It seems a day does not go by without my receiving some e-missive from the various gay groups touting their efforts to promote equality. I’m most amused when I receive such missives from the group calling itself Freedom (sic) to Marry, its leaders obviously oblivious to the longstanding tension between those two concepts.
Recently, Kathy Griffin sent me a fundraising solicitation on behalf the LA Gay & Lesbian Center, “Emmys, Schmemmys- equality’s what really matters.” And I thought freedom was what matters. Not just that. At nearly every gay political gathering we attend, we hear about the goal about achieving that goal of “full equality” (whatever that means).
I cringe every time I hear that expression, knowing how various Communist and socialist regimes sought to impose equality. And how efforts in (mostly) capitalist countries to mandate such equality have gone awry, costing individuals (& private associations) their freedom, thwarting entrepreneurial expansion and innovation and hindering economic growth.
As we consider the achievement of “full equality,” do those who promote the notion have any idea what it means beyond a lofty-sounding ideal? I mean, to achieve full equality, you’re going to need someone enforcing it, to make sure the playing field is level and the results equitable, er, equal. Who’s going to be doing that? What benchmarks, what standards will they use to measure “full equality”? And who will be watching these watchers to make sure they administer their offices fairly?
And what will be the cost of their administration to the freedom of others who may not share this ideal of equality?
Not sure I understand what you are saying. If we are talking about equality before the law for all citizens under our constitution, then I’m all for it. As for enforcing it as the law of the land, we could look to the various law enforcement agencies and courts.
You quoted some people talking about freedom, which is a different concept.
First, virtually everyone outside some rather elitist-oriented circles believes in equality. The issue is what kind of equality. To dismiss discussions of equality in such a blanket way is not a wise idea.
{Actually, you’ve got that backwards, It’s only the people in elitist circles who believe in equality. The rest of us pretty much want to be left alone to live our lives as we choose. And no, I’m not dismissing discussions of equality, but the focus on the goal of “full equality.” I mean, what does that mean, what does it entail? You might know that if you actually considered the words of the post.]
Clearly classical liberals believe in equality — the equality of rights before the law. In that sense, gay people are second class citizens. Conservatives may not care, libertarians (at least real libertarians) would. It is one thing to dismiss “full equality” for sounding lofty but in the process you sound as if you dismissive of all concepts of equality, including equality of rights. That may be conservative, if so, it is indicative of why no rational gay person should be a conservative. I suggest libertarian is a better alternative because libertarianism would support equality of rights before the law.
[Really, second class citizens, how? You mean, our votes count less? We can’t freely associate and petition the government for redress of grievances? (Or only on certain days?) And how do you know what libertarians support when you show clearly you’re clueless about what classical liberals believe. They don’t believe in equality. They believe in freedom. –Dan]
If the use of the term “full equality” has been unfocused, I would say the same for this critique.
No, that was true when sodomy laws were in effect. (Making gay sex illegal, and thus in the eyes of the law denying gays privacy as well as “normal” romantic relationships.)
Today, I can’t name any ***right*** that we don’t have in America. Note that military service is a privilege not a right (you are there at the military’s say-so, gay or not), and likewise, a State marriage license is a privilege not a right. You can say we lack certain privileges, and I support gay people getting both of those privileges. I just refuse to let it be stated in the language of “rights” because that is not being honest.
(P.S. Before anyone from the social-conservative tries to tell me, “Well privacy is a privilege too”… no it isn’t. Privacy is implied by the very notion of limited government; the idea that people own their own lives and the government is there at the say-so of its citizens, not the other way. Privacy is fundamental to liberty, which our theoretically-limited government is supposed to protect. State licenses for various things, on the other hand, are not fundamental to liberty and limited government, but rather are legislative creations.)
The left want equality – make everyone equally miserable.
The right wants freedom, so people can rise to the best of their ability.
To me the Bible is the most important book around. In it are endless laws about charity and how to treat the poor. From this I learn that the poor will always be with us. We will never have a society with complete economic parity. And it makes sense that we won’t have complete parity in other aspects of our lives.
