If Dale Carpenter had not specified in the text of his thorough (and thoughtful) piece on the Washington State gay marriage decision that in calling July the “cruelest month” he meant that it was particularly cruel for “gay-marriage litigants,” I might disagree with him. While gay marriage advocates experienced many setbacks in state and federal courts in the past few weeks, it was not entirely a dismal month for gay marriage. For in these judicial defeats, there seems to be a new resolve among gay activists to press this issue in more appropriate fora — state legislatures.
I am delighted to note that, in the immediate aftermath of the state Supreme Court’s decision, Ed Murray (D-Seattle), “the state’s only openly gay legislator announced he will introduce a bill to legalize same-sex nuptials.” And he’s not alone. Even Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solomonese vows to push for gay marriage in the state legislature.
While I commend Solomonese for recognizing that importance of moving the debate to a more appropriate body, I wonder at his understanding of America. In his release on the Washington State marriage decision, he said, “America is built on the values of fairness and equality.” Perhaps were he more familiar with our founding documents, Solomonese would realize that our nation is built on a number of ideals, primarily, freedom (or liberty).
While The Declaration of Independence notes that “all men are created equal,” it makes clear that our “unalienable Rights” include “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Similarly, the Constitution indicates that it was ordained and established in order to, among other things “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
It’s unfortunate that Log Cabin’s release borrowed heavily from the rhetoric of the national gay groups in commenting on the decision. That said, there were two things which pleased me about the release. First, like the other gay groups, Log Cabin recognizes the importance of turning to legislatures.
I particularly liked this line from Ken Nielsen, President of Log Cabin’s Washington State chapter (the only person quoted in the release), “Sharing our stories and explaining why all families deserve basic protections and responsibilities will help move more citizens and lawmakers to our side.” With these words, he provides a succinct statement of what needs to be done.
The second thing which pleased me about the release was that Log Cabin chose to quote a local official on this issue. While I have often faulted Patrick Guerriero’s leadership of the organization, in one arena, he has done a remarkable job. Back when I was a club president, the national office ignored the clubs. They would quote only national officials in their releases and statements, even for state issues. Since Patrick has taken over, Log Cabin has frequently quoted local leaders.
That Patrick has recognized the importance of the chapters indicates that he understands where the strength of the gay Republican movement lies. And that he has encouraged local leaders to speak provides one sign of hope for the future of organization. If the organization is to endure, it might have a strong grassroots.
Gay Republicans speak with a multitude of voices. Kudos to Patrick for inviting a variety of voices from across the country to speak for his organization.
As with the New York’s gay marriage decision, I am not as upset by the Washington State decision as other gay leaders and writers. A state court decision mandating gay marriage would have strengthened the hand of gay marriage opponents. The backlash might have set the case for gay marriage further back by spurring more state referenda.
With this latest court defeat, however, gay activists are beginning to recognize what, I have long believed, should be the strategy on gay marriage — to make their case not to judges, but directly to the American people and their elected representatives.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
There’s a Rick Santorum ad on this blog. Are you really serious? Wow.
I agree that it was a less dismal month than it would appear. I just finished reading the plurality opinion in the Washington case. I believe that the plurality bent over a little too backwards in deference to the legislature — they certainly did not use the sort of heightened rational basis review that the Massachusetts court did, and they explained that under Washington case law they could not. But what intrigued me the most was that they were clearly ready to order the legislature to come up with a civil unions type set up but nobody asked them to so it wasn’t on the table.
In New York the presumptive next governor, Eliot Spitzer, has come out forcefully and unambigously for gay marriage — not civil unions. I think that’s amazing. He’s not ducking it at all. Ditto for Mayor Bloomberg. I believe that future governor Spitzer will sign such a bill within a few years and that my partner and I will be able to marry — cool. California will also follow suit soon.
All of this is occurring because the SJC of Massachusetts — in an opinion written by a Republican no less — crossed the line and threw down the gauntlet. So what if some judges did it? Judges have exactly that role in our system, and should. If the judges aren’t going to protect minorities from the majority who will?
All of this will be old news 20 years from now when gay marriage will be commonplace. It’s the most exciting time to be gay in history.
Dan (GPW), if “equality” means the equal treatment of citizens by the government, as I believe it does when used by LCR and HRC, it is definitely cited in the Constitution.
#2: “It’s the most exciting time to be gay in history.”
I wouldn’t go that far. The years just following Stonewall as well as the late 1980’s to late 1990’s were pretty exciting too.
I tend to agree with Dan’s theme that we need now to focus on legislatures rather than the courts. I don’t regret having tried the judicial route but I’m one that can see the folly of “stay the course” when it’s ceased to work. I had thought that what worked in Canada might also work here but clearly Canadians are considerably more advanced with respect to equal treatment for gay people.
