While I'm not looking forward to a House led by Nancy Pelosi (all but certain) or a Senate led by Harry Reid (a 50/50 chance), I am certainly looking forward to the defeat of Sen. Rick Santorum (all but certain), the Senate's leading opponent of gay legal equality, and maybe even Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (she's just over 50% in the polls), the lead sponsor of anti-gay legislation in the House.
Columnist Maggie Gallagher recently wrote, "If Rick Santorum loses, nobody in Washington will ever want to lead on the gay marriage issue again." Well, that's probably overly optimistic, but it's a nice thought anyway.
Trendwatch. In other news, Neil Patrick Harris, who rose to fame in the early '90s as Doogie Howser, M.D., has come out. Harris currently stars the CBS sitcom How I Met Your Mother, where he plays a womanizer. And as noted last week, T.R. Knight, who plays George on ABC's Grey's Anatomy, become the first gay man to publicly come out while appearing on a top-rated television show. Let's hope this signals a shift away from Hollywood's traditional dependence on lying and hiding about being gay.
17 Comments for “Silver Lining.”
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Columnist Maggie Gallagher recently wrote, “If Rick Santorum loses, nobody in Washington will ever want to lead on the gay marriage issue again.” Well, that’s probably overly optimistic, but it’s a nice thought anyway.””””
While that specific prediction may be optimistic, I do think a republican defeat will take the wind out of the sails when it comes to the “culture wars”. Even if they win, it will only be by a narrow margin, and I would still expect some shakeup.
I also think that, win or lose, the whole alliance between the GOP and the religious right will never be what it was before, or at least won’t be for a number of years.
posted by Antaeus on
Maggie, who has a child out of wedlock and took money from the Bush regime to write “op-eds” on this very issue(!)is no judge of anyone or anything.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Most gay families are quite a bit more responsible than Ms. Gallagher. Not only do they do a better job of planning their family affairs, but they focus on their own business and being good parents — rather than being poor parents yet attacking other families ala Ms. Gallagher.
I think the hypocrisy which is social conservatism is now transparently obvious to the average voter, given Foleygate and Haggartgate. The real question is, will the hypocrisy of big-government liberalism be the next target?
posted by raj on
Antaeus is correct about Gallagher. Frankly, Gallagher’s “holier than thou” blo(g)viating about “gay marriage and the children” reminds me of the bloviatings of an ex-smoker: ex-smokers are oftentimes more anti-smoking than those of us who have never smoked, and Gallagher’s bashing of gay marriage to protect “the children” is clearly a reaction to her own defalcations regarding her children.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
For all the talk about how positive things are, the linked article about Neil Patrick Harris still takes a negative connotation: “Neil Patrick Harris Admits to Being Gay.”
One “admits” he committed a crime or is a bad parent or dented the car. One ACKNOWLEDGES that he’s gay.
Language is a powerful thing. Small changes make a big difference. Gay people should be sticklers about this in everyday life.
posted by Bobby on
Northeast, his “crime” was being in the closet.
posted by Randy R. on
NE: Good point. I will inform the National Gay and Lesbian Journalist Association of this tidbit, in case they missed it.
They do a good job on helping the media get the right words.
posted by ETJB on
Mr. Harris’s sexual orientation should not suprise anyone. It has pretty much been an open secret in Hollywood.
Yes, it is a good think that both men came out, while in major tv sitcoms and hopefully their careers will not take a downward nose dive.
posted by CPT_Doom on
The other positive about the acknowledgements of both Mssrs. Harris and Knight is that they are both playing pretty straight characters on their shows. I highly doubt either character would be perceived or written as a closeted gay man, even with this publicity. It would be great if these two coming-outs could finally do away with the myth in Hollywood that gay actors can’t play straight characters (as if being in the closet weren’t training enough!).
posted by Dr. Katana of Reasoned Discussion on
A setback for the Republicans this cycle will hardly shake up the simbiotic relationship between the Religious Right and the Neo-Cons. This campaign seems to be a referendum on how people feel about the Iraq situation and nothing else.
Lacking a cohesive platform (like the Contract with America) or the slick advertising campaign of the Republican’s hold on power is going nowhere.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
But the Dems cannot pull together a platform if they stand for nothing other than their own power.
posted by ETJB on
And Libertarians will never gain power…Unless we change the electoral system.
posted by ETJB on
BTW, I would remind you all to vote on Nov 7th (today)
I have non-partisan voter information on my web page
http://www.geocities.com/edwardtjbrown/vote
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
You’re absolutely right, but you seem to think our goal is to gain power (which is incorrect). Our goal is to take away power. Any power we “gain” will immediately go back to everyday citizens — out of the hands of both social engineering Democrats like yourself and social conservative Republicans like your opponents (who you agree with on 80% of issues anyway).
Republicans and Democrats thirst for power. They live for it — the power to force others to live as they demand. Libertarians seek no power at all, other than giving you the power to make your own decisions and live your own life, with all the responsibility that comes with that.
posted by ETJB on
“You’re absolutely right.”
Thank you. I am also right about what the California Libertarian Party told me.
“You seem to think our goal is to gain power (which is incorrect).”
Any political party that wants to impact public policy needs to win elections or else they are an interest group.
“Will immediately go back to everyday citizens…”
Yeah, to businesses that want to run monopolies, to bring back ‘white only’ signs, to hire and fire or rent or not rent to whomever they want.
To allow local government to pretty much do whatever they want to its citizens.
To allow the poor and the disabled to fend for themselves. To abolish all health and safety regulations.
I do not agree with the Libertarian Party. However, I work hard for election law reforms that would allow the Libetarian Party or other third political parties to complete in elections.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I am also right about what the California Libertarian Party told me.
Really, now? You talked to the entire party? I am impressed.
According to the registry, there are 34,210 party members in California. That must have been one heck of an undertaking.
Since the state party did not endorse the statements in question, and also supports marriage equality in its platform, I’m sure you’re not talking about the party platform. Oh dear.
Any political party that wants to impact public policy needs to win elections or else they are an interest group.
See, that’s the old thinking which will ensure that your time in power will be as ineffective and disastrous as Dubya’s time (but likely quite a bit shorter).
posted by ETJB on
“Really, now? You talked to the entire party? I am impressed.”
I spoke with at least one or two of then CA LP official leaders or board members. They bluntly told me that they were not going to sanction their candidates for supporting the state anti-gay marriage initiative.
The CA LP opposed the initiative, but many, if not most, of its candidates supported it. When I brought this up to the CA LP I was told that they were not going to hold their members accountable to their platform.