Now, I have no problem with sensible arguments against anything. Although I might disagree with them, there are certainly sensible arguments to make against non-discrimination laws – they were made in the 60’s and they’re still rational (albeit wrong) today. Mr. Adams uses none of these.

He writes about the “Tragedy in Illinois,” the passage of a non-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. He blames the Democrats for the law (rightly so, although I think the other side calls it “thanks”) and suggests that if you’ve ever voted for one, you’ve likely been kept up at night by the cries of murdered babies.

Insomnia aside, he gets back on track (I use the term loosely) by noting:

“If company has fifteen or more employees, they will now be compelled by law to hire a representative percentage of gays, just like they must hire a representative percentage of minorities. This includes CHURCH employees. Wicked, truly wicked.”

I can only say that this is completely invalid. Yes, the law applies only to businesses with 15 employees or more. But no where in Illinois law are you required to hire minorities. Granted, you can’t NOT hire someone simply because they are black, handicapped or gay, but you’re not required to seek them out to fill out your stable.

Mr. Adams suggests that the law would include church employees. Another completely invalid claim; the Illinois law exempts churches, although those of the Christian variety should already practice non-discrimination, it’s an important facet of the faith.

Overall, it’s the same law that’s been passed by fourteen other states, and protects gay Illinoians from being fired for a personal trait over which they have no control.

In truth, the only Illinois protected class that exists based on a choice is the only one Mr. Adams would likely fight for: religion.

These moderates have some soul searching to do, and they’re likely wondering if their souls are as blessed as those of their more socially conservative partymates. They’re rightly concerned about their place in the party and if the religiously motivated right-wing of the party is right in claiming a mandate to lead the party down the path of light to Holy victory.

Social moderates have hope for the future of the party, as two top-tier moderates’ names have already been floated for 2008: Giuliani and McCain. If they’ve got some free money and time, they’d be well advised to take a page from the left-wing handbook: early money is like yeast.

[gay republicans]

Although they might hold the same political views as their social moderate counterparts, gay Republicans are perennially seen as self-haters for aligning themselves with a party who consistently uses their lives as a wedge issue to win campaigns. This year was no exception – beyond the President’s marriage amendment proposal and 11 state-level bans on gay marriage, the Republican Party approved a platform that not only opposes gay marriage, but opposes any recognition of any type of same-sex relationships.

Like their straight counterparts, these boys and girls will likely cringe at the thought of a death or retirement on the Supreme Court, and will be cheering on efforts by moderate Senators like Judiciary Chairman-to-be Arlen Specter to ask the President to send middle-of-the-road judges to the Upper House for confirmation. Gay Republicans have the same hope for 2008 as the moderates – that their party will be saved by the venerable former-NYC mayor or the rogue Arizona Senator.



[democrats in general]

Arguably the most disaffected group of all, the Democrats are scrambling to find their place in this new world. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tried to do so this week by sending a plea for new money, noting that “Republicans unleashed every weapon in their arsenal to deliver a knockout blow to Congressional Democrats. They failed!”

Clearly, someone should have mentioned that they need to find their place in the real world. In less fundraising-centric circles, however, the Democratic House Leader has been seen mentioning God and church quite a bit more often in the course of television interviews, which may only further justify the moral right wing’s superiority complex in Republican ranks. Pelosi seems to be enacting Roll Call Executive Editor Morton Kondracke’s Tuesday missive on the Dems and God.

The Dems are also looking four years ahead, but the only two names that keep popping up are Edwards and Clinton. While those names will certainly get their own fired up, this year has proven that their own just isn’t enough. The Republican names on the hotplate for ‘08 are inherently party-line crossers and will suck the energy out of either Edwards or Clinton.

But it’s a long four years. Who knows what might happen by then. President Obama, anyone?

The major problem with the entire debate is that everyone is debating a different angle and their own perspectives. Jack Cafferty’s question of the day on CNN’s American Morning asked “Is it appropriate for Kerry and Edwards to be talking about the sexuality of Dick Cheney’s daughter?” The responses were generally anticipated, save one from “J.R. in Florida”: “What do you think the Democratic reaction of [sic] obesity instead of being gay was the social issue and Bush used Edwards wife as an example?”

This perfectly circles back to the importance of the original question in this debate: “Is homosexuality a choice?” It’s clear that Bush’s answer signals that he either: A) believes that it is a choice, but is hedging his answer to avoid offending the moderates, or B) can’t afford to say it isn’t a choice for fear of backlash from his right-wing base.

J.R. in Florida is the type of folk Bush is speaking to with his non-answer to this central question – people who feel that obesity is a perfect analogy to homosexuality; that who someone is attracted to is as much a choice as whether or not to supersize your value meal.

Regardless of the propriety of Kerry’s comment about Mary Cheney, he succeeded – wittingly or not – in keeping the eye off the ball. The President’s non-answer to this important and central question has been completely glossed over, and we’re focused instead on the fallout of a point Kerry could have made in a number of other ways.

Kerry gave the right answer – it’s an immutable characteristic. Bush gave the answer that protects his base and their crusade to make sure that their discrimination and bigotry is protected. If you admit that it’s not a choice, your case to fight equal rights becomes harder; the right-wing has to be able to hide behind the Bible and their specious “data” that prayer can save the devilish gays.

In the long run, the Bible didn’t protect mono-racial marriages, and it likely won’t protect the viciousness of the right-wing for much longer; but Bush’s answer gives them a little more time.