As I read John Aravosis’ post on what he deems “Hillary’s gay problem,” I began to better understand the difference between gays on the left and gay conservatives (though not necessarily Log Cabin). Aravosis finds it problematic that the former First Lady’s almost never uses the word, “gay” in her speeches “to the public at large.”
He provides a video of her appearance on logo (the gay cable network) where she seems uncomfortable even saying the word. (I watched it and agree.)
By contrast, “Obama mentions us in his speeches, a lot.” He’s impressed — as is our friend Dale Carpenter — that the Democratic frontrunner brings up gay issues “and not just before gay audiences.”
To be sure, if Ms. Hillary’s logo appearance is emblematic of her attitude toward gays, she has a real problem. Her discomfort saying the word “gay” should be troubling to her gay and lesbian supporters some of whom act as if she has always been an advocate for gay people when the experience she cites (serving as First Lady to Bill Clinton) proves quite the opposite.
If it weren’t for that discomfort, I wouldn’t find her relative silence on gays all that troubling. It doesn’t really bother me that a candidate doesn’t mention gay people in his speeches or fails to push a particularly pro-gay agenda. Yes, I would like him to favor repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (and other discriminatory legislation which singles out gay people) and push for state recognition of same-sex unions, but just so long as he doesn’t engage in anti-gay rhetoric or promote discriminatory policies, i can feel comfortable supporting him.
This all boils down to my basic political philosophy that it’s not the government’s role to address social issues. I believe that if the government just leaves us alone, private institutions will effect the changes we need. We see that already in the increasing number of companies adopting non-discrimination policies and offering benefits to same-sex partners.
So, it doesn’t really matter to me that a candidate doesn’t bring up gay people in his political speeches, just as long as he doesn’t denounce us.
My sense is that most gay Republicans doesn’t identify politically as gay. We see ourselves as citizens who happen to be gay. And therein, I think, lies the primary distinction between gay liberals and gay conservatives. They want politicians to appeal to them as a political group.
We don’t require such appeals, content when politicians address other issues, leaving us alone to live our lives as we see fit and trusting private institutions to meet our social needs.
” I believe that if the government just leaves us alone….”
Right. How many states have anti-marriage equality laws? Outlaw gay adoption? Discriminate against same-sex partners? And as long as McCain doesn’t address these things, that’s a good thing?
um, torrentprime, such laws don’t count as leaving us alone.
How many states have anti-marriage equality laws?
None of them.
No state allows you to marry just anyone with whom you want to have sex. They limit marriage to two adult people of the opposite sex who are not already married to others, and that is applied equally regardless of sexual orientation.
Since I have yet to hear that denying people the right to marry children or their close relatives is denying them their equal right to marry, it can be clearly stated that marriage is NOT an absolute right and thus is well within the power of the state to limit.
Outlaw gay adoption?
One — Florida. The other 49 do not.
I dont know of any state that denies gays the ablity to get married. I know plenty of gay people who have been married at churches, temples, other countries , etcl..
What the States dont’ do is recongize them.
I used to know a gay guy who adopted his sister’s children. Haven’t heard anything from him though since he got a gig with that Ty Pennington show.
I think I’m old fashion, I don’t wait around for any government to make me happy, or “allow” me the freedom to chose my friends, relatives or lovers. Those who are distressed with some of these “rights” would be better off getting on with their lives. But that’s just one mans opinion.
#6
Of course. If you wait around for others to make you happy, you’re just going to be perpetually miserable.
What confounds me is the gay liberal’s desire for the government and/or the courts to FORCE others to like them. That only makes people more pissed off at you than they were in the first place.
I think Alabama and Utah may also have policies against gay adoptions. But the great thing about America is, you can always move to a different state where the laws are more to your liking. I certainly prefer that to places like China or Canada where the central government tries to impose a single structure on the whole nation.
What confounds me is the gay liberal’s desire for the government and/or the courts to FORCE others to like them.
Simple answer: because that’s the only way anyone ever WOULD like them.
