Response to Alex Cohen’s Open Letter to me
February 19th, 2011
My internet and facebook friend, Alex Cohen, has written an open letter to me, entitled “A Question to the CPAC Boycotters.” Here is my response.
Dear Alex,
- I didn’t attend CPAC. However, it does not follow that the Ruth Institute or I boycotted CPAC. Ruth Institute is a c3 organization that has never gone to CPAC. I generally try to avoid political events. I live as far away from DC as is possible while remaining the Continental US.
- NOM, the parent organization of Ruth Institute, did boycott CPAC. You may be interested to know that Brian and Maggie do not consult me on their political decisions and strategies.
- The article by Star Parker that you found offensive is one of many articles that we post at the Ruth blog. I thought it interesting. It did indeed generate interesting discussion. This is sufficient reason for posting something.
- I don’t know why you think I “appeared to endorse” it. The only person associated with the Ruth Institute who commented on it (at least last I looked) was our guest blogger, Ari. Ari disagreed with Star Parker. Among the issues Parker’s article poses are the definition of “conservative” and the definition of “gay.” Both are serious questions, open to multiple interpretations. These questions deserve to be discussed, not dismissed with charges of “bigotry.”
- As near as I can make out, the issue surrounding the boycott was whether GOProud is in fact a conservative organization. I have insufficient data to evaluate this claim. It is in any event an important enough question that a) reasonable people can disagree about it and b) it deserves better than to be dismissed as “bigotry.”
- Your argument that they are conservative rests on their position that “same-sex marriage is a question for the states; it opposes amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This is an impeccably conservative position.” I do not share your evaluation of this position. That argument might have been credible 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. But events have overtaken this so-called conservative federalist argument. Events, including the federal lawsuits against Prop 8 and DOMA, have shown that states are in a very weak position to control their own marriage law. I don’t think federalism is a serious position for conservatives. Again, this is something worth discussing, and worthy of better than a dismissive charge of “bigotry.”
- I find it charming that you feel a need to defend me. Thank you. However, I find it odd that you think I need defending over something I’m not really a part of (namely the CPAC boycott) and something someone else said (namely Star Parker’s article.)
- Bottom line: there are substantive questions, factual questions, and philosophical issues on the table here, about which reasonable people can disagree. Charges of bigotry are completely out of line. Such charges change the subject and divert attention away from these substantive issues. The tone of your friend’s comment is slightly unhinged. CPAC boycotters think “gay people are icky?” Really? That is an astonishing leap. Completely illogical. Unworthy of you, and of him too, I’m sure.
Your friend,
Dr Morse
Loading ...
Well said, Dr J!
The best way to describe my feelings on the boycott is ambivalence. While I was initially somewhat inclined to sympathize with those participating in the boycott, my attitude was almost the opposite after hearing what Ann Coulter had to say about the matter in her address to CPAC – especially when she mentioned that GOProud had dropped the plank of their platform calling for same-sex ‘marriage’. Although I am much less impressed by GOProud’s position now that you have correctly pointed out that the “states are in a very weak position to control their own marriage law”. In light of that fact I would have to conclude that opposition to a federal marriage protection amendment does not by itself qualify an organization as opposed to the nationwide legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’. In fact, if anything, it would probably be evidence that they are in favor of it.
But since I still cannot resolutely decide exactly where I myself stand on the CPAC boycott, my attitude can only be that, as you asserted, “there are substantive questions, factual questions, and philosophical issues on the table here, about which reasonable people can disagree.” Even more, I agree with your admonition that “Charges of bigotry are completely out of line”.
I read Mr. Cohen’s open letter as well as Dr. Morse’s response. I would like to contribute a couple of observations:
(1) When an article is posted here at the Ruth Institute blog without comment, as the “‘Gay conservative’ is oxymoron” article was, I can see how that might easily be interpreted as an endorsement of the article. It probably would be helpful if you included some kind of introductory text clarifying that you are posting the article as a starting point for discussion rather than as an endorsement of its message.
(2) In these types of discussions, there is almost always some ambiguity about what is meant by the term “gay.” And it seems to me that that ambiguity has caused some problems here. Mr. Cohen apparently assumes that “gay” means being attracted to members of the same sex, as evidenced by the following segment of his letter:
However, it is possible that some conservatives might perceive the “GOProud” group as being “gay” in the sense of endorsing homosexual acts as morally good, and that they might be opposed to them on that basis, rather than on the basis of which sex they are attracted to. Mr. Cohen does not seem to acknowledge this distinction.
