J. Bryan Lowder continues his very strong defense of the attacks on Mozilla’s Brendan Eich, and anyone else who publicly supports laws that exclude same-sex couples from marriage. Lowder seems to accept that he will now be known as the person who wishes equality opponents would “simply shut up.”
He embarrassingly overargues his case, complaining that the trauma of having grown up homosexual in an anti-gay world justifies a little gloating about our still-emerging victory in the culture. Even equality supporters like Conor Friedersdorf whose treachery is a willingness to tolerate anti-equality advocates misunderstand the agony we endure, since we have been “…sexually and emotionally traumatized since childhood.”
But there is much more at stake here than the melodramatic ravings same-sex marriage seems to inspire on both sides.
I think Lowder would agree that it is bad when government uses its power to take sides in a public debate. It is abhorrent that Russia and Uganda have declared speech in favor of homosexual liberty off-limits. There is no proud history of government efforts to police the speech of citizens. That is true whether you think the government is enforcing the right side of the debate or not.
Religions, too, have sinned savagely throughout history in prosecuting heresy.
The question today is whether majorities can fare any better in crusading against propaganda we do not like, or civil heresy. I think not.
The First Amendment’s protection of speech applies to the government, but its wisdom goes deeper. In any culture where individual liberty is central, opinion cannot be chaperoned. People will believe what they believe.
Should we and our allies try to do to our opponents what they so successfully did to us for centuries: silence them? Punish them? I think the logic of the First Amendment counsels against that.
An opinion suppressed is an opinion inflamed. As a matter of politics, it is best to allow the expression of opinions, disagreeable and even terrible ones. As long as people do not act on their worst opinions (something government can appropriately respond to), the airing of grievances is healthy.
Which is not to say it is comfortable. Lowder is offended that, despite majority support for our equality, the lives of lesbians and gay men are still subject to extraordinary, invasive scrutiny; and that is offensive. But more offensive is the self-righteousness that would not just argue against offensiveness, but punish its expression. It is unfortunate that we have to live in the same country and community with discourteous and boorish people, but the alternative of banishment or enforced correction of their error is worse.
41 Comments for “Bad for the Goose”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Should we and our allies try to do to our opponents what they so successfully did to us for centuries: silence them? Punish them? I think the logic of the First Amendment counsels against that.
Of course we should not silence our opponents. But I don’t think that I should try to silence gays and lesbians (and/or straight allies) who believe differently that I do. Freedom cuts both ways, David.
posted by Kosh III on
The Teapublican legislature in our hyper conservative paradise has weighted in on the public debate here–on the wrong side as usual.
I shan’t hold my breath waiting for condemnation from LCR or others on the Right.
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HJR0839.pdf
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
@ Tom Scharbach – “freedom cuts both ways, David.” Exactly.
Why are only the opponents of equality given the pass to express their views? Apparently employees shouldn’t voice their concerns about working for a CEO who wants to deny and rescind their civil rights.
Nor should the Mozilla application developers who initiated the boycott speak up re: their own business. Neither David nor Stephen has mentioned how much risk this married couple assumed to stand up for something they believed in, personally and professionally.
And, as you’ve noted previously Tom, the implication is that somehow gays operate from a hive mentality. And we should know better than to upset the grown-ups, or something like that…
It’s such a strange meme coming from these guys (Link, Miller, Andrew Sullivan, etc…).
posted by Mike in Houston on
@Aubrey —
Because expression of anti-equality views (including boycotts, calling for resignations, etc.) is the righteous use of the free market in order to preserve morality, marriage, family, and the American way. LGBT (and other equality-minded people) who do the same thing are homofacist thugs bent on intimidation, intolerance, bullying, economic terrorism, a stifling of religious liberty, and an attempt to deny the freedom of speech.
Hope that clarifies things.
posted by Houndentenor on
If it had come out that he donated to racist, anti-Semitic or misogynistic organizations or causes he’d have been out immediately and we wouldn’t even be discussing whether or not that would be okay. No one would be arguing that someone who publicly fought against civil rights would be fair to minority employees. The very idea would be absurd. And yet I’ve been told (even by other gay people) that he could be fair to gay employees even though he opposes gay rights. That’s ridiculous.
