[Faithful readers, we apologize for the intermittent server outages. We're working on it.]
Gay Democratic partisan Wayne Besen writes, "I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Alan Keyes when he said Mary Cheney is a 'selfish hedonist,' " Besen, some may remember, is a former Human Rights Campaign spokesperson.
Meanwhile, Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, instead of defending the rights of gays to marry, tells Pat Robertson's 700 Club he agrees (and so does the Democratic Party) that "marriage is between a man and a woman." To its credit, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force couldn't stomach this. We'll see if it provokes any ire over at HRC, which is happy to endorse Democrats who oppose gay marriage-as long as they're pro-choice on abortion.
68 Comments for “There They Go Again.”
posted by Fitz on
I don?t mind what dean said. Even Dean who occupies the left position amongst the democrats has to make comments like this (and we scream ?recant?) for a reason. Americans are authentically concerned about the very important social institution?marriage. I don?t know why people are coming at it sideways. There are plenty of gay social conservatives in this world who agree. Those gays who believe that our humanity and civil rights are not violated just because marriage remains the institution its always been. Who believe that children do best raised by their own mother & father and dont want to upset that important standard just to feel more included. You know…non-radicals. People who act with discretion and don?t demand everyone bend over backwards just because we are gay?
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
Guerriero’s comments, in contrast, were truly classy.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
*wipes Fitz’s spittle off my shirt*
OK. The Democrats have rather decisively declared the gay vote is meaningless to them through this appearance on the 700 Club, along with Dean’s other slights.
The Republicans certainly aren’t interested in engaging gays as equal American citizens.
That leaves the third party.
posted by Ed Brown on
Howard Dean supports civil unions, but not same-sex marriage. That should be no surprise. It is not perfect, but it is better then the viable alternative.
posted by Anthony on
Howard Dean has proven to be the same type of Democrat that many of us in the gay community find nothing more than a pandering joke of a man. He seeks gay campaign contributions, expects gays to vote exclusively for his party’s candidates (who are sooooo wrong on many, many issues) and then turns around and kisses the backside of a known homophobe like Pat Robertson. One might expect that of a Republican because, obviously, the party’s social conservative base is very important to its electoral success or failure. But the Dems are always prancing about – claiming to be progressive and tolerant all the while they’re simply mining for votes. As for Mary Cheney, she did a superb job on Larry King’s show the other night. Oh, Ed, believe it or not I too support civil unions rather than marriage per se. So does my partner. Imagine that – a couple of rich, anti-Mexican, gay apologists for the Bush White House on the same page as yourself. Wow.
posted by Anthony on
I have to take some exception to Fitz’s comments. I too am a conservative on many issues, though my beliefs are a bit more moderate on social matters, including marriage. Suggesting that gay parents aren’t as capable as straight ones to raise children isn’t a fair statement. My partner and I both have children from our marriages to women and we feel we are strong fathers and maintain a good, active presence in their lives. To us, suggesting that only straight folks should raise kids sends the message that we aren’t on equal footing in the parenting department. Not so. I should also say that I am hardly the type of gay man who believes society ought to accomodate my sexual orientation, far from it. But I also think we have to be realistic about the way gays are stereotyped by our society. We are not just bar flys or radicals marching in parades. We are parents, self-employed business people, tax payers, loyal to our troops, proud to be Americans, etc. We are many, many things, in spite of what the national media seems to think of us. I don’t wish to be classified as a victim, but nor am I interested in pretending that my role in society must be limited in order to appease the traditional mores and attitudes that aren’t based on biblical principles, but rather on man-made assumptions about people who happen to be different in one aspect of their lives.
posted by kittynboi on
Thats it. I’m officially done with the Democrats forever. Dean was supposed to be the left wing progressive alternative to the relentlessley moderate DLC. No he’s shown himself as just another neo-leftist, a person who is right wing on social issues and happens to like leftist economics.
There is no party of freedom or liberty in a social or cultural sense anymore.
Its either right wing social policy and right wing economic policy (GOP)
or
right wing social policy and left wing economic policy (Democrats)
posted by Jorge on
If Dean wants to court the Pat Robertson brigade, that’s his call, but his party’s core beliefs are important, too. He has to be honest about that. And it’s disrespectful to the Pat Robertson group, too, to think he can win their votes by lying about his party. We had Hillary Clinton a few years ago acknowledge her position on DOMA, and then immediately say a few words in defense of gays over the marriage amendment. That takes integrity and faith, two things Dean obviously does not have.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
kittinboi, rather than be done with the Democrats (or for that matter the GOP) forever, why not look for individuals within the party that you can support, and make whatever small contribution you can toward rebuilding the party along better lines? I support the effort Log Cabin is making in that regard in the Republican party, even though I am a Democrat. Dismissing the whole party for good is like responding to anti-gay initiative victory by boycotting that state; if the trend continues, what are we going to do — jump in the ocean? We have to make our stand somewhere.
As to Fitz:
“Americans are authentically concerned about the very important social institution?marriage.”
Nonsense. If they were, they would be putting as much passion and energy and organizing into banning no-fault divorce and recriminalizing adultery that are being put into the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment.
“There are plenty of gay social conservatives in this world who agree.”
And there are plenty of gay conservatives who do not.
“Those gays who believe that our humanity and civil rights are not violated just because marriage remains the institution its always been.”
Do tell us how you think it’s always been. The static, eternally unchanging conception of marriage is embarrassingly ahistorical, or at least it would be embarrassing if you were sufficiently aware and informed. And if legal changes to marriage are out of the question, do you propose to take away the equal standing of women in marriages that has been gained in the past half century? Do you propose to repeal not only Roe v. Wade but also Griswold v. Connecticut? Thank you, Senator Santorum.
“Who believe that children do best raised by their own mother & father and dont want to upset that important standard just to feel more included.”