I would now push for civil marriage when possible or in-all-but-name-only civil unions in other places. If we can get several populous states like CA and NY to adopt marriage or full and complete civil unions, then we need to work on the federal level to get those marriages and unions recognized. What to do about the religionist backwater states that refuse to recognize SSM? Well, at some point – perhaps after Scalia croaks – the SCOTUS might be amenable to forcing SSM recognition everywhere but that would have to be only after enthusiasm for the FMA has completely waned. Meanwhile I would use the power of economics in encouraging new factories and businesses especially those from more enlightened countries overseas to avoid the bigoted locations and set up shop in the more gay-friendly areas. Ultimately, money talks and if there is a financial penalty in being bigoted, then the bigots will have to decide if it’s worth it.
Even when LCRW’s right, they’re wrong in GPW’s or GP’s eyes. It’s always a no-win situation. There’s always something “unfortunate” in what we have to say. Or is it that we say anything at all?
Tell me, which rhetoric was “heavily borrowed” from gay national organizations? Most of the national gay organizations’ releases that I read actually took shots at the Court majority, but LCRW’s release doesn’t. Was it thanking the local groups that actually took the lead on the cases (btw, LCRW filed a joint amicus brief with the Libertarian Party of Washington in support of overturning WA’s DOMA)? Was it saying that we would work to educate legislators through the legislative process? Was it having conversations with our neighbors?
Please, tell me what got borrowed! Given that I know who participated in drafting and editing that release (including myself), and it didn’t include anyone from any organization outside of LCR, I’d really like to hear your second-guessed insights on what’s similar in what was said.
Dave K.
GOP Values, your criticism this time is entirely unfair. I devoted one line of criticism to a release I largely praised. And you draw attention only to the critical line.
And I took time to praise Patrick for, what I believe, to be the greatest accomplishment of his tenure, recognizing the work of the local clubs. By my count, there were 22 words in the critical line and 247 words in the praiseworthy passages. An 11 to 1 margin.
While I am adamantly opposed to gay marriage, I have to admit I have to admire the tenacity of the homosexual movement not to give up. Actually, I think the expressed interest they have shown in marriage has done more to renew the zeal by the “straight” community to protect it than was ever seen in previous generations. I think the fight over gay marriage is going to be a turning point. Either marriage will be redefined and for all intents and purposes demolished. Or it is going to withstand this latest onslaught and not fall prey to the liberal dismantling of this important human institution. For when any grouping can considered themselves married, it becomes completely worthless. For instance, I can consider myself skinny, doesn’t mean I am. And if having a Mo’Nique size girth (which I do have by the way) all of a sudden became the definition of skinny, then skinny wouldn’t mean anything at all. The same thing holds true with marriage.
While I do believe gays are entitled to protections for their family just as straight people are, let’s be honest, gay sex doesn’t exactly produce a whole lot babies, therefore this need to protect “gay families.” is rather moot. The majority of gay people will not be raising children. The majority of straight people will be at some point in their life. For the gays that do have families they are entitled to the same protections, we give single parents and nothing more. I say that as a single parent myself. Marriage discriminates. Life is not fair. It is time to stop thinking, how will gay marriage affect me? And start thinking 1) How will gay marriage affect society and children? 2) What do we get from gay marriage that we don’t get from straight marriage now? (For instance, in the case of the interracial marriage ban. There was a legitimate reason to allow interracial marriages because by doing so people now had a wider marriage pool, which meant more children and more future workers. Therefore it was in society’s best interest to strike down that law. There is no such vested interest in gay marriage.)
I think the whole gay rights movement is a sham. No one should be given rights based on behavior. Behavior determines consequences not rights. For instance, if you behave criminally, you still retain the right to an attorney. You also have the right to due process and a speedy trial. These rights are not contigent on whether or not you behave a certain way. They are there for all of us to protect us from unwarranted and unjustified prosecution. However, that being said you still have to face the consequences of your criminal behavior.
Gays are not entitled to rights above that of anyone else. And there is certainly no right to marriage. The whole concept is deeply disturbing and degrading. Lastly, I will say this and then shut up, while gays have the right to live their own lives in peace, they don’t have the right to display it in public in demeaning ways (gay pride parades), they don’t have the right to force into our public school curriculums, they don’t have the right to force taxpayers to pay for their poor decisions (we spend more on AIDS patients than we do for research for heart disease or breast cancer, even though more people are affected by the latter), they don’t have the right to have bath houses, while a straight brothel is considered illegal. Both are houses of ill repute and should not be legal. These are the things that bother me most about the gay community. Anyway, God bless you and may he keep you well.
I’m voting for Santorum. Not happily — he’s way too much of a nanny-state big government bring home the pork politician, but anything is better than that Casey moron.
Dan, good thoughtful post. But we shouldn’t be pressing for gay marriage directly with the people via the state legislatures –it should be civil unions.
“Gay Marriage” is a term so politically radioactive at this point, that to continue to advocate it will only result in state after state voting it down… the legislators in the respective state capitols better reflect their constituents than do congressmen… and are more politically cautious, too. Gay Marriage is a huge loser; what more evidence do we need?
We continue to miss the most salient political goal for gays seeking marital protections –pressing for civil unions. When we push on the “gay marriage” button, we get no answer at the door or, at best, the maid telling us the master isn’t home.
