RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : George Washington and the "Objectivist Center"

Monday
January 10, 2005

George Washington and the "Objectivist Center" by Adam Reed

The man, for whom the city in which they voted for this bill is named, said 215 years ago, "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights." That two traitors to this principle should be honored and legitimized - in the name of the woman who gave us unprecedented understanding of Americanism as a body of principles, including this one - is an unspeakable obscenity. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (40 messages)

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 11:33am

Dear Adam,

Thank you for composing this refreshing article defending the individual rights of gay people. On July 4, 1986, I was sitting with my lover Jerry in the bleachers, watching the Tall Ships sail on the Hudson to celebrate the reopening of the Statue of Liberty. Jer and I had been together 18 years at that time. We had become lovers when we were both 19 years old, and we would continue until he would die in my arms in 1990.

The sun was pouring down on us in the bleachers. Thousands of us. A woman near us wore a beautiful T-shirt. It had a stylized line-drawing of the Statue of Liberty, above which was a single word: forever. Friendliness and happiness were all around us, but for me that day was forever sad. The US Supreme Court had just handed down its decision reaffirming the right of the States to criminalize homosexual relations.

Justice Blackmun had written a superb dissent, and though he spoke of a day when the Bill of Rights and equal protection under the law would be applied to the sexual relations of gay people, I did not expect to live to see it. As you know, in the summer of 2003, you and I presented papers for the Advanced Seminar of TOC. It was an exhilarating intellectual retreat. I had not heard any news from the outside world during those days. Upon reaching the gate at Logan for my flight home to Chicago, there was a newspaper staring me in the face. Its headline was announcing the new Supreme Court decision. Gay sex was legal throughout America. I sat down stone still. I remembered that sunny day in the bleachers, and I cried.

Justice Thomas complained that there was no reason to reverse the 1986 decision, which he still supported. President Bush said in an interview that he disagreed with the new decision, that he thought homosexuality should be against the law, and that the reason it should be against the law is because it is a sin. He does not have a firm grasp of the concept of individual rights.

Ayn Rand speaks pretty well for me here: "The concept of individual rights is so prodigious a feat of political thinking that few men grasp it fully---and two hundred years have not been enough for other countries to understand it. But this is the concept to which we owe our lives---the concept which makes it possible for us to bring into reality everything of value that any of us did or will achieve or experience" (A Nation's Unity).

Stephen

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 11:33am

Dear Adam,

Thank you for composing this refreshing article defending the individual rights of gay people. On July 4, 1986, I was sitting with my lover Jerry in the bleachers, watching the Tall Ships sail on the Hudson to celebrate the reopening of the Statue of Liberty. Jer and I had been together 18 years at that time. We had become lovers when we were both 19 years old, and we would continue until he would die in my arms in 1990.

The sun was pouring down on us in the bleachers. Thousands of us. A woman near us wore a beautiful T-shirt. It had a stylized line-drawing of the Statue of Liberty, above which was a single word: forever. Friendliness and happiness were all around us, but for me that day was forever sad. The US Supreme Court had just handed down its decision reaffirming the right of the States to criminalize homosexual relations.

Justice Blackmun had written a superb dissent, and though he spoke of a day when the Bill of Rights and equal protection under the law would be applied to the sexual relations of gay people, I did not expect to live to see it. As you know, in the summer of 2003, you and I presented papers for the Advanced Seminar of TOC. It was an exhilarating intellectual retreat. I had not heard any news from the outside world during those days. Upon reaching the gate at Logan for my flight home to Chicago, there was a newspaper staring me in the face. Its headline was announcing the new Supreme Court decision. Gay sex was legal throughout America. I sat down stone still. I remembered that sunny day in the bleachers, and I cried.

Justice Thomas complained that there was no reason to reverse the 1986 decision, which he still supported. President Bush said in an interview that he disagreed with the new decision, that he thought homosexuality should be against the law, and that the reason it should be against the law is because it is a sin. He does not have a firm grasp of the concept of individual rights.

Ayn Rand speaks pretty well for me here: "The concept of individual rights is so prodigious a feat of political thinking that few men grasp it fully---and two hundred years have not been enough for other countries to understand it. But this is the concept to which we owe our lives---the concept which makes it possible for us to bring into reality everything of value that any of us did or will achieve or experience" (A Nation's Unity).

Stephen

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 2:47pm

Stephen,

Thank you. As we now know, not only have "two hundred years not been enough for other countries to understand it," but we now have Americans who don't get it. And, may they hang their heads in shame, some of those Americans who don't get it are posturing as Objectivists.