As it happens, there are approximately three thousand orphans in the District of Columbia alone. Do you think they are better off being stuck in institutional settings or in the foster care system than having a loving home led by same-sex parents? Many of those children were thrown away by, or taken away from, heterosexual parents who were too poor or drug-addicted or goodness knows what to raise their own children properly. So gay people open their hearts and their homes to these needy children, and we are then to be condemned for it? Them’s fighting words, sir.
“You know…non-radicals. People who act with discretion and don?t demand everyone bend over backwards just because we are gay?”
Fitz, if you were at all familiar with the content of IGF, you would know that there are more options than the few you seem to recognize. What I seek is equal justice under law, which happens to be carved above the entrance of the Supreme Court of the United States. That is hardly radical in the sense that you mean. On the other hand, the principles on which our Founding Fathers based the Revolution still look pretty radical 230 years later.
As for acting with discretion: equality, which is my birthright as an American, hardly requires me to warp my life by constantly going out of my way to conceal any and every conceivable manifestation of my homosexuality. As a matter of fact, most “out” gay adults who would readily repudiate your woefully outdated call for “discretion” are not drag queens and leathermen on gay pride parade floats. In general, gay people would have to work overtime to compete with all the misbehaving heterosexuals in our popular culture, including celebrities whose attitude toward marriage is amazingly frivolous. And in any case, why should I have to circumscribe what I seek out of life in a way that my straight brothers and sisters do not, just because I am gay? I hold this truth to be self-evident: that my love is as good as anyone else’s.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I particularly loved this quote from Besen:
It took a big fat book advance before she stepped out to ostensibly advance gay rights. While I can understand family loyalty, she also had an obligation to defend her LGBT family, and she let us down.”
Actually, I think it took a big fat book advance to make it worthwhile to step out into the spotlight and take the abuse she’s getting — from her self-centered, abusive, hatemongering GLBT “family”, who’s called her names, criticized her appearance, harassed her and her partner, and ostracized her at every opportunity.
There’s a reason “family ties” as invoked by people like Besen don’t mean much to gay conservatives.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Oh, yes, ND30, poor helpless Mary. Give us a break. She is a public figure with a record. She was not outed by anyone, she was Coors’ gay rep, she knows what she is doing and is nobody’s victim.
Mary Cheney lives in Virginia and isn’t even aware of the much-publicized draconian anti-gay law that renders useless all the legal documents she and Heather have assembled to protect themselves? This is inexcusable, and screams of one thing: a person blinded by privilege. A friend of mine who owns a club in D.C. has mentioned observing a similar phenomenon among wealthy gays who pooh-pooh civil marriage as a cause: their money and privilege protects them, so the much greater exposure to danger of us working folks due to being locked out of the protections of marriage just doesn’t matter to them.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“There is no party of freedom or liberty in a social or cultural sense anymore”
Au contraire. It’s free to join the Libertarian Party, and while we’re small, we’re growing.
And you’ll never, ever suffer the indignity of a major candidate or the party leader going on any media event to kiss up to the religious right or other bigots — even after we start winning national offices.
Check it out: http://www.lp.org
And while I don’t agree with all the nastiness coming from the left towards Mary Cheney, I agree with Richard that the “Mary as a victim” canard is a bit nauseating. Millionaires such as herself aren’t anywhere near as heavily impacted by anti-gay statism as average middle class and working class gays — who are hit on everything from higher taxes to discrimination in provisioning visas for their partners.
posted by The Gay Species on
Anyone who thought Democrats favored gay equality and inclusion should be no less disabused than the Republicans who use gay and lesbian issues to divert attention away from malfeasant government. No longer a matter of dollar, much less principle, it’s always been about who votes, and why. 80% of 3% doesn’t compare to 30% of 30%. Whatever else one may say about Dean, he can count.
posted by kittynboi on
I’m not part of the libertarian party for many many reasons.
But generally, I’m not in to the whole ultra freek market thing.
posted by Randy R. on
Where was Mary Cheney when all the gay-baiting went on in the Republican Party? Where is she now?
She was in a unique position to speak truth to power, and she never used it. Recall that her dad actually applauded when Bush called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. The cynicism of the repugs is astounding.
posted by Randy R. on
Fitz: you know, internalized homophobia is SO last year.
I don’t really care if you don’t think gays are deserving of the same rights as everyone else, but I will continue to fight for them. I want the right to marry, to raise kids, and be treated like every other person. If you are so self-loathing that none of this matters to you, then it’s time you seek a therapist.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, yes, ND30, poor helpless Mary. Give us a break. She is a public figure with a record. She was not outed by anyone, she was Coors’ gay rep, she knows what she is doing and is nobody’s victim.
None of which qualifies her for the kind of abuse that you and yours have been heaping upon her.
You’re right, Mary is nobody’s victim, because she chooses not to be. But that fact hardly prevents her, or me, from pointing out the abusive behavior of you and her fellow GLBT “family members”. The fact that you don’t like being called on it is irrelevant to my concerns.
Mary Cheney lives in Virginia and isn’t even aware of the much-publicized draconian anti-gay law that renders useless all the legal documents she and Heather have assembled to protect themselves?
Richard, with all due respect, you and your fellow “gay activists” need to stop telling wild stories to voters. You tried that crap in Texas by saying that the amendment would invalidate all marriages; now you’re trying to do the same in Virginia by saying that it would invalidate all legal documents. While the previously blogged, that it locks things as they are forever. Appeal to their sense of fairness and the fact that they know you, not some mythical legal boogeyman.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
She was in a unique position to speak truth to power, and she never used it.
How the hell do you know? Because she chose not to do it in the most embarrassing way possible to her father and to President Bush?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, your intellectual dishonesty is well illustrated by your ridiculous use of “you” to me in which you lump me together monolithically with scare-quoted “gay activists,” accuse me of histrionics, and accuse me of heaping abuse on Mary Cheney when the totality of my public comments on her to date consist of a few reasonable observations on this blog. Do you know what the words “abuse” and “histrionics” mean, or do they just sound nice to you? Do you have any knowledge of my extensive and clearly non-leftist record as an activist? Because you are merely obfuscating and distracting with your false comments, I will not continue a back and forth with you; but my subsequent silence will in no way imply agreement.
