Notes From D. R.

It was just a matter of time before Illinois Senator–and self-professed Christian–Barack Obama drew heat for his stance on abortion…

Is opposition to same-sex marriage primarily based on the "ick factor"?

Despite the fact that American culture is clearly moving in a libertarian direction with regard to homosexuality, there is still a discomfort in some quarters with the idea of intimacy between members of the same gender. There are plenty of folks who cannot embrace the notion that such intimacy is in any way, shape or form "natural."

However, are those who perceive homosexuality as "not natural" the only ones who reject same-sex matrimony?

It’s inaccurate to say so. The reality is that, while there are those who steadfastly oppose gay marriage because they cannot accept societal approval of behavior they consider unnatural, there are also large numbers of people who reject gay marriage for legal, not moral, reasons.

Supporters of same-sex marriage often claim that the controversial 2003 Goodridge ruling authorizing gay marriage in Massachusetts is nothing more than the modern-day version of the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws forbidding marriage between members of different races. However, as opponents of same-sex marriage frequently point out, the Loving ruling did not fundamentally alter the one man-one woman marriage dynamic.

There is a legitimate concern that, once a precedent redefining the parameters of marriage has been established, further "redefinitions" are inevitable, potentially allowing the legitimization of polygamy and marriages between very close relatives. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made it clear that marriage is a civil right that cannot be restricted because of sexual orientation; if that is indeed the case, then how can the civil right of marriage be restricted because of numbers or familial closeness?

Because American culture leans libertarian in its view of homosexuality, opponents of gay marriage must emphasize that their views are not based on bigotry or the aforementioned "ick factor," but on a reasonable concern about just how far American jurisprudence will go on the matter of marriage. Objecting to same-sex marriage on moral grounds–i.e., not wanting to have society officially approve behavior viewed as morally erroneous–will become increasingly difficult as the society continues to move in a live-or-let-live direction; as Boston political commentator Jon Keller recently suggested, we live in a time in which many heterosexual unions can be considered "unnatural."

In 2006, the burden is not on supporters of same-sex marriage to prove that such marriages benefit society; the burden is on opponents of same-sex marriage to prove that their beliefs are not rooted in anti-gay animus. Thus, supporters of traditional marriage must make it clear that their views are not based on a desire to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens, but to ensure that American jurisprudence is not altered in such a way as to make matrimony meaningless.

UPDATE: Hub Politics on gay marriage in Massachusetts.

SECOND UPDATE: The gay-marriage controversy continues in the Bay State. Plus, the American Spectator on the politics of same-sex marriage.

THIRD UPDATE: The Boston Phoenix condemns a black anti-gay-marriage activist’s role on Mass. Gov.-Elect Deval Patrick’s transition team. I don’t understand the point of the criticism. Patrick made it clear that he wanted to have a diverse transition team. "Diversity," as understood in the modern political sense, means among other things the inclusion of blacks. Many blacks happen to oppose same-sex marriage for various reasons. Thus, if Patrick wants to have a diverse transition team, the law of averages dictates that he will have on that team blacks who oppose same-sex marriage. What is Patrick supposed to do? Not have a racially diverse transition team? More from the AP.

Is Deval Patrick a role model?

It may be too soon to answer that question. However, it’s already obvious that, for some families in Massachusetts, Patrick is seen as the only adult figure suitable for their children to pattern themselves after.

One reason why some Bay Staters are hoping that Patrick does not fail in the Corner Office is that they perceive the Governor-Elect as someone to look up to: a man who made it out of the depravity and despair of Chicago’s South Side to become a corporate titan, a civil rights crusader and the CEO of the Commonwealth. In an age of drug-addled sports heroes, thuggish rappers, deranged comedians and crooked Congressmen, it’s hard to blame these people for hoping that Patrick doesn’t let them down.

Don’t think for a moment that African-Americans are the only ones hoping that Patrick doesn’t drop the ball. There are plenty of whites, Asians and Hispanics who feel that role models are few and far between. They also feel that Patrick could inspire their children to achieve, to excel, to become better.

We live in a culture in which excellence is mistaken for elitism. To be sure, some of Patrick’s supporters have themselves pushed the idea that there is something fundamentally perverse about the concept of being the best, and about the idea of meritocracy.

However, it’s also true that in order to achieve the success he’s enjoyed, Patrick clearly had to be the best. He had to excel. He had to be twice as good. Thus, there are plenty of Bay Staters hoping that he continues to be twice as good in the Corner Office.

Patrick wasn’t wrong to imply that there are plenty of people who are investing their hopes and dreams in him. In a culture that seems to reward backward behavior, Patrick is being looked upon as a man who could move the culture forward.

One can’t ignore the political double standard involved in the perception of Patrick as a role model. If Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, etc. were all Democrats, they would all be held up as role models as well. The double standard that benefits the likes of Patrick won’t go away anytime soon. Neither will the pressure on the new governor not to let down those who believe in him.

