“Anti-gay”: The All Purpose Slur to Silence Politically Incorrect Opinions on Gay Issues
One of our readers, the blogger sometimes known as That Gay Conservative, alerted me to an interesting post that gets at something we’ve been saying for sometime: “Declaring people who don’t think gay marriage is good policy as ‘anti-gay’ was always an obvious slander.“
With these words, blogger Brian Garst comments on a New York Times article reporting that while Texans voted overwhelmingly (“by a ratio of three to one”) to enact “a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage“, citizens twice elected one lesbian as sheriff of Dallas County, another as district attorney for Travis County and yet another as Mayor of Houston, the state’s largest city.
The title says it all, “Gay Candidates Get Support That Causes May Not”. Social tolerance of openly gay people grows with each passing day. An overwhelming majority of Americans, including (I would daresay) most conservatives, don’t really care about an individual’s sexual orientation, they just don’t favor the “equality” agenda of the left-wing gay groups. And while said groups may tar opponents of their ideology “anti-gay,” a good many (but alas not all) of these opponents are anything but.
Many simply believe the word “marriage” means a lifelong monogamous union between individuals of different sexes.
And it’s not just in the debate over gay marriage where those offering an inconvenient viewpoint or publishing inconvenient information are tarred as anti-gay. Those who dare report one of the most underreported stories of the year just concluded are also slimed as “anti-gay.”
71 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I don’t want to mimic straight marriage. I think it is anti-gay and self-loathing to want to use a model designed for heterosexuals as the template for gay relationships. We have our own history of relationships, and we, as homosexuals, need to honor the homosexuals who have come before us by building a relationship on their examples. What I want is a legal standing for the kind of relationship David and Jonathan, Lincoln and Speed, Achilles and Patroclus, Watson and Holmes (fictionally), et. al., had. My future life partner and I are not some caricature of a bride and groom. We will be two men in love forming a life partnership. I don’t want marriage. I want a legally recognized same-sex covenant.
Comment by Ashpenaz — January 2, 2010 @ 12:43 am - January 2, 2010
Hello,
Marriage is a ‘religious’ rite, a ‘Union’ between Man and Woman, that pre-dates our country, our consitition and existing laws. The religous purpose of Marriage is procreation and responsibility. It was our government that dictated marriage to be used for entitlements and tax purposes.
I find it ironic that the same government which insists there is a separation between church and state, can now empower itself to redefine a religious rite that has existed since the beginning of civilization. However, by their own definition of ’separation between church and state’, the re-definition is unconstitutional and possibly even religious descrimination.
I think most Americans will accept ‘Unions’ that offer the same benefits and privileges (if any) of the ‘Unions’ known as Marriage. The Angst is in the term. Why do they put so much emphasis on the term? Why the in your face, we want it, we are going to take it attitude? That is what puts people off.
I would love to be a center for the LA Lakers. However, I am short, have no ball handling skills and lack the instinct of professional players.
Who Do I Sue? It isn’t fair! The Government needs to pass a law that makes them let me play! I may lack the necessary physical ability, but to not make them let me be a professional ball player is discrimination!
Do you see where I am going here. This is one example of many. Where does it end?
Enjoy the benefits of unions and leave the term as defined. Be happy sharing with each other. It should be more about the union and less about the definition.
Have a safe and Happy New Year Everyone.
Comment by DL — January 2, 2010 @ 1:30 am - January 2, 2010
You guys have hit it right on the head!! I could never understand why you wanted to be “married”, when that’s not what it is you want. Does that make sense.. You have just put it in words what I have thought for along time. Most people are not ‘anti gay”, I’m not. But marriage is for a man and a woman. You need to make up your own union ceremony and traditions, I hope that makes sense. I believe God made you in his image just like me but we’re different. Everyone wants morals and rules. We all want to be blessed I hope. With all the anti Christian rhetoric which I see more then the anti gay, I know God loves us all. We will figure it out we just need to be kinder to each other.
Comment by jann — January 2, 2010 @ 1:51 am - January 2, 2010
This is going to the truth in a hurry!!!
I remember back in the ’90’s many in the gay community did not want to mimic heterosexuals. We wanted to create our own version of a monogamous union between two people of the same gender. Now that attitude has changed!!!
It may be our community is being used to promote an agenda that is a path to disaster in a right of center country!
Comment by Dave_62 — January 2, 2010 @ 2:02 am - January 2, 2010
Absolutely. The entire debate about marriage has been dishonest from the start. I know that some gays really do want marriage, but the vast majority of gays couldn’t give a rats ass about getting married (they certainly aren’t flocking to get married where it is allowed) what they want is a government proclamation that homosexuality is officially hereby equivalent to heterosexuality, and they believe they can get that, by proxy, with gay marriage. The whole problem is that it it isn’t. They are very much different with vastly different impacts on society. And the meaningful debate on gay marriage wont even START until we can start discussing that.
But asking people who are being dishonest with themselves to argue honestly, I have found, is pretty much futile. They will just invent reasons to discredit you.
Your bringing that tactic to light and discrediting IT is the very best possible response. If America is ever going to even start having an honest debate about gay marriage, then we need to first expose the lies and demagoguery for what they are. And the millions of Americans who dont hate gays but value the good marriage does for society need people to stand up and defend them against those lies and demagoguery.
So, good on you, Dan!
But watch out! Get too loud about it and they will come after you! Make too much of a stink and they’ll start trying to dig up dirt on you.
Comment by American Elephant — January 2, 2010 @ 3:11 am - January 2, 2010
Sometimes? Well, I always try to go as TGC, but I don’t blog much anymore.