The most advantageous thing our community can do this time around is to put aside “gay marriage” or “marital equality” or anything that sounds like same-sex marriage and press for the protections afforded under civil unions. We can go back and clean up the civil union statutes, once adopted, to the level of marriage equality… but we have to get to civil unions, first.
Like my good friends in Vermont say: if we had pushed for gay marriage, none of us would be able to enjoy civil unions.
But the GayLeft won’t let the “gay marriage” issue go because of the deep seated antipathy toward religion –and gay marriage is one way to get back at the religious right and God in general.
It’s a shame we keep listening to the political advice of losers like the GayLeft… “skip the courts, it’s on to the state legislatures”. No, what we need to urgently do is adopt a sea-change moment… strike gay marriage and press for civil unions in each state.
NRO Opposes Discharges of Arab Linguists Under DADT
Gee, the left would have us believe NRO writers and editors were homophobic right wing fanatics. Guess not, huh.
As long as the effect is equal…we don’t have to run around with a variety of legal paperwork that can be dismissed at the whim of a biological…it can be called anything at all. If the federal benefits to being married are offered to all committed couples, it doesn’t matter if it’s called a civil union.
True, we are entitled to the same rights & responsibilties as everyone else is. But neither should you be entitled to 1138 (per GAO report at the request of Sen. Frist) special rights by virtue of marrying someone of the opposite gender.
GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report
#10 V the K — July 28, 2006 @ 10:28 am – July 28, 2006
NRO Opposes Discharges of Arab Linguists Under DADT
Gee, the left would have us believe NRO writers and editors were homophobic right wing fanatics. Guess not, huh.
That’s sweet. The National Review aparatchicks are in favor of the US military not discharging gays who have skills that may be in short supply. But what have they said about gays who aren’t so fortunate as to have skills in short supply? Cashier them?
Maybe next the NROvians will be opining that the military should be accepting gays who might be useful as cannon fodder. Assuming, of course, that they can’t find enough straight people who are willing to serve the purpose.
/sarcasm
Sorry about this brief interruption to your regularly scheduled program, but this is very important. Scott Adams solves all problems in the Middle East:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/07/heat_wave.html#comments
Well crap. Now I feel bad. I shouldn’t derail the topic. So, people, go read that, but don’t talk about it in this thread. Now back on topic.
I think two men or two women should be able to get married!
It’s pretty clear to me that the sentiments expressed in #7 are predominant among conservatives in the GOP. The gay conservatives here who attack any moderate or progressive comments just let #7 go by without a word in response. Maybe, deep down, gay conservatives actually agree with #7.
VdaK, I guess that even if there’s a break in the GayLeft’s illusion of “all things on the Right” are simply gay bigots, the illusion will still be held up as truth. Raj/ian proves it for us.
For die-hard GayLefters like raj/ian, nothing will satisfy them until the NRO and American Spectator writers renouce everything done by conservatives or the Right in policy going all the way back to Barry Goldwater… specifically denounce RR as an evil, manipulative lying dunce of the military-industrial establishment… renounce Satan (that translates to the Religious right) and all her guiles… and then have us admit it was all a partisan witchhunt against Slick Willy.
Oh, and Gore won. They gotta have that –it’s the litmus test next to Cut&Run in Iraq, Afghanistan, WOT.
Then the GayLeft oracles will say: “Well, now that you admit all those mistakes, doesn’t it make you feel better? By the way, we told you so.”
You can believe what you want, RajIan; you’ve shown numerous times that facts have no relevance to your analysis.
Why don’t you start flinging some leftist hate at the woman? Namecall her, do what you like. Show her that gays can’t stand other peoples’ opinions.
Furthermore, note this:
While I do believe gays are entitled to protections for their family just as straight people are, let’s be honest, gay sex doesn’t exactly produce a whole lot babies, therefore this need to protect “gay families.” is rather moot. The majority of gay people will not be raising children. The majority of straight people will be at some point in their life. For the gays that do have families they are entitled to the same protections, we give single parents and nothing more. I say that as a single parent myself. Marriage discriminates. Life is not fair.
raj/ian at # 16 writes: “It’s pretty clear to me that the sentiments expressed in #7 are predominant among conservatives in the GOP.”
raj/ian, the last person on this Earth who should be providing anyone with what they think are GOP sentiments are you/him/it/they –gosh, what is the right pronoun for a sockpuppet?
Eyes… bugging out of head. Heart… palpating. Ian… supporting free-market solutions. Me… talking… like William Shatner. *meladramatic collapse to the floor*
Br K writes at #11: “If the federal benefits to being married are offered to all committed couples, it doesn’t matter if it’s called a civil union.”
If you mean AFTER civil unions are established, I’d agree. But what most prudent activists are pressing for is for people like you to stop using terms like “biological” to describe non-gays… and others on the GayLeft who use “Christianist” to describe anyone who believes in God. You really are srcewing our chances of success on civil unions –or is that what you secretly want?
I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that in order to win this political battle, the gay community needs to muzzle the GayLeft haters. Or we need to find a new drug that will fix their universal pathology of hate. Remember Br K, hate is not a family value?
