Ann Coulter was her usual despicable self when she called John Edwards a "faggot," and HRC takes the opportunity to express its outrage at Republicans. But Gay Patriot shows that a good many conservative and/or Republican bloggers are also unhappy with La Coulter's antics. And we can now even add some on the Christian right.
If HRC hadn't transformed itself into a Democratic Party fundraising arm, then its reacton to something like Coulter's imbecility might not seem like such a knee-jerk, rouse the base, operation. But then, fostering meaningful dialog with those on the right is the last thing on HRC's to-do list, and so it has no credibility when it issues a response to incidents such as this.
Speaking of HRC, if you think I've been hard on their ultra partisanship of late, just read Chris Crain.
More. Andrew Sullivan blogs:
"HRC, the organization, is now fully integrated into HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton], the campaign. It is the Clinton campaign.... What matters is what's in the best interest of the Clintons and the Democrats."
Still more. One of Coulter's themes during her CPAC address was her dislike for Rudy (she said she's likely to support Romney). Meanwhile, Rudy surges among Republicans, not all of whom are intolerant bigots, it seems. And Rudy shares is vision of the GOP as the party of freedom.
Worth noting. In her March 3 Wall Street Journal op-ed (WSJ subscribers, only), the very politically astute Peggy Noonan writes that:
In 2000 [McCain] felt he could take on Christian conservative leaders in the South. Bad timing. In 2000 they were at the peak of their 20 years of power. Now their followers are tired and questioning after a generation of political activism. And many leaders seem compromised-dinged after all that time in the air. Mr. McCain could rebuke them now and thrive. Instead he decided to attempt to embrace them.
McCain is re-fighting the last political war. I don't think Rudy is going to make that mistake.
Update. The GOP big three sharply denounce Coulter's remark.
111 Comments for “Coulter’s Outburst, HRC’s Outrage, and Politics as Usual.”
posted by Brian Miller on
Of course, had Barack Obama referred to Rudy Guiliani as a “faggot,” and Log Cabin Republicans had launched an attack on Obama, the blog would be condemning Guiliani and backing LCR as a vital force in the political world for gays.
All this situation proves, including the blog post itself, is that apart from the teams they’re cheering for, there’s precious little real, substantive difference between the two old parties and their partisans.
posted by Brian Miller on
Oops, I meant the blog would be condemning Obama
posted by James on
Since I am Edwards supporter for reasons which might go beyond politics, all I can say to the accusation of “faggot” is: “If only! (sigh. . .) Move over, Elizabeth!”
posted by Casey on
Okay Brian, let’s make this real simple. The Log Cabin Republicans are a partisan organization on the right, yes – they are important because we don’t have much of a voice over there, and that is where the frontline of the debate is. Their partisan parallel are the Stonewall Democrats (in theory) because if success takes a two-party strategy, then yes, it is good to have a glbt group on that side as well, holding their feet to the fire (if only). The HRC, however, as the gays’ largest organization, is supposed to be bipartisan, with no conflict between its party ideology and its goal of advocating on behalf of gay Americans… as far as a truly bipartisan organization was concerned, it would be just as happy if its membership was even split between both other organizations – all it would care about was putting the interests of gays first. Because it is theoretically a nonpartisan gay-advocacy group, it takes a lot of money and makes a lot of promises to people who the only thing they have in common with other gay people is their sexuality – we are not monolithic, we do not all agree on taxes, the war, affirmative action, etc. We all give to HRC because we want equal treatment under the law. When HRC works for anything other than that – for example, becoming a shill for the Democrats – it is acting in bad faith as our agent, abusing our donations and trust, and as such should be condemned. Clear?
posted by Doug on
CPAC proves you can be gay and a conservative but you cannot be gay and a Republican if you have any self respect whatsoever.
posted by Bobby on
Here’s what Coulter said in full
“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot.'”
http://amcblog.nationaljournal.com/njoncall/2007/03/cpac_coulter_pulls_a_dr_burke.php
She was telling a joke, people! She didn’t actually call him that! It’s like Chris Rock saying “now I’m gonna have to watch myself the next time I use the word ‘nigger'”
Of course, at this liberalgayforum, I’m not surprised her comments are taken out of context.
posted by thom on
Bobby ~ Please be real. It’s not only people in this forum who found her comments offensive, but plenty of conservatives as well, including the leading Republican presidential candidates. Under the circumstances, the reaction to Coulter’s latest offensive remark can hardly be characterized by “leftist” over-reaction, unless of course, you’re so partisan that you can’t admit a blunder by one of your own.
P.S.: Watch the video. It’s heartening (not) to hear how the young conservatives cheer her on.
posted by Antaeus on
Bobby is an obvious masochist.
posted by PCT on
You go James. Edwards in ’08!
posted by Alex on
I agree that she was telling a joke. However, she designs everything she writes and says (and likely thinks) for maximum offensiveness. It’s in the same vein as “Mr. Candidate, when did you stop beating your wife?”
How can anyone be surprised at her remarks? The joke is as mean spirited as anything else she writes. The joke is as deliberately slanderous as anything else she writes.
Ann is a typical American Conservative, and is what Americans expect from our partisans.
posted by Doug on
Let us be clear. The 3 Republican front runners came forward with their tepid comments distancing themselves only AFTER the issue was raised by the Democrats and gay rights folks and the press. Pathetic to say the least.
posted by Avee on
Love the way the Demos won’t give any GOPer credit for anything gay positive, but excuse ever mendacity from their own party. Moving the GOP in a pro-gay direction is the only way to secure gay equality.
The “one party strategy” is and will always be a failure, good for nothing but HRC’s fundraising against the GOP boogymen.
posted by grendel on
Avee said, “Moving the GOP in a pro-gay direction is the only way to secure gay equality.”
But the GOP will become less anti-gay only when it becomes more costly in political terms to maintain their current anti-gay positions than it is to adopt more pro-gay positions.
If you support the GOP despite its anti-gay stance, what incentive does it have to change?
I just don’t buy the “if we’re nice to them, they’ll stop hating us” argument. At least in the political arena. Political parties are driven by market forces. The only thing we have to “sell” (so to speak) is our vote. If we give it anyway without demanding anything in exchange, we’ve lost any clout to force change.
And yes, the same holds for support of democratic candidates also.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby ~ Please be real. It’s not only people in this forum who found her comments offensive, ”
—I am being real, she got in trouble for using a bad word. A bad word plenty of hip hop rappers, Bill Maher and other celebrities use with impunity. She used that word to illustrate an example, not to hurt anyone’s feelings, except John Edwards, but he doesn’t count, he says plenty of nasty shit about other people.
And while I would have prefered she had used another word, it’s not that easy. Everyone knows what the “n” word means. But the “f” word isn’t always the one directed at us.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But the GOP will become less anti-gay only when it becomes more costly in political terms to maintain their current anti-gay positions than it is to adopt more pro-gay positions.
But it’s not costly at all.
John Kerry supported stripping gays of rights via state constitutional amendment and bragged that he had the “same position” as President Bush, and was rewarded with tens of millions of dollars and chants of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. Howard Dean goes trolling for Pat Robertson’s audience, telling the REAL truth about the Democrat Party Platform as part of the Dems’ avowed strategy of reaching out to homophobes, and nothing happens.
What has rendered gays politically impotent is that, to paraphrase Avee, Republicans will never get gay votes, and Democrats will never lose gay votes.
California is an excellent example. Despite having five out, supportive candidates for Assembly this past fall, Equality California chose to support none of them. Why? Because they were Republicans.
posted by Carl on
–
California is an excellent example. Despite having five out, supportive candidates for Assembly this past fall, Equality California chose to support none of them. Why? Because they were Republicans.-
Unless the Republican leadership in the state legislature was supportive of gay issues, or issues that affect the lives of gays and lesbians, then why should gay GOP candidates be endorsed? NDT, if Hillary chose a gay running mate, would that make you more likely to vote for her?
–
But it’s not costly at all. –
It seemed to cost Sue Kelly.
posted by The Gay Species on
I’m not sure the Gay Patriot or its cabal of self-loathing reactionary forces are a bellweather for the “conservative” blogosphere. Andrew Sullivan thinks he’s a conservative, and by his definition of conservative, I’ll agree he’s representative of what once was conservative (e.g., Goldwater-type proto-libertarianism). Today’s neo- and paleo-conservatives are a different breed altogether. Authortarian. Theocratic. Jingoistic. Militaristic. Unilateralist. Corporatist. If these features are “conservative” in Sullivan’s (cf., Gay Patriot’s) sense, at least Sullivan does not think so!
Ann Coulter-types may seem extreme to moderates, liberals, and progressives, but she captures the imagination and finances of today’s conservatives. Mitt Romney praised her, before her “faggot” joke. Watch the reaction from the audience. Who was disapproving? Even “damage control” was not immediately obvious, as it had to percolate awhile before conservatives were blind-sided by the adverse reaction. Gay-bashing apparently energizes The Base, but seems to alienate more moderate sensibilities.
The Republican party, and its conservative kingmakers, meeting at Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, FL, on February 25th, aren’t satisfied with the current prospects for the 2008 election. The current prospects are not reactionary and theocratic enough, like George W. Bush. Robertson and Dobson are both on record praising Bush 43 as the “best president ever,” while also claiming Ronald Reagan was a “disappointment.” How reactionary and theocratic must the Republican party “orthodoxy” become before it becomes America’s Taliban? Today’s Republicans and Conservatives are NOT the Howard Bakers, Everett Dirksen, or Elliot Richardson of yesteryear. They really are “conservative” in the Burkean-reactionary sense, not the Goldwater proto-libertarian sense.
Alas, HRC long abandoned its original mission as a GLBT “human rights” organization, and under Joe Solmonese it has become a partisan arm of the Democratic machinery. The claim is that Democrats are more gay-friendly, despite Democrats giving us DADT, DOMA, and no ENDA. A “human rights” advocacy has to avoid partisanship to retain its central focus to work for ALL GLBT, not all of which admire Democrats taking our money, but shrugging us off with important policy. GLBT who are interested in “rights” advocacy first, aside from political partisanship, are urged to consider the ACLU, GLAAD, NGLTF, and/or LAMBDA instead. Donations to, and volunteers for, HRC are surrogates for Solmonese’s own political aspirations, not the entire GLBT, much less our collective rights. Like some Democratic operatives, spending others’ monies for other purposes “fits” the agenda, which may not be OUR agenda. Wasteful is an appropriate observation of HRC’s spending sprees.
posted by Pat on
Bobby, I understood the context, and what her point was. She was trying to demean people who are offended by the word. Again, try replacing it with the n-word in the same exact context, and there would have been more of an outcry. And she would be immediately persona non grata in the Republican Party.
As for deciding whether or not the Democratic Party is more gay friendly than the Republican Party, it’s very simple. Forget about what people say, and what promises were broken, and who is pandering whom. Look at all the gay rights issues, and see how the votes in Congress went, and see which party comes up generally consistently more anti-gay, and which party comes up generally consistently more pro-gay (including DOMA, DADT, and ENDA). Obviously, you can always find exceptions either way, but that’s not what I’m arguing. IMO, the strategies up to this point seemed to serve the gay community well. Gay rights had steadily advanced, thanks mostly to the Democrats who were more willing to forge ahead than the Republicans.
But now, in the past two years, we see that the Democrats have regressed a bit, and new strategies and actions are needed by the gay community. We can no longer blindly accept the Democratic Party, and we have to hold gay organizations more accountable in how they use our donations, and how they stand up to Republican AND Democratic bigotry and inaction. At the very least, when HRC and other organizations endorsed Kerry, they should have also made it clear that they didn’t endorse his anti-equality views of marriage. Yes, Log Cabin Republicans failed to endorse Bush in 2004, because of his anti-gay views and deliberate ignorance and condescendence of homosexuality. But they would have heartily endorsed Bush if he was only as anti-gay as Kerry.
Anyway, I applaud the efforts of Democrats and gay organizations to get us to where we are today. But now it looks like new ideas are needed to keep moving us forward to equality.
posted by Tim on
Channeling James:
Ann was only referring to fem fags so she’s ok.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Look at all the gay rights issues, and see how the votes in Congress went, and see which party comes up generally consistently more anti-gay, and which party comes up generally consistently more pro-gay (including DOMA, DADT, and ENDA)……….IMO, the strategies up to this point seemed to serve the gay community well. Gay rights had steadily advanced, thanks mostly to the Democrats who were more willing to forge ahead than the Republicans.