My only regret in this is that it’s allowed yet another round of anti-gay victimization. “Poor us. The homofascists (they actually use that term) are out to get us and silence us.” Remember when we were too weak and pathetic to serve in the military? Now we’re jack-booted thugs who crush our enemies without mercy? Sounds like someone’s been look at too many Tom of Finland anthologies! (Pete LaBarbera and Brian Brown…I’m looking at you!)
posted by Don on
I do not support the hounding of Eich. I would not have joined in. But I think there has been a lack of perspective on the part of the evangelicals. To sit quietly and let our equality unfold, to refrain from demonization of opponents, after decades of being demonized, is a bit much.
What is being asked of us is Gandhi’s approach to Britain. It is a request for a generally atheist crowd to be more Christian than their Christian aggressors were to them. It is to forgive decades of “no holds barred” oppression, harassment, and intimidation the moment the tide has turned. All the while the Christian aggressors are doubling down on vicious rhetoric in the meantime. Ask Matt Barber if he thinks there should be a truce.
Yes, I support taking the Gandhi-esque road. It is the one I plan to walk myself. But calls for civility need to acknowledge this true breadth of the situation. They did not try to silence us for centuries. They burned us alive or beat us and left us for dead. Our own families cast us out. We were hounded out of employment. And brutally attacked by strangers in the streets with no warning. And all of this has happened in my lifetime. I’m not talking about 500 year old crimes. I am talking about present day wounds to people committed by people who are alive today.
I think a bit more perspective needs to be put into the debate. Under the circumstances, I believe Eich has not suffered anything like the fate of even the most fortunate of gay victims has suffered. Let’s try to keep the entire picture in mind when calling for civility.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It is to forgive decades of “no holds barred” oppression, harassment, and intimidation the moment the tide has turned.
Forgiveness normally follows acknowledgement of fault, repentance and atonement, although is a is a precondition. It may be unfair to conservative Christians, but I would be surprised if conservative Christians ever own up to their deeds, let alone repent and/or atone for the wickedness of their hyperbolic, untruthful and vicious assault on gays and lesbians during the last few decades. I think that it is also fair to note that the social conservative attack on gays and lesbians continues unabated.
While conservative Christians may well be afraid that gays and lesbians will do unto them as they have done unto gays and lesbians, and for good reason, I won’t participate. But I will be damned if I will cooperate with our oppressors in silencing gays and lesbians who think otherwise. We’ve been silenced long enough.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A note: The first sentence should read “Forgiveness normally follows acknowledgement of fault, repentance and atonement, although none is a is a precondition.”
posted by Houndentenor on
I have to object to your characterization of us as a “mostly atheistic crowd”. According to Pew Research about 50% of LBGT people state that they have no religious preference, but only 17% of those describe themselves as atheist/agnostic. (see: p. 94)
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/06/SDT_LGBT-Americans_06-2013.pdf
Your point about being asked to take in on the chin by people whose religion tells them to “turn the other cheek” is bizarre, but then anyone who deals with the religious right knows what hypocrites the vast majority of that crowd really are.
posted by Don on
I take your point. It was a broad generalization. Probably went too far with it.
posted by Jorge on
This is highly relieving.
I’m both a good Catholic and a good gay guy. Wait, maybe it’s the opposte?
“Religiously affiliated LGBT adults are somewhat less supportive of same-sex marriage than those who are religiously unaffiliated.”
Holy moley, busted! Wait, I do “strongly favor” it. I’m just a hardass on how it’s done.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
No one tried to “silence” anyone. People from various walks of life (contractor, customers, employees, vendors, etc.) stood up and voiced their disapproval of a business appointment that, for many of the above, directly affected them.
But somehow they’re in the wrong for doing so.
