Jonathan Rauch's op-ed for the NY Times has caused quite a stir among gay bloggers (like Joe.My.God and Calitics) and, worse, has gotten him the support of Maggie Gallagher. But Jon makes a fundamental point that most people of the left are ignoring or understating, and those on the right are exploiting. In order to understand Jon, it helps to understand Linda Lingle.
Hawaii's Governor Lingle prominently vetoed a civil unions bill yesterday. In her mind, civil unions are just "marriage by another name," and since she opposes same-sex marriage, she was inclined toward the veto. But she took the time to listen to supporters for both sides, and in the end decided that this was not something elected representatives should be deciding. Marriage is so profoundly important that only the people have the right to decide its form.
The problems with this reasoning are obvious to lesbians and gay men, and to an ever-increasing number of heterosexuals. Giving an overwhelmingly large majority the ability to decide on or deny the rights of an extremely small minority can be problematic if the majority harbors prejudices and even misguided passions about that minority. That's not always true, but it's exactly the problem the constitution's equal protection clause was designed to guard against. Under our constitutional system, there are some decisions that even the largest majorities cannot make.
Lingle's failure to even mention the potential of an equal protection problem was more politically convenient than it was an accurate description of the legal landscape. While she made every effort to present herself as having made a neutral decision, she betrayed herself in what she left out. Equality is the very thing the legislature in her state was trying to achieve, and she could not bring herself to address that core injustice.
In fact, the apparently neutral appeal to the people's right to vote is nothing more than an appeal to what prejudice against homosexuals still exists. It is a way of reinforcing the status quo and cementing it in place at exactly the time the status quo is drifting toward a more just equilibrium.
That is the responsible criticism of Jon's piece. In a representative democracy, courts can and should be modest about their role, and overturn statutes (whether passed by legislatures or voters) in only the most rare cases. Court decisions that contravene the very strong will of a majority can and will be overturned, and if that requires amending a constitution, well that is not unheard of.
No one should know that better than lesbians and gay men. Not only have voters in thirty states amended their state constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage, most all of them did it preemptively. In that context, Jon is not exactly going out on a limb in thinking that a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court mandating same-sex marriage in all fifty states would not go over well among the American public. There is a very specific political risk to us if the court makes the right constitutional decision. That's not a very idealistic state of affairs, but it's foolish to ignore it. Jon is not foolish.
But Jon's argument is a bit narrow because he focuses on the California case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. When he says that the voters may have made a reasonable decision on Prop. 8, he's talking about a state where we have comprehensive domestic partnership rights for all same-sex couples. Prop. 8 did not change that. It was no less the reaffirmation of a fatuous and anachronistic view of homosexuals, but in California, the legal inequality of same-sex couples is at the margins. That's still wrong, and in my view still unconstitutional. But Jon's point remains a critical one. Too broad a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court could spark a backlash that would gladden the blackened heart of Karl Rove.
In contrast, Gov. Lingle's decision highlights what inequality looks like for same-sex couples in too much of the rest of the country - including Jon and his husband in Virginia. Not only are they barred from marriage in the state where they live, the law prevents them from having virtually any recognition of their relationship.
When she equates civil unions with marriage, Gov. Lingle leaves lesbians and gay men with no option but the constitutional one, no equality but what the constitution demands. In effect, she dares the courts to defy the voters, or dares the voters to defy the constitution itself. Hawaii's legislature attempted to provide a compromise, and she took the compromise off the table.
That is the political game the left thinks we shouldn't have to play. I can't disagree with that. But we can't wish away that reality. Courts or no courts, we still have to work for our equality. Jon can't be faulted for saying that out loud.
51 Comments for “Sweat Equity”
posted by Pat on
Linda Lingle is exhibit A why some of the commentary of this site is absurd. What is the point of outreach to the GOP when someone like Linda Lingle is considered, bizarrely, non-extremist. The Republican Party hates gays. Sure there are plenty of Republicans as individuals who tolerate, or even like, gays as individuals and maybe even as a class.
Where are the Republicans we can reach out to? Who are they? Most of them are out of office and those currently in office who are sympathetic to us are anathema to the national GOP.
posted by Amicus on
True or false:
1. This case was coming to court
2. One cannot tiptoe in court, either as judge or advocate, in deciding ‘fundamental’ matters.
3. The Supremes can decide narrowly in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, finding a “California Solution” to the issue.