Let’s see, DOMA and DADT both passed, and ENDA didn’t.
What exactly is the “advancement” there?
And frankly, the biggest advancement for gays last year was the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which removed the tax penalties associated with non-spousal beneficiaries and, for the first time, allowed gays to bequeath their retirement savings to the partner of their choice without incurring a massive tax hit. That passed with overwhelming Republican support over opposition from such Democrat luminaries as the “pro-gay” Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Harry Reid.
Democrats know that gays are primarily interested in the persecution-complex bills like ENDA and hate crimes, while almost completely uninterested in things that actually might make gays’ lives easier and better, like the pension bill. They also know that gays will support the former and oppose the latter as long as they are told that Republicans do the opposite.
Next, to Carl:
Unless the Republican leadership in the state legislature was supportive of gay issues, or issues that affect the lives of gays and lesbians, then why should gay GOP candidates be endorsed?
Hmmm, let’s see…..who chooses that leadership? Oh, that’s right, elected Republican legislators.
And when is that leadership chosen? Oh, I remember, by the vote of the incoming crop of legislators.
So, by logic, it would seem that the best way to ensure that there was a supportive Republican leadership in the legislature would be to support candidates like the ones I mentioned.
the only people I can see this NOT benefiting are Dem party leadership, who a) have to cough up more money for their homophobic and nominally-“supportive” candidates and b) have to confront the thought of gays not under their complete control in positions of power in government and the legislature.
And that’s why it doesn’t surprise me, Carl, that you’re arguing AGAINST supporting these candidates.
posted by Brian Miller on
All this nonsensical outrage over a word — led by politicians, each of whom is a homophobe (yes, including Rudy Guiliani and Howard Dean).
Which is more insulting — Coulter’s well-worn high-school-insult sctick, or Republicrats and Demopublicans who call for “dignified debate and respect” and then support anti-gay laws?
Every single old-party politician of any standing, to date, who has condemned Coulter’s remarks, supports policies that harm GLBT people and their families. Which is worse — Ann Coulter’s latest verbal ejaculation, which can be laughed off, or the Democratic and Republican parties’ political assault on our rights, dignity and wallet?
Before you march off into partisan battle to defend your Tweedledee Clinton or Tweedledum Guiliani candidate, think about how respect is truly conveyed. If those candidates truly respected gay folks, they’d not be advocating laws designed to marginalize, overtax, and ghettofy us.
posted by John on
As usual those who don’t give to HRC, support HRC’s work, and depise their leadership bemoan that HRC doesn’t listen to them and do things the way they want. Perhaps if you were supporting HRC and were giving them your $$ and were participating in their organization and policy development they would listen. Obviously they are promoting someones viewpoint or they wouldn’t have any money to play partisan with. I think they are useless, but it seems stupid to constantly harp on their partisanship when only one side of the aisle is willing to play with them. If republicans were active and supportive within their org and they still played partisan you might have something to complain about.
posted by Brian Miller on
As usual those who don’t give to HRC, support HRC’s work, and depise their leadership bemoan that HRC doesn’t listen to them and do things the way they want.
I used to do all three, and my voice was no more important to them back then than it is today.
For instance, when was the last time that the average paying HRC member got to:
1) Vote or participate in formulation of policy platforms;
2) Vote for and select board members and executives;
3) Vote for who will receive endorsements;
4) Formulate policies that are used for creating an HRC scorecard.
The answer to all four questions is “never.”
HRC will happily take your money and tell you how “involved” you are, but the folks at the top running things never listen to the membership — nor do they intend to, if the existing situation is any indicator.
Now, before someone points out that this is true of other gay groups too, I readily accept that. However, most gay groups that are command-and-control orgs are honest about this fact and don’t position themselves (misleadingly) as a grass-roots non-partisan organization that speaks on behalf of the “whole community.”
posted by Pat on
NDT, I was talking about gay rights as a whole. As I mentioned, there are exceptions, as you pointed out. So while DOMA obviously didn’t advance gay rights, it didn’t really set things back either, since now people actually started to think that same sex marriage was a possibility. Since it is a law as opposed to a federal amendment, a simple majority vote and signature by the President will overturn it. DADT could be viewed as some progress, since gay persons were not allowed to be in the military at all. And ENDA didn’t happen, as you said. My understanding is that Clinton supported it, but didn’t have the votes in Congress. However, a larger percentage of Democrats supported it than Republicans. As for hate crime laws, I support them, but very iffy on them. And I don’t think opposing hate crime laws is an anti-gay position. My problem is when one supports hate crime laws, but specifically opposes protections for homosexuals.
I agree with those that say the Democrats are far from perfect on gay rights. No argument there. Further, there has been pandering, broken promises, etc. But, IMO, the Democrats have done a good job in advancing gay rights, until about two years ago. I wish I could say Republicans are picking up the slack, but they aren’t. The pension bill is a start. But you’ll have to forgive me for skepticism, given the Republicans general anti-gay record. If this is a trend that continues, that will be great, and won’t make the argument that Democrats are better. But that’s not the case yet.
In The Malcontent, Robbie makes a good argument in one his comments in the HRC post there describing how although it’s clear that the Democrats are better than Republicans on gay rights, that blindly supporting Republicans and organizations like HRC is a losing strategy.
posted by Brian Miller on
the Democrats have done a good job in advancing gay rights, until about two years ago
During their last stint in the presidency, which included a period of time when they had a Senate and House majority as well, the Dems delivered only two things of any relevance to gays:
1) An anti-gay law in the form of DOMA (as a response to Hawaii’s gay marriage ruling) that not only banned state-to-state recognition of gay relationships but also created a federal ban of recognition of gay relationships;
2) The military’s present, disastrous anti-gay policy.
If that’s a good job, I’d hate to see the Democrats on the attack against GLBT folk.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Pat, there is a phrase gays should internalize: past history is no indication of present or future results.
But if that were the case, gays would actually have to confront homophobia among Democrats in the present, which has not and will not happen. Furthermore, they would then have to recognize and applaud actions by Republicans in the present, which is even more of a psychological impossibility for gays.
So to maintain the psychological crutches they’ve had for years, gays dig up past Democrat history, real or imagined, to explain why they pump millions of dollars to homophobic candidates like Kerry, and past Republican history, real or imagined, to explain why they consider people like Arnold Schwarzenegger to be antigay and evil.
Therefore, neither side bothers, since they know gays don’t evaluate what they’re currently doing, only what gays think has been done before. No matter what Republicans do, they can’t change the past; furthermore, Democrats know that, no matter what they do in the present, they can’t change the past either — so gays will always hate Republicans and support Democrats.
And what Robbie’s post does is simply enable this mentality — avoidance of the present and the obvious.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As usual those who don’t give to HRC, support HRC’s work, and depise their leadership bemoan that HRC doesn’t listen to them and do things the way they want. Perhaps if you were supporting HRC and were giving them your $$ and were participating in their organization and policy development they would listen.
And perhaps if I gave a dollar to the alcoholic street person I see collecting money outside the Powell Street Muni stop every time I’m there, he would listen to what I have to say and do as I would prefer he do.
But invariably what ends up happening is that he’s still out on the street, still drunk, and I’m a dollar poorer.
posted by thom on
Okay, so the Democrats suck. (By the way, what was the policy of the military BEFORE DADT? Wasn’t it total exclusion of homosexuals?)
Accepting that the Republican party is not composed of people like Ann Coulter, how does the party plan to do to advance issues important to gays? Is there a policy statement or platform I can take a look at? Will they advance civil unions, as a way for gays to obtain the same governmental benefits afforded to married heterosexuals? Is the Republican party no longer interested in overturning Roe v. Wade? Does the GOP still believe that the Right to Privacy, relied upon in Roe v. Wade, through which rights for gays have flowed, does not exist? Does the Republican party believe that the states should be free to outlaw homosexual behavior?
What is see here is a lot of valid complaints about the Democrats, but no claim that the Republican party is more gay friendly.
For Brian Miller, what was the highest percentage of votes a Libertarian candidate has ever received in a presidential election?
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, I understood the context, and what her point was. She was trying to demean people who are offended by the word. Again, try replacing it with the n-word in the same exact context, and there would have been more of an outcry.”
—You’re right, however, we all know the n-word is more controversial, although ironically, it’s a rather popular word if you watch movies and listen to hip hop and even hear plenty of African Americans speak. The f-g word on the other hand, it’s more accepted. I don’t like it, but I’m not gonna condemn Ann Coulter for using a word that Bill Maher and others have used.
I’m dissapointed at her, but I’ve read her books and she’s not homophobic, she has gay friends in her life, she doesn’t want sodomy laws to be reinstated, she’s just a traditionalists who sees the ironies of these PC times.
And besides, she’s white, I don’t expect her to be sensitive, or to understand discrimination.
But when a black actor uses the f-g word, in public, to denigrate another actor. That I take personal. Blacks have experienced discrimination, so they should be the last people on earth to discriminate agains’t anyone.
Ironically, that logic doesn’t seem to work in the real world. In the real world blacks are even more homophobic than whites. South Africa for example isn’t gay friendly because most blacks are gay friendly, that’s thanks to Mandela, the constitution and their Supreme Court.
But gays don’t usually care about stuff like that, they’re only interested in bigotry when it comes from conservatives. When it comes from liberals or muslims or thirld world countries, they hear nothing.
posted by Brian Miller on
what was the highest percentage of votes a Libertarian candidate has ever received in a presidential election
So long as people decide not to vote Libertarian, but continue to support Clintons and Bushes, they’ll continue to wonder why their unconditional support of homophobes isn’t winning them any equality under the law.
I’ve always thought that a wasted vote is voting for someone whose views don’t correspond to your own on the issues most important to you. If the whole “hold your nose and go with the herd” strategy was successful, Bill Clinton would have legalized out gays in the military and signed the Gay Marriage Act in the 1990s.
What is see here is a lot of valid complaints about the Democrats, but no claim that the Republican party is more gay friendly.
What you don’t seem to be taking a view of is the fact that the Republicans are indeed not any more gay friendly than Democrats — but they’re also not any *less* gay friendly.
I’m waiting for Democrats — who assail Libertarians — to wake up to the fact that the Democrats couldn’t care less about gay issues. They push a few hot buttons every year in order to get a few million dollars in campaign cash — and then wander off again to return to their homophobic campaigning.
If Democrats could get more money by going overtly anti-gay, they’d do it (just as Clinton did when he campaigned on the DOMA law in southern swing states as a “defender of traditional values” in the 1996 election).
If Karl Rove could win Bush a theoretical third term by endorsing gay marriage, George W. Bush would be marrying Dick Cheney in a White House Rose Garden ceremony.
Republicratic gay rights activists love to assail Libertarians as “ineffective” — but Republicans and Democrats have held power for decades and virtually no progress has been made by partisans of either party on gay issues.
Gay marriage was a result of lawsuits. Ditto for gay adoption and most other advances. Democrats and Republicans — at an institutional and individual level — have worked hand in hand to advance anti-gay laws, voted for them, etc.
Oh, of course, Democrats often express “regret” at their “mistakes” of the past, but they don’t actually *do* anything about it — other than collect another couple of million in donations from gay Democrats who are convinced that *this time*, unlike the last dozen or so elections, the Democrats will do something.
Just who, then, is “ineffective?”
(Incidentally, if a Libertarian candidate was allowed into the presidential debates — as the only other party to be on the ballot in enough states to win the election — I suspect the percentage of Libertarian presidential votes would be much higher. . . but apparently “count every vote” movements on the left only apply to their own candidates. 😉 )
posted by Carl on
–
Hmmm, let’s see…..who chooses that leadership? Oh, that’s right, elected Republican legislators.
And when is that leadership chosen? Oh, I remember, by the vote of the incoming crop of legislators.
So, by logic, it would seem that the best way to ensure that there was a supportive Republican leadership in the legislature would be to support candidates like the ones I mentioned.-
Even if all 5 gay legislators were elected, that would make them 5 out of about 30 or 35, wouldn’t it? I doubt that would be enough to swing a leadership election.