The ones who seem intent on silencing people are these apologists for Eich – such as Link, Miller, Sullivan. And they’re doing it with accusations and name-calling that outdo anything the critics of Eich managed.
posted by Lori Heine on
I am also very interested in exactly what those who lump us all together in one mind-meld propose we do about it. It’s fascinating to watch so-called conservatives morph into collectivists whenever it suits the right-wing party line.
What, pray tell, are we to do to bring into line those who call for scalps? Unless some of us have magical powers, I have no idea. Anytime anyone tells me that they favor punishment of anti-equality opinions via firings and the like, I always tell them I oppose that approach.
If I can’t change their minds, should I tie them up and hypnotize them? What, precisely, is the point of all the preaching, directed at us, about this supposedly-gargantuan problem?
I won’t hold my breath for a post here proposing an answer, because I don’t think the bloggers have one.
posted by AG on
“What, pray tell, are we to do to bring into line those who call for scalps?”
Denounce their McCarthyism, perhaps?
posted by Lori Heine on
And if we are already doing that, then…what else?
Surely you aren’t such a dewy-eyed babe in the woods that you don’t recognize when a meme is being crafted. It doesn’t matter what we say, or how loudly or insistently we say it. It is simply more useful for the social right to ignore every LGBT person who does NOT call for scalps.
McCarthism my butt. Wake up.
posted by AG on
“And if we are already doing that, then…what else?”
Sorry, I haven’t noticed. Maybe you were too quiet. In most forums, including this one, where these issues are discussed most gays/progressives/”liberals” are firmly on the side of crushing anyone who disagrees with them about gay marriage or don’t want to take pictures of their wedding. They are bigots and their lives have to be destroyed.
The totalitarian faction of the gay marriage supporters is now the public face of the movement. Don’t blame the social right for the ugliness inherent to the left.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
“The totalitarian faction of the gay marriage supporters is now the public face of the movement…”
No, I would disagree. Just because the usual suspects (NOM, etc..) invoke their national, organized boycott of Mozilla, World Vision, Honey Maid, etc… – while screaming about gay oppression – doesn’t make it so.
Who is this “totalitarian faction”? What lgbt organization spoke out against Eich’s hiring? What lgbt organization invoked a national boycott?
No. Two application developers – married and running a 2-man business together – spoke out against Eich’s appointment. Then they met with Eich. Then actually released a statement stating they were happy with Mozilla’s response and were ending their personal boycott. Before Eich’s resignation.
You guys can yell about oppression all you want. But absent facts all you have is the yelling.
All I hear is a desperate attempt by the right to grab ahold of something that might upset the momentum towards equality that even NOM is feeling.
@ A.G. – please provide the comments that show where on this site anyone has advocated “crushing anyone who disagrees with them… and their lives have to be destroyed.”
Really. Let’s talk specifics. Not vacuous anti-equality talking points.
posted by Houndentenor on
You mean like how the religious right tried to silence Ellen Degeneres many times. (A Disney boycott when she came out on her sitcom. Later boycotts of sponsors to her talk show. And then more recently a boycott of JC Penney when she was hired to be in their commercials?)
Sorry, but they have no right to complain that people speak out about things they do and say. It’s not as if they favor free speech or equal rights for anyone but themselves.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In most forums, including this one, where these issues are discussed most gays/progressives/”liberals” are firmly on the side of crushing anyone who disagrees with them about gay marriage or don’t want to take pictures of their wedding. They are bigots and their lives have to be destroyed.
Let’s check that … uh, can you point to anything in this thread, for example, which supports your conclusion? How about in the “Silence isn’t Golden” thread? Or in the “Another Day, Another Scalp” thread?
The totalitarian faction of the gay marriage supporters is now the public face of the movement.
Oh, really?
Can you point to a single national “left/liberal/progressive” group actively engaged in the fight for equality that entered into the Eich fracus? HRC? Freedom to Marry? ACLU? Lambda Legal? AFER? GetEQUAL? GLSEN? GLAAD?
How about state LGBT advocacy groups? Any of those?
How about the Democratic Party or any of its LGBT Caucuses? Any of those involved? Stonewall Democrats?
