Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay People are Capable of Monogamy

For well over a year now, I have stopped paying attention to the left-wing blogs which distort my views and seek to cast me as something I am not.  It’s just not worth my time to attempt to engage with people more interested in belittling conservatives than in understanding–and countering–our arguments.

When, however, a blogger, well, in this case, a blogress whom I generally respect gets my views wrong, I do take notice.  Last night, just before bed, I chanced on an incoming link from the normally sensible and sharp, Cynthia Yockey (AKA a Conservative Lesbian).  In her broadside attacking me for my alleged views on gay marriage, she misrepresents my recent critique of Joy Behar:

His latest assault on gays and lesbians who are seeking equality in every aspect of their lives, especially marriage equality, is founded on siding with Joy Behar, of “The View,” who recently opined that homosexuals do not deserve marriage equality because she says we are not monogamous. Or somehow, straight people who marry are monogamous, but gay people, who cannot marry, are not monogamous and therefore never deserve to have marriage equality.

I did not side with Joy Behar.  I believe gay people are capable of monogamy.  In my post, I faulted gay leaders for their silence in the wake of Miss Behar’s recent comments on gays and monogamy.  I did so to show my skepticism of theirunderstanding of the responsibilities and purposes of marriage.”  I did not challenge the fitness of same-sex couples to fulfill the obligations of matrimony.

Just as I don’t take seriously the marital intentions of straight groom-to-be who gets the phone number of a female stripper at his bachelor party, I don’t take seriously a man or a woman about to marry his (or her) same-sex partner, knowing that their upcoming union will not be monogamous.  I do not seek to hold same-sex couples to a higher standard than different-sex couples, but to the same standard (I mean, isn’t that what equality is all about?).

Yes, straight people do violate their marital vows, but the fact their cheating counts as a violation shows that the vows promise fidelity.*  Straight marriage is premised on monogamy, so too should gay marriage be, if it’s to be marriage.

To be sure, I quibble with the term, “marriage equality,” but that’s more because I recognize the reality of gender difference and, as the recent New York Times article reveals, believe some people will use that notion to contend nonmonogamous unions deserve the same protections as monogamous ones.

Just before bed last night, I wrote Cynthia requesting a retraction of and apology for her post misrepresenting my views.  In her response, she refused to do so.  As her post stands, I write this post to set the record straight.  I chose the title I did to make clear that I take issue with Miss Behar.


*As a side not, I should point out that I wish Elizabeth Edwards could take her unfaithful husband to the cleaners in divorce proceedings, leaving him only with enough money to live in a trailer and forced to go to the barbershop to get his hair cut.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Jax Dancer offers, “Once one starts to celebrate the joys of fidelity, one makes a valid argument FOR gay marriage.”  My point, succinctly stated.



  1. Since my comment in the other thread slagged the idiotic phrase “marriage equality”, I’m guessing Cynthia would not be too pleased with my views if I showed up on her blog – even though I support gay marriage.

    So, I won’t go there. “Oh, well.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 1, 2010 @ 6:18 pm - February 1, 2010

  2. Once one starts to celebrate the joys of fidelity, one makes a valid argument FOR gay marriage.

    And yes, we can raise a toast to the multitude of monogamous gays and lesbians everywhere (including several in my own community)

    Comment by Jax Dancer — February 1, 2010 @ 8:27 pm - February 1, 2010

  3. I read Yockey all the time and this is just bizarre. Dan, do you two have some kind history? LOL.

    Best wishes,

    Comment by MFS — February 1, 2010 @ 9:16 pm - February 1, 2010

  4. Joy Behar is a typical liberal hypocrite. They can get away with saying any sort of crap about us they please, and none of the lapdogs in the media will call them on it.

    I’ve heard more homophobia, and outright hate, over the years from “progressives” than I ever have from conservatives.

    Comment by Lori Heine — February 1, 2010 @ 10:39 pm - February 1, 2010

  5. Dan, I understand all too well when one’s views are misrepresented, even when one points out the other’s mistake, and still refuses to correct themselves and/or apologize.

    Comment by Pat — February 2, 2010 @ 7:59 am - February 2, 2010

  6. PAT 🙂

    Comment by rusty — February 2, 2010 @ 8:12 am - February 2, 2010

  7. John Edwards, Elliott Spitzer, Mark Sanford, models of monogamy? Joy only needs to look into her own entertainment industry for a long list of straignts who have strayed from their wedding vows.

    Comment by Roberto — February 2, 2010 @ 12:07 pm - February 2, 2010

  8. Straight marriage is premised on monogamy, so too should gay marriage be, if it’s to be marriage.

    So I guess anyone, straight or gay, involved in consensual 3rd party sexual arrangement (ie open relationships/swingers) should therefore get divorces?

    Your assertion that “understanding of the responsibilities and purposes of marriage” be necessary for gay people to have equal rights is the problem. If all rights had to be understood in terms of their responsibilities and purposes, we would have very few. It’s a flamingly unrealistic standard to hold anyone to.

    It’s always amazing watching you post away your self-loathing commentary on the sluttiness and immorality of gays, and then play semantics when someone tries to call you on it. For the record, you aren’t scoring any points or gaining readers by vague insinuations masked as concern passed off as commentary. And you certainly aren’t scoring any more by rebutting people who call you on it by playing semantics as if it’s a real defense of your non-points. At this point it’s really just regurgitation, as evidenced by the usual lack of anyone even bothering to comment.

    How’s that screen play coming, poodle? Get it through the spell check yet?

    Comment by Tim — February 2, 2010 @ 3:31 pm - February 2, 2010

  9. Tim’s just still upset that he can’t get his 13 year old lover and marry him.

    And Tim, swingers/open marriages/underground polygamists aren’t trying to force their changes into the norm.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 3, 2010 @ 6:49 am - February 3, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.