Gay Patriot Header Image

Alas no more than a perfunctory post on gay marriage (just yet)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:09 pm - March 26, 2013.
Filed under: Gay Marriage,Prop 8,Random Thoughts,Writing

I had hoped today to post something about gay marriage, given the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. I had even outlined the piece I’d like to write, addressing the issue of jurisdiction, believing, as I do, that this is an issue best left to the legislatures, but recognizing some of the constitutional concerns (i.e., standing) which could lead the court to overturning Prop 8 without granting a federal “right” to state recognition of same-sex marriage.

And I wanted to distinguish the liberty issue from the state recognition issue.  If the California constitutional provision (in question) deprived individuals of the freedom to marry rather than just one of state recognition of those unions, the court should strike down the law.  But, marriage can exists (indeed, long has existed) independently of the state.  And individuals can and do live as married couples without state recognition.  Indeed, in California, many gay couples call themselves married and live freely even without the state sanctioning their unions.

All that said, this are issues which I would rather address in a more thoughtful manner.  And since I have made writing my epic my top priority, I chose to work on that before turning to the blog.  That effort today was a bit more challenging than I had anticipated.  And I had to struggle with one section.  And I have a sense that this part may require significant revision–and perhaps a few changes in story line.

The point being that writing-wise, now I feel completely drained (even more so than I have on previous days when I put in a similar effort on the book).  And now I have to start preparing for a Seder tonight, so lack the time to give this issue the attention it deserves.  Will share with you though an exchange I just had with a Facebook friend when I replied a posting he offered just as I started writing this:

HE: Marriage equality [sic] seems pretty popular. Why wasn’t Prop 8 repeal on the ballot way back in 2012?
Unlike · · 17 minutes ago ·
You like this.

ME: My point exactly, well, except for calling it “marriage equality.”

ME: Even if the Court upholds Prop 8, [California] voters will overturn it in 2014. And it won’t even be close.

In other words, the state of California will recognize same-sex marriages, either in 2013 by judicial fiat — or, in 2014 via popular initiative.

As our readers surely have guessed, I would prefer the latter.

Share

64 Comments

  1. Here’s one angle on this subject:

    If traditional marriage was recognized as a “Un-Enumerated Natural Right” by the Supreme Court sometime in the 1880′s (I cant remember the case, but it involved an American marrying a Chinese immigrant), then isn’t this trial to decide whether or not our government has the authority to modify an existing ‘Natural’ right, or that it has the authority to construct a brand new ‘Natural’ right?

    It was my understanding that our government doesn’t have the authority to manufacture rights, and that the rights we have actually pre-date our constitution. (“….that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights….”) I don’t know bout anyone else, but that sounds like a particularly dangerous new authority to give to the people who run our government.

    Doesn’t that leave the Civil Contract as the only option here?

    Comment by gastorgrab — March 26, 2013 @ 7:37 pm - March 26, 2013

  2. In other words, the state of California will recognize same-sex marriages, either in 2013 by judicial fiat — or, in 2014 via popular initiative.

    Hmmm… isn’t it the position of the anti-Prop8 team (Olsen et al.) that voters in California should have no right in the first place to put the question of SSM-recognition to a popular referendum?

    Or is it, rather, that such a referendum is okay when the outcome is likely to be majority approval of SSM, but not okay if there’s a likelihood that a majority will reject SSM?

    In other words, SSM is an alienable right endowed upon us by the Creator, and voters are allowed to rubber-stamp their approval of the Creator’s intent, but defying the Creator’s pro-SSM wishes at the ballot box would be unconstitutional?

    Comment by Throbert McGee — March 26, 2013 @ 7:58 pm - March 26, 2013

  3. No matter what the SCOTUS mandates, gay marriage will always be a joke to most people, including most liberals.

    Trannies, too, are hilarious.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2013 @ 8:15 pm - March 26, 2013

  4. This is kinda on topic, I guess……

    Why does any state necessarily have the authority to license marriage, that everyone acknowledges is a ‘Natural Right’, if that state doesn’t have the authority to refuse any request? Wouldn’t licensing become pointless?

    We don’t have to apply for a Free Speech license every time we want to say something, do we? A religion license? Government cant “regulate” those things. They have no business interfering in any way.

    So when did our constitution, which could be seen as a charter of INDIVIDUAL rights, become a framework for group(of two) rights? Don’t we in fact have an individual right of marriage, and not a group right at all?

    Comment by gastorgrab — March 26, 2013 @ 9:18 pm - March 26, 2013

  5. Teddy Roosevelt wrote “the end of the Roman republic was at hand, and nothing could save it. The laws were the same as they had been, but the people behind the laws had changed, and so the laws counted for nothing.”

    Much as I honor our Constitution, I am increasingly of the opinion that it was written for another people and time and we ask it to answer questions it really can’t. That this issue would ever come before the Supreme Court would have given the Founders a stroke.

    Comment by EssEm — March 26, 2013 @ 10:56 pm - March 26, 2013

  6. gastorgrab wrote: Why does any state necessarily have the authority to license marriage, that everyone acknowledges is a ‘Natural Right’, if that state doesn’t have the authority to refuse any request? Wouldn’t licensing become pointless?