UPDATE: More on Patrick. Plus, what would Deval make of the new controversy concerning the alleged underrepresentation of nonwhite attorneys at big-name American law firms?

SECOND UPDATE: Patrick vs. the press? More from the Boston Herald.

Rapper Snoop Dogg arrested on illegal handgun possession charges in California.

Rapper Snoop Dogg arrested on illegal handgun possession charges in California.

Corrupt federal judge-turned-Congressman Alcee Hastings will not receive a desired chairmanship in the new Congress. More from the New York Times and Washington Post.

Could Kerry Healey re-emerge in 2007 as Deval Patrick’s critic-in-chief?

Patrick’s own desire to preserve his future political career may be enough to prevent him from moving too far to the left, but if it does not, I wouldn’t be surprised if Healey reestablishes herself as a one-woman "watchdog agency" monitoring the Patrick administration.

With nothing to lose, Healey could consistently call Patrick out on his excessive liberalism, possibly setting herself up for a 2010 rematch with the Together We Can Man. While the notion of Healey running for governor again seems far-fetched now, stranger things have happened in Massachusetts politics–and if Patrick repels the electorate by lurching left, Healey will be perfectly positioned to lead the state back in the right direction.

As a Patrick critic, Healey will be able to rehabilitate her image, learning from the mistakes she made on the 2006 campaign trail. If she was too harsh, too negative, too abrasive this year, she’ll be more reasoned, more restrained, more personable–and more appealing to the Bay State electorate.

Everyone assumes that we won’t have Kerry Healey to kick around anymore. Everyone assumes that there are no second acts in Massachusetts politics.

What if everyone’s assuming the wrong thing? What if Healey takes advantage of Patrick’s political mistakes to become the odds-on favorite in an election rematch? What if Healey, four years from now, becomes the candidate seen as no ordinary leader?

Did Kerry Healey really run an excessively negative gubernatorial campaign?

It is now an article of faith in Massachusetts that Healey lost the 2006 gubernatorial race to Deval Patrick because of an unreasonably low-class campaign. According to the conventional wisdom, Healey engaged in off-the-charts demagoguery and borderline race-baiting, while Patrick ran an uplifting, civil campaign appealing to mankind’s better instincts.

Whenever I hear this conventional wisdom being espoused, I can’t help thinking of Hollywood producer Robert Evans’ famous saying: "There are three sides to every story–your side, my side, and the truth." It’s inaccurate to characterize Healey’s campaign as flawless, but it’s also inaccurate to characterize her campaign as the ultimate in political depravity. The truth, as they say, lies somewhere in between.

Healey wasn’t wrong to emphasize Patrick’s attitudes concerning crime and punishment. The issue of crime is never irrelevant, and Patrick’s support of a convicted rapist and his efforts to have a cop-killer removed from death row were pertinent issues. Healey ran an effective commercial highlighting Patrick’s involvement in the Carl Ray Songer cop-killer case, and a highly controversial spot focusing on Patrick’s efforts in the Ben LaGuer rape case. Looking back, it seems that the LaGuer commercial, now commonly referred to as the "garage ad," missed the mark and hurt Healey’s campaign–but not for the reason everyone seems to believe.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims of figures such as former Patrick adviser Dan Payne, the "garage ad" represented neither deliberate nor unintentional race-baiting. However, the ad likely turned viewers off because it reminded victims of crime and their friends and relatives of the trauma they went through. Instead of turning those viewers against Patrick (because of his actions in the LaGuer case), the ad caused those viewers to perceive Healey as a candidate willing to exploit real-life crimes to gain political advantage.

Healey also wasn’t wrong to label Patrick a "tax-and-spend liberal"; considering Patrick’s well-documented scorn of tax cuts, such a depiction was not inappropriate. However, Healey failed to come up with a response to those who argued that Patrick’s corporate background made him an unlikely tax-and-spender. She never emphasized that there are plenty of hardcore left-wingers in the corridors of corporate America (Ted Turner, anyone?) and that Patrick’s private-sector success did not mean he wouldn’t be a public-sector failure.

Frankly, as Patrick would say, Healey was doomed. Anti-Mitt Romney sentiment in this state was at the boiling point, and nothing was going to stop Healey from being scalded. Even if she had forcefully condemned Romney’s anti-Massachusetts remarks, it would not have been enough to dampen voter enthusiasm for Patrick.

Healey was linked to the Legacy of Mitt–and as it turned out, fifty-six percent of the electorate considered that legacy a bitter one. While she clearly made significant mistakes in her campaign, it’s a distortion to claim that her "over-the-top negativity" was the primary factor in her loss. She did not become our next governor principally because of the Bay State’s contempt for the man who could become our next President.

A new voice takes over for longtime Boston radio newsman Gary LaPierre. More from the Boston Herald and Globe.

Novelist Bebe Moore Campbell passes away at 56.