GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Comments

  4. Sam Nunn.

    Now there was a Democrat who knew a thing or two about the military — and would have squashed Saddam like a bug.

    Put up a candidate like him in ’08, and you’ve got my vote.

  7. Sam Nunn.
    Put up a candidate like him in ‘08, and you’ve got my vote.
    Comment by Clint
    ========================
    I thought you spurned gay hating democrats?

    Are you the kind of guy that only havs sex with men but don’t see yourself as gay or homosexual allowing you the great pleasure of both looking down on gay activists while getting you rocks off?

    The only one I am sure about is Malco, with his new husband and all.

  10. Speaking of watching a drama unfold, did anyone get a load of what happened in the California Assembly yesterday? Real drama. And frankly, I’m surprised Bruce (or Dan) didn’t jump right on this — after all, the other house of the legislature there voted to approve gay marriage. The measure goes to the Governor, who has expressed clear interest in gay votes and claims to be ultra gay-friendly. Surely, he’ll sign the measure, right?

    Now, you’d think that all this would be of some interest to a gay-centric blog, wouldn’t you? No? Why not? Oh, I see, this is a gay blog which stands opposed to gay marriage unless it’s passed by overwhelming majorities in all legislature, with all initiatives and referenda held everywhere to approve, and probably with the Pope’s blessings too.

    Well, it’s not going to happen that way. It’s going to happen incrementally and, as should be clear to all of you by now, it’s going to happen because of DEMOCRATS overcoming sometimes unanimous opposition from the Anti-Gay Republican Party. No, you say? Look at the votes on marriage equality to date:

    Vermont, April 2000:
    Senate – FOR = 19 (17 DEMS, 2 Gop)
    Senate – AGAINST = 11 (GOP all)
    House – FOR = 79 (59 DEMS, 15 Gop, 4 Prog, 1 Ind)
    House – AGAINST = 68 (51 GOP, 16 Dems, 1 Ind)

    Connecticut, April 2005:
    Senate – FOR = 27 (21 DEMS, 6 Gop)
    Senate – AGAINST = 9 (6 GOP, 3 Dems)
    House – FOR = 85 (71 DEMS, 14 Gop)
    House – AGAINST = 63 (37 GOP, 26 Dems)

    Oregon, July ‘05
    Senate – FOR = 19 (17 DEMS, 2 Gop)
    Senate – AGAINST = 10 (9 GOP, 1 Dem)
    The GOP-controlled House refused to allow a vote there.

    California, September ‘05
    Senate – FOR = 21 (ALL 21 DEMS)
    Senate – AGAINST = 15 (14 GOP, 1 Dem)
    Assembly – FOR = 41 (ALL 41 DEMS)
    Assembly – AGAINST = 35 (31 GOP, 4 Dems)

    NOT A SINGLE GOP VOTE “FOR” IN EITHER HOUSE IN CALIFORNIA.

    Speaks volumes about the party so many of you adore.

  11. Well, I can’t speak for everyone ’round these parts, but I certainly don’t adore the Republican Party. It is, however, the party more closely aligned with my philosophy about government and foreign policy.

    Frankly put, where I stick my dick does not determine where I float my boat. I try to avoid crotch-centric personal politics wherever possible.

    I’m just going to assume you’ve never been subjected to the scores of gay-baiting advertisements and pamphlet campaigns run by Democrats who don’t live in supermajority blue areas. They’re really rather quaint.

  12. Hey, at least the scientist will concentrate more on reviving a petrified tiger than spending time using discarded human embryos for the purposes of creating voodoo witchcrafted useless medicine.

    But then again, enlightened beyond God human beings were never really rational in the first place.

  13. I would put it this way, Reader…..since you consider banning gay marriage on the state level, as advocated by John Kerry and the national leaders of the Democratic Party, to be “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, these sort of votes don’t really matter.

    As I told Dunner on my own blog, I’m glad to see the Assembly pass this. However, the true test will be next year when it goes up for a statewide constitutional referendum. When Democrats like John Kerry start demanding that it be banned, will you stand firm — or will you collapse like you did in 2004 and start protecting even FMA supporters because they’re Democrats?

  14. I’ll be very interested to see what the Governor does with this. He’s in a tough spot, either way, but I hope he’ll sign it.