I’m sorry if I missed your answer before this – if Hillary chose a gay VP, would you vote for her?
posted by thom on
To Brian Miller ~
I have a great deal of respect for Libertarians and their viewpoints. And I agree with you with your characterizations of both parties, for the most part. (I do not think you give fair credit to Bill Clinton for trying to change the ban on homosexuals in the military. He didn’t get it accomplished, but DADT — in theory — is a better position than a complete ban. I do not dispute that he was an abject failure in all other areas of equal rights for gays.)
However, I am a pragmatist. I accept that the US will remain a two party system for the remainder of my life. I’m not happy about it, but I do not see a genuine opportunity for change. If, like me, you accept that premise, then your political choice boils down to choosing between the lesser of two evils — the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate.
When I select between those two choices, I have long since abandoned any hope that I will be choosing either candidate based upon their commitment to equal rights for gays. Both parties pander to gays, then turn around and bash us when it serves their interests. Therefore, I choose the candidate who is less likely to harm the progress we have achieved to date.
After six years of Bush, my concern is that the Supreme Court is now poised to erase the precedents that have been used to overturn laws depriving us of rights. I’ve given up hope of seeing same sex marriage or civil unions in my lifetime; I just want to be able to live my life without the fear of the police breaking into my house to arrest me because I am gay. I don’t think most gays realize what little it would take to reverse Lawrence v. Texas and/or the precedent upon which it is based, thereby opening the door for states to criminalize our lives.
Is it unrealistic to believe that states would do that again? Perhaps, but given the agenda of the Christian Right, who has certainly been in the ascendency during the Bush years, I believe it’s legitimate to be concerned.
Thus, at the end of the day, when I select between presidential candidates of the two parties, I examine their opinions about the role of the judiciary and the Constitution. It would be a delight to vote for Republican candidate (as I do in my state elections) who is a true conservative, i.e., believes in small government and fiscal responsibility. But now, Republican presidential candidates pander to the Christian Right, and promise to appoint judges who will stop “judicial activism,” and reverse the very cases that give us what few rights we have. And that leaves me with the Democrat…
It’s not ideal, I admit. If the Christian Right were not so hell bent on intruding into the personal lives of others, perhaps I could afford the luxury of expending my vote on a “gay friendly but unlikely to win” Libertarian candidate. But now, in today’s world, I can’t — I want to protect the few rights I have now.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Even if all 5 gay legislators were elected, that would make them 5 out of about 30 or 35, wouldn’t it? I doubt that would be enough to swing a leadership election.
ONE vote in the right spot is enough to swing a leadership election.
I’m sorry if I missed your answer before this – if Hillary chose a gay VP, would you vote for her?
You didn’t, because I didn’t give one. But I will humor you with one this time.
The answer is no.
But I ask this question; since Hillary supports DOMA and, by virtue of doing so, opposes gay “equality”, would you call that person self-loathing?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And now to thom.
Accepting that the Republican party is not composed of people like Ann Coulter, how does the party plan to do to advance issues important to gays?
The same way they did this past summer, when Republicans in Congress passed the Pension Protection Act of 2006 — which, for the first time in history, allowed gays to will their retirement funds to others without those others having to take a massive tax hit, and expanded the eligibility for hardship withdrawals to non-spousal beneficiaries as well — all over strong Democrat opposition.
And, in 2006, Republican legislators in Colorado advanced a reciprocal-benefits bill that would increase the ease and speed of access of gays to existing legal benefits for their relationships and which had the endorsement of even Focus on the Family, making it a virtual shoo-in; this was opposed by Democrats and gay leftists, who pushed for gay marriage and civil unions initiatives that were handily trounced at the ballot box.
In short, the Republican Party has no particular issue advancing things that happen to be important to gays; they just do it differently.
Is the Republican party no longer interested in overturning Roe v. Wade? Does the GOP still believe that the Right to Privacy, relied upon in Roe v. Wade, through which rights for gays have flowed, does not exist?
Of course it doesn’t exist, thom. Practitioners of incest, polygamy, prostitution, sex slavery, and child sex do not have unlimited right to privacy. That alone should show you that Roe is a flawed and discriminatory decision, dependent more on ideology than it is on any constitutional precedent.
Roe should be overturned. States should be free to make their own decisions in this regard. But the reason they aren’t is because abortionists know that the vast majority of the American public, while they may not favor outright bans, does not support unlimited abortion — and we’re talking about an industry that generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually for Democrat politicians, leftist organizations, and abortion providers. A rape and incest-only provision for abortion, which most Americans support, would make illegal approximately 95% of the million-plus abortions that take place in the United States annually, at an average cost of $500 each. Without this money, the DNC’s primary funding sources would wither and die. Is it any surprise that they mobilize their compliant groups like gays to protect this “right”?
Does the Republican party believe that the states should be free to outlaw homosexual behavior?
Some do. But, given that Hawai’i’s sodomy statute, like that of the majority of states, was repealed long before Lawrence was even thought about, I wouldn’t worry much about it.
An interesting thought, thom; if police were summoned to a residence with a phone call indicating that a burglary was taking place in said residence, and then found two men inside, both with histories of violent behavior and extensive criminal records, do you think they would be prone to arrest those men, or to let them go?
Look up a bit of the history of Lawrence and Garner, and you may realize something — like why Lambda Legal and the other leftist organizations kept them well away from the media while the lawsuit was ongoing.
It may also impress onto you that the fact that these two were chosen shows just how hard-up leftist organizations were for plaintiffs, despite their insistence that police were breaking into houses and arresting people for being gay.
posted by Carl on
–
ONE vote in the right spot is enough to swing a leadership election.-
If there were more cases of new members of a Republican caucus making the leadership more moderate, then I would agree. The only time I remember that happening was in New Hampshire a few years ago.
–
But I ask this question; since Hillary supports DOMA and, by virtue of doing so, opposes gay “equality”, would you call that person self-loathing?-
Depends on the person. I do wonder how many of the people who would deride those who would be upset with him as “single-issue” voters would take the same tack if he were a gay man running as the VP on a Republican ticket. A single issue – his being gay – would upset Republican voters pretty quick.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “And, in 2006, Republican legislators in Colorado advanced a reciprocal-benefits bill that would increase the ease and speed of access of gays to existing legal benefits for their relationships and which had the endorsement of even Focus on the Family, making it a virtual shoo-in; this was opposed by Democrats and gay leftists, who pushed for gay marriage and civil unions initiatives that were handily trounced at the ballot box.”
This (like everything you type) is a gross simplifacation of what happened here in Colorado last year. There are concrete and definite downsides to future equal-rights struggles that reciprocal benefits packages entail. This hobbleing of future rights is the reason Dobson supported this bill. You state that “leftist gays” (my oh my, you love this stupid little phrase don’t you?) OPPOSED the bill. This is another of your lies. EQUAL RIGHTS COLORADO (also known as the largest gay rights groups in Colorado) gave hesistant endorsement to the bill despite the fact that reciprocal rights have worked AGAINST gays in the past. Try to not be so lazy in the future.
posted by Pat on
If that’s a good job, I’d hate to see the Democrats on the attack against GLBT folk.
Brian, I think I mentioned that you can find exceptions, and I even mentioned the two you specify. But again DADT changed the policy from no gays allowed to gays allowed if they keep their mouth shut. Not great or equal, but an improvement. At least generals are starting to agree that there should be full equality. So progress was made, but more still to go.
You’re right on DOMA. That was hardly progress. But you stated that the Democrats and Republicans are equally anti-gay. Here’s the thing. If Congress consisted of all Republicans, FMA would have passed with with flying colors. This would be 100 times worse than DOMA. If Congress consisted of all Democrats, FMA would have failed with just a couple of votes from windbags like Robert Byrd who should have been ousted from the Senate 50 years ago.
And what Robbie’s post does is simply enable this mentality — avoidance of the present and the obvious.
NDT, “Enabling” is in the eyes of the beholder. It appeared to me that Robbie acknowledged what is obvious on its face. But he also made the point that that is not nearly good enough, and sees blind loyalty as detrimental to the gay community. You may think it’s unimportant, but lying or denying about something is not going to help. If you honestly believe both parties are equally anti-gay, then we’ll agree to disagree.
So Robbie was acknowledging a point from his opponent that he agreed with. I think that’s part of adult, civil discourse, and trying to at least find common ground, instead of only emphasizing where there is disagreement. I try to do the same with you or other persons I disagree with. I will concede points where I see agreement, and even acknowledgment good points, even when I disagree. Others may see that as me enabling you.
As to your point about history, I agree it’s important to look at the present to see what’s happening. But I also believe you have to look at history as well. Republicans passed the pension bill, which is a good thing. They denounced Ann Coulter. Is this a trend? In other words, the next time a state has civil unions (which he supposedly supports), will Bush applaud it, or decry judicial activism.* Has Bush finally learned from his connections as President that homosexuality is not a choice? Will he give another feel good, but condescending answer when asked if homosexuality is a sin?
Same for the Democrats. I now see the trend reversing. Howard Dean’s pandering of Pat Robertson. Is this going to continue, and are the Democrats going to pander to these individuals as much as the Republicans do? Are they going to continue to ignore gay rights issues, and continue to regress like they have in the past two years?
A lot of gay persons are now seeing the regression of the Democratic Party. A lot of gay liberal friends of mine are actually considering a Republican candidate like Rudy Giuliani. These people who have given money in the past, are now rethinking this, and waiting to see how this plays out.
*When NJ passed the civil unions law, which was in response to the NJ Supreme Court recognizing unconstitutional inequality, instead of Bush saying, “That’s great the NJ has civil unions, which I heartily endorse. I just wish that it didn’t happen via my perceived judicial activism” he just reminded us only that he dislikes judicial activism as if that was news.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Pat, there is a phrase gays should internalize: past history is no indication of present or future results.”.
Funny, I’ve never heard that one, but what I have heard is that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Northdallass said “gays dig up past Democrat history, real or imagined, to explain why they pump millions of dollars to homophobic candidates like Kerry, and past Republican history, real or imagined, to explain why they consider people like Arnold Schwarzenegger to be antigay and evil.”.
LOL, Northdallass, the only other choice than Kerry was Bush and he supported a constitutional ammendment banning equal marriage, Kerry didn’t – clearly Kerry was the lesser of two evils. And while con-servatives bitched about ‘judicial activism’ and equal marriage being decided by the people hypocrical Arnold vetoed an equal marriage bill passed by the legislature and said it should be decided by ‘judicial activism’.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I love ColoradoPatriot’s rant; he makes it clear that gay leftists like himself opposed the Colorado reciprocal benefits proposal because (they claim) it’s antigay — but then tries to argue that gay leftists didn’t oppose it.
Of course, he’s bitter now, because he and his fellow leftists and their hate speech not only got gay marriage banned in Colorado, but civil unions defeated as well — and, since he and his fellow gay leftists already made it clear that reciprocal benefits were antigay, they’re likely not getting those either.
Brilliant. Well-done. (slow clap)
And while con-servatives bitched about ‘judicial activism’ and equal marriage being decided by the people hypocrical Arnold vetoed an equal marriage bill passed by the legislature and said it should be decided by ‘judicial activism’.
That is because, as I have previously pointed out, there is an existing law passed by voter initiative called Proposition 22, which specifically bans gay marriage in the state of California. Under the California Constitution, an initiative passed directly by voters overrides and outweighs anything passed by the Legislature. What Arnold is pointing out is that the only way in which the marriage law could be effective in the first place is if Proposition 22 is overturned by the courts or repealed by voters.
Trying to force “marriage” through the Legislature is thus a pointless waste of effort. But for some reason, gay leftists are terrified of raising a ballot initiative to repeal Proposition 22 — probably because they know, sans their gerrymandered districts, it would never pass.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“An interesting thought, thom; if police were summoned to a residence with a phone call indicating that a burglary was taking place in said residence, and then found two men inside, both with histories of violent behavior and extensive criminal records, do you think they would be prone to arrest those men, or to let them go?”
Are we to believe that John Lawrence and Tyron Garner both had “histories of violent behavior and extensive criminal records”? Or is it only a baseless insinuation?
posted by Brian Miller on
you stated that the Democrats and Republicans are equally anti-gay. Here’s the thing. If Congress consisted of all Republicans, FMA would have passed with with flying colors.
