Gay Patriot Header Image

Taking Gay Marriage Seriously in Texas

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:24 pm - November 4, 2005.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

Next Tuesday, Texas is likely to become the eighteenth state to pass a constitutional amendment barring the state from recognizing same-sex marriages. The proposed amendment, appearing on next Tuesday’s ballot, would also prevent the Lone Star State from recognizing domestic partnerships as well. Last year, voters in thirteen states (eleven in November, Missouri and Louisiana earlier in the year) approved ballot initiatives defining marriage the union of one man and one woman. Since then, voters in Kansas followed suit.

Although every such referendum that appears on state ballots has passed, usually by a comfortable margin, advocates of same-sex marriage continue to offer the same strategy to defeat these measures. And they continue to lose. Given their repeated defeats, one would expect gay rights’ leaders to assess the damage and develop a new strategy. Perhaps a few leaders should take responsibility for their failure (to defeat a single one of these initiatives) and step down as did British Foreign Minister Lord Carrington when, a week after he refused to grant the Royal Navy permission to send a fleet to defend the Falkland Islands, Argentina invaded that British territory.

Lord Carrington acknowledged his mistakes. Those spearheading the opposition to the Texas Amendment are repeating those made by gay marriage advocates in other states. Under the leadership of a liberal former state representative, Austin’s Glen Maxey, opponents have put together “No Nonsense In November,” a coalition of left-wing groups. Law professor Dale Carpenter, one of the few who understands what’s at stake in the marriage debate, calls this “a losing coalition” in “a conservative Republican state.

It’s not just the coalition that’s the problem, it’s the message as well. On the No Nonsense website, Dale finds that:

the very first argument against the marriage amendment is one that practically cribs from press releases of the state Democratic party. No Nonsense argues that instead of passing a marriage amendment, the Republican-dominated state legislature should have concentrated on “real solutions” like child healthcare and equalization of public-school financing.

Seems these activists are more interested in attacking Republicans than in defeating this pernicious proposal. Not a good idea in a state that voted to re-elect the president with 61% of the vote.

If advocates of gay marriage are serious about their case, then they need to do, as Dale and Jonathan Rauch have done, and make the case for gay marriage. They can’t base opposition to such initiatives on animosity toward Republicans or attacks on the motives of the authors of such proposals. They need to talk about why “gay marriage itself is a good idea” and why these proposals are bad ones. As I have said frequently in my posts on gay marriage, we need to talk about gay marriage just as straight Americans talk about traditional marriage.

Indeed, it seems that one of the most leftist gay groups in doing just that. According to Dale, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) is running seven ads on Houston-area television stations which defend the idea of gay marriage “on essentially conservative grounds.” In one ad, a woman says that “when she proposed, she intended a ‘long-term commitment.’” In another, a mother begins by saying, “My children want the same thing their father and I wanted,” and ends with these words, “I hope they’re together forever.

As Dale puts it:

The NGLTF ads are simple and powerful. They don’t talk about abstract “rights.” They don’t list all the legal benefits of marriage, as if this were a struggle over the tax code. There is nothing post-modern about them. There’s not a single sexual liberationist in sight.

Instead, the ads emphasize the needs of real gay families, including the children they’re raising. They highlight long-term commitment by gay couples. They use religious faith, spoken by religious people, as an argument against the amendment. And they focus on the similarities�not the differences between gay and straight Americans.

Most significantly, they begin to make the positive case for gay marriage. They are not shy or apologetic about it. . . . They are not in the least politically partisan.

Sounds like a good strategy to me. Indeed, sounds like the one I have suggested.

Given NGLTF’s predilection for the tired slogans of failed left-wing “liberation” movements, I was as surprised as Dale to see this group come up with a fresh approach to the gay marriage debate. Maybe they’ve been reading this blog.

Even if these ads don’t succeed in changing enough minds to defeat the referendum, they do at least help plant the idea of what gay marriage should be. If people are serious about gay marriage, they will start talking about the meaning of this sacred institution. They will not dwell so much on rights, fairness and equality as they will on commitment, responsibility, mutual respect and monogamy.