    Isn’t that one of the questions of the day. Or perhaps we could quote Hillary! and ask “What difference does it make?”

    The answer, I’m afraid, is that it’s mostly about government benefits. I quoted a passage from Walter Hudson in this post and I think it’s completely relevant: “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.”

    Comment by Kurt — March 26, 2013 @ 11:12 pm - March 26, 2013

  7. I’d like to hear from Gay Marriage supporters here:

    Under what legitimate circumstances does the state have to deny a marriage application, and why? (Keep in mind that i’m looking for an objective argument here, not an opinion.)

    For what reason, for example, should the federal government NOT extend marriage benefits to husbands who have 4 wives and 28 children?

    Comment by gastorgrab — March 26, 2013 @ 11:25 pm - March 26, 2013

  8. Ok, here’s a take that is not judgmental of the merits of the arguments either way, but is to simply lay out a couple of perspectives that I heard today.

    First there was the justice talking in oral arguments asking “when did it become unconstitutional for homosexuals to marry” which the person arguing their point replied with the question of “when did mixed race marriages become unconstitutional” to which the justice replied “when the equal protection clause was passed”.

    Now that would lead someone to ask the question that if mixed race marriage is protected under the constitution than why isn’t gay marriage? Well, the reason is, and this is where it gets a little dry and technical … there is nothing anywhere that says a gay or lesbian American can’t marry. They just can’t marry a person of the same sex. A gay man can marry a woman, a lesbian can marry a man. Within the context of marriage as currently defined, there is no discrimination against homosexuals.

    What is really being argued is the definition of the word “marriage”.

    Then there was the justice, when hearing an argument that marriage protects the production of children to which a (female) justice replied “if you look at marriages of people over 55, there aren’t going to be a lot of children produced in those marriages”. True, but the government has regulated marriage for a long time. For example, when polygamy was outlawed, the supreme court ruled that the Congress had the authority to do that. There is also the question of marriage of close relatives. If the people involved can’t have children, does this mean that first cousins, siblings, parents and children, etc. can marry if they love each other?

    In the process of allowing same sex marriage, will all other possible combinations of what does and does not constitute a valid marriage would have to be produced. One would need a spreadsheet to manage all of the possibilities. What about closely related same sex partners? Two cousins, both of the same sex, no possibility of procreation, could they marry? If not, why not?

    The problem is that once this pandora’s box is opened, there is no end to it. Every possible combination would have to be accounted for and the federal regulations for marriage could end up looking like the Affordable Care Act.

    Comment by crosspatch — March 27, 2013 @ 12:43 am - March 27, 2013

  9. EssEmm,

    I doubt the Founders (anyone else have DS9 flahsbacks) would have ‘had a stroke’. More likely they’d have said. “There’s an amendment process for a reason.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 27, 2013 @ 7:26 am - March 27, 2013

  10. I have always argued that this issue was about the definition of the word “marriage”. The word sets a standard of one man and one woman. By opening up that definition we are basically changing it to a word that sets no standard. There have been other choices for non religious heterosexuals for a long time such as, domestic partnership, that allowed for state recognition (Benefits of contract) for people who didn’t care about traditional marriage. The LGBT community could have easily gotten much support for same and “gay marriage” wouldn’t even be an issue today.

    I’ve been debating this issue since the seventies. It’s important to realize when discussing LGBT issues that there is an “activist class” in the LGBT community and there are the LGBT people we all know who go about living their lives quietly and conservatively. When you see me discussing LGBT issues it’s the “activist class” that I take issue with and not our friends, family, fellow workers who are LGBT. My experience with the “activist class” started post “Stonewall Riots”. I have never known a more hardcore America hating group of people than those who actually started the “gay marriage” movement. “Marriage equality” has never been their agenda, tearing down the traditions and institutions that made this country great is where they live and demolishing the institution of marriage is but one of their goals.

    Comment by Richard Bell — March 27, 2013 @ 8:30 am - March 27, 2013

  11. OK, I found the case I was looking for, but I confused the details with another case entirely.

    The relevant precedent from the first post is, ‘Maynard v. Hill (1888)’, and it concerns a divorce and the issue of inheritance.

    Maynard v. Hill – Case Briefs (Bloomberg?)
    http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-to-weisberg/getting-married/maynard-v-hill/

    Issue. Is marriage a contract, a status, or does it retain features of both?