That is, of course, not only speculation, but also incorrect.
If Congress consisted of all Republicans, may would represent “Democratic” areas and would be similar to Lincoln Chaffee or other Republicans who voted against the amendment.
Of course, the reality here is that I judge the national parties by what they say *AND* what they do.
Democrats signed DOMA and voted for it (and so did Republicans).
Democrats created and endorsed DADT (so did Republicans).
In fact, on every issue of import to gay people in the political arena, both parties acted in the same fashion.
Now, it’s lovely that from time to time, Mitt Romney gets on stage with Hillary Clinton to condemn Ann Coulter’s naughty words — but both Clinton and Romney will continue to argue that you’re not entitled to equal rights under the law.
The “lesser of two evils” argument is lame because the “lesser” is truly insignificant. As Paul Wellstone (DOMA voter), Chuck Schumer (DOMA voter), Bill Clinton (DOMA signer) and other Democrat luminaries show, their “support” is a couple of feeble, lukewarm code words that quickly vanishes come voting time — when the vote record is identical to the big bad Republicans.
In essence, when you vote for the Democratic Party, you’re just voting for the Republican policies on gay rights but with a “kinder, gentler” face.
Again, talk about a wasted vote!
posted by Brian Miller on
Howard Dean’s pandering of Pat Robertson. Is this going to continue, and are the Democrats going to pander to these individuals as much as the Republicans do? Are they going to continue to ignore gay rights issues, and continue to regress like they have in the past two years?
Of course they are — they’ve calculated that this will win them enough votes and they’ve gambled that the gay vote will stick by them rather than holding them to their own records.
Judging from the passionate defense of homophobic Democrats to be found on many gay web sites, it unfortunately appears that they’re correct, too. The sad thing is that if Republicans said and did what the homophobic Democrats did, the same people would be screaming about how only the self-loathing could support such candidates.
While I agree that support of such candidates is self-loathing, I see it as a problem for both old parties.
The reality is that Democrats are a lot more like Stephanie Herseth, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton than they are like Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich on gay issues.
Just like most Republicans are closer to Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich on gay rights than Lincoln Chaffee or Christine Todd Whitman.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Here’s the problem with your argument, Pat.
Here’s the thing. If Congress consisted of all Republicans, FMA would have passed with with flying colors. This would be 100 times worse than DOMA. If Congress consisted of all Democrats, FMA would have failed with just a couple of votes from windbags like Robert Byrd who should have been ousted from the Senate 50 years ago.
So instead of dealing with the pervasiveness of homophobia in the Democrat Party that is obvious in the here and now, you’re asking us to focus instead on what could have happened if……
Here’s the reality, Pat. Very few of the Democrats argued that the FMA was wrong; the majority argued that it was unnecessary, because DOMA, state laws, and constitutional amendments already existed.
How much confidence do you have in them if those laws, etc. were in some way compromised by a court decision?
And that’s why I think Democrats are equally, if not more, antigay; they’re simply better at manipulating the gay community. When Louis Farrakhan calls gays “filthy” to overwhelming applause from his audience, almost all of which are Democrat, and is rewarded with defense of his statements by Illinois Democrat legislators and utter silence on the part of people like Barack Obama, one wonders just how committed the Dems are to gays once the door closes on the fundraiser.
In other words, the next time a state has civil unions (which he supposedly supports), will Bush applaud it, or decry judicial activism.
That depends. Will it be like Connecticut, in which an elected legislature passed them, or will it be like everywhere else, in which a court order forced them at gunpoint — and like in Massachusetts, where a leftist unelected court employed a blatant double standard to try to sabotage the voters’ right to amend the constitution?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, I’m not buying your BS about proposition 22 – you’ve lied too many times for me to take your word on this one.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Suit yourself, Randi.
And, had you checked the hyperlink I already provided, you might have noted that I quoted it directly.
But we already know you don’t read links, preferring instead to rely on your insistence that I am lying.
And now to Thomas.
Are we to believe that John Lawrence and Tyron Garner both had “histories of violent behavior and extensive criminal records”? Or is it only a baseless insinuation?
That depends, Thomas.
Do you want to believe the gay dogma, which says it’s a “baseless insinuation”?
Or do you prefer the facts?
The Morning News detailed the criminal histories of both men, largely information previously reported. Harris County court records list arrests for assault, drunken driving and possession of a small amount of marijuana for Garner, the newspaper reported. Department of Public Safety records show two convictions for assault, in 1995 and 2000, according to the Morning News.
Lawrence has two convictions for drunken driving and one for murder-by-automobile in 1967, the Morning News reported, facts that the Houston Voice uncovered in 1999.
posted by alex on
Ann Coulter, reported to have said the following on Hanity & Colmes: “‘Faggot isn’t offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays,” Coulter said on “Hannity and Colmes” Monday night. “It’s a schoolyard taunt meaning ‘wuss,’ and unless you’re telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person.”
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “I love ColoradoPatriot’s rant; he makes it clear that gay leftists like himself opposed the Colorado reciprocal benefits proposal because (they claim) it’s antigay…”
Please stop lying on this board, I never said that reciprocal benefits were “anti-gay” and I never said I opposed reciprocal benefits. Why do you feel the need to spread lies here repeatedly? Nice job of completely dodging AND missing the point.
I’ll repeat myself here since you’ve misrepresented what I said with more of your vicious lies. “You state that “leftist gays” (my oh my, you love this stupid little phrase don’t you?) OPPOSED the bill. This is another of your lies. EQUAL RIGHTS COLORADO (also known as the largest gay rights groups in Colorado) gave hesistant endorsement to the bill despite the fact that reciprocal rights have worked AGAINST gays in the past. Try to not be so lazy in the future.”
Thank You
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said that reciprocal benefits were “anti-gay” and I never said I opposed reciprocal benefits.
Really? Then what was this all about?
There are concrete and definite downsides to future equal-rights struggles that reciprocal benefits packages entail. This hobbleing of future rights is the reason Dobson supported this bill.
So you and Equal Rights Colorado whined that it hurt gays and works against gays and that Dobson supported it (you claim) because it hurt gays — but now you insist it’s not antigay and you didn’t oppose it.
Mhm. Right.
Why not just admit, CP, that you and your fellow gays made a stupid political decision out of hate — and now are totally screwed, with no marriage, no civil unions, AND no reciprocal benefits?
Maybe next time you won’t be so dumb. And maybe next time, you won’t tell Democrats to kill the bill in committee.
posted by Carl on
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/keene_on_coulte.html
– ACU and CPAC leave it to our audience to determine whether comments are appropriate or not. –
So I guess who cares if Coulter made an anti-gay comment or not, as long as the audience laughed.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, I’ve heard of proposition 22, I just don’t buy your line that it would have prevented the equal marriage legislation vetoed by Schwarzenneger from taking effect.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
ColoradoPatriot asked “Why do you [Northdallass] feel the need to spread lies here repeatedly?”
Because its the only way he can pretend he’s winning a debate where he’s clearly wrong. Northdallass, just because ColoradoPatriot and Equal Rights Colorado had concerns about the reciprocal benefits package doesn’t mean they opposed it. CP said Equal Rights Colorado gave hestitant endorsement of it – stop lying and saying he opposed it.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “So you and Equal Rights Colorado whined that it hurt gays and works against gays and that Dobson supported it (you claim) because it hurt gays — but now you insist it’s not antigay and you didn’t oppose it.”
The lies continue to dribble from ND30’s keyboard. Neither I nor Equal Rights Colorado EVER said that reciprocal benefits “hurt” gays, just that it makes future equal rights legislation difficult…stop with the fucking lies. Look dude, it is really not that difficult and was spelled out nicely in my first post. If you spent more time working on your reading comprehension and less time being a pain-in-the-ass, simple points wouldn’t be so hard to understand. Hopefully the third time will be a charm…
“You state that “leftist gays” (my oh my, you love this stupid little phrase don’t you?) OPPOSED the bill. This is another of your lies. EQUAL RIGHTS COLORADO (also known as the largest gay rights groups in Colorado) gave hesistant endorsement to the bill despite the fact that reciprocal rights have worked AGAINST gays in the past. Try to not be so lazy in the future.”
NOT DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT AT ALL. NO WHINING HERE EITHER FUCKFACE, JUST TRYING TO PARSE THROUGH YOUR BULLSHIT…ERC DID NOT “WHINE” ABOUT THE RECIPROCAL BENEFITS PLAN, THAT IS WHAT ENDORSING SOMETHING MEANS. IDIOT.
Thank You.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course you don’t, Randi; it doesn’t fit your bigoted view of reality.
However, again, the facts disagree.
An initiative measure approved by majority vote takes effect the day after the election unless it specifies otherwise. If provisions of two or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote prevail. The Legislature may amend or repeal initiative statutes by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by voters, unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.
This is why Lambda laughably tries to lie to voters, telling them that Proposition 22 “only applies to out-of-state marriages” and thus the gay marriage bill would be legal — a view that has been repeatedly rejected by California courts, even the one that attempted to strike Prop 22 down on constitutional grounds.
It’s all avoidance. Gay leftists don’t want to admit that they’d lose a statewide vote, mainly because the majority of Californians don’t take well to gay leftist rhetoric, such as telling other people to stick a .357 in their ear, or namecalling religious people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Neither I nor Equal Rights Colorado EVER said that reciprocal benefits “hurt” gays, just that it makes future equal rights legislation difficult
Um…..so now you’re saying making future equal rights legislation difficult doesn’t hurt gays?
In that case, you guys look really stupid for not picking this up and running with it. But then again, you’re gay leftists; because of your petty political hatreds, you’d rather go without benefits and protections for gay couples.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Do you want to believe the gay dogma, which says it’s a “baseless insinuation”?”
There is no need to whitewash their record. As their attorney pointed out in the article you mentioned, “That even makes it that much more courageous, in my opinion, for people who have some criminal indiscretions in the past to be willing to go forward publicly to challenge this law, realizing that at some point someone would discover this public information and it might not be very nice.”
However, I find the expression “both with histories of violent behavior and extensive criminal records” rather misleading considering that John Lawrence and Tyron Garner did not commit offences serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Um…..so now you’re saying making future equal rights legislation difficult doesn’t hurt gays?”
That’s not what I’m saying “now,” that’s what I’ve always said…not a difficult concept to grasp unless you suffer from some severe learning disability. It is like the concept of cost/benefit analysis is completely lost on you. You are pathetic ND30, get a grip on reality before you post again.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL Northdallass, I’ll take Lambda’s word over your’s anyday, you’re a habitual liar.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
(shrug) Suit yourself again, Randi.
For CP:
There are concrete and definite downsides to future equal-rights struggles that reciprocal benefits packages entail. This hobbleing of future rights is the reason Dobson supported this bill…….EQUAL RIGHTS COLORADO (also known as the largest gay rights groups in Colorado) gave hesistant endorsement to the bill despite the fact that reciprocal rights have worked AGAINST gays in the past.
In short, when it suited your argument, reciprocal benefits were antigay and bad.
When it didn’t, they weren’t.
And of course, what has yet to be explained to me is why, despite the alleged “support” of gays, they were killed in committee — by Democrats.
Finally:
There is no need to whitewash their record.
And yet, Lambda did it anyway — to the point that gays like yourself believed that saying these two had a history of violent behavior and extensive criminal records was a “baseless accusation”.
posted by Brian Miller on
Is ND-30 still trying to argue that his Tweedledum Republicanism is somehow “superior” to Tweedledee Democrats?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, Mr. Miller, good to see you again. I believe you forgot something.
posted by ETJB on
2004; America had two meaningful choices and in temrs of gay rights John Kerry was the lessor of the two evils.
“California is an excellent example.”
Yeah, of the LP utter lack of commitment to principle…
“Equality California”
Not living in California I have to ask; did you email them and ask them why not? Did the LCR get involved in making endorsements?
If it is a progressive gay rights organization it is likely only going to endorse progressives. Likewise if the IGF started to endorse candidates — more then it has — I be shocked they endorsed progressive candidates.
posted by PCT on
Gosh ND 30 I think I owe you an apology. Thanks to you, I’ve seen the error of my ways. I thought Republicans didn’t like me, ’cause they (or their wacko base) want to 1) take away health benefits from my husband, 2) ensure that I can’t marry him, 3) ensure that I can’t even make a private contract with him, 4) take away my children, 5) reduce my employment security, letting my boss fire me just because I’m gay, 6) allow a home seller to refuse my offer just because I’m gay, 7) toss me out of the military because of who I am, and on and on.
