Well, I thought this is a terrific post. Apparently, many of the other commentators didn't take from it what I did.

The issue isn't whether or not you use the word "choice," the point is that the sexual/gender issues with which Republicans regularly beat Liberals around the head and neck can't be discarded, not without seriously undermining a progressive/liberal, Democratic point of view that is really about family values, as well  as about individual liberty.

One of the right-wing tropes that drives me nuts is the notion that gay people are somehow outside the purview of "the family." Gay people come from families, they have fathers and mothers, and sisters, and aunts, uncles; the treatment of gays by the larger society is of concern to many people who may not themselves be gay.

Inclusivity is a democratic value, and individual liberty, or choice if you will, needn't, and in fact, doesn't exist outside the context of love, duty, care-giving and committment. It isn't just Gay marriage that is constantly vilified, it's not just gay families, it's families with two working parents, it's families headed up by a single woman, or a divorced woman, it's blended families, in fact, it's the majority of families in this country that don't conform to the right's notion of what good families should look like.

It's within families that most of us make the most critical decisions that involve our liberty to govern our private right to live by our own lights - the freedom to make reproductive decisions for ourselves, end of life decisions, in an odd sort of way the right is inviting the state into the most private part of our lives, to limit the range of choices we have in how we deal with a fatal illness of a beloved parent, for instance.

Thanks, E.J. for opening up a rich area of possiblities worthy of more thought and discusion. 

I appreciate the post's support for both abortion and gay rights. I appreciate, too, its hope to reframe policy debates in a more liberal poltical philosophy than the dominant spin allows (which is not the same as whining, I think, that liberals need new ideas). I can also understand why a supporter of gay marriage, which many Americans oppose and even many supporters like myself find a pretty marginal issue, might wish to see it yoked to abortion rights, which most Americans support and liberals like me support passionately. That said, even apart from the annoying "yuckety-yuk if I do say so myself" at the start, I didn't find the post persuasive.

First, it rambled too much to articulate the needed philosophy in the first place. I never felt persuaded by the references to caring for those in need, a core value for me, in context of family, unless family becomes no more than a metaphor for society and then undercuts the examples of choice it wants to use. Second, on a practical level I do hope progressive politics won't rise or fall on American support for gay marriage, as it pretty much did in 2004. But third, some things don't really convince me.

It privileges family over other contexts such as the social fabric or the individual, and those matter, too. Indeed, they sure matter to a single woman with an unwanted pregnancy or, for that matter, a woman in an abusive marriage outraged at spousal notification. They also matter to many of us concerned for the lineage of Griswold and who think, even single men, that decisions about medical care belong to doctor and patient, as in the original court reasoning. If Congress says you can't receive your heart medicine, say, you'd demand a compelling state interest, preferably one aligned with your interest, such as product safety. From these perspectives, too, elevating "values" may not sound like a terrific foundation for democracy. The framers had their doubts, and no wonder values have played thus far into the most bigoted hands.

It also yokes things together that do not have a necessary connection. One can believe that the right to privacy and to freedom from discrimination prohibits sodomy law, forbids workplace discrimination against gays, and gives various financial and medical benefits to gay partners without requiring gay marriage, which some consider sanctioning by the state or an intrusion on their religion (what their church will recognize). One can believe that it's my choice when to have kids while actually discriminating on that account against same-sex couples as unable to bear children on their own. These are not my views, but they're not illogical, and an emphasis on family could well invite them, blowing the intended cause out of the water. Frankly, I'd forget this post's attempt at philosophy and start over.

I think you are probably right that I did not sufficiently link lgbt rights and repro rights in this post. I don't know how to do it yet in only 600 or so words, which is the appropriate blogging length; I've got a long talk that lays it out (come hear me at UMass Boston on Feb 3, if you're around; critiques will be welcomed). Haven't found someone who wants to publish this yet, but I'll post the link here when I do. Or I'll write a new post when I get it shrunk down to talking points (to use the phrasing of the site's mothership).