I would point out that Travis County is probably as blue, per capita, as San Francisco. However, your over all point remains valid. Dallas and Harris Counties are, based on my experience, pretty red.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 2, 2010 @ 6:14 am - January 2, 2010
I agree and the truth is that MOST of us out here are comfortable that there are gays WE don’t want it shoved down our throats in our children’s schools etc. It is an act of sex, yes with love but still a sexual act that is being FORCED to be discussed in the guise of Political Correctness! It makes me ANGRY when small children have to know about people’s sexual desires because I believe our children in this society are already being FORCED to lose their innocence ever earlier.
I grew up not knowing about gays because it wasn’t table discussion WE all knew Liberace but WE didn’t sit around and discuss who he was SCREWING, WE sat around and discussed how FANTASTIC he was but Hollywood and the LEFT decided it was high time WE ignorant rubes “learned” about these “gays” as if they were NOT humans but animals in a zoo and to this day WE have a ripped fabric of life because of the MILITANTS in our society! The same can be said of MURDEROUS MILITANTS for abortion! because in the 70’s WE didn’t know that babies were alive and beating their hearts at 5 weeks in our stomach but NOW WE KNOW because of sonograms and so NOW it is MURDER!
I am Conservative to my core but I am not in the habit of telling others how to live their lives hell I have enough trouble just living my own and I get EXTREMELY testy when someone wants to tell me what to do with my life as well!
Comment by Jaded — January 2, 2010 @ 8:06 am - January 2, 2010
Well, this is our quandary, isn’t it?
Kiwanis types get together and talk about helping their community. Democrats or Republicans to talk power and political theory. The Garden Club talks orchids and sunlight. While we gays congregate for… well, ah… getting off in a mind-blowing fashion and bitching about killjoys who might not approve.
Sure, in live-and-let-live America, who’s to stop it? But as the basis of political movement doesn’t it seem a bit silly?
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — January 2, 2010 @ 8:23 am - January 2, 2010
In my fantasy ending of Sherlock Holmes, Watson realizes that as important as it to fulfill his social role and get married, his deepest feelings are for Holmes. Holmes and Watson then set up a permanent residence and fill out the forms necessary to be each other’s POA. They go to the opera together, dine together, solve cases together, and are considered a couple by Victorian society, who, far from oppressing them, celebrates their loyalty to each other. As they grow old, they adopt poor children to carry on the family name and traditions. What happens behind the closed doors of their shared rooms is, in the best Hollywood tradition, left to our imagination. Sex is no more the sign of their intimacy than it was to Victoria and Albert. Maybe they do. Maybe they don’t. But the sign of their love for each other is their loyalty and monogamy, not whether they’re doing it up the pooper.
In the sequel, their great-great-great grandchildren work to legalize the type of relationship their ancestors had, knowing that Holmes and Watson would never, ever call it marriage.
Comment by Ashpenaz — January 2, 2010 @ 11:32 am - January 2, 2010
I live and work in one of the most conservative municipalities in South Florida…and am presently serving by affirmation the citizens in our community. My term is scheduled for reappointment by the city council this coming spring. Given the continued support I receive from all members of the community, including all my fellow board members, I do anticipate another 2 years as a viable board member. Everyone “knows me” here… but that’s never been the issue. What’s commented on is how I’m doing the job they entrusted me with…….
MFS , I am an orchid aficionado, who’d of thunk it, right ?? I’ve never been to a Kiwanis Club picnic. I’m not a vet , but I do hang out at the VFW a few times a month and believe me it’s not because I’m on the prowl for a man in a uniform.
Jaded, sorry to disappoint you but I’m just like any one else in my community….. I put my pants on the same way you do, however when asked my opinion of gay marriage, I question what the “real” rationale is behind the proposition.
I’m not a betting man, but am willing to wager, just like you, the majority of voters on this issue are clueless of it’s magnitude and scope. Does that surprise any of us here? We just had a president elected based on what,,,,surely not his paper thin resume? Most voters aren’t willing to spend the time needed to understand the facts on any issue..especially gay rights …… so all they manage to hear is some news caster or bigoted personality touting the sexual connotations. Salacity always gets attention….and that’s great for ratings. Hell, why do you think it’s constantly incorporated in to the argument….by both sides ?
Nobody likes being told how to live life… least of all me. That’s why I’ve made it my business not to dwell in a bubble…and I’ve managed to do that quite well without damaging my conservative core…..
Comment by Spartann — January 2, 2010 @ 12:00 pm - January 2, 2010
[...] to her post and read the rest. After you read Dana’s article, go read Gay Patriot’s post on a related [...]
Pingback by Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » Old media asleep at the wheel — January 2, 2010 @ 12:50 pm - January 2, 2010
I’m straight. Growing up, I felt marriage was primarily a sacred religious ceremony between a man and woman — a religious tradition as old as civilization itself.
As I’ve grown older the gay community has educated me to realize that society is structured to give legal benefits and privelages to straight married couples that gay couples in equally committed and monogomous relationships do not get.
For example, estate, pension, and social security survivorship rights, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, and other rights that escape me at the moment. I fully support the idea that gay couples that legally bind themselves in a monogomous relationship should have the same legal rights (and obligations) that society confers on straight married couples have.
What I oppose is for government to interfere with the religious aspects of traditional marraige. If religous leaders decide it is appropriate for their particular faith to recognize gay marriage in a sacred Holy ceremony, I’m perfectly fine with that. But I absolutely do not want government to “redefine” marriage for all religions.
Comment by Scott — January 2, 2010 @ 1:00 pm - January 2, 2010
Excellent discussions by everyone!!! I was waiting to find some ideological idiocy posted by Tano, Gillie and Benu; however, I guess they dont have the time to be rational.
Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — January 2, 2010 @ 1:01 pm - January 2, 2010
Coming from the Gay Left, terms like “anti-gay”, “self-hating”, etc. are just the shrieking of bitter, overgrown children who aren’t getting their way. The terms have real meaning. For example, executing gays like they do in Iran really is anti-gay. And the occasional bitter gay who wildly slanders all gays as a group may, may, truly be self-hating. But the Gay Left drains the terms of meaning through ridiculous over-use.
The American people are nobly “anti-anti-gay”. They just aren’t pro-Gay Left.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2010 @ 1:06 pm - January 2, 2010
DL and Scott, the point about State-licensed marriage (focusing on the public part, leaving out the religious part for the moment) is that it gives a couple a ready-made path to make themselves “a family” in the eyes of the State. Yes, gays should have something like that. For the good of society, just as much (or more) as for the good of gays.
If that’s what marriage is, then fine, let it be gay marriage. Or if marriage is something more or different than that, then fine, let it be “civil unions” for gays. But there should be something. With that in mind, I support gay marriage – and/or gay civil unions – and since other people’s opinions are involved or should be, I stress that we should arrive at “it” (whatever it ends up being) democratically.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2010 @ 1:13 pm - January 2, 2010
To those religious who are speaking thru their belief systems. The holy spirit never declared homosexuality a sin in scripture. it is man who said scripture did. the entire new covenant law is summed up in the 2nd commandment(love your neighbor………). homosexuality does not come against the second commandment. homosexuality is about bonding thru mutual love, devotion, trust, and respect for a shared committed life together, the same as with heterosexuals. and under the new covenant, believers are not led by regulation, or have a relation to god thru it, as in the old in deut 28, but instead are led by the spirit of the one who lives in each believer, whose fruit parallels the same as that of homosexual bonding.
to the secular, homosexuality has been deemed legal and therefore deserves equal protection. homosexuals are entitled to the same as heterosexuals and not a scintilla less.
congress will make no laws supporting any religion or any religion’s views. your rights of free speech end where they intrude on another’s equal protection.
to those obsessed by the institution of marriage, which will stand or fall on its own merit and not because it is on someone’s wish list. the institution is not about gender, but about spirit. it is about all those adult couples who are about mutual commitment out of love, devotion, and affection.
Comment by john r — January 2, 2010 @ 1:36 pm - January 2, 2010
The All-Purpose Slur…
“Anti-gay” — it’s “The All Purpose Slur to Silence Politically Incorrect Opinions on Gay Issues”, Gay Patriot writes:
One of our readers, the blogger sometimes known as That Gay Conservative, alerted me to an inter…
Trackback by Ed Driscoll — January 2, 2010 @ 2:21 pm - January 2, 2010
“For example, estate, pension, and social security survivorship rights, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, and other rights that escape me at the moment.”
Some of these things, that some states will not confer, ARE within the reach of gay couples. All they need is to write a will and execute a durable power of attorney for financial and health care decisions. Others, like pension and social security benefits, are not.
As a person with legal training, I think it’s disingenuous to use the inheritance and hospital visitation arguments without qualification — sure, if you don’t get around to writing a will and power of attorney, you may be out of luck. But whose fault is that? The state for not providing you marriage benefits, or yours for not taking steps to protect yourself and your partner?
Comment by Conservative Guy — January 2, 2010 @ 3:31 pm - January 2, 2010
CG – On the individual / micro level, you’re right. It’s the couple’s fault if, absent gay marriage / gay civil unions, they fail to avail themselves of other protections.
On the macro level: well, public policy matters. It influences what large(r) numbers of people do at the margins. Having a ready-made way for gay and lesbian couples to declare themselves a family in the eyes of the law is simply good policy.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2010 @ 9:37 pm - January 2, 2010
Oh now I get it – marriage rights have nothing to do with the 1137 Federal and state rights that heterosexuals currently have and are paid for but denied to anyone who is not heterosexual.
I am so enlightened reading this, see I thought that United States Constitution is supposed to be unconditionally applied to all Americans. I didn’t realize that what I should have believed is that the United States constitution only applies to the people heterosexuals approve of, accept, agree with, tolerate, respect, understand or who fit into their bronze age sun revolves around the flat earth slave-owner manual bible.
And while gay and lesbian people believe that our rights are never unconditional, we will never have the 1137 federal and state rights that a state-issued marriage license (not a religious wedding ceremony) contracts between two unrelated consenting adults and the government, because that is all that marriage is, and marriage equality is about equality.
Anyone who is against unconditional constitutional equality for anyone who is not heterosexual based on their biblical beliefs is not antigay. They are heterosupremacist tyrannical theocRATs and RATS spread plagues.
Comment by planetspinz — January 2, 2010 @ 9:53 pm - January 2, 2010
I thought the Teri Schiavo case taught us that the spouse’s word is all that’s required.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 2, 2010 @ 10:49 pm - January 2, 2010
I thought the Teri Schiavo case taught us that the spouse’s word is all that’s required.
That case was not an example for marriage. It was an example for remaining single.
Comment by Amy K. — January 2, 2010 @ 10:58 pm - January 2, 2010
Um, planetspinz, please tell me what your comment has to do with the substance of this post which is about the liberal use of the slur “anti-gay” and a reminder that most people who don’t harbor politically correct views on gay matters, including gay marriage, aren’t necessarily anti-gay, they just have different views on matters gay, including gay marriage.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 2, 2010 @ 11:05 pm - January 2, 2010
The Bible says nothing about homosexuality. If people choose to misread the Bible in order to reinforce preformed prejudices, that’s their problem–but it has nothing to do with the Bible itself.