But no! Now, thanks to your lovely Republicans, after I die, I can give my money to whoever I wish. I am so grateful. You’ve opened my eyes to the error of my ways.
Romney in ’08!
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “In short, when it suited your argument, reciprocal benefits were antigay and bad.”
I was wondering if I was gonna wake up to some fresh lies from ND30 but all I discover is the same old stale ones. I never said or implied that reciprocal benefits were “antigay and bad.” It is my personal opinion that our rights to form contracts with each other are already solid and that a law stating that contracts between individuals ARE lawful is both needlessly repetitive and a road-block to further rights packages. Please note that I didn’t say “anti-gay.” If you feel that RB packages are “anti-gay” that’s fine, it is not my opinion so stop lableing it as such (to do so makes you a liar, but we knew that about you anyway). It is possible for there to be multiple outcomes to a given “rights” package, both negative and positive. To view these +/-‘s through a cost/benefit analysis will give you a pretty solid viewpoint on how to move forward. In this case, having the bill killed was PROBABLY for the best, only time will tell. Please stop lying on this board (if it is even possible for you to NOT lie).
posted by Pat on
Of course they are — they’ve calculated that this will win them enough votes and they’ve gambled that the gay vote will stick by them rather than holding them to their own records.
Brian, I agree pretty much with what you’re saying here. As long as Democrats are still, in my opinion and most others, clearly less anti-gay than the Republicans, many will still blindly support the Democratic Party. I never agreed with that strategy, but IMO, it still advanced gay rights until about 2 years ago. I have also voted for independents, but with the 2000 election in which voting for Nader in Florida lead to eight years of Bush, right or wrong, many are going to be hesistant to vote for independent parties. That’s unfortunate.
In your post above the one I quoted, you’ve made good points, but I still disagree. I still think 67 or more Republicans would still have voted for FMA, as well as 2/3 of the House. We’ll never know for sure, thankfully. As to the difference of the “lesser of the two evils,” I believe in the past, the difference was significant, but it appears to becoming less so now.
So instead of dealing with the pervasiveness of homophobia in the Democrat Party that is obvious in the here and now, you’re asking us to focus instead on what could have happened if……
Here’s the reality, Pat. Very few of the Democrats argued that the FMA was wrong; the majority argued that it was unnecessary, because DOMA, state laws, and constitutional amendments already existed.
How much confidence do you have in them if those laws, etc. were in some way compromised by a court decision?
NDT, as to your first point, I was simply making an observation that, in my view, is obvious to me, but not to others. So I explained my reasoning. I wasn’t claiming that everything I post is about strategy. In fact, I am now saying that being less anti-gay is not good enough any more. In the meantime, I will still try to make my point since there is disagreement from you and others.
With the FMA, I agree that not all Democrats voted against the FMA for pro-gay reasons. No argument there, and never intended to make that argument. Most Democrats are against same sex marriage. And I’ll concede that many of the Democrats voted because they thought that DOMA was enough. But many also voted against it, because they thought that a federal amendment that discriminated was too much (we are talking about the U.S. Constitution here). Perhaps those persons also had the insight that attitudes were changing, and saw the amendment repugnant.
But let’s say you are right, and the Democrats are just as anti-gay as the Republicans. And let’s say that they voted against FMA out of some type of manipulation. Then it would seem that money spent for the party was worth it. Because, in your view, even though the Democrats hate gays as much as the Republicans, they still voted against something that would be a permanent scar on gay rights. I can just imagine that historians in the future looking back at the Amendment 28 that would have been, would swear that it was enacted in the 1300s instead of the 21st century.
That depends. Will it be like Connecticut, in which an elected legislature passed them, or will it be like everywhere else, in which a court order forced them at gunpoint — and like in Massachusetts, where a leftist unelected court employed a blatant double standard to try to sabotage the voters’ right to amend the constitution?
Why should it depend? My point was that we’ve heard zillions of times about Bush’s distaste for (selective) judicial activism, and once about his support for civil unions. He could have praised civil unions in NJ at the same time criticizing judicial activism. But even in Connecticut, no word about praise for civil unions there.
As for the “gunpoint” argument, I can’t speak to Massachusetts, but only for NJ. Yes, the Supreme Court “forced” the legislature to act. I suppose the judges could have lied and said no unconstitutional inequality existed, but they didn’t. That still didn’t stop many of the legislators to vote no. (Guess which party those members belong to?) Oh, and it wasn’t because they were holding out for gay marriage. I don’t know if any of the legislators in the other party voted no, but there were some that were hesitant, because it was not marriage. As a side note, we do have one assemblyman who makes Dobson seem rational and moderate, which of course, is an extremely difficult task. Again, guess which party this person belongs to.
PCT, the pension law is progress for the GOP. Consider that Bush and other Republicans supported hate crime laws while explicitly refusing to have gay persons as one of the protected classes.* At least in this law, it helps everyone, and does not explicitly exclude gay persons.
*Just in case I have to spell it out. I don’t think opposing hate crime laws is anti-gay. I do think supporting hate crime laws while explicitly excluding homosexuals is.
posted by Brian Miller on
I believe you forgot something.
Actually, I didn’t. I pretty thoroughly demolished your prior argument and your habit of returning with endless “yeah buts” is a tad tiresome. I’m not looking to “beat” you, I’m looking for the reality — something you abandoned long ago.
the LP utter lack of commitment to principle
Like I’ve said to you three thousand times before, repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.
California’s Libertarian Party was the only major party in the state to issue a call on Valentine’s Day for marriage equality, for instance — when will the California Democrats do the same?
Oops. Hate that reality, huh?
voting for Nader in Florida lead to eight years of Bush
That’s the funny thing about the Democrats — they seem to think they’re entitled to Nader voters or something. Nader voters wouldn’t have had a reason to vote for Nader if the Democrats or other parties had delivered on the issues that were most important to them. Instead, Democrats mercilessly lambasted the Greens, attacked them as stupid, ignored Nader, and then expressed utter shock when those folks voted for the candidate who better met their views.
The Republicans did similarly with right-libertarians recently, leading to the best Libertarian Party vote total in history.
Rather than blaming people with values for voting their values, why not run candidates in the old parties who have values and principles?
For instance:
If Democrats want gay votes, and don’t want to lose them to other parties, why not run candidates who are unambiguously pro-gay?
It’s not that difficult to do. It just requires some commitment to some principled positions — something the old parties seem constitutionally incapable of developing.
If it is a progressive gay rights organization it is likely only going to endorse progressives
They should be out of the closet about their progressivism, and they also shouldn’t hypocritically attack pro-gay candidates who don’t share their views.
Outright Libertarians, for instance, is a Libertarian gay organization that comments on gay issues from a Libertarian perspective. We don’t endorse candidates outside of our party — but we also don’t condemn pro-gay candidates on gay issues if they don’t share our perspectives.
We’re also honest — we’ve taken our party, and rare Libertarian candidates who aren’t as pro-gay as they should be, to the woodshed in public.
That’s quite different from the slavish partisan gay groups from the old-party organizations, who declare that their flawed candidates are perfect on gay rights — and then attack others’ candidates for positions that their *own* candidates hold.
Because of their duplicity, one of two things happens. Either gay voters drop out of the process in disgust after being lied to, or they become Libertarians or Greens and then get attacked by the old-party establishment for “making it so Bush/Clinton got in office” (despite the fact that it’s the pathetic candidacies of Bore–ehrm, I mean Gore, Kerry, Dole, etc. that ensured victories by the old-party opponent who agrees with them on 98% of the issues anyway).
Few things are funnier than listening to Democrats scream at my compadres over in the Green party (with whom Libs have big disagreements). They’re blamed for the Iraq War and all the nasty stuff that’s happened since 2000.
The Democrats’ response to Bush and his war? John “I support the war, I just would manage it better” Kerry.
And they have the temerity to blame the Greens? After the vast majority of their own party voted for the Iraq War? After Nancy Pelosi announced she stands “shoulder to shoulder” with Bush on the Iraq War and the War on Terror (and announced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction)? After Democrats voted for the anti-gay amendment and received not only no punishment from the party leadership, but key committee positions?
Asking Democrats and Republicans how stupid they must think informed voters are has become a daily exercise in rhetoric. I find myself asking “professional gay partisan activists” the same question too, these days.
Honestly, how much more out of touch can they get?!?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said or implied that reciprocal benefits were “antigay and bad.”
Contradicted by:
It is my personal opinion that our rights to form contracts with each other are already solid and that a law stating that contracts between individuals ARE lawful is both needlessly repetitive and a road-block to further rights packages.
So you’re not saying it’s bad, you’re just saying it’s bad. Gotcha.
Furthermore, the reciprocal benefits law did not state that “contracts between individuals are lawful”. What it did was streamline and enhance the process for access; it allowed people to access hospital visitation, authorization for medical treatment, transfer of property, etc. by filing one form, rather than umpteen, thus reducing the amount of time, headache, and legal expense required. Gays are always whining and complaining about how much time it takes and how much it costs to fill out wills, health care proxies, etc.; this would have slashed both of those.
So what’s the problem?
posted by Brian Miller on
Incidentally, Ed’s repeated the “Libertarian Party of California is anti-gay” lie so often, I decided to point out this Valentine’s Day Press Release.
Take particular note of this section (and get back to me when the California Democrats release a similar statement):
This Valentine’s Day, as we celebrate Freedom to Marry Week, the Libertarian Party of California wants to congratulate gay and lesbian families across the country for their successes and reflect upon the problems that government policies have created for gay and lesbian people everywhere.
…
Libertarian candidates at all levels of government have consistently called for government to end its marriage discrimination. The Libertarian Party has enshrined that value in its official platform, calling for an end to the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) laws passed by Republican and Democratic politicians in legislatures from the nation’s capital in Washington to statehouses across the country.
As we celebrate Freedom To Marry Week, California Libertarians reemphasize our call to end anti-gay government discrimination and reinforce our party’s unwavering commitment to ending DOMA, anti-gay adoption laws, unequal tax treatment, discrimination in inheritance, and other laws targeted at gay American families.
Attention Democrats (and Republicans) — if you want my vote (or want to end my criticism), start supporting positions as clear and principled as these ones.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “So you’re not saying it’s bad, you’re just saying it’s bad. Gotcha.”
Please stop lying on this board. I never said that RB were “bad,” just uneccessary and a possible road-block to future “rights” battles. Why do you feel the compulsion to spread lies here endlessly? Are you that afraid of having an honest discussion that you have to resort to these Coulter-esque assaults? You might be an asset to the discussions here if you stopped telling lies and slandering others.
posted by Roy X. Penguin on
The post has scrolled off, but check out this comment on DailyKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/3/7/95838/36733/35#c35
Kossacks (i.e. Democrat operatives) wouldn’t mind smearing Rudy with that drag video.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Are you that afraid of having an honest discussion that you have to resort to these Coulter-esque assaults?
You have no idea how amusing I find that statement to be.
And again to your statement:
I never said that RB were “bad,” just uneccessary and a possible road-block to future “rights” battles.
In short, you think that creating a method by which gay couples can more easily and inexpensively access benefits and protections for their relationships is “unnecessary”.
Isn’t it amazing how gays will one second claim that they need marriage because it’s too difficult and expensive to do wills, healthcare proxies, etc. — but then call something that makes it much easier and far more inexpensive to be “unnecessary”?
Answer: it’s not the benefits or protections that leftist gays want, it’s the ideological battle.
And the reason reciprocal benefits in any way represent a “roadblock” is because they make it clear that the “we need benefits and protections” whine of the gay left is a smokescreen.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
(close italics)
posted by Brian Miller on
you think that creating a method by which gay couples can more easily and inexpensively access benefits and protections for their relationships is “unnecessary”.
I find that to be a bizarre contention from you, given your strong opposition to using constitutional rulings to point out that anti-gay discrimination is, indeed, unconstitutional in various government programs such as registered marriage, etc.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Answer: it’s not the benefits or protections that leftist gays want, it’s the ideological battle.”