As to your statement to Randy R.: “How the hell do you know? Because she chose not to do it in the most embarrassing way possible to her father and to President Bush?”
Under the circumstances, yes. But the point was not merely to embarrass, but, as Randy said, to speak the truth. Since Bush’s scapegoating of gays for political purposes was done in public, any useful repudiation of that action needed to be public as well.
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
Virginia’s “Marriage Affirmation Act” was designed to invalidate private contracts, adoption agreements and custody decisions from other states. This is no mere scare tactic: Bob Marshall stated as much when he authored the law — and the courts have managed to carry out at least part of that intent. The Marriage Affirmation Act has already been used to invalidate other states’ custody decisions, leading to the question of whether other states might retaliate by doing likewise. (If family law cannot to be respected across state boundaries, then it must either be brought under federal control or be rendered unenforceable.)
This year, Bob Marshall wants to write the MAA into our state constitution. If it is approved, many of the rights Gay and Lesbian Virginians take for granted — like hospital visitation, domestic-violence protections, and the ability of private insurance companies to offer domestic-partner benefits — will all be in dire jeopardy. Under this proposed amendment, if Mary Cheney’s living will is challenged in a Virginia court, it won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.
As a Virginian, Mary Cheney cannot be taken seriously unless and until she publicly opposes the proposed constitutional amendment.
posted by Anthony on
Folks, we seem to be a bit too concerned about what Mary Cheney does or does not think or know about gay issues or laws affecting us. Quite frankly, I could care less if she has even one thought about marriage, etc. Of course, we could all read her book and gain a better understanding of where she’s coming from. Honestly, why do we get so upset with her? She is an individual and has a right to her beliefs and certainly a right to live in peace with her partner. I am with her on many of the points she made the other night in her King interview. We gays obsess about toeing some ideological line and seem to forget that being gay is but ONE facet of who and what we are. On the other end of the spectrum, we have folks like Fitz who seem to think we should be ashamed for being what God made us. What a terrible paradox – either deny yourself altogether or stomp around demanding this and that.
posted by Fitz on
In Greek mythology, Narcissus was a hero of the territory of Thespiae in Boeotia who was renowned for his beauty and his pride.
So in love with himself, that when he happened upon a clear pool and caught his reflection he became paralyzed, incapable of looking away. There narcissus stood, frozen forever in time, so captivated by his own reflection that he was incapable of looking away.
posted by Anthony on
I just thought of something that always gives me comfort when some Democrat shows his or her true colors regarding gay people. On a number of occasions I have had other gays (particularly of the liberal Democratic persuasion) try and tell me that my Republicanism contradicts who and what I am as an out gay man. They say that I am aligned with a party whose base includes the social conservatives bent on keeping me from having marital rights and are pro-life on abortion, do not favor affirmative action, etc. My response is that yes I am gay, but I happen to be pro-life (was once pro-choice but came around) and also am against any program that replaces discrimination with discrimination. They look at me with amazement and start spewing out terms like “racist” or “bigot” because I happen to disagree with them on these issues. However, the main point I drive home is the fact that they align themselves with a party whose core base includes a host of black ministers who shout their anti-gay rhetoric from pulpits across the nation, as well as a number of labor union members who find being gay a terrible sin and opposite to a good Christian life. So you see, we’re all making choices in our political discourse that includes being in the same party with people we strongly disagree on certain issues. This whole discussion about Howard Dean reminds me of why I am still a loyal Republican, in spite of my misgivings about the party momentarily. Oh, I know that a lot of people claim to be independents (“I don’t vote for the party, I vote for the person”), because they think it makes them look better or above the partisan fray, but in truth they DO vote mostly for one side or the other. We’re all partisans, like it or not, and we all find reasons to excuse what those we tend to agree with do and condemn what those we don’t agree with do. That’s America.
posted by Anthony on
Fitz, I am at a loss to understand your last post. Are you one of those gays who paces the floor all day and night because you’ve been “afflicted” with some dread disease called sexual orientation? I feel legimitately sorry for you if that is the case. You must find a way to accept yourself and realize that all the crap you’ve been fed by so-called Christian leaders and fellow church goers is built on lies. Plain and simple. Are you suggesting that gays are too much in love with themselves? Are we indeed those “selfish hedonists” that the brilliant Alan Keyes claimed we were a couple of years ago before his Senate campaign in Illinois was mercifully snuffed out? The narcissist here appears to be you.
posted by Ed Brown on
The LP legislator in Vermont opposed gay marriage. As does the sole Libertarian in Congress; Ron Paul.
The LP of Colorado supported “Amendment 2”, and most of the California Libertarians running back when the state anti-gay marriage amendment was on the ballot, supported it.
posted by Ed Brown on
“They say that I am aligned with a party whose base includes the social conservatives.”
Well, they would be right. It does not just “include”, but is the most powerful social base within the party.
“I happen to be pro-life.”
So, you want to outlaw birth control and sodomy? Darling, they are not calling you a racist simply because you “disagree” with them. If the shoe fits, then it is ok to wear it.
Some one in a labor union or a black church might view that homosexuality is a sin, but they will also be far more likely to support basic fairness.
“on certain issues.”
So, you do not place a high value on the fact that the party you belong to thinks that homosexuality should remain illegal?
posted by Fitz on
But we are hardly the only people on the planet are we? Narcissus was capable of looking at only himself. I on the other hand realize that more than my own ego aggrandizement is at stake. I have a Mother & a Father, and am at odds in finding either disposable. Having regard for children, I don?t view them as consumer goods fit for consumption and disposal at the wims of adult gratification. If one accepts that marriage is an important social institution than one is forced to peer into its present condition. One is forced out of a world of utopian idealism, radical egalitarianism, and an infatuation with rights based argumentation. One, in other words, is forced into the real world.