Just who are all of these “totalitarian factions” who have taken over the public face of the movement?
Facts count, AG. Faux doesn’t.
posted by Don on
I think gays of all stripes (conservative/liberal/whatever) have been surprisingly tolerant of being falsely accused of being child molesters on a regular basis for decades.
Which I think harkens back to your claims of “crushing anyone who disagrees with them.” It’s kind of like our version of a blood libel. But we seem to keep taking it in stride.
posted by Houndentenor on
Wait, people posting in comments sections of blogs have a more angry tone than the typical person? Alert the media! LOL
Yes, of course you’re going to find shouting in comments sections. Let people in comments sections yell. Sometimes people just need an outlet to vent. I suspect anyone from the religious right reading the comments at joemygod.com would have the same reaction I do when I (inadvisably and rarely) read the comments of one of their blogs or “news” sites. That’s why I don’t read them. But I am surprised to discover that that posting a comment read by dozens of people that I have the power to destroy anyone. That’s because I don’t. What an absurd line of thinking. And here we are still talking about it.
posted by Houndentenor on
I find it odd that for people who have supposedly been silenced by the “homosexual agenda” (whatever the hell that is), the professional anti-gay activists are omnipresent in our media. How can silenced people be so shrill so often. I would seem to defy the laws of physics. Perhaps I should contact my old Acoustics professor and ask how that could be! LOL
History is unkind to people who take the wrong side. The first epic film was Birth of a Nation. I’ve never seen it. Hardly anyone has. I can’t imagine stomaching 2 hours of footage glorifying the origins of the Ku Klux Klan. It’s from another era. Congress had Klansmen and so did the Supreme Court. They ran entire states (and not just the south…Indiana was run by the Klan for quite some time). But today what is supposedly a landmark film and culturally significant artifact is largely ignored by film historians and critics. No one wants to champion the film because of its content. That may be unfair to both the director and the actors (Lillian Gish denied that the film was racist for the rest of her life.) but that is how things go.
I suspect that I am older than Stephen and I can still remember people on TV holding segregationist viewpoints. No one would do that now, even if they held them. It would make you a pariah even among people who more or less agreed with you. We are heading toward a time when the same will be true of people who oppose gay rights. They will not be remembered kindly even by their own descendants. That is not my doing. It is how things work. Certainly people who insisted on separate drinking fountains believed they were right and were baffled that fewer and fewer people agreed with them. Even so I can find no pity for people who devoted their political careers to demeaning an entire group of people. You can find footage (there is some in the documentary series “Eyes on the Prize” — a must see if you missed it when it aired on PBS in the 1990s) of white people asking “what about my right to eat in a restaurant without any “colored” people eating there with me?” Does that sound absurd? 60 years from now people will be equally perplexed that someone wouldn’t do a few flower arrangements for a Lesbian couple’s wedding. It’s hard to imagine people were so hateful and mean-spirited as they were in the segregationist period. It’s also hard to imagine putting up a sing saying “Help Wanted: Irish need not apply” but they were common at one point. The world have moved on.
I suppose I should feel sorry for the poor misguided anti-gay bigots. I suspect that gay people decades from now might have just a little compassion on people who were so ignorant and misguided. I can’t. I don’t wish them any harm. I just wish they’d get out of my way. They won’t. They do certainly have the right to their own opinion. I, however, have no obligation to stay silent about it.
posted by Jorge on
I think Lowder would agree that it is bad when government uses its power to take sides in a public debate. It is abhorrent that Russia and Uganda have declared speech in favor of homosexual liberty off-limits. There is no proud history of government efforts to police the speech of citizens. That is true whether you think the government is enforcing the right side of the debate or not.
Okay, now you’re overarguing.
Look, every time a public library so much as places a book on homosexuals within its walls, the government is taking a side. Every time a public school teacher skillfully sets an example that this one other family is important, every time the school puts “Parent or Guardian’s Signature” on a permission slip or report card, the government speaks, and takes a stand.
