Yesterday’s defeat of a vote on the Defense Authorization bill – which included repeal of DADT among hundreds of thousands of other items – is instructive to those who criticize lesbians and gay men for going to the courts to overturn laws passed in the normal democratic process.
DADT, in its molasses-like demise, is subject to anything but a normal democratic process. To be fair, the entire lame duck session resembles ordinary democracy only in the sense that it is conducted by people who have been duly elected. But any semblance of process, due or otherwise, is lacking. Where else but in the United States Senate would the entire country take it for granted that a 57-40 vote in a 100-member body would be a defeat?
But the central point is more particular than mere complaints about the vagaries of Senate procedure. As Robert Caro discussed in comprehensive historical detail in Master of the Senate, the filibuster and cloture rules have been around to be abused since the very early days of the Senate, and some leaders, like Lyndon Johnson, were able to keep the bills running on time. Just because the rules are more abused now than at any time in history doesn’t make them any more unfair to anyone, including lesbians and gay men.
No, the singular problem for DADT, as for any law that alienates a specific minority, is how the accumulation of bad feelings about the minority garble and twist the discussion. Just this week, yet another respectable poll of the American people showed a solid 2/3 who not only support repeal of DADT, but would, themselves, vote for it if asked. Since 2005, the percentage of support has been at 60% or more.
But when Senator Harry Reid called for the premature, losing vote yesterday, his frustration was palpable. A senior Senate aide described the problem. While Reid and Senator Susan Collins had finally agreed to four days of debate, and an amendment process satisfactory to Collins, she was not the only relevant senator:
“It would have been much more than four days,” the aide says. “Her suggestions were flat out unworkable given how the Senate really operates. You can talk about four days until the cows come home. That has very little meaning for Coburn and DeMint and others who have become very skilled at grinding this place to a halt.”
The minority Republicans in the Senate were and are so obsessed with the problem of open homosexuals in the military, that they are not only willing to block a vote on funding for the nation’s entire military, they have done their part to hold it up until this late date even though the prejudice they believe they are protecting is on life support, not only among the voters, but even in the military, itself.
But Republicans are only part of the larger problem. I cannot speak to Reid’s actual concern about how the Senate’s proceedings would be gummed up, but it’s not really Harry Reid’s rights that are at stake here. The inconveniences of a leader and his institution are problems of an entirely different species from the problems faced by a woman who is afraid to tell her friends in the military who they should contact if she is killed in fighting.
Would it really have been so bad for the Senate to call the GOP’s bluff on this? The prospect of Senate Republicans pontificating on gays in the military for four days or more is a soul-chilling prospect, but maybe that’s what the nation needs. They have no new substantive arguments to make — they never really had any to begin with. Their rearguard action on this lost cause might just need its Waterloo, to finish it off once and for all.
Neither Reid nor Obama nor Collins nor anyone else in the Senate has any personal stake in this fight. Their speeches are speeches, not the real life conflicts that lesbians and gay men have to confront every hour and every day. It is the heterosexual Senate’s luxury to be able to put off equality until a more convenient time.
We suffer that luxury. But it is not our only choice. The courts exist in general, and the equal protection clause exists in particular, precisely because majorities don’t have a personal interest in a minority’s disabilities under the law. Some members of the majority may have the principles of a Joe Lieberman or a Patrick Murphy, but they can also cater to the distortions of prejudice, even when that status quo is dying. Majorities can even sometimes sacrifice their own interests (such as a defense authorization bill) because of their perverted views.
Perhaps Reid knows what he is doing. I still think this can get done. But yesterday’s political convolutions are a compelling argument for courts to have the final say on some issues.
46 Comments for “Tied to the Tracks”
posted by BobN on
Just because the rules are more abused now than at any time in history doesn’t make them any more unfair to anyone, including lesbians and gay men.
Sure it does. Even at the height of the ANTI-civil rights fight in the 60s, conservatives (who used to live in both parties at the time, with many of the most racist on the D side of the aisle) did not have the temerity to abuse the rules of the Senate the way the present minority does. You can look back and find cases of a small handful of senators and other politicians pulling the same tricks, making the same arguments about the courts, about constitutional amendments, etc. The difference is that they were seen as rogues and dismissed as rogues. Respect for the institutions — a traditionally conservative characteristic — prevented their stunts from being taken seriously.
