We can certainly take a moment to celebrate along with Michael Sam:
…the University of Missouri football player who came out as gay in February, three months in advance of the NFL draft, was drafted this evening by the St. Louis Rams. He reacted the way any athlete would: by kissing his significant other. …
If Sam—picked 249th overall, despite being the SEC Defensive Player of the Year—makes the team, he will become the National Football League’s first athlete to play while openly gay.
In recent years the SEC Defensive Player of the Year has been among the top draft choices, whereas Sam was picked very late, in the final round, revealing the struggle continues. Still, some didn’t expect him to be picked at all, so this is indeed an historical marker.
More. David Boaz blogs in greater depth about Michael Sam and the Cost of Discrimination.
Furthermore. Eurovision’s transgendered winner, Conchita Wurst, also should be noted, especially for the Russian response.
Still more. Wesley Pruden of the conservative Washington Times must think this is very clever. He writes:
“Mr. Sam, who is finishing his education at the University of Missouri, knows a lot more than how to sack a quarterback. He knows how to suck the last few kilobytes out of his 15 minutes of fame. … Now that hype and hysteria has become the lingua franca of the age, Michael Sam, like everyone else in the tower of babble, whistles it fluently. You just put your lips together and blow.”
40 Comments for “Michael Sam Breaks Through”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We certainly can. I was at a meeting tonight with a bunch of straight farmers, most my age. Before we got going, on mentioned Michael Sam and said that it was about time this happened. Several others chimed in, talking about it favorably. Folks are ready.
posted by Jorge on
So are we half-full or half-empty?
It’s not as if I can boycott something I don’t even watch. But I’ll take note.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Breaking the sports barrier is important, and we are just at the beginning. Jackie Robinson comes to mind.
Breaking the barrier in the NFL — a man’s sport in the minds of straight men — is particularly important. So was breaking the barrier in the NBA. So will be breaking the barrier in NASCAR.
posted by Jorge on
Ah. Filling up the glass 🙂
posted by Houndentenor on
I suspect that knowing that Putin and his cronies would hate the outcome factored into the Eurovision voting.
About Sam. Americans may still be homophobic but they don’t like prejudice. If those to attitudes seem at odds, welcome to cognitive dissonance. It’s one thing not to be comfortable around gay people. It’s another to think that someone qualified for a job shouldn’t get it because of what he or she does on their own time. Negative comments about Sam kissing his boyfriend are also not going over well with the public at large. Yes, lots of retweets but again it’s one thing to be a little uncomfortable and quite another to go out of your way to make a statement and come off as a jerk.
Of course being drafted doesn’t mean he has a guaranteed slot on the team. But this is the first time this has happened and he’ll probably wind up playing somewhere. I agree that his being out was a factor but there are a few others (including a recent lackluster showing at the Combine and the fact that he’s probably not big enough for the NFL). Sorry to rain on this parade. Cue the marching band! This is a cause for celebration.
Sam
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We don’t know what the future will hold for Michael Sam. He’s in no different position than Jason Collins. That is up to him. He’s been drafted, and that was the barrier to be overcome.
posted by Jorge on
Yes, lots of retweets but again it’s one thing to be a little uncomfortable and quite another to go out of your way to make a statement and come off as a jerk.
🙂
Still, nothing wrong with pushing the envelope a bit.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
The topic of the Michael Sam’s NFL draft success being relatively non-contentious…I hope…I might take this chance to digress a bit with some general observations about IGF Culture Watch. I have followed IGF intermittently for the last couple of years, mostly lurking in the shadows, and mostly motivated by an interest in better understanding politically conservative gay perspectives.
What I have found here is this: In a quick review of 50 consecutive topic threads, 80% of the leads were written by Stephen Miller, 16% by David Link, and 4% by Walter Olsen.
Of the commentaries submitted in 7 of the most recent topic threads (50 were just too many for me to count by tally marks), 62.5% were written by 5 persons, and 37.5% were written by 87 other persons (again, I’m pretty sure the approximate figures are correct, even if the tally mark tallies are not necessarily precise).
My subjective impression is that the comments of 2 of the 5 persons comprising the 62.5% group, included phrasing that was articulate but dismissive, derisive, snide, snarky, or patronizing much of the time. But, admittedly those designations are not objective or measureable.
So the question presents itself to me: Is IGF fulfilling its mission, and can the general public rely upon it as a representative or meaningful forum for understanding the conservative gay mindset?
