# Posted 8:43 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHY DOES OXBLOG RESPECT BIGOTRY? In a post about Larry Craig, I stated my unequivocal support for equal rights for gays and lesbians. I also stated that "I respect the opinion that homosexuality is a grave sin from a Biblical perspective." One commenter observed that if that is what I believe:

Then you also respect a lot of other, ridiculous things.

Can't you just say that you don't respect that opinion?

Essentially, you're saying that you'd take a stand on a moral issue, except against certain, fervent people... Because what they believe is rooted biblically.

Great.

I didn't really take that argument seriously at first, so I didn't post a response. But then the author appended the same comment to a different post about a different subject. But he did so respectfully, so I believe that he is serious in raising this point. So what is my response?

Invoking the Bible as a justification of one's arguments does not provide automatic legitimacy. Often, the bible is radically misinterpreted. If someone invoked the Bible to justify racial segregation, I wouldn't profess respect for that opinion. Yet there are also instances in which I wouldn't respect an opinion that has a legitimate basis in the Bible. For example, if someone seriously argued for legalizing slavery since it is allowed by the Bible, I wouldn't profess respect for that opinion. Yet who in the United States would ever make that argument seriously?

As the example of slavery suggests, the community of American believers has come to accept over time that democratic rights must sometimes prevail over Biblical injunctions. This acceptance is often implicit, since I sense that few of the faithful feel comfortable subordinating the word of God to any other principle. Yet implicit or explicit, this acceptance is there.

So, then, how should one treat a fellow American who invokes the Biblical as a justification for denouncing homosexuality? The position of my anonymous commenter seems to be that one should deny respect to such opinions or even denounce them as "ridiculous". But I think that approach is entirely counterproductive. The scorn of the secularists accomplishes little more than postponing the day when equal rights for gays and lesbians are no longer a political issue. The tide is turning in favor of those who consider equality before the law to be self-evident and unthreatening.

But I also reject scorn as a matter of principle. Faith has a tremendously powerful influence over the faithful. As a Conservative Jew, I am not bound so closely to the literal meaning of the biblical text. But many other denominations do emphasize that approach. It is a powerful approach that brings much good and meaning into many lives. Of course, it has its drawbacks as well. Yet on balance, is this kind of commitment to the Bible such a terrible thing that it should be met with scorn?

I am certainly willing to meet it with disagreement, but I see little reason to deny it respect. Not all that long ago, I took part in the liberal consensus that evangelical Christians are deserving of condescension at best and vitriol the rest of time. Over time, I came to see that this approach accomplished little other than to close my mind, insult others and contribute to unnecessary polarization, which I can do without.

Labels: Gay rights, Religion

(15) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:48 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SEX IN PUBLIC BATHROOMS: Larry Craig is a sad and tragic figure, but he got what he deserved. A hypocrite of such magnitude deserves to become a political outcast. Yet those Republicans who punished him may be almost as hypocritical. Tim Russert made the case for a GOP double standard last Sunday on Meet the Press. Russert said, compare the GOP's repudiation of Sen. Craig to their toleration of,

Senator [David] Vitter of Louisiana, who has acknowledged that he solicited a D.C. madam, and yet there’s no calls for his resignation. Senators say, “Well, that happened when he was a member of the House.” He did not plead guilty to a criminal offense...Is there a difference or is it a double standard?

The answer to that question comes down to a hypothetical. If David Vitter had solicited sex from a male prostitute, would Republicans have abandoned him like Craig? My gut says 'yes', but certain liberal Democrats [!] think the GOP would've stood by a gay senator from Louisiana. For example, Bob Shrum told Tim Russert that Vitter's survival was purely a matter of partisan politics:

The difference wasn’t, as the Republicans have said, that Vitter faced no criminal charges or had no criminal charges. The difference was that Louisiana doesn’t have a Republican governor who can appoint a Republican successor [as is the case in Idaho].

There is also another way to explain Craig's situation, one more favorable to the GOP. As Republican consultant Mike Murphy told Tim Russert, the GOP is now tarnished and can't afford another enduring scandal. Thus Craig had to go.