BTW, one mustn’t single out Lingle, too much. Schwarzenegger kicked the can down the road, too.
Indeed, it is now an express tactic among opponents who expect they will lose in the legislative branch. It certainly was on full display in the NJ Senate vote.
Moreover, one can argue that the political space that Rauch talks about is all but vacated, these days. There is no dialogue going on much, is there? We talk and the opposition mostly votes in silence, at least at the legislative level of the conflict. What is the role of the judiciary in such circumstances, when there is an obvious failure of the legislature and a commonsense view that putting the issues to a general citizenry vote is in-apt?
posted by Amicus on
Where are the Republicans we can reach out to?
========
Don’t give up hope.
I was recently pleasantly surprised when my Republican senator in the state’s legislature was the first to vote “yes” on “the issue of marriage equality”.
His reasoning was equality at law.
Perhaps not enough to make more than a curiosity piece, but a ray of hope, nonetheless.
posted by BobN on
What is it about modern American journalism that op-eds about gay people have to be written by either 1) straights or 2) Republican gay men?
Count the number of op-eds by Rauch over the years. His greatest claim to fame is the Jon and Maggie road show which, other than providing him and his non-entity a steady income, serves mostly to legitimize Maggie Gallagher and whomever else he “debates”. These people won’t face a real debate about equality and our rights. It’s convenient for them that a meet-you-half-way-even-though-you-won’t-budge compromiser like Rauch is around. Maggie et al. couldn’t have asked for a more willing accomplice, ehrr, opponent.
Jon can argue that his rights are up for referendum. He does NOT speak for me.
posted by BobN on
Schwarzenegger kicked the can down the road, too.
Not to defend the nitwit, but at least Schwarzenegger had a sort of reasonable excuse that Prop 22 stood in his way. Lingle, in contrast, had a state constitutional amendment which clearly and explicitly gave control over marriage law the the Legislature. At best, she should have limited her explanation for her veto to her authority as head of the Executive. Nothing in Hawaii’s constitution points to a plebiscite to resolve this issue. She’s just pandering to the Mormons and conservative Catholics.
posted by John Howard on
See? The problem was that the Civil Unions are “marriage in all but name”. That was the problem with California DP’s too, resulting in Prop 8 and the current cases.
What we need are Civil Unions that do not protect and affirm the right of the couple to conceive offspring together using the couple’s own genes. They wouldn’t be “marriage in all but name” as they would have a distinction in rights.
They should try again in Hawaii with Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights”, which would be “Recognition-Ready” for when Congress passes the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.
posted by Amicus on
BobN, Schwarzenegger “excuse” was illogical. Whatever was decided at the legislature
+executive, it was going to the courts. Ergo, he could have take a public position, “This is going to the courts, whatever I do, therefore I choose to lead and to allow this.” Instead, he chose to pin it all on the judiciary.
In a way, it will be poetic if Perry v Schwarzenegger makes it to the history books in the way we all hope, as it will forever ensconce his cowardice prominently in the record.
In fairness, I do not think that Jon’s greatest claim to fame is something so derivative of Maggie waving her catechism at all of the rest of us. It probably lies in the fact that he’s actually taken the time to write a thoughtful book and publicly talk about his views.
posted by David Link on
BobN, Jon hardly needs Maggie Gallagher for any claim to fame. Whether it’s his fine books like Kindly Inquisitors or Demosclerosis (with its new, more user-friendly title, Government’s End), or his uniformly well written and often quoted work at the National Journal, Jon’s reputation is firmly established. We’re fortunate that he writes and speaks about gay rights, but they are just part of a broader view of the role between government and the individual.
posted by John D on
Let me be blunt here: Jonathan Rauch is a pundit. He recently came to the defense of David Blankenhorn when Blankenhorn’s lack of credentials caused his position as an expert witness to be questioned. Expert? Expert at what? Mr. Rauch is a journalist. He may be bright. He may be a good writer. He is not a legal authority or a social scientist or a historian. To underscore BobN, if we must have people writing op-eds on LGBT issues, shouldn’t they have some qualifications? I suspect the gay Republicans scare the average reader less.
A while ago, Rauch co-wrote a New York Times piece on same-sex marriage in which they said that gay people should be fighting for civil unions. I think Governor Lingle rebuts that proposition. The opponents of same-sex marriage will always find anything that gives rights to same-sex couples to be “too close to marriage.”