    Comment by gastorgrab — March 27, 2013 @ 9:10 am - March 27, 2013

  12. gg #7 – I discussed that a couple days ago here.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 10:58 am - March 27, 2013

  13. Discussed as a gay marriage supporter, I mean. P.S. Government-recognized marriage is most like a license of incorporation. It creates a third entity, ‘the marriage of X and Y’, which has its own interests and which third parties are compelled to recognize. All that is why I do NOT consider it a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are attributes of individuals. Committing to somebody is the individual’s choice. But making third parties alter their behavior because of that commitment, is not.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 11:03 am - March 27, 2013

  14. One of my favorites from the Red campaign on FB

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/f4dd44706ed98a168fba00a0699f4560_zps19b66811.jpg

    Comment by rusty — March 27, 2013 @ 11:44 am - March 27, 2013

  15. it’s the “activist class” that I take issue with and not our friends, family, fellow workers who are LGBT

    Most of my friends (I don’t have family who are gay that I know of, and, as for coworkers/customers, I’m employed in a pretty blue-collar industry with a lot of immigrants–have no idea about how many of them are gay) who are LGBT are not part of the “activist class,” yet most of them (and some of my many straight friends) changed their FB profile picture (those who are on the site) yesterday to the red/pink version of the HRC in support of gay marriage. But, perhaps, now, they’re “activists.” Whatever. They go about their lives just the same.

    I take exception to those who disparagingly refer to those who came after the Stonewall riots as “activists.” You know them. Those loud, obnoxious, nelly types, who mobilized and spoke up when AIDS reared its ugly head and actually DID something to try to SOLVE and MANAGE a problem that was out of control, when the government was doing next to nothing.

    I can only imagine GP if it existed 25 – 30 years ago:

    VTK: Oh, look, ACTUP is whining again.
    RB: Oh, boy, THEY’RE at it again.
    NDT: Maybe if they’d close their legs, THEY wouldn’t be getting any diseases.
    TLW: Thanks to Darwin, they are.
    BDB: (Silence, of course)
    BC: (He’s on Twitter)
    ILC: I love how they think it’s all Reagan’s fault.
    CRS: I know I’m not even conceived yet, but they disgust me.

    For the record, there are a bunch of brainless gays out there, who tow the party line and only care about politics if it involves gay marriage. And, apparently, these days, you have to be one of THEM in order to qualify as an “activist.” What a joke.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 12:27 pm - March 27, 2013

  16. Gay marriage opponents, take heart!

    This is third-hand, but… I caught a few minutes of Rush. He was talking about Sotomayor’s line of questioning, in the recent SCOTUS arguments. She asked, if marriage is going to be treated as a *right*, how can any State put any restriction on it? Where does it end?

    That’s a point which many of you make. (And which I agree with… which is the reason that I, as a gay marriage supporter, do *not* treat gay marriage as a right; only as a public policy question.) The point is, Sotomayor may yet be on the anti-gay-marriage side of this.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 1:25 pm - March 27, 2013

  17. Sotomayor: “Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?”
    Cooper: “Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any — anything to offer you in that regard.”

    Comment by rusty — March 27, 2013 @ 1:46 pm - March 27, 2013

  18. IIRC, when AIDS was recognized as an STD, some people suggested that the bath houses where the disease was spreading ought to be closed as a public health hazard. Gay Activists attacked them for wanting to oppress homosexuals.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2013 @ 2:07 pm - March 27, 2013

  19. V, I believed the anti-Reagan line on AIDS for a number of years. Eventually, though, reality (as in facts) caught up with me. I had to admit I was wrong, and I did.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 2:16 pm - March 27, 2013

  20. IIRC, when AIDS was recognized as an STD, closing bath houses was a short-term solution to a long-term problem. IIRC, bathhouses in the 1980s, while not perfect, were a socially safe and accepting environment for gay men to engage in sexual activity. That is, when they weren’t being raided by police. IIRC, there wasn’t a ban on bathhouses offering condoms.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 2:19 pm - March 27, 2013

  21. Also V, you’re right because condoms were not widely advocated to fight AIDS until the mid to late 80s. In the time period you’re talking about, closing bath houses would have saved thousands of lives. The activists who fought the closures, essentially murdered people. (Then displaced their guilt, onto Reagan.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 2:23 pm - March 27, 2013

  22. Does anyone know why red was chosen as the color of this ridiculous Facebook campaign? I always equate red with Communists.

    Oh and what bothers me is that it is a campaign… Supreme Court cases shouldn’t be based on a subjects popularity… It is supposed to be based on Consitutional law.

    Comment by Chris H — March 27, 2013 @ 2:24 pm - March 27, 2013

  23. CH – Maybe it has to do with fisting. (Joke – reference to the old hanky code)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 2:26 pm - March 27, 2013

  24. “It’s unquestionable that marriage equality has captured the imagination of Americans from all walks of life. You see that represented today by the amazing number of people that have shared their passion and enthusiasm for this issue through various digital platforms,” said HRC Director of Marketing Anastasia Khoo. “By harnessing the passion that equality supporters feel for the freedom of loving and committed couples to marry, the internet is awash in a sea of red – the color of love.”

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 2:35 pm - March 27, 2013

  25. The activists who fought the closures were also activists who fought for a cure.

    The people who wanted unsafe sex would have gotten it somewhere else, like, oh, I don’t know, the parks.

    The people who criticized gay bathhouses and said nothing about titty bars sat at home watching TV in their recliner with their thumb up their ass.

    And Reagan was a great president because he was a trailblazer when it came to AIDS.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-26/local/me-38605_1_los-angeles-county/2

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 2:44 pm - March 27, 2013

  26. Most hetero “gay marriage” supporters I know are casual observers and definitely just “feel” it is the right thing to do, it takes too much work to parse the actual arguments/realities about the issue for them to do otherwise.