Standing by and watching what happens is also making a decision about what should happen.
It is simply that the United States by some stroke of blind luck happened to get things exactly right in balancing government power and natural rights.
…
But calls for civility need to acknowledge this true breadth of the situation. They did not try to silence us for centuries. They burned us alive or beat us and left us for dead. Our own families cast us out. We were hounded out of employment. And brutally attacked by strangers in the streets with no warning. And all of this has happened in my lifetime. I’m not talking about 500 year old crimes. I am talking about present day wounds to people committed by people who are alive today.
Over marriage? Over a law stating a slip of paper given significance only by contract law, money, and people’s misplaced religious notions is or is not available to gays?
Not every stubbed toe is worth reducing to an unbroken chain of repressed memories of childhood oppression. So mama was mean to you and daddy beat you sometimes. That’s messed up, and shall receive a firm accounting when the time comes.
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Lowder is offended that, despite majority support for our equality, the lives of lesbians and gay men are still subject to extraordinary, invasive scrutiny; and that is offensive.
It is to be expected, I suppose. We have been cannon fodder in the culture wars for a long time. Of course it is offensive that others think that our personal lives should be the subject of public scrutiny and debate, but what I find more offensive is the constant, continual lies and fabrications about gays and lesbians used as ammunition for the culture war.
It no longer being acceptable to come right out an say that gays and lesbians molest children in order to recruit them, as it was back in Anita Bryant’s time, Richard Land (president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and formerly the president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Church), while filling in for Washington Watch host Tony Perkins, charged that “the dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about is that a high percentage of adult male homosexuals in America were sexually molested when they were children.” His statement was wholecloth, of course, supported by no facts and reputed by responsible studies, nothing more than coming at the “gays are molesters” accusation from the other end.
Nothing is new under the sun — “gays are molesters” has been an anti-gay standard as long as I can remember — but, as Don pointed out “I think gays of all stripes … have been surprisingly tolerant of being falsely accused of being child molesters on a regular basis for decades.”
So it is and has been with the rest of the dreck tossed at us, including, in my opinion, the current anti-gay meme that gays and lesbians are totalitarian thugs, bound and determined to, as AG put it, “crush anyone who disagrees with them“. Gays and lesbians, for the most part, seem to be taking this latest attempt to discredit us with aplomb.
But more offensive is the self-righteousness that would not just argue against offensiveness, but punish its expression.
I see little evidence of a move afoot to “punish” anyone on the anti-gay right. We are, of course, working to remove social conservatives from elected office, as we have been for decades, and we fight lies with truth, calling out the liars. Other than that, though, as far as I can tell, the current anti-gay meme that gays and lesbians are out to “punish” anti-gays is mostly nonsense.
The Eich fracus has been trumped up into hysteria, but the facts of the matter don’t support the accusation. You are a lawyer, David. Would the evidence for a the proposition that Eich was hounded out of his job by gays and lesbians determined to “punish” him hold up in court? Is there even enough evidence to establish a prima facie case? Would you take the case to court with any expectation of winning?
What I think we have in front of us is what Lori described as “a meme … crafted, just another attack line trumped up by the anti-gay industry to convince the American public that gays and lesbians are a people deserving of hated, scorn and loathing.
posted by AG on
@Tom Scharbach
“can you point to anything in this thread, for example, which supports your conclusion?”
That was easy. Houndentenor writes upthread that someone who doesn’t support gay marriage could not be fair to gay employees. Naturally he cannot be in a managerial position.
“No one would be arguing that someone who publicly fought against civil rights would be fair to minority employees. The very idea would be absurd. And yet I’ve been told (even by other gay people) that he could be fair to gay employees even though he opposes gay rights. That’s ridiculous.”
“Can you point to a single national “left/liberal/progressive” group actively engaged in the fight for equality that entered into the Eich fracus?”