Because even if we don’t succeed in gaining state recognition for our unions, we will at least succeed in promoting relationships which are good for gay people — and furthering their acceptance in society at large.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

ADDENDUM: Shortly after I read the first of Dale’s pieces on the Texas Initiative, I had planned on doing a post wondering if advocates of gay marriage seriously supported the institution. While I remain skeptical about some advocates, I am convinced that Dale takes the marriage debate seriously. The pieces I have cited in this post make that abundantly care as does his thoughtful post to one of the leading libertarian-conservative blogs.

UPDATE: Make that thoughtful posts. I just learned that the Volokh Conspiracy invited Dale to guest-blog on same sex marriage. Click here to get all his (Volokh) posts on one page. I haven’t read them all yet, but, given Dale’s intelligence and his past writings, I expect he makes some pretty sound arguments.

Share

37 Comments

  1. You’ve been reading my mind GPW!
    I’ve wondered for quite some time now WHY Gay Marriage proponents keep using the same OLD tactics that have repeated been ineffective.
    If I didn’t take the ammendments so personally it would be laughable.

    I don’t know what the right stratigy is, but I’m smart enough to know that if one doesn’t work, (Repeatedly) then I would try something different.

    Also, unfortunately, I don’t know if ANY tactic would win “us” support.

    I’ve said repeatedly in this blog, that as far as I’m concerned “They” can HAVE Marriage. I don’t care!!!
    But to also exclude ANY forms of protections/Unions is just MEAN!!! (And Un-Christian)

    Comment by MarkP — November 4, 2005 @ 8:50 pm - November 4, 2005

  2. This would be a good post Dam, if you deleted the first four paragraphs. After the usual diatribe you actually say something GOOD about a national gay activist group?

    Shee it, I have to sit down.

    Comment by Chandler in Hollywood — November 4, 2005 @ 8:52 pm - November 4, 2005

  3. Actually, as Dale Carpenter pointed out, NGLTF, of all places, seems to have hit on something.

    I have also quite impressed by LCR Texas’s effort, and not just because I was invited to a house party to meet Patrick Guerriero last week. :) I need to get on blogging about that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2005 @ 9:07 pm - November 4, 2005

  4. Well, I’m not sure about gay marriage, although I understand a need for people in long term relationships to have certain legal protections some version of a civil union might offer, but I really just wanted to say that I’ve been drunk multiple times in Texas. Frequently in Austin, when I was a student at UT.

    My wife suspects me of being a homophobe, because I don’t think ‘Will & Grace’ is that funny, but it isn’t true.

    I just wanted to make that clear.

    Comment by Ed Mahmoud abu al Kahouls Martyrs Brigades — November 4, 2005 @ 10:37 pm - November 4, 2005

  5. Chandler, the last half of the piece would be meaningless without the first half.

    We need to establish context for the failure of gay groups to develop a strategy to appeal to the average straight voter. I believe gay organizations have failed and failed us badly. It’s sad that you see that as a diatribe.

    Let me stress, without my words of criticism, my praise for NGLTF (in this context) would be meaningless.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 4, 2005 @ 11:01 pm - November 4, 2005

  6. Let me stress, without my words of criticism, my praise for NGLTF (in this context) would be meaningless.
    Comment by GayPatriotWest
    ========================
    No, they would be words of praise and approval without the divisiveness.
    That would be refreshing.
    But if you need to justify your ham fisted approach, so be it.
    Ham fisted, how ironic.

    Comment by Chandler in Hollywood — November 4, 2005 @ 11:53 pm - November 4, 2005

  7. So what’s the suggestion for defeating these ammendments?

    People are forgetting history and how we, as gays and lesbians, worked to gain the same rights other people in our society enjoy without question. People worked together to make the issue a human rights issue, not a strictly “gay” issue. That’s the key to it. When I was in college, I worked with organizations that presented various evenings in college dorm common rooms and our Gay and Lesbian Student Union presented a programs on gays and lesbians. We listened to the students that attended to give their views and eventually focused on the folks who had negative comments about gays and lesbians. We then asked people to think about those comments, but instead of “gay” to replace that word with the word black or jew. It was quite empowering to see at even one person have a light go on their head when they realized the impact of their statements from a different perspective.