Those days are not only gone, they’re stomped on and burned to a crisp.
As for Harry Reid. He, more than anyone, knows the shenanigans the GOP caucus has been up to. He is absolutely right to fight them. I’m disappointed that you don’t see the mischief possible in a last-minute amendment process.
posted by BobN on
A note to the admin. I’ve noticed that the list of “recent posts” updates only every once in a while. I chalked that up to less-than-real-time querying of the database. But the last couple days, I’ve also noticed that the posts are post-dated by many hours. My previous post, ^ up there, says 9:07 PM. It was posted more like 4PM.
Something’s wrong with your server settings. (Or is it GMT?)
posted by Bill on
Great essay, David.
I have held, for years, the most unpopular belief that LGBT citizens should ONLY be looking to the courts for vindication. It is the only avenue left available to us.
Not to mention, that IS what the courts exist for.
I say it is high time for LGBT groups to start filing law suits in every single state of this nation.
It would certainly be a better investment that defending ourselves against referendums we have no way of winning. Not to mention that referendums on a citizen’s rights are highly unconstitutional.
Thanks again, David. I like your take on this.
posted by Al Johnson on
Dear Sir:
You haven’t the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
I am a decorated combat veteran from Viet Nam and I personally can guarantee that the combat troops choose not to have homosexuals in the military. Polls also show that the combat troops do want homosexuals in the same unit.
The military combat troops are opposed to changing DADT, as you refer to it, by a large majority.
The proper question to ask is: Do you want homosexuals serving next to you in combat. The resounding answer will be NO.
I and my peers are strictly against homosexuals in the military and, and if polled certainly would not like to share a foxhole or cockpit with a homsexual.
The military is not a social club.
posted by Doug on
You are certainly correct that the military is not a social club. You are required to follow orders from your commanding officers. If you don’t like homosexuals in the military you don’t have to sign up or your can resign. Harry Truman didn’t put the question of African Americans in the military to a vote he ordered it done. Period. End of discussion. This is the way homosexuals in the military should be handled.
posted by BobN on
The recommendations in the Pentagon report make it quite clear that objecting to homosexuals in the military will not be grounds for resignation.
posted by BobN on
I have a theory that veterans who served for a long time and were never aware that they were serving with gay people were either so openly homophobic that the gay people around them clammed up or they just weren’t that bright.
posted by win on
The report itself says much the same about combat troops, they feel much more uncomfortable with the openly gay in military concept then the military overall.
Perhaps at least the change should be phased in as new troops signon for the combat troops at least. Agreed that military troops do not have an option because they are supposed to do as they are told, the change coming after they sign up is what I have a problem with.
posted by BobN on
Well, if your concern is for unexpected developments, maybe you should lobby for a get-out-of-the-military-if-someone-declares-war option.
posted by Nunja Business on
Hey Al,
I am a veteran of the US Army, am gay, and know many gay service members both in combat and support roles during our times of conflict. Shame on you, your ignorance and bigotry, and general assininity regarding the slow death of DADT.
What precisely do you FEAR from capable, honorable, combat proven troops serving alongside their “straight” brothers and sisters. Welcome to a minority, those 33 percenters who will go down with the DADT ship when it finally succumbs to reason, logic, and ever-growing awareness that homosexuals should be afforded ALL the rights, duties, and obligations of citizenship that are conferred by our Constitution.
To Mr. Link, thank you for an insightful analysis of the current fiasco by both Democrats and Republicans in their shameless ineptitude and spinelessness in once and for all breaking the back of DADT and its supporters.
On to victory, whether it be the legislative or judicial branch!!! We will NEVER SURRENDER:-)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Your overly casual (and very PC) use of “and sisters” in the same sentence as “combat troops” makes me question how well acquainted you actually are with the latter. The question of having women in combat units is, if anything, a much hotter hot-button than openly-gay men.
And the “in your face, homophobes!” approach may sell well on an expressly LGBT blog where most people are predisposed to cheerlead for you; at best, it would earn you some derisive snickering on a lot of milblogs, if not outright contempt. (And you will be expected to back up that “I’m a veteran” opening.)
posted by BobN on
Your overly casual (and very PC) use of “and sisters” in the same sentence as “combat troops” makes me question how well acquainted you actually are with the latter
You haven’t been paying attention. Who to you think is delivering supplies and ammunition to front-line combat troops?