There’s no need to have a national organization to run a witch hunt. These days the self-righteous mob can organize itself. What matters is the widespread perception that the dominant liberal culture in our society is in favor of the gay McCarthyism.
posted by Houndentenor on
What exactly are you advocating? I as an individual don’t have a right to voice an opinion about the actions of corporations and public figures? That sounds like what you’re saying. Also, McCarthyism wasn’t about a few disparate and unorganized people speaking their minds. It was a Congressional Committee that used it’s power to scare the bejeezus out of people many of whom had done nothing wrong or who at worse had gone to a meeting 20 years earlier to listen to someone speak. How is this anything at all like that? Gays do not have that kind of power. We don’t have that kind of organization. (Take a good look at the gay rights groups. Their record of accomplishment is virtually zero. The only thing gay bloggers have done is tell the truth about people who don’t want that truth out there. Well if you don’t like people knowing what you are doing, don’t do it. But being a crybaby about bias when what was said about you is true is just pathetic and sad. That’s what we have here. Eich did make the donation. People have a right to have an opinion about that. If someone were up for CEO of Hobby Lobby and donated to Planned Parenthood would the same people be arguing that no one was allowed to comment on THAT? Hell no. So what exactly is your point? I’m just a guy with internet access. I’m not going to be silenced by the self-loathing segment of our population who think if we’re nice enough to people who hate us they’ll stop passing laws denying us rights. As if that’s how any other group ever got equal rights.
posted by Lori Heine on
We aren’t going to get any answers to the questions we’ve been asking. AG, and the bloggers, are merely repeating boilerplate talking points in service of the meme. They have probably convinced themselves that they serve some higher moral purpose, but essentially this is what they’re doing. Any higher moral purpose worth its salt could withstand the scrutiny we give it. That our questions must be ignored, or sidestepped with more boilerplate, shows that it can’t.
The political right requires minorities to attack others of their own kind. To keep them in their place. This is true regardless of whether we’re gays, people of color, immigrants, or whatever other group. They sugarcoat this, of course, by saying that we “must hold our community accountable,” or some such. But that is what it actually amounts to.
Thus the feeding frenzy at sites like Gay Patriot every time the darkies get out of line. That anybody has “stepped out of line” must be made the fault of everybody on the plantation. Totalitarian regimes also crack down on dissent this way — by punishing everyone for what a few have done. We’re to keep tabs on each other, to turn informant and rat on each other, to turn each other in for the slightest infraction — real or imagined. No loyalty between us may be permitted, because our solidarity is threatening.
This sort of thing is so typical, and happens so predictably, that it’s become rather easy to study it if we know how to spot it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We aren’t going to get any answers to the questions we’ve been asking.
Well, actually we have been getting some answers. AG cannot come up with a single example of an LGBT organization that got involved in the Eich fracus, and instead posits a “self-righteous mob”. He cannot come up with an example of anyone on IGF “firmly on the side of crushing anyone who disagrees with them about gay marriage”, so he instead reads a remark Houndentenor made as “easy” evidence, a remark which is a country mile short of AG’s accusation.
Sometimes you get the answers by looking to the “answers”.
The exchange with AG is a good example of why the lawsuits have been so helpful to us. When put to the test of trial — a forum in which evidence is required — the anti-equality talking points fall apart.
Speaking of trials, I notice the buzz today about Charles Cooper, the lawyer who argued that marriage was reserved for procreation in the Prop 8 case, is “evolving“. Good for him.
posted by Houndentenor on
People who know me know that the fastest way to get me riled up is to misquote me or quote me out of context (in a way that distorts my meaning). All the exchange with AG has done is reconfirm what I’ve known for years. Gay conservatives are only interested in demonizing all things and all people liberal, defending anyone conservative no matter what, and playing the victim when people they just accused of hating American and being communists (or fascists or whatever the latest meme is) won’t go out with them. That’s pretty much it. It’s not really about differing on fiscal issues but being on the same side on the gay rights issue. They aren’t with us on the gay rights issue or they wouldn’t support openly anti-gay candidates with such fervor. They also wouldn’t be so blind to what the GOP stands for and blame everything wrong with the movement (and there’s a LOT) on liberals sabotaging conservatism (which they couldn’t do if they wanted to). And don’t dare refer to them as self-loathing although it’s hard to imagine a more appropriate term for someone so eager to make excuses for their abusers.