I remember a piece in which Maggie Gallagher (Srivastav) outlined the sort of recognition for gay people that she’d be comfortable with. It gave no rights whatsoever, of course.
So if they’re going to say no, we might as well fight for what we need.
posted by Jimmy on
John D is right. The moment we compromise our principles, we become unprincipled.
posted by John Howard on
But Jimmy, the principle of full equality to man-woman marriages is not a good principle to shoot for, it’s just biologically too unethical, it doesn’t respect the biological reality that people can only ethically procreate with someone of the other sex. Claiming a right to procreate with someone of the same sex, just out of principle, is selfish and simplistic, it does great harm to thousands of same-sex couples that really have no interest in trying procreate together right now, but would really benefit from equal protections right now.
Why not wait until same-sex procreation is possible before demanding the right to try it?
posted by Jimmy on
John Howard –
What nut tree did you fall out of? Civil unions with no conception rights? This whole idea of “conception rights” is preposterous.
posted by Jorge on
Well, in his defense, I don’t think Maggie Gallagher is that much of an idiot.
I throw up my hands with the “absurd” commentary on this site, too. Anyway, someone needs to explain to me why I should care about this veto, because I don’t. No, seriously, we have a parade for several years of very influential Republicans being either squishy or supportive on civil unions, several states passing civil unions laws, and then suddenly we get a Sarah Palin revolution and now a few months later the governor of an infamously barely anti-gay state vetoes a civil unions law. Am I supposed to be impressed? I’m not. I mean, if the community makes a Prop8-type big rally issue over it, I’ll eat my words like a big hypocrite and join the inevitably ill-fated crusade, but if it doesn’t happen now I figure it’ll happen over something more important.
posted by BobN on
BobN, Jon hardly needs Maggie Gallagher for any claim to fame.
Fine, he may have an illustrious career out there, writing books about yada, yada, yada. For all I know, they may be brilliant books. In regard to GAY RIGHTS, however, he’s most known for his cow and pony show with Maggie and for writing op-eds wringing his hands about how we shouldn’t do this and we shouldn’t do that and how this isn’t going to work and how we have to go the
legislativereferendum route.He doesn’t live and breath gay rights and, when it comes to op-eds defending our rights against those who would take them away, he gets way more than his share. There’s a place for the naysayers and naggers. It isn’t on the front lines. And there’s a place for “conservative” gays, but you guys are the MINORITY of us AND FOR DAMNED GOOD REASONS (which are not about YOUR choices but about choices that “conservatism” made 30 years ago).
I’m not blaming him, I’m blaming the editors of these rags which seek to find “moderate” and “balancing” views — on OUR side of the debate — while exhibiting no such moderation on the opposing view.
posted by BobN on
Amicus,
Ergo, he could have take a public position
I agree with you completely. And I’ll add that he lied about fighting Prop 8. He promised his full support and barely uttered a peep about it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Maybe we do need more people like BobN out there.
After all, they were the ones running the anti-Proposition 8 campaign, whose screaming bigotry, obvious attacks on religious beliefs and people, and utter contempt for the voters of the state (“whether you like it or not!”) led to Proposition 8’s crushing victory.
Question: why do gay activists like BobN, who have failed every single time gay-sex marriage has come up for a vote, get to dictate ANY sort of policy? They are failures. They have a proven record of failure, state after state after state. They are fools whose only concern is using “gay rights” as an excuse for outright antireligious bigotry and pushing leftist causes, and voters know it.
posted by John Howard on
Jimmy, what do you mean by saying “This whole idea of “conception rights” is preposterous?”
Do you mean it is preposterous for people to claim a right to conceive with someone of their same sex? Or do you mean it’s preposterous that a married man and a woman have conception rights? My assertion is that people have a right to conceive using their own genes, with a consenting person of their choice using their own genes too, but that there are supportable basis to prohibit certain legal relationships from procreating together, which has always just meant prohibiting siblings, people married to some one else, children, but now we need to add people of the same sex, too. And none of those prohibited relationships are allowed to marry, because marriage always approves of the couple procreating together. Marriage IS conception rights, it is what is licensed by marriage and made legitimate.
posted by Jorge on
I’m not blaming him, I’m blaming the editors of these rags which seek to find “moderate” and “balancing” views — on OUR side of the debate — while exhibiting no such moderation on the opposing view.