    Yes, while Dianne was Mayor of Frisco the PC thing to do was nothing and so gay men died. While Larry was in warshinton screaming vile names at Reagan he was actually doing something and gay men still died.

    I’m biased and I’m okay with being so. I see no good reason to change the definition of the word marriage from one that sets a standard to one that sets no standard.

    Comment by Richard Bell — March 27, 2013 @ 3:51 pm - March 27, 2013

  27. Wow, Richard Bell. It sounds like you (and others) would benefit from watching

    We Were Here

    http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70170070?strkid=175984443_0_0&trkid=222336&movieid=70170070)

    and

    How to Survive a Plague

    http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70229270?strkid=994377237_1_0&trkid=222336&movieid=70229270

    Both are free on Netflix, which some posters have already admitted they subscribe too.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 3:57 pm - March 27, 2013

  28. Excuse me. Not free. But part of their streaming subscription.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 4:00 pm - March 27, 2013

  29. I changed my Facebook pic to a pro-Second Amendment icon in defiance of those who think imaginary rights are more important than real ones.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2013 @ 4:11 pm - March 27, 2013

  30. RB:

    Yes, while Dianne was Mayor of Frisco the PC thing to do was nothing and so gay men died.

    Correct. To be clear, Feinstein was eventually in favor of closing the bathhouses, by like 1985. That was “too late” for thousands. And perhaps redundant, as condoms were starting to catch on, I think by 1986. Even so, Feinstein at least had the right idea eventually, and stood up to PC opposition. I give her some credit, for those.

    While Larry was in warshinton screaming vile names at Reagan he was actually doing something and gay men still died.

    Correct, in the use of sarcasm. Getting a degree in science or business and then actually working for a cure, was/is “doing something.” Protesting isn’t. (At best, it’s calling for others, more capable people, to “do something”; and if your protest is ineffective by being willfully offensive, it’s not even doing that much.) George W. Bush did more to fight AIDS (with the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, focusing on Africa) than Larry Kramer has done.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 4:22 pm - March 27, 2013

  31. It sounds like more than one person needs to educate themselves with the documentaries We Were Here and How to Survive a Plague.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 4:42 pm - March 27, 2013

  32. The people who criticized gay bathhouses and said nothing about titty bars sat at home watching TV in their recliner with their thumb up their ass.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 2:44 pm – March 27, 2013

    Perhaps you’re not aware of this, Cinesnatch, but the difference between a “titty bar” and a gay bathhouse is that actual sex is discouraged and illegal in the former, and encouraged and promoted in the latter.

    Meanwhile, I think pages 238 and 239 of “And the Band Played On” make the point quite nicely.

    One longtime veteran of gay politics, Frank Kameny, said he would “advise fellow gays to lie” if the local blood bank officials proceeded with screening.

    In New York, the National Gay Task Force rounded up virtually every gay leader in Manhattan to stand on the steps of teh New york Blood Center for a press conference denouncing efforts to screen donors. As he scanned the group, Michael Callen, a leader in the newly formed New York chapter of People With AIDS, relished the irony of the press conference. He knew that virtually every gay man there had had hepatitis B and that most had engaged in the kind of sexual activites that put them at high risk for AIDS. Not one of them could in good conscience donate blood, Callen thought, and here they were, exuding self-righteous indignation at the thought that someone would suggest they did not have the right to make such donations.

    By the way, that was in early 1983.

    HIV had not yet been isolated and no test or screening to identify and remove HIV-contaminated blood from the blood supply existed.

    But that wasn’t about to stop the gay-sex liberals, the heroes of the gay-sex movement, who were openly telling people to lie and donate blood when they knew they were or could be HIV-infected.

    Why do you idolize that, Cinesnatch?

    Do you realize that this is what the gay “heroes” you are blathering about did?

    THEY DELIBERATELY TOLD PEOPLE TO GIVE HIV-CONTAMINATED BLOOD.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2013 @ 5:28 pm - March 27, 2013

  33. NDT – As you’d know, Shilts also discusses at length how gay activists fought against bathhouse closures through 1983, 1984, 1985.

    Although I’m not in a position right now to nail it down, 1986 is stuck in my head for some reason, as the date for the arrival of both widespread HIV antibody screening and the “condom code”. (Which obviously, would both be related to the increased scientific understanding of HIV that had been achieved; and that thanks, in at least some part, to the growing AIDS funding under the Reagan administration.)

    I may have the date from Shilts, or someone else. (Or I might be a year or two off, etc.) I just know that when I was in college in the mid-80s, nobody knew a thing about condoms (vis a vis AIDS)… and when I came out in 1990, condom advocacy was everywhere.