Arguably, the Craig scandal is something that intelligent Americans should just ignore because it is tawdry and partisan. But I think the affair says something important about homosexuality in America. Public conservatives are still ashamed of homosexuals, even as they increasingly tolerate them in private. That is a kind of hypocrisy. Public conservatives resist civic equality for homosexuals even though they provide no reason why, other than vague references to "tradition" or "values". That borders on hypocrisy as well.

Over the past several years, I have walked away from a lot of liberal orthodoxies. But a commitment to gay rights is not one of them. I respect the opinion that homosexuality is a grave sin from a Biblical perspective. But one is no less of an American if one is gay. Being gay is not a threat to anyone else. Thus, I support equality for homosexuals in all aspects of public life.

Labels: Gay rights, Larry Craig

(7) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:37 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

GAY BILLIONAIRE LAUNCHES CONSPIRACY TO BUY POLITICAL INFLUENCE: Last fall, Danny Carroll was still the speaker pro tem of the Iowa House and a rising star in GOP politics. But Carroll's efforts to put a gay marriage ban on the state ballot caught the attention of Tim Gill, a gay philanthropist determined to cut short the political careers of rising pols who oppose full equality for homosexuals.

Joshua Green's profile of Gill in The Atlantic begins with a brilliant vignette in which Green himself has to educate Rep. Carroll about why he narrowly lost his race for re-election:

Over the summer, Carroll’s opponent started receiving checks from across the country—significant sums for a statehouse race, though none so large as to arouse suspicion (the gifts topped out at $1,000). Because they came from individuals and not from organizations, nothing identified the money as being “gay,” or even coordinated.

Only a very astute political operative would have spotted the unusual number of out-of-state donors and pondered their interest in an obscure midwestern race. And only someone truly versed in the world of gay causes would have noticed a $1,000 contribution from Denver, Colorado, and been aware that its source, Tim Gill, is the country’s biggest gay donor, and the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics.


Carroll certainly didn’t catch on until I called him after the election, in which Democrats took control of both legislative chambers, as well as Carroll’s seat and four of the five others targeted by Gill and his allies. Carroll was just sitting down to dinner but agreed to talk about his loss, which he attributed to the activism of Grinnell College students.

A suggestion that he’d been targeted by a nationwide network of wealthy gay activists was met with polite midwestern skepticism. But Carroll was sufficiently intrigued to propose that we each log on to the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board’s Web site and examine his opponent’s disclosure report together, over the telephone.

Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Shar­on. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City.

“I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally. “Who is this guy again?”

Now don't get the wrong idea. Green's profile of Mr. Gill is unflinchingly positive. The purpose of this anecdote is to demonstrate his talent as a political operative.

The profile of Gill is well-worth reading in its entirely, but still raises some uncomfortable questions about campaign finance, to which the author himself seems somewhat oblivious as a result of his admiration for Gill. However, before getting into such questions, it is worth stating once again for the record that I believe in full equality before the law for gay Americans. I gave this post a sensationalistic headline because there is another side to this story.

Is it a good thing that one fabulously wealthy individual can recruit other fabulously wealthy individuals for an organized effort to influence the results of dozens of statewide elections across the 50 states?

Usually, this is exactly the sort of thing that progressive magazines such as The Atlantic prefer to denounce rather than celebrate. Just imagine if Tim Gill were targeting politicians who wanted to raise taxes on super-wealthy individuals such as himself.

On the other hand, I accept that campaign donations are a form of free speech which should only be limited when there is a compelling reason to do so. In some respects, it is actually a very good thing that a small number of wealthy individuals can band together to support a cause that may otherwise be ignored by the two major parties, by the media, and by well-established special interests. In fact, individuals such as Gill may actually be able to check the power of certain entrenched forces with no more of a democratic mandate than Gill's own.

Of course, there is also such a thing as money having to much influence on politics. For the moment, I don't see any way to avoid an ongoing search for the golden mean that perfectly balances the individual rights of the donor with the collective right to a system that isn't corrupt.

Labels: Campaign finance, Gay rights

(6) opinions -- Add your opinion