Just a moment ago, while perusing Instapundit, I chanced upon his link to Cathy Young’s thoughtful piece, “Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin.” I had printed the piece up last night and read it before bed, taking particular note of the spot-on opening paragraph:
Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.
It reminded me of the reaction I got this weekend when a left-wing blogger linked my recent Washington Blade column. I experienced the same kind of name-calling and stream of vitriol that Sarah Palin has. (The same invective we hear over and over and over again.) Except on a much, much smaller scale.
It seems the same factors are at work. These leftists are angry at someone who upsets their narrative of what a woman or gay man should be.
The goal of these angry feminists is not so much that we should break down barriers to women’s advancement so that jobs and opportunity once open only to men should be available to them as well, but to break down those barriers as part of an effort to remake society in a leftist image.*
The goal of these gay activists is a similar social refashioning. They call us self-hating without bothering to consider how our being openly gay in conservative circles accomplishes something they advocate when promoting coming out in general. People are less likely to harbor anti-gay sentiments (and more likely to favor pro-gay policies) when they have family members, friends or co-workers who are gay.
Left-wing prejudices notwithstanding, that applies to conservative individuals just as it applies to all individuals.
By coming out to conservatives, we help change the attitudes of those least favorably disposed to gay people in American society. But, so politicized have they become that they refuse to see what we have accomplished.
While the angry gay left has loudly berated Mary Cheney for not becoming a gay activist like other children of prominent politicians, she has silently done more than the entire budget of the Human Rights Campaign to promote understanding of gay people. When she appeared on the Hugh Hewitt show in 2006, Hugh’s conservative listeners heard an open lesbian answer questions intelligently and conduct herself with grace. Just by being herself, she challenged their prejudices.
If the goal of the gay activists were greater social understanding of and less prejudice toward gay people, they should welcome openly gay and lesbian conservatives like Mary Cheney, Patrick Sammon, Tammy Bruce, Bruce Carroll and myself. But, to call us self-hating, Jewish Nazis or Black Klansmen is to ignore what we do merely by being open about our sexuality.
Shouldn’t then feminists welcome the reception that Sarah Palin has enjoyed on the right? Â Because by celebrating her, indeed, by campaigning to elect her Vice President, we are saying we believe she can lead this nation. And she is woman. Therefore, the political party supposedly most resistant to feminism is saying a woman is qualified to be president, thus, by extension, qualified for any job a man can do.
And isn’t that supposed to be the ultimate goal of feminism?
—–
*Or, as Ann Althouse puts its, “The feminism of the last dozen years has been a dull, uninspired argument for keeping Democratic politicians in power.” Â Read the whole thing!
I must say an excellent observation. I find it ironic that liberals are so angry that a conservative woman can be a feminist and have it all. I find it just as ironic with when liberals scream and get flummexed how can Gays be conservative. I say how can we not?
We want the government out of our personal lives and coming up with rules and how we are to lead our personal lives. I have had friends scream at me that how can I totally support Governor Palin. To me, I say how can you not? Again, it has been female friends (with rare exception..those being the conservative female friends who are so very proud of Governor Palin) and liberal friends who get some damn angry about Governor Palin. As Dan wrote and the WSJ article indicated, Governor Palin isn’t asking for government help but by her conduct is saying we can have a family and it takes a variety of formats (extended family, friends) to support each other and we don’t need government programs.we need government to get out of the way and to stand with us not against us with stupid regulations, things we must do, Big Brother, etc.
Gays who think we must only think in one way put us in straight jackets (pardon the pun) of we must conform to one way of being, the very thing we are horrified about because some in society we must be str8 or else…..what happened to standing up together for individuality and celebrate conservative values of freedom to be whom we are, enjoy liberty and say hell no we won’t engage in group think (indeed group think is what scares me most because if that happens its one foot on the slippery slope leading to the opposite of freedom…..which is what our country has fought for..the freedom to be whom we are, individual freedom, liberty, etc.)