Now, the Koran–why don’t gays ever attack the Koran? Or the Buddhist Sutras? Or the Vedantic Scriptures? Or Ayn Rand’s atheism? All of which are clearly anti-gay.
Comment by Ashpenaz — January 3, 2010 @ 12:05 am - January 3, 2010
Oh now I get it – marriage rights have nothing to do with the 1137 Federal and state rights that heterosexuals currently have and are paid for but denied to anyone who is not heterosexual.
Incorrect.
Those “1137 Federal and state rights” are, first off, not “rights” — they are privileges and recognitions that the government grants and can, with perfect right, deny to anyone who doesn’t wish to follow the rules.
Second, they are “denied” to heterosexuals who will not fit into the parameters required as well. If you wish to marry someone who is underage, who is closely related to you, or who is already married to someone else, no matter how heterosexual you are, they are “denied”. If you are heterosexual and wish to marry someone of the same gender for whatever purpose, i.e. as played to comic effect in Strange Bedfellows and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.
Finally, the reason marriage is limited to one man and one woman is very straightforward; the institution itself is designed to facilitate and protect that which invariably comes out of an intimate male-female relationship, namely children.
In short, you’re screaming about imaginary “rights” that aren’t rights, were never intended for your use, and which are irrelevant to your situation anyway. You’re doing nothing more than throwing a toddler-level tantrum because someone you dislike has access to something you don’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2010 @ 2:01 am - January 3, 2010
Jesus Christ! Being against gay marriage is supposed to be pro-gay? Of COURSE it is anti-gay.
Comment by DRH — January 3, 2010 @ 2:28 am - January 3, 2010
No, its not anti-gay at all. Thats the left’s problem. They have personalized and internalized the gay marriage issue into a referendum on their very existence — demanding that Americans see that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. Indeed, they’ve made it their own personal “you’re either with us or against us” moment.
The problem is, homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality. They are vastly different with vastly different impacts on society. And the policy issue, the impact it will have on society, has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether people approve of homosexuality or not.
America is ATTEMPTING to have a serious, and complicated policy discussion about whether a particular behavior is beneficial to society, and if so whether it is beneficial enough to warrant taxpayer subsidy. And if changing the focus of the marriage institution from children to adults is a good idea, and whether that change could affect societal change in unforseen ways.
its a DEEPLY important institution that affects society more than ANY other, one that is deserving of serious discussion, contemplation and debate…and all the collective gay community can do is jump up on stage and grab the mike like some emotionally retarded cross between Sally Field and Kanye West and demand that everyone tell them “we like you! we really, really like you!”
And I for one and sick to death of it.
Government does not exist to validate you. Grow up!
Comment by American Elephant — January 3, 2010 @ 5:13 am - January 3, 2010
I’ll drink to that on one hand. On the other, it’s a prime example of the necessity to have your shit together and in writing.
Well thanks. I know I’m good, but I’m not that good.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 3, 2010 @ 6:30 am - January 3, 2010
DL wrote:
“I think most Americans will accept ‘Unions’ that offer the same benefits and privileges (if any) of the ‘Unions’ known as Marriage. ”
Don’t be so sure of that, DL. While I’m very ambivalent myself about “marriage rights” and feel much more comfortable with civil domestic partnerships, I also think it’s bad to ensconse negatives in Constitutions, especially by referendum. Bad things can happen. For example …
As a gay man, I was horrified to see Florida’s amendment pass with the following language on the ballot:
“This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Comment by Scott V — January 3, 2010 @ 9:38 am - January 3, 2010
NDT, I agreed with your takedown of planetspinz, in the first three paragraphs. Even for heterosexuals, a state marriage license is not a right. The People set up qualifications for the license and exclude couples who don’t qualify.
I agreed with you, up to the fourth paragraph:
First, children don’t quite “invariably come out of an intimate male-female relationship”. And in the eyes of the law, the couple is no less a family (or no less married) for being childless. So marriage as a State/public institution has secondary or additional goals – like the couple as such. My dad’s retirement community is a hotbed of new marriages having everything to do with the couple, nothing to do with children (which are not even possible to the couple, in most cases). Second, if the institution is -primarily- for children (i.e. their rearing and protection) then we still have the matter of thousands of gay/lesbian couples who raise children. Civil unions (if you don’t like gay marriage, let’s go with civil unions then) would be a good -policy- (not a right) to have in place for them and their kids.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2010 @ 11:23 am - January 3, 2010
ILC, even if there are gay marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships, the couple still has to avail themselves of that protection. Example: Gay couple #1 is in a state without domestic partnership or gay marriage, they live together for six years before one of them dies in a car accident, but they never wrote wills. Gay couple #2 also lives together for six years before one of them dies, but in Washington state, which has domestic partnership legislation. However, couple #2 never registered their domestic partnership with the state. The surviving partner in both cases is in much the same boat, despite the generous public policy of the domestic partnership legislation in Washington. At some point, the couple has to take responsibility and plan ahead.
Comment by Conservative Guy — January 3, 2010 @ 11:24 am - January 3, 2010
Then there’s the argument that the gay leftists used in the 1970s and 80s: marriage is a bourgeois, capitalist institution used for centuries to enslave women and control private property. We don’t want that. We believe in free love, the empowerment of women, and the abolition of private property.
Actually, some gay leftists still believe that argument and openly admit that winning gay marriage is the first step toward eroding and eventually destroying marriage as it has been known. The second step is polyamorous marriages.
