Will the Fight Over Gay Marriage Be the End of Right vs. Left Thinking?

"The first thing that happens in a revolutionary era is the great figures of the old era get discredited."

So said Joshua Cooper Ramo, author of the compelling new book The Age of the Unthinkable: Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us And What We Can Do About It, on Fareed Zakaria's CNN show.

And, he might have added, so do the old era's once-sacred media tropes. I've been writing for a while about the media's reluctance to give up its reliance on looking at every issue through a right vs. left frame (and assuming the truth is to be found by splitting the difference).

But the country's shift away from right vs. left thinking and towards a right vs. wrong frame continues to gain momentum -- making it harder and harder to keep pushing the discredited meme.

The latest examples of the discrediting can be found in the current fights over gay marriage, health care, and the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

Not that long ago, gay marriage was a dependable wedge issue Republicans could use to keep its base in line. But, in the wake of last week's Prop 8 ruling, that wedge is clearly splintering.

All you have to do is look at Dick Cheney who, speaking at the National Press Club today, said, "I think freedom means freedom for everyone." Cheney said he supports gay marriage as long as it's sanctioned at the state level -- a more progressive position than President Obama's current civil-unions-not-marriage stance.

And then we have the strange-bedfellows pairing of Ted Olson and David Boies. The Bush v. Gore adversaries teamed up last week, filing a federal lawsuit they hope will lead to a Supreme Court ruling allowing gays and lesbians to get married in every state.

"We wanted to send a message," Olson explained to Larry King, "to the American people and to the courts that this isn't a Republican or a Democrat issue. It's not a liberal or a conservative issue. The right of individuals committed to one another to live in a stable, committed, loving relationship is something that we should all respect and be for."

Interestingly, a number of traditionally progressive groups, including the ACLU, oppose the Olson/Boies approach, fearing the Supreme Court is not ready to rule in favor of gay marriage.

This line of thinking brought together two pundits not usually found on the same side of an issue, George Will and Paul Krugman. During this week's roundtable on Stephanopoulos, Will argued that the Olson/Boies suit was premature and that the democratic process, which is moving towards acceptance of gay marriage faster than anybody had anticipated, should be allowed to move forward without the courts getting involved -- to which Krugman responded: "I agree with George."

So while the timing of the lawyers' lawsuit may be open to debate, the value of the left/right conceit as a way to explain the battle lines in the gay marriage fight no longer is.

Same with health care. Even as many in the media are licking their chops in anticipation of a replay of the Clinton-era fight over health care (TV producers are cuing up the old Harry and Louise ads as we speak), the American people are making that take on the debate as antiquated as fax machines, Wite-Out, and 8-tracks.

A new CNN poll shows that a large majority of Americans -- 69 percent -- say they would favor greater government influence over the country's health care system if it would lower costs and provide coverage to more people. In addition, 62 percent of the public thinks the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans (unless you want to argue that the American left has suddenly vastly expanded, it's time to give up the right vs. left way of discussing the health care debate).

Equally telling is the growing number of business executives who would love to see the government take on more of the burden of providing health care. Most are keeping their feelings on the down low, but, according to Benjamin Sasse, a former Assistant Secretary of HHS under Bush 43, in private "CEOs overwhelmingly want out of this [health insurance providing] business." And why wouldn't they, with insurance premiums charged to employers rising 119 percent over the last 10 years?

As for the Sotomayor nomination, so far the biggest fight hasn't been between the right and the left -- it's been between the right and the far right.

So while "old era" figures like Limbaugh, Gingrich, Inhofe, and Tancredo have been foaming at the mouth, the most noteworthy pushback to their over-the-top charges has come not from progressives but from GOP Senators John Cornyn and Jeff Sessions.

"Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials," said Cornyn, speaking of Limbaugh's and Gingrich's playing of the race card. "I just don't think it's appropriate and I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong."

And Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, went on Meet the Press and praised Sotomayor as "smart," "capable," and having "a good record." "She's got the kind of background you would look for," he added, "almost an ideal mix of private practice, trial prosecution and circuit judge. That's strong in her favor."

Appearing alongside Sessions, Sen. Patrick Leahy illustrated why it's time to consign the left vs. right frame to the political graveyard -- especially when it comes to discussing Supreme Court picks:

I remember some of the liberal groups picketing my office, complaining I was going to vote for Justice Souter and that he would be against women's rights. Well, he's turned out to be, of course, a strong supporter of women's rights.