So, according to liberals either step in line and follow the Marxist line or be thrown in a re education camp and don’t laugh at that…that is what scares me most about liberals….like lambs to slaughter instead of supporting freedom, liberty and the right to do for ourselves without the government telling me what to do and when to do it.)
Ok, enough of my rant..Bruce you said it far better then I ever could..thanks for sharing the insights:)
“The goal of these gay activists is a similar social refashioning.” What does this sentence–even just this one sentence–what does it mean?
Awesome post! I couldn’t have said it better myself!
It’s clear that it’s written in English and, as far as I know, you can’t stutter while typing so it seems to mean exactly what it says. The left has a penchant for making everybody as miserable and angry as they are.
Two nails hit squarely on the head. (Despite the opinions of the clueless jimmy.)
Other left-wing agitators (the black civil rights coalition, the green/environmental movement, etc.) are similarly motivated: They all want leftward cultural and governmental change.
It seems to me that identity politics is mainly a re-framing of Marx: there are the opressor and the opressed. Period. By definition, you are either one or the other. You have either seen the light and accepted this world view or you have not and therefore must either be brainwashed or an opressor. Simple!
Since the old Marxist dichotomy of capital v. workers no longer supported the theory – the workers became wealthier and began to own stocks, messing up the scenario – new opressors and opressed had to be found – no matter how tenuous to continue the sturggle in the Marxist format.
I suppose a dictatorship of the offended would be the goal now instead a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Stosh2, I like that expression, “dictatorship of the offended.” I may have to use it sometime. 🙂
Well said.
There’s no such thing as black and white. There’s only lovely shades of hazy grey to obscure real truth, you conservative bigot. 🙂
sarah palin is no margaret thather. but the thatcher nun hand puppet’s sales record might be eclipsed by the palin nun handpuppet
ThatGayConservative: I was describing historical Marxism. Which other group is included in that social theory?
Modern liberalism has become Flip Wilson’s “Church of What’s Happenin’ Now.” As a religion, it has adopted all the worst aspects of the old Catholic regime. It is full of doctrine, the selling of indulgences, witch hunts, inquisitions, corpulence of self indulgence, moral relevancy and a hierarchy of political elites.
The little people, like jimmy and michael and all the little letter names, love the “Church of What’s Happenin’ Now” because they have no faith, but they are caught up in being true believers. Like the Hitler Youth or the KKK they can go on self-righteous hate crusades against the knuckle-dragging low life they see all around them.
They don’t “think” so much as they “react.”
Liberal feminists only support the liberal feminist agenda, not women in general. Liberal gays only support the liberal gay agenda, not gays in general. They will indulge one another, defend the indefensible, and blitzkrieg anyone who doesn’t accept their orthodoxy. And they will descend like doxies and harpies on anyone who “threatens” their religion.
The reason is pretty simple; the mantra of both of these groups is that their actions are inexorably determined by their minority status. If it were to be revealed that there are women who don’t support abortion or gays who don’t follow leftist politics, their entire meme of, “I can’t help it, it’s my minority status” unravels, and they would be judged by their choice to follow said philosophies.
WASP subjugation of women and gays dies a slow death.
Troopergate: As expected, there is no ‘there’ there. Monegan was a *political* appointee and a very poor one; Palin had excellent *policy* reasons for firing him; more than enough reason, in fact.
P.S. Relevant to this thread as another example of lefties hating Palin and needing desperately to manufacture and to believe total crap about her… i.e., needing desperately to destroy her.
#13: “WASP subjugation of women and gays dies a slow death.”
Not in the Democratic Party.
And Sean – That from a supporter of Nazi-style eugenics! (Yes, michael, that’s you)
ILC, you make claims that aren’t true. says volumes about your character.
So can anyone else read #18 w/o laughing out loud?