    Tragically, tens of thousands of HIV infections had already occurred by 1986/7, some preventable as the sexually-transmitted aspect of AIDS was well-suspected some years sooner.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 5:51 pm - March 27, 2013

  34. actual sex is discouraged and illegal in the former

    But, it happens. And, oh, yeah, prostitution …

    I suppose you never stopped to think that an oppressed sexual minority that was fighting to be viewed as first-class citizens would be fallible. Bathhouses were symbols of the liberation of gay males living in a society where they were viewed as degenerate and much worse. Question: Did they ever donate blood? Or do we only get to crucify them for the threat? Because, you know, SAYING something is so much worse than actually DOING it, especially when you’re taking a stand on being part of group that is being ostracized by society, regardless of how you CONDUCT yourself. Perhaps they were self-righteously indignant, but they were standing up for myself and others who couldn’t. I remember donating blood as a teenager and how proud I felt that I was participating in a small way in the social process of giving. And, I also recall going back to doing that as an adult and realizing that I couldn’t do the same thing without lying, regardless of how responsibly and safely I conducted myself.

    And, I received sex education classes in 1986/7, which included the use of condoms reduced the spread of HIV/AIDS. But, according to ND30′s previous uninformed personal comments about me on this site, I have rampant unprotected sex. He should know. Right, ND30?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 6:16 pm - March 27, 2013

  35. The difference between a “titty bar” and a gay bathhouse is that actual sex is discouraged and illegal in the former, and encouraged and promoted in the latter.

    I thought that was a rather stupid analogy for Vince to make, and for precisely that reason. Of course, Vince has never been burdened with a mighty intellect.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2013 @ 6:21 pm - March 27, 2013

  36. VTK, You haven’t been weighed down exactly by taste and wit, if we’re trading observations about each other’s strong/weak suits. And, I imagine someone with a sense of intelligence wouldn’t have a thought concerning a dumb remark from someone whom they already deem stupid.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 6:48 pm - March 27, 2013

  37. Perhaps Vince should think less about putting words in others mouths and think more about what comes out of his.

    Oh wait, that would require him to be more than a petulant child.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 27, 2013 @ 7:51 pm - March 27, 2013

  38. TLW: Thanks to Darwin, they are …

    Perhaps Vince should think less about putting words in others mouths

    The_Livewire > I did my best to capture your snide sarcasm in what might have been your response to ACTUP if the internet existed in the 1980s. If I didn’t do you any justice and/or was inaccurate, I apologize. Thought it was funny.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 8:02 pm - March 27, 2013

  39. Question: Did they ever donate blood? Or do we only get to crucify them for the threat?

    Oh, that’s easy, Cinesnatch.

    Page 222, And The Band Played On

    Dr. Bruce Evatt of the CDC tried to reassert the data about hemophiliacs. AIDS simply did not happen among these people before 1982. In only the past year, however, 6 of just 100 hemophiliacs in Ohio were dead of AIDS, and 3 more were sufering from severe blood problems associated with the syndrome. Nearly 10 percent already were sick with something having to do with AIDS, Evatt said. What kind of proof did the blood banks need?

    So yes, they did, Cinesnatch.

    And thousands of innocent people were sickened and killed because of this.

    But I don’t expect you to understand that, for this simple reason:

    Perhaps they were self-righteously indignant, but they were standing up for myself and others who couldn’t.

    After all, what do you care how many people get sick or killed, as long as you get what you want?

    That’s what made this particularly hilarious:

    And, I also recall going back to doing that as an adult and realizing that I couldn’t do the same thing without lying, regardless of how responsibly and safely I conducted myself.

    Yup.

    Because gays before you lied, and you supported and endorsed their doing it.

    It’s called a consequence, Cinesnatch. You don’t get or understand consequences, and as a result, you don’t get or understand responsibility. Thus, blood banks and donation centers must take this sort of step because you are too stupid, arrogant, and irresponsible to do it yourself.

    You are treated like a lying, malicious child because you and the gays you idolize acted like ones. And until you get that through your head, nothing will change.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2013 @ 11:31 pm - March 27, 2013

  40. Page 222, And The Band Played On

    Umm… I think your opponent wanted you to stick to Gay Left propaganda videos.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 11:50 pm - March 27, 2013

  41. Umm…I think your ally conveniently refers to documentaries (both of which he hasn’t seen) as GLPV.

    As far as Evatt’s findings with AIDS and hemophiliacs, the incidents began in 1982. The New York press conference took place in February of 1983. The book does not draw a correlation between the two out of pure chronology.

    And, it doesn’t change the fact that you’ve asserted several times on GP that I partake in promiscuous, unsafe sex. Something you conveniently like to ignore when called out. Would you care to explain how you’ve arrived at this conclusion? Thanks, ND30 in San Francisco who loves In N Out burger.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 12:15 am - March 28, 2013

  42. After all, what do you care how many people get sick or killed, as long as you get what you want?

    Yup, that’s pretty much a summation of left-wing ethics.

    It pretty much runs parallel to left-wing civility.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2013 @ 7:16 am - March 28, 2013

  43. Note, Vince ‘apologizes’ not for putting words in someone’s mouth, but for ‘getting it wrong’.

    Again, it seems he’s afraid to debate real people. Maybe because he’s outclassed?