Gays who use terms like “biologicals” to refer to non-gays need to help us out by getting back in the closet and shutting up. It’s really the best you can do for our cause… because you’ve really screwed us up a lot with the failed approach of the last 10 years.
From
#20 Dalebert (aka Dale in L.A.) — July 28, 2006 @ 12:37 pm – July 28, 2006
Quoting: “Meanwhile I would use the power of economics…”
Eyes… bugging out of head. Heart… palpating. Ian…
I’m floored. Ian actually wrote something like that? There’s no such thing as “the power of economics.” That’s about as vacuous as “the law of averages” when used in, for example, baseball statistics.
#20: “Ian… supporting free-market solutions.”
Why should that be such a surprise? After all, I own a small business. Not to mention that I supported Ed Clark’s Presidential run in 1980. Just because I detest Bushco’s war mongering and lawlessness, oppose all religionists, believe in the Constitution, and support full and equal treatment before the law for gay people – including the recognition of SSM – you assume that I’m some kind of Commie/socialist? Well, I’m not. I lean libertarian but realize there is a crucial role for government to play in creating and maintaining a free and just society.
Post #7 is what I’d been bellowing in previous posts and raj had no problem dumping on me.
I am surprised that there was not more feed back from others on her thoughtful remarks.
Dena Leichnitz, I agree with you 100% on this issue.
I don’t see any inherent contradiction between liberty and equality/fairness. No less a personage than Dick Cheney said of gay marriage: “Freedom means freedom for everyone.“
#22: “There’s no such thing as “the power of economics.””
C’mon raj, don’t be so pedantic. I fully explained what I meant by the phrase. If it makes you feel any better, just substitute “economic power.” Sheesh!
“GOP Values, your criticism this time is entirely unfair. I devoted one line of criticism to a release I largely praised. And you draw attention only to the critical line.”
My point was that you go out of your way to find things to complain about, that’s all. Why not look at something wholistically for a change, rather than picking nits (assuming there’s really anything to pick at.)
Dave K.
Michigan-Matt: This is the first of your posts I’ve read in a long time…thanks for pointing out something. My original phrase was meant to read “we don’t have to run around with a variety of legal paperwork that can be dismissed at the whim of a biological family” (as opposed to a chosen family)
To take a moment away from the Mutual Vilification Society: What do our conservative brethern think of Dena’s (#7) remarks?
#29: Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer. Dena is a conservative and that exempts him/her from any substantive criticism by conservatives here. Some, like Dobson acolyte NDT, might even cheer dena on or at least shift the focus to attacking Dems instead.
To take a moment away from the Mutual Vilification Society: What do our conservative brethern think of Dena’s (#7) remarks?
Well, BrKatana, I can’t speak for Michigan-Matt or V the K, or any of the other conservative posters; however, it’s my opinion, given RajIan’s answer in #30, that it would be a waste of effort to answer the question. Clearly he and the other liberal posters on this board have created their own ideas of what conservatives believe, and it would be better from my point of view to allow them to spew their bile and demonstrate their irrationality than it would be to cloud the issue with what we actually think.
In short, when you curb your moonbats, you will get reasoned discussion. Until then, believe what you want to believe.
GOP Values in #27, if anything I went out of my way this time to praise Log Cabin. When I first read the release, I felt I was reading something that could have been written by any other gay group, then I discovered the passage I quoted above. I honestly expressed what I felt about the release. Even if I find Log Cabin puts out a mostly positive statement, I’m not going to hesitate to point out its flaws if flaws there be. And flaws there are.
Br K, I disagree with much of what Dena writes in #7… the majority.
But the kernels she nails: the GayLeft has mobilized average Americans to protect marriage to our DISadvantage; bath houses should be illegal everywhere; and (stretching) federal spending on medical matters should be tied to the percentage of Americans affected by the medical condition… no more whopping disbursements for breast cancer or AIDS and scant nothing for prostate disease –tie it to the size of the budget available for expenditures and the size of the population affected.
I didn’t think “conservative” or “liberal” when I read it, though. I thought… gee, here’s one of those Religious Left people that HowieDean was lusting after on the 700 Club. Go figure. If you google her, you’ll find my assessment is correct.
I agree with 99% of this commentary by Dan. Michigan-Matt covered the other 1% beautifully.
I don’t visit here often enough to be familiar with Ian but even if he is a left-wing liberal, does that mean his question is irrelavant? Why are there so many posts attacking him/her but the only response to Dena in #7 is approval? Is there nothing in Dena’s comment that people here take exception with?
I dare not comment on #7 myself, because no matter how much I may agree with Dan and Matt on this one, I’ve already been labeled a Bush hater so my response would be attacked or dismissed.
I totally disagree with Ian that all, or even most, gay conservatives agree with Dena. I was just hoping that a gay conservative, other than me, would challenge Dena’s flawed statements.
Correction: “Katana of Reasoned Discussion” did respond to Dena.