    It’s a simple lesson of showing how homophobia is hurts everyone in society, just like we learned how other ills like racism hurt everyone.

    And as far as the states that have already passed these ammendments? I hope to see them challenged in the courts under these states “equal protection” clauses (for those that have them). To me, it’s just common sense that it’s downright wrong to allow people (even if they are the majority) to vote away the rights of other citizens.

    Comment by Kevin — November 4, 2005 @ 11:56 pm - November 4, 2005

  8. Well, for starters, it’s not hard for people to vote against gay rights when it involves being for unrestricted abortion, higher taxes, and soliciting sex in public restrooms while being against parental notification, religion, and Republicans.

    And that’s just what No Nonsense in November is supporting. You should see some of the others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2005 @ 12:34 am - November 5, 2005

  9. Take every chance to do a jab but never say anything GPW!

    Thanks again for saying “”.

    Comment by Joey — November 5, 2005 @ 1:04 am - November 5, 2005

  10. No, Chandler, someone needs to say that the past strategies have failed. Because they have. Gay people need to say this. More often than not our gay groups blame the vote rather than wonder if they could have adopted a better strategy.

    This is something I feel very strongly about. Had I not seen Dale’s pieces, my post (see the ADDENDUM) would have been far harsher than this. I don’t believe gay organizations are talking seriously about marriage. Until they do, we won’t have a serious conversation on the topic. And they won’t succeed in making their case to the American people.

    Dale’s pieces have proven that the situation is not as bleak as I thought it was. He has been writing sensibly on the topic–and NGLTF seems, at least with their ads in Houston, to be offering a similar message.

    Ever since I came out, I have seen a reluctance for gay people to criticize gay organizations — even when they fail. Instead, they have blamed society, social conservatives or the GOP for their failings. Just as gay individuals could benefit from a little self-criticism and introspection, so too can gay organizations.

    I’m sorry that you don’t value honest criticism, designed not to insult, but to correct. Please don’t project the way you treat this blog onto the way I address gay organizations.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 5, 2005 @ 2:07 am - November 5, 2005

  11. #6 Or else you could look at it this way… It’s easy to heap praise and approval on those you agree with, but that praise and approval doesn’t necessarily mean anything more significant than thats what you always say. Who gives a yes-man any credit?

    Same for automatic criticism. Who pays attention to the anti-Bush hysteria when it comes from people who hate every single last breath the guy takes just because he takes it?

    Criticism from people who make some claim to be open minded enough to agree with some things and disagree with others makes the criticism seem more legitimate.

    Saying, Look… I usually disagree with these people on *everything* but this time they have it *right* is what most people would consider evidence of being fair minded.

    I honestly don’t know why you see this as a problem.

    Comment by Synova — November 5, 2005 @ 2:46 am - November 5, 2005

  12. #8: That’s the kind of “non-compromise” mentality that’s destroying the spirit of this country. Too many people now have become focused on single, hot-button topics. The way you make your statement, it seems that you’re asking groups like NGLTF to make some kind of public statement divorcing themselves from every topic you’re against and blanketly agree with everything you support. Compromise isn’t about completely renouncing all your beliefs to make the other side happy, nor is it about expecting others to believe in everything you believe in. I don’t think any Republican/Democrat/conservative/liberal/moderate would ever do that – at least if they have a healthy self-respect for the beliefs they hold most important. It’s about all people focusing on the issues that really do affect everyone in this country to continue a healthy democracy.

    Comment by Kevin — November 5, 2005 @ 8:57 am - November 5, 2005

  13. Why no post hammering Republican Governor Perry for his high-visibility leadership role in this vote? Because he’s a Republican. Gay Patriots NEVER say anything about their party’s role in these anti-gay marriage votes, because it would leave them open to the question of why they’re in the GOP in the first place.

    Both of the GayPatriots are men who tend not to waste words, especially when such things have already been posted in other places, multiple times, by people who actually live in the state and have a working knowledge of Texas politics and politicians.