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2013 @ 8:20 am - March 28, 2013

  44. Oh, and I do need to apologize.

    To petulant children. I’m sorry I compared you to Vince.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2013 @ 8:20 am - March 28, 2013

  45. Petulant children sometimes grow out of it. Leftists never do.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2013 @ 9:53 am - March 28, 2013

  46. Note, Vince ‘apologizes’ not for putting words in someone’s mouth, but for ‘getting it wrong’.

    Sorry you don’t have a sense of humor, TLW. Sounds like I hit a nerve. Perhaps the words I put into your mouth were accurate.

    And, as far as putting words in people’s mouths, you did a plenty well job at it when I first started commenting on this blog during the whole DADT repeal 2 1/2 years ago. Petulant child, willfully ignorant, intentionally evasive, smarting from all the facts, were descriptors that were just the tip of your iceberg.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 10:27 am - March 28, 2013

  47. Ahh, looks like Vince is upset that he got called out.

    As to the OP, my record of supporting ‘Fred’ has been well documented. While I hope that the Supremes uphold Prop-8, I do accept the result of legislative efforts.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2013 @ 11:27 am - March 28, 2013

  48. Umm…I think your ally conveniently refers to documentaries (both of which he hasn’t seen) as GLPV.

    Probably because everyone here is aware that your ability to objectively describe the LGBT community is akin to Leni Reifenstahl’s ability to objectively describe the Third Reich.

    As far as Evatt’s findings with AIDS and hemophiliacs, the incidents began in 1982. The New York press conference took place in February of 1983. The book does not draw a correlation between the two out of pure chronology.

    Actually, it points out two things:

    1) Infected gays were already deliberately giving contaminated blood

    2) The gay and lesbian community was continuing to tell people to lie and give contaminated blood even after it was known that this was spreading HIV to innocent hemophiliacs and people who needed blood transfusions.

    The latter is the scary one, Cinesnatch. Care to explain why gays were deliberately lying and supporting lying to put contaminated blood into the blood bank system EVEN WHEN THEY KNEW PEOPLE WERE GETTING SICK AND DYING FROM IT?

    The answer: it was a tantrum. You and your fellow bigot gays were going to scream and kick and hurt people to get your way. You don’t care about lives, you don’t care about health, you just want your way.

    What a sick, deluded, disgusting pig of a child you are to defend people who KNEW hemophiliacs and other people who needed blood transfusions were getting sick from HIV AND STILL TOLD INFECTED GAYS TO GIVE BLOOD, EVEN IF THEY NEEDED TO LIE TO DO IT.

    And, it doesn’t change the fact that you’ve asserted several times on GP that I partake in promiscuous, unsafe sex.

    LOL. You screamed and cried above that promiscuous, unsafe sex was part of asserting your gay “liberation” and how you supported it being done in bathhouses, remember?

    Why don’t you condemn promiscuous and unsafe sex first — as well as the gays who you championed for doing it?

    This is where you get funny, Cinesnatch. Everyone here knows what a malicious and desperate liar you are who will say and do anything to get your way. Since you justify promiscuous and unsafe sex and claim it’s necessary for “gay liberation”, then you’re going to get held accountable for it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2013 @ 12:14 pm - March 28, 2013

  49. Everyone here knows what a malicious and desperate liar you are who will say and do anything to get your way.

    There are a few on here who would argue the contrary and it’s really only their opinions that matter. And the same people can see you for the scared, hyperbolic, anonymous commenter that you are. Remember, ND30? You say all these things behind the privacy of your computer. Real cajones you possess there. I’m sure they look much bigger under a microscope. Do they produce sperm too? Or, are they just for show?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 12:28 pm - March 28, 2013

  50. There are a few on here who would argue the contrary and it’s really only their opinions that matter. And the same people can see you for the scared, hyperbolic, anonymous commenter that you are. Remember, ND30? You say all these things behind the privacy of your computer. Real cajones you possess there. I’m sure they look much bigger under a microscope. Do they produce sperm too? Or, are they just for show?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 12:28 pm – March 28, 2013

    Sorry Cinesnatch.

    Abusers like yourself know only one thing, and that is how to tear other people down by any means necessary.

    Since I know you’re a malicious liar who will say and do anything to get what you want, I can look at you in that context, rather than as an objective person who is genuinely interested in helping me do better and progress and whose statements are made with that in mind.

    It’s quite liberating.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2013 @ 12:39 pm - March 28, 2013

  51. an objective person who is genuinely interested in helping [others] do better and progress and whose statements are made with that in mind.

    LOL. Is that how you view yourself? Explains a lot. ND30: Teacher, therapist. I didn’t realize class was in session. Changes everything. No wonder you use a nom de plume. From here on out, maybe I should refer to you as ND30, MFT.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 12:48 pm - March 28, 2013

  52. 110 Million Americans have STD’s. So, how’s that new left-wing morality working out?

    Maybe Bloomberg’s next act should be to make it illegal to have more the 16 sexual partners.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2013 @ 1:07 pm - March 28, 2013

  53. Nah, we’ll just rename partners as ‘bullets’ and beds as ‘clips’. V.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2013 @ 2:03 pm - March 28, 2013

  54. LOL. Is that how you view yourself? Explains a lot. ND30: Teacher, therapist. I didn’t realize class was in session. Changes everything. No wonder you use a nom de plume. From here on out, maybe I should refer to you as ND30, MFT.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 12:48 pm – March 28, 2013

    Sorry Cinesnatch.