ILC is correct, in most instances gays have equal rights and responsibilities.It would be nice if on a federal level there was parity between a straight married couple and a gay couple. Not there yet, but with Obama in office I doubt we’ll see much criticism of that.
It is clear that bashing white policemen is much more important to him than gay rights.
The starry-eyed supporter of leftism fantasizes that in the Brave New World, the business people and other producers will be “the poor”. The more cynical leftists – usually politicians and bureaucrats – know that in the Brave New World, everyone will be poor… except said politicians and bureaucrats.
I just refuse to let it be stated in the language of “rights” because that is not being honest.
BOOSH!!
in most instances gays have equal rights and responsibilities.
You’re not supposed to use the “R” word around liberals. Remember what happened to Linda Blair when Max von Sydow doused her with Holy water? Same thing.
Terms such as Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Moderate, Right, Left have only limited usefulness. Am I a conservative? Liberal? How does one define the term? Do we agree on the terms? If I am a gay man who seeks to marry my partner am I a conservative or a liberal? I agree with Ted Olsen that my position is a conservative position. Does anyone agree? Does anyone care? How important is it that one conforms to other’s definitions?
Case in point: A former state representative in my district insisted that no one could be a conservative unless one agreed with her on all “conservative issues”. Is she truly conservative” Am I conservative if I disagree with her? Who is to say?
I do believe we have inherent rights and responsibilities granted to all humans by the Almighty. But often we have not yet realized these inherent rights. I also believe as did Voltaire and our founding fathers, that we must continue to move to the full expression and realization of those rights. For ourselves and for others.
Obviously our founding fathers, who believed in the rights of man, had a limited understanding. At that time the rights were limited to free men.
The promise and philosophy of equality of rights for all encouraged women and blacks to achieve greater equality. Now it’s our turn.
[Take a gander at Martin Luther KIng’s “I Have a Dream Speech” and count the number of times he uses the expression “equality.” Then, count his references to “freedom.” The Civil Rights Movement was sparked by those fighting to repeal state-sanctioned discrimination. –Dan]
The promise and philosophy of equality of rights for all encouraged women and blacks to achieve greater equality.
I was educated in Mississippi public schools, so you’ll pardon me if I don’t have a hifalutin comment like that.
The question is, and clearly still remains, what exactly those “rights” are and who are the arbiters to decide when they’ve been bestowed upon us poor Proles.
GayPatriotWest,
First off, gays are asking for equality of opportunity — not equality of results as you stated. Second, it’s a twisted notion of freedom that says others have the right to be free of others’ equality of opportunity. Third, there is no need for tension between freedom and equality in the eyes of the law.
[DRH, obviously you have no background in political theory or else you would be well aware of the longstanding tension between the two concepts. To say, there is no need for tension between equality and freedom is to dismiss, centuries, millennia really, of political discourse. If the gay groups were asking for equality of opportunity (and note I saw gay groups because it’s they not most gays who are doing the asking), why don’t they say that, choosing instead to use the amorphous term “equality.”
And what, may I ask, do you mean by the right to “free of other’s equality of opportunity”? Huh?
Let me clarify. I too favor equality of opportunity and believe the best way to do that is by eliminating discriminatory legislation not enacting laws which impose upon the freedom of private associations.
So, please before you blather on on this blog, familiarize yourself with our ideas. –Dan]
As a gay man, I don’t have equal rights. I used to, but now I have more than equal rights. I am judged by the law as having more worth than a heterosexual because committing a crime against me carries the possibility of extra punishment that does not exist when the exact same crime is committed against them.
How DARE gays whine about not having equal rights the selfish, ungrateful, spoiled-rotten, childish, ignorant permanent-victims. F*ck them. Seriously. If you’re gay, and subsequently think you’re a victim, seriously, get bent. I’m sick to death of you.
Full equality will be achieved when
1. we repeal all hate crimes legislation, and
2. gays can tolerate dissent without screaming “HATE!” or “homophobe!”