Within this real world(view), one is forced to reconcile oneself with 70% illegitimacy rates among the underclass, 30% illegitimacy rates among the population as a whole, 50% divorce rates holding steady, increasing numbers of young people remaining unmarried to later and later ages, and increasing numbers not marrying at all. Women going barren through no ?choice? of their own, never having either the number of children they desired or any at all. Meanwhile verifiable social scientific consensuses continue to emerge about the ill-effects of fatherless ness, divorce, daycare, pornography and on the list grows. Young women & men are thoroughly sexualized by age twelve through a openly decadent youth/pop culture that continuously seeks to ?push the envelope?. Resulting in a million abortions a year, teen pregnancy, unprecedented venereal disease, normative promiscuity in a ?hook up? culture translates into a misogynistic, debased, sex-obsessed society well into adulthood.
One is forced to recognize that the link between sex and procreation is inevitable, and the need for that procreation to occur within marriage is urgent. One realizes that continuing to head down a path that reduces marriage to mere yuppie coupling, divorcing it from childbearing will only further erode a crucial societal standard. One must understand that all family forms are not inherently equal, and that further reinforcing that idea has (and has had) very real human consequences. And that those very consequences vie for competition with what we call social justice. One only needs a cursory glance at the black underclass to realize that this ?institution? we call marriage is more than capable of destruction. In the face of this destruction its prudent to ask whether we are engaging in ideology or humanity?
posted by Randy R. on
All well and good, Fitz, but what has this to do with gay marriage? None of those problems occured because gays choose to marry. News flash: We gays are NOT trying to destroy marriage! We are in fact, trying to join the institution.
One need only look to most european countries, which have a much lower abortion rate than the US.
Who asked you to abandon one of your parents? In fact, I know plenty of gay couples who have adopted children — how exactly has that affected your family?
Your whole argument is based on two premises: that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and that if gays get married, it’s only gonna get worse. Ever think it might not? Or that it might actually get better?
posted by Randy R. on
And frankly, Fitz, if you think it’s narcisstic to get married, how does it help to keep the thousands of kids now in foster care out of a loving home? The few studies that have considered the questions have shown most kids in foster care would happily agree to be adopted into a gay couple’s family than remain in foster care. Why? Because they mostly want to be in a place where they are wanted and put an end to the endless trading back and forth that foster care often is. So I doubt anyone should deny them a family
Unless, of course, you think you know what’s better for these kids.
posted by Fitz on
?All well and good, Fitz, but what has this to do with gay marriage??
Nothing, but it?s got something to do with marriage! And that?s the institution I?m talking about. I?m not talking about some institution you want to create?one you hope wont cause further damage?. One you seem willing to gamble with because your worlds not going to hell in a hand basket!
Meanwhile 80% of prison inmates have one thing in common?.they were not raised with their Fathers in their homes. (more of an indicator of criminality than either race or class)
All the answers to all your questions are in my post above.
I?m not thinking of myself, I?m thinking of the common good.
posted by Anthony on
Ed, you are nothing more than the typical pointy-headed leftist who believes anyone who dares to disagree with you is a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, anti-this, anti-that. Seems to me you’re the one with most of the bias and prejudicial attitudes here. If it makes you feel better, “honey,” to call me any of those names then by all means feel free. I will not engage in you in conversation any longer because you are simply not worthy of it.
posted by Anthony on
Fitz, when you say are thinking of the common good rather than yourself, do you really mean that you regard your sexual orientation as an error caused by some horrible punishment for actually being gay? Or do you mean you’re thinking of the common good because you want to appease those who wish for you to remain closeted and ashamed all your life? Either way you’re only hurting yourself.
posted by Fitz on
Huh??? (read the post above slowwwwlyyyy)
Oh ya – I’m against family breakdown, so I hate myself?
Dime Store Freud?
Are you really a Doctor or do you just play one on T.V.
posted by Anthony on
Amendment to my previous post regarding not engaging Ed in conversation: When he suggests that labor unions and black ministers are more likely to support fairness, he speaks for his point of view ONLY. My experience has been that most union folks are more likely to become violent when on strike and someone is offered a job while they’re outside whining about whatever cause they’re hooked up with. And many black ministers regard people like YOU Ed as hedonists and of Satan. Well, perhaps in your case . . . LOL
posted by Anthony on
Oh Fitz. You’re upset because no one is going along with your “hate myself because I’m gay and society should hate me too” mantra. You should date Ed. You guys could spend all your time bemoaning the rest of the world for not buying the cake for your pity party.
posted by Fitz on
Sloooowwwwwwwwly
posted by Fitz on
Sloooowwwwwwwwly
posted by Ed Brown on
“the typical pointy-headed”
Read: Faggot Kike. I hope that Stephen is aware of the utter lack of civility that you are sprewing.
“who believes anyone who dares to disagree with you is a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.”
Um, no. You are the one that seems to be engaing in the name calling, and then running away like some tired little bully. I just call things, like I see them.
posted by Ed Brown on
“Amendment to my previous post regarding not engaging Ed in conversation.”
Spoken like a true child.
“When he suggests that labor unions and black ministers are more likely to support fairness.”
Shall I mention the major labor unions that have supported anti-discrimination legislation? Your bullying, if not midly anti-Semtic comments, are getting old.
Once again, the Republican Party oppose any gay rights legislation. Its leadership opposes all gay rights legislation, and our President feels that homosexaulity should have remained a crime.
posted by Ed Brown on
The bully speaks, and anyone that disagrees with him must be a pointy-head Jew. So how about it Fitz? We can hook up and I can teach you and the trolling bully how real men love.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“The LP legislator in Vermont opposed gay marriage”
The LP legislator who opposed gay marriage was ejected from the party over his stance.
