Lev from Library Grape has a good piece up about the right’s new way of framing its opposition to marriage equality, summarized as:
whine a lot about how your religious freedoms are being trampled upon because not everyone is doing what you tell them to
The right is of course obsessed with the tactics of the left; that’s why, for example, they talk about Saul Alinksy constantly, whereas most liberals don’t know who Saul Alinksy is (I first heard the name in a Free Republic comments thread, and I thought at first he was a fellow conservative they admired, since they were so impressed with his tactics). Thus, it’s only natural in some sense that their response to gay rights is to say “what our about right to oppress gays”?
Elias Isquith explains why this is an ineffectual argument:
The logic of inherent dignity and rights is too powerful, and its implications too easily understood, to be overcome by the right’s desperate contortions. The religious liberty argument largely appeals to the kind of people who were once receptive to more straightforward, traditionalist arguments against homosexuality. As their numbers dwindle through the passage of time, and as generation after generation is raised in a culture that takes LGBT people’s humanity for granted, the religious liberty argument will be seen as the bizarre last gasp of fading order that it is.
It reminds me of nothing so much as that cliché of modern politics, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
Indeed, the argument is pure Harvard dining hall bullshit, more a Slate pitch than something you can put on a bumper sticker. It’s just a particularly complicated strain of Libtards Are The Real Fascists, a meme that consumes at least 50% of “intellectual conservatives'” time. Maybe Andrew Sullivan could have fun debating himself about it, but I don’t except the Bush-Paul ticket to make it a cornerstone of their ’16 campaign.