GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/04/24/what-gay-republicans-should-expect-from-the-state/trackback/

  1. An interesting counterpoint from that young lad from CPAC, Ryan Sorba

    “Stop using the word gay, because implicit in the notion of a gay identity is the fact that they’re born gay and that it should be a fundamental human right, but fundamental human rights are based on human nature not on capricious desires. If fundamental human rights are based on capricious desires, guess what, we’d have every group on this planet with a different hobby arguing for fundamental rights and benefits based on the fact that they play hockey, based on the fact that they play basketball or surf, or anything that they’re interested in.” – Anti-gay activist Ryan Sorba, speaking at Awakening 2012

    Comment by rusty — April 24, 2012 @ 5:05 pm - April 24, 2012

  2. Dan, I notice you didn’t put “gender” on your list, though it seems to belong there and is commonly grouped with race, religion, national origin, etc.

    Was that an oversight or was that deliberate? I ask, because if you do want gender on that list, then you’ve made an argument that we should favor marriage laws that do not distinguish based on gender — i.e., our laws should recognized marriage between same-sex couples.

    Curious about what you think of that.

    Comment by pk — April 24, 2012 @ 6:55 pm - April 24, 2012

  3. pk, good catch and gets to the problem of identity-specific legislation; if spelling out the various groups, you’re bound to leave something out.

    I do believe that if the state recognizes traditional marriage, it should only recognize same-sex unions, just not beholden to calling such unions marriage.

    Does that answer your question? (Or does it as its intention spark further thought? :-))

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 24, 2012 @ 7:06 pm - April 24, 2012

  4. Hey Dan. No, it doesn’t really answer my question. You seem to be saying that gender should be on the list, but that would contradict the notion that marriage laws don’t need to call same-sex unions marriage — such a position would violate your principle of not distinguishing based on gender. Either I don’t understand your position on whether gender should be on the list, or I don’t understand how you’re applying your principle.

    Either way, I look forward to the further posts you have planned.

    Comment by pk — April 24, 2012 @ 7:30 pm - April 24, 2012

  5. Well, in a way, I did answer your question in saying that I don’t mind if they use a different term to define same-sex unions. :-)

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 24, 2012 @ 7:38 pm - April 24, 2012

  6. Dan, I have to agree with pk on this one. Unless you acknowledge that men and women have fundamentally different roles in society and therefore it is appropriate to discriminate based on gender, I think it is inconsistent to say that, if men and women can form unions recognized by the government, that two men or two women can not do so. Perhaps the roles men and women play in society have become identical, which I disagree with. What I am unsure of is whether or not the differences are relevant to the proper role of the government.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 24, 2012 @ 8:15 pm - April 24, 2012

  7. [...] GayPatriot » What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state. Share [...]

    Pingback by If only it were this simple « God's Own Crunk — April 24, 2012 @ 8:26 pm - April 24, 2012

  8. That should be, “It is inconsistent to say that if one man and one woman can form unions recognized by the government as marriage, that two men or two women cannot do so.”

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 24, 2012 @ 8:36 pm - April 24, 2012

  9. This all sounds so principled, but I think it’s just more social leftist political warfare.

    Dan, you first say that gays shouldn’t ask the state to sanction their orientation, but then you say the state shouldn’t condemn gays’ orientation. Just how would that play out, Dan? I suspect that state failure to enact every policy demanded by gay activists will be defined as “condemning” gays. This will allow you and other “conservative” gays to promote the gay left’s agenda while still claiming the “conservative” label. You can just say that you’re asking the state not to condemn your difference. And it’s the same thing with your acknowledgement that gays “don’t need validation from the state to live freely”. You say that, but then you say that the state shouldn’t “punish [gays] for [their] difference”. And just how would the state “punish” gays? Oh yeah, by not validating them.

    I see what you’re doing, Dan.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — April 24, 2012 @ 9:31 pm - April 24, 2012

  10. Dan, you first say that gays shouldn’t ask the state to sanction their orientation, but then you say the state shouldn’t condemn gays’ orientation. Just how would that play out, Dan?