OK, you guys convinced me to read #7, a post that’s way too long in a comment section, especially when it’s from some obscure troll who dropped in probalby for this one post and will likely leave, and not even funny like a Vera post. So, where to begin? Well Dena, there are about a million gay couples sharing the responsibility of raising children, either from adoption or previous marriages. I suspect that number would go up if marriage were an option. Those families absolutely need the protections and stability that marriage provides. But as a Libertarian, I agree that marriage isn’t a right. Government went above and beyond the responsiblities we allowed for it by getting into the marriage business. Stop extending special rights based on it, especially when that means handing out extra money (taxpayer money) like social security.
#5: GOPValues, the problem here is that LCRW praised people who wasted years and (at least) hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers’ fees, court time, staffers, and whatever else you could name in pursuit of a case that was, at best, a 50/50 shot and, in any other case, a losing battle.
I, for one, am sick and tired of gay rights groups wasting money on futile court cases instead of going to the legislatures. These are nothing more than an excuse for leftist hatemongers like Solmonese, who claims to be for gay rights but endorsed and directed contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars to a candidate who supported the FMA, to put themselves in front of a camera and spew their antireligious and anti-Republican jihad beliefs.
Until the gay community starts slapping down these leftist hatemongers who are running to the courts because the voters will never support their bile, we will not progress. And until LCR decides it wants to tell them to shove off and stops rewarding foolish behavior, it will continue to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, distrusted and hated by gay leftists for being Republican and by Republicans for being in thrall to gay leftists.
Hayden, people like raj/ian often set up strawmen in the hope of discrediting their better, more articulate, reasoned opponents. Like street preachers on the corner, I don’t generally pay attention to people with opinions like Dena. I can understand why some would be suspicious of anything called to attention by the raj/ian.
And I did respond to Ian/raj’s demand for attention and a response… it’s right above your post. Take out the points I agree with… the balance I disagree.
I don’t visit here often enough to be familiar with Ian but even if he is a left-wing liberal, does that mean his question is irrelavant? Why are there so many posts attacking him/her but the only response to Dena in #7 is approval? Is there nothing in Dena’s comment that people here take exception with?
You know, Hayden, I’d love to take you seriously, but here’s the problems:
1) Where on earth did you see people saying that they approved of Dena’s comment and what she said?
2) Were you completely and totally unaware of comment #33, in which the first sentence is this?
Br K, I disagree with much of what Dena writes in #7… the majority.
This sort of thing is why we don’t bother with RajIan; no matter what you write, he/it sees what it wants to see. There’s no point in wasting the effort, especially since his opinion really only matters to one person — himself.
Michigan-Matt, agreed. I think I was typing when you posted your reasonable response to #7. Such is the result of overlaping posts.
Thanks.
NDXXX writes at #37: “Until the gay community starts slapping down these leftist hatemongers who are running to the courts because the voters will never support their bile, we will not progress.”
Having read that, how can we balance this:
Ian/raj writes at #30: “Some, like Dobson acolyte NDT, might even cheer dena on or at least shift the focus to attacking Dems instead.”
I guess Ian/raj is just a liar. NDT a Dobson acolyte? Really Ian/raj, that equals JoeMcCarthy’s best effort at smearing by association. Someone should pull your GayLeftCard for that stunt alone… and I don’t mean the German issued one.
Hayden, understood; thanks.
ND30, I said there was one positive response to #7…:
(per your request)
24. Post #7 is what I’d been bellowing in previous posts and raj had no problem dumping on me.
I am surprised that there was not more feed back from others on her thoughtful remarks.
Dena Leichnitz, I agree with you 100% on this issue.
Comment by Ed in Tampa — July 28, 2006 @ 1:04 pm – July 28, 2006
… and no challenges as of the time I started typing my response.
As I noted above, Mich-Matt responded to #7 while I was typing.
Anyway, this is a distraction from the discussion that I didn’t intend to initiate.
Sorry.
#41: “NDT a Dobson acolyte?”
NDT will freely admit that apart from some gay issues, he is pretty much in agreement with Dobson’s positions on socio-political issues. Here http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=1528#comment-86318 for example. NDT objects to gay people in Colorado seeking full marriage rights when they could settle for Dobson’s Focus on the Family supported “reciprocal beneficiary agreements.” I guess it’s easy for the San Francisco based NDT to dictate what gays and lesbians in Colorado should be satisfied with.
Yup — because the “full marriage rights” is not going to pass, and the reciprocal benefits one would, especially given that both sides of the aisle can support it.
If the point is to get benefits and protections for gay couples as quickly as possible, supporting the reciprocal benefits bill is the logical choice; then, as attitudes moderate, it can be grown and extended.
However, as RajIan has demonstrated, for the GayLeft, this isn’t actually about the benefits and protections for gay couples; instead, it’s a question of waging antireligious jihad against Dobson and pleasing their Democratic masters, who know that gays with benefits are no longer gays with a victim complex that can be exploited for their needs.
Thus, RajIan supports the “full marriage rights”, which will not pass, and opposes the “reciprocal benefits”, which will.
Oh, and of course I’ll state that I am in agreement with Dobson on some issues. He vehemently opposes child sexual abuse and pedophilia, as I do; of course, since we know RajIan is adamantly opposed to everything that Dobson does…..
NDT, is there a particular reason why gays and lesbians should settle for half a loaf instead rather than none at all?