    As for “pussies”, the irony of you and your fellow Democrats, who not only cannot criticize, but call people who support antigay state constitutional amendments “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, saying that is lost on no one — except perhaps yourselves. :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2005 @ 10:19 am - November 5, 2005

  14. That’s the kind of “non-compromise” mentality that’s destroying the spirit of this country. Too many people now have become focused on single, hot-button topics.

    Actually, it’s just the opposite, Kevin.

    You see, in your Dembot world, being gay means you must do the following:

    – Support unrestricted abortion

    – Support higher taxes on everyone, especially the rich

    – Support soliciting and having sex in public restrooms

    – Oppose parental notification and consent

    – Oppose religion as superstition

    – Hate Republicans in any way, shape, or form

    You, Kevin, are the gay version of your fellow Democratic minorities, who demand that all minority members think and act a certain way or else.

    I’m not compromising. That is what leads to Dembots like you and Joe Solmonese giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to a supporter of the FMA because she was pro-abortion and millions of dollars to Democrats who wanted to strip you of your rights via state constitutional amendments (while spending spare change on fighting said amendments).

    NGLTF and their ilk can either realize they are gay rights organizations and respect the diversity of opinion in the gay community, or they can continue to be money-laundering operations for the Democratic Party that divert funds away from the real fight for equality and waste it on moonbat leftist causes in the name of “compromise”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2005 @ 10:36 am - November 5, 2005

  15. Well, since you’ve pushed the issue, why don’t I tell you my personal beliefs (in relation to your statements):

    – Support unrestricted abortion – Yes I do. As much as I would prefer that all pregancies were wanted and healthy, that’s not the real world. Women are the ones who bear the responsibility of their pregancies and whether they wish to carry a child to term or not. It’s a completely personal decision that no one else (especially a government) has the right to interfere with.

    – Support higher taxes on everyone, especially the rich: Nonsense. Fair taxes that provide for keeping our country running are necessary. I also believe that *everyone* should pay their fair share. The tax laws in this country allow for the rich (both individual and corporate) with the means to get around paying their fair share. Laws need to be tightened up and loopholes closed. Something seems very wrong when there are rich people and companies who hide their income and our government operations suffer because of it.

    – Support soliciting and having sex in public restrooms: Nope, I think it’s pretty icky and should be illegal.

    – Oppose parental notification and consent: See the first comment. If a woman (of any age) is able to engage in a sexual act that results in pregnancy, then it is her decision to do what she wants and to consent with either no one whoever she wishes.

    – Oppose religion as superstition: I have firm, christian-based religious beliefs and believe everyone has the right to worship (or not worship) the deity, spirit, etc of their choice. What I personally oppose (as do millions of Americans) is how members of some religions wish to use our government to prosteltize (sp?), recruit and coerce people to their religious beliefs.

    – Hate Republicans in any way, shape, or form: Nope, sorry. Even though my leanings are firmly liberal/democrat, I have voted for and possibly will vote for Republicans in the future. As an example, John McCain is someone who I might consider voting for. In addition, my family is mainly Republican, some of my best friends are Republican. And on a very personal note, I had a good friend for many years who was a strong liberal and worked in the federal government for years. When he died suddenly of a heart attack last year, I attended his funeral and I met the man who he had been dating (He was private about some things and I didn’t know this). This man I met works in the Federal government and is very much a Republican/Conservative, yet because of the closeness he shared with my friend, he is very special to me, even though we only met once and have only corespponded a few times.

    Also, I tend to consider very hard certain issues and a number of times have not supported democrats who I find to be overwhelming anti-gay. Yes there are things some democrats have done, such as Clinton signing DOMA, but I did support him on a majority of other issues. I think if we all looked at every issue that our politicians oppose/support, you’d probably be hard pressed to find any of them, democrat or republican, who agrees with your views 100%

    So, please don’t make blanket statements about everyone who is a liberal, just as I’m sure there are some conservatives out there who may not agree with some things you say. I’ve presented my thoughts here (and in other posts) without attacking people. I’ve noticed that you, and some other people, regularly use derogatory comments to refer to people who don’t agree with you…that strikes me as pretty intolerant and uncompromising.