Comment by Conservative Guy — January 3, 2010 @ 11:34 am - January 3, 2010
CG, your points are right – and they are also true of straights. We have an institution for straights to easily get recognized in the eyes of the law (without having to write wills or make estate plans or hire lawyers) because it is good policy. Sure, straights could do without it. But it influences a certain number of people at the marriage to, well, be married. That’s a good thing. Good policy. Good enough that, when we democratically get around to it, we should also have something or other for gays.
Heh. Not my line of thinking. I try to make the conservative-ish argument for gay marraige / gay civil unions: that it should be and will be ultimately for the good of society.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2010 @ 12:15 pm - January 3, 2010
Sorry, typo, “But it influences a certain number of people at the -margins- to, well, be married.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2010 @ 12:16 pm - January 3, 2010
already posted under ‘the collapse of log cabin’
but will add it here also. . .from andrew sullivan back in 2003
Conservatives have long rightly argued for the vital importance of the institution of marriage for fostering responsibility, commitment and the domestication of unruly men. Bringing gay men and women into this institution will surely change the gay subculture in subtle but profoundly conservative ways. When I grew up and realized I was gay, I had no concept of what my own future could be like. Like most other homosexuals, I grew up in a heterosexual family and tried to imagine how I too could one day be a full part of the family I loved. But I figured then that I had no such future. I could never have a marriage, never have a family, never be a full and equal part of the weddings and relationships and holidays that give families structure and meaning. When I looked forward, I saw nothing but emptiness and loneliness. No wonder it was hard to connect sex with love and commitment. No wonder it was hard to feel at home in what was, in fact, my home.
For today’s generation of gay kids, all that changes. From the beginning, they will be able to see their future as part of family life — not in conflict with it. Their “coming out” will also allow them a “coming home.” And as they date in adolescence and early adulthood, there will be some future anchor in their mind-set, some ultimate structure with which to give their relationships stability and social support. Many heterosexuals, I suspect, simply don’t realize how big a deal this is. They have never doubted that one day they could marry the person they love. So they find it hard to conceive how deep a psychic and social wound the exclusion from marriage and family can be. But the polls suggest this is changing fast: the majority of people 30 and younger see gay marriage as inevitable and understandable. Many young straight couples simply don’t see married gay peers next door as some sort of threat to their own lives. They can get along in peace.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,460232,00.html#ixzz0bZSiiPXL
Comment by rusty — January 3, 2010 @ 12:28 pm - January 3, 2010
As a Houstonian, I’m looking for any elected Conservative Republicans that publically supported Parker in the Mayors Race.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 3, 2010 @ 2:29 pm - January 3, 2010
I think that John Corvino has some good comments on this subject:
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/32023.html
Comment by John — January 3, 2010 @ 2:50 pm - January 3, 2010
How did Annise get elected? Through Libertarian pixie dust? Nope. It was the culmination of 35 years of often loud, frequently nelly, and usually really liberal political activism. The kind of stuff that would make many of you cringe.
Mayor Parker, btw, is part of the Gay mainstream (what many of you deride as the Gay left).
Before you appropriate her victory as a validation of your campaign to parrot Michelle Malkin and support CPAC, perhaps you can talk about what Gay conservatives did to help her get elected.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 3, 2010 @ 3:01 pm - January 3, 2010
Um, Tom, dooesn’t seem you’re here to engage us, but to bait us.
Where did say her victory was a validation of Michelle Malkin? All we said, here at least, is that some people are willing to elect gay candidates provided they don’t make their sexual orientation the defining aspect of their being.
And maybe she did start as a left-wing gay activist, but she moved to the center and ran on bread-and-butter issues, people saw that, approved and elected her.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 3, 2010 @ 3:12 pm - January 3, 2010
Shorter Andrew Sullivan: Gay promiscuity is all the result of lacking marriage, and has nothing to do with the fact that, since its very inception, the gay community has promoted disdain towards all those “heteronormative” things like monogamy and commitment and instead, following the free-love movement of the 1960s from which it came, promoting promiscuity, irresponsible behavior, and, “if it feels good, do it”.
When Sullivan takes responsibility for his own choice to be a promiscuous idiot in full public view, then his argument will make sense. But for him to blame the fact that he can’t stop himself from having anonymous and unprotected sex with multiple strangers on the absence of gay-sex marriage is nothing more than a poor cop-out, and likely why the only people who believe it are the professional victims of the Obama Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2010 @ 3:41 pm - January 3, 2010
The funny part is, “Tom in Lazybrook”, that if you wanted to go after antigay people in regards to Parker, you certainly have plenty of targets.
And that’s really why you’re whining about “conservatives”. You are incapable of criticizing or dealing with the behavior of your fellow Obama Party members, so you attack conservatives instead, going after imaginary foes because you are too weak and cowardly to deal with your Obama Party supporters and massas. You are a puppet, nothing more than a shill and obedient lapdog for your Obama Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2010 @ 3:55 pm - January 3, 2010
Uh..NDT, Trust me, I’m aware of the issues in the Houston election. And I’d argue that it was a good thing that the swing voters weren’t the same group of “Democrats” that voted for the right wing conservative in the Dallas Mayoral election due to anti-Gay campaigning. That isn’t a reflection of the Gay mainstream, but rather one part of the Democratic party. One that I generally don’t count on support from.
By the way, the Locke campaign advisors that donated to Hotze have both been described as Conservative Republicans.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 3, 2010 @ 4:24 pm - January 3, 2010
Uh..NDT, Trust me, I’m aware of the issues in the Houston election.