That certainly qualifies for one of the most ridiculous things you’ve posted here. Not quite as ridiculous as saying that African Americans should be grateful for slavery because it got them out of Africa…but ridiculous just the same.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I find that to be a bizarre contention from you, given your strong opposition to using constitutional rulings to point out that anti-gay discrimination is, indeed, unconstitutional in various government programs such as registered marriage, etc.
That theory relies on the belief that judges share the gay leftist dogma that it is your “constitutional right” to marry whatever or whomever with which you wish to have sex.
When you come out in favor of age-of-consent laws, for one, being unconstitutional and thus allowing pedophiles to marry their preferred sex partners, Mr. Miller, then you and the rest of the gay left will at least be consistent in your Constitutional interpretations. But until then, I suggest you read the Constitution as written — which is what you Libertarians allegedly believe — in which marriage is NOT an absolute right.
The reason the reciprocal benefits law would have been far more appropriate is because it would have been an elected body, without court order, making the proactive choice to do so.
And then to CP:
That certainly qualifies for one of the most ridiculous things you’ve posted here. Not quite as ridiculous as saying that African Americans should be grateful for slavery because it got them out of Africa…but ridiculous just the same.
Mhm, right.
And you yourself, CP, said that making access to benefits and protections simpler and less expensive for gay couples was “unnecessary”. It’s not my fault that doesn’t jibe with your demands to make it simpler and less expensive when it also has the ideological value that you and leftist gays crave.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “And you yourself, CP, said that making access to benefits and protections simpler and less expensive for gay couples was “unnecessary.””
I never said any such thing. Please stop lying on this board.
Thank You
posted by Brian Miller on
allowing pedophiles to marry their preferred sex partners
You’re ranting like a lunatic, but I guess that shouldn’t be a surprise.
Not only have I not “come out in favor of repealing age of consent laws,” but I also note that:
1) Sex is not a requirement for marriage in many jurisdictions;
2) The fact that a minor is a minor would ipso-facto preclude any sort of relationships forming between an adult and a minor, since a minor cannot enter into enforceable contracts (they have the power of “disaffirmation”).
If you’re going to be dim enough to repeat the most obnoxious rhetoric of people who would like to see you and me hanging from a lamp post, at least *try* to differentiate your legal stupidity a bit with some higher-level observations with a modicum of truth.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
First, to CP.
D30: “And you yourself, CP, said that making access to benefits and protections simpler and less expensive for gay couples was “unnecessary.””
I never said any such thing. Please stop lying on this board.
I quote what you said about reciprocal benefits, which makes accessing benefits and protections simpler and less expensive for gay couples.
I never said that RB were “bad,” just uneccessary and a possible road-block to future “rights” battles.
And then to Mr. Miller.
Sex is not a requirement for marriage in many jurisdictions
Therefore, you cannot argue that you are being “discriminated against” by not being able to marry your chosen sex partners.
The fact that a minor is a minor would ipso-facto preclude any sort of relationships forming between an adult and a minor, since a minor cannot enter into enforceable contracts (they have the power of “disaffirmation”).
Yet courts have consistently upheld the constitutional right of minors to make contracts and other such decisions that normally require one to be of legal age when it relates to abortion, private relationships, and sexual conduct.
Furthermore, since you argue that marriage is a “constitutional right”, please show in the Constitution where it says that one’s constitutional rights are limited by age.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “I quote what you said about reciprocal benefits, which makes accessing benefits and protections simpler and less expensive for gay couples.”
That would be fine except that is YOUR definition of what RB’s are and what they accomplish (the Colorado Bill was not aimed at gay couples by the way, and for you to try to claim otherwise is dishonest). That you have to twist my words around to make it seem that my stance has changed is very telling of your mentality. Please stop lying on this board.
Thank You
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That would be fine except that is YOUR definition of what RB’s are and what they accomplish
Feel free to put out here a different one. I’d love to see why you think a law that would allow gays quicker and simpler access at much less cost to a myriad of benefits and protections for their relationships is “unnecessary”.
But I think you inadvertently identified the problem here:
(the Colorado Bill was not aimed at gay couples by the way, and for you to try to claim otherwise is dishonest)
So the law wasn’t good enough because it didn’t help gays EXCLUSIVELY — it also benefitted other people, and thus did not represent a real ideological victory and government affirmation of gays’ “superiority”.
posted by ETJB on
The Libertarian Party of California nominated candidates for public office who support the state ballot measure banning gay marriage and civil unions.
The LP CA party leadership admitted this to me and then simply said that they did not want to try and make a candidate accountable to their platform. It is the truth, you just do not want to hear it.
Perhaps they have changed their minds and actually gotten their collective stuff together. They sure as heck did not have it together a few years ago.
“They seem to think they’re entitled to Nader voters or something.”
No, more then Republicans feel that they are entitled to the votes of the CP or the LP. The only reason the GOP backed Nader in 2004 was to split the vote. They were not doing it based on some principle of political freedom or the right to be a candidate.
Enough of the people who voted for Nader — in 2000 — would have voted for Kerry had Nader not been on the ballot. Does that mean we should kick third party candidates off? No.
“Outright Libertarians”
Yawn. They have almost no political clout. Anymore then the Lavender Greens. If you want to make third party candidates meaningful choices, then you better be supporting the work of Ballot Access News & Fair Vote USA.
Until we have real campaign law reform, voting for a third party candidate is a dead end. If you believe otherwise, then you are out of touch with reality.
posted by Bobby on
Hundreds of examples of liberals using the f-g word.
“Daily Kos itself has not shied away from the word. Nor has it removed postings that use it. Examples include:
a headline reading: “Democrats and the faggot problem.”
a headline asking: “Who invited the little faggot?”
a headline reading: “When is a faggot just a bundle of sticks?” (That posting goes on to ask, “What’s up with the little sly gay jokes? Hmm? As I read the comments in discussions on DKos, there are times when I almost have to check and see if I accidentally stumbled into a Wingnut [right-wing] blog.”)”
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200703/COM20070309a.html
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Brian Miller said “Sex is not a requirement for marriage in many jurisdictions”.
Northdallass replied “Therefore, you cannot argue that you are being “discriminated against” by not being able to marry your chosen sex partners.”.
LOL Northdallass, you truly are the king of non-sequitors. Just because some jurisidictions don’t require sex for marriage doesn’t mean there is no discrimination. If a man can marry a woman a woman should have the same right to marry a woman – anything less is sex discrimination. If a woman can marry a man than a man should have the same right to marry a man – anything else is sex discrimination.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Women and men both have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and not of the same sex.
There’s no gender discrimination involved in that at all; both genders are treated equally.
The argument posited by gay leftists is that you should be allowed to marry anyone with which you have sex; however, since sex is not required for marriage, that ruins the argument.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL Northdallass, your argument is the same as saying that back in the 1800’s men and women and the same right to eat therefore there wasn’t discrimination based on the right to vote. A trivial technicality where there is no discrimination is irrelevant – its where there is discrimination that counts. That means if a woman can marry a man, a man deserves the same right she has to marry a man and if a man can marry a woman, a woman deserves the same right he has to marry a woman – anything else is sex discrimination, men and women deserve equal rights to each other, not different rights. The government has no business dictating the sex of anyone’s marriage partner.
Care to quote anyone actually saying “you should be allowed to marry anyone with which you have sex” (and not saying something other than that)? The argument made by equal marriage advocates is that you should be allowed to marry the one person you desire to – whether or not you have sex or the law does or doesn’t require sex is besides the point, it is discrimination to prevent gays from having the same marriage rights as everyone else.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And laughably, Northdallass, in this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31198.html#commentform
you contradicted what you’re saying here. At March 10, 2007, 2:39am you said “John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and others who proudly proclaimed they had the “same position” as Republicans… gays like yourself coughed up tens of millions of dollars to surround yourself with Democrats who shook your hand one minute and the next, were telling crowds…how legally discriminating against you was “the right thing”.
On that thread you admit preventing gays from marrying is discrimination, on this thread you claim it isn’t – you alternate your claims of what is the truth dependant on what you think helps you smear gays best at the time. You have no integrity.
posted by Pat on
NDT, there is gender discrimination regarding marriage. As of now, the only type of person that can marry me is a female, human, adult, and person not related by a certain degree of consanguinity.
Change female to male above, and now that person cannot marry me. That’s clear gender discrimination, whether you agree with the current laws or not.
Yes, there is also discrimination against children, dogs, flowers, and close relatives. I don’t know any gay leftie that wants to change this.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That means if a woman can marry a man, a man deserves the same right she has to marry a man and if a man can marry a woman, a woman deserves the same right he has to marry a woman – anything else is sex discrimination, men and women deserve equal rights to each other, not different rights.
They have equal rights, Randi; they can both marry a partner of the opposite sex, and they both cannot marry a partner of the same sex. There is no difference between men and women in that regard.
The government has no business dictating the sex of anyone’s marriage partner.
Then it seems odd that the government CAN dictate the age, blood relationship, species, number of, and other characteristics of one’s marriage partner.
The argument made by equal marriage advocates is that you should be allowed to marry the one person you desire to – whether or not you have sex or the law does or doesn’t require sex is besides the point, it is discrimination to prevent gays from having the same marriage rights as everyone else.
Gays DO have the same marriage rights as everyone else; they are free to marry one adult human partner, who is not related to them by blood and is not currently married to anyone else, of the opposite sex.
The problem is that gays find the opposite sex to be sexually repulsive; they want to be able to marry the person with whom they wish to have sex.
“Love” doesn’t enter into it. You may “love” your sister or a ten-year-old or someone else’s wife, but that doesn’t give you the right to marry them — as society has decided.
Marriage is based upon that to which society consents to grant it. What we as a community need to do is figure out why society doesn’t think it should grant it to us — and I believe it starts with gays who tell people they oppose to commit suicide, who set out to destroy other gays’ lives for having their picture taken with someone the other gay doesn’t like, who regularly and repeatedly insult peoples’ faith and beliefs, and so forth.
And this was particularly funny:
On that thread you admit preventing gays from marrying is discrimination, on this thread you claim it isn’t – you alternate your claims of what is the truth dependant on what you think helps you smear gays best at the time. You have no integrity.
Well, first, here is the correct link to my post on March 10th, 2007, at 2:39 AM.
Second, here’s the actual quote; yours is an attempt to string two together, taken from these two paragraphs.
Most normal people do not claim a candidate who supports stripping them of rights is pro-them — but, as we saw with John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and others who proudly proclaimed they had the “same position” as Republicans you were calling homophobic, that’s par for the course for most gays.
The second paragraph you attempted to quote:
And again, you laughably demonstrate Sanchez’s point when you whine about “misleading people”; everyone knows that puppet gays like yourself coughed up tens of millions of dollars to surround yourself with Democrats who shook your hand one minute and the next, were telling crowds how you were sick and twisted and how legally discriminating against you was “the right thing”.
That “as Republicans you were calling homophobic” rather ruins things, doesn’t it? There’s a reason you didn’t quote me directly, and I think it is now obvious.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Not quite, Pat; like I said above, relative to gender, anyone, regardless of what gender they are, may marry someone of the opposite gender, but not of the same gender.
Since that applies to EVERYONE, not just gays, men, women, or heterosexuals, it’s not discrimination. It’s a universal restriction.
Yes, there is also discrimination against children, dogs, flowers, and close relatives. I don’t know any gay leftie that wants to change this.
But Pat, you are arguing that you have a “constitutional right” to get married — which means you cannot be denied the right to marry on ANY basis. The Constitution does not discriminate on the basis of age, close blood relationship, or whether or not you already are married; those are individual laws that build on the right of states to determine their own standards for such matters.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “They have equal rights, Randi; they can both marry a partner of the opposite sex, and they both cannot marry a partner of the same sex. There is no difference between men and women in that regard.”.
LOL Northdallass, the problem is not where there is no difference, it is with where there IS difference. So men and women have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Great! No problem! They will still have that same right once the discrimnation on the basis of sex is eliminated.
By your ‘logic’ there was no discrimination in preventing interracial marriages – everyone had the equal right to marry within their race and could not marry outside of their race – the races were treated equally according to your specious logic.
