David Brooks Would Like Gay People to Lower Their Voices

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

31 March 15

In which David Brooks would like gay people to lower their voices.

efore we deal with the well-mannered moral monster that is David Brooks, we should dispense with some of the WeaselSpeak that has attended Mike Pence's successful attempt at killing his tourist economy. There is no doubt -- none -- that the law Pence signed is directly aimed at the rights of LGBT citizens -- and specifically, at their right to get married. It isn't about protecting the rights of the Amish in Decatur County to grow their beards, and it isn't about allowing the remaining members of the Kickapoo Nation to use whatever they want in their religious rituals. It is about allowing people to discriminate against their fellow citizens in thousands of private transactions. The history of this bill begins almost to the day on which Indiana's attempts to ban marriage equality failed in the courts. Its primary supporters admitted its real purpose right from jump.

Micah Clark of the American Family Association explained to The Indianapolis Star that the bill would allow small businesses to refuse services to same-sex couples and also that it would allow adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples. The Indiana Family Institute made an end-of-year fundraising pitch that promoted the legislation, noting examples of small businesses who were facing discrimination complaints from same-sex couples.

And, if its purpose was as anodyne as Pence now makes it out to be, and if Pence is as blindsided by the backlash as he's now pretending to be, then why did he sign it in a secret ceremony in which he was surrounded by some of the state's most serious professional homophobes?

(And, not for nothing, but when you've lost Dan Quayle's old family newspaper, it's time to wonder how far off the diving board you've actually jumped.)

Which brings us to David Brooks, who would like all those hysterical gay people to start using their inside voices and to understand that their desire for equal protection under the law would be better served if they understood the feelings of the people who think they are sodomite insects who are all going to hell. No link because fk him, that's why.

As a matter of principle, it is simply the case that religious liberty is a value deserving our deepest respect, even in cases where it leads to disagreements as fundamental as the definition of marriage. Morality is a politeness of the soul. Deep politeness means we make accommodations. Certain basic truths are inalienable. Discrimination is always wrong. In cases of actual bigotry, the hammer comes down. But as neighbors in a pluralistic society we try to turn philosophic clashes (about right and wrong) into neighborly problems in which different people are given space to have different lanes to lead lives. In cases where people with different values disagree, we seek a creative accommodation.

"Morality is a politeness of the soul"? What kind of dog's breakfast is that? Jesus His Own Self said he brought not peace, but a sword. If Brooks wants to stand with religious-based bigotry, with the Micah Clarks of the world, he should just do so and stop wasting all of our time as a sewage-treatment plant for the worst instincts in our politics. "Neighborly problems"? If Brooks wants to say that discrimination against LGBT citizens is not really discrimination worthy of the law's attention, he should just say so, and stop wasting all our time putting Bull Connor in a $500 suit. Here's a "creative accommodation" for you. Don't be a bigot.

I have to go now. Moral Hazard, the Irish setter owned by David Brooks for photo-op purposes, is laying on his back out in the yard, without even the energy or inspiration to lick his own balls. I'm worried about him, frankly.