In conclusion, I don’t know much about “GOProud,” but I would oppose the CPAC boycott for a variety of reasons, most or all of which have been covered in Mr. Cohen’s letter. (However, I don’t mean to imply that I agree with everything in his letter.)
I think the morality of the issue comes in hurting gay couples and their children, who would be better off (healthier and wealthier, for starters) if they could access the institution of marriage.
America’s premier medical organizations support access to marriage for gay and lesbian Americans for just these reasons: physical and mental health are improved because of the security marriage provides to a relationship.
It is immoral to deny access to these benefits to a specific group, for no purpose other than religious superstitions, or personal dislike. There is no public purpose in denying marriage access to gay and lesbian Americans.
This gets very interesting, all this brouhaha over a Gay Conservative group attending CPAC. And yet the white supremacist, Youth for Western Civilization has been attending since 2009 and not a peep out of any of you, no demands for them to leave, no boycott.
I guess we actually do see what type of folks fit under your big tent. Birds of a feather….
@Sean
“I think the morality of the issue comes in hurting gay couples and their children, who would be better off (healthier and wealthier, for starters) if they could access the institution of marriage.”
Sean, gay couples and their children would be better off if they could access all the benefits and protections of marriage in the form of Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights”, and they could all have those benefits if you stopped insisting on the “conception rights” part. Why is it so important that gay couples have a right to procreate offspring together? Why do you want to keep gay couples from accessing the security and benefits of marriage if they are not allowed to create offspring together? That hurts gay couples and their families just as much as being denied marriage by homophobes or religious objectors does, but in this case it’s you that is doing the damage. You who supposedly want to help those gay couples get their protections. But the truth has come out” you don’t want to help those couples, you just want to secure equal procreation rights for same-sex couples. That’s totally selfish and immoral and I would love to see you explain your position to a child being raised by a same-sex couple right now. Do you even care about them at all?
@Bob Barnes
Bob, can you link to some of that “Youth for Western Civilization” stuff so I can see what you’re talking about? If CPAC allows Supremacist organizations, that’s sure a reason to boycott them. I find it hard to believe that they would endorse any such thing, however.
@Bob Barnes
@John Howard
Bob? Hello Bob? Bob, are you there?
@Leland
Well, it seems from their own web site that they, at least, lean towards white supremacy.
http://www.westernyouth.org
And it does talk about a good presence at the CPAC.
Their logo is a shield from the Crusades, from the decisive battle that expelled the Muslims from Europe, so they seem to be mainly anti-Islam. So I’m not sure they aren’t just another Libertarian Transhumanist front group, continuing the same old Eugenics from a hundred years ago, worried about the “inferior races” overrunning and mixing with the white race. They really seem to have the same values as GOPProud, but just two different names.
http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/goproud-reason-video-and-cpac/
@John Howard
“They really seem to have the same values as GOPProud, but just two different names.”
Hardly
@Mark
<a href="http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/muslim-prof.-says-islam-calls-for-death-of-homosexuals/"Here is WesternYouth, and here is GOProud on Muslims and gay rights. I don’t see much difference between them at all. The lip service the WesternYouth pay to traditional values doesn’t distinguish them at all, because they also make sure to express how little they care about social issues, and how different chapters can have different positions on marriage. I’d be shocked if one chapter or member is on record anywhere making a stand against gay marriage.
@John Howard
LOL, the ONLY reason WesternYouth are upset is because they are using it as an example of the evils of being Muslim. Once the Muslims are gone, I am sure they would work to eliminate gays.
“I’d be shocked if one chapter or member is on record anywhere making a stand against gay marriage.”
Better yet, I’d like to see one non-white member of WesternYouth.
“Once the Muslims are gone, I am sure they would work to eliminate gays. ”
I don’t think so, I think they think of homosexuality and feminism and eugenics as Western values, which they are. They are the epitome of Western values, actually.
@John Howard
“I don’t think so, I think they think of homosexuality and feminism and eugenics as Western values, which they are. They are the epitome of Western values, actually.”
Can you show any resource for this statement?