The seismic shifts in our society have rendered right vs. left thinking as archaic as a flat earth map. It's time for those in the media using it to navigate this revolutionary era to catch up with the public -- and the new realities.

Comments

[Morcat]

While I certainly agree that gay marriage is neither a liberal nor conservative issue, and I'm delighted to see Olson and Boies modeling that, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the probability that there will always be a significant group of people who must have absolutes and another equally significant group that can tolerate some ambiguity. What we will hopefully see, as we are seeing with gay marriage, is a sufficient shift of the "moveable middle" to a place where new and exciting things can happen. Just maybe. I hope.

[jsehgal]

Thinking along the lines of right versus wrong, let us march beyond the battle of sex orientation and into the battle about how much of the total wealth of the nation any one gets to keep. As a banker, do you deserve a billion dollars for wrecking the economy, confiscating the retirement savings of others? If you are a waiter/waitress in Texas, Do you deserve only $1 per hour minimum wage? Should not people be paid at least a living wage for useful work? Should incompetence and idle thought of banking be rewarded as it is or punished? Market place has failed in providing any just measure of renumeration and security. It is time to seek other answers and not listen to neo-cons and other idiots of Ayn Rand.

[RevSpaminator]

If we want to reclaim the discussion from the neo-cons and their allies in the conservati­ve-owned-l­iberal-med­ia, we have to stop rewarding the endless dog and pony show. As long as we keep watching and buying what they advertise, all the cable networks will keep giving these idiots airtime and driving the conversation to the absurd.

A good example, we actually have TV shows debating whether or not torture is an acceptable practice. How did we even get here? 10 years ago if you said that a vote for Republicans would lead to this day, everyone would have said you were paranoid. So what is going on? People are getting paid to generate a lot of inane noise with the sole purpose to drive up the level of drama so more people will watch.

Stop watching their networks, stop buying their products and we can win back the discussion.

Of course by time that happens I'll be a millionaire from breeding flying pigs...

[dogwatch]

Copernicus, you have to say that the earth is the center of the universe. It was true in the past. It's true now and it will be true forever. There is a right way to see the earth and the sun and a wrong way to see the earth and the sun.

[abmabardy]

The issues of Marriage Equality and Choice have been used extremely effectively by the neocon wing of the Republican Party to distract potential voters from real issues. These two emotion based issues have for years lured lower and middle income people to vote against their own self interests, as Democrats favor policies that would actually improve their lives: workers rights, keeping jobs in America, health care, education, etc. The last election showed a decrease in the power of the distraction issues, but their influence is still a factor.

America is a country of similarities and differences. Every elected official has a choice whether to use our differences to divide us, or underscore our common groung to bring us together. The former choice is effective in keeping "the masses" down and allowing the corporate elite to own and run everything. The latter choice, however, is clearly more honorable and in keeping with true American ideals and principles.

America has overcome prejudice based upon religion, race and gender. This latest wave based upon sexual orientation must meet the same fate. Time to reject the manipulative divisive tactics of the extremists neocon wingers and allow the rich diversity that is America to enrich and empower us.

.

[JayJonson]

It is so nice of you to consider marriage equality and choice as distractions. This kind of thinking means that nothing ever gets done to advance justice. We just muddle along with blatant injustice, but never taking up the issue because it might "divide" us. Well, we are already divided. Despite the evil machinations of the right wing and their use of gay issues as wedges, they at least had the virtue of making people think about the issues. Democrats are good at saying the right thing, but doing very little: witness our President.

[nylibgrrl]

With all respect, I think you sort of missed abmabardy's point. S/he didn't say s/he didn't say that's her viewpoint, s/he's pointing out a truth about right-wing politicians--when their butts are hanging out to the wind for they way they've handled Iraq, the economy and other issues, all they have to is mention reproductive and gay rights and a certain segment of their base will get worked up enough to forget everything else. Pushing someone's emotional buttons is NOT making them "think about the issues", it's making them focus on dogma and their fears.

That said, I agree with you that it is shameful that the President isn't taking a progressive stand on these issues.

[cminca]

Gay marriage will only stop being a left vs. right issue when it becomes UNPROFITABLE for both sides.

Certainly the right has whipped up their "base" with the spector of gays gone wild. And the left, including President Obama, seems to prefer to keep gay rights on a back burner in order to fund raise on the spector of the republican boogy man.