Not at all, michael. A couple weeks ago, after Palin was announced, you made posts suggesting that she should have aborted her Down Syndrome child. That’s Nazi-style eugenics.
Here’s michael calling Palin’s child “genetically defective” and implying that she is a bad person for not having practiced Nazi-style eugenics on the child:
Here’s the link:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=3728#comment-300382
michael, you are now a proven liar. That says a lot about *your* poor character.
(P.S., that took all of 20 seconds in Google… I didn’t bother to see if there were additional, similar quotes from michael; I suspect there might be)
yes eistein, and how does a genetic defect, like trisomy 23, have anything to do with, “That’s Nazi-style eugenics”. someone needs a course in critical thinking. rotf.
Maybe I’m being overly harsh, but I think many left-wing feminist and gay groups take comfort in the idea that they can blame their own failures on prejudice on the part of others rather than on some other shortcoming in their own life. When confronted with the idea of someone else within this group who IS successful and hasn’t used claims of discrimination to get there, they’re forced to confront the idea that maybe being a woman or being gay was NOT the whole story, and that there is something else that has been holding them back.
I consider myself very lucky as a conservative lesbian blogger, my fellow liberal lesbian readers – while few in number – always play nice. Politics is a small part of my blog, but I do put them out there.
Well michael, here, you can read about it, you Nazi-style eugenicist, you.
I mean, it’s not my job to spoon-feed you on what is ugly and even evil about your presuming to say a woman should exterminate her baby if it doesn’t meet your genetic purity standards. Spoon-feed yourself, monster.
This is another interesting blog post. I see some of your point on the benefits of working within the Republican establishment to change their views on gays. Though, I have a question. You say, “People are less likely to harbor anti-gay sentiments (and more likely to favor pro-gay policies) when they have family members, friends or co-workers who are gay.” Cheney has a gay daughter yet the administration that he serves in has sought to change our country’s Constitution to forbid rights to American men and women who happen to be gay. Is that an example of a “pro-gay” Repubican policy that came about through a Republican being exposed to gays?
oh my ILC, nothing like throwing objectivity out the window. suppose the next thing you’ll say is using antibiotics is a sin.
Thank God gays that acknowledge the importance of individuality and individual responsibility would never make gross generalizations about a vaguely defined group of people….
Nah, liberals are marxists, hurr!
we will put an end to ILC’s tirad now. hehehe. you apparently don’t understand the nature of a trisomy (let alone what chromosome down’s is associated with, rotf) and eugenics. they have nothing in common. and your insistance that they do just shows the rest of the world what it needs to fear.
Many left-wing feminists, as GayPatriotWest calls them, are against Palin not because they are threatened by a strong conservative woman, but because they disagree with her politics. Palin is against abortion, even in instances of rape and incest. Left-wing feminists do not support this belief at all. There are many other political reasons why they do not support Palin. It’s NOT because Palin disrupts their image of how a gay person or woman should behave.
” Palin is against abortion, even in instances of rape and incest.”
That is her personal conviction,.. now why dont you tell us what her public policy position is
“There are many other political reasons why they do not support Palin.”
Such as?
OK- I’ll bite. I am a liberal(ish) Democrat and Obama supporter, but I enjoy this blog because you often have an interesting perspective that broadens my horizons. I also think gay conservatives have every right to their politics, and I do commend you for sticking it out with your party and trying to bring them around. So here you guys go, from one liberal gay Democrat: “thank you.” Its a sentiment that is echoed by more of us than you seem to think (in which respect perhaps we all need to question our assumptions from time-to-time).
