Michael Barone on one of the factors facilitating the decline of the Golden State:Â “Affluent California liberals are seeking through politics validation of their lifestyle choices even though they’re mostly irrelevant to state public policy.”
Read the whole thing. It helps explain why so many gay activists are so upset over the passage of Proposition 8.
Barone references Joel Kotkin’s post, and that is longer and the more interesting thing to me as a resident:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00612-death-california-dream
I’m trying to understand what the hell you guys mean when you say that all these gay people are seeking validation. Does that mean you consider them invalid? Do you think that gay people consider themselves invalid? Who do they want to give them the validation? Conservative Christians? Straight people? Married people? Are there similar cases in American history where a group has sought validation, you know, for comparison? I’m just not getting it.
What does it mean to be seeking validation? Validation in the eyes of whom?
Validation in the eyes of Government-as-substitute-for-mommy-and-daddy. People want government to make “a statement”.
Example: I can’t tell you how many times, in discussing gay marriage (which I support) with my gay-liberal friends, I’ve heard them say things like, “We need the law [i.e., government] to make a statement that our relationships are as good as anybody’s.” Um… no. Personally, I don’t need government / the law to make that “statement”. I already know it. Knowing it, I have no need for external validation of it. I support gay marriage for other reasons. (Chiefly public-policy reasons: legitimizing/protecting the children of committed gay couples, making “a statement” in favor of the committed-couple model among gays and straights alike, etc.)
#3 – Very well put, ILC. My sentiments exactly.
I too don’t need a piece of paper from my state to show that I’m committed to my partner, or that I need the state’s “blessing” for my union. And before Levi or other start the tired “what-about-hospital-visits” BS, I have two words for you: executed wills.
Regards,
Peter H.
Barone is saying that depending upon the specific issue, the liberal agenda has either been fully achieved or whose achievement is imminent and that current liberal politics are navel-gazing, preening, identity-affirmation exercises. I don’t live in California, but I see no inconsistency in what has driven the state’s public policy to its current state and politics that ornament it. Liberalism has been navel-gazing, preening, identity-affirmation primarily since the ’60s. It’s a grave mistake to think it’s irrelevant, particularly when one considers that the liberal agenda will never be fully achieved. The argument re. lifestyle choice is/has gradually moving/moved from rights/privileges to economics, from law to subsidy.
Barone is on one hand writing that for liberals, public policy has come to fruition while on the other, that which has made it so is irrelevant to public policy because of that fruition. Circular at best.
I thought the comment to Barone´s article by Ron g of CA interesting:
¨I would vote republican (sic) if they would stick to finances and stay out of the bedroom.¨ Again, the double standard. Democrats can enter the bedroom by wanting to legalize gay marriage and abortion on demand and no parental notification for a minors opting for abortion.
Validation as a gay couple? Why? What would that do, exactly?
And how exactly do Republicans try to legislate what goes on in the bedroom? I don’t get that.
#7: Oh, come now, V the K. It’s an established FACT that by opposing same sex marriage, Republicans are prohibiting gays from engaging in healthy, life-long, monogamous relationships. Until same sex marriage is legal across the nation, gays have no choice but to go from bar to bathhouse, night after night. Duh.
“Democrats can enter the bedroom by wanting to legalize gay marriage”
right, because we all know that gay marriage is only about sex.
“Until same sex marriage is legal across the nation, gays have no choice but to go from bar to bathhouse, night after night.”
exactly, because that’s what all gays who support same sex marriage do, because of course sex is all that gay marriage is about.
Makes sense I suppose, since str8 marriage is only about breeding.
#10: Glad to see the Adonis Men-Only Steam and Spa finally got Wi-Fi.
#6: Yet another oversimplification. The bedroom is only one room in the house. How about the fact that in many states, to have the same rights as hetero “married” couples, gays would have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to make out a litany of contracts they have to sign. In comparison, the hetero couple only has to sign a marriage license and they get all those wonderful benefits whether they deserve them or not. Does anyone consider that fair?
“It’s an established FACT that by opposing same sex marriage, Republicans are prohibiting gays from engaging in healthy, life-long, monogamous relationships.”
That is perhaps the most illogical statement I have seen in quite some time, and believe me, I see some doozies. How, exactly, does opposing the redefinition of marriage prohibit you from leading a moral life?
I’m all ears. Er, eyes.
Attmay,
Well a polyamorous group has the same obstacle. Ever hear of Legalzoom.com?
“I ask you, is that fair?” Jubal Early
Um, gay marriage does not create a harem or a shortage of available spouses, like polygamy does.
non-sequetor.
I’m talking about legal hurdles
#13: rightwingprof, I assure you, every syllable of my comment at # 9 is pure, unadulterated sarcasm. However, the argument that state-sanctioned, same-sex marriage will somehow transform bathhouse-trolling lotharios into committed, monogamous spouses has actually been made with a straight face on this blog (by Attmay, I believe).
Sean A – you have to look at the incentives the system provides to people growing up. That’s where the argument is. Let’s put it this way. Opposite-sex marriage is often defended/supported as a way to civilize men, and to put children in stable, positive homes. Opposite-sex marriage doesn’t transform bar-trolling lotharios into committed, monogamous spouses. But, on average, it helps ensure that fewer of the new generation of men grow up to become bar-trolling lotharios permanently or “for life”. Some will anyway – but fewer. Likewise, opposite-sex marriage doesn’t put all children in stable, positive homes. But, on average, it helps ensure it for a few more of them. That’s the argument and yes, the argument works for gays too. No one in their right mind (and I would tend to exclude Attmay from that, on this issue) should claim that same-sex marriage will transform bathhouse-trolling lotharios into committed, monogamous spouses. I certainly don’t claim it. But, on average, State-licensed marriage / unions for gays will ensure that fewer in the next generation grow up to be bathhouse-trolling lotharios permanently or “for life”, and it puts a few more children (of gays and lesbians) into stable, positive homes.
12 Attmay – that was not my opinion, I was commenting on a post by ron g of CA on Michael Borone´s. Blog who said HE (caps, mine)¨would vote republican if they would stick to finances and stay out of my bedroom.¨ Read Borone´s blog and tell ron g. it is an oversimplification.