The issue is that the government does involve itself in social issues when it permits only certain groups of people to have access to a governmental function such as issuing a marriage certificate. By not allowing same-sex marriage, the government is making a social statement. If it did not want to involve itself, it should retreat from the marriage field-of-play and leave it to churches and other private institutions to decide who can and cannot be married.
I do not particularly care if the government likes me or not (and do not understand how seeking equal treatment under the law is equivalent to asking to be liked), but since the government does not recognize my marriage to my husband, the costs of his education (for example) are not deductible as they would be if I were supporting a wife in similar fashion. In this way, the government is blocking me from receiving a tax break that is available to others. So rather than the government leaving me alone, it is interfering with my attempt to claim a benefit available to others.
One solution would be to de-link marriage from the benefits now attached to it, but I do not know how practical such an approach would be. But as long as government-sanctioned marriage bestows rights, the citizens of that government should not be blocked from accessing those benefits due to sexual orientation. I do want to be left alone by the government in the sense that I want it to stop interfering with my attempt to have my marriage legally recognized.
3: It’s sadly laughable that you believe this. Conservatives brought people out in droves using a lot of fear bating in the 04 election to enact the laws, which you so clinically describe, as a means to specifically stop people of the same sex from marrying each other. not only the electorate, but legislatures that enacted similar laws used the same hate and fear to pass these laws.
You (and the others here who give responses like this) clearly like to ignore the fact of the host of legal rights and treatment the government bestows upon people who have that simple little piece of paper. If the law were truly equal to all citizens, then it seems that the government shouldn’t issue marriage licenses at all. Why should special legal protections be bestowed on people who choose to co-habitate?
The marriage law is equally available to all persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex.
But what is the rationale for marriage restrictions based on the sex of potential spouses? No such restrictions exist based on race, ethnicity, citizenship, or religion.
I think an individual should have the freedom to marry the person of his choice with two exceptions: 1) a close family relative (based on the prevalence of the incest taboo across cultures); and b) a person who is not capable of giving informed, uncoerced consent (there may be others I am not thinking of at this late hour).
If sex is a factor that can prohibit a citizen from access to government benefits, I think there needs to be a strong reason for enforcing this prohibition which I do not see in the case of access to marriage. I understand that many people may feel discomfiture if same-sex marriages are allowed, but the discomfiture of some citizens is no reason to limit the freedom of other citizens. There is no civil right not to be bothered or annoyed.
Sorry but I have zero interest in going into the history of marrage… that anyone would need to explain to you why it’s between a man and a woman is not something I want to spend my time with
Conservatives brought people out in droves using a lot of fear bating in the 04 election to enact the laws, which you so clinically describe, as a means to specifically stop people of the same sex from marrying each other. not only the electorate, but legislatures that enacted similar laws used the same hate and fear to pass these laws.
Which you and your fellow Democrat gays claimed was “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, to the tune of public endorsements and tens of millions of dollars to politicians who were supporting the exact laws and bragging about having the “same position” as those people you are now claiming are antigay.
In short, Kevin, you are a hypocrite.
I think an individual should have the freedom to marry the person of his choice with two exceptions: 1) a close family relative (based on the prevalence of the incest taboo across cultures); and b) a person who is not capable of giving informed, uncoerced consent (there may be others I am not thinking of at this late hour).
And, throughout history, the fact that marriage is between a male and a female is quite universal across cultures, even more so than the incest taboo.
Therefore, marriage can quite logically be limited to people of the opposite sex.
But historically marriage has also been limited by race, class, ethnicity, religion, and other factors (much of history chronicles the struggle of the individual against the forces of authoritarianism). Succeeding generations have realized the mistake of such restrictions and abandoned them. Restrictions on same-sex marriage fall into the same category. Unless palpable harm can be shown to flow from allowing same-sex marriage, I see no reason to prohibit it. Restrictions on the right to marry where coercion or incest are involved are rational since actual harm is being prevented (and may be why they are so widespread. Other restrictions seem based on distaste rather than logic).