OT: Now poor Elizabeth Edwards is being used to push fear mongering.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/07/30/the_medical_bankruptcy_myth_97335.html
Well, that should certainly encourage discourse.
This is a load of bull. Besides the fact that the hate crimes bill hasn’t been signed into law yet, no preference under the law is given to protecting homosexuals at the expense of heterosexuals. Sexual orientation and the amorphous category “gender identity” cover heteros, homos and what-not. Now you can make an argument about possible selective enforcement of the hate crimes statute but that’s politics. We’ve seen many times how partisans on both sides when in power ignore the plain meaning of laws when it suits their particular agenda.
It’s also incredibly elitist snobbery I expect more from a liberal Harvard blowhard. You’re slipping, Dan.
so to compare the two — Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud. . .
LCR:
What We Believe
We are loyal Republicans. We believe in limited government, strong national defense, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Log Cabin represents an important part of the American family—taxpaying, hard working people who proudly believe in this nation’s greatness. We also believe all Americans have the right to liberty and equality. We believe equality for gay and lesbian people is in the finest tradition of the Republican Party. We educate our Party about why inclusion wins. Opposing gay and lesbian equality is inconsistent with the GOP’s core principles of smaller government and personal freedom.
Why We Exist
Log Cabin Republicans work to make the Republican Party more inclusive, particularly on gay and lesbian issues. Equality will be impossible to achieve without Republican votes.
GOProud:
What we believe
We are Republicans and conservatives who believe in limited government, individual liberty, free markets, a strong national defense and a confident foreign policy. We believe that every individual should be equal under the law.
Definition of Liberty
The state of being free; enjoying various social, political, or economic rights and privileges The concept of liberty forms the core of all democratic principles. Yet, as a legal concept, it defies clear definition.
*http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Individual+liberty
Now maybe you can sort this out Dan.
First off, gays are asking for equality of opportunity — not equality of results as you stated.
Really. So since denying marriage to anyone with whom you want to have sex and “love” is denial of opportunity, then you need to grant pedophiles, bestialists, polygamists, and incest practitioners “equal opportunity” as well.
And if you try to whine and argue that they can marry people other than those to which they’re sexually attracted, then you know what? So can gays.
NDT you just leave me in awe, just like that defining moment following any morning constitutional.
And if you try to whine and argue that they can marry people other than those to which they’re sexually attracted, then you know what? So can gays.
I suppose so, NDT. The only difference, a biggie, is that the other “marriages” do not involve consent of one other adult. And unless there is coercion, same sex marriage does not harm either individual.
Marriage involves two persons here. You keep on trying to make it about one person. No one here, even those way on the left, has ever stated that the second party of a marriage is completely at the whim of the first party’s wants.
Equal opportunity includes the second party having the option of saying no. It includes that the second party has to be a consenting adult.
Equal opportunity includes the second party having the option of saying no. It includes that the second party has to be a consenting adult.
Sorry, Pat, but the left has already fully established that children have the right to consent. Talk to the animal-rights activists as well.
Meanwhile, the “consenting adult” standard also includes plural marriage and incestuous marriage. Try arguing that one out, especially given that you’ve thrown out reproductive concerns as in any way being relevant to marriage.
To have true equality would gay men have to marry women? straight men have to marry other men? Would you have to have polyandry or polygamous marriages so that every lifestyle choice is equally represented?
Would you also have to have your marriage partners chosen for diversity purposes? The areas for mischief are mindblowing.
Sorry, Pat, but the left has already fully established that children have the right to consent. Talk to the animal-rights activists as well.
Since you’re being all apologetic…Sorry, NDT, you only established here, in your link, that some idiots in a Planned Parenthood group are trying to skirt age of consent laws. I was talking about persons posting on this blog.
Meanwhile, the “consenting adult” standard also includes plural marriage and incestuous marriage. Try arguing that one out, especially given that you’ve thrown out reproductive concerns as in any way being relevant to marriage.