Of course just as with equal marriage for same sex couples the fact that there was “no difference in that regard” is irrelevant to where there is a difference that ammounts to discriminiation. Back then a black man didn’t have the same right a white man had to marry a white woman and vice versa. As is the case now, a man does not have the same right a woman does to marry a man, a woman does not have the same right to marry a woman that a man does – the rights of men and women are different in that regard and that is discrimination. Nothing you said changes that. Just because there is not discrimination in one way does not erase the discrimination present in another way – on the basis of sex.
If you want to be consistent you have to also say that the ban on interracial marriage was not discrimination – either you’re a racist (and a bigot and a liar) or a hypocrit which one is it Northdallass, or are you too cowardly to say?
The government has no business dictating the sex of anyone’s marriage partner.
Northdallass said “Then it seems odd that the government CAN dictate the age, blood relationship, species, number of, and other characteristics of one’s marriage partner. “.
Not at all, there are valid reasons for those restrictions. Animals, children, and close blood relatives aren’t in a postion to give uncoerced informed consent to marriage. It is also clear from the 50% divorce rate that it is hard enough to make a relationship with one other person work let alone trying to make it work balancing the needs of three or more people.
Northdallass said “That “as Republicans you were calling homophobic” rather ruins things, doesn’t it?”.
That’s irrelevant. Whether you include those words or not, in that thread you still called the gay marriage ban discrimination. The fact is in this thread you are saying the ban on gay marriage is not discrimination, and in that thread, as I quoted you, you said it was discrimination.
In this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31198.html#commentform
you contradicted what you’re saying here. At March 10, 2007, 2:39am you said “John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and others who proudly proclaimed they had the “same position” as Republicans… gays like yourself coughed up tens of millions of dollars to surround yourself with Democrats who shook your hand one minute and the next, were telling crowds…how legally discriminating against you was “the right thing”.
On that thread you admit preventing gays from marrying is discrimination, on this thread you claim it isn’t – you alternate your claims of what is the truth dependant on what you think helps you smear gays best at the time. You have no integrity.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Racial discrimination is disallowed by the United States Constitution, Randi, so that is not in the least a valid comparison.
Furthermore, you and your fellow leftists argue that marriage is a constitutional right, which means the government has no power whatsoever to restrict it. Therefore, if you are correct, bans on marriage based on age, blood relationship, or existing relationship would be unconstitutional.
Marriage is a recognition given by the state; it is not a constitutional guarantee. That is precisely why it can be restricted. But gays like yourself do not present a persuasive case for the state to extend marriage to gays.
Meanwhile, I think this says it all:
That’s irrelevant.
Or in other words, what I actually said is irrelevant to your claim — which is based on what you claim I said.
posted by Pat on
NDT, I wasn’t making a constitutional argument in my last post.
I agree with the statement that all adults do have the right to marry an adult person from the opposite sex, as long as their isn’t a certain degree of consanguinity. Of course, this does discriminate against straight people who cannot marry a person of the gender they are not sexually attracted to and enjoy the same misery such as Ted Haggard, or other gay persons who end up getting married. But that’s not the point I’m making.
Marriage involves two parties, so in order to see if there is discrimination, you have to look at it two ways. The fact is that an adult man cannot marry me or any other man, while an adult woman can. That’s gender discrimination. Perhaps this type of discrimination is not unconstitutional with respect to the U.S. Constitution.
I’m not a constitutional expert on the federal or state level, so I cannot make constitutional arguments. In NJ, seven constitutional experts did see that there was a problem with the laws prior to their decision last October, that discriminates against gay persons. They saw that the gender discrimination that I cited above was unconstitutional, according to state constitution, just like racial discrimination is unconstitutional according to the U.S. Constitution.
As a side note, it seems to me that when Pres. Bush when Bush slammed the NJ Supreme Court for judicial activism (while of course, staying quiet again on his supposed support of civil unions), it would have been nice if he could have specifically delineated why their decision was wrong, and why he is an expert of the NJ Constitution and the seven justices of NJ Supreme Court weren’t. Okay, rant over.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL Northdallass, your constitution doesn’t mention interracial marriage. The ban on interracial marriage was considered perfectly compatible with your constitution for many years before judges changed their minds and decided it wasn’t, there’s no reason to believe it won’t be the same with equal marriage for same sex couples. Your constitution requires equal protection under the law and if they don’t recognize it now, its only a matter of time until the judiciary recognizes that this means marriage discrimination on the basis of sex is wrong.
As I suspected you’re too much of a coward to state whether or not you believe the ban on interracial marriage was discrimination. Of course it goes without saying that if you think the ban on equal marriage for same sex couples isn’t discrimination you’d have to think the ban on interracial marriage wasn’t either, or you’d be a hypocrite. No surprise there that you don’t want to expose your blatant hypocrisy.
Northdallass said “you and your fellow leftists argue that marriage is a constitutional right, which means the government has no power whatsoever to restrict it. Therefore, if you are correct, bans on marriage based on age, blood relationship, or existing relationship would be unconstitutional.”.
Wrong. Just because something is a constitutional right doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated. The right to free speech is a constitutional right, but yet in some circumstances it can be restricted. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right but gun ownership is regulated, etc.
Northdallass said “Or in other words, what I actually said is irrelevant to your claim — which is based on what you claim I said.”.
No, that’s not what I said. What I said was that your words “That “as Republicans you were calling homophobic”” which I excluded when I quoted you are irrelevant to the fact that you said preventing gays from marrying was discrimination in one thread and here you say it isn’t. Now laughably like the weasel you are you’re trying to deny your own words. Its pretty clear what’s going on here – when Democrats stand against equal marriage you want to condemn them for discriminating against gays, but when you or Republicans do the same thing you want to claim they aren’t doing anything wrong. You believe in subjective morality – an action that’s wrong when someone else does it is perfectly okay when you do it – that’s at the heart of evil.
The fact remains, if a man has the right to marry a woman, a woman deserves the same right to marry a woman; if a woman has the right to marry a man, a man deserves the same right to marry a man – anything less is sex discrimination.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I can tell you why the decision was wrong, Pat; it’s this statement in the summary.
Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance
and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social
acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental
right under our constitution.
But then they, at gunpoint, tried to force the Legislature to do it, even though it is not a constitutional right.
In essence, what the judiciary said was that it would use its power to force compliance with its ideological beliefs on a matter OUTSIDE the Constitution.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL Northdallass, your constitution doesn’t mention interracial marriage.
Please read again what I said, Randi.
Racial discrimination is disallowed by the United States Constitution, Randi, so that is not in the least a valid comparison.
Laws against interracial marriage fall under the category of racial discrimination.
Wrong. Just because something is a constitutional right doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated.
I’m sorry, Randi, but you just said it was unconstitutional and wrong to regulate marriage, since it was a constitutional right.
And now for your next denial (emphasis mine):
No, that’s not what I said. What I said was that your words “That “as Republicans you were calling homophobic”” which I excluded when I quoted you are irrelevant to the fact that you said preventing gays from marrying was discrimination in one thread and here you say it isn’t.
You mean, it’s irrelevant to your attempt to cut and snip an argument to support your prejudicial viewpoint.
The reason you left it out, Randi, is because it demonstrates that you are guilty of that which you accuse me of doing; that is, excusing and praising homophobic behavior among people of your ideology, but not of your opposite.
And what’s really funny is that I have not minced words on the matter — for years.
posted by Pat on
NDT, I understand why in your opinion, you disagree with the NJ Supreme Court decision.
First, even though the U.S. Constitution rules out racial discrimination, there is no specific right to interracial marriage as far as I can tell. If the laws were that each person can marry the person they want of the same race, then no race has an advantage over the other.
In the NJ Supreme Court decision, they do say that there is no specific right for same sex marriage. So they made there decision on equal protection clauses. Whether using that as a basis for the decision seems to be a huge debate between constitutional scholars.
As for the gunpoint thing, I suppose the legislature could have just blown off the decision. I wonder what would have happened if a law wasn’t passed within six months. In fact many did vote against the civil unions bill, even though that was the minimum allowed by the NJ Supreme Court.
Regardless of the constitutionality of the law, I would have preferred if this came first from the legislature. But now that it came about this way, there appears to be no big backlash from this. Yes, there are probably a few wingnuts that want a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, but that doesn’t appear to be going anywhere. The only problem we have is that some public officials have stated that they did not want to perform civil unions. And it’s not because of the courts “activism,” but because they simply don’t want to marry homos.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Laws against interracial marriage fall under the category of racial discrimination.”.
LOL, Northdallass, where does it say that in your constitution?!
By the same token laws against equal marriage fall under the category of sex discrimination and your constitution requires equal protection under the law. Just as judges eventually realized that giving everyone the “equal” right to marry within their race is specious they will realize that the “equal” right to an opposite sex marriage is specious.
Just as a black man deserves the same right a white man has to marry a white woman (and vice versa), a man deserves the same right a woman has to marry a man (and vice versa) – anything less is sex discrimination.
Northdallass said “You mean, it’s irrelevant to your attempt to cut and snip an argument to support your prejudicial viewpoint.”.
LOL Northdallass, No, it means your words “That “as Republicans you were calling homophobic”” which I excluded when I quoted you are irrelevant to the fact that you said preventing gays from marrying was discrimination in one thread and here you say it isn’t. No matter how you twist and how you spin you can’t hide from your words:
“John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and others who proudly proclaimed they had the “same position” as Republicans… gays like yourself coughed up tens of millions of dollars to surround yourself with Democrats who shook your hand one minute and the next, were telling crowds…how legally discriminating against you was “the right thing”.
You alternate your claims of what the truth is dependant on what you think best helps you smear gays. By all means, continue to try to disown your own words, its a gas to watch you squirm
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
By the same token laws against equal marriage fall under the category of sex discrimination and your constitution requires equal protection under the law.
Then it is illegal to restrict marriage based on age, blood relationship, whether or not one is already married, etc., because that too would be a violation of “equal protection”.
LOL Northdallass, No, it means your words “That “as Republicans you were calling homophobic”” which I excluded when I quoted you are irrelevant to the fact that you said preventing gays from marrying was discrimination in one thread and here you say it isn’t. No matter how you twist and how you spin you can’t hide from your words:
Which is why you have to cut and snip and hide what I actually said when “quoting” me. 🙂
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Then it is illegal to restrict marriage based on age, blood relationship, whether or not one is already married, etc., because that too would be a violation of “equal protection”.
Northdallass, all rights are subject to reasonable regulation. Just as the rights to freedom of speech, and freedom to bear arms are subject to regulation, so is marriage. The restrictions you mentioned are also to ensure equal protection of those unable to give informed consent and the marriage partners of the would be bigamist.
NorthDallass said “Which is why you have to cut and snip and hide what I actually said when “quoting” me. :)”.
I cut excess verbiage from your quote that was irrelevant to the fact that on that thread you claimed bans on equal marriage are discrimination:
“Democrats who shook your hand one minute and the next, were telling crowds…how legally discriminating against you was “the right thing”.”
and here you claim it isn’t. You alternate what you claim to be the truth dependant on what you think best helps you smear gays – you are a hypocrite and a liar.
The fact remains, just as a black man deserves the same right a white man has to marry a white woman (and vice versa), a man deserves the same right a woman has to marry a man (and vice versa).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Just as the rights to freedom of speech, and freedom to bear arms are subject to regulation, so is marriage.
Then society is within its rights to regulate it in such a fashion as to exclude same-sex marriage.
The fact that hate-flingers and antireligious bigots like yourself can’t convince society why it doesn’t need to do so is quite a different matter entirely.
I cut excess verbiage from your quote that was irrelevant to the fact that on that thread you claimed bans on equal marriage are discrimination
Interesting…..even though your claim is based on what I was saying, you insist that what I actually said is “irrelevant” and “excess verbiage”.
The simple fact of the matter is that including those words ruins your argument — because it makes it clear that I am using YOUR standards for what constitutes “discrimination”, and also that your standards for “discrimination” vary depending on political affiliation.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Then society is within its rights to regulate it in such a fashion as to exclude same-sex marriage.”.
No, because that is sex discrimination. If a man can marry a woman then a woman deserves the same right a man has to marry a woman and vice versa. By the same token just because your government validly regulates free speech in some instances does not mean it can completely deny the right to free speech.
Northdallass said “The simple fact of the matter is that including those words ruins your argument “.
You’re living in a dream world. You said “Democrats who shook your hand one minute and the next, were telling crowds…how legally discriminating against you was “the right thing”.”