I hope not.
posted by Jimmy on
What would such a forum look like? Not another Gay Patriot, I hope. What is it that the general public needs to understand about the conservative gay mindset?
posted by Jorge on
I’m thinking either “Don’t try too hard,” or “Expect nothing but what happens. That way you won’t be surprised.”
posted by craig123 on
IGF CultureWatch is now just a blog that Stephen Miller maintains and no longer has aspirations for being more, as far as I can tell. The contributor community has mostly dissipated — some to more popular venues (Dale Carpenter moved to the Volokh Conspiracy), some to their own blogs, and some are using facebook as a de facto blog. As for the commenters, they’ve been dominated by left-liberal critics for a long time – they enjoy the site because they can vent against the perceived enemy of the correct line. You can’t have real discussions within the center-right gay world if you have an open platform – people just get weary of the snark and the derision. Gay Patriot mediates all comments, but IGF never has — not that it’s gotten any praise for its openness. So, it is what it is. I enjoy Stephen’s blog, as I enjoy a few other sites. I don’t expect anything more – I’m grateful what what he’s willing to produce and share.
posted by Lori Heine on
IGF certainly deserves praise for its openness. In fact, I have on at least one previous thread made favorable contrast between the way this blog lets people express their opinions without getting swarmed.
Civilized human beings can scarcely comment at Gay Patriot — unless they toe the amen corner’s line. Some of the commenters there are probably too cowardly to risk the swarm’s turning on them, so they say nothing when a dissenter is being savaged. Other commenters there need a psychiatrist — if not an exorcist.
Some are probably normal enough. One undoubtedly lives in a cage. They are an odd lot, to say the least.
The bloggers are decent people, but long ago let the commentary threads degenerate into snake pits.
IGF is a breath of fresh air in many ways. But when absurd statements are made in its posts, it isn’t terribly surprising that people point out the absurdities.
posted by Jim Michaud on
That’s why I no longer go on Gay Patriot. I’m totally finished with them. Between that asylum and Fox News’ Benghazi obsession and their riding the “homofascists are persecuting innocent Christians” horse until it’s ready for the glue factory; both are a sorry display of what they think conservatism is. Both are veering toward “The Onion” territory, they’ve become parodies of themselves. Here in Maine, there’s a conservative website called As Maine Goes. To critique it while avoiding GPesque swarms, an alternative website called “Asmainegoeslolz” formed, so normal people can critique the commenters and show how off base they are. Now the downside: in order to do the same for GP, one must have the stomach to wade through the comments section. I don’t know of anyone here willing to do that, not even you Lori.
posted by Houndentenor on
GayPatriot reveals too much of the homocon agenda. They bash liberals and Democrats at every turn but allow commenters to post the vilest anti-gay slurs at each other. The agenda of gay conservatives is pro-conservative and anti-gay. My apologies to the handful of exceptions but even they can’t have missed this phenomenon. Most of the gay conservatives I know now begrudgingly vote for Democrats because the GOP offerings are far too heinous to support.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Out of curiosity, I looked at the posts and comments from April 2010, four years ago:
I also took a look back at April 2008 (without analyzing the posts or comments):
posted by Tom Scharbach on
That last paragraph (“I think that what has changed on IGF, more than anything, is that, as you put it, there is less diversity among the “leads”.) got incorrectly blockquoted. It should stand by itself.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
@ 2008 was when I became a regular reader of IGF, and that continued for a couple of years. I reviewed a few of the articles you referenced above (from both 2008 and 2010) – it’s quite interesting to read what was being written just a few years ago.
For one, even in 2008, Miller was criticizing those damn lefty, Democratic gays for not supporting gay Republicans. (The more things change, the more they stay the same…).
Also, as well as a drop in blogger diversity, there has also been a drop in commenter diversity. But I’ll be honest – the constant ‘Gay Patriot Lite’ chorus that would follow the conservative bloggers (who denounced ‘Democrat-left-gay activist’ individuals and organizations) wore on me after a while.
Commenters I remember include ‘Debrah’ (who could not make a comment without including some ‘ick’ statement re: gay sexual activity), NDT, and some others. I simply grew tired of the vitriol from some of the commenters – though it took some years for that to happen.
At its best – during that 2008 – 2010 time frame – the bloggers and commenters were a bit more varied and provided some interesting perspectives on topics of interest to me.
In looking at the current IGF – it’s obvious that Miller’s concerns are still the same. He is still playing that same old song (those mean left-Dem-gay-activists who are keeping the GOP from being pro-equality).