Yup, and you are incapable of criticizing or dealing with the behavior of your fellow Obama Party members, so you attack conservatives instead, going after imaginary foes because you are too weak and cowardly to deal with your Obama Party supporters and massas. You are a puppet, nothing more than a shill and obedient lapdog for your Obama Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2010 @ 4:35 pm - January 3, 2010
Daniel,
I still don’t see how you can use the election of a pro-Gay marriage, left leaning (and proud of it lesbian) as a validation of opposition to marriage equality. And a celebration of Michelle Malkin’s attacks on Safe Schools. She is, IMHO, using an attack on Jennings, as an attack on any named protections for Gay students.
Texans did vote against Gay marriage. And eventually they’ll vote for it. Unless liberal, nelly, loud Gay people stop asking and demanding equality as it appears as if many in here want us to do.
Mayor Parkers’ win was an important step. It does nothing to resolve problems with employment discrimination here in Houston. It does nothing to resolve the issues of transnational Gay families. It does nothing to resolve the issues of DADT repeal. It does nothing to ensure tax/pension/SSA equality. It does nothing to resolve issues with inequal pay/benefits for equal work. Its a victory. But it’s not the finish line.
You don’t have to help push for Gay marriage, or Gay acceptance on equal terms, or non-discrimination. But don’t try and take credit for the work and successes of groups and people that (unless I am mistaken – please let me know otherwise) you did nothing to further.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 3, 2010 @ 4:42 pm - January 3, 2010
The problem is, homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality. They are vastly different with vastly different impacts on society. And the policy issue, the impact it will have on society, has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether people approve of homosexuality or not.
THe two sexualities, heterosexuality and homosexuality, indeed differ; however, to make the values judgment that they are not equivalent in society is beyond your authority. If it’s your opinion, that’s fine, but it isn’t a fact.
As for the public policy implications of homosexuality, no one has ever been able to give me one example of what these implications are — aside from the fallacious assertions about HIV/AIDS (growing most rapidly in racial minority communities) and molestation of children (disproven by peer-reviewed research that shows proportionally that it’s no worse than heterosexual molestation).
Comment by Scott V — January 3, 2010 @ 4:47 pm - January 3, 2010
NDT,
Were not afraid of going after the anti-Gay part of the Democratic party. I’m PUBLICALLY supporting a Republican for Governor in Alabama (and advising all of my Gay friends to do the same) against anti-Gay Democrat Artur Davis. Its a rare case where there really isn’t a difference between the Republican and the Democrat on LGBT issues.
Don’t assume that there isn’t a backlash coming against inaction by the Obama admin and the Human Rights Campaign. Its coming. But don’t see these actions as a validation of GOProud. Its coming from the left.
Perhaps if we saw the GOP as making any moves to campaign for our votes and make progress on our concerns (and yes, that means legislation on Gay civil rights issues), then we’d be willing to consider the GOP. Inviting you to pay money to be banned from speaking isn’t really gonna be effective for us. If we have to force the Dems to action, we’ll do that using a third party. Because the GOP isn’t a credible alternative for a protest vote.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 3, 2010 @ 4:51 pm - January 3, 2010
One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi’s Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia. The legal institution of marriage and its rules and ramifications have changed over time depending on the culture or demographic of the time. From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Marriage in sixth-century Europe has been characterized as political polygamy. The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquired four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother’s wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king. In the twelfth century, aristocrats believed love was incompatible with marriage and sought romance in adultery. Troubadours invented courtly love which involved secret but chaste trysts between a lover and a beloved. The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32). But it was not until 1563 that the Council of Trent decreed that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Throughout human history prior to this, the church had little to no involvement in marriage beyond clerical duties of record keeping in some regions. Love was not a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era as most marriages were arranged and many for political advantage. The Council also decreed that the church’s interpretation of the Bible was final. Any Christian who substituted his or her own interpretation was a heretic. Thus the hijacking of marriage by the Christian church began.
Comment by pastol — January 3, 2010 @ 4:54 pm - January 3, 2010
Finally, I’d also like to ask NDT and Daniel the following question.
What are you mad about Obama not doing on LGBT civil rights issues? Not passing ENDA? Do you hold the Republicans to the same standard? Seriously, what are you mad at Obama about? Not supporting a repeal of DADT? If so, why not attack Rep. Mark Kirk (who isn’t a supporter of DADT repeal either) as well?
I gotta run. I’m off to go to a victory celebration for Mayor Parker. Its being run by the people and groups that helped elect her. I’ll see how many conservatives I run into there or at the official inauguration ceremony tomorrow. I’m not thinking it will be too many.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 3, 2010 @ 5:03 pm - January 3, 2010
What are you mad about Obama not doing on LGBT civil rights issues? Not passing ENDA? Do you hold the Republicans to the same standard? Seriously, what are you mad at Obama about? Not supporting a repeal of DADT? If so, why not attack Rep. Mark Kirk (who isn’t a supporter of DADT repeal either) as well?
Generally, it’s the fact that he flat-out lies to gay people, then tries to browbeat them into line when they fail to bark on his command by sending out his shills and lapdogs like yourself to attack and bash gay conservatives.
But then again, I suppose we shouldn’t expect Obama to look at “Gay” people as anything more than childish idiots who are easily manipulated into doing his bidding; after all, look at his supporters like you.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2010 @ 5:14 pm - January 3, 2010
Actually, it is a fact, and will remain a fact until such time as one man can get another man pregnant.
But I never would dream of saying I have the authority to decide for the American people; indeed, I would argue it is gay marriage supporters who are trying to assert that authority.
