But as a gay American, I have no legal right to live in my own country with my life partner.

Bullshit. You know it, I know, and the American people know it.

Rand damn it, I hate to be put in the position of defending social conservatives, but you keep pushing so much NONSENSE. No one is persecuting homosexuals in America.

Santorum did not propose any specific laws, but expressed a reasonable concern about societal norms and standards. What was intolerant?

I remain highly skeptical of some of the policy prescriptions he MIGHT could come up with, but you act like he's foaming at the mouth. Whining little drama queens can't take a word of genteel criticism without getting the vapors. Criminy.

I would be careful about saying "no one is persecuting homosexuals in America" - obviously the situation is much more tolerant than it was 30 or 40 years ago, but people are still being attacked and killed because they are perceived to be gay and there is still discrimination on almost every level. I don't want to "encourage" homosexuality either, and it is not a "lifestyle" I would choose for anyone I cared about, but I don't think in most instances it is a "choice" either.

I'm guessing that President Bush and Karl Rove will tread lightly on this issue--if they even touch it at all. There's an excellent article in the January/February 2003 issue of the Atlantic Monthly ("Blue Movie" by Thomas Byrne Edsall) that addresses the issue of sexual and moral values quite well, I think.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/01/edsall.htm

A few excerpts:

"The demographic reality is that as currently constituted, liberal Blue America is growing and conservative Red America is in decline. Take church attendance. Exit polls in 2000 showed that the more often a voter attended religious services, the more likely he or she would be to cast a ballot for the Republican Party. But long-range trends in religiosity (the term sociologists use for "depth or intensity of religiousness"), as measured by the National Election Studies polling series on church attendance, do not favor the Republicans. From 1972 to 2000 the proportion of voters who said they attended services every week dropped from 38 to 25 percent. The proportion who said they went "almost" every week remained nearly constant at 11 to 12 percent, and the proportion who attended "once or twice a month" rose only slightly, from 12 percent to 16 percent. The proportion who attended just "a few times a year" dropped from 30 to 16 percent. The one group that has grown dramatically consists of those who never go to church or synagogue. This group, which has become a mainstay of liberal politics, made up just 11 percent of the population in 1972 but 33 percent in 2000."

"Thus if the Republican Party hopes to build on its 2002 gains, it must continue to mute its social conservatism when speaking to the public."

"Bush and his strategists are fully aware that positioning the Republican Party as the party of sexual repression would be devastating to its electoral prospects."

Thomas,

Yep. I'm proud to be a member of the Party of Gettin' It On, as opposed to the Party of Sexual Repression.

Bush might like to tread lightly on this issue, but I hope the Democrats refuse to let him do it. He got away with secret meetings with the Christian Right in Campaign 2000, and nobody pressed him to reveal his true feelings on tolerance. That gave him a strong, motivated base of Christian Right activists who got the vote out for him. He doesn't want to lose this base, as his father did to his detriment in 1992.

But if he wants the support of these people, he should have to be open and honest about what he is giving them to get it. Let all the Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans know just what he is promising the Christian Right in order to get their support. Nobody forced him to do this in 2000, when the press gave him a free ride on virtually all issues.

The challenges the Christian Right is giving to Bush are some of the best weapons Democrats have against him. They want him to take a stand on their issues. So do I.

Al,

When Bawer writes, "But as a gay American, I have no legal right to live in my own country with my life partner," he's being completely accurate to his situation.

He's gay. He fell in love with a Norwegian man. That Norwegian man can't come here, marry Bawer, and become a resident by marriage to a citizen. Bawer had to leave the U.S. to be with the man he loved.

If he were straight, and had fallen in love with a Norwegian woman, he would have had the right to marry her and live with her HERE, in the U.S.

In no way is his statement an exaggeration.

And as far as your skepticism of Santorum, do you really mean you want to wait until he drafts laws (he is a legislator, you know) that put his anti-freedom views into practice before you really get worked up about him?

Brian:

Agreed. The Democrats will have to do a much better job of exposing President Bush's radically conservative agenda during the 2004 presidential campaign. The mid-term elections last year were a complete failure.

Bawer's problem is with immigration, not some horrible repression of homosexuals. Don't pump it up into something it isn't.

There seems to be an assumption underlying a lot of this stuff that if homosexuals do not get absolute social, moral and legal equity without question, then they are horribly oppressed and we have a crisis.

We don't get everything we want all the time. There are many competing interests and viewpoints in our democratic republic which have to be accomodated.

To me, the taxation of income rates as a great evil. Witholding taxes from paychecks so that people don't even see their money is just looting and robbing. Having a third of a paycheck sucked up by the government makes you about one third slave. This strikes me as much more serious than the relatively minor legal point of not getting official state recognition of your gay marriage.

Yet I don't go around throwing fits about the income tax. In perspective, it's just something you have to work with. I vote for Libertarians. I run for office on an anti income tax platform.

Still yet, I don't get all bent out of shape unless there is something really heinous. For example, the federal government killed a bunch of innocent US citizens for no necessary reason in Waco. I'll scream blue bloody murder over that, because it was really major and egregious.

It is reasonable to take difference with Senator Santorum's remarks. It is not reasonable to have a cow, and demand his head on a platter NOW. We have elections and processes. If you are going to start calling for a lynching, there better be a pretty strong reason that doesn't even begin to exist based on this interview.

You may wish to vote against him in the next election, or even run against him if you feel strongly. That would be the normal way we do things.

However, I don't think these social issues amount to a high level of significance in the scheme of picking a senator. The most important issue in picking a congressman or senator should be national defense. That's the main job. Somewhat close behind now are a whole range of economic issues, particularly the entitlement programs. What is the senator going to do about Social Security and Medicare? Unless there is something really egregious in the pipes, most other types of issues pale.

In other words, get some perspective. There are far more important issues facing our republic than stupid unenforceable sodomy laws, which are on their way out anyway.

Al,

It's an "immigration" issue because the government is intolerant of homosexuality. It wouldn't be an immigration issue if Bawer could marry the person he loves, the same as a heterosexual person can. Unless you support striking the rule that allows hetero non-residents to reside legally in the U.S. if they marry a U.S. citizen, I think you have to admit this is hardly just an "immigration" issue. Would it be an "immigration" issue if black citizens were denied the opportunity to have their non-resident spouses become legal residents?

You may wish to vote against him in the next election, or even run against him if you feel strongly. That would be the normal way we do things.

the republicans don't care about the gay vote, they're going for the eminem fan vote.

first of all, when's the last time you wrote a blog that didn't have more than 50% someone else's words??

secondly, this is something i actually agree on. like i said in the past, if you are really a republican, you believe in LESS government intervention, therefore, wouldn't agree with using government funds to patrol people's houses. and if gays want to get married and give up half their income to their ex-spouse like the rest of us, who cares?

but here's my point, again, you use this as an attack on bush. next time actually read what you copy and paste onto your blog. the guy got married in 1999, you know, during the "enlightened" clinton era. so how is it bush's fault that this guy is in "exile"???? it would have been a LOT easier to change the laws for clinton (as most people who would vehemently disagree with such a law wouldn't be voting for clinton anyway). so to call bush out for not being the champion of gay rights is absurd. but all you do is write post after post bashing bush for this reason and that, so why should any of it make sense??