Good. Now maybe we’re done with this talk about marrying children, pets, plants, and rocks. As for plural marriage, which has had its own tradition in the past, perhaps you equate that with same sex marriage. I don’t. Let those who support it make a case for it. I don’t want to revert back to that formerly traditional definition of marriage. As for incestuous marriage, I believe there are good reasons to prevent them as well. Again, I’ll let you and others explain why marriage between close relatives is on par with same sex marriage.
But since there are people like you (as you have in this thread) that seem to put same sex relationships on par with incest, multiple partners, and perhaps even pedophilia and bestiality, I do prefer that same sex marriage happens through the legislatures and Congress.
Further, I see value in adult, consenting, same sex relationships. I don’t with multiple partner relationships, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. That’s another reason why I advocate marriage for the former, but not the latter cases. Yes, I understand there are people who equate homosexuality with your laundry list. Again, another reason why it’s better to let this go through the legislatures.
No, I never stated that reproductive concerns were not relative to marriage. In fact, I’ve stated in another thread that the best environment for children is to have parents in a loving, committed relationship (i.e., marriage). What I also stated is that I don’t believe that it should be a necessary condition for marriage. In fact, we encourage and support couples that are in their 60s or older to marry. I simply want to extend this encouragement and support to same sex couples.
No, the federal law hasnt been signed yet, but the law is already on the books in many states, including mine. And no, it is not applied equally.
LOL. No, that’s liberalism.
“So since denying marriage to anyone with whom you want to have sex and “love”
…is a wonderful misstatement of the battle for marriage equality.
It’s a shame to see you lie like this, because you’re clearly smart enough to know that gay rights groups aren’t asking for anything close to this. Also, this goes right back to the point GPW missed in the OP.
If the government chooses to license two individuals for marriage so that they will receive statutory benefits under the law, it needs a reason to enforce that unequally. The restrictions for marriage licenses are (broadly) age-of-consent for that state, un-related (how much depends on the state), not married already, etc. All gay people are asking is to follow the same restrictions without gender bias. Let two people who meet those rules in every way marry, even if they’re the same gender. Before the right/GOP drove states to redefine their marriage statutes out of anti-gay bias, many statutes didn’t even mention “man and woman;” they just said 2 people. But the restrictions above are still going to be in place. So all of your “kids, rocks, animals, 7-part marriage” puckey is just Christianst-inspired fear-mongering, and it’s shame to see it.
So, you see, GPW, we want to get married so we can be “equal”, but the GOP won’t let us have the “freedom” to do it. Make sense now?
AE:
And no, it is not applied equally.
So you are saying there are many gay-on-straight crimes based on straight-hate that aren’t getting prosecuted the way they should? Because in order for your point to be valid, that hate crimes laws are enforced unequally, that would have to be the case. Any proof for that assertion? Proof similar to the large body of work produced showing how straight-on-gay crimes based on gay-hate DO happen and DON’T get prosecuted the same?
It was always assumed that the two people would be heterosexual; there was never a need to “redefine” marriage statutes, but merely to refine them due to the left/gay activists/Democratic Party driving states to do so. That state marriage statutes didn’t specify man/woman as implying homosexual marriage is wishfully idiotic.
BZZZZT! WRONG! The first and foremost restriction is that a couple must contain one and only one member of each of the sexes necessary for reproduction. It is BECAUSE marriage is centered on sexual reproduction that children, immediate family, and gay coulpes are not allowed to marry in the first place!
But so true to liberal form to ignore facts that refute your arguments.
Yes! For example, there were a whole slough of crimes (such as assault and property destruction) committed by gays against straight Christians in the wake of prop 8 but none of them were ever accused of hate crimes despite the obvious fact that they were being targeted precisely for espousing their constitutionally protected religious beliefs about sexuality.
And thats just the tip of the iceberg.
Which assaults are NOT based on hate, Einstein? Why is hating you because you are gay somehow worse than hating you because you are a nazi supporting thought crimes?
All gay people are asking is to follow the same restrictions without gender bias.
All bestialists are asking is to eliminate species bias (which it is, since a man and a dog can reproduce in exactly the same fashion as can an infertile or same-sex couple), all incest practitioners are asking is to eliminate genetic and blood relationship bias, all pedophiles are asking is to eliminate age bias, and all polygamists are asking is to eliminate bias against previous relationships.