I’m citing the opinion of the American people and their elected representatives — the opinion they have asserted, and re-asserted every opportunity they have had — precisely the people who DO have the authority:
Other courts have reached almost identical conclusions in regards to their state constitutions in state after state across the country, and the Supreme Court settled the issue in terms of the United States Constitution almost 40 years ago when it rejected such arguments in Baker v Nelson on the merits.
Read, and reread Hernandez v Robles. The opinion talks about SOME of the public policy implications. Then read the SCOWA decision above. They also touch on some of the implications.
I have talked extensively about some of the others here, but the truth is that there are very few gays who are even open minded enough to recognize them, so thoroughly have they brainwashed themselves that homosexuality and heterosexuality are just different flavors of the same thing and entirely equivalent in all respects. And I am not inclined to waste my time explaining the facts of life to people who reject them outright.
The courts understand the differences and explain some of the implications. start with the opinions. Read them with an open mind, instead of defensively, if you can, and if you can get through them without rejecting everything outright, then maybe we can talk about the other implications at that point. But experience teaches me not to hold my breath, you will reject outright the idea that there is any meaningful difference between the kind of coupling that has produced all human life on earth throughout all of history and two people who dont even have sexually compatible sex-organs.
But stranger things have happened.
Comment by American Elephant — January 3, 2010 @ 7:16 pm - January 3, 2010
Re the post: Bingo. I don’t care whether someone is gay or not in terms of employment or public office, but I just don’t want to change the institution of marriage.
Comment by Tom the Redhunter — January 3, 2010 @ 7:22 pm - January 3, 2010
um, pastol, what does your comment have to do with the post to which it is attached.
and, Tom, if you’re so interested in my thoughts, why don’t you read my archives?
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 3, 2010 @ 9:03 pm - January 3, 2010
Just got back from the celebrations for Mayor Parker. I loved her money quote…”I am a Gay Activist..Thats part of who I am…And why I am where I am today”. Mayor Parker used that quote following a speech by Ray Hill.
Didn’t see any conservatives there. Except one woman who is livid because several people died after getting drunk at her bar and their families sued her.
I’ll let you guys know if I see any Republicans at the inauguration tomorrow.
I’ll let you guys get back to taking credit for Gay victories you did nothing to further.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 4, 2010 @ 12:03 am - January 4, 2010
Ed Morrissey said something interesting today:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 12:16 am - January 4, 2010
(It was in Ed’s ‘Rasmussen’ article currently being discussed at the moment in another GP thread. But it touches on a truth that would be relevant to any discussion where any character-attacking, mind-reading type of comments may pop up.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 12:23 am - January 4, 2010
I’ll let you guys get back to taking credit for Gay victories you did nothing
You are being willfully blind to the actual argument being made. Nobody is taking credit for a “gay victory.” Conservatives don’t see this as a gay victory. You are a gay activist, so that is the lens you see it through. Conservative activists see things through a conservative lens, so they see this as a fiscal conservative victory, and oh yeah, we’re not homophobic.
Comment by Amy K. — January 4, 2010 @ 1:20 am - January 4, 2010
First, American Elephant, you once again misunderstand and assume. I am not saying homosexuality is equivalent; I just don’t know. So I won’t assert. Second, your assertion of inequality based on ability to procreate is just absurd. What about infertile men and women? Do they have less standing is society for their inability to procreate? And as for the courts, they once upheld Jim Crow laws and laws prohibiting marriage among the races. Court opinions evolve as society and its members evolve.
I’m not a defensive person. You, however, are very hostile. Are you always this hostile, or just on this blog?
Comment by Scott V. — January 4, 2010 @ 11:21 am - January 4, 2010
Bench Memos is reporting another attempt to intimidate Prop 8 supporters.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 4, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - January 4, 2010
Scott, good comments. I find it striking that earlier you said this:
In other words, you’ve actually presented a fairly moderate or modest position in favor of gay… something, not necessarily marriage. I agree with that position and never tire of explaining to people that a State marriage license – the end product, not merely access to the process that would qualify you for it – is not a right for anyone. Not even for straights.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 1:18 pm - January 4, 2010
What about infertile men and women? Do they have less standing is society for their inability to procreate?
Their inability is due to a biological dysfunction or a deliberate choice not to have children when they are fully capable of doing so.
If you’d like to state that homosexuality is a biological dysfunction, then you may feel free to do so. If you would like to state that homosexuality is a deliberate choice, then you may do so. At that point, then infertile couples or childless couples may be inserted into the argument.
But if you do not wish to state that homosexuality is a biological dysfunction or that it is a choice that people deliberately make to avoid having children, then the situations are not comparable.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2010 @ 4:54 pm - January 4, 2010
All human life on EARTH throughout ALL TIME comes from heterosexuality, NO LIFE has ever, can ever or will ever come from homosexuality, and you “don’t know” if they are equal or not….
Thank you for proving ALL my points about the deep denial that the vast majority of gays are in. And thank you for saving me from wasting my time.
Its NOT based on ability to procreate. Its based on SCIENCE. BIOLOGY specifically. ALL Children come from heterosexuality. ALL. NONE come from homosexuality. Therefore we have policies to deal with heterosexuality that are not relevant to homosexuality. Laws deal with behaviors, not identities.
What about them? They still engage in the behavior that is the focus of the institution. Gays still dont.
Translation: “I know the courts disagree with me, therefore I dont need to read their reasoning because I reject it before I’ve even read it”
Once again, you prove I knew what you were going to say before you even said it.
Yes, I am very hostile towards close-minded people.
Ed Morrissey did mention a famous saying among lawyers that those who have the facts on their side argue the facts, those who have the law on their side argue the law, and those who have neither attack the character of the witnesses.