I don’t read the New York Times, but they hardly have a reputation for being moderate on gay rights.
I do watch the O’Reilly Factor, and that show does both.
I agree with what North Dallas Thirty said. I keep waiting for rational liberal gays to be booked and to write op-eds, but the ones I see get tripped up on the obvious much too easily.
posted by Debrah on
“Jon hardly needs Maggie Gallagher for any claim to fame. Whether it’s his fine books like Kindly Inquisitors or Demosclerosis (with its new, more user-friendly title, Government’s End), or his uniformly well written and often quoted work at the National Journal, Jon’s reputation is firmly established.”
***************************
Very well-said.
Rauch’s work extends far beyond gay issues…..which gives him more power on the culture wars stage than any of his detractors.
This debate could be further along if Rauch’s style were a more prominent feature.
That said, even though David Link’s sensibilities are further to the Left and he writes with more emotion on these issues, he, too, presents elegant arguments.
posted by Jimmy on
“Jimmy, what do you mean by saying “This whole idea of “conception rights” is preposterous?”
I’m saying if you have a problem with the bio-engineering/cloning, etc, of humans, you need to work toward those legislative goals. But, the issue is independent of same sex marriage. An infertile opposite sex couple could pursue the same extra-ethical avenues as a same sex couple, so the make-up of the couple is irrelevant. Are we going to give conception rights only to fertile, opposite sex married couples? Will we know those people by the tattoo that they receive? Your agenda sounds like something out of a P.D. James novel.
posted by John Howard on
I do work toward those legislative goals, my proposed compromise is based on Congress prohibiting creating people by any means other than joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman.
Infertile couples are not prohibited from joining their genes together or attempting to join their genes to create offspring. Same-sex couples should be. Couples that are prohibited from conceiving children together have never ever been allowed to marry, because marriage ALWAYS approves of the couple conceiving children together.
No, we won’t give conception rights only to fertile couples, we will give them to all couples that are eligible to marry each other, like we always have done. That means, not siblings, not children, not people married to someone else, and we should add same-sex couples. But every couple that marries should feel the same state affirmation and approval of them creating offspring together, whether they are able to or not.
posted by Jimmy on
“Couples that are prohibited from conceiving children together have never ever been allowed to marry, because marriage ALWAYS approves of the couple conceiving children together.
I am sympathetic to the goal of not having human’s created from anything other than opposite sex gametes. I don’t feel same-sex couple seeking equal treatment, need to be your sacrificial lambs for your absolutism. The same rules apply to everyone with regard to the ethics surrounding fertility.
I am not convinced that there are that many couple who seek the type of reproduction you are so concerned about. Nominal at best, and irrelevant.
posted by Tom on
Jon Rauch misses an essential point: The battle is joined, and the battle is being fought over civil marriage equality, not civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Social conservatives, who are as adamantly opposed to civil unions and domestic partnerships as they are to civil marriage, have forced the Republican Party into a political position where Republican candidates must oppose any legal status for same-sex relationships — civil marriage, civil unions, full or limited domestic partnerships — even when the effort is quixotic, as it was when Governor Carcieri vetoed funeral arrangement legislation in Rhode Island that was certain to be overridden, makes them look foolish, as was the case with Governor Schwarzenegger’s many splendored and shifting reasons for vetoing civil marriage legislation, or puts them in the position of looking like grinches, as was the case with Governor Pawlenty’s veto of hospital visitation legislation in Minnesota.
At this point, gays and lesbians can count on Republican politicians to equate anything that grants any rights to gay and lesbian couples with marriage and cry “let the people decide”, which David correctly notes is “nothing more than an appeal to what prejudice against homosexuals still exists.” It is, more bluntly put, a raw appeal to bias.
Given that political reality, it seems to me that gays and lesbians should work for marriage, in the courts and in the legislatures, wherever a pathway is open, and the devil be damned. “Boil the frog” is no longer an option.
As to the question of “sweat equity”, I would suggest that gays and lesbians have been doing the work needed to change this country’s attitudes about equality for the last thirty years, and have been doing so successfully. We are winning the war, little by slowly, and will continue to do so in the face of heavy opposition. The key now, it seems to me, is to keep up the work we have been doing, and many levels and in many arenas, winning over the American people to our side, one person at a time.
posted by John Howard on
Jimmy, the Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights” would allow us to prohibit the few crazies from attempting same-sex procreation but also give same-sex couples the protections and benefits of marriage that they seek.