    If this does go into effect, I think the referrendum will be close — but we’ll win it.

  16. First, Jurassic Park was fiction.

    Second, there’s a difference between bringing back life from 100 million years, and from 1939. The 1939 life is certainly compatible.

    I think its a great idea. I hope they pull it off. There are some cool pre-historic animals I’d like to see, which only became extinct due to humans. Like the extinct ratites.

    “All Moa species appear to have died out no later than about one thousand years ago”

  17. Speaking of the California Assembly, Reader, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected late last August a bill amending the state constitution, thereby allowing the use of eminent domain for private benefit. Is that what your party and mine have become, property hustlers and thieves?

    They did manage to pass a miserable two-year moratorium on eminent domain against owner-occupied dwellings. But it hardly looks sincere when Democrats refuse to recognize it as a problem and call a serious public concern, hysteria.

  19. In #13, NDT’s still stuck in his Kerry fantasies and can’t even once (not here and not on any other thread) tell us what to make of all that Republican opposition to marriage equality.

    In #14, Clint warms my heart (seriously) by going against the grain here and simply saying “I hope he signs it” (re: the Governor). Me too Clint.

    In #17, newbie — hey Ringer, I’m digging your Democratic loyalty. Easily spotted.

  21. Reader,
    You’re right to criticize FEMA. I’ve done it and so have many others, both leftists and conservatives.

    But honestly, WTF difference does it make what you have to say about it anyway? If you or any of the rest of the Bush-bashers had spent any time in the past week pointing out (or in the least, acknowledging) the utter incompetence and criminal negligence of the mayor and governor, rather than looking for any opportunity to bash the president, your opinions may have some weight behind them.

    Better yet if your side had been in there helping instead of standing around the periphery harping, perhaps things could have been addressed sooner. No, no! It’s much better to get in the way and bitch than to roll up your sleaves and help out. While the rest of us have been wondering what went wrong and how to a) help, and b) keep it from happening in the future, the other side has been wondering about who to blame.

    So they once again look like what they are: Petty partisains who are willing to exploit death and misery if it means trying to make Bush look bad.

    It’s because of craven efforts like these that we’re never able to get to the bottom of things. If we actually had two sides who were both working towards finding the answers and solutions to problems, we’d all be much better off. But then again, if there were an honest debate or discussion, the anybody-but-Bush side would rarely win, so as usual, they have to stoop to personalizing it instead.

  23. Anthony-

    Collectivist logic can make things very confusing. When you realize that groups of people are composed of individual people, a great many things will become clearer.

    You write: “And why are we militating for gay marriage when it isn’t clear that we really even want it?”

    Your two uses of “we” have totally different referrents — they are different sets of people.

    Fill them in, and your question: “And why are some people, gay and straight, militating for gay marriage when it isn’t clear that every single gay person really even wants it.” becomes self-answering.

    Some people are militating for gay marriage because they believe it is right, in some cases because they are themselves gay people who would like to marry.

    It may well be that as you say you personally belong to an unusual subset of people who are gay, don’t want to marry, don’t even want the right to marry, and yet militate for the right to marry. I assure you, there aren’t many of you.

  24.  

    And why are we militating for gay marriage when it isn’t clear that we really even want it?

    Question for Anthony: Do the bold we and the italicized we actually have the same antecedent?

    Second question for Anthony: If interracial marriages amount to only a small percentage of total marriages in the U.S. — i.e., if most Americans choose to marry within their “race” — was it a waste of time for Mr. and Mrs. Loving to get themselves arrested by the state of Virginia and pursue the case to the Supreme Court?

  26. Chandler-
    If you’re going to spend so much time here, you might make some effort to try to tell us apart. We are wearing our nametags, after all.
    Comment by Clint
    ===================
    Can you read?

  27. Reader,
    Why is gay marriage more important to the Democratic Party than private property?
    And why are we militating for gay marriage when it isn’t clear that we really even want it?
    Comment by Anthony
    =================
    Wow, all y’all must be the kind of homosexuals that just fuck like bunnies and go home and act all straight and everything. I hate to tell you, but we are raising families. We are adopting, foster caring, surrogating and raising heards of heterosexual children in healthy, happy homes. The only problem, there is NO LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTS. It screws up registering kids for school, inheritance rifgts, tax obligations, and on and on. When two people buy a dog they have more joint rights together over the pet than gay parents have joint rights over their CHILDREN.