(Edited by Adam Reed on 1/12, 3:11pm)

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 4:02pm

Adam,

Most of us here do get it. One of the most awful failures of the Reagan Administration was their politicization of the early stages of the AIDS epidemic in the United States. Randy Shilts' "And the Band Played On" chronicled that horrific failure. However, that same administration prosecuted a brilliant Cold War strategy in the fight against the Communists. I doubt that Reagan will be remembered as a "troglodyte".

George Washington led a brilliant Revolutionary War campaign against the British, but failed to do anything about slavery. Lincoln abolished slavery, but also suspended habeus corpus and quartered troops in people's homes in direct violation of the Constitution. Was he also a "troglodyte"?

Most of us recognize issues of balance and proportionality in our judgments and we don't go looking for enemies under every rock.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 1/12, 6:23pm)

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 10:47pm

James,

I don't look for enemies either. I just don't legitimize them by association with Objectivism. And when TOC honors enemies of individual rights at Ayn Rand's birthday, I identify that fact, and I adjust my actions accordingly.

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 3:28am

I hate to be the one pointing it out, but Ayn Rand censured homosexuality as immoral. (One may disagree with her, but this is *her* Centenary event.) My problem with the invitation of Ryan and Royce to speak at Rand's Centenary event is their voting record in favor of banning "partial birth" abortion and in favor of other anti-abortion measures, as well as their voting record in favor of banning human cloning for medical research. Rand stated clearly her support for abortion on demand, as a private matter to be decided only by the woman and her physician. In The Ayn Rand Letter, in "A Last Survey," Nov/Dec 1975, she repudiated Reagan because of his opposition to abortion. The issue of human cloning did not emerge during her lifetime, but given her support of abortion, it can be deduced that she would have supported human cloning for medical research. Another problem is the title of Crane's talk, "The Libertarian Idea." Rand clearly stated her opposition to Libertarianism. One may disagree with her, but this is *her* Centenary event, for the purpose of commemorating her life and her achievements.

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:00am

Michelle,

I think that you are misrepresenting Ayn Rand's view on political discrimination against homosexuals. After one of the NBI lectures around 1962, Ayn Rand took the opportunity to answer a question about the proper use of principles. One example she gave in answering that question was that she personally found homosexuality disgusting, but on the basis of her political principles was absolutely opposed to government discrimination against homosexuals. And the principle she invoked was the one from George Washington: that all individuals must be free to exercise their rights, provided only that they respected the equal rights of others.

Ayn Rand regarded homosexuality as personally immoral, because the facts reported by science in her time, were that homosexuality was counterproductive to healthy life. Given Rand's position that all knowledge must be grounded in the relevant facts of reality, I think (with Peikoff) that in the context of the more accurate objective knowledge of homosexuality that we have today, Ayn Rand (if she were still alive) would absolutely disavow her previous evaluation of homosexuality as "immoral".
(Edited by Adam Reed on 1/14, 10:37am)

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:53am

Adam I sent you a PM.

George

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:23am

Thank you for correcting me, Adam. I confused the immoral with the illegal.

Michelle

(Edited by Michelle Cohen on 1/14, 1:57pm)

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:00am

Hi, Michelle!

When you say that Miss Rand censured homosexuality as immoral (she said "I think it is disgusting"), do you think that Rand therefore also thought it should be against the law? Surely Rand would not have jumped to embrace the latter proposition. Rand understood that individuals have rights to do things that are morally wrong. That is an understanding necessary to having a firm grasp of the concept of individual rights. Justice Thomas has no firm grasp of this concept, notwithstanding his affection for Rand's writings. He doesn't get it.

If there were no rights to do things morally wrong, we would not neet the concept of having a right, we could just make do with the concept of doing the right thing.

In The Objectivist Forum, October 1986, Harry Binswanger wrote an article roundly condemning the 1986 decision of the Supreme Court that ratified the States right to criminalize homosexual relations. Do you agree with Dr. Binswanger on this? I'm very sure Rand would agree with his analysis of this issue.

Here are some excerpts from Binswanger's article. "Philosophically, the decision signals a shift in the Court's view of its function. Where the Court had generally viewed itself as the protector of individual rights (however misconstrued or twisted its definition of those rights), this decision casts it in the role of protector of the predjudices of the mob. The decision is so horrendous, that many people, myself included, assumed that media reports of the decision were distorted. They were not" (p. 13).

. . . .

"In a brilliant and scathing dissent, Justice Blackmun wrote: 'This case is no more about "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy," as the Court purports to declare . . . than Stanley V. Georgia (1969) was about a fundamental right to watch obscene movies, . . . . Rather, this case is about ''the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men,'' namely, "the right to be let alone." Olmstead v. United States (1928)'" (p.14).

. . . .

"Given the fundamentality, cogency, and moral certainty of Blackmun's dissent, and given that this is still America, there is a chance that within the next several years this decision will be reversed. Let us hope so" (p.15)

Dr Binswanger gets it.