    Abusers like yourself know only one thing, and that is how to tear other people down by any means necessary.

    The key to breaking a cycle of abuse is seeing that the abuser is interested only in getting what they want out of the situation, and could care less about what happens to you in the process.

    So hence the point. You don’t say or do anything with the intention of building me up or creating a better situation; you say and do everything with the intention of tearing me and others down.

    Once you recognize that, it becomes even more liberating.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2013 @ 2:33 pm - March 28, 2013

  55. Actually, I thought some of your responses were clever on The Match Game. When are you going back on?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 2:44 pm - March 28, 2013

  56. LOL.

    Abusers like yourself know only one thing, Cinesnatch, and that is how to tear other people down by any means necessary.

    The key to breaking a cycle of abuse is seeing that the abuser is interested only in getting what they want out of the situation, and could care less about what happens to you in the process.

    So hence the point. You don’t say or do anything with the intention of building me up or creating a better situation; you say and do everything with the intention of tearing me and others down.

    Fortunately, the vast majority of people who have ever interacted with you know that the only reason you’re being nice to someone is with the intention of using them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2013 @ 5:39 pm - March 28, 2013

  57. Again, ND30, I was surprised (shocked) how down to earth and amiable you sounded in The Match Game. It shifted how I perceive you and interacted with you in the past. I look forward to future broadcasts, as it helps me see the three-dimensional, thinking, and feeling person for who you are, rather than the anonymous internet character you present yourself to be (although, as that character, you have presented lessons I now have the opportunity to absorb before I comment in the future). And I will be reconsidering myself before each time I post at GP to weigh the effect of my words and to what (if any) purpose they serve. I probably won’t be interacting with you as much anymore, because I prefer listening to you on The Match Game. I hope that one of these days, however, we can find some common ground behind us. Feel free to bookmark this post and bring it to my attention in the future, as I want to be held accountable for these words. And, if I fail to do so, I’m hoping you will be there to lend a hand. Thank you, Dan.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 6:15 pm - March 28, 2013

  58. LOL.

    Abusers like yourself know only one thing, Cinesnatch, and that is how to tear other people down by any means necessary.

    The key to breaking a cycle of abuse is seeing that the abuser is interested only in getting what they want out of the situation, and could care less about what happens to you in the process.

    So hence the point. You don’t say or do anything with the intention of building me up or creating a better situation; you say and do everything with the intention of tearing me and others down.

    Fortunately, the vast majority of people who have ever interacted with you know that the only reason you’re being nice to someone is with the intention of using them. They’re also aware that your promises and statements are like your Barack Obama’s — every one comes with an expiration date.

    So yes, keep doing these pretend piety dances to make people think you are what you aren’t. The rest of us know that you’re on the morality level of a phishing site.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2013 @ 6:25 pm - March 28, 2013

  59. Thank you, Dan in San Francisco.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 6:32 pm - March 28, 2013

  60. LOL.

    Quelle surprise, Cinesnatch. You’re screaming and demanding that Bruce justify why he doesn’t want his family stalked and insist that he deserves to have it happen for daring to even think about running for office; your attempt to intimidate me with information is hardly novel.

    However, it does bring up an excellent point. You justify stalking, you justify blackmail, and you insist that you can do anything you want to hurt someone because you hate Republicans.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2013 @ 7:31 pm - March 28, 2013

  61. Merci beaucoup monsieur trente.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 9:49 pm - March 28, 2013

  62. I can only imagine GP if it existed 25 – 30 years ago:

    VTK: Oh, look, ACTUP is whining again.
    RB: Oh, boy, THEY’RE at it again.
    NDT: Maybe if they’d close their legs, THEY wouldn’t be getting any diseases.
    TLW: Thanks to Darwin, they are.
    BDB: (Silence, of course)
    BC: (He’s on Twitter)
    ILC: I love how they think it’s all Reagan’s fault.
    CRS: I know I’m not even conceived yet, but they disgust me.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-26/local/me-38605_1_los-angeles-county/2

    Ah, Vince/Cinesnatch…thanks for the laff and the trip down memory lane.

    However, you make one fatal flaw in your attempt to make the current denizens of GP seem similar to the makeover targets of one of the “Caught in a time warp!” episodes of The Oprah Winfrey Show where helmet-haired women and Grizzly Adams men in polyester suits are brought into the modern era with the small assistance of Queer Eye alumni and other experts in current day hipness.

    That flaw—also perpetuated by other minority dissenters around here—is assuming that life is static and that all or most of us can be described by a phrase in a Talking Heads song: “Same as it ever was!”

    The reality is at least a few of us were some of those historical happy warriors that you proudly hail as being trailblazers and forebears of ‘marriage equality’ by marching in public spaces and the like. Not that all of us were exactly “Out of the closets and into the streets!”, but we did our part and literally have been-there-done-that-got-the-t-shirt (many t-shirts, actually).