When did the Democrats eject homophobic legislators from their party?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz, the only point of making the assertions and false-assumption-laded arguments that you are making here is specifically to slam gays wanting to marry — not to defend marriage in general, but specifically to treat gays who want to marry as being a threat to it. You seem to think that by calling SSM an experiment, and by (for no apparent reason) suggesting that gays are narcissistic, you have scored a telling blow against the justification for same-sex marriage. But there is no sound basis for supposing that gays would harm marriage in any way, any more than sterile heterosexual couples harm the institution by marrying. Wanting to legally bind one’s commitment to care for another person is inherently the opposite of narcissism. (And I assure you that my own partner looks and acts nothing like me.) You are dumping all sorts of prejudicial baggage on gays as a class, with a tone that suggests only retarded children could fail to know the truth of it. But in fact you are merely retelling some creaky stereotypes that the contributors to IGF have been particularly industrious in countering and disposing of. So instead of patronizing others by repeatedly telling them to read more slowly, why don’t YOU pay better attention?
Society is better for my mutual commitment with my partner. And there is no way that gays could do nearly as much harm to hetersexual marriage as the hets themselves have done even if we all were trying to do harm, which we are not. I don’t understand why some gay people, including yourself, appear so proud of swallowing and stoutly defending the anti-gay prejudice that underlies your position. Perhaps you think that you establish your social bona fides that way. In fact, the true contribution to the greater social good is done by those of us who work to bring gay people fully and completely into the mainstream. One of the benefits of marriage, by the way, is immigration rights for the foreign spouses of American citizens. My own partner is a foreign national. Can you explain to me how the institution of marriage is in any way protected, or how any good purpose is served, by my country’s refusal to allow my partner to come into the United States? Your entire position is profoundly misguided.
posted by Mark on
The current LP platform supports equal rights for gays. It’s true that libertarians oppose all anti-discrimination laws, however.
Ron Paul of Texas is on record against the Federal anti-gay marriage amaendment.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, your intellectual dishonesty is well illustrated by your ridiculous use of “you” to me in which you lump me together monolithically with scare-quoted “gay activists,” accuse me of histrionics, and accuse me of heaping abuse on Mary Cheney when the totality of my public comments on her to date consist of a few reasonable observations on this blog.
Based on what you’ve written about her, I think you fall nicely into that group.
If you want to prove your “non-leftist” credentials, start pointing out that namecallers like Wayne Besen themselves had no trouble pouring tens of millions of dollars, endorsements, and workers into campaigns which supported stripping gays of rights and calling it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. Then point out that their attacks on Mary Cheney are, at best, hypocritical, and at worst, trying to cover up their own misdeeds in deliberately misleading and lying to gays at the behest of their Democratic masters.
THEN we can talk more details.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, if it is truly up to you to decide whether my quite factual, longstanding, and extensive non-leftist credentials, and all that I have done as an activist and written as a professional writer can be erased without even being looked at, then I insist that you do so because in that case the situation is absurd. But in fact, to the extent that you are going to characterize in a sweeping and dismissive way someone like me who has a lengthy and easily verifiable record that contradicts your facile posturing, it is properly up to you only to learn the truth about me, not to invent it. I have no interest in proving anything to you, I was simply pointing out that my record contradicts your cheap assumptions. To cite one example that alone is sufficient to disqualify me from being lumped in with leftists: I have had 5 articles published by David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag.com, which would simply not be possible were I remotely a leftist. Stop trying to be clever or to win for a moment, ND30, and just admit once that you were wrong about something. That’s the only way you’ll win any points with me at this point.
Oh, and by the way, I’ve written several articles for Log Cabin’s think tank, the Liberty Education Forum. Democratic party hacks who put the party ahead of the gay community do not do that.
As for Wayne Besen, I have argued with him on his short-lived satellite radio program, and prior to that, when he worked for the Human Rights Campaign, I vociferously argued with him in a meeting with public officials on his sympathy for censoring public service ads by the ex-gay group P-FOX that were then running in the D.C. Metro system. Because the Metro authority is quasi-governmental, the First Amendment prohibited it from disapproving messages from qualified charities just because it found their messages disagreeable. Just the other evening I spent three hours at a meeting of the D.C. Human Rights Commission defending the First Amendment against regulatory encroachment that was being proposed in the name of GLBT rights. There were two dozen leftists arrayed against my GLAA colleague and me. Leftists do not do this.
But Wayne Besen’s calling Mary Cheney names, as you put it, does not make her actions or attitudes or inexcusable blind spots as revealed by her own statements excusable. Try responding to the arguments and sparing us the guilt by association (yes, even though some on the left do the same thing. I think it’s fair to say that most of us here on IGF want a serious alternative to leftist hackery, not just a different flavor of the same thing.
posted by Anthony on
Oh Ed, you just ooze charm and character. But you need not worry about my “bullying” any longer – I will do what I’ve done in the past and simply read the IGF’s articles and archives and leave the posting to others. It’s been fun, actually, but a good reminder of why I will not be a gay activist.
posted by Ed Brown on
Anthony:
Golly gee, you sure do plently of talking for some one that promises never to talk again. Your language was bullying, misleading and boraderline anti-Semtic.
I am not a “gay activist”, but you seem to be a bully activist.
posted by Fitz on
Marriage (as traditionally defined) is limited to a class of people, namely a man & a woman. While any member of that class may not have children, or cannot have children; the class itself is capable of having children. Same-sex couples are members of a class that can never have children. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples separates the institution necessarily from childbearing.
It also, by its very instance on changing the definition, androgynizes the institution. Marriage as a social institution will lack any necessary relationship to either maleness or femaleness and indeed, any relationship between the two.
I submit that for the vast majority of the human race, this new definition will serve them very poorly indeed. That this new form of marriage will be incapable of successfully inspiring men & women to come together and stay together for the good of themselves, the good of their children, and the good of all society.
(It will however serve the goal of making us feel wonderfully included {for a while} Just as the lack of it makes certain people feel wonderfully put upon)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Richard, I think we’re always going to disagree about Mary Cheney. But I do apologize for unfairly lumping you together with gay leftists. I acted wrongly towards you and I apologize.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, thank you.