Stephen

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 1:56pm

Stephen - see my post #28, and thanks for pointing out Binswanger's article.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 1:46pm

"President Bush said in an interview that he disagreed with the new decision, that he thought homosexuality should be against the law, and that the reason it should be against the law is because it is a sin. He does not have a firm grasp of the concept of individual rights."

Stephen, can you provide any sources? I don't recall any such statements by Bush at the time.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 5:12pm

Hi Ted,

No, I just saw him on television. As I remember it, he was dressed informally, with an open-collar shirt. It was probably at Crawford.

The attitude was very like what we heard a few years later, in a spontaneous, candid moment, from General Pace concerning the rationale for US policy on gays and lesbians in the military. It is a sinful way of life and should be shamed just as, say, an extra-marital affair.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 7:21pm

Q: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
A: I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored.
Source: Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ Oct 13, 2004

I find it hard to believe Bush said anything that hostile because I am sure I would have remarked upon and remembered it. I do remember laughing because Bush and Kerry said they disagreed with each other's stand on gay marriage, but their effective stance was the same: allow states to offer civil unions, but don't force states to recognize gay marriage instituted by other states. A search on google for gwb and homosexuality returns either accusations by lunatics that Bush himself was homosexual, or that he was too gay friendly.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 7:35pm

This should make his stance clear:

George W. Bush on Gay Rights

Constitutional amendment to protect marriage

So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them. Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
Source: 2005 State of the Union Speech Feb 2, 2005
Don't know whether homosexuality is a choice

Q: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
A: I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored.
Source: Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ Oct 13, 2004
We shouldn't change our views on the sanctity of marriage

As we respect someone's rights and profess tolerance, we shouldn't change-or have to change-our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. It's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman. I proposed a constitutional amendment. I was worried that activist judges are defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution. It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. When you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the Constitution ratification. I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry. The Defense of Marriage Act protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman. If it gets overturned, we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don't think that's in our nation's interests.
Source: Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ Oct 13, 2004
Protect marriage against activist judges

Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.
Source: 2004 Republican Convention Acceptance Speech Sep 2, 2004
Bush calls for constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

Bush called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, saying that's the only way to protect "the most fundamental institution of civilization" from activist judges. "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment," Bush said. "The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution . . . honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith."
Source: Deborah Orin, New York Post Feb 25, 2004
Instinct on gay issues: do not touch them

Bush's instinct on gay-rights issues was clear and emphatic: Do not touch them. During the campaign he had refused to comment on Vermont's civil unions. They were, he said, a local issue for local officeholders. He refused to accept the support of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans-and then met with a dozen prominent homosexuals in Austin after he had clinched the nomination. In office, he retained Clinton's Office of National AIDS Policy and named an openly gay man to run it. He did not repeal any of the spousal benefits that Clinton had introduced for homosexual federal employees. He did not object when some of his cabinet secretaries participated in Gay Pride events in their departments-and he did not object when others did not.
Bush tried to strike a formula of "morally traditional and socially inclusive." Gay issues demanded a choice between those two imperatives, and for that very reason Bush wished to have nothing to do with them.
Source: The Right Man, by David Frum, p.103-4 Jun 1, 2003
Offices on AIDS and race will remain open

President Bush scrambled yesterday to defend his commitment to race relations and helping people with AIDS after his chief of staff mistakenly said the offices devoted to those issues would be closed.
White House officials insisted chief of staff Andy Card had been misinformed when he told USA Today that the offices, both created by President Bill Clinton, would be shuttered. The officials said Bush will keep an AIDS office, although with a smaller staff, and will continue to focus on race relations with a Task Force on Uniting America that will not have its own office but will involve senior officials from several parts of the White House.
�We�re concerned about AIDS inside our White House - make no mistake about it,� Bush said. �And ours is an administration that will fight for fair, just law in the country.� Clinton created the Office of National AIDS Policy in 1994 to promote research on the disease. The Office on the President�s Initiative for One America was created in February 1999.
Source: Mike Allen, Washington Post, p A1 Feb 8, 2001
Bush claims gay tolerance but record differs

Bush claimed to be tolerant of gays, but he�s on the record as being adamantly opposed to hiring an openly gay person in his Administration. And Dick Cheney was forced to back off on his support for recognition of gay and lesbian relationships. Bush got positively gleeful over sending the three men who dragged James Byrd on the back of a truck to the death chamber, when only two are going (the other got a life sentence). And contrary to what he said in the debate, he did block hate-crimes legislation.
Source: Time, p. 62, �Double Standard� at Wake Forest debate Oct 19, 2000
Tolerance & equal rights, not gay marriage & special rights