posted by Houndentenor on
I said this some time ago and I’ll repeat it. A compromise in which gay couples can get married in all 50 states (and various territories) and gays can’t be fired when someone finds out they are gay in exchange for wedding photographers not having to take pictures of a Lesbian wedding is a pretty good deal. So why hasn’t anyone on the right made any such proposal. Oh yes, there’s the “what’s wrong with civil unions crowd” to whom I will respond (as I have since at least 2004), “oh, is there a bill up for a vote to make that happen? Or is that just a cop-out?” I’m willing to make a deal, but I don’t see anyone from the right offering us anything. At least not anyone in a position to make something happen (Boehner, for example).
posted by Mike in Houston on
In other news… just thought I’d give my fellow commenters-in-arms an update about what’s happening in Houston.
Next week (Tuesday or Wednesday) a new Equal Rights Ordinance will be officially posted on the City Council’s agenda… and while the language is still being hammered on, it does appear that the ordinance will include non-discrimination in housing, public accomodations and employment for LGBT people.
A broad coalition of LGBT and non-LGBT civil rights organizations is on board and it could be considered, voted on and approved by Council by the middle of May. It remains to be seen by what margin it will pass and whether or not there will be an attempt to repeal by referendum coming from the usual sources.
Given the fact that Houston is the 4th largest city in the country — and home to the largest bio-medical center and global energy sector, the ripple effect could be huge.
Lots of hard work by folks left, right & center to make this happen — and like the more sane commentary here, we’re ready to address the misinformation crowd, if and when they come… I’ll keep you posted!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Congratulations, Mike, and thanks for all you did to make this happen. I hope that it passes.
Given the fact that Houston is the 4th largest city in the country — and home to the largest bio-medical center and global energy sector, the ripple effect could be huge.
And amplified by the fact that Houston is in Texas, where the dominant political party’s platform has this to say about gays and lesbians:
posted by Lori Heine on
Good work, Mike!
I, for one, am perfectly willing to have a national conversation about morality. I think most of us are.
We just don’t want the misinformation crowd — as Mike so aptly puts it — to one-sidedly and self-servingly dominate that conversation.
And I certainly agree with the conservatives that this means the social right should not “just shut up.” After all, it can’t be a conversation if one side doesn’t say anything.
Nobody here, that I know of, has suggested that anybody shut up. An accurate depiction of the commentary on this blog would avoid making such claims.
posted by Jorge on
…Lots of hard work by folks left, right & center to make this happen — and like the more sane commentary here, we’re ready to address the misinformation crowd, if and when they come… I’ll keep you posted!
Is that so? Yes, that is very interesting to hear.
No doubt you’ll have the expertise to address the misinformation crowd, because such expertise exists, but what tactic will you use? There’s so many to choose from.
You are there to address a problem. That is perhaps worth repeating.
You said you worked with the right. The right expressed concerns about getting things just right and you decided to address them.
And of course there’s always proving that “Regnerus is an academic whore” (and other takedowns of bad faith incredulity). Do share the intel.
All the exchange with AG has done is reconfirm what I’ve known for years. Gay conservatives are only interested in demonizing all things and all people liberal, defending anyone conservative no matter what, and playing the victim when people they just accused of hating American and being communists (or fascists or whatever the latest meme is) won’t go out with them. That’s pretty much it.
Houndentenor, forget the gay part for a bit. Let’s just take conservatives.
Not everyone thinks all the time like Rush Limbaugh acts all the time. You have conservative mouthpieces who are always angry, sure. Most people, even those who are angry, are calm much of the time. Even when it comes to liberals. I will prove it to you someday.
People who are sometimes calm and sometimes angry when it comes to liberals are selective about when they are angry. They have specific reasons when they are angry and you can predict it. Which is just another way of saying most people have an agenda. This is true of Mr. Miller, it’s true of Andrew Sullivan, it’s true of Steve Yuhas, it’s true of Tammy Bruce (although actually she’s almost always measured).