    By remaining neutral with regards to sexual orientation.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 24, 2012 @ 9:33 pm - April 24, 2012

  11. Remaining neutral. But how would THAT play out, Rattlesnake? It seems to me that “remaining neutral” is just another door for social leftism to walk through. Gay marriage, for instance, could be made a “conservative” cause by claiming that it’s recognition is about making the state neutral on sexual orientation. Clever.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — April 24, 2012 @ 10:15 pm - April 24, 2012

  12. Seane-Anna, why not tell us YOUR alternative, and how THAT would play out?

    Comment by rt — April 24, 2012 @ 10:21 pm - April 24, 2012

  13. Some people say that homosesexuality is a sin. It’s not!

    G-d is perfectly cool with it and (s)he feels the same way about homosexuality as (s)he does about heterosexuality.

    Now you might say ‘whoa, whoa!’. Slow down. . .yoou move to fast.
    How could you have the audacity, the termite to speak on the behalf of G-d??

    Exactly, that’s an excellent point, and I pray that you remember it. ted alexandro

    Comment by rusty — April 24, 2012 @ 10:21 pm - April 24, 2012

  14. And then. . .

    Claiming someone else’s marriage is against your religion is like being angry with someone for eating a donut while you are on a diet.

    Comment by rusty — April 24, 2012 @ 10:23 pm - April 24, 2012

  15. And one last tidbit. . .R. Clark Cooper rebuffs Bryan smiling Fischer on CNN over homosexuality, Grenell and competence.

    http://www.towleroad.com/2012/04/fischercnncooper.html

    Comment by rusty — April 24, 2012 @ 10:29 pm - April 24, 2012

  16. Remaining neutral. But how would THAT play out, Rattlesnake? It seems to me that “remaining neutral” is just another door for social leftism to walk through.

    Even after eight years of George W. Bush as president, I wouldn’t call society moral. I think the morality of society is largely outside of the government’s control, and it should just get out of the way and allow churches and other private organizations to propagate morality, which they will do a much better job of than the government ever could.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 24, 2012 @ 10:39 pm - April 24, 2012

  17. Damn auto spell. Temerity. In 13 instead of termite.

    Sorry

    Comment by rusty — April 24, 2012 @ 10:59 pm - April 24, 2012

  18. Rusty @ 13, your little argument is clever but it misses the point that traditionalists who say homosexuality is a sin are not speaking for God but are simply repeating what God Himself has already declared. It’s no different from saying that adultery is a sin. Would you accuse someone of arrogantly “speaking for God” for saying that?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — April 24, 2012 @ 11:11 pm - April 24, 2012

  19. Amen Rattlesnake.

    The church should be the one to lead people into a relationship with God. Unfotunatley, all too often it wants to take the easy way out and have the government enforce the

    Comment by Sandhorse — April 24, 2012 @ 11:15 pm - April 24, 2012

  20. …accidently hit ‘say it’. Continuing the train of thought…

    All to often the church wants the government to enforce this relationship. And in the process it drives a wedge between the world and the Creator. The government was not establish to ‘keep the faith’, but to keep the order. And this only as absolutely necessary. I believe this is what the founding fathers intended from the start. After all, they were not far removed from a government run by religion. I think we too often forget that we have never really experienced a government like that.

    Comment by Sandhorse — April 24, 2012 @ 11:28 pm - April 24, 2012

  21. An interesting counterpoint from that young lad from CPAC, Ryan Sorba

    Nice try, rusty, but Sorba was actually booed down by CPAC, when he made some anti-gay comments there. You can’t suggest he represents CPAC.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2012 @ 11:49 pm - April 24, 2012

  22. “Seane-Anna, why not tell us YOUR alternative, and how THAT would play out?” Don’t mind if I do, rt.

    My alternative is simple tolerance. Tolerance is NOT endorsement, celebration, approval, or applause, but neither is it persecution. Basically, tolerance means gays are free to pursue their “sexual and emotional longings” in peace while understanding and accepting that those longings are outside the norm and that the larger society has no obligation to support them.