    By the way, if you noticed my post about non-compromise, maybe you missed the fact that I said this generally and *didn’t* say it just applied to conservatives only. Thank you very much.

    Comment by Kevin — November 6, 2005 @ 12:10 am - November 6, 2005

  16. Fair enough, Kevin. Now, do you notice that none of those positions have anything to do with gay rights?

    Once you catch on to that fact, you’ll see much better from where I’m coming. But if you so much as open your mouth and start arguing that I have to have a certain position on abortion to support gay rights, bye now.

    And as for derogatory statements, when you come out against “Uncle Tom” as one, we’ll talk.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 6, 2005 @ 10:20 am - November 6, 2005

  17. Since Gov. Perry has made overtly clear that his Christianity is the reason for his support for this referendum, it does lead to the question of why Texans aren’t voting on Tuesday to ban divorce and re-marriages, both of which are allowed in Texas and are at least as violative of Christianity as same-sex marriages are.

    Comment by Curtis — November 6, 2005 @ 12:42 pm - November 6, 2005

  18. North Dallass Thirty I would love to see you try and spin post #18

    heh :)

    Comment by Gregorio — November 6, 2005 @ 2:21 pm - November 6, 2005

  19. In light of what Curtis said in #18, it’s sad that so few social conservatives who claim concern about the “threat” that same-sex unions pose to marriage, fail to address an even greater threat — that of divorce. There are a handful of social conservatives (even at one time, Bill Bennett) who have said as much — that no-fault divorce was the real problem.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 6, 2005 @ 2:27 pm - November 6, 2005

  20. I think that divorce is the problem. Definately.

    I know that I’ve said this a lot of times… people may be wrong about gay marriage being a threat to marriage but they are *not* wrong about the fact that marriage is threatened.

    Comment by Synova — November 6, 2005 @ 3:36 pm - November 6, 2005

  21. GayPatriotWest,

    I have a feeling if prop 2 passes on Tuesday you and gaypatriot will blame the Democrats and Liberals, like yuu always do. The mayor of Houston mayor Bill White is a Democrat, who is running for reelection and has said he is going to vote no on proposition 2. I’m voting for mayor White and voting no on prop. 2.

    While some of the republicans in Houston have been going on local news stations telling people to vote yes on prop. 2.

    I’ve noticed that gaypatriot.net is all about blaming Democrats and Libearls for all of America’s problems, at the same time you don’t see gaypatirot and gaypatriotwest give any harsh criticisms to bush or the republican party when it comes to gay rights issues.

    Comment by Gregorio — November 6, 2005 @ 3:56 pm - November 6, 2005

  22. Curtis,

    I agree with you in that numerous divorces and re-marriages are a threat to the spirit of marriage. In the current arguements to allow gays and lesbians to marry, how does allowing them to get married mitigate that threat to marriage ? All I have heard has been more on ‘contract’ issues, such as inhearitance (sic), employee benefits, etc.

    Comment by Wendy — November 6, 2005 @ 5:20 pm - November 6, 2005

  23. Gergorio,

    Is it that you do not see any critisism, or it is not harsh enough for you ? Does one always need to be harsh to provide critisism ?

    Comment by Wendy — November 6, 2005 @ 5:22 pm - November 6, 2005

  24. Gregorio, like a good number of our critics, you (in comment #22) define us as you assume we are, but not as we are.

    If Prop. #2 passes, I will note that the strategy of those who tried to push gay marriage through the courts has backfired and backfired badly. And say, as I have long said, that we need a new strategy.

    If you’ve noticed that this blog is all about blaming Democrats and liberals for America’s problems, then you’ve spent more time reading our critics than the blog itself. We have criticized Bush and the GOP on a variety of issues and have faulted him multiple times for signing on to the FMA.

    It’s funny that you should say this blog is all about blaming Democrats & liberals when, in this very post, I single out a liberal group (NGLTF) for praise.