You seem to be on the side of allowing same-sex marriage but also prohibiting the couple from attempting to use their own genes to conceive, that is a terrible change to marriage and the rights of all married couples, it strips them of their conception rights and says the state may force married couples to use substitute or modified gametes. And doing that just to insist that same-sex couples have equal marriage rights, when they won’t even have them in about 35 states and won’t have recognition by the federal government, is PREPOSTEROUS! Give up on that equal rights fantasy, it is over.
posted by John Howard on
Tom, people are only opposed to Civil Unions that are substantially identical to marriage and give all the rights of marriage, AKA, are “marriage in all but name”. Not only are people opposed to them, but courts have ruled that they are not a Constitutional solution either. A large majority favors giving protections to same-sex couples, as long as they also preserve marriage. My proposal does that.
posted by Jimmy on
” Give up on that equal rights fantasy, it is over.”
Not bloody likely.
posted by John Howard on
Hawaii and Wisconsin could both enact my “marriage minus conception rights” Civil Unions literally today. The demand for equal marriage rights not only harms same-sex couples everywhere, but it harms marriage rights as well.
posted by John Howard on
No way are we going to allow same-sex couples to attempt to conceive children together, and no way are we going to strip conception rights from marriage. Equal rights for same-sex couples requires one or both of those. Sorry but the fanatasy is over, it was a eugenic conspiracy and it’s time to face reality. You are harming thousands of couples by clinging to a destructive and unethical demand.
posted by Tom on
Not in the real world of law and politics.
In terms of law, Wisconsin has a “nuclear option” anti-marriage amendment (Marriage. SECTION 13. [As created Nov. 2006] Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. [2003 J.R. 29, 2005 J.R. 30, vote Nov. 2006]) that precludes any legal status “substantially similar”. The “marriage minus conception rights” won’t pass constitutional muster.
In terms of politics, Republican politicians throughout the state are pledging to repeal Wisconsin’s very limited Domestic Partner law (hospital visitation, end-of-life decisions, inheritance) if elected, and Wisconsin Family Action is challenging the constitutionality of the law as a loss leader to whip up the “values voters” for the Republicans.
posted by John Howard on
Tom, not having the sine qua non right of all marriages throughout history to procreate children makes these CU’s substantially dissimilar. There is no more substantial right of marriage than the right to procreate offspring together. All other rights and benefits are merely incidental compared to the essential core right of being approved and allowed to conceive children together. So these CU’s absolutely, without question, pass their Constitutional muster.
And that political stuff is all in context of the push for full same-sex marriage equality. Things would be very different if same-sex marriage was stopped nationally and marriage was truly preserved permanently, the threat of incrementalism toward eventual gay marriage would be gone, the fundamentalists would have won, and I think they would be happy in light of that to be generous with Civil Unions. It’s their part of the compromise deal and if that’s what it takes to end SSM they’ll accept it.
posted by John D on
BobN,
While reading Rauch’s piece in the Times, I read a passage aloud to my husband, adding, “Rauch is a Heyekian conservative, in his view, ‘justice delayed is justice delayed.'”
Hubby responded, “so that’s the principle that the Civil Rights movement could have avoided ruffling any feathers, and by now African-Americans would almost have voting rights nearly everywhere.”
And that’s the problem with Rauch.
No, Mr. Rauch, justice delayed is justice denied.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’ve been having trouble connecting to IGF today, but here’s one of my posts to Gay Patriot
posted by Throbert McGee on
Another post I made on GayPatriot:
posted by Jorge on
…Hubby responded, “so that’s the principle that the Civil Rights movement could have avoided ruffling any feathers, and by now African-Americans would almost have voting rights nearly everywhere.”
With respect, because that is a good point, contrast Martin Luther King Jr. vs. Malcolm X. The line (or rather, a schism) was drawn somewhere, it wasn’t a very nice discusssion between gentlemen, and it had very powerful consequences.
posted by Jorge on
Rauch’s work extends far beyond gay issues…..which gives him more power on the culture wars stage than any of his detractors.
This debate could be further along if Rauch’s style were a more prominent feature.