All of that does nothing, however, to change the fact that at least on “social issues” the Republican Party remains controlled by a faction of people who are determined to wreck my family and drive people like me straight out of American life (no pun intended). These are the same people who denounced Lawrence v. Texas, who sponsored a vicious antigay law in Virginia that purports to invalidate even private partnership agreements, who support DADT and who are the driving force behind maintaining DOMA (whose bar on equal tax treatment for domestic partnership benefits means that I take home about $2000 less per year than the straight guys sitting in the very next office solely because I am married to a man). Mike Huckabee, who has never repudiated his view that AIDS patients should have been rounded up and quarantined in the 1990s, got multiple standing ovations at the 2008 convention. For extra measure, Bush (whatever his personal views) has never actually endorsed civil unions, but just suggested that he doesn’t give a damn, while in the meantime using people like me as lightening rods to gin up his base in a manner that I find truly terrifying. Even McCain backed a nasty ballot initative in Arizona in 2006 that would have barred all relationship recognition for same-sex couples.
So while I respect your right to disagree with me and still be a proud member of the LGBT community, you will have to forgive me for not being won over by the fact that you went to the Republican convention and nobody spat in your face. And I can understand, even if I don’t agree with, the horror that many gay activists feel towards what American conservatism has become. When close family and friends tell me they are voting for McCain I feel a little bit of this horror myself- though I try to fight it. I am looking forward to the day when I actually have a real choice in presidential elections- but it ain’t here yet.
In other words: Because they are threatened by a strong *politically conservative* woman. Well, this is going in circles fast.
Remember your premise. As specifically *left*-*wing* feminists, they would believe that a modern, Western woman:
– shouldn’t kill animals. (Think PETA, hip vegetarianism, etc.)
– shouldn’t *actually* believe in a male, Biblical God
– should be a Democrat (or further Left)
– is a fool if she doesn’t abort Down Sydrome babies (as also believed by michael, our resident Nazi-style eugenicist)
– is altogether too lucky, and probably secretly phony or corrupt, if she seems to have a great husband with a real pair on him who nonetheless happily subordinates himself to *her* career.
Show me a feminist who violates the above image of how a woman should behave, and I will show you a feminist who is authentic but who can’t and shouldn’t be called “left-wing”. Like… say… oh, what is that Alaskan gal’s name? Sarah Palin. Long story short: Of course Palin violates the left-wing feminists’ image of how a woman should behave!
#24 Dave,
Spot on!
33.
Biting back on a couple of points.
Most DOMA legislation is in reaction to courts deciding to make end runs around the democratic process, be it referrendums in CA, or legislature pased elsewhere. I’m not surprised that an action (a court pulling things out of the Aether) causes an equal and oposite reaction. I can be amused, bemused, sad, disappointed, or a host of other reactions, but not surprised.
A lot of the conservative arguements (Walter Williams, Jonah Goldberg come to mind) about Lawrence vs. Texas is that a government can make bad law, and it is the role of the legislative process to change that bad law. Here in Ohio, for example, the Payday Lenders law sucks, and our Govenour is using Obama-esque tactics to try to keep the referrendum off the ballot.
Full Disclosure: I voted -for- the Ohio DOMA ammendment, after reading it and finding the arguments against hystarical and spurious. Meanwhile I applauded the CT Legislature and Condemed the MA and CA supreme court discusions.
Also I have a (female) Domestic Partner I support. Yes the additonal ‘income’ bites, but a) it’s cheeper than her COBRA, and b) I accept it as a consequence of a non-standard choice. I may be divorced twice, but I’m not marrying someone for the ‘bennies’.
As to DADT. It has been said many times many ways, Merry Chirstma- oops, I mean that most democrats are on the record of supporting it and have taken no steps to remove it. Maybe they find it useful and a fundraiser?
I’ll bet you $50 it will be a Republican President who gets it repealed through.
Since this is going to be eaten by the spam filter, let me finish by saying thank you for taking the time to post in a mature and adult fashion. I am confident that people such as you are not the minority of liberals but, unfortunately, you’re outnumbered by those who think capitals and punctuation are tools of the Right. 😉
michael, so now you want to make a technical argument. You’re arguing in effect that, since the human life you wish had been exterminated here has a defect more strictly chromosomal than genetic in nature (that you know of – haha), then, technically, your programme more resembles Nazi-style euthanasia of “defectives†than Nazi-style eugenics.