    My alternative is similar to the way polygamists lived in Utah and Arizona for decades. They were left alone to do their thing by the majority society and in turn they left the majority society alone. They didn’t go around demanding that the monogamous majority change its understanding of marriage and family to accommodate them, and they didn’t accuse those who refused of fascistic bigotry and “polyphobia”. That’s tolerance. That’s my alternative, but I suspect you won’t like it.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — April 24, 2012 @ 11:52 pm - April 24, 2012

  23. And I really don’t get this whole notion that gay marriage must be legalized to uphold the separation of church and state. If you believe that, do you also believe we need to legalize incest in order to uphold church/state separation? What about prostitution? After all, the laws against incest and prostitution are rooted in religious prohibitions and values, and isn’t the liberal, pro-gay, church/state argument is that religion must have ZERO influence on our laws? Yes, that’s the liberal argument but it’s insincere. Separation of church and state? That rhetoric is just an effort by the Left to cash in on the anti-Christian sentiment it’s been fomenting for generations.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — April 25, 2012 @ 12:10 am - April 25, 2012

  24. And I really don’t get this whole notion that gay marriage must be legalized to uphold the separation of church and state.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — April 25, 2012 @ 12:10 am – April 25, 2012

    It comes from the belief of the gay and lesbian community that Christianity is the only thing that has prevented gay-sex marriage from ever being adopted by any society.

    Despite the fact that there have been literally thousands of civilizations that chose not to legitimize gay-sex marriage without even the whiff of Christianity being present, much less involved.

    One must remember that the core values of radical liberalism, which is by default the core value of the gay and lesbian community, are as follows:

    1) Everyone who came before you is an idiot who could not possibly have been as enlightened or as intelligent as you are

    2) Anyone who disagrees with you does so out of ignorance, intolerance, and bigotry

    Since you didn’t think of it and you don’t agree with it, it can’t possibly be right. It makes simple biology, common sense, and millenia of human history so easy to ignore.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2012 @ 1:05 am - April 25, 2012

  25. Based on comment 11, Seane-Anna’s position is that neutrality will open the door to non-neutrality, so the government should impose non-neutrality to keep neutrality from leading to non-neutrality.

    Comment by rt — April 25, 2012 @ 1:49 am - April 25, 2012

  26. Seane-Anne, for the record, I oppose ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation for the reasons articulated in this post.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 25, 2012 @ 2:58 am - April 25, 2012

  27. [...] One Wins In the Zimmerman Trial The Glittering Eye -The Amazing Even Alarming Ease Gay Patriot – What gay Republicans (should) expect from the stateHonorable MentionsAsk Marion – Earth Day… How Did You Celebrate? Crime Victim’s Media [...]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Earth Day Edition — April 25, 2012 @ 3:47 am - April 25, 2012

  28. [...] Gay Patriot – What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — April 25, 2012 @ 7:54 am - April 25, 2012

  29. [...] Gay Patriot – What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Earth Day Edition (Excellent Stories & Great Research) | Independent Sentinel — April 25, 2012 @ 11:06 am - April 25, 2012

  30. [...] What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Earth Day Edition — April 25, 2012 @ 12:12 pm - April 25, 2012

  31. [...] Gay Patriot – What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Earth Day Edition | askmarion — April 25, 2012 @ 2:28 pm - April 25, 2012

  32. [...] Gay Patriot – What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog — April 25, 2012 @ 2:54 pm - April 25, 2012

  33. [...] Gay Patriot – What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Earth Day Edition | Virginia Right! — April 25, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - April 25, 2012

  34. My alternative is simple tolerance. Tolerance is NOT endorsement, celebration, approval, or applause, but neither is it persecution. Basically, tolerance means gays are free to pursue their “sexual and emotional longings” in peace while understanding and accepting that those longings are outside the norm and that the larger society has no obligation to support them.

    Seane-Anna, that sounds pretty darn neutral to me. That is basically what I meant by neutrality, as long as you are not suggesting that gay people live in compounds isolated from the rest of the world.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 25, 2012 @ 3:26 pm - April 25, 2012

  35. @rt,

    While Seane-Anna and I agree on oppostion to SSM being recognized (I prefer Fred) I feel she misses the true point of neutrality.

