Gay Patriot Header Image

Weekend Gay Odds and Ends

Some weeks, life contains too many distractions and it’s hard to find time to blog.  At least that’s what happened to me this week.  My list of potential topics to write about keeps growing, but my time and, more importantly, my energy for writing about them has been rather limited.   In the meantime, I keep coming across links and articles of interest.  Here are a few things which caught my attention this week, that might interest our readers, as well, or at least generate further discussion.

I rarely look at the “Dear Abby” column these days, but this one caught my eye.  I wasn’t interested in the first item about the wife whose husband of 30 years was having an affair with a prostitute from a strip club.  No, the one that caught my eye was the second item, the one from the gay Democrat whose new romantic interest is a Republican, and suddenly, the Democrat finds that all his gay friends have cut him off and stopped calling him and inviting him to things.  I was intrigued to see gay leftist intolerance so openly acknowledged in a mainstream newspaper column.  Dear Abby responds:

I know several couples who have strong and happy “mixed” marriages in which the spouses do not always agree politically. It is a shame that you would be required to choose between the man you care for and your longtime friends, who want to ignore that there are also gay Republicans.

I see nothing wrong with continuing your relationship with Mark; however, I think it may be time for you to expand your circle of friends if this is how your old ones behave. You’ll all be happier if you do. Trust me on that.

On a related note, I appreciated this piece on “Coming Out as a Black Conservative” at PJMedia.  I’m sure most GayPatriot readers can relate to it.   I particularly liked its last point about the importance of independent thinking rather than group identity:

Independent thinking got you here. Independent thinking will keep you going. Group identity, or more specifically the group authority Shelby Steele writes about, degenerates into herd instinct in the unthinking. Individual rights can only be effectively defended by those who have rejected any claim upon their life. You do not belong to anyone. Your life is yours. Your mind is yours. Direct it intentionally. Choose what you believe and know why you believe it. Never let someone else, anyone else, tell you what you must think or do. By all means, consider trusted advice, but take responsibility for your decisions once made.

Also at PJMedia this week, VodkaPundit Stephen Green reflects on Rob Portman’s reversal on the issue of gay marriage and suggests that the best solution is to get government out of the marriage business in this piece.   As he explains, the left doesn’t really care about what’s best for gay people: “No, for the progressive left, gay marriage is just another club for beating America’s churches into submission to the State. First Catholic birth control, then Baptist gay marriage, and so on. Progressivism is a truly jealous god and will have no other gods before it — not even yours.”

Along similar lines, earlier this week, Rand Paul suggested that the best, most value-neutral solution, would be to get marriage out of the tax code.  Walter Hudson, author of the above-linked piece on “Coming Out as a Black Conservative,” also makes a related point in this article from January on “The Distinction Between Sin and Crime”:  “The uncomfortable truth surrounding the marriage issue is that heterosexual couples have long been subsidized by their unwed neighbors. It is that state endorsement which homosexuals covet, along with the social sanction it implies. Under government informed by objective morality, marriage contracts would be just that, conveying no special benefits beyond the terms agreed upon. As a result, religious individuals and institutions with conscientious objections to homosexuality would never be forced to violate their conscience.”

 

Share

22 Comments

  1. [...] are lost when he says there is no such thing as a Gay Conservative. REALLY? You might want to tell this guy that because he damn sure acts like a Conservative, but, again, what do I know? Sorry Mr. Kincaid, but [...]

    Pingback by Oh good grief, here we go again with the Gays at CPAC controversy | The Daley Gator — March 17, 2013 @ 10:32 am - March 17, 2013

  2. [...] Gay Patriot has tolerance from Democrats [...]

    Pingback by Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove — March 17, 2013 @ 10:35 am - March 17, 2013

  3. VodkaPundit makes a good point about the progressive desire to destroy marriage as an institution using gay marriage as just another wedge. I think that’s what a lot of social conservatives see – and that’s all they see.

    They see progs going on about SSM when not wanting to dole our condoms to grade schoolers and making sure abortions are seen as just another procedure – like popping zits.

    We who want marriage in the tradional sense – committment and kinship – need to avoid alliance with the left wing destroyers of tradional western values and ethics.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 17, 2013 @ 11:33 am - March 17, 2013

  4. From the comments in the Green article

    what you propose, stephen, is exactly what we have now. all ‘marriages’ are ‘civil unions’. marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the vatican. there is no requirement for a religious ceremony to be legally ‘married’…but if a couple would like to have their union blessed by a religious organization, some chuches will and some won’t…just as catholics, for instance, are not forced to bless the marriages of jews or whomever. so let the state just start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples as well as straight couples and that’s that…’problem’ solved.

    Comment by rusty — March 17, 2013 @ 12:05 pm - March 17, 2013

  5. Regardless of what happens with SSM, I cannot agree with getting the government completely “our of marriage”. Although I take more of a financial bite because of it, I’m okay with tax credits for couples with children (biological or adopted). From what I’ve read, marriage also promotes a more healthy lifestyle for most folks which frankly saves us money too. So while there are undoubtedly areas that can be trimmed I’m not completely supportive of ending all benefits for married couples – straight or gay.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — March 17, 2013 @ 1:17 pm - March 17, 2013

  6. I’m all in favor of ending marriage subsidies. However, I’ve heard conservatives argue passionately that benefits aimed at encouraging traditional behavior are one of the last social guard rails. In other words, indirect welfare is fine as long as it’s under the guise of moral piety.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 17, 2013 @ 1:21 pm - March 17, 2013

  7. Ignatius–I think you make a good point. It is a form of “indirect welfare” aimed at encouraging specific behavior. In contemplating the above articles, I got to thinking about the Nudge approach to social issues championed by folks like Cass Sunstein. As you know, some of the proponents of gay marriage argue that government should grant privileged status to married couples, as a way of encouraging stable, monogamous relationships. In other words, in their view, the state can help to incentivize marriage. Even a few months ago, I thought that was a compelling argument, but lately I’ve been coming down more on the side of the argument represented by the articles linked above.

