RSS Feed MenuI don’t know why, but I can’t get Marvin Liebman’s voice out of my ear.
Liebman, the veteran conservative activist and close friend of William F. Buckley Jr., generated national headlines in the summer of 1990 when he announced in the pages of National Review that he was gay. He also accused the conservative movement of exploiting homophobia for political gain, and urged the American right to reconsider its skeptical view of the gay rights movement.
Eventually, Liebman washed his hands of the conservative movement, realizing that the “ordered liberty” vision of conservatism could never coexist with gay rights. He died of heart failure in the spring of 1997; perhaps he was literally broken-hearted over his failure to convince social conservatives to embrace libertarianism vis-à-vis the gay rights question.
I hear Liebman’s voice every time I read a story about gay marriage, gay adoption, the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, etc. Now, in the wake of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8, Liebman’s voice is so loud I can barely hear myself think.
I was not in favor of the effort to have the courts invalidate Proposition 8. I felt that the integrity of the ballot initiative process in California should not be compromised, even if it meant maintaining a policy that some might not like.
Yet I always heard Liebman’s voice asking why I was not in favor of justice for same-sex couples, why I couldn’t see that Prop. 8 was a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Liebman’s voice asked if I even cared about basic human dignity, basic human rights, basic human fairness.
I did not know how to answer.
Is there a conservative case for same-sex marriage? I’ve long maintained that the answer is no, that while there is a progressive case, a libertarian case, and even a non-partisan case for same-sex marriage, conservatism’s reverence for tradition is so strong that it’s not possible for a “novelty” like same-sex marriage to be accepted on the right.
Yet I still hear Liebman in my ear, declaring that conservatism is about more than just tradition. Conservatism, he says, is also about freedom and about justice–and from this standpoint, there is, in fact, a conservative case for according same-sex couples equality under the law.
Does he not have a point?
When I see George Will declare that among younger Americans, being gay is viewed as no different than being left-handed, I hear Liebman cheer. When I read stories about how Americans under the age of 35 embrace the gay rights movement unconditionally, I hear Liebman celebrate. Yet, when I notice conservatives questioning American society’s increasing acceptance of gay rights, I hear Liebman cry.
I don’t know what’s going to happen with this Prop. 8 case. When it makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, how will the Justices vote? Will the high court declare that bans on same-sex marriage cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny? If so, how will conservatives react?
Again, I don’t know. However, despite my misgivings about the lawsuit that led us to this point, I can’t get Marvin Liebman’s voice out of my ear. In fact, right now, he’s yelling, “Let freedom ring, damn it! Let freedom ring!”
Originally published at Red Mass Group.
sinz54 // Aug 7, 2010 at 1:46 pm
There used to be a strong libertarian component to conservatism. Barry Goldwater for one. William F. Buckley was a proponent of decriminalizing marijuana.
And in the 1970s, the National Review opined that gay Americans have much the same concerns as straight Americans: They work hard, they pay taxes, they worry about inflation and getting laid off, etc. And therefore, there is no reason why conservatives couldn’t appeal to gays on those issues.
But circa 1978, the marriage (pun intended) of the more libertarian economic conservatives with the social conservatives ended that libertarian side of conservatism. From then on, it was going to defend the status quo socially.
As long as conservatism’s philosophical base is Christianity rather than capitalism, it will continue to be opposed to gay marriage.
Rabiner // Aug 7, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Sinz54:
“As long as conservatism’s philosophical base is Christianity rather than capitalism, it will continue to be opposed to gay marriage.”
You make a strong point regarding why Gay Marriage is so opposed by current conservatives but would of been accepted by past ones. Since 1978 (I’d say 1980 but I’ll use your year) when the Moral Majority gained power within the establishment Republican Party this country has become much more divisive regarding cultural issues. One side advocates a hands off approach and one advocates state mandated control. It just so happens that the hands off approach is not advocated by conservatives but rather liberals. It’s a weird flip of the script which I’ve experienced my entire life since I was born in 1983.
busboy33 // Aug 7, 2010 at 4:57 pm
A self-interested buisnessman can look at any situation dispassionately and assess its potential benefits and detriments. “Gays? Well, a vote is a vote. Works out for everybody. Don’t like it, but that ain’t got nothing to do with buisness.”
A zealot cannot adapt. Rather than figuring out “how do I use the current situation to match my best interests” the zealot says “how do I change the current situation to mirror my best idea”.
@Sinz — do you think its possible to change that base? I mean, obviously All Things Are Possible, but is it reasonable to think the GOP can make that shift?
noufa // Aug 8, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Why should people embrace the gay rights movement (or ANY movement) unconditionally?
Why should libertarians promote positive rights for married people, gay or straight?
Why should I equate tax cuts with basic human rights?
“If so, how will conservatives react?”
Probably by refusing to submit their church definition of marriage to the state definition of marriage.
jerseyboy // Aug 10, 2010 at 6:48 pm
You can’t “take away” a right that heretofore has never existed. Your assumption that same-sex marriage is a right begs the question, i.e., it presumes as true the very point that is in dispute in this debate!
busboy33 // Aug 10, 2010 at 10:48 pm
@jerseyboy:
“You can’t “take away” a right that heretofore has never existed. ”
Marriage by itself has been considered a fundamental right:
“THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER
The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (‘[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right’ and marriage is an ‘expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.’); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (‘The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.’); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (‘This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The ‘freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (‘Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.’).
The parties do not dispute that the right to marry is fundamental.”
Perry, p.110
Prop. 8 was specifically designed to stop gays and lesbians for exercising that right:
“Finding of Facts –
#63. Proposition 8 eliminates the right to marry for gays and lesbians but does not affect any other substantive right under the California Constitution. Strauss, 207 P3d at 102 (‘Proposition 8 does not eliminate the substantial substantive [constitutional] protections afforded to same-sex couples[.]‘) (emphasis in original).”
Perry, p.90
The question in the case was NOT whether gays have a right to marry. The question was whether the State had a compelling enough reason to limit that right. Citizens have a right to Freedom of Speech, but the State has a compelling interest in preventing you from yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
If your approach is that since gays wern’t married before, then the right didn’t exist, unfortunately Rights aren’t “verified” in the same way as empirical datum — for example, a new species is only verified when you actually see it. Basic Rights are inherent in the nature of Humanity — a society not acknowledging that Right doesn’t mean the Right doesn’t exist . . . but rather that the Stare is failing to honor that Right.