Q: What is your position on gay marriage?
BUSH: I�m not for gay marriage. I think marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. I appreciated the way the administration signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I presume the vice president supported it.
GORE: I agree with that, and I did support that law. But I think that we should find a way to allow some kind of civic unions. And I basically agree with Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman, and I think the three of us have one view and the governor has another view.
BUSH: I�m not sure what kind of view he�s ascribing to me. One day he says he agrees with me, then he says he doesn�t. I will be a tolerant person. I�ve been a tolerant person all my life. I just happen to believe strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don�t really think it�s any of my concern how you conduct your sex life. That�s a private matter. I support equal rights but not special rights for people.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000
No gay adoptions; but listens to gay GOP group

Bush invited us, a dozen gay Republicans, after he�d refused to meet with a gay Republican group that criticized him. Bush didn�t like everything we had to say. I was struck with his lack of familiarity with the issues, as well as by his desire to learn.
Bush admitted that, growing up in Texas, he had not been as open to elements of America�s diverse culture. He had a narrow set of friends and a firm set of traditions. But he was surprised and dismayed to hear that people saw him as intolerant. �What have I said that sent that signal?� he asked repeatedly.
He assured us he would hire gays who both were qualified and shared his political views. When one of us talked about his lesbian sister and her partner adopting children, he acknowledged his often-stated belief that gays should not adopt.
Though Bush was attentive--and does show a willingness to hear all sides--I don�t think we changed his positions. He still opposes gay marriage and opposes classifying crimes against gays as hate crimes.
Source: Former Congressman Steve Gunderson, Newsweek, p. 43 Apr 24, 2000
Against gay marriage, but leave it to the states

Q: So if you have gays working for you, that�s fine and you don�t have a problem-you�d appoint gays in the Cabinet and so forth.
A: Well, I�m not going to ask what their sexual orientation is. I�m going to put conservative people in the cabinet. It�s none of my business what somebody�s [orientation is]. Now, when somebody makes it my business, like on gay marriage, I�m going to stand up and say I don�t support gay marriage. I support marriage between men and women.
Q: So therefore if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it.
A: The state can do what they want to do. Don�t try to trap me in this state�s issue.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000
No gays in Boy Scouts

Bush disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that said the Boy Scouts of America must accept gays in their organization. �I believe the Boy Scouts is a private organization and they should be able to set the standards that they choose to set,� Bush said
Source: USA Today, �Not taking GOP nomination for granted� Aug 19, 1999
Hate-crime rules don�t apply to gays

Bush opposes the extension of hate crime laws to protect gays and homosexual adoption.
Source: cnn.com Jul 2, 1999

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 6:55am

Ted, I have also not found any record of the remark of Pres. Bush that had so stunned me. I have been unable to find record of him remarking on the decision of Lawrence v. Texas at all (6/26/03). You know, I even remember Bush having to defend himself for the remark shortly after he made it. The defense was along the line of �Can�t I express my own personal views? I�m a citizen too.�

What comes up easily on the internet is his remark about a month later (in connection with same-sex marriage) in which he did the spiel of referring to homosexuals as sinners, the usual forked-tongue work of condemning wickedness and coddling the religious bigots on the one fork while, on the other fork, sweetly singing the defensive refrain: we�re all sinners (therefore, I did not attack the class that everyone not idiot knows I did just here attack).

Something really neat did come up in my search: George W. Bush and the Latest Evangelical Menace. The author is Leo P. Ribuffo (2006).

EXCERPT
�It is no insult to Bush�s faith to recognize that he was already a skilled politician who knew what to say to conservative Protestants. According to Wead�s tapes, he thought it �bad for Republicans to be kicking gays.� Framing the issue for his evangelical allies, Bush emphasized that he, too, was a �sinner� who therefore could not condemn the sins of others. Furthermore, Bush understood that the story of his conversion from carouser to Christian was, as he said in atypical Yiddish, �part of my shtick�.�

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS (after #36)
I do now find here that indeed President Bush did make a comment on the Lawrence decision the very day it was handed down. So that much of my memory is confirmed. Now to find record of what he actually said, then we�ll see how well I remembered.

PPS (after #37)
OK - I won't bother further. Back to main work.

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 8/12, 10:05am)

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 7:57am

Ribuffo is not a credible news source, nor does he cite any. His footnotes tell us, tautologically, that his fellow-partisans agree with him. I respect your strong feelings in the matter, but (as the present readership presumably already knows) that doesn't establish fact.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 9:52am

I do remember Bush's "can't I express my own views? I am a citizen too" remark, but don't know what the views themselves were. I think Peter has adequately remarked on what is the bottom line.

Sunday, December 13, 2009 - 3:52am

*******
(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 12/13, 2:11pm)

Sunday, December 13, 2009 - 12:40pm

Oh, Jesus, Stephen. You could just as well say Houston voted against the negro.