Do you think the 80+ women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 300+ who have been injured were sitting at their desks when they were hit?
posted by Throbert McGee on
“Serving in war zones and in harm’s way” and “serving in combat units” aren’t synonymous, BobN.
posted by Jorge on
Or too much attention.
“Combat proven troops serving alongside their straight brothers and sisters” is vague enough that it could just be either bad sentence construction or a statement that (like BobN said, duh) women serve alongside combat troops. Mr. Business adequately covered himself by noting he has met people in support and combat roles. But you are too eager to impeach. Leave it alone.
posted by BobN on
“Serving in war zones and in harm’s way” and “serving in combat units” aren’t synonymous, BobN.
Never said they were. I was just pointing out that front-line combat troops do come in pretty frequent contact with “sisters”. I doubt they think it’s “PC” to respect their service.
posted by Nunja Business on
Throwback McGee,
Time to get over it, you obviously have been paying very little attention to our recent engagements in Iraq and Af/Pak if you are that ignorant of the nature of combat service in today’s Armed Forces. Yes, there are specific MOS’s within which women may not serve, however the daily reality is that they also make the ultimate sacrifice in service to country.
Who really is the despicable, name-calling wannabee when it comes to being PC. Your entire post is an ad-hominem attack, questioning how I say my truth, rather than the truth of what I say.
Stop with the trollishness, I need no cheerleaders, unlike yourself, to validate what I have experienced in the US Army. As for having to back up the fact of my service to a dweeb like you is sincerely beneath my dignity.
posted by Bucky on
Dear Mr. Johnson:
I appreciate that you think your military service during the Vietnam War, which ended 35 years ago, gives you special insight into the thoughts of current military troops.
Unfortunately, the recent and unprecedented military survey on the issue contradicts your thoughts on the subject.
And for the record, I imagine that if polled, homosexuals would certainly not like to share a foxhole or cockpit with you either.
posted by Jorge on
As Robert Caro discussed in comprehensive historical detail in Master of the Senate, the filibuster and cloture rules have been around to be abused since the very early days of the Senate, and some leaders, like Lyndon Johnson, were able to keep the bills running on time.
I’ve been saying this for quite a while now, yet people still seem content to blame everyone but Obama. The DADT study was due December 1. That post-Election Day due date doomed the bill.
Anyway, I reeeally don’t want a situation where repeal passes but Congress can’t come to a deal on taxes and the other economic things, and everyone’s taxes wind up going up. This is a lame duck session for crying out loud. Get incoming Majority Leader Boehner on board or into neutrality. (Hmm… the cost will be very high and it’s not one I can see Obama or congressional Democrats willing to pay.) Talk more about the implementation of a repeal so that it’s no longer just an ideological issue.
The proper question to ask is: Do you want homosexuals serving next to you in combat. The resounding answer will be NO.
That question has been asked and answered in the affirmative, no matter what John McCain thinks. It’s not about sharing foxholes. It’s about sharing showers and barrackses. And military chaplains (oops!). Our esteemed military leaders and sub-leaders are prepared to implement rational plans to smooth things over. The real question is, will it actually work?
I and my peers are strictly against homosexuals in the military
You and your peers are not serving in combat.
posted by BobN on
That post-Election Day due date doomed the bill.
Yes and no. Under normal circumstances the timing would have worked in our favor, allowing cool heads to prevail and giving conservative Dems and moderate Republicans a “safe space” to vote their consciences. There’s no way the President could have predicted how messed up the Senate would be by this point.
Also, I can’t see how an report issued earlier would have been to our advantage. You might argue that the American people would have been turned off by the anti-gay rants from GOP conservatives. I’m not sure that’s true. The fight might have energized the liberal base, but not without also energizing the anti-gay social conservatives, and there are more of them than there are of us.
posted by win on
I think you overestimate the sentiments in the GOP of gays not being able to serve openly in the military. It is more a matter of degree of caution then whether they will support repealing DADT or not. Republicans tend to have more internal conflict to resolve on the issue then most Democrats.
First Republicans tend to consider the view of the combat troops more, and the fact is that there seems to be some very real concern with the combat troops about changing the policy right now or without considering living arrangement changes in the field.