On that thread you said banning equal marriage was discrimination, and on this one you say it isn’t. What you claim to be the truth varies with what you think best helps you smear gays.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What I find amusing, Randi, is how your quote keeps getting shorter and shorter.
It started as this:
you contradicted what you’re saying here. At March 10, 2007, 2:39am you said “John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and others who proudly proclaimed they had the “same position” as Republicans… gays like yourself coughed up tens of millions of dollars to surround yourself with Democrats who shook your hand one minute and the next, were telling crowds…how legally discriminating against you was “the right thing”.
And now you’ve truncated even more off of it.
Present the whole quote and try to make your argument, rather than arbitrarily deciding which words are “irrelevant”.
No, because that is sex discrimination.
So? Preventing children from marrying is age discrimination, preventing close relatives from marrying is familial and genetic discrimination, preventing polygamy or polyandry is religious/spiritual/conscience discrimination, and so forth. The reason the Supreme Court saw fit to strike down a RACIAL distinction is because the US Constitution forbids it.
Furthermore, and ironically, the primary argument that invalidates your insistence that children, for one, are “unable to give informed consent” is the fact that children can consent to having abortions.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL Northdallass, all I need to show your version of the truth shifts with whatever you think is the most anti-gay is this “Democrats who shook your hand one minute and the next, were telling crowds…how legally discriminating against you was “the right thing”.
In that thread you said the ban on equal marriage is discrimination, in this one you’ve said it isn’t. For you the truth is whatever makes the most hateful story, not reality. And now in this thread a glimmer of sanity has forced its way into your mind and you’ve come full circle and you admitted in your last post that the ban on equal marriage is sex discrimination.
There is no valid reason for sex discrimination in marriage, but there are valid reasons for those other restrictions. Children can’t give informed consent to have a baby either, a decision must be made and can’t be delayed, that’s not the case with marriage. Just because we don’t restrict one decison doesn’t mean we can’t restrict others – by your rational the law can’t restrict the sale of handguns to minors either. The ban on polygamy has nothing to do with religion or concience, its solely a practical matter in that its easier to make a relationship work when there are only two people in it and that minimizes the spread of STDs.
At one time the courts thought the ban on interracial marriage wasn’t discrimination either, they changed their minds, the constitution didn’t. The same thing will inevitably happen with equal marriage given the equal protection provision of your constitution.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…Randi, what I was pointing out is that you can’t pick and choose when you’re claiming “equal protection”; all of the restrictions you mentioned qualify as “discrimination” in that context.
As far as consistency goes, I have no trouble in saying that the states may restrict marriage as they see fit and to the extent they are able under the Constitution.
Where you have trouble is when you babble that the states don’t have that power as related to so-called “sex discrimination”, which is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, but do in others, which is neither logically or constitutionally consistent.
And then I laugh when I see someone like you insist that a ban on polygamy is necessary to prevent the spread of STDs. If you want to prevent the spread of STDs with bans, ban adultery, premarital sex, and gay sex — all of which are far more likely to spread STDs than polygamy.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallas, interracial marriage is NOT mentioned in your constitution either! If you want to make the claim that that falls under the prohibition on racial discriminition even though its not mentioned, you have to accept that the right to be free from sex discrimination falls under the right to equal protection even though its not specifically mentioned. Of course you can pick and choose what are reasonable restrictions and what aren’t, you HAVE TO. You have the right to free speech but in some special cases that is restricted. Just because some restrictions are considered valid doesn’t mean all are valid. By your ‘logic’ if some restrictions on free speech are valid, then they all are, that’s obviously not the case.
Its the same way with marriage. The government has no business dictating the gender of anyone’s marriage partner. If marriage is good for straights, its good for gays, and what is good for some of society’s individuals is good for society as a whole. The marriage of the gay couple down the street in no way affects any heterosexual couple’s marriage. Sex discriminiation in marriage is NOT a reasonable restriction – its socially counterproductive.
Gay sex in a monogamous relationship does not spread STDs anymore than heterosexual sex in a monogamous relationship does. Once again you fabricate reality to suit your gay animus. If you were sincerely concerned about the spread of STDs you’d support equal marriage for same sex couples as it encourages monogamy – but of course you’re anything but sincere.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you were sincerely concerned about the spread of STDs you’d support equal marriage for same sex couples as it encourages monogamy – but of course you’re anything but sincere.
LOL…..marriage doesn’t encourage monogamy; individual commitment and responsibility do.
I think the scientists have pointed out why:
The highest HIV infection rates are found in many sub-Saharan African populations because up to 40 percent of adolescent and adult males and females in these populations routinely have multiple and concurrent sex partners, and they also have the highest prevalence of factors that can greatly facilitate sexual HIV transmission. In most other heterosexual populations, the patterns and frequency of sex-partner exchanges are not sufficient to sustain epidemic sexual HIV transmission.
UNAIDS and most AIDS activists reject this analysis as socially and politically incorrect, saying it further stigmatizes groups, such as injecting drug users, sex workers and men who have sex with men. However, all available epidemiologic data show that only the highest risk sexual behavior (multiple, concurrent and a high frequency of changing partners) drives HIV epidemics among heterosexuals or men who have sex with men, anywhere in the world.
That also explains why black Americans have STD rates similar to gays; there is a greater tendency to engage in high-risk behavior, even despite there being no restrictions on their marrying.
If you want to make the claim that that falls under the prohibition on racial discriminition even though its not mentioned, you have to accept that the right to be free from sex discrimination falls under the right to equal protection even though its not specifically mentioned.
Um, no; laws against interracial marriage are specific examples of racial discrimination, which is prohibited. If “equal protection” invalidates restrictions on marriage, then there should be no restrictions on marriage whatsoever, including age, blood relationship, and others.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “marriage doesn’t encourage monogamy; individual commitment and responsibility do.”
And when we encourage people to marry we encourage them to be committed and responsible. If you were sincere about wanting to reduce STDs you’d support gays getting married, but of course you’re anything but sincere.
Northdallass said “laws against interracial marriage are specific examples of racial discrimination, which is prohibited. If “equal protection” invalidates restrictions on marriage, then there should be no restrictions on marriage whatsoever, including age, blood relationship, and others.”
And marriage laws that discriminate on the basis of sex are specific examples of unequal protection which is prohibited. Just as courts once believed the ban on interracial marriage was not discrimination some now believe the ban on equal marriage is not sex discrimination. Once again its a matter of time until minds change even when your constitution doesn’t.
Equal protection doesn’t invalidate all restrictions on marriage just like the right to free speech doesn’t invalidate all restrictions on speech. Competing rights have to be balanced and that inevitably means some minimalist restrictions, for example children and blood relatives need to be protected from exploitive marriages. The gay couple down the street marrying in no way affects any heterosexual’s marriage and as such sex discrimination in marriage is unwarrented.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you were sincere about wanting to reduce STDs you’d support gays getting married, but of course you’re anything but sincere.
Unfortunately, Randi, nothing is stopping gays from behaving responsibly and being committed to each other now, yet gay STD rates still would not look out of place in the Third World.
Furthermore, as I cited above with the example of black couples, the right to marry has no effect on stopping STDs — only the willingness to change behavior.
Unless, of course, you’re arguing that gays are incapable of sexual restraint without legalities forcing them to do it.
The gay couple down the street marrying in no way affects any heterosexual’s marriage and as such sex discrimination in marriage is unwarrented.
And by that logic, neither does the child bride down the street, or the brother and sister married couple, or the polygamist group, affect any heterosexual’s marriage.
After all, Randi, the only reason gays and lesbians want to marry someone of the same sex, rather than the opposite, is because that’s to whom they are sexually attracted; therefore, your argument is that everyone should have the right to marry to whom or what they are sexually attracted.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, cohabitating couples are less stable than married couples, marriage helps encourage committment and lower STDs.
Northdallass said “as I cited above with the example of black couples, the right to marry has no effect on stopping STDs”
Where your argument falls apart is the dramatically lower marriage rates amongst blacks. The more people marry, the lower STDs are. Whether people are discouraged from marriage by the law or social factors the problem is a lack of marriage. Only a fool would argue that because one group has lower marriage rates and consequentially higher STD rates that its a good idea to prohibit a third group from marriage altogether – but of course, you don’t care about what’s best, you care about being anti-gay. When the problem with high STD rates is a lack of marriage, you encourage marriage, not make it inaccessible. By your ‘logic’ we should prevent whites from getting married too because contrary to all the evidence it supposedly doesn’t encourage committment.
Northdallass said “And by that logic, neither does the child bride down the street, or the brother and sister married couple, or the polygamist group, affect any heterosexual’s marriage.”.
Your willful stupidity is showing. As I’ve repeatedly explained to you those marriages involving children and close blood relatives can be subject to undue coercion and exploitation, polygamy is unwise because its far more difficult to balance the needs of several people in a relationship than it is to balance the needs of two, not to mentin the higher risk of STDs. When the American Psychiatric association gives the green light to marriages between brothers and sisters because decades of research make it clear that despite the close family relationship each can make an independent decision without undue coercion then I’ll support such marriages if the participants are infertile.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, Randi, you attempt the argument that gays are incapable of practicing sexual restraint or responsibility because we lack marriage.
Or, put differently, without your marriage, your LGBT status would force you to have unsafe sex with multiple partners.
And also, remember what statement started this in the first place?
And then I laugh when I see someone like you insist that a ban on polygamy is necessary to prevent the spread of STDs. If you want to prevent the spread of STDs with bans, ban adultery, premarital sex, and gay sex — all of which are far more likely to spread STDs than polygamy.
Feel free to advocate for that.
Your willful stupidity is showing.
And your inability to read is getting even larger.
You tried to argue that gays should be allowed to marry whatever sex partners they wish because it “in no way affects any heterosexual’s marriage”.
But then you try to argue that the state must interfere with child marriage, polygamy, incest, and others, even though those would also fall under the category of “in no way affects any heterosexual’s marriage”.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, the simple fact remains, married relationships are more stable and discourage STDs and what’s good for heterosexuals is good for gays. What you’re arguing is that heterosexuals don’t need marriage to be sexually restrained, if you believe that, you need to advocate for the abolishment of marriage altogether. The evidence from the black community strongly suggests that marriage, while not theoretically necessary to sexual restraint, is greatly helpful.
Northdallass said “If you want to prevent the spread of STDs with bans, ban adultery, premarital sex, and gay sex.
Gay sex in a committed relationship is no more likely to spread STDs than heterosexual sex in a committed relationship. As to the others, there’s a big difference between not supporting and not encouraging a behavior and criminalizing it. Under no circumstances should sexual behavior between consenting adults be criminalized. Just as we don’t encourage polygamy by recognizing it with marriage we don’t encourage premarital sex or adultery by calling it marriage – all these activites result in the equal discouragment of the spread of STDs.
Northdallass said “you try to argue that the state must interfere with child marriage, polygamy, incest, and others, even though those would also fall under the category of “in no way affects any heterosexual’s marriage”.”.
Polygamy does affect other people’s marriages, or more specifically lack thereof. As we’ve seen in polygamist communities the practice creates a shortage of women to marry and such communities have resorted to forcing hords of young men from the community to ease the competition thus creating a dangerous group of young male directionless outcasts.
Its not enough that child marriage harms no one else’s marriage, the children themselves must be protected – adult gays do not need protection from being exploited in marriage the way children do and it is enough that their marriages hurt no one. As for incestuous marriages you get together decades of research showing those marriages are free from undue influence from family relationships such that informed consent can be given and that they psychologically healthy relationships and this is supported by major medical and mental health associations and I’ll support that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What you’re arguing is that heterosexuals don’t need marriage to be sexually restrained, if you believe that, you need to advocate for the abolishment of marriage altogether.
I do believe that.
But I don’t think that in the least makes marriage unnecessary.
I’ve never heard a heterosexual argue as you do, Randi, that without marriage they couldn’t control their sexual urges and would repeatedly and regularly have unsafe sex and spread STDs. Heterosexuals invariably realize that sexual restraint and responsibility doesn’t require you to be married to practice it — and that marriage, since leftists like yourself have made sure that infidelity and unfaithfulness carry no penalty whatsoever, is to a great degree ineffective and irrelevant as a means of encouraging it.