And with the departure of a number of bloggers, there appears to have been an exodus of some of the more conservative, gay patriot crowd. I wonder how much of that emigration is due to the contemporary state of conservatism (in relation to lgbt issues) and to the entrenchment of the GOP itself (re: lgbt equality), coupled with the further movement by Democrats into pro-equality platforms and politicians.
Yet, I am curious as to why so many of the bloggers have ‘disappeared’ from this site. Any ideas, anyone???
And also – Tom Scharbach – I noticed in an article from 2010 that Miller was calling for the gay community to be nice to the GOP/Tea Party because they were getting ready to take over the US House.
Miller was confident that the Tea Party was not anti-gay (oh, what time will reveal, huh?) – but his main point was that we needed to be friends with the party in control of the House.
Of course, that doesn’t address what we should do when that Party wants nothing to do with us. (For Miller, the reason for that exclusion is solely the responsibility of those ‘leftist gays’.)
But it might help explain why conservative gays are screaming over these manufactured controversies recently. Polls show that Republicans will probably take the Senate (as well as hold the House) – perhaps these conservative gays are wanting to make sure to align themselves with the Party they see running Congress.
That alignment was a central point in a 2010 Miller post. Since Miller is still playing the victim card for gay Republicans, I’m going to assume he is still of a similar mind re: the need for gays to align themselves with the GOP when it is in power.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
An upbeat and good news item (minus the Russian government’s response to Eurovison winner).
It is nice to see something actually positive being said here about the rights and dignity of transgender people. I think that Dana International — from Israeli — won back in 1998. Criticism then was mostly from the far right in Israeli itself and some of the traditionalist Muslims.
MUCH, MUCH less was said about it, but I do believe that their is an openly gay NASCAR competitor.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I think — with Sam — part of the issue is that he is actually quite good at the sport. ( SEC Defensive Player of the Year). When you have a player that is that good at a team sport, it becomes harder to try and cover up any overt homophobic reason for him not being drafted.
Their was a college kid in North Dakota — not too long ago — who was kicked off the team after the coach and team found out that he was gay. Granted, he was not great at the sport (better then you or I, but still)– and the coach argued that it was an issue of honesty (the student had been seen kissing his boyfriend) and not sexual orientation.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A federal judge ruled today in Latta v. Otter, holding that Idaho’s ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional. The decision will be appealed to the 9th Circuit.
The following is the status of cases as I understand it:
1ST CIRCUIT
MAINE – Marriage Equality
MASSACHUSETTS – Marriage Equality
NEW HAMPSHIRE – Marriage Equality
RHODE ISLAND – Marriage Equality
2ND CIRCUIT
CONNECTICUT – Marriage Equality
NEW YORK – Marriage Equality
VERMONT – Marriage Equality
3RD CIRCUIT
DELEWARE – Marriage Equality
NEW JERSEY – Marriage Equality
Pennsylvania
– Whitewood v. Wolf
– Palladino v. Corbett
– Pennsylvania Health Dept. v. Hanes
– Ballen v. Corbett
– Baus v. Gibbs
4TH CIRCUIT
North Carolina
– Fisher-Borne v. Smith
South Carolina
– Bradacs v. Haley
Virginia – Equality Decision
– Bostic v. Schaefer – On Appeal
– Harris v. Rainey
West Virginia
– McGee v. Cole
5TH CIRCUIT
Louisiana
– Forum for Equality Louisiana v. Barfield
– Robicheaux v. George
– In Re Costanza and Brewer
Mississippi
– Czekala-Chatham v. Melancon
Texas – Equality Decision
– De Leon v. Perry – On Appeal
– McNosky v. Perry
– Zahrn v. Perry
– J.B. v. Dallas County and Texas v. Naylor
6TH CIRCUIT
Kentucky – Equality Decision
– Bourke v. Beshear – On Appeal
– Kentucky Equality Federation v. Beshear
– Romero v. Romero
Michigan – Equality Decision
– DeBoer v. Snyder – On Appeal
Ohio – Equality Decision
– Obergefell v. Wymyslo – On Appeal
– Henry v. Wymyslo – On Appeal
Tennessee – Equality TRO
– Tanco v. Haslam – On Appeal
7TH CIRCUIT
ILLINOIS – Marriage Equality
Indiana
– Bowling v. Pence
– Officer Pamela Lee v. Pence
– Midori Fujii v. Indiana Governor
– Baskin v. Bogan
– Love v. Pence
Wisconsin
– Wolf v. Walker
– Halopka-Ivery v. Walker
8TH CIRCUIT
Arkansas
– Jernigan v. Crane
– Wright v. Arkansas
IOWA – Marriage Equality
MINNESOTA – Marriage Equality
Missouri
– Barrier v. Vasterling
Nebraska
– Nichols v. Nichols
North Dakota
South Dakota
9TH CIRCUIT
Alaska
– Hamby et al. v. Parnell et al.
