason they are non-starters (to my chagrin) is because the majority of the people aren’t thinking in those terms. The majority are thinking in terms of what it means to be American at a gut level, and they haven’t found “gay marriage” anywhere in their make up, yet.

That’s where courts get to step in – indeed, need to. Courts need to look at the framework of our democracy and decide if something can or cannot fit into what is justifiably understood as “American.” Common understanding comes later in those cases.

Once again – this makes the case for Barack Obama’s candidacy. Just by holding the office and acquitting himself well in the role, he expands our common understanding – expands the parameters of what it means to be American – and that expansion is inherently good for the nation.

QT

Trackback URI | Comments RSS