Freaking… Brilliant… Move.What a thorough and devastating refutation of your Nazi tendencies.
I am so happy to see that other people feel the way I do. I am a former Democrat and liberal who is fed up with the elitism of the far left. I think Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air to the trashy and garish Hollywood left. We need a return to some basic human decency. I live in a very conservative neighborhood where most everyone is a Republican. My partner and I are respected and loved by most everyone. I’m not so sure this would be true in some more liberal neighborhoods. Let me say that the whole backlash against Palin has cemented my disdain for the left and their hateful ways.
#21: Hey ILC! If it seems michael, GP’s own in-house eugenics advocate, is slow in responding to your posts, I have to believe the reason must be that’s he’s busy with all of the festivities and events associated with Britian’s Royal Mail naming its “Women of Distinction” this week. Six women will be commemorated in a series of UK postage stamps, including Marie Stopes, a “birth control pioneer” and eugenicist who shared views on racial purity with the Nazis. Isn’t that great?! It must be a very exciting time for a ghoulish admirer of these practices like michael to see Stopes finally getting her due for bravely championing “selective breeding” and opening the UK’s first “family planning clinic” which has now grown into the world’s biggest abortion provider. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting the willies…er, the CHILLS from all the excitement!
No doubt michael’s comments about Palin’s irresponsible and selfish decision to have her son Trig were inspired by Stopes own visionary words: “Our race is weakened by an appallingly high percentage of unfit weaklings and diseased individuals.” She wasn’t afraid to attend Nazi population control conferences in Berlin and go on the record with her distaste for the “puny and utterly unsatisfactory” children of the poor. Isn’t that enchanting? Stopes was truly a woman of “distinction”–the kind of woman that today’s voting feminists could really get behind in an election (unlike that awful, irresponsible Sarah Palin).
So, if michael isn’t prompt in his responses, it’s probably because he’s booked solid, what with the ceremony for the unveiling of the Stopes postage stamp, or the partial birth abortion rally scheduled for this afternoon, or he’s probably helping the organizers get set up for the Racial Purity Dinner Dance this evening. For a modern day supporter of eugenics like michael, this is a really big deal–its like the abortion Olympics (naturally, you can imagine there is no affiliated “special” version of these Olympics–their mission is to ensure that “unsatisfactory” individuals like that are killed in the womb, not winning medals in some race or track & field event).
By the way, here’s the link to the story reporting on the celebration of Stopes’ gloriously nihilistic legacy:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=35656
from Dan,comment#33: “For extra measure, Bush (whatever his personal views) has never actually endorsed civil unions, but just suggested that he doesn’t give a damn, while in the meantime using people like me as lightening rods to gin up his base in a manner that I find truly terrifying.”
First of all, Dan, Bush in 2000 and 2004 did endorse civil unions and said so. In 2004, he indicated that he supported civil unions (which in part may have resulted in his getting about 26% of GLBT votes)
VP Cheney said in the VP debate with John Edwards, that he and Bush disagreed on the proposed federal constitutional ban on marriage. Indeed, Cheney indicated marriage under the federal constitution is an issue that is left for the states to decide…which is accurate and correct.
In the 2004 Advocate interview, John Kerry said he supported constitutional bans on marriage, just not the federal constitutional ban and said marriage is between a man and a woman and that is the same position Barack Obama has taken. Obama adds a heinous twist by saying he will not be for eliminating the section of DOMA regarding the incidents of marriage while talking out of the other side of his lying mouth by saying same sex couples should be entitled to the same federal benefits regarding marriage as str8 couples (which he can’t do unless Congress repeals that part of DOMA, which he said should not be repealed.)