    So, please, if you’re going to comment to our blog, at least take the time to address the issues we raise and make us into straw men so that you may more readily dismiss our ideas. And then you would distinguish yourself from a good number of our critics.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 6, 2005 @ 6:00 pm - November 6, 2005

  25. 17: Any civil / human rights issues can be connected with gay rights issues. The more people connect with others who are also lacking in basic rights from those in power, then the closer they are to building a coalition and getting the rights everyone else has, the rights we all deserve. I learned this in college and over time it’s held to be true.

    Now that I’m reading over these posts again, I’m wordering where you saw / who wants to make sex in public restrooms legal? I’m finding it a little hard to believe that a civil rights group is advocating this, and I’d like to know who’s doing that.

    I’m also thinking of a time when over a decade ago when NAMBLA was attempting to make itself part of the gay rights movement. Major gay rights organizations eventually rejected this (and rightly so in my mind) beause nambla, at its core, promotes pedophilia. I watched a Larry King episode in 1993 when he talked with a nambla representative, and firmly tore down them down for their beliefs. I was heartned because this happened without once making it a ‘gay’ issue.

    Comment by Kevin — November 7, 2005 @ 12:01 am - November 7, 2005

  26. North Dallass Thirty I would love to see you try and spin post #18

    I’m sure you would. But I’ve already said that Perry is wrong, if you click on the links in #14, so that’s quite plenty.

    Of course, what I find interesting is that liberals and Democrats like you, Pussy, and Bill White, Gregorio, call banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights by state constitutional amendment “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats do it. What’s even funnier is Mr. “No Nonsense in November”, Glenn Maxey, was all over Texas promoting John Kerry and his amendment-pushing ways as “pro-gay” all last year.

    Put simply, why is pushing an antigay state constitutional amendment “pro-gay” one year and “antigay” the next?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2005 @ 12:36 am - November 7, 2005

  27. Actually, that would be the ACLU. They’re now arguing that a man who solicited and wanted to perform sex in a public restroom is not guilty, not unlike their current attempt to defend NAMBLA putting out websites and materials that encourage, support, and tell people how to solicit and rape children and cover their tracks.

    If you’re wondering, look up “Joel Singson” and “pled guilty”, or “NAMBLA” and “ACLU”.

    Any civil / human rights issues can be connected with gay rights issues. The more people connect with others who are also lacking in basic rights from those in power, then the closer they are to building a coalition and getting the rights everyone else has, the rights we all deserve. I learned this in college and over time it’s held to be true.

    I’m sorry, Kevin, but we’re not interested in your excuses for why we should support organizations who give money to FMA supporters, as I showed in #15. Nor are we interested in tying gay rights to something that is opposed by an enormous majority of voters across ethnic, religious, demographic, and political lines like parental notification laws.

    Rationalize all you want about these “coalitions”. I hate to be crass, but when it comes to “coalitions”, gays are the liberal left’s bitch, expected to take whatever they demand and give them more money. That’s why gays like you were defending giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats who supported the FMA because they were pro-abortion. That’s why you spent millions of dollars promoting and calling “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” Democrats who pushed and supported state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights.

    Voters vote for people they think are like them, Kevin, and quite honestly, what they’re seeing is that gays are hysterical pro-abortion, pro-teenage sex, antiwar, antireligious, anti-sanity idiots. That is because the company the gay community keeps is all of those, and quite frankly, you and yours aren’t capable of disagreeing.

    The problem here is, Kevin, that you support abortion because you’re gay. If you want to support abortion, do it on your own time, and leave gay rights out of abortion and vice versa. Whores like Elizabeth Birch, Joe Solmonese, Hilary Rosen, and others who get paid for turning out the gay vote for the abortionists will scream; let them. We’ll get our rights because voters will see that being gay doesn’t make you an abortion-pusher and a promoter of teenage sex; they can get real jobs as carnival barkers (got to be some use for all that screeching).