Last night I watched the NBC interview. President Obama said he was a strong supporter of gay rights.

REALLY? NAME ONE.

No action on DADT. No action on DOMA.

He also stated that the federal government should have no interest in the definition of marriage. That is contradicted by the SCOTUS ruling on Loving vs. Virginia. Certainly our biracial President is aware of that instance of federal involvement with marriage.

President Obama, the money makers, and the talking heads will continue the right vs. left on gay marriage. They have no vested interest in stopping it.

[SonofLiberty1]

As I recall, DADT went over real big for Clinton, didn't it?
Caused more trouble than what it was worth.

I think most of us would agree that we have bigger fish to fry.

[Hephaestion]

Dan Choi and other genuine American heroes who have been screwed by the US military would beg to differ with your easy tossing aside of their heroic lives. A huge majority of Americans now want DADT ended, so it is a different world from 1993. Ending DADT will not cause any fuss now. The Pentagon has been cranking out studies proving that gays serving openly creates no problems for many years. America is the LAST civilized country on earth to still have such a barbaric anti-gay policy.

[dagumpster]

I think it is easier for much of the media to wrap their minds around the idea of right and left as if to show their audience they get it. But as Arrianna points out many issues are not so clear. Sometimes people have preferences that have nothing to do with ideology. But the media is so tuned in with sensationalism that they have to present everything as a competition. I really believe the media cannot grasp the idea that perhaps we just want the news. Leave the opinions to the editorial page.

[Horus45]

President Obama needs to get out in front of this NOW!
If he continues the way he has with this subject the Republicans will use it to beat him over the head with in 2012, when a consensus of Republicans agree with Gay Marriage.

[mero909]

Gay marriage is NOT a federal issue. The Federal government should not pass any laws for or against gay marriage. It's not enumerated in the US Constitution and so it falls to the 10th amendment. The States and ONLY the States have the power to allow or ban gay marriage.

I also believe that one religious group shouldn't dictate policy.

[John Howard]

Cloning and genetic engineering are federal issues, as is same-sex procreation, which is a form of genetic engineering. No state should allow labs to attempt to make children for same-sex couples. It would not only be an interstate commerce issue if one state allowed it but others didn't, it is also a subject of international treaties, and only Congress can enter into a treaty saying the US will not clone or make babies from genetically modified DNA. States cannot allow it, if the country has pledged to not do it.

Also, Loving v Virginia and Zablocki and other SCOTUS cases show that marriage is indeed a federal issue.

[LeaderofMen]

What?????

Same-sex procreation is not a form of genetic engineering.

On the other hand, in-vitro fertilization, which is used by hetero couples all the time, could easily be used as genetic engineering - if the technology actually existed - which it doesn't.

But when a woman goes to a sperm bank to get some seed for her and her lesbian partner, no genetic engineering has taken place. When two men donate THEIR sperm and purchase an egg and/or womb for their own sperm, no genetic engineering has taken place. None. Just good ole fertilization.

[Hephaestion]

My right to pursue liberty and justice is most certainly a federal issue. Am I to accept first class citizenship in Massachusetts and third class citizenship in Virginia? Am I to accept that I can have legal recognition of my marriage in 6 states yet get no federal benefits? Hell no.

[harriscrl3]

Its splintering because as I have said numerous times. Nearly EVERY family in America have someone in the family who is Gay. This is why I keep saying its NOT the same as discrimination based on race. We dont segregate Gay people. Unless they areGays of color they dont live in poor neighborhoods with substandard services some of which are comparable to 3rd world countries. They are your mother your sister your brother and your daughters. They dont have life expectancies that is significantly lower or have less access to healthcare. This is what frustrates me about supporters who fight for Gay rights. They dont want to recognize that other groups face unique challenges that they are struggling with day to day and have for generations. They need to build alliances with all groups while recognizing that each have unique challenges.

Carol

[JayJonson]

Oh please. Lots of people are fired every day for being gay. And the number of gay and transgendered people who are murdered and are otherwise subject to hate crimes rival that of people who are victims of hate crimes because of their race. You are just selfish and myopic.

[Hephaestion]

Gay individuals and organizations have been struggling to build alliances with other groups for at least 15 years now, but those "other groups" reject us. We give our all to help many groups to advance their goals, and we recognize the challenges of many others, but THEY reject US even as we struggle to help them.