That said, even though David Link’s sensibilities are further to the Left and he writes with more emotion on these issues, he, too, presents elegant arguments.
Hmm.
And this is why it is both useless and necessary to take sides. There’s too much blindness in this world, it’s endemic, and any feeble attempt to find out the truth will perish from one’s own stupidity.
posted by Debrah on
Jorge–
I’m not sure what point you’re making with the (8:50 PM).
Perhaps engaging in the Socratic method to prompt a debate?
Or simply contemplating the strange?
Moving on…….. with respect to the NYTimes article by Rauch.
I was relieved to see that he used the word “partner” to refer to his, well…..partner.
Like many gay men, he could have contaminated the proceedings with “husband” which even the most loony-to-the-Left hetero SSM proponent has trouble taking seriously.
Of course, in certain settings this word used among gay men would never evoke the slightest raised brow; however, it’s still over-the-top and out in the ozone and always will be for most people.
Does anyone not comprehend how quickly this harms a man’s credibility which drops like a bullet when he calls another man his “husband”?
With such an individual you’ve got a set of bizarre sensibilities with which to deal that will affect everything he touches—professionally and personally.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Debrah, out of curiosity — how does “Juan and I were husband and husband” fall on your ear?
(As compared with “Juan was my husband,” or “I was Juan’s husband.”)
What I’m trying to get at is, does “my husband” grate on the ears when you hear it from a man because it seems to be ripping off a heterosexual term, or because it suggests that the speaker considers himself a “wife”?
posted by John Howard on
Call yourselves whatever you want. Master, slave, lover, uncle, sister, whatever. You don’t actually have to be legally wed to call yourself married, nor do you have to legally or physically male to call yourself male, so what’s the problem? You could call yourself elephant gods, who cares?
posted by Debrah on
“What I’m trying to get at is, does ‘my husband’ grate on the ears when you hear it from a man because it seems to be ripping off a heterosexual term, or because it suggests that the speaker considers himself a ‘wife’?”
*********************************************
Throbert, nothing with regard to gay issues bothers me about heteros being “ripped off”.
I couldn’t care less along those lines.
I also have no idealized view of marriage and do not see it as some untouchable “sacred” union.
My view is that people should at least try to use accurate descriptions of the aspects of their lives.
Gays essentially use terms that are specifically hetero terms and demand that everyone pretend that those terms can be accurately transposed.
They cannot.
And to be very candid, IMO, a guy who says he’s another guy’s “husband” is very similar to a little smarmy and “dutiful” hetero woman/wife.
It’s just creepy.
Throbert, when I was a preschooler I’d stay at my grandparents’ house during the day. My grandfather had horses and some stables with a huge loft I’d get to with a ladder. There, amid the stacked bales of hay, I designed a “Diva playhouse” (LOL!).
Two kids lived nearby—Dicky (nice name, huh?) and Amanda.
They’d come over every day to play. Sometimes when we were in the “playhouse”, I’d get out a little tea set and make them “snacks” in the “kitchen”.
One day I decided to get serious with this playhouse schtick…..knowing that both Dicky and Amanda would do anything I told them to do— (Ex.) I’d exchange nickels for their dimes, telling them that nickels were bigger and were worth more and they believed it. (LOL!)
So one day I told them I was making a “breakfast” for them in the playhouse “kitchen” and that they must eat everything on the plate.
I then brought eggs from my grandmother’s fridge and stirred the raw eggs over the “stove”—mimicking what I’d seen the adults do—and poured the runny egg “breakfast” into bowls.
I told Dicky and Amanda—(we were all around the age of 5)—to eat it all!
And they did.
And then they both threw up.
Little Diva could slap the word “breakfast” on that culinary runny egg concoction whipped up in the playhouse loft of her grandfather’s stables…..all day long.
But it still would never be a real breakfast…….even if I could make two faithful and gullible followers fleetingly believe the contrary.
(And yes, I know this is a gross analogy, but it is very funny.)
You had to be there!
posted by John D on
First, a comment in defense of Schwarzenegger:
There was a brief mention in the Marriage Cases decision of the legislature’s attempt at an end run around Prop 22: the court said that it was invalid. Schwarzenegger, when vetoing the bill that would have provided marriage in California (on the idea that Prop 22 was in the section on recognizing out-of-state marriages), said that it was a violation of Prop 22. The court concurred as they struck down Prop 22.