Everyone has civil rights, including the combat troops, and their concerns are just as legitimate as the concerns of gay members of the military. I doubt very much if gay members of the military want DADT repealed to the detriment of the combat troops, especially those that are a member of the combat troops. It is more imporant that it be done right then be done quickly.
I do not see the Supreme Court making a decision to overturn DADT without giving the military time to implement changes in a careful and cautious way, nor do I believe that Congress should do so.
Another words, I believe the issue is more how it should be acheived in Congress and when, then if it will be acheived, and that applies to Republicans and Democrats both.
posted by Doug on
The military is not run as a democracy. They are given orders. As for Republicans considering the views of combat troops take a look back at how the Republicans used the National Guard and Reserves to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t recall the Republicans considering the views of those combat troops who never signed up for that duty.
The military is given orders and they follow them. Just ask Harry Truman.
posted by BobN on
Your argument utterly ignores what “repeal” really is. Congress is being asked by the Commander in Chief and by the Secretary of Defense and by the Joint Chiefs to repeal Congress’ interference in military policy. A vote to repeal is not, in and of itself, a reversal of the policy of excluding gay people. It’s a vote to get their nose out of the military’s business.
And where is the “caution” in forbidding the military to come up with its own solutions, even incremental ones?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Again, BobN, no.
“DADT” is a colloquial name for Title 10, Sec. 654 of the United States Code. Title 10 in its entirety deals with the armed forces, their structure, and their regulation, and it was ALL written and authorized by the civilian Congress — thus, § 654, which addresses the ineligibility of homosexuals to serve, is not some anomalous case of “Congressional interference.”
“Repeal of DADT” will not mean that § 654 is simply stricken from Title 10; it will mean that the current language of § 654 is replaced with different language — again, written by Congress. Currently, the proposed new language for § 654 would broadly prohibit the military from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but — and this is a BIG BUTT — this may not be the actual language that will appear in the final, Congressionally authorized revision of § 654, whenever this eventually happens. For example, some legislators will likely argue for compromise language that makes it more difficult for the military to discriminate based on sexual orientation, without broadly prohibiting such discrimination.
posted by BobN on
Again, BobN, no.
And then you go on to show that, yes, the current bill, the one the GOP is holding up in the Senate, does not, itself, impose any new rules on the military, but only removes Congress’ block on gay people, giving the authority to the President, the Secretary, and the Joint Chiefs to proceed with military-devised policies and only does that once those authorities have certified their position that the ban can end with no substantial harm to the military.
Subsequent rule changes at the military level need not all be written into congressional law. Some changes in the law will be required, and Congress will vote on some language in future at the request and suggestion of the military.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Well, I concede to you on that, if we’re talking strictly about the provision that was attached to the Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 — i.e., the attempt that just recently failed. It would have only repealed Sec. 654, without adding anti-discrimination language.
posted by Carl on
“I think you overestimate the sentiments in the GOP of gays not being able to serve openly in the military. It is more a matter of degree of caution then whether they will support repealing DADT or not. Republicans tend to have more internal conflict to resolve on the issue then most Democrats.”
I don’t see the internal conflict within Congressional Republicans. Only a handful in the Senate support repeal. Others either oppose quietly or do so very vocally. It’s probably even more lopsided in the House.
The GOP base probably does not want repeal, and since more and more of the elected officials either are from the base or beholden to them, that means that opinion is the majority opinion. Even if combat troops supported repeal, another reason will be found. There will always be one reason or another given. And the media and the Democrats will always give way.
posted by Jorge on
BobN, I think you underestimate the effects of the Republicans gaining in the House and Senate on the current lame duck Senate.
And I think a protracted fight would have been, and still would be a net plus in our favor. It’s not just that the study should be energizing, it should be deflating to the opposition.
Another words, I believe the issue is more how it should be acheived in Congress and when, then if it will be acheived, and that applies to Republicans and Democrats both.
Why Congress? Why not pass the current compromise bill that requires the President and the Joint Chiefs of staff to affirm that repealing DADT will not harm the military?
posted by BobN on
BobN, I think you underestimate the effects of the Republicans gaining in the House and Senate on the current lame duck Senate.
The only “effect” of the takeover I’ve seen so far is another $1,000,000,000,000 in debt, another gift to the American people by the “fiscally conservative” party.