I think you read too much into and too little on the surface about the fact that the right is angry at the far left very often.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t base my observations of present-day conservatives on what I see on TV or hear on the radio. I live in Texas and am surrounded by them. I hear what they say when they don’t know a liberal is listening. I hear what they say when they don’t know a gay person is listening too. Or a person who doesn’t buy into their racist ideology. Or someone who can see the hypocrisy in ranting about illegal immigrants but then regularly hiring them to do work on your property, raise your kids or clean your house. I’m well aware of what the real conversations are like, thank you very much. I’m also baffled at your choice of examples. Tammy Bruce? Are you effing with me?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
BTW, the ever reliable Todd Starnes has uncovered yet another outrage perpetrated by the totalitarian, anti-Christian mob. And this time the mob consisted of one woman.
I personally don’t see why the contest had to be cancelled. I would have simply added another contest to balance the scales, say a Lisa Robertson Look Alike Drag Show. Or maybe not.
posted by Jorge on
No. It didn’t have to be.
Would have been more difficult to defend keeping it than dropping it, though. Your idea is a fine one and maybe after they take some time they didn’t feel they had earlier to think they should try it.
posted by Houndentenor on
I continue to believe that all of this is a publicity stunt from A&E. Yes, there are occasional complaints from gay bloggers or GLAAD, but the mainstream media regularly ignores those when it’s convenient for them. In this case it moved what is from best I can tell a just a southern accent remake of Keeping up with the Kardashians. In other words, yet another trashy reality show I can’t believe anyone watches but obviously they do because it’s still on.
Advertisers often want controversial shows with lots of viewers while others want nothing to do with such programming. It depends on their target audience and the brand they are trying to promote. This is all pretty basic and hasn’t particularly changed over the years. Were the people complaining about this upset when advertisers would pull out of any show mentioning gay people. (The infamous thirtysomething episode was probably the worst example. ABC wound up airing PSAs and losing millions of dollars.) No, they were behind such actions. They were fine with those tactics then and still are when it comes to calling for boycotts of JCPenney for hiring Ellen Degeneres to be in their ads, but scream foul when the same tactics are sued on them. We have to play nice while they play mean? No thanks. Yes, a lot of the squawking is ridiculous but at the same time people in the media need to know when they’ve crossed a line and they don’t know unless someone tells them, even if they ought to know (there is a current brouhaha concerning RuPaul’s show coming from the trans community). Are people just supposed to be doormats when people call for laws denying them equal rights? Has that ever gotten any minority group anywhere?
posted by tom jefferson III on
Oftentimes it seems to me that people not only want freedom of speech/belief but also don’t want anyone to critisize or socially censure their beliefs. I see people who — at least — claim to be conservative and liberal alike do it.
Remember the Dixie Chicks when President W. Bush was in the White House? When one of their band members expressed her own beliefs/opinions, a huge movement unfolded to protest what she said, boycott the band and generally censure them in a social manner.
So, if people generally agree with someone says, then ‘freedom of speech’ becomes ‘don’t discriminate or object to what they did’.
If people don’t like what someone said about ‘x’, then ‘freedom of speech’ becomes……um…..’maybe we will not get the government to shoot you.’
posted by tom jefferson iii on
ABC wound up airing PSAs and losing millions of dollars—
Yeah and the two guys seen in the Thirty Something Episode — were not allowed to touch or anything and they pretty much vanished from the series. They were not really major characters to begin with, but the uproar probably made then almost invisible.
I guess it was more explicit then the ‘funny’ scene in Victoria Victoria film (also from the 1980s)– when Toddy and the Mafia bodyguard are seen in bed together.
Yeah, I reading up on the history of gay characters in American TV shows and how TV news programming dealt with gay rights issues.
posted by Doug on
Hey Stephen, why no screams for this mayor to keep his job?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/marionville-mayor-daniel-clevinger-resigns-frazier-glenn-miller