As for you, Fitz, your suggestion about androgynizing the institution makes no sense. Cling to your casuistry if you like. It remains absurd to suggest that a small minority like the gay population could possibly damage the institution as much as straight people themselves have done. This whole obsession about the threat supposedly posed by gays – all out of proportion to our numbers – is not really about any real effect our embracing the legal obligations of marriage would have. It is about seizing and holding on to power by stirring up mobs with dire warnings of calamity that will ensue if a designated monster is not slain. As Jon Rauch wrote in his book, marriage will be better off for our being welcomed into it.
posted by Lori Heine on
“That this new form of marriage will be incapable of successfully inspiring men & women to come together and stay together for the good of themselves, the good of their children, and the good of all society.”
What an absolutely ludicrous assertion. All the straight people in the world will suddenly be unable to commit to one another just because those stinky old queers can marry. Hogwash.
Marriage ceased to function some time ago as a scheme for legalized breeding and nothing else. The straight folks changed that; we didn’t.
All this sound and fury about “homosexuality” serves as a smokescreen for self-indulgent and self-absorbed straight people who want to pretend they’re doing something about morality when actually they are not.
If you want to carry water for them, fine. But if you want to make asininely homophobic assertions to a largely gay readership, you can expect to be taken to the woodshed.
You may be accustomed to being treated like garbage. Some of us still insist on being treated like people.
posted by Randy R. on
Couple of things i find telling in Fitz’s comments:
First he assumes that a family with a mother and father is always better than any other form. Tell that to my cousin, who is an alcoholic who spent all his money and beat the kids and his wife. They eventually left him, and he is near death, since he never recognized his disease. His kids and wife most definately feel that they are better off without him around. There are many families that are better off with one parent than with two, so to make any assumptions otherwise is foolish and naive.
But the most telling comment was this one: “One is forced to recognize that the link between sex and procreation is inevitable.” Any gay person who says and believes this is mostly likelly either a virgin, or someone who has had only a few sexual encounters, most likely unsatisfactory ones, and no wants to tell all those other gays to stop, just stop! having sex.
Fitz: Here’s a news flash. One can have sex without procreation. And sex can be very enjoyable. In fact, most of the entire population worldwide has sex all the time without having it linked to procreation.
Only a person who thinks that gay sex is somehow ‘wrong’ or ‘dirty’ because it doesn’t lead to procreation would say otherwise, as you do. That is classic internalized homophobia. I suggest you find a good therapist and discuss this. Perhaps some day you will meet a really nice guy and you two will have sex that knocks your socks off.
posted by Randy R. on
One last point, Fitz: You aren’t going to destroy the world if you have sex with a guy. And you aren’t going to save it by being celebate.
posted by kittynboi on
Sounds like fitz has some major issues.
posted by Anthony on
Okay, Ed, I’m going to provide you with some major ammunition here – if my comments seemed at all bullying to you then I must offer my apologies. I have always felt it was important to stand up for your beliefs but not to the extent that you make someone else feel belittled or threatened in any way, shape or form. If that happened here, then I do say again that I am sorry. The easiest thing to do in a discussion of this nature is to allow one’s emotions to batter and bruise the opposing side or even worse to make them feel badly inside. We should be able to have discussions civilly. Now, having said that, you make far too many assumptions about me in choosing to label me certain names that come straight (no pun intended) out of the liberal playbook. Those tactics worked for a long time but these days gay conservatives are fighting back. I will continue to post my thoughts, as we all should. I will not apologize for my views, but I will make every effort to use words that aren’t quite as difficult to digest for some, or at least for you Ed. If you can promise to do likewise we can continue to have some very productive dialogue. Whaddayu say?
posted by Anthony on
Fitz,
I must ask a very serious question of you – have you ever been part of a so-called “ex-gay” ministry program, either by choice or by force? Your sustained attack on your own sexual orientation seems to suggest that you’ve been convinced by someone (a homophobic preacher, parent or other “concerned” person) that being gay is this terrible, horrible affliction. These people aren’t your friends or allies, they’re you’re enemies in every sense of the term. Politicians who speak of marriage amendments and such are just that – politicians. The opinions that truly matter are those of your family (whom I suspect aren’t exactly supportive of you), friends (ditto) and others who drift in and out of your life. It is difficult to imagine how a person can spend their precious time on this planet consumed with self-doubt or even self-hate. Some accuse gay Republicans of being that way, yet we are typically very happy, contented folks. It’s not our politics (on either side) that provides the most angst, it’s the supposedly religious aspects that tend to do the most harm. Sadly, it looks as though you’ve embraced the anti-gay approach championed by far too many churches. All the points you’ve made about sex being only for procreation and the incessant belief that only a husband and wife can properly raise children sound like something we’d hear from Jerry Falwell or James Dobson, who are no friends of gays or the broader Christian community, for that matter. Trying to convince other gay people that we should step back into the closet, bolt the door shut and become essentially invisible sounds eerily similar to what the most ferocious anti-gay voices in this country say time and again. Fitz, you must overcome this need for self-denial because it clearly is consuming everything in your life. Celebrate who and what you are. Don’t walk away from it just to satisfy other people who claim to love you. God created you and made you who and what you are. No one can take that from you. Is it selfish to be yourself? Hardly, but it is pitiful to try and destroy yourself internally.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I am inclined to content myself with refuting Fitz’s arguments rather than engage in amateur psychoanalysis.
It does occur to me that Fitz’s charge of narcissism as a tactic for deflecting our substantive arguments is similar to the charges of pride leveled against theologian Hans K
posted by Fitz on
Most of the contentions I assert above are hardly the province of a small band of thinkers isolated on one end of the political spectrum. Evidence of the causes and problems associated with family breakdown have been mounting for decades. At this point in the debate you have general consensus among scholars and researchers that the intact natural family represents the best environment for childrearing. I can assure you that this was not always the case. Even to the present day the debate is encumbered by a cadre of ideologues who insist on premises like ?social construction? and ?eternal verities? in a beleaguered attempt to thwart accountability.