Debrah (although that isn’t, of course, what I want to call you):
You don’t get to unilaterally decide how language gets used. Sorry. We’re using “husband” to mean “a married man.” That game is over. You cannot fight the tide of language change.
The only way you can win is if you get people to use another term. Got one? How do you describe “a man married to another man”? For the record, I know that Miss Manners welcomes the term “husband” in this usage.
Good luck, because a lot of people are already using “husband” to mean “a married man” and “wife” to mean “a married woman.”
There was a time when one meant “the owner of a house” and the other meant “woman.” Times change and so do words.
posted by Debrah on
“You don’t get to unilaterally decide how language gets used. We’re using ‘husband’ to mean ‘a married man.’ That game is over. You cannot fight the tide of language change.”
****************************************************
When arguing or debating someone…..or whatever…..it helps to comprehend the words being used.
Let me clarify: I don’t give a flying flip what you call another person.
Put a choke hold on him and call him anything you like.
Who personally gives a f**k? !!!
That said, you and no one else will ever make believe that the word “husband” used between two men isn’t hilarious on some level for many observers.
You and none of us get to demand anything.
You don’t get to demand that everyone keep quiet about their opinions.
And that’s one aspect which is often a loud feature of the “gay community”. You want to
will that others accept any little concoction you dream up to satisfy the Star Trek venture into a Vulcan rendition of “marriage”.
As I have said many times, I wouldn’t work against SSM. I don’t consider it significant enough of an issue.
And fundamentally, I don’t really care what other people do in their private lives; however, so many gays just cannot live without showing their posteriors and making the private, public.
What I will work against is any attempt to instruct how I should think and whether I find humor in something or not.
And if you think I’m alone in this……think again.
Imagine a male CEO of a Fortune 500 company holding a staff meeting and then making an off-the-cuff allusion to his “husband”.
No one would say anything or grimace or wince outwardly; however, even someone such as I who is literally known for having an avant garde take on life, would wish to G/d he hadn’t used that word with a straight face…….and then expect to switch back to his CEO mode without having engendered the rolling of eyes.
Even some SSM supporters find the term humorous, but no one is trying to tell you not to use the word.
Likewise, no one is going to tell me not to roll my eyes and sigh……”Oh G/d, please.”
Simply because it instantly feminizes a man……..in a world that is already filled with enough “pussies”.
posted by John D on
Debrah,
Of course you care. You’ve made it clear in your comments on this site that you find anal sex disgusting and most gay people contemptible.
If you truly had an avant garde take on life, you wouldn’t find the word “husband” risible, you’d be celebrating the bravery of out gay couples.
Avant garde? You are a hide-bound traditionalist.
posted by Jimmy on
“No one would say anything or grimace or wince outwardly; however, even someone such as I who is literally known for having an avant garde take on life, would wish to G/d he hadn’t used that word with a straight face…….and then expect to switch back to his CEO mode without having engendered the rolling of eyes.”
Depends on the man, and the company or organization.. If he is a CEO of any worth, his mantle of leadership wouldn’t be compromised by what he calls his SPOUSE. He’d effing see to it, lest there be any doubt. But then, if you are in the room, Debrah, it’s hard to say who could have a bigger set of brass balls to rest on the conference table for the purpose of establishing the pecking order.
posted by Debrah on
John D–
“You are a hide-bound traditionalist.”
**********************************************
Ha!
Some of my friends and acquaintances need to read that one. LOL!
I’m going to look over your ill-advised and ignorant remarks because I know that you are someone whose sexuality defines your identity.
I don’t find anyone “contemptible” except cowards and mendacious hangers-on who try to play a role inside the culture wars…….but when they are forced to come to terms with the realities of life which we all face……
………can’t even scratch their own posteriors with a hand-full of fish hooks.
But since you brought it up, I’d advise you to conduct a survey of people around the globe. Take a long and comprehensive hegira from the culture wars and find out how most people really feel about anal sex.
And I mean across the entire political and ideological spectrum.
Then get back to me.
IMHO, it’s the most prominent factor serving as an obstacle to SSM being more widely accepted.
But no one is stopping anyone from poop-shoot chasing!
Do as you wish.
“Avant garde” doesn’t translate into “unhygienic”. That’s the ignorant mistake only an ultra-Leftist would make.