But that saying deals with how reasonable lawyers behave in court — it does not address debating with true-believers, zealots who wont budge from their position even when all the facts, all the science, and all the law is against them.
I am very hostile towards unreasonable true-believing zealots who disregard facts, science and the law in favor of their FEELINGS.
Comment by American Elephant — January 4, 2010 @ 6:06 pm - January 4, 2010
If you want me to not be hostile, SURPRISE me. READ the court decisions instead of dismissing them out of hand as equivalent to Jim Crowe. SHOW me that you dont subscribe to the demonstrable falsehood that homosexuality and heterosexuality have equal impact on society, show me evidence that you have actually thought about how marriage affects SOCIETY instead of just how it affects YOU.
Until then, sorry, I have dealt with and destroyed every argument you have 100 times over.
Comment by American Elephant — January 4, 2010 @ 6:22 pm - January 4, 2010
Mary Cheney gave birth to a baby girl named Sarah Lynne Cheney on Wednesday morning in Washington, D.C.
The family released the following statement: “Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, welcomed their seventh grandchild, Sarah Lynne Cheney, Wednesday, November 18, 2009. She weighed 6 lbs., 14 oz and was born at 8:17 A.M. at Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C. Her parents are the Cheneys’ daughter Mary and her partner, Heather Poe.”
HMMMMMM now there’s a family for you NDT and AE
Comment by rusty — January 4, 2010 @ 7:32 pm - January 4, 2010
Congrats to Mary, Heather and the Poe and Cheney famillies!
rusty, I’ve said it before and will again: Gay and lesbian couples are reproductively equivalent to infertile straight couples.
(Disclaimer: operative phrases “infertile” and “reproductively equivalent”. No rational reader should think I just said that gay and lesbian couples are identical to fertile straight couples. Or that the physical sex is the same. Golly, I wouldn’t even be gay, if I thought that! But out here on the internets, rusty, sometimes people will find the strangest ways to take things.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 8:19 pm - January 4, 2010
Yes, a fantastic example of why changing the marriage institution is entirely unnecessary and even counterproductive. Was that your point?
Unlike heterosexuals Mary and her partner could not by any stretch of the imagination have had a child together, the only possible way for them to have a child is to make a conscious decision and effort to go outside their relationship to make a child with a third party and have the other partner adopt it, or adopt a child that is unrelated to either of them.
Hernandez v. Robles addresses this exact issue and explains why it is not a constitutional issue.
Now the implied social policy argument, on the other hand, is that society should treat two mommies as equal to a mother and a father. But should it? THAT is a good question, and one that the people should be given a chance to answer. I would argue that anyone who understands taxation or even psychology 101, understands that taxing a behavior reduces that behavior and rewarding a behavior increases it.
Do we really want to encourage, not tolerate, but encourage more children to be raised without both a mother and a father?
I’d argue that we should not. And Mary Cheney’s situation would support my position, despite her personal opinion, because she proves that gay marriage was entirely unnecessary. (Indeed, if gay marriage IS necessary to provide for her child, then she is a HORRIBLE example of a mother because she went and did it anyway.)
Yet why is it that gay marriage supporters NEVER frame the question to reflect what they really want. If they really want America to declare that two mommies are just as good as a mother and a father, then why dont they ask Americans that question?
Because they know that Americans would overwhelmingly reject that proposition — by far greater numbers than they already reject gay marriage.
So gay marriage supporters continue to try to confuse and obfuscate the issue by regurgitating legally dis-proven and rejected arguments about equality and “hate”.
Comment by American Elephant — January 4, 2010 @ 8:59 pm - January 4, 2010
And Rusty,
I know that some people make the silly argument that two men with two penises and zero ovaries and no womb are “reproductively equivalent” to a man and a woman who unlike two people of the same sex have all the necessary organs to have children, just because someone tells them they cant have children.
But that argument has always been ridiculous, and the facts refute it utterly:
Just one of MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of examples of children who would be born outside of wedlock if we followed the ridiculous suggestion that the law should treat some heterosexual couples as if they were “reproductively equivalent” to two people of the same sex!
But no matter how many times some people make such silly arguments, they will never be true, and basing policy on such ridiculousness would have tragic results for millions upon millions of very real children.
Comment by American Elephant — January 4, 2010 @ 9:12 pm - January 4, 2010
All of us here at GOProud wish to congratulate Mary Cheney and Heather Poe on the birth of their second child. Sarah Lynn Cheney was born in Washington, DC last Wednesday weighing 6 pounds and 14 ounces. In an interview on the Scott Hennen Show, the proud grandfather, former Vice President Dick Cheney, said that the new addition made the Cheney Family especially thankful this Thanksgiving. http://blog.goproud.org/
the point is AE is that people create families and have the support of their loved ones.
Comment by rusty — January 4, 2010 @ 9:18 pm - January 4, 2010
Heath Poe and Mary Cheney should be able to get married, for the benefit and protection of their two children.
Or if not married, fine, but at least civil-unioned. And if not them – i.e., if not a couple whose names we know, one educated and prosperous enough to get protections for their kids written up by lawyers – then some other couple with kids; that couple whose names we don’t know.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 9:36 pm - January 4, 2010
Sorry, typo, Heath*er* Poe – heh
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 9:38 pm - January 4, 2010
Not to upstage rusty but here is a more precise link: http://blog.goproud.org/?p=258
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 9:40 pm - January 4, 2010
[...] five days ago, I blogged that “anti-gay” has become an “all purpose slur to silence politically incorrect opinions on gay issues“. We’ve seen that in the current contest to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat. [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Dishonestly tarring Scott Brown with the Anti-Gay Slur — January 7, 2010 @ 7:18 pm - January 7, 2010