You see, torrentprime, it’s obvious what the gay community thinks:
For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy (than marriage)?
— Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
— Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households
— Single parent households
You see? One, gay liberals like yourself are already agitating for plural marriage, and two, you honestly see no difference whatsoever between single individuals and married couples, multiple partners, and whatever crazy arrangement of pass-the-baby that gay liberals can dream up. You are demanding that a household of multiple sex partners, multiple pass-the-baby places, and a single individual receive identical benefits to a married couple because you don’t see the married couple as having any greater value.
so does NDT and AE having sex count as bestiality?
Before the right/GOP drove states to redefine their marriage statutes out of anti-gay bias,
Citation Needed
Proof similar to the large body of work produced showing how straight-on-gay crimes based on gay-hate DO happen and DON’T get prosecuted the same?
Citation Needed
so does NDT and AE having sex count as bestiality?
Citrate of Magnesium clearly Rusty’s favorite cocktail.
Ah, I see tp posted, ignoring the examples of me cutting apart his previous attempt at an arguement.
Answer me this tp. You have the same ‘right’ (to use the word incorrectly, as you choose to) I have to marry any one person of your choice, and have that union recognized by the state, subject to the limitations of the state the ceremony is performed in. So how is that applying it unequally?
Let me answer it for you. It isn’t.
Ah, equality: it is such simple concept and so easily identified. When no one has more or less in looks, position, material things, status, wisdom or common sense, then we have reached equality.
Meanwhile, the septic tank needs pumping at a sizeable cost to me while those connected to the sewer system get a free ride. Do you think there is a hate crime hidden in that obvious inequality?
what the gay community thinks
Once again, NDT, you provide one link, and state that represents the view of the gay community.
You have the same ‘right’ (to use the word incorrectly, as you choose to) I have to marry any one person of your choice, and have that union recognized by the state, subject to the limitations of the state the ceremony is performed in. So how is that applying it unequally?
Let me answer it for you. It isn’t.
Livewire, in the context that you wrote it, there is “equality.” For example, if there was a law that stated that only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches could be eaten for lunch, I suppose we would be “equal” under the law. However, I hate peanut butter, and wouldn’t feel so equal. So the question is, is such a ban on other lunch alternatives necessary?
I think most of us agree that a gay person should not marry a woman. Or at the very least, the man should be upfront to the prospective wife. We have bans against marriage where one of the parties is a child* or a non-human being. Since marriage involves two parties, I don’t understand why this is even brought into the mix. At least with incest, and multiple partners, consenting adults may be involved. So the question is, should we, as a society, encourage such relationships or not? I think we should encourage gay men to couple up with other gay men. I don’t think we should encourage two close relatives to couple up. And I don’t think we should encourage multiple partners.
I understand fully that there are people who view homosexuality in the same negative light as incest, multiple partners, as well as pedophilia and bestiality. So I can certainly understand why these persons would not want government sanction of marriage.
But since I (and a majority (or close to it) of Americans) also view homosexuality acceptable, we see that more people believe that it is beneficial to society to have same sex marriage, or at least federally recognized civil unions. Despite the acceptance of polygamy, and in some cases, incest or pedophelia, in the past, there is no such acceptance now. And certainly there is no acceptance of bestiality. So, as of now, there is no danger of federally recognized couplings for these situations.
*Personally, I would favor a ban on marriage where one or both are under 18. I don’t believe that persons under 18 should be having sex. As such, I obviously don’t believe that we should allow such marriages. This is up to legislatures, or better yet, Congress for such a ban.
Meanwhile, the septic tank needs pumping at a sizeable cost to me while those connected to the sewer system get a free ride.
Heliotrope, I pay taxes to cover sewage. In fact, just recently, they even delineated the cost from other taxes I pay. If, on the otherhand, your taxes are subsidizing others’ sewer systems, I think you have a case.