Arizona
– Majors v. Roche
– Connolly v. Roche
CALIFORNIA – Marriage Equality
HAWAII – Marriage Equality
Idaho
– Latta v. Otter – Equality Decision
Montana
Nevada – Equality Decision
– Sevcik v. Sandoval – On Appeal
Oregon
– Geiger v. Kitzhaber
– Rummel and West v. Kitzhaber
WASHINGTON – Marriage Equality
10TH CIRCUIT
Colorado
– McDaniel-Miccio v. Hickenlooper
– Brinkman v. Long
Kansas
– Nelson v. Kansas Department of Revenue
New Mexico – Marriage Equality
Oklahoma – Equality Decision
– Bishop v. United States – On Appeal
Utah – Equality Decision
– Kitchen v. Herbert – On Appeal
Wyoming
– Courage v. Wyoming
11TH CIRCUIT
Alabama
– Hard v. Bentley
Florida
– Grimsley and Albu v. Scott
– Brenner v. Scott
– Pareto v. Ruvin
Georgia
– Inniss v. Aderhold
posted by Jorge on
I know I probably got tripped up on this before, but what New York Second Circuit court are you talking about? New York passed legal recognition of same-sex marriage legislatively. Our highest state court said no.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am listing the states by federal judicial circuit for convenience in tracking progress toward a SCOTUS decision (which takes appeals from federal circuit court decisions and, in some cases, from state Supreme Court decisions).
States in which the question of marriage equality is settled and final, either through court action or action of the legislature (currently 17 of them) are shown in bold caps and denoted “Marriage Equality”, as in “NEW YORK – Marriage Equality”.
States in which a court decision has been made in favor of marriage equality, but in which the matter is not yet settled and final (that is, still in the appeals process) are shown in initial caps bold and denoted “Equality Decision”, as in “Virginia – Equality Decision”, and I also note the case in which the decision has been rendered. Currently, there are 11 states in that situation.
The reason I’m looking at the states and cases from this perspective is that SCOTUS does not have to take any cases. SCOTUS decides what cases it will take in each term.
SCOTUS turns down review of a lot more cases than it takes up for review. Typically, SCOTUS takes constitutional cases only when the case is “ripe for review”, that is, when a substantial constitutional question exists (check), when the question is of national importance (check), and if cases come up from more than one federal judicial circuit, when there is a conflict in the federal judicial circuits (yet to be determined). That’s why I’m tracking by federal judicial circuit.
At this point, there is no conflict in the federal judicial circuits, because only one judicial circuit has decided the question (the 9th Circuit in Perry). That case doesn’t count in the analysis, because SCOTUS reviewed the case and decided it on standing, not on the merits.
Looking at the federal judicial circuits, no cases are pending in the 1st or 2nd Circuits, and none will come up, because all of the states in those circuits enjoy marriage equality. Cases are on appeal in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th Circuits at this point. No cases have yet reached the appellate level in the 7th or 11th Circuits at this point. but they will eventually.
If SCOTUS decides to take up marriage equality, the case(s) it takes up are most likely to come out of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th Circuits, because the appellate courts in those circuits will probably render a decision in the next 12-18 months.
Most people expect that SCOTUS will take up one or more of the cases in the term following the next, and render a decision in June 2016. I agree with that analysis.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Tom – have you read the reviews of the 4th District Court case?
Apparently the Bush v1 appointee is firmly aligned against us (Niemeyer). With one justice (Gregory) seemingly firmly in favor of our constitutional right to marriage. And the 3rd (Floyd) – I’ve read conflicting impressions. Though it seems there is a possibility he will rule for the lgbt community.
Niemeyer joked that this case in this court was nothing more than a layover along the I-95 corridor to DC…
Niemeyer’s arguments – pulling up a 1973 ruling that went against the gay couple involved, saying marriage only refers to a man and woman because of procreation, etc… – left no doubt that he would support the ban.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’ve read a number of reports. I haven’t read the transcript. From what I know, it looks like Judge Gregory is an almost certain equality vote, and Judge Niemeyer unlikely. But you never know from the questions. Sometimes judges push the logic of a particular argument hard in orals to test the argument.
posted by Lori Heine on
Now the “Christians” in Mississippi are in convulsions of outrage because other people are actually opting out of their “religious freedom” law. Merchants are posting stickers in their windows to let LGBT customers know they won’t discriminate against them.