I’m not saying keep fighting for marriage rights in the courts. What I am saying is that I could never so easily and willingly settle for being treated as a second class citizen. I believe we are worth more than that.
With constructive debate like you and GPW have suggested, in time, full marriage rights can be won.
NDT, is there a particular reason why gays and lesbians should settle for half a loaf instead rather than none at all?
It depends on how hungry you are.
What creates the disconnect in American minds is when leftist gays are shrieking that the US is like Nazi Germany because it doesn’t have benefits for gay couples, but then turning around and spitting on them when some are offered.
In short, the leftists claim they’re dying of starvation, but keep turning down food because it’s not good enough for them.
In short, the leftists claim they’re dying of starvation, but keep turning down food because it’s not good enough for them.
Very true.
But also, don’t forget, activism is an industry. Activists will always have to whine about something, or the donations will dry up and they’ll have to get real jobs.
From that perspective, if they accept anything other than “full marriage equality,” they’ll lose their meal ticket. And with the prospects of full marital rights dim for a very long time, they can ride the gravy trains for a very long time.
Dena’s comments remind me of the sheer ignorance that far too many people in this country subscribe to. I actually feel sorry for her. Believing that being gay is a “behavior” as she puts it only solidifies her lack of understanding (or intelligence) of sexual orientation. Perhaps she’ll “choose” to behave more as a thinking human being rather than the typical neanderthal we have become so accustomed to hearing from.
Oh yeah, Dena, one other thought. Stop using God to prop up your hate and venomous comments. Speaking of degrading, it is truly disgusting and UN-CHRISTIAN to use God as an excuse to lash out against people you know very little about. It’s a shame we can’t ban ignorance because then YOU would be treated as a second-class citizen much like gays are now because of your very abysmal and thoroughly small-minded attitude. I’ll pray for you, though, because you desperately need it.
#46: “NDT, is there a particular reason why gays and lesbians should settle for half a loaf”
Well, it’s especially easy for NDT, a conservative gay living in San Francisco, to throw Colorado gays under the bus. Of course we should accept a few crumbs and be happy we got that much except when it’s John Kerry supporting civil unions with all the rights of marriage, then NDT shrieks and squeals like a stuck pig.
#47 I’m curious how so-called leftist gays have turned down any rights. Is there some link to back this up? Not settling is not the same thing as saying we’re unwilling to accept anything but this.
Don’t forget, must of the so-called ‘crumbs’ are in response to gays pushing for marriage. If gays weren’t asking for that, then civil unions wouldn’t exist for the most part.
#49
Sorry Tony, Dena is right saying being gay is behavior. Being straight is also a behavior. I believe both are an innate behavior, but still behavior, none the less. Behavior and choice are two totally different things.
Ian, you seem upset with NDT. Please try not to personally attack him.
NDT, I’m not so sure about your comparison…What politician has offered such a compromise that gays and lesbians in long-term committed relationships would receive the exact same benefits as heterosexual married couples, at both the state and federal levels?
I think compromise works well for conflict resolution, in business, but not when it comes to one’s dignity. As a liberal, I am fully willing to have rational debate on the issue with would be opponents of gay marriage, without the yelling and name calling; in fact, I’ve had and continue to have such rational debate. But, I do believe our community’s families deserve more than scraps from the master’s table.
It has been pointed out that conservatives believe in liberty and freedom above equality because it is believed that equality can, at times, infringe on another person’s freedom. From that point of view, I’d find it hard to believe that offering us some of the primary benefits we seek (hospital visitation rights, the right to make decisions regarding a partner’s remains and so forth) rather than all of them at the federal and state levels truly allows gay and lesbian households the freedom to live like everyone else…with the exact same protections straight families get.
V the K…many gay rights activists do have the wrong approach. But I believe anyone who stands up for our community in the face of adversity is an activist.
But I don’t think activists really need to whine. In reading the news this week, there were legal set backs regarding gay marriage, and two members of the Armed Forces who fell under that truck called DADT while there’s a war on (I fully acknowledge it was a Democratic president who supported DADT). In other news, Mr. Bass came out as gay (duh). Somehow I think activism helped create an environment in which he could come out (with teens coming out nowadays, things seem to be getting slightly better).
#53: “Ian, you seem upset with NDT. Please try not to personally attack him.”
James, you’ll find as many have that you can’t really have an honest debate with him. First he attacks liberal gay people for not being satisfied with the few crumbs of some kind of partnership registration (e.g. Colorado gay folks), then he rails against any liberal who even contemplates anything but full marriage rights (e.g. John Kerry.) If you’re a liberal as he perceives it, he’ll attack you no matter what your position on marriage is.
Here http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=1528#comment-86601 he compares gays wanting to marry to pedophiles and those who engage in bestiality. If that sounds like something James Dobson would say, well, NDT freely admits that he agrees with Dobson on virtually all issues apart from a few gay-related ones.
Ian, I think that regardless of political affiliation, it would behove all of us to remember that we can’t control other people’s actions, but each person can control his or her own actions.
I’m confident that even if one person’s behavior escalates and the other person maintains his or her cool, the other person may be reeled back in.