Ok, Dan, point by point …
[DRH, obviously you have no background in political theory or else you would be well aware of the longstanding tension between the two concepts.To say, there is no need for tension between equality and freedom is to dismiss, centuries, millennia really, of political discourse.]
You are correct! I do not have a background in political theory. So my apologies if I have stumbled into millennias-old argument. Why the law would have to hold the two principles in conflict with each other is not obvious to me, so I will begin doing some research.
[If the gay groups were asking for equality of opportunity (and note I saw gay groups because it’s they not most gays who are doing the asking), why don’t they say that, choosing instead to use the amorphous term “equality.”]
Ok, let’s have a constructive argument here. What would be a better word for “equality of opportunity” than equality? The word has obviously become overloaded.
To another point, I do not see these groups asking for equality in the sense of “equality of outcome”, as that is clearly ridiculous. Unless the gov’t is going to give each gay couple 2.5 kids and a dog …
[And what, may I ask, do you mean by the right to “free of other’s equality of opportunity”? Huh?]
Well … I took that from your statement in the main posting:
“And what will be the cost of their administration to the freedom of others who may not share this ideal of equality?”
To me, it seems you are saying that giving gays equal opportunity to be married is somehow impinging the freedoms of others. I hear variations on that argument a lot from other people, so forgive me if I inappropriately attributed something to your statement which was not there.
[Let me clarify. I too favor equality of opportunity and believe the best way to do that is by eliminating discriminatory legislation not enacting laws which impose upon the freedom of private associations.]
Then I am 100% in agreement with you.
[So, please before you blather on on this blog, familiarize yourself with our ideas. –Dan]
Really now? Where can I go to learn conservative ideals? There is no succinct summation of those ideals anywhere that I can find. The GOP platform statements are obviously not a good place to start, considering the blatantly anti-gay sentiments they contain. I know that conservatism is not a monolithic movement, and not every conservative is totally in agreement with Buckley.
So when I came across this site (and GOProud) I was curious to find out more. I do not understand how most conservatives can in good conscience be Republicans. Nor do I understand how GOPpers can be gay. Reading here has not exactly cleared that up.
Do not take that to mean I understand the liberal POV, though.
This site could be a terrific way to win people over to conservative ideology, or it could push them away forever. I’m still on the fence.
DRH, I really don’t have time to deal with your lengthy nonsensical comment. You do show some signs of openness to our ideas. And I appreciate that. So, perhaps I shouldn’t have been so snarky in commenting on your comment.
But, then you say such things as “I do not understand how most conservatives can in good conscience be Republicans.” Obviously you don’t understand the GOP –or us. The basic guiding philosophy of the GOP has long been “freedom,” that the government should leave us alone to live our lives as we choose. And conservatives are trying to influence the party.
If the gay left meant equality of opportunity, then why don’t they say that? You don’t need additional laws to promote such equality, but merely need remove laws which prevent people from advancing — or participating in commerce and/or social life — because of class, religion, race, gender or sexual orientation.
But, note again, the title of this post, I rely on the expression “full equality” used by all too many on the gay left (and sometimes alas Log Cabin), I wondered (in the very post to which you attach your comment) what this expression means. And no one has yet (in the comment thread) defined it. (Or any place else for that matter.)
If they meant equality of opportunity, don’t you think they’d use that expression which has long been at the heart of the American political tradition rather than use an expression with no definite meaning, but with definite socialist overtones?
If you can’t see why conservatives cannot be Republicans and why gay people can be GOPers, well then familiarize yourself with the GOP –and start reading our archives.
GO Proud
What they believe:
We are Republicans and conservatives who believe in limited government, individual liberty, free markets, a strong national defense and a confident foreign policy.
We believe that every individual should be equal under the law.
Whoa, hoss! I think you wrote what you do not believe there. Equality under the law involves equal access to due process and the equal protections of the law. “Equal under the law” is a wide open front gate to state socialism and communism.
Pat,
I know I replied but I’ll wait and see if the evil filter ate it, or if internet gnomes did.
Helio, GOPROUD.com that is where it is stated. equal under the law