    Comment by Kurt — March 17, 2013 @ 2:32 pm - March 17, 2013

  8. Yet what about society’s duty to help with next generation? I’m not in favor of ending tax credits for those with children. Perhaps some tweaking as necessary, but not a complete end. I don’t care if these kids are biological or adopted with straight or gay parents, it just seems to me that we should as a society give them a break.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — March 17, 2013 @ 2:59 pm - March 17, 2013

  9. Murray said, “we have acquired a number of gay and lesbian friends,” and to what he jokingly called his “dismay” as a “confident” social scientist, he learned he’d been wrong. He’d been especially influenced by the pro-gay-marriage arguments made by Jonathan Rausch, an openly gay writer for the National Journal and the Atlantic. Further, Murray said, he had discovered that the gay couples he knew with children were not just responsible parents; they were “excruciatingly responsible parents
    March 15, 2013
    CHARLES MURRAY’S GAY-MARRIAGE SURPRISEhttp://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/charles-murrays-gay-marriage-surprise.html

    Comment by rusty — March 17, 2013 @ 4:31 pm - March 17, 2013

  10. I think “marriage subsidies” and other benefits should only be make available to couples that produce children or remain together seven years or longer.

    Comment by V the K — March 17, 2013 @ 5:13 pm - March 17, 2013

  11. I find it amusing that rusty and his ilk insist that we stay “out of their bedrooms” when it comes to issues involving marriage, abortion and contraception – but in turn, they expect us to let them into our “kitchens” when it comes to what we eat and drink (I’m looking at you, Mr. Bloomberg and Mrs. Obama).

    This is beyond hilarious. In fact, it’s downright Orwellian.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 17, 2013 @ 9:53 pm - March 17, 2013

  12. It’s the Faustian Bargain of the Left, Peter. Unlimited license in the bedroom, total state control outside of it.

    To a leftist with a permanent juvenile sense of sexuality and entitlement, this seems like a good deal.

    Comment by V the K — March 17, 2013 @ 10:17 pm - March 17, 2013

  13. Peter, it’s only “stay out of the bedroom” until they want you to pay for what they do in their bedroom: contraception, abortions, Viagra, and so on.

    Comment by Hoss — March 17, 2013 @ 10:44 pm - March 17, 2013

  14. Are you stupid or something?
    They didn’t want you at CPAC.
    What part of we don’t want your kind, don’t you understand?
    Self hating gays could be one explanation of your stupidity.

    Comment by George — March 17, 2013 @ 11:42 pm - March 17, 2013

  15. Self-hating gays let somebody, or they themselves, spread HIV through their communities without consequence. Self-hating gays want to be accepted solely because of a sexual behavior, with no focus on character or behavior (for obvious reasons). Self-loathing gays promote their own stereotypes in every media and public outlet, then get mad when somebody mocks them for it. I have yet to see anything close to that on this site, George.

    Comment by Douglas — March 17, 2013 @ 11:57 pm - March 17, 2013

  16. I’m not sure who you’re addressing yourself to, George, but I’d suggest you might profit from rereading the block quote above about the importance of independent thinking rather than group identity.

    Comment by Kurt — March 17, 2013 @ 11:57 pm - March 17, 2013

  17. What part of we don’t want your kind, don’t you understand?
    Self hating gays could be one explanation of your stupidity.

    Comment by George — March 17, 2013 @ 11:42 pm – March 17, 2013

    No worries, George; we’re well aware of that fact, given how you and your fellow Barack Obama supporters tell us so often that we should kill ourselves.

    Do you get that, George? Your Obama Party, you and your fellow Obama supporters, tell gay people to kill themselves and that society would be better off without them.

    Why do you think Barack Obama wants gays to kill themselves, George? Why do you think Barack Obama orders you and your fellow Obama supporters to tell gays to kill themselves?

    Won’t you answer?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 18, 2013 @ 12:19 am - March 18, 2013

  18. And wouldn’t it be some sh!t if somebody single decided to sue over subsidizing marriage? It sounds almost as unlikely as SSM did 20 years ago, but the possibility is definitely there.

    Comment by Douglas — March 18, 2013 @ 4:04 am - March 18, 2013

  19. Amusingly George succeeded in confirming the poor dating Democrat’s fears.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 18, 2013 @ 8:41 am - March 18, 2013

  20. It could be worse:

    “Dear Abby: I am a siamese twin. How do I get my sister to quit tagging along on dates? Signed – In A Bind”

    Sorry, couldn’t resist. ;-)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 18, 2013 @ 4:39 pm - March 18, 2013

  21. Yet what about society’s duty to help with next generation?

    It’s not just about society’s “duty”; it’s about society’s collective self-interest.

    One of the reasons I’m uncomfortable with the “Total Marriage Equality” positions (whether the exact form is “State Marriages for Everybody” or “State Marriages for Nobody”!) is that it seems illogical to me to argue that a healthy state has absolutely no reason to show some favoritism towards “procreativity”!

    Comment by Throbert McGee — March 19, 2013 @ 8:14 pm - March 19, 2013

  22. show some favoritism towards “procreativity”!

    And I stress “some favoritism”.

    I do not say that procreative heterosexual unions should be on a golden pedestal while homosexual unions (and/or childless-by-choice heterosexual unions) are down in the mud.

    I’m saying that homosexual unions should be on a slightly smaller silver pedestal, perhaps, rather than the tall gold one.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — March 19, 2013 @ 8:17 pm - March 19, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.