And I think a protracted fight would have been, and still would be a net plus in our favor. It’s not just that the study should be energizing, it should be deflating to the opposition.
I don’t think you understand my objection to “reasonable debate and amendment”. With an open process on the entire defense bill, which is what is being fought for by the GOP minority, I don’t think they would have spent much time on the DADT bit at all. They might have allocated one or two of their possible amendments to stymieing the actual repeal — no gay combat troops for example — but most of the process would have been directed at other GOP goals, like re-restricting access to abortion at military hospitals, etc. The goal of those amendments would be to further tear apart the Dem base and/or stoke up the GOP base. They would probably, of course, try to restore some ridiculously expensive weapons system, too.
posted by Jorge on
The only “effect” of the takeover I’ve seen so far is another $1,000,000,000,000 in debt, another gift to the American people by the “fiscally conservative” party.
Funny. Could you do the math for me: are you talking about extending the Bush tax cuts or their agreement(?) to extend unemployment benefits?
Tax cuts is bread and butter fiscal conservatism, as you well know.
With an open process on the entire defense bill, which is what is being fought for by the GOP minority, I don’t think they would have spent much time on the DADT bit at all.
Oh.
But… that’s how it works! 😀
Okay, smarty Senators, craft that bill separately if you must.
posted by BobN on
Could you do the math for me
There was a chart of the “compromise” that showed how it breaks down. The point of the article talking about the chart was that Obama scored big and that the 2% tax cut portion was actually less than half of the total. Hence, the Tea Party folks and others who ran on the debt should be pissed. Personally, I haven’t made up my mind what to think. I wasn’t aware that “we” were after more stimulus, though I think more is in order. I thought it was off the table. Period! And if we are going to have more stimulus, preserving middle-class tax cuts and reducing middle-class and lower-class taxes with the Social Security drop don’t strike me as the kind of stimulus we should go after. And I especially don’t think much of continuing the Bush tax cuts on the top tier, even though I would benefit from that cut.
It’s all a mess and it’s all based on dishonest campaigning and broken principles, especially on the GOP side (campaigning-wise). Check back with me in a month and I’ll tell you if I’m still as disillusioned with politics as I am right this minute.
But… that’s how it works!
No, actually, it’s never worked that way. This bill is almost a year old and has gone through all the necessary steps before. What we are seeing now is unprecedented and bad for the Senate and bad for the country.
posted by Jorge on
Let’s see…… I suppose I don’t care what plan passes, as long as I have some assurance that it will work. I would like a plan to pass, though, and I think the Republicans have it right. Someone asked me about that unemployment insurance deal. I don’t know. There are problems with unemployment insurance in principle, but it’s not the big fish.
Any remaining objectivity I might have had on the subject flew right out the window after watching the video of Bill Clinton’s press conference the other day. He says we have new battery plants for manufacturing, we can talk to small banks to find out what they need, and that we can figure out what to do based on what happened in Hong Kong and Japan. You know, I love Bush, but I wish we had that kind of attention to detail before in Iraq and Afghanistan (I do think we have it now between Gates and Petraeus).
posted by Jorge on
Let me take that back.
When I say a protracted fight, I mean I want hearings I want protests. I want pressure put on Congress to explain why they won’t support it. Let them be asked to defend themselves on television.
Am I naive?
posted by Doug on
Jorge, unfortunately you are a bit naive. Congress doesn’t have to explain anything they don’t like for whatever reason. When you push them they just move the goalposts like McCain did no matter how foolish it makes them look.
posted by Jorge on
What you really mean to say is, we’re not going to hold them accountable.
posted by Doug on
It’s hard to hold them accountable when elections are just a collection of 30 second sound bites engineered by votes on issues that are only intended to embarrass the opposition and outright lies about people and positions. Further, they are all, left, right and center, bought and paid for by special interests with enough money to drowned serious voices.
posted by Bucky on
It isn’t that we won’t hold them accountable, Jorge. Although that does play a part. The problem is more that we can’t hold them accountable.