According to the “Christians,” this is PERSECUTION!!! Yes, they are being persecuted because other people won’t discriminate against gays.
I have absolutely had it with these people. This is nothing but slander against us, and a particularly vile sort at that.
Are we to expect gay conservatives to publish outraged blog posts about this latest oppression — no doubt mounted by Those Evil Gay Liberals Who Are Responsible For All Bad Things?
I’m sure Gay Patriot is on it. Hopefully, IGF will not sink that low.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Mississippi situation is fascinating.
The money quote from the Tupelo-based AFA gets to the guts of the conservative Christian position:
posted by Jorge on
I suppose in a way it’s showing muscle, and that can be intimidating. If enough businesses display the sticker, others will feel they have no choice but to display a “Christian-only” sticker. It threatens a social ostracism. Too bad.
The complicated part is that I think people who would disagree with the all-business welcome sticker are going to be of several different minds. Just because of the nastyness of some, people are likely jump to the wrong conclusion about others. It takes a strong mind to assert what they are if it’s something no one else is. But then again, that is what you need in the first place if you want to succeed at business. Bullying is a part of the competition that sustains capitalism.
The solution that reaches the moderate position–and this is really quite devious and demented–is for all businesses to display the sticker, and for bakeries and photographers to continue to refuse to work for gay weddings. Don’t you know that we’ve eradicated racial discrimination in this country? In housing, in employment, in education, in how businesses treat customers and how the government interacts with the public, there is no racial discrimination. It’s only the “suspicious” or “troublemaking” people that get maltreated. Nothing prevents businesses from doing the same with gays. In fact, it’s even easier, because we’re dealing with a law that specifically permits discrimination.
I suppose this particular sticker is specific enough for that to be disingenuous, and there’s no doubt they’re risking having Dan Savage and our next generation’s gay version of Al Sharpton beating down on them, but that’s damage they’ll have to take.
Loopholes, people.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that the conservative Christian point is that the “We Don’t Discriminate” sticker campaign will function as a boycott of pro-Christian businesses, serving to identify Christian businesses that discriminate and choosing not to enrich the owners. It is, as you point out, market capitalism at work.
But, having said that, nothing prevents Christians from standing proudly with Jesus — say a campaign featuring a “Leviticus 20:13” sticker for gun shops “who dare to believe the truth” and “live out the dictates of their Christian faith”.
You would think, for all the noise that Christians make about being “the way, the truth and the light”, that they’d be enthusiastic witnesses for Christ. But not so if it hits the pocketbook, I guess.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Here seems as good a place as any to ask you this, Tom: what’s your opinion on the cluster eff going on in Arkansas right now? Geez, how many layers of anti-gay laws did they have anyway?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: what’s your opinion on the cluster eff going on in Arkansas right now? Geez, how many layers of anti-gay laws did they have anyway?
The Arkansas mess is a textbook example of how complex the interplay of state law and the constitution can get, but probably nothing much more than that. It certainly has turned into a cluster-fork, though, as you point out.
The first problem the extent of state court’s jurisdiction. State courts, like federal courts, have jurisdiction limitations. In this case, only six of the state’s counties (Pulaski, White, Lonoke, Conway, Saline, and Washington) were named in the lawsuit, and directly covered by the court’s ruling. The balance of the state’s counties are not directly subject to the court’s ruling. A number of the counties not directly subject to the ruling announced that they felt that they should wait until a court issues an order applicable to them.
The second problem is that the state court’s ruling did not, apparently, cover every possible state law affecting marriage equality.
I am not particularly conversant with Arkansas law, but I understand that there are three layers of laws that prohibit same-sex marriages. The first is the state’s constitution, which limits marriage to male-female and voids all same-sex marriages contracted in or out of state. The second is an Arkansas law that predates the constitutional amendment: “Marriage shall be only between a man and a woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex is void.” The state court’s ruling declared both the constitutional amendment and the law unconstitutional. However, there is a third layer, covering the issuance of marriage licenses:
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Arkansas state judge issued a clarifying order this afternoon expanding his ruling to include the state’s marriage license statutes.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Again, I made a formatting error in the comment immediately above. The last two comments (needless to say) should not have been included in the blockquote, and are my views, not part of Arkansas law.