I do not have a problem with a candidate
As to McCain, his position is no different then John Kerry’s who in 2004 said he supported a Massachusetts state constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Kerry also said he supported Missouri’s state constitutional amendment to ban civil unions. (I note that he and Teresa Heinz Kerry, per his Advocate interview that marriage is for heterosexuals and marriage is for procreation purposes by his definition should not be married since they have not procreated together and by his moronic statement all those str8 couples that don’t have children and/or are unable to have children by means of procreation or choose not to have children, best get divorced now)
As to DADT, the Democrats have controlled Congress again and they have not passed legislation to repeal it…but then again, it was a Democratic Congress in 1993 and a Democratic President that signed DADT into law and my guess is its a great money raiser to take our money and do nothing about it….
It will take a GOP President, as has been said, to repeal it…
As to DOMA…..which President gave us DOMA? OH YEAH, Democrat Bill Clinton and then campaigned bragging about it in his 1996 re-election for the Presidency..
‘nuf said.
#37: “Freaking… Brilliant… Move.What a thorough and devastating refutation of your Nazi tendencies.”
Yes, ILC, how silly and pedestrian of you not to recognize the razor-sharp nuance between the two situations without michael explaining it to you. The sharp contrast is clear: eugenics is about mass-murdering those troublesome undesirables at the earliest possible opportunity, while euthanasia of defectives is about exterminating undesirables after it is subjectively clear to the state that certain embarrassing individuals have nothing to contribute to or offer society. For short, we can just call the second variety “eugenics for LAZY mass-murdering fu*ks.”
For a liberal like michael, the two situations are like,…totally different. Both morally neutral, of course. But different. Oh, yeah, one more thing–they’re SPELLED differently too. That’s an important distinction as well.
Sean A, here’s what else: michael’s only blaming me for *his* language:
I was talking down at michael’s level, in vain hopes that he might understand. Now I’m to be blamed for his stupid mistake. OK. Whatev! 🙂
To Sean:
As I recall, Bush said that if a state enacted civil unions, he didn’t have a problem with it. But I wouldn’t call that support. And that certainly doesn’t make up for using the gay marriage issue to gin up the base. If they really cared about treating same-sex couples fairly while “protecting marriage,” why not offer some sort of compromise, such as federal recognition of state civil unions (i.e. a partial repeal of DOMA) in exchange for the FMA? Not gonna happen, of course, because “the Base” would go nuts.
As to your comments about Obama, Kerry and Clinton, I believe Obama is in favor of the wholesale repeal of DOMA, so I don’t know where you are getting the idea that he wants to leave the “incidents of marriage” part in place. Could you provide a link? Everything I have seen suggests that he is strongly in favor of according federal recognition to civil union/domestic partner-type relationships, as is Biden (unlike either McCain or Palin). As for Kerry, again, my recollection of 2004 is that he REFUSED to endorse the state initiatives that banned SSM AND civil unions, even after Bill Clinton told him he ought to. Kerry’s stand on gay marriage was indeed cowardly (given that we all know his true beliefs), but still preferable to Bush’s tub-thumping backlash populism. As for Bill Clinton himself- I agree that he’s a liar and a jerk. Never have liked him, never will. The LGBT community is just one of a rather long list that he has screwed over.
Lastly, I know full well that DOMA and DADT were enacted by a Democratic Congress, but the simple fact is that it is now the Democrats who are pushing to abolish or at least moderate both pieces of legislation, with little or no Republican support outside that of a couple Northeastern moderates like Chris Shays and Arlen Specter, who frankly are not the folks who call the shots in today’s Republican Party. And I know of no Democratic state party today that is actively pushing a state-DOMA (to say nothing of even more noxious pieces of legislation, like Arkansas’s proposed ban on gay adoption).