Our system is broken. When a few thousand voters in Wyoming can elect a senator that can thwart the will of a few hundred million people, then you have to understand that there are systemic problems that prevent accountability.
posted by Jorge on
That’s more than ridiculous. The Senate is made of 100 people all elected at large.
posted by Doug on
Jorge, senators may be elected at large but any 1 senator can put a hold on any bill and keep it from coming to the floor and the minority party can filibuster and require 60 votes to break the filibuster.
posted by Bucky on
Jorge, Jorge, Jorge.
Let me try to explain a few things to you. Basic US Civics 101.
The Senate is indeed made up of 100 people (old white men mostly), but they are not elected “at large” from the entire country. They are in fact elected from a particular state. Two per state. The votes of each state carries the same weight in the Senate. Senators are usually, but not always, elected by a majority vote of all voters in a state.
The problem is that the Senate is a throwback to our plutocratic origins when only white (wealthy) landowners were allowed to vote. And back then the number of landowners/voters was fairly evenly distributed among the various states.
Not so today. Wyoming, with a population of just 540,000 has the same two votes in the Senate as California with population of 37 million.
And given the way the Senate is currently structured, as Doug points out any one senator can basically bring the business of congress to a screeching halt.
So a state like Wyoming, with less than 0.2 percent of the US population, can hold the country hostage to the ignorant, hateful ideas of a small minority of the people.
This is no longer a country of “we the people.”
posted by Jorge on
Bucky, Bucky, Bucky.
You should know, I have a fairly high rate of 4.0s in 101 courses.
The Senate is indeed made up of 100 people (old white men mostly), but they are not elected “at large” from the entire country. They are in fact elected from a particular state.
Really? All 100 Senators are elected from a single state? I thought each and every state had 2 Senators each.
And given the way the Senate is currently structured, as Doug points out any one senator can basically bring the business of congress to a screeching halt.
Wait, so if any one senator can exercise a veto over what the Senate does, how were the Democrats able to get Health Care Reform through if so many senators opposed it? So much for the power of one senator!
Here, let me introduce you to Political Science 101.
Which says that the Senate and the Presidency both tend to act to keep the country toward the center during periods when one party is predominant. With the cloiture rule, an unlikely supermajority of Senators is needed to pass major reform legislation without at least some opposition support. Thus the minority remains fairly powerful, as we saw during most of the past year or so. With the presidential veto, you need an even larger supermajority, 2/3 of both houses of Congress, for the ascendant party to pass something the minority party president opposes.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Of course you’re right that I was probably over-analyzing and reading Nunja Business‘s words too literally.
Nonetheless, if he wishes to make headway among the combat troops who still need to be persuaded, he would do well to tailor his words more carefully.
posted by Nunja Business on
Aha,
Cat’s out of the bag….. so now I need to choose my words more carefully, the ultimate statement from a PC Hag. I knew you had it in you Throwback. If you don’t like someone’s argumentation just say it. Don’t hide behind walls questioning others service to country.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, given how much the gay and lesbian community lies about serving in the military, one should do exactly that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Especially with so many examples of doing so.
And now that we have the gay and lesbian community in the form of Glenn Greenwald shrieking about how evil and homophobic it is for the mean old Army to imprison Bradley Manning for leaking secrets, we can really see just what the gay and lesbian community considers ideal conduct for a soldier.
What a surprise. Our combat troops don’t want to serve with liars and traitors, nor do they want to see the quotas, double standards for behavior, and the like that the gay and lesbian community is demanding.
posted by Nunja Business on
ND30, people like you are the liars and obfuscators, and now that you and your ilk have lost this particular civil rights issue, you have nothing left but hollow rhetoric and simpering whining. Grow up and stop your feebishness. This is a joyous occasion not only for most homosexuals, but the super majority of Americans who believe this is way past due. Stop your shrieking, move on to another front in the gay civil rights movement, where we can demonstrate how to give you another ass-kicking.
See, I don’t need to select my words more carefully, because I have no interest in attempting to change your ignorant and hate-filled mind. You just got served by the fighters for equality. We will not stop, we will never surrender, we will win the ultimate struggle for our full inclusion in this great Democratic Republic.
posted by Jimmy on
If he is a man who prefers to have sex with other men (old school homosexual), he believes this predilection to be shameful, sick, and criminal, placing it on equal footing with bestiality and child molestation; and of course, such people are not fit to be deemed socially equal to heterosexuals, much less socially acceptable. He’s a modern-day Roy Cohn.