I think marriage can serve as a positive force for both individuals and society at large. To limit it through illogic and capriciousness seems to cause more harm than good. Those who claim harm are only harmed because they are confronted with actions that they do not wish to see or find distasteful (much like Muslims claimed harm when those cartoons were published in Denmark). I may feel revulsion at particular choices other people make, but so long as those choices do not cause societal harm and were made in freedom, my distaste remains on the level of personal response.
But historically marriage has also been limited by race, class, ethnicity, religion, and other factors (much of history chronicles the struggle of the individual against the forces of authoritarianism).
Yes, but not nearly to the degree of uniformity or continuity that it has been limited by the requirement that the participants be of the opposite sex.
I think marriage can serve as a positive force for both individuals and society at large.
Of course it can, which is why society endorses it.
However, what you’re missing here is that society has promoted and given special precedence to heterosexual marriage for millenia because the creation of the family unit that it represents is what perpetuates society.
What amuses me is how liberal gays and lesbians will defend to the death the rampant discrimination and unequal treatment embodied in the income tax structure, but then insist that it’s “unfair” and “unequal” that a heterosexual couple raising children gets tax breaks that they don’t.
Society has a vested interest in encouraging the success of heterosexual couples. It has no such vested interest in gay couples. Hence, there is no reason that society should be forced to treat gay couples the same way. If it chooses to do so, it may; however, society chooses not.
Yes it is.
It is saying children come from male/female couples, it is good for society to encourage child bearing, and it is best for society when those couples are permanently committed to each other, so we are going to encourage that as well.
What you and so many others get so blatantly wrong is that gay relationships are equal to straight relationships. They aren’t. If and when children ever come from homosexual relations, then you will have an argument. Until then, you are demanding that unequal things be treated equally. Get over it.
I’ve been reading this board and the only thing I see from “gay conservatives” is that they hate liberals. That’s fine if that’s your agenda. You have no interest in the gay community or making things better for gays. You just want to drop more bombs and get a tax cut. Not criticizing (it is a free country after all) but of course you don’t expect anything from Republican candidates. How could you?
BTW, most gay liberals I know (as in those of us who are not activists) are much more concerned about the war, about the economy and other issues (for me: human rights issues around the world including Darfur and Tibet among others) than we are with gay marriage. But I suspect that everyone’s agenda is different. Now if I lumped gay conservatives together and made generalizations as you just have you’d be all over me with epithets and personal attacks. But it is perfectly okay for YOU to do it. I see this over and over and it’s why I have responded here less and less. You have nothing less but hating liberals and for that I pity you. I can respect wanting limited government and responsible spending. But the GOP hasn’t stood for those things (in practice I mean…talk is cheap after all) at any time in my lifetime. So I guess hating on us liberals is all you have left to justify continuing to vote for the GOP. Sad. So very sad.
Again, a standardized over-simplistic “answer” to the gay marriage issue:
I’ll therefore trot out the standard responses to it. If marriage is just about encouraging reproduction and makin’ babies, then why in the world do we let infertile couples marry?
And, as for this, boys and girls, this is what we call bigotry where I’m from:
Funny, I know of all kinds of gay relationships that have yielded children in the same way that infertile couples often have children. First, of course there is adoption, which both use. Then there is artificial insemination, which both have been known to use. And finally there is surrogacy, which, again, both have been known to use.
If and when you can show me one baby that is the naturally produced offspring of an infertile couple, then I’ll cede that they should be allowed to marry under a purely reproductive qualifier. If not, then condemn them to the same fate as other non-reproductive couples.
But if infertile non-reproductive couples are respected by the law even when they have children in the same ways as gay couples typically do, then I would say, along purely reproductive lines, that provides more of an argument for marriage equality.
Clearly, though, marriage is about much more than reproduction, and so, either way, your argument, I think, is complete bunk.
A note to Houndentenor: I know what you’re talking about. Heck, I’m a conservative (Goldwater-model) and just because I raise my voice in disagreement now and again, many of them casually toss me into the same lump as all the “gay liberals”. The holier-than-thou tone you use occasionally, you could lose, though.