    You see, we too, once fumed because The Media focused on the drag queens at pride parades instead of focusing on the “normal, everyday people” at such events. [Only much later realizing that drag queens & cameras are like flies & feces: you can't keep them apart—and that even normal everyday people somehow see pride events as one of the holy days of obligation in which they are required to get their exhibitionistic freak on.]

    We, too, once railed against politicians and elected officials perceived to be antigay, particularly non-liberal Republicans who we were sure were preparing those dreaded GOP concentration camps (you know—like the ones Mitt Romney had ready to roll out as soon as he was elected president). [Later we realized that we, as a community, didn't give them much to go on in terms of being relatable as everyday people—see pride parade attendees above—and by constantly marching to the drumbeat of "coming out" never allowed them to see us as individuals first.]

    Some of us even crossed paths with names in the 1988 LAT story: Eric Rofes [RIP], who later went on to promote his very own version of “I’m-A-Sex-Positive-S&M/Leather-Daddy-And-You-Can-Be-Too (or a follower of one)!” workshops and lectures. Lynn Sheppod, who later went on to direct National Coming Out Day [before it was purchased and co-opted by HRC as yet another fundraising tool]. And the irrepressible Morris Kight [RIP], who spent part of his latter Golden Years promoting Gay Affirmative Action. (Hmmmm…I wonder what could possibly be next after ‘marriage equality’ becomes The Law Of The Land?)

    We also encountered such types as “Billy”, the Atlanta inner-city teacher who was part of the very first contingent to meet with a sitting President in the Oval Office and defended his decision to do so in everyday leather drag by saying “This is how I dress for work. Why should I dress any differently when I go to the White House?” (Um, because it’s a little different than your workplace, just for starters??)

    We attended planning for national events where attendees on the steering committee for same were offended by all—or perhaps any—of the duly-elected representatives with (naturally) white faces and (naturally) male body parts and henceforth demanded that any such votes be tempered by giving female members two votes and minority members three votes in order to deal with the “injustice”. (Thankfully, transsexuals-in-transition were not yet accustomed to attending the grievance circus and that issue didn’t see redress.) This was after early meetings in which the decision to allow groups such as Log Cabin Republicans to participate was discussed, with the rationale of “oh why not—at least they’re not NAM/BLA!” You know it’s bad when ever-tolerant & kind Michelangelo Signorile uses it in one of his books, and not in a complimentary way.

    Amidst all that eventually we realized, as John Lennon once said in song: life is what happens when you’re busy making other plans. Life, and shit, does indeed happen. Often, it does so in a way that is not reflective of a country that we are told “hates gays”. Not every one of life’s whammys involves open displays of intolerance and bigotry or an out-and-out gay bashing. But once you leave the gay ghetto (both the geographic and ideological one) you realize that it isn’t so bad after all, and that there is a life that doesn’t involve day-to-day contact with someone from the Rainbow Brigade and even injustices that occur to others which are much worse than those which reportedly happen to LGBTQXYZ people every day.

    So you’ll excuse me if I enjoy the humor in your supposition without buying into any of the stereotypes.

    And perhaps you’ll forgive those of us who fail to see the “suffering” caused by the failure to enact “marriage equality” (and yeah, we’ve even met Evan Wolfson—now with Freedom To Marry—who’s a long way from his native Billings MT). We don’t see 2013 as if it’s 1973, just four years post-Stonewall. We know we are better off as a community and aren’t pretending that the battles of the past are in any way similar to the manufactured troubles of today.

    That’s why we collectively eye-roll and respond to posts with appropriately-placed snark and hold the collective wisdom groupthink in high disdain. Because some of us have seen it all before: the wailing and whimpering, the gnashing of teeth, the pandering. We’ve seen this movie; we found we didn’t care for it the first time even when we were told it was a must-see, and the remake is no better. It’s like a bad circus: different performers, same tired old show.

    But enough rambling about ancient events to you whippersnappers who were learning about safer sex long after Dr C. Everett Koop [RIP] made it acceptable. It’s the last Friday of the month, and while in my once fabulously actively gay life it meant wondering what I was going to do for the weekend and what to wear out to the bars later on; now in the real world it means there are bills to pay and end-of-the-month reports to make.

    Comment by RSG — March 29, 2013 @ 10:48 am - March 29, 2013

  63. RSG, The post was in jest. Part of my (albeit ignorant) humor was that most of the guys I was lampooning weren’t even 21 when AIDS first hit (the majority of them anyway) and one of them is straight, so these “1980s counterparts” didn’t have a basis in reality. I’m glad you got a chuckle out of it, though.

    Thanks for sharing a little bit about your life. No, you are correct, this isn’t 1973. But the less than 45 years that have passed since Stonewall is a small fraction in the history of this country (and the world). As I already alluded in this thread, I received sex-ed during the Koop years. Perhaps old enough to know better, but young enough that I don’t want to be completely jaded towards The Gay Left. That’s just me. It sounds like your constitution is stronger than myself.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 29, 2013 @ 1:17 pm - March 29, 2013

  64. Nicely stated, RSG.

    Comment by Richard Bell — March 30, 2013 @ 9:08 am - March 30, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.