I have been a strong activist for Latinos, for the homeless, for the deaf, for Russian Jewish immigrats, for abused women, for the cerebral palsied, for cancer victims, for the elderly, for Moslem immigrants and others. I have worked my ass off for over 40 years of adult life helping those groups and others - only to see many of them spout hatred against gays. So pardon me if I spend a few moments trying to work for a little justice for MY own people, the gays. I know MANY gay people who just like me have worked tirelessly for OTHERS, only to be spat upon by those groups we have spent our lives helping. Please consider this, Carol.

[nylibgrrl]

Apparently you aren't aware that during WWII the Jews were not the only people relegated to concentration camps. Other groups of "undesirables", including homosexuals, were interned in them. Just because homosexuals in the United States have been fortunate that prejudice against them has not escalated to such extreme treatment here, that doesn't make it any less. The hatred, fear and discrimination against them is for a condition they were born into and have no control over--it IS the same as racial prejudice and struggle.

[oafishcad]

If people considered gays as equal human beings, the question would never come up. If I'm equal to someone, what right do I have to deny them rights? None. Every person who would deny gays rights is treating them as less than human. End of story.

[John Howard]

That's very simplistic, there are very practical issues involved that haven't been getting proper attention. Should we allow people to attempt to procreate with someone of the same sex or not? It is the same question that is always at the center of the question of allowing marriage or not. If we allow two people to procreate together (literally with each other's genes), we allow them to marry, if we don't, we don't. We should not make the decision about same-sex procreation (using stem cell derived "female sperm" for example, or any other method that accomplishes same-sex procreation) without knowing that's what we are deciding when we say that "gays should have equal rights". Of course everyone should have equal rights, but no one should have the right to attempt to procreate with someone of the same sex, because it is way too unethical and expensive and unnecessary.

[cminca]

We do not limit marriage to people on the sole provision that they are able to procreate.

If we did, seniors couldn't be legally married.

We don't deny marriage to hetrosexuals who either can't have or don't want children.

We don't disolve marriages when the female partner goes through menopause while the male is still producing sperm.

Civil Marriage and same-sex procreation are two separate issues.

[oafishcad]

Since it's impossible for two people of the same sex cannot reproduce. Your post is ridiculous. Besides the fact that reproduction is not the reason to allow marriage.

[imperator prime]

Your 'practical issue' is a non-issue; procreation is *not* 'at the center' of marriage in our society and hasn't been for some time. We allow male/female couples to marry whether they're willing-- and whether they're capable-- of conceiving a child or not. The government doesn't mandate that marrying couples reproduce, so the inability of a male/male couple or a female/female couple to get pregnant should be irrelevant. And gay people aren't stupid, we *know* that what we do in bed isn't going to make a baby. We haven't mistaken procreation for a 'right' and we don't *equate* it with marriage, nor do we expect any legislation or court ruling to change a biological reality. But calling for equal marriage rights isn't about biology-- it's about expecting legal recognition of a relationship and the formation of a contract between two consenting adult parties, without discriminating against them on the basis of their gender.

It actually *is* mind-bogglingly simple: a same-sex couple incapable of making a baby together should have as much right to marry as an opposite-sex couple capable unwilling to make a baby together.

[SonofLiberty1]

So even if you could do that using stem cell ovums? For guys you would need a woman for girls you just need sperm.

That's going to go over real big.....

[Hephaestion]

oafishcad is 100% correct. Either we deserve justice or we don't. If you deny us gay citizens justice, you are an oppressor. Period. That is not simplistic. It is a fact.

Justice does not come in parts. We either HAVE justice or we DON'T.

[force fed up]

As I have been saying for years now. The fact that the words Liberal and Conservative have lost their meanings, because both "liberals" and "conservatives" have become extremists. The truly liberal are those of us in the middle who bend to only one ideal, The American Ideal; Don't Tread On Me.

[TurnToTheLeft]

The Government provides marriages licenses which everyone must have before any type of marriage. In all 50 states marriages can be performed by a government official in a Civil Ceremony. However, Gay Marriage by a Civil Ceremony is only available in 6 states. Religion has NO PLACE in this basic right to "pursue happiness" provided by the American Constitution. The constitution also directly defines the separation of Church and State. Religion should not be allowed to interfere with regard to right of all citizens to be married by the State in a Civil Ceremony regardless of their sexuality.

[bannorhill]

The basic right to "pursue happiness" IS NOT provided by the American Constitution. Read it. It is not in there.