If I can be snarky, all this seems like a lot of trouble just to let brothers marry each other. (Running for my hard hat to fend off the brickbats coming from Arkansas …)
posted by Lori Heine on
This sort of mess probably happens, at least partially, because the grandstanders pushing these laws are lying to the populace about the need for them in the first place.
As liars always do, they try to take advantage of the laziness and ignorance of the general public. Most people won’t know what’s already legal or illegal — they reason — so more laws can be pushed to accomplish something existing laws have actually made unnecessary.
This was definitely the case in Arizona, when the political quacks pushing SB1062 tried to sell it as urgently necessary for the defense of religious liberties. Ignoring the fact that it’s already (A) illegal for gays to marry in Arizona and (B) perfectly legal to discriminate against them for any reason under the sun.
I predict that the sheer lunacy and over-the-top-ness of all this will blow up in the faces of the frauds who’ve cooked it up.
posted by Jorge on
What’s a couple of days’ annoyance over an easily corrected issue? These laws exist for an important reason, even if it’s an invisible one.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Reading the comments from the One News News (a fundamentalist site, quite obviously) is sobering.
Several of the commenters jump right in with the ‘we’re being bullied because there are businesses that won’t discriminate’. I’m confused now.
In reading through as many of the comments as I could take, it seems the idea is that these businesses are supporting the ‘homofascist agenda’ or something similar. And apparently making it difficult for ‘christian’ businesses to discriminate in peace and quiet.
But it’s hard to even begin to fathom how irrational these folks are.
That said – I did enjoy the commenter who noted that the ‘Chick-Fil-A in Hattiesburg has one of the ‘all-business-welcome’ stickers’. 🙂
posted by Mike in Houston on
Aubrey —
I don’t have to read the comments… we’re living it here in Houston as the Equal Rights Ordinance goes through City Council.
Having sat through more than 16 hours of testimony before Council (BTW — our side, very civil… their side, not so much).
The testimony on our side has been about personal experience, objective research & facts, Supreme Court legal precedent and so-forth.
What we get from the other side is: “I’m a Christian and I don’t discriminate because I love all people, but even because I’m a Christian, I should be able to discriminate, because… Jesus. If you pass this ordinance, then I will be forced not to discriminate and that violates my religious freedom, because… Jesus.”
it’s clear that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that will convince certain folks that the existence of gay and trans people is not persecution of their “christian” beliefs.
posted by Jorge on
This is where the Republican party does things rather poorly, though what you describe is worse.
If you mean to govern, you need to govern for the good of every individual, not just the best interests of the whole. That means answering questions like, “What should gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people do?” and “What should we do for their good interests?” Hard to do if you don’t want to hear what the experience is.
Prosecuting crime is easy.
Helping people fit in is brutal.
posted by Don on
Yesterday our Judge in the Florida state court case heard a motion to intervene from one of our “Family” organizations. The arguments were that they were directly affected by the result in two ways: overturning a vote when they wrote the amendment and raised money to get it passed; they will be harmed when forced to bake cakes for our weddings.
The judge was interested in the first argument. The analogy was “they aren’t just fans of the Dolphins, these people were Don Shula and Dan Marino.” It affects them differently because they had skin in the game by raising money to make it happen in the first place.
The second argument was demolished. There are no laws in Florida, unlike other jurisdictions, that would compel anyone to accommodate anyone’s same sex wedding. If the Plaintiffs ultimately prevail, there is no basis for any such lawsuit in this state.
Additional update: Plaintiffs have filed their motion for summary judgment. Once this intervenor motion is decided, a hearing will be set in a month or so to dispose of the issues. Could have a ruling in June. (state court case, first filed here)
posted by Don on
I’m not such a fan of the “only liberal gays post here” dump-and-run posts. I have found little evidence of that. Center-left maybe. But barely left of center. (although there are a couple clear exceptions from time to time)
I think the reason these posts are perceived as anti-conservative is because the definition of conservative has been pushed so far to the right in the last 15 years. Reagan would be run out of the RNC if he repeated any of his past speeches today.
I do think, however, that it would be much more constructive to challenge the ideas presented from a conservative POV, which is what I read from regular commenters, not so much the dump-and-run drive by commenters. Lori, Tom, Hound & Jorge, in particular but not exclusively, have challenged many of my confirmed beliefs and moved me to a more reasoned understanding of the issues. And yes, Stephen, too.
For that, I’m grateful.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It is a bit off topic — but a musical transgender group did a really funny music video parody of Chick Filet. Not work safe, but well done.