    A [i]neutral[/i] government would enforce the laws fairly with minimal intervention. In my view, the legal construct of marriage is something we the people have ceeded the government to enforce, not redefine. So if CT wants to have SSM, OH wants our DOMA, and CA wants Prop 8, it’s all good. Neutrality allows that.

    Non-neutrality is when the Government tells me that I [i]can’t[/i] tell my kids that 40 years olds chasing 12 year olds is wrong, or that Seane-Anna can’t teach her kids that SSM is wrong. I can’t stop Bruce from calling his partner his ‘husband’ (if you do Bruce) anymore than he can stop me from calling Rocky “My Four Legged Child”. That’s what Neutrality means to me.

    “What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?” – Zapp Brannigan

    Comment by The Livewire — April 25, 2012 @ 3:36 pm - April 25, 2012

  36. Livewire, the Zapp Brannigan quote was the cherry on that sundae of a response.

    Comment by V the K — April 25, 2012 @ 6:21 pm - April 25, 2012

  37. [...] Gay Patriot – What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council « Crime Victims Media Report — April 25, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - April 25, 2012

  38. [...] Gay Patriot – What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by Happy Earf Day | — April 25, 2012 @ 8:20 pm - April 25, 2012

  39. “Seane-Anne, for the record, I oppose ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation for the reasons articulated in this post.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt” Ok.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — April 25, 2012 @ 10:00 pm - April 25, 2012

  40. Seane-Anne, your comment #22 seems to suggest that homosexual “sexual and emotional longings” should be illegal but not prosecuted, as that is how polygamists were treated in your example.

    That may be too literal an interpretation of what your phrasing. Did you mean only that same-sex marriage should be illegal but not prosecuted, or did you mean our “sexual and emotional longings” should be illegal but not prosecuted as well?

    Comment by rt — April 25, 2012 @ 10:12 pm - April 25, 2012

  41. rt @38, I see your point. Tbh, I wasn’t thinking about polygamy’s technical illegality when I cited its treatment by certain states as an example of what I believe tolerance for gays would look like. In my comment I wasn’t suggesting or implying that homosexual acts should be illegal. I was trying to say that in a tolerant society traditional marriage will be the cultural and legal norm, with gays given room to pursue their own kind of relationship unmolested, e.g. they won’t be fired from their jobs. Since marriage will be a one man/one woman institution, gays could get legal protection for their couplings through such things as wills or powers of attorney, the way I suspect some polygamists probably protect their relationships. Also in this tolerant society schools would NOT proselytize the gay agenda. Instead, parents would be completely free to decide what, whether, and when to teach their children about homosexuality. I hope that clears things up for you, rt.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — April 25, 2012 @ 11:02 pm - April 25, 2012

  42. [...] 2/3 vote – The Mellow Jihadi- The Military DraftFourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot-What gay Republicans (should) expect from the stateFourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Political Commentator – Wall Street 101 For Progressives, [...]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results — April 27, 2012 @ 2:44 am - April 27, 2012

  43. [...] Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot-What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels — Weekly Winners — April 27, 2012 @ 2:49 am - April 27, 2012

  44. [...] Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot-What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com — April 27, 2012 @ 7:23 am - April 27, 2012

  45. [...] Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot – What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog — April 27, 2012 @ 12:55 pm - April 27, 2012

  46. [...] Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot-What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken! Read Some Excellent & Well-Researched Stories Here | Independent Sentinel — April 27, 2012 @ 5:52 pm - April 27, 2012

  47. [...] Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot-What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by TGIF | — April 27, 2012 @ 8:13 pm - April 27, 2012

  48. [...] Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot-What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken! — April 28, 2012 @ 8:23 pm - April 28, 2012

  49. [...] Gay Patriot – What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Another hour of agonizing decisions as I try to select my favorite Watcher’s Counsel submissions — April 30, 2012 @ 7:49 am - April 30, 2012

  50. [...] Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot-What gay Republicans (should) expect from the state [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council winners for April 27, 2012 — May 1, 2012 @ 7:25 pm - May 1, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.359 Powered by Wordpress