That’s sort of a lesson taken from lobbying against the gay marriage ban in GA. Our non-partisan gay rights group gave us rules for engaging the opposition, which included not shouting, not calling names, not getting into arguments with supporters of the ban; we were encouraged to remain calm and behave with dignity. We lost, but we made a lasting impression; and many supporters of the ban were not re-elected.
It’s not the legislators we need to appeal to, but their constituents. The court rulings in Georgia, New York and Washington happened because of ignorance. The judges (or those who placed the judges on the bench) did not understand who and what Lesbians and Gay men are. In the absence of knowledge, they operated on superstition and prejudice. We need a national conversation where a consensus is reached on why Gay people are as they are. A lot of Gay people don’t even know. I’ll give you a hint: God has everything to do with it.
#57: “we were encouraged to remain calm and behave with dignity.”
Surely, that doesn’t mean letting false statements go unchallenged does it? I know that is the modus operendi of the corporate media these days i.e. to present opposing claims, one of which is false, without any analysis to identify the truth. It’s how we are at the point of having a large percentage of the population STILL believing that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks and that he had WMDs when we invaded.
– 29.To take a moment away from the Mutual Vilification Society: What do our conservative brethern think of Dena’s (#7) remarks?
OK, I’ll give it a shot.
-7. No one should be given rights based on behavior.
Response: idiocy. I’ve been celibate for such a long time it is probably neurotic. Dena, you claim that this is about behavior: exactly which behaviors of mine are at issue here? I am 100% gay despite my long-term celibacy.
– 7. For when any grouping can considered themselves married, it becomes completely worthless.
Response: I think Britney Spears (and Elizabeth Taylor) and others such as them heap so much disdain and disregard upon marriage, that any gay effect scarcely counts. Gays are not the reason 50% of marriages end in divorce. And we DON’T have marriage yet, so don’t blame the pathetic, irresponsible, devastating divorce rate on us.
– 7. while gays have the right to live their own lives in peace, they don’t have the right to display it in public in demeaning ways (gay pride parades)
Response: Lte’s see, Dena. You do claim the right to a defense attorney for all criminals, gay or straight. I therefore claim the right to behave sexually or romantically in public equally as straights. That means holding hands, body to body conversations, walks in the park, suggestively dancing with each other at pick-up bars and then leaving together (as stupid as that actually is), etc etc. I think you want and expect us to skulk in the shadows like the criminal deviants you think we are. As to gay pride parades themselves, well, gay conservatives do tend to avoid them, since they are primarily leftist chances at shameless colorful exhibitionism. ‘Demeaning’ is in the eye of the beholder. But still legal, just like Irish American Day parades.
– 7. Gays are not entitled to rights above that of anyone else.
Response: I hear this one a LOT. I’ve never understood it. Dena, WHAT EXACTLY in your opinion are these rights that gays are asking for that are ABOVE those of everyone else? The few such demands I’m aware of are from people so far way out to the left they’re practically quasars. Such as – gays have unique sexual needs and must be allowed to practice anonymoux sex in parks in the open. I’ve SEEN that one. But no one takes any of those ‘special rights’ freaks seriously. One area I think you may be correct is the squelching of free speech when it is anti-gay. I’m against those restrictions on free speech myself. Censorship and punishments to silence free speech have a long (and disgusting) American history, from ‘Tom Sawyer’ to ‘Catcher In The Rye’ to recent leftist attempts to silence arguments against gays. I’m against all such censorship.
– 7. [gays] don’t have the right to force into our public school curriculums
Response: Agreed. But you, Dena, don’t have the right to keep gay-friendly books out of libraries.
-7. [gays] don’t have the right to force taxpayers to pay for their poor decisions (we spend more on AIDS patients….
Response: In most other countries AIDS is not known as a ‘gay disease’. And what is your opinion of other STD diseases that get treatments? What of smokers? What of poor diets and coach potatoes and the resulting early heart attack and onset of diabetes? It may be, Dena, that you are actually entirely consistent in your views, but your single-focus comment on AIDS and gays does not illuminate such consistency.
– 7. [gays] don’t have the right to have bath houses, while a straight brothel is considered illegal. Both are houses of ill repute and should not be legal.
Response: If sex is paid for by money in bathhouses, I bet it would be as illegal as brothels. I reject your equivalency between casual sex and paid sex. Having said that, I believe in monogamy, long-term committed monogamy in fact.
~mike
A brief follow-on:
– 7. Gays are not entitled to rights above that of anyone else.
Response: I forgot about gay hate crimes – one area where we as a community DO in fact want to be treated as a special class, to be another element in the list of hate crimes. I forgot about this one because I, too, am against the concept of hate crimes. I would prefer a ‘terrorism statute’ – an additional penalty for any crime committed that has the proven goal of provoking fear or oppression in a target group of people. That applies to crimes against someone due to race, or for being gay, or for being fat, or for owning a TiVO, if the intent is a deliberate targetting of that group alone, with the purpose of raising a community fear. No special classes, of ANY sort whatsoever – just the provable intent itself.