    It is all about our rights to OUR families.

    So you may take another bump, order another martini and keep on dancing because some of us have OTHER priorities. But do not diminish our objectives because you cannot understand them.

    Our civil rights are what our children depend on.

  28. #21
    It still fascinates me how the Katrina Chickens, like Readtard, can sit there and bitch about the government while not doing a damn thing to help. Perhaps they should have gone there to show how it should have been done?
    It was particularly amusing listening to liberals of Congress whine about being on vacation while they themselves were still on vacation.

  30. In #13, NDT’s still stuck in his Kerry fantasies and can’t even once (not here and not on any other thread) tell us what to make of all that Republican opposition to marriage equality.

    And you, Reader, call advocating for state bans, even for Federal bans, on gay marriage to be “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats do it.

  32. Clint writes:

    “Your two uses of ‘we’ have totally different referrents — they are different sets of people.

    Fill them in, and your question: ‘And why are some people, gay and straight, militating for gay marriage when it isn’t clear that every single gay person really even wants it.’ becomes self-answering.”

    Shifting the quantifier on me is very clever, but I’m afraid that isn’t what I asked. My question, if you’d rephrased it better, should have been:

    Why are we (the class of gay people who support gay marriage) the same (class of gay) people who’re uncomfortable with it? Less clumsily worded, I’m asking why gay people who do support gay marriage also seem to squirm at the thought of it.

    That this is my intention is clear from the link I sent to the San Francisco story. As soon as Domestic Partners became real, that is to say, became a matter of legal obligations, suddenly many of us wanted out. Although unhappy with obligatory Domestic Partnerships, members of this group would soon promote gay marriage.

    There are other instances. People who make themselves representative of the gay marriage cause say that we should have gay marriage, but it shouldn’t be monogamous for gay men. Other activists say that gay marriage should be redefined so that it allows for any number of original combinations. Still others, in Britain and in Canada, seem jealous for heterosexuals to share in any new Domestic Partner or marriage arrangement they might find beneficial.

    As the case of California’s Domestic Partners shows, some of us may not really want it after all. Others aren’t comfortable with marriage on its own traditional turf. And some of us will only accept the turf if we can revise the terms entirely in our favor. This is a strangely wide set of positions for a group that says it wants this single thing in common called gay marriage, and that doesn’t even cover them all.

    If you look under the surface of our political unity, you’ll find troubled waters. It certainly wasn’t unified on the matter before the spring of 2004. Now, for political reasons, anything else is reviled.

    “It may well be that as you say you personally belong to an unusual subset of people who are gay, don’t want to marry, don’t even want the right to marry, and yet militate for the right to marry. I assure you, there aren’t many of you.”

    I said nothing for or against gay marriage in my earlier post. It so happens that I have a partner, and I’d like to have the same privileges marriage gives its partners. I note, however, that marriage involves obligations. If we want this, we should ask ourselves if we’re ready for the obligations that come with it. Is it real, or is it politics?

    Now that you mention it though, I do have an uncertain feeling about gay marriage. I don’t think the unique relationship between two men either can or should be forced into some fake heterosexual marriage mold. It almost seems like a begging for acceptance, and at the high price of sameness, dullness, and falseness to our gay experience. If, on the other hand, you answer by saying we just want to change the way marriage is understood, then you want to force something on a lot of other people who have some right to object–unless you have a problem with democracy.

    Sometimes I think this is why there really are so many gay people, many of them younger, but not all, who naturally assent to having the same legal privileges under the law as marriage but are decidedly cool to the idea of placing themselves in the “marriage” category. I think our difference from straight married couples is both a real difference and a good thing. How is this difference, if we can have all the same privileges in some sort of arrangement (perhaps one that isn’t burdened with the traditional baggage of marriage) second-class citizenship?

    But this is running long. Let me end it this way.

    Strictly within the group of gay marriage supporters, there seems to be a desire to have something exactly like heterosexuals, otherwise (some of us say) it’s second-class citizenship. But on the other hand, this same group, in various ways, wants to change that institution so that it isn’t exactly like the institution heterosexuals have, all but acknowledging that this arrangement doesn’t suit us. I weave in and out of this group myself.

    Isn’t there a tension here?