A couple of days ago Bruce wrote that Log Cabin Republicans have a leftist “anti-American” agenda. To date he has refused to explain what he means by “anti-American”.

But, is that you (Dan) calling “people with divergent opinions” anti-American? Well, you know it isn’t.

Think of it as a three-year-old throwing a tantrum.

They are “childish and screaming” and nobody “listens or cares to listen to them”. But what their action gets, at best, is being ignored, and at worst, a healthy swat for being a brat — hence the “destructive power” part.

Um, Donny in #33, please show me where I’ve called people with divergent opinions “anti-American.” Once again, one of our critics misrepresents me in order to dismiss my opinions without considering them. I guess that just means I’m getting something right.

Maybe President Bush doesn’t have any interest in discussing this, but that was not the subject of my post (as indicated by its very title), but at least he didnt’ call his adversaries (on this issue) names. The gay leadership has proven by their very rhetoric that they’re not interested in debating this. it’s sad and unfortunate that their defenders would call their angry reactions “not unreasoned.”

Bush has utterly no interest in discussing this subject. This is nothing but a political move to placate the far right wing….and everyone knows that. If the party doesn’t get the wingnuts out to vote, it will sink big during midterm elections. This is no different from the 2004 election tactics.

The idea that America is being invited into a civil debate about gay marriage is just absurd. Bush’s talking points are just as offensive, moreso, than the responses you’ve linked. They are passionate, as they should be,, and they are not unreasoned.

As far as a debate goes, poll after poll has shown that the great majority of Americans disfavor this amendment even when they disfavor gay marriage. If there’s any “debate” being entertained, it’s about an amendment — not the issue of gay marriage itself.

Maureen Dowd (gasp! yes, her) has a great column on the subject today.

On Saturday and again today the president made his case for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. If opponents of the amendment were serious about debating this important issue, they would have offered thoughtful rebuttals taking issue with his arguments. They could thus have turned the occasion of the President’s public statement into an opportunity to advance their own cause — promoting gay marriage.

Oh, Danny boy. Apparently you misunderstand.

Your pResident didn’t make a case for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He repeated a set of talking points, none of which were arguments in favor of incorporating discrimination against gay people in the federal constituion. And, moreover, none of which were arguments in favor of institutionalizing anti-federalism. Something that you apparently wish to ignore.

Now, as to the issue of “debating this important issue,” it seems to me that there isn’t a whole lot to debate. Either someone believes that “equal protection” extends to gay people, or he doesn’t. (Apparently few Amis do.) And, either someone believes in federalism, or he doesn’t. (Again, apparently few Amis do.)

So what’s to debate? Andrew Sullivan’s mewly points about how gay marriage might help gay people? Oh, give me a break. It is doubtful that even a few Amis give a tinkers’ damn about actually helping gay people.

You really should consider getting out and noticing that your Republican party is throwing you to the wolves. The sad fact, though, is that they probably won’t accomplish much for their hypocritical base, largely because, if they actually pass their discriminatory amendment, they won’t have the issue which they can use to make money with. And, as we know, in politics, it’s all about money.

BTW, I’m sure that you are intelligent enough to know that, to Republicans, gay people are the latest substitute for the Negro punching bags. But everyone, even those from Cincinnati, knows that. “Can’t bash the Nigrahs (out loud). Can’t bash the Jews (out loud). So we’ll bash dem fags.” It’s your choice to support the Republican gay-bashing party, and it’s mine not to.

I really think that we’ve reached the point where we’re not really going to be able to continue to convert those older people who have made up their minds. The incremental increases we see in approval of SSM over the years may simply be due to the older anti-SSM folks dying off to be replaced with a far more tolerant generation. I think that’s why the anti-gay forces are pushing so hard now: they see the writing on the wall and a federal Constitutional amendment is the only assurance they have that a ban on SSM will have any sort of long term endurance. I think they are right in that a federal Constitutional amendment will be awfully hard to undo. You can’t compare it to Prohibition because there was a huge segment of the population affected negatively by that amendment. Gay people are always going to be a small minority so there may never be a strong enough push to repeal the MPA.

I agree with you that we have to keep putting forth our arguments if for no other reason than to reach the younger generation. But I fear the old folks are immune to logical arguments that are apt to be lost within the political farce that is currently underway. Wait til this is over then we’ll continue to make the arguments and younger folks will have their tolerant beliefs confirmed by the fact that Massachusetts and Canada will not be struck by God’s wrath. If we can hold off the amendment for a few more years, support for it will literally die off.

And by the way, where’s the constitutional ammendment banning divorce if our conservative leaders are so high and might on keeping families together? Oh, that’s right…a law like that would stop the rich, powerful and connected from getting divorces themselves.

But until advocates of gay marriage make clear that gay marriage includes the same standards as its straight counterparts, social conservatives will continue to see it as a threat.

No, it will take a generational shift which is actually happening. The homohaters over 50 will simply have to die off. There is no way to reach them. Right wing media is not going to help; neither are the churches. The only hope is the next generation. Meanwhile, I see no reason to give legitimacy to homohatred by accepting as a valid argument that gay marriage will destroy the institution.

This blog represents views that will always be contrary to the Gay Left mindset.

“The parody is that any of the gay groups think anyone in Congress or the rest of America listens or cares to their childish, screaming press releases.”

I, too, thought this site was a parody at first. And either the “GayLeft” groups wield destructive power or they do not. You can’t have it both ways. Either they are taken seriously enough to make straight Americans hate gays as a result, or they are “childish and screaming” and nobody “listens or cares to listen to them.” Which is it?

There’s a lot of anger and frustration on this site because of the simple fact that at this time in the U.S. we are not yet accepted as full citizens. Rather than find common cause in that realization, we’re tearing each other apart. Given our present status, this is all so much narcissism of small differences.

My politics lean far enough to the left that I actually agree with much of the stuff written here about the Democratic Party and our gay organizations. Someone should finally call them on their hypocrisy, and maybe that’s what blogs like this are good for. I do wish, however, that the conservative gay bloggers here were more principled and less partisan. Right now, the Republican Party has screwed them over, and all this site can muster is tepid expressions of disappointment, combined with the usual vitriol against the so-called “GayLeft”, which is alternately portrayed as a money-grubbing Leviathan or a bunch of feckless babies.

The logical and rational arguments have been made for a long time now, AMONG CENTRIST GAYS. Newsflash, folks: They obviously haven’t made it to Middle America. And it will probably take years longer for them to sink in. And it is up to us (pro-marriage gays) to keep repeating them, in a rational and mature fashion, until they do.

And yes, that sucks. Yes, it takes forever. Yes, throwing little (or big) fits of rage and screaming is way more satisfying. But that’s not how you change the minds of democratic majorities. Maturity, patience and persistence are how. That’s life.

snarling theocratic wackos

Nutcase alert.

What HRC, NGLTF, and other groups are hoping is that, by zeal against Bush, they can win their way back into favor with the DNC. They figure that Howie will love them more if they only prove how much they hate Bush and how irrelevant gay rights are; it’s more important to hate Bush instead.

Back then, they were merely talking to other gay people and to already-sympathetic straights. And my point is that advocates of gay marriage should have used the publicity of this debate to get their message out to a wider audience.