What is required of the honest participant is the ability to see human sexuality, marriage, and childbearing as the comprehensive whole it is. We are not talking about a mere legal contract who?s rights, responsibilities and definition arose from nowhere and can be altered to small effect. On the contrary, we are talking about a fundamental social institution that provides for a myriad of human and societal needs. It is ceremony and sacrifice, custom and culture. Marriage is a pre-liberal, pre-enlightenment institution.
It?s prominently not about rights or freedoms or the individual. Rather it concerns itself with duty, accountability and the larger community. It is not now or was it ever a private institution, but rather a public one ? hence the involvement of the state and the necessity of public expectations. When I speak of the ?link?, I meant the link itself was inevitable. Sex can and often does result in procreation, intended or unintended. Even 100% effective birth control can never sever this link. One man & one women alone are capable of producing their child. University academic arguments for ss ?m? always leave open the possibility for Polygamy or more precisely ?polyamory?. That is: The serious law and humantites professors and their organizations (like the ALI) do not endorse so called ?conservative? case for gay marriage.
They want to de-privilege the privileged
(i.e. ? traditional marriage)
And privilege the de-privileged
(i.e. ? anything but traditional marriage)
I think it does one?s intellect a disservice to reduce marriage to a mere legal formality. The more intellectually sound way to approach it with integrity is to admit that as an institution it operates legally/socially/culturally ? historically and so on. That these understanding are intertwined, overlap, and effect one another.
(its also telling that this reveals how many of the ?benefits? of marriage are attainable through private contract) This seems to be question begging. Its can definitely be categorized as ?discrimination? (the law is about line drawing after all) but to qualify it as ?wrongful? is to answer the question before you have posed it. This is neither intellectually honest nor a liberal approach. For such a complex and divisive subject, I have noticed a intellectual detachment and retrenchment on the part of the cultural left. They seem to be content with the most cursory understanding of legal ?discrimination? under the law, and reflexive shouts of bigotry. One expects at least a bit more.
The voice of the strict empiricist is factual but woefully inadequate. One is reminded that one of the selling points of a regime of abortion on demand was that it would eliminate illegitimacy, especially among the underclass. We now know what many predicted; just the opposite occurred. We are not a world of rational actors, we are a world comprised of human beings. The materialist assumptions about mans possibilities have a habit of destroying themselves upon the dictates of the human heart.
posted by Lori Heine on
“The materialist assumptions about mans possibilities have a habit of destroying themselves upon the dictates of the human heart.”
What a curious admission for somebody supposedly opposed to same-sex marriage to make! The very argument against same-sex marriage being based — as it certainly is — upon a crassly utilitarian, human-being-as-farm-animal view.
The fact of the matter is that (A) The “Ozzie-and-Harriet” model of the family is itself a modern invention, most children throughout history having been raised more in the committee-style, council-of-elders (dare I say “it takes a village”) mode than anything resembling Ozzie and Harriet. And (B) It is marriage for love that changed all this, not same-sex marriage.
Anytime the heteros want to bravely take the lead on remedying the problems with family stability by gallantly sacrificing the privilege of marrying for love, I will applaud them. But something tells me I’d better not hold my breath until this happens.
It could very well be that same-sex marriage stimulates the debate necessary to find remedies for the flaws inherent in a marriage-for-love-alone and an “Ozzie-and-Harriet fantasy” view. The human mind and spirit are very resilient and quite resourceful. Perhaps the Chicken Littles among us will prove wrong.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The issue is this, Fitz; marriage in the United States is a confusing commingling of a relationship and a legal contract.
On several levels, I do agree with you. Children are best off when raised in the traditional nuclear family setting with two parents of the opposite sex. However — and this is key — that does not preclude the fact that they could do just fine in a same-sex household with two parents as well. The differentiation of gender roles is indeed important, in my mind, for best socialization, especially given that 95% of the kids out there are going to be straight, not gay; however, what is most important and paramount is the stable relationship between the parents. That is what will ultimately determine the child’s future, and it is not something that you can legislate or confer through legal statuses.
To the legal points, however, marriage in the United States is basically life planning for dummies. Instead of having to create and execute a myriad of contracts, it’s give us a blood sample and sign here. Because marriage has been so institutionalized into the fabric of our legal system, however, the lack of it for gay couples does to a great degree undermine the fundamental concepts of legal equality under the law in the Constitution. In short, the more benefit, right, and privilege conferred by marriage, the harder it is to justify denying it to certain individuals.
The fundamental reason so many of those benefits, rights, and privileges exist for marriage is to facilitate and enhance the raising of children. This is why the issues are so frequently confused. For instance, seamless, tax-free property transfers between spouses in the event of one’s death are to make sure that kids don’t lose their houses. Social Security benefit transfers are geared so that a parent is not penalized for staying home and taking care of the kids. Indeed, I find it ironic that most “gay activists” who use Social Security eligiblity as a battle cry don’t even realize that, since there is a limit to how much households can receive in Social Security benefits, they’re screwing themselves over if both people in the relationship work (and so are married people, for that matter), because they will never receive the full value of their individual contributions into the system.
As I’ve advocated before, and William Saletan recently reiterated, the solution is likely a two-tier system — a base-level “civil unions” situation that still treats people as singles for the purposes of taxation and Social Security benefits (or penalties), but confers joint property and transfer ownership capability, power of attorney, and other basic things; then, a higher-level system akin to covenant marriage that grants tax and Social Security benefits, but is much more difficult to untangle.
Then, the kicker — if you produce or want to adopt a kid, you must opt for covenant marriage.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote: “Then, the kicker — if you produce or want to adopt a kid, you must opt for covenant marriage.”
In my role as a gay rights activist, my only concern would be that whatever policy is adopted, there be a single standard for everyone whether they are gay or straight.