As for government's involvement in marriage The Supreme court has ruled "Marriage...has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute a marriage." (Smelt V Orange Co).

The UCC came out in opposition of Prop 8. If Prop 8 were defeated would that ALSO interfere with separation of Church and State. Not any more than if Prop 8 passed. The State has defined marriage as between "a man and a woman" not some religion.

All citizens of the United States are free to marry as defined by the laws of that state. Are you advocating that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else without any restriction?

[nylibgrrl]

You're correct. The phrase is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. However, you yourself just admitted it is a basic, or "unalienable" right, as mentioned by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution does mention that part of its purpose is to "secure the blessings of Liberty". Various amendments have been added throughout history to ensure that it does just that by granting rights to those who were formerly disenfranchised.

I didn't realize "procedure or form" referred to the gender of the participants. Seems an awfully broad interpretation. Likewise, I don't see how your claim that the defeat of prop 8 would also interfere with the separation of church and state. How does that work if the state happens to take the same stance as most churches? Prop 8 would then go against both the state's current position and the churches' position but it's not responsible for any collusion that may have existed beforehand. Would you say that the state has possibly adapted this position because of pressure from churches, or because of the personal religious convictions of lawmakers? (which I suspect it has) Besides, you forget that no state law is infallible. It still has to be compatible with the US Constitution, and that's what the battle in prop 8 is all about.

[nylibgrrl]

as to that last part, come on--do we really have to go through this again? We're talking about the actions of 2 consenting adults with one another, ok?

[UKOH]

Welcome to the real world America!

I am British and have lived for many years in Germany, Denmark and, of course, my native England. "Old Europe" is way ahead of the USA on this one.

In all of Europe most issues are debated on their merits, voted on based on what is best for the country, and, if non contentious, not subject to right Vs. left arguments. Of course that means that the issues which ARE political and right Vs. left issues, are debated all the more fiercely as there are valid arguments on both sides that you can either agree with or disagree with.

It is so much better than politics in the USA, which is to make everything and anything a right Vs. left issue. This means that almost nothing gets achieved.

[Hephaestion]

Our 2 party system is to blame for this.

[MacQ]

Psst: Mrs. Huffington:

Gay marriage is only one issue that divides "right" and "left" thinking, and for many people it's not a deal breaker. It may surprise you that many conservatives don't care one way or the other about it.

MOST people in fact are not as ideologically pure as you and your counterpart Mr. Limbaugh.

[JustJoy7]

The problem with people is that they fundamentally don't trust God. In all His wisdom in creating mankind, he created females and males AND he gave us the ability to THINK. It is man who decided that God only wanted pairing between people of opposite genders. It doesn't matter whether homosexuality is biological or not. We were put here by God, male/female, and we were given free choice. So, even if it is CHOICE, God gave us freedom of choosing what He placed before us.

Everyone wants to decide WHAT GOD INTENDED. We don't trust God to handle our sins; instead, we opt to help Him by making determinations on what He intended. Like the Constitution, it's almost impossible to interpret the Bible...both written by man. IMHO, God provided options and gave us the ability to think and to choose. We always hear that "God didn't make any mistakes." If that's true, even if people are born homosexual, why would we consider it a mistake. I think God gave us options and the ability to choose according to our desires. Otherwise, he would have cut the cloth differently. We are not smarter than God and should stop trying to tell others what God meant.

[HottBrainsJill]

I usually steer clear of religious posts, but your take is something that I wish would really catch on. Quickly.

[jalapeno]

That is "IF" there is a god. There is no evidence to support the existence of a higher power other than the sun.

[nylibgrrl]

This person makes a very reasonable post about the kind of attitude people who DO believe should have, and all you can do is bring up the question of whether there is a god? Granted, you were still a lot more polite and respectful than most agnostic/atheist posts I've seen here.

[LeaderofMen]

Correction.

The Constitution is interpreted by the SCOTUS all the time. It's not 'impossible'.

The Bible is interpreted all the time as well. To wit: there are over 1500 active and named Christian denominations in the US alone. All of them interpret the Bible (eg, 'god's will', or 'god's message' or 'god's intention') their very own special way. None of them 'trust God'. If they did, there would be only one church. If Jehovah were trustworthy it wouldn't have required the need for interpretation. If Jehovah were trustworthy, its words would be plain, the meaning evident, and the truth of anything written down would be easily verifiable.

Same gender marriage is not an issue that needs any input from religion. None.