Thursday, December 14, 2006

Against It Before He Was For It

Andrew Sullivan today savagely attacks Mitt Romney for ceasing to support employment discrimination protection for homosexuals.

Everything he said in the 1990s is now to be dismissed. He was once for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; now he's against it. He was once for domestic partnerships for gays; now he's against them. He was once for ending the ban on gays in the military; now he's for keeping it. In the same interview with theocon Kathryn-Jean Lopez, he says that he opposes "unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference," while he favors allowing gay people to be fired from their jobs for being gay without any sanction.

Pretty harsh. But doesn't Romney have any arguments on his side? Well as one writer generally regarded as sympathetic to gay rights has put it:

Are gay people generally victims in employment? Have we historically been systematically barred from jobs in the same way that, say, women, blacks, and the disabled have? And is a remedy therefore necessary? My own view is that, while there are some particular cases of discrimination against homosexuals, for the most part getting and keeping jobs is hardly the most pressing issue we face. ...

Even in those states where job-protection laws have been enacted, sexual orientation cases have made up a minuscule proportion of the whole caseload.

Most people—gay and straight—know this to be true; and so they sense that the push for gay employment rights is unconvincing and whiny. I think they're right. ...

Instead of continually whining that we need job protection, we should be touting our economic achievements [and] defending the free market that makes them possible ....

Of course, we're told that until we're protected from discrimination in employment, we'll never be able to come out of the closet and effect the deeper changes we all want. But this is more victim-mongering. ...

Who said these things? You've probably already anticipated the punchline: One Andrew Sullivan, in the April 14, 1998, issue of The Advocate.

How to account for this recantation? The explanation seems to be not so much that Andrew lacks principles, as that he cannot remember the ones he has.

12/14 12:45 PM