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2005 @ 12:59 am - November 7, 2005

  28. To clarify, parental notification laws are SUPPORTED by the vast majority of Texans — 81% to be exact, including 80% of African-Americans and 76% of Hispanics.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2005 @ 1:02 am - November 7, 2005

  29. Just to clarify the NDT claim about the ACLU suing on behalf of allowing folks to pick up people and have sex in public restrooms I think using Joel Singsons case as the example is a bit of a stretch.

    “The case has gained national attention because of the state’s continued use of its sodomy law and allegations it is only applied to gay men.”

    Virginia is basically stating that Sodomy laws still apply to public solicitation and only public solicitation of gay sexual acts. The ACLU thinks since Lawrence it isn’t.

    “In Singson’s case, Nevins said, the sentence was especially inappropriate since no physical conduct actually happened.

    “This is somebody talking about sex,” Nevins said. ”

    Note that there was no sexual contact in public but that Singson propositioned an undercover officer. Now though I am not privy to the details, from what has been written about the case one can infer that basically Singson asked the officer if he would like to have sex while in a public restroom. While tasteless, I admit, it should not be a crime in a restroom or anywhere else in public. If it were a crime to ask someone if they wanted to have sex while in a public place, every straight man in a strip joint from here to Biloxi would be in jail by now.

    Saying Sodomy Laws are unconstitutional due to Lawrence and saying that asking someone if they would like to have sex is not exactly supporting having sex in public restrooms.

    Comment by R Cane — November 7, 2005 @ 3:09 pm - November 7, 2005

  30. Now though I am not privy to the details, from what has been written about the case one can infer that basically Singson asked the officer if he would like to have sex while in a public restroom.

    A bit more elaboration, R Cane…..not only did Singson proposition the officer while in the public restroom, the officer testified that the sex itself was to take place in the public restroom — and, as the Solicitor General’s office points out, Lambda doesn’t dispute that.

    If it were a crime to ask someone if they wanted to have sex while in a public place, every straight man in a strip joint from here to Biloxi would be in jail by now.

    Actually, I believe it IS a crime to solicit sex in a strip joint!

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2005 @ 4:48 pm - November 7, 2005

  31. Hey, aren’t you guys the party that criticises all others for not having a plan? Where’s yours? Get it in action already if it’s so much better.

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 7, 2005 @ 11:04 pm - November 7, 2005

  32. Been there, done that, still doing it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2005 @ 11:29 pm - November 7, 2005

  33. And unlike Glenn Maxey and More Nonsense Before November, we don’t have the following problems:

    – Quotes for the right wing to use in which Maxey and his fellow leftists are praising John “State Constitutional Amendments Banning Gay Marriage Are Great” Kerry as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”

    – A pathological inability NOT to lie to voters

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2005 @ 11:34 am - November 8, 2005

  34. I just came from my polling place. I voted against this amendment. I am married for 25 years with two children. I am a conservative. I voted for Bush. But I am not a hateful conservative. And this amendment is hateful to me. I don’t understand why anyone would vote for it and I wish that it weren’t even on the ballot. I don’t have much hope of it being defeated. I wish that weren’t the case.

    How could anyone, in good conscience. vote against love? And that’s what a lifetime commitment between two people is about.

    I dislike extremists of all types. I wish more people could see the forest for the trees……. Why can’t everyone try to respect each other and meet in the middle somewhere? Why so much hate in this great country of ours?

    BTW – I love your blog.

    Comment by Terri — November 8, 2005 @ 4:05 pm - November 8, 2005

  35. As a gay Texan, Terri….thank you. :)

    And as for hope….as long as we have folks like you who are willing to stand up for what they believe, there is always hope.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2005 @ 5:55 pm - November 8, 2005

  36. Check out this post for an interesting question on the gay marriage issue.

    Comment by Kelly — November 11, 2005 @ 10:30 am - November 11, 2005

  37. [...] They need to find a way to reduce the best parts of that book into 30-second television spots. NGLTF, the very group whose recent release focused on lashing out as those gathering signatures in the Golden State, ran ads in 2005 in the Lone Star State which defended the idea of gay marriage on “essentially conservative grounds.” [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » A Strategy to Defeat CA Referendum on Marriage — May 19, 2008 @ 10:01 pm - May 19, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.