#53 John in IL — July 28, 2006 @ 11:38 pm – July 28, 2006
Dena is right saying being gay is behavior. Being straight is also a behavior. I believe both are an innate behavior, but still behavior, none the less. Behavior and choice are two totally different things.
Being gay might be a behavior (and I agree that it is, but for reasons that you might find surprising), but being homosexually-oriented appears not to be. Just as being straight might also be a behavior, but being heterosexually-oriented appears not to be. (I’ll skip the bisexual issue for brevity).
Let me ask y’all this: if someone–a male, for example–has never had sex with anyone, but he fantasizes about having sex with a male, or maybe a female, when he relieves himself, what does that make him? Gay? Straight?
A homosexually-oriented male can choose to marry and appear to the public to be straight and even (apparently) fathering children, while sneaking around, soliciting other males, and having sex with other males. There have been a few politicians and others for which that has come to light in recent years. What are they? As far as I’m concerned, they are straights who have had homosexual dalliances.
#61 Michael Devereaux — July 29, 2006 @ 7:17 pm – July 29, 2006
– 7. Gays are not entitled to rights above that of anyone else.
Response: I forgot about gay hate crimes – one area where we as a community DO in fact want to be treated as a special class, to be another element in the list of hate crimes.
Oh? Just how special? Consider the following, most hate crime statutes, at the federal and state level, cover classifications such as race, national origin, religion, sometimes sex, sometimes disability, and rarely sexual orientation. So, generally speaking, in the unlikely event that a gay person were to, for example, kill (or substitute whatever crime you want), a conservative christian because he was a christian, that oftentimes would be considered a hate crime. But, in the more likely event that a conservative christian were to kill (substitute whatever crime you want) a gay person because he was gay, that would not be considered a hate crime.
It strikes me that that gives special rights to conservative christians.
And, to add insult to injury, when it is proposed to add “sexual orientation” to existing hate crimes legislation that already covers “religion,” it is usually conservative christians who oppose the addition. They like the fact that they are covered by hate crimes legislation, but they don’t want gay people to be covered.
BTW, I’ve discussed this issue of “hate crimes” legislation on a number of self-described “libertarian” gay web sites, and most of the posters there generally have contended that they don’t particularly care for hate crimes legislation at all. That’s all well and good. The fact is, however, that hate crimes legislation isn’t going to go away any time soon. AFAIC, if hate crimes legislation is going to cover religion, it should also cover sexual orientation. It really is as simple as that.
The New York and Washington rulings are both pathetic and apologists for these corrupt courts do nothing but try to make themselves feel better. In neither state can gay residents expect to take any discrimination case through these “justice” systems with any reasonable expectation of finding objective justice with these courts as final arbiter. These rulings, and the twisted political motivation behind them (neither state top court is independent, both are elected), have gutted the anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation in these states because the majority of justices have shown their extreme bias towards gay human beings. Similarly, gay litigants taking claims based on discrimination based on other factors such as race, religion, gender or ethnicity, cannot expect objective treatment under these top courts.
What politician has offered such a compromise that gays and lesbians in long-term committed relationships would receive the exact same benefits as heterosexual married couples, at both the state and federal levels?
No one. And it’s likely no one will, either, for several years.
I think compromise works well for conflict resolution, in business, but not when it comes to one’s dignity…….From that point of view, I’d find it hard to believe that offering us some of the primary benefits we seek (hospital visitation rights, the right to make decisions regarding a partner’s remains and so forth) rather than all of them at the federal and state levels truly allows gay and lesbian households the freedom to live like everyone else…with the exact same protections straight families get.
Then you need to wait however many years for marriage equality to pass legislative muster.
Until then, the likelihood is that you will have minimal to zero other benefits and protections for gay couples.
If you’re fine with that, I’m not going to argue.
But my preference is to take advantage of the fact that the American public right now supports legislation that would grant some of the primary benefits (medical decision-making, hospital visitation, dispensation of remains) that you would like to have. They just don’t support conferring all of them and in the form of marriage.
Similarly, gay litigants taking claims based on discrimination based on other factors such as race, religion, gender or ethnicity, cannot expect objective treatment under these top courts.
And thus begins the slide of the gay left into Jesse Jackson-esque conspiracies, ravings, and irrelevancies.
I do agree that hate crimes gives precedence to one group over another. This is wrong. I am a Black woman, so if I can get some White Nazi to kill me-woohoo! I get justice. If some ignorant Black thug gangbanger shoots me in a drive by-sorry he’s the same color-no justice for Dena! Excuse me what does my color have to do with the crime? Crime should be punished to the full extent of the law regardless of who the victim or perpetrator is. If my gay relatives are killed, you better run, you better hide, you better hope I never find you! They deserve justice and it shouldn’t matter whether it was it done by their lover, some “gay basher” or anyone else. Hate crimes say, “Hey if you can manage to get hurt, maimed or killed under these conditions, we might actually do something about it!” No you will do something about regardless of the circumstances. That is why I don’t like hate crimes. They don’t help anyone and only divide everyone into us and them. Michael D. makes the case why we should not have hate crimes, not why we should.