One reason I have a great deal of difficulty taking seriously most (but not all) gay marriage activists (particularly those of my sex) is that they are loath to discuss the emotional significance/meaning of the institution. And as I study male psychology, I wonder that it often takes a woman (or a child, or combination thereof) to activate the nurturing aspects of our psyche that seem to come more naturally to women, aspects essential for developing enduring relationships.
To be sure, there are some men who seem to have already internalized those “feminine” qualities.
Several years back, I had an e-mail exchange with a leading advocate for state recognition of same-sex marriage. He practically bristled at my questions about his failure to address monogamy in the conversation on expanding the definition of this ancient institution. He simply could not (refused to?) see the link between sexual fidelity and emotional intimacy, how that ideal deepens the bond between the two individuals in a marriage.
Indeed, at those meetings on gay marriage, I found that those most willing to point out that monogamy was an (essential) aspect of marriage were (almost*) always women.
Look, I realize these thoughts may seem kind of random, but because of several serendipitous circumstances on my cross country journey coupled with thoughts about my dissertation — and how Athena’s relationship with Tiresias (this paragon of wisdom to the ancient Greeks being the only individual who had lived as both a man an a woman) fits in — has got me thinking about this yet again.
I fear sometimes we men don’t work at developing emotional relationships with other men. That so visual and physical is our sex drive, we don’t want to consider the emotional consequences of infidelity.** This is not to say that men don’t achieve emotional intimacy, indeed, many do. But, they’re not the ones at the forefront of the movement for state recognition of same-sex marriage. (more…)
I had not intended to blog on the story about the hullabaloo in Arkansas about a 10-year-old boy serving as the Grand Marshal of Gay Pride parade until a reader caught something in the article that I had missed:
The boy has begun a media blitz of local and national television stations, explaining that he refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it says “all men are created equal,” but gays don’t have the same rights as everyone else. That, the boy says, is why he has become an ambassador of gay rights.
“Which,” ThatGayConservative (TGC) asked, “Pledge of Allegiance would this be?”
Let’s see. Here’s the Pledge:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Hmm. . . TGC is right. That expression about men being created equal isn’t there, but the word “liberty” is (you know the word that gay activists shun). Guess the boy should be glad his school is not forcing him to recite the Declaration of Independence. (And let’s note that gay activists notwithstanding, that august document does not include “equality” in its list of rights.)
My question is who put this boy up to his little stunt. I mean, he’s just mouthing the same slogans as every gay activist in every city in this country.
All that said, the reaction of the American Family Association (AFA) is almost as hysterical as the zeal of gay activists to honor someone for repeating their favorite cliché. The AFA has called has called selection of the boy to be grand marshal “a form of child abuse”. Give me a break. A PR stunt it may be, but child abuse it clearly is not.
Just as many gay activists need to tone down their rhetorical excess so too do some social conservatives. Indeed, sometimes it seems the two groups are made for each other.
Another bill passes the House which provides great insight in the worldview of Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats. The short version, via Glenn Reynolds, “Dem Congressman: We Must Have Campaign Finance Disclosure To Stop Republicans From Getting Elected.”
Overcoming opposition from within their own ranks, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic House leaders pushed through a controversial campaign finance reform bill Thursday on a 219-206 vote.
The DISCLOSE — Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Election — Act will require corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly declare their role in TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign, including where the money is coming from to pay for such activities. Foreign-controlled corporations and big government contractors would also be barred from paying for such political activities.
But the House bill exempts the National Rifle Association, unions and other special interests from all or part of the legislation, which Republicans charged was the product of “backroom deals” and Democrats said was necessary to get the bill passed.
Emphasis added. So, Democrats are exempting special interests just to get this thing passed? Kind of defeats the purpose, don’t you think? Unless of course, the purpose was not disclosure but, as per the Democrat referenced above, preventing Republicans from getting elected.
As the editorialists at the Washington Examiner point out, noting that “DISCLOSE was rammed through the House after being introduced with only a few hours’ notice and too little debate allowed“:
The bill is full of draconian restrictions on individual political speech expressed via corporations, but gives privileged status to the Democrats’ union masters. A provision pushed by Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Bob Brady, for example, allows unions to transfer unlimited funds among affiliated groups to pay for political ads with no disclosure whatever. That makes campaign funding more transparent?
Unions, as Mark Hemingway notes in a companion piece on the Examiner, get privileged status under the bill: (more…)
A reader alerted me this morning to a post by original Grande Conservative Blogress Diva Sondra K on an ignorant remark by an unhappy Congressman from the home state of Daniel Webster. Seems the mean-spirited man from Massachusetts is so used to a fawning press that he just assumes the media will take his remarks at face value.
Miss K reports:
Rep. Barney Frank on government regulations: “The general fear that the banking members, that we’re going to over regulate on behalf of consumers is a fantasy unrelated to any human experience. The federal government has never done that.”
Ol’ Barney got it backwards.
The real fantasy is not in the minds of conservatives (and other critics & skeptics of big government) who provide detailed evidence of government regulatory schemes run amok with individual anecdotes and society-wide statistics, but in the minds of liberals like Barney who believe that their big-government schemes will work because they will work because they were conceived by really intelligent and very well-meaning individuals.
I mean, Barney’s been pushing a federal overhaul of health care for years now with no evidence that it will reduce costs or improve the quality of care. This self-important Democrat can relate no examples from human experience of government-run health care which does all the things its advocates promised. Indeed, the examples show quite the opposite. But that hasn’t stopped Barney and his cronies from pushing their schemes.
Just look at the studies that have come out after Obamacare has passed. It won’t contain costs. Just this month, for example, we learned that White House says 51 percent of company health plans won’t meet Obamacare guidelines.
Just more evidence to support more theory that when Barney Frank talks, there’s some serious projection going on.