Look, as I said before, I respect your right to think that other issues are more important than gay rights and vote accordingly. I also respect folks who are trying to change the party from within (there is one such Republican I know of where I live for whom I plan to vote in November). But I do also feel that my current sense that the Repubs are not just indifferent but actively hostile to my interests and those of my family is more than reasonable, given their record over the last 20 years with regard to the LGBT community. To the extent you all want to win over more gay moderates (rather than just tossing potshots at the activist minority), a frank acknowledgment of that fact might get you farther.
As for Kerry, again, my recollection of 2004 is that he REFUSED to endorse the state initiatives that banned SSM AND civil unions, even after Bill Clinton told him he ought to.
Not quite.
Sorry- one correction. DOMA was enacted by a Republican Congress, though signed by a Democratic president (about whom I made my feelings clear). Also, I would note it was the Bush Administration that first started to give it the uber-harsh interpretation it has now, whereby anything even remotely connected to DP-benefits must be taxed as income. The Clinton Administration was not nearly so aggressive.
Meanwhile, given that gay Democrats and HRC leaders openly endorse and support Democrat politicians who support the FMA, what that makes obvious is that the gay and lesbian definition of “hostile” means “not Democrat”, and that bans are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats espouse them.
As I was reading the posts here, I was flooded with memories of the first times we took our adopted/foster children to church. A very conservative church I might add. The first time our son was 12. The second time our foster son was 5. The third time our son was 10. All 3 were welcomed with open arms. The 10 and the 12 yo’s were invited to join the youth groups. The 5yo fit in nicely in the Saturday morning play groups. We proudly sat in the front pew. Children between us. The 5yo holding our hands. I recall being invited to the annual Valentine’s Day coupled dinner. They do a role call of years married. You know stand up at 5 years, 10 years, etc. When they got to 25 years, we didn’t stand up. After all we are not married. The members had us stand up. We had been together 26 years at the time.
I do think that many of the members of the church got a completely different view of the gay world by watching and knowing us. Our son even received a nice little “Baby Package” from the Women’s Group when the found out that he had become a father. Again, our little family showed that gay couples can raise heterosexual children just fine.
Sometimes when our family would go to a more liberal social gathering based around the school or the YMCA, we always got the feeling that people were being nice to us because they HAD to be. I guess hetero-guilt (kind of like white-guilt). I would much rather have someone let me know exactly where I stand rather then have people pretend to be nice to my face and then talk about me behind my back.
When our oldest son turned 14, he had his first friends birthday party (he came to us at 12 from a place that was horrific). His friends from school, from the Y and from church were invited. Most had accepted. Parents called and confirmed. Only the children from the church showed up. We found out later, the “nice” parents from school and the Y felt uncomfortable dropping their teen sons at our house for the party. By the time our oldest was a senior in high school and captain of the swim team, the parents saw that we were as “normal” as everyone else. There were several swim team sleepovers with 10-15 high schoolers sleeping on the living room floor.
Unfortunately, my partner and I live in a so-called liberal state. At this time of year, we have to decline invitations for social gatherings with our liberal friends. Once we pull up in our pickup truck with conservative stickers, we are targets for “bashings”. Feels like we are in high school all over again.
Dan, first of all look at the DOMA act and you will find your answer. section 2 is what I am referring to. NObama refuses to support abolishing section 2 of said Act. As usual the liar he is promises on what he can’t deliver. The One supports DOMA yet promises federal rights for same sex couples. Unless Congress repeals section 2 of DOMA that can’t happen. If you can’t do your own research, well, try Wikidepia. It spells out DOMA right there for you to see.
Just in case you don’t know what it says here you go:
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
Sarah Palin does not consider herself to be a feminist and never has. So why is she being called one here? She is a woman with personal views and political positions that will not help most women in the long run. I would imagine that is why both feminists and non-feminist women will not be voting for Sarah Palin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agl99B2Ntms
Madonna on Sarah Palin – good for a laugh when we all need one.
She is not fit to rule this nation. Period.
The trouble with Palin is that she was picked BECAUSE of her gender, not for her ability to lead.