But of course I am not just a gay rights activist, and this proposal sounds way too bossy for me. Before such drastic solutions are imposed, a better job ought to be done of demonstrating a need for them. If the radical right’s panic over marriage were serious, they would be clamoring for recriminalizing adultery and abolishing no-fault divorce. In fact, the whole panic is over gays getting into the act. Period.
posted by Fitz on
Period? Well I know some religious friends that don?t feel that way? They would like to return to fault based divorce. (Although a proposal of fault and a waiting period for couples with children is a politically realistic approach) And adultery is illegal in many jurisdictions.
Its hard to accuse people who have used the Mantra ?Family Values? science before gay marriage ever came on the radar screen of having some anti-gay agenda.
On another matter entirely.
If an apple is different than an orange.
Then two apples are different then two oranges.
And both are different from an apple & an orange.
Why should the government be forced to ignore what the whole world readily acknowledges?
Seems a little silly.
That?s why the standard is rational basis under the law.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz, if you are going to invoke “what the whole world readily acknowledges,” you should acknowledge that several nations already recognize same-sex marriages, with more on the way. It has already been pointed out that the nuclear family model of mid-20th-century America does not resemble most families as they have existed in human history. As to your comparison of apples and oranges, both are fruit. Two men and two women and a mixed couple are all human beings, and they are all couples. When we have won equal civil marriage rights for sames-sex couples, the supposed vast and insurmountable difference that you are suggesting will not look so in retrospect to most reasonable people.
As to your so-called Family Values friends, yes, they have been using that mantra for a long time, and they have been attacking gays for a long time as well. Back in 1981, when we first tried to repeal the anti-sodomy law here in the District of Columbia, Jerry Falwell and Republicans in Congress (led by Rep. Philip Crane of Illinois) raised a ruckus about it, claiming that it would lead to bestiality in the streets of Washington, and the House passed a legislative veto of the repeal effort. From the outset of the Family Values crusade, gays and women seeking abortions have been the favorite targets of right-wing demonizing. At least in the case of abortion there is a victim. (Don’t tell Ellie Smeal I said that.)
The law on adultery is different in different states, yes; and my point was that if the Marriage Protection Amendment supporters really were motivated by a desire to protect marriage, they would be seeking a constitutionial amendment to criminalize adultery nationwide, and another one to prohibit no-fault divorce nationwide. But there is virtually no chance of that happening, because there are far more straight people than gay people, and they would not stand for it. So instead, the right wing targets an unpopular minority. Figure it out, Fitz: you are just plain wrong in a big way.
posted by Fitz on
“So instead, the right wing targets an unpopular minority. Figure it out, Fitz: you are just plain wrong in a big way.’
posted by Fitz on
“So instead, the right wing targets an unpopular minority. Figure it out, Fitz: you are just plain wrong in a big way.’
Your so called & demonized ?religious right? are just regular folks believing that children are best raised when their Mother & Father are married. Yes, its extremely difficult to enact cultural reform on the legislative level. Nevertheless, social conservatives have been advocating for the traditional family since time immoral. They are all well aware of the effects the movement from agricultural to industrial society have had on the extended family, as well as the strains associated with a post industrial economy.
Then?.out of the blue?.the Massachusetts Supreme Court (an extremely liberal court) rules 5 to 4 that marriage as traditionally defined is irrational bigotry.
The national groundswell is an unprecedented wave of populist Constitutional Amendments across the country that continues unabated.
These people didn?t start anything! We did. And only a narcissistic paranoid could translate that into being ?targeted?.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
“Your so called & demonized ‘religious right’ are just regular folks believing that children are best raised when their Mother & Father are married.”
Then let them raise their own children that way. The problem (to the extent we are talking specifically about the raising of children) is that they want to bar a class of people from being eligible to adopt based solely on their bias against gay people. The evidence does not support their religiously-based view, and the government has no business imposing these people’s religious views on the rest of the population. As to your charge that I am demonizing them, Wrong. I am describing them. Nobody on my side of the issue is seeking to write fundamentalist Christians out of the Constitution, for example. It is standard practice for activists on the religious right to portray themselves as victims, but the evidence is very much to the contrary.
“Then?.out of the blue?.the Massachusetts Supreme Court (an extremely liberal court) rules 5 to 4”
It was not out of the blue; the ruling was pending for some time. In case you hadn’t noticed, the American way of government includes a judicial branch, and citizens have a right to seek justice in the courts. Also, we have a representative government and protections for minority rights, so the notion that all that matters is a direct popular vote is contrary to the American way.
“that marriage as traditionally defined is irrational bigotry.”
No, pardon me, but their conclusion was that the Massachusetts state constitution forbids same-sex couples from being excluded. Once again you bizarrely seek to turn the truth on its head to portray gay people as the oppressors and those who seek to discriminate against us as the victims. It won’t wash.
“The national groundswell is an unprecedented wave of populist Constitutional Amendments across the country that continues unabated.”
The reason those ballot initiatives are being pushed so aggressively is that the opinion polls are gradually shifting in favor of full equality for gay people – which means that in another generation or two we will win. And as I said a moment ago, the American structure of government is not based on a strictly majoritarian approach.
“These people didn?t start anything! We did. And only a narcissistic paranoid could translate that into being
‘targeted’.”
We merely asked for our equal rights as Americans. The anti-gay laws and initiatives were indeed started by the right wing. What you are saying is that they were justified in doing so because of our wickedness in wanting to be treated as equal citizens.
posted by Ed Brown on
Actually this goes back to Hawaii court case in 1996 or even back to some attempts in the 1970’s.
posted by kittynboi on
Your so called & demonized ?religious right? are just regular folks believing that children are best raised when their Mother & Father are married
Then they can stop trying to interfere with things that have nothing to do with that, like my access to porn, horror films, gore films, and profanity on t.v.
These crack addled, well, meth addled is more like it, since its the drug of choice for white trash, wannabe dictators are after far more than just forcing straight people to marry and have kids.
Yes, its extremely difficult to enact cultural reform on the legislative level.
I would liken it more to immoral mind control than simply “difficult”.