One doesn’t have to cultivate an “anything goes” environment in order to be creative.
That way of life is for slobs with a very strong stomach.
Lastly, it’s a joke to even pretend that it takes “bravery” to be gay in our society.
Screaming it from the rooftops gives many their ever-aggrieved identity and the fantasy that the rest of society should be as enthralled as they.
Many gays like to play it both ways.
posted by Debrah on
“But then, if you are in the room, Debrah, it’s hard to say who could have a bigger set of brass balls to rest on the conference table for the purpose of establishing the pecking order.”
************************************************
Hilarious, Jimmy.
I need to make a copy of this one for future reference.
It would be a war if wills, no doubt.
LIS!
posted by Jimmy on
Deb-
I honestly thought you might like that one.
posted by John D on
Debrah,
Your obsession with anal sex and fecal matter is unhealthy. Personally, I consider your comments to be ignorant and ill-advised. You lack the merest drop of human kindness or empathy.
Fine, in your sad little world, the “brave” gay people are all afraid of sex and living deeply closeted lives.
Just remember that on any given day, there are more acts of heterosexual oral and anal sex than there are by gay people. Who’s the sodomite now?
posted by Debrah on
())))))))) YAWN ((((((((()
John, obfuscate and live inside your fantasy world.
Put a balm on it.
“Your obsession with anal sex and fecal matter is unhealthy.”
*************************************************************
Issuing repulsion for the practice is very healthy.
The billions this country’s taxpayers have paid because of this practice is an abominable reality.
With almost every gay man engaged in the practice, I’d say you’d know all about “obsession”.
You try to romanticize the brown stains.
There’s nothing remotely romantic about them.
And hoping to include a few disparate straights as an endorsement of the practice is hilarious.
My assessment is the same…..no matter……gay or straight.
But no one’s stopping you!
posted by John D on
Debrah,
I don’t think I’m living in a fantasy world.
But in all honesty, I’m wondering what world you want gay people to live in. Can’t say “husband.” Mustn’t do anal.
Let forth. If you were made Queen of All, what social structures would be available for gay people? What are the approved sexual practices?
And let me be honest: there are sexual practice that I find icky. That’s why I’d never engage in them. I understand that some people like them (and they will never be my sexual partners for that very reason). I’m not involved, so if they derive pleasure from doing…that… it’s their business, not mine.
Let’s hear it. I wouldn’t put a ban on any consensual adult sex (not the same to consenting to it myself). You clearly are carving anal sex off the menu for everyone. What’s Debrah’s world for gay men?
And you skipped over my earlier question: what’s the word to use for a member of a legal same-sex union. If it’s really good, I might use it myself.
posted by Debrah on
Very funny, John.
I’ll play along with your hypothetical.
1) Companion
2) Mate
3) Consort
4) Spousal unit (which is what a cousin of mine calls his wife). Ha!
5) For men, I like the word partner.
But, whatever.
Seriously, who wants to “ban” anything that other people do?
That’s quite a different concept than simply issuing an opinion.
I’m willing to bet that I’ve said a lot of things that members of your own family have felt but were afraid to say openly.
And I know I’ve said some things that many “tweens and millennials” feel who are supposed to be the salvation of SSM being the law of the land in the coming years.
The teens and twenty-somethings have been turned into the “great hope”……as if suddenly all human sensibilities evaporate.
Hardly.
SSM will likely become law sooner or later and I doubt many people are exercised about it, really.
I prefer civil unions because “marriage” by definition does not apply. It’s an inaccurate appellation.
” I’m wondering what world you want gay people to live in.”
*********************************************************
You ask this question in response to open distaste toward anal sex among gay men?
Well, I suppose we could all hope for more responsible and safer practices.
Practices that wouldn’t require a gross violation of the human elimination process.
But that’s not their inclination. The gay male porn grotesquerie is a testament to that.
And I certainly have no desire to “ban” anything that other people crave so openly.
But I reserve the right to throw up.
OK?
posted by John D on
Debrah,
I don’t think any of your word choices are better than “husband” and “wife,” used to mean “a married man” and “a married woman” respectively.
As for your regurgitory impulse over anal sex, you are, of course, free to disdain any sex act. I ask you only to do so in a non-discriminatory fashion. You should be aware that a substantial number of opposite-sex couples engage in anal sex. Try to keep breakfast down when you think of that, okay?