Chris Crain looks at Out magazine's cover story on the gay celebrity glass closet. Writes Crain:
Clearly the celebrity treatment of homosexuality has trended along with society's acceptance of gay people. The days of Ellen (and even Rosie's) big coming out party already seem dated. The ho-hum reaction to T.R. Knight ("Grey's Anatomy"), Lance Bass (N Sync) and Neil Patrick Harris ("Doogie Howser, M.D.") isn't just due to their B-list status. As America cares less, so will celebrities.
And someday, both Jodie Foster and Anderson Cooper will ride that wave, and no doubt receive courage awards from gay rights groups when they finally do so.
While pampered U.S. celebrities worry about the career ramifications of being honest, in Saudi Arabia "sodomy" is punishable by death, as noted in the Atlantic's interesting report on gay life in the fundamentalist kingdom (where, yes, gay life does exist). Even there, "Vibrant communities of men who enjoy sex with other men can be found in cosmopolitan cities like Jeddah and Riyadh. They meet in schools, in cafes, in the streets, and on the Internet."
At The New Republic, IGF contributing author James Kirchick blogs in praise of IGF contributing author Richard Rosendall, who is working to shed light on the politically correct hypocrisy and mind-numbing ineptitude of blame-America-first international LGBT watchdog groups.
44 Comments for “Items of Note”
posted by kitynboi on
I think this cover story is less about American gays ignoring the suffering of other gays, and more likely because Americans in general care more about celebrities and their personal lives than they do about what goes on in other nations, especially if those goings on are political.
posted by MeToo on
Some tidbits:
Dangerous Living: Coming out in the Developing World
AN IRAQI GENOCIDE?
16th February 2007 15:02
Alexis Hood
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has promised to crack down on the persecution of gay people in Iraq.
The slaughter of gay Iraqis by Islamist death squads is yet another tragic consequence of the chaos and carnage in this beleaguered country.
It would seem that no-one is safe from fundamentalist militias, who target Iraqis for “crimes against Islam,” which might include drinking alcohol, having a Sunni name, or not being veiled if you are a woman.
Sectarian blackmail, mutilation, and assassination of gays are rife.
In 2005, Iraq?s leading Muslim cleric, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a fatwa ordering the execution of gay Iraqis.
The followers of rebel leader Muqtada al-Sadr, too, are proving they are all too eager to murder gays.
Gay and lesbian advocacy group lowers political profile amid growing tensions on national scene [in Lebanon]
By GayEgypt.com Tuesday 14 February 2006
According to Friday’s edition of The Khaleej Times, a court in Abu Dhabi sentenced 26 men to five years in prison for confessing their gay sexual orientation and attending an unofficial gay union last November. They refused to apologize in court, and instead said that they were proud of their orientation and would not repent.
An earlier report said the gay men might be given hormone treatment to correct their behaviour.
———-
“GAY COWBOY” FILM BANNED IN THE EMIRATES: 9 February 2006 –
Gay cowboy film “Brokeback Mountain” will be banned.
——-
Throwing Gays to the Fundamentalist Wolves
by Ana Simo
OCTOBER 12, 2001. As Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was tentatively pledging support for U.S. bombings in Afghanistan, his Special Emergency Court, originally set up to try terrorists, resumed on Wednesday the trial of 52 Egyptian men. They were jailed on May 10 after the police raided the Queen Boat, a gay-friendly Cairo floating club.
The men are accused of “obscene behavior” and “contempt for religion,” since merely being gay ? the real reason why they’re in court ? is technically not a crime in Egypt.
=====>
The retrial ended in March, 2003. Twenty-one men were handed three-year jail sentences and twenty-nine were acquitted.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I would like to see the US gay-advocacy groups concern themselves more with international conditions, as groups in the UK and other European countries do.
Americans, in general, tend to focus on the US and its internal issues. Very little is reported, for example, about human rights violations in other countries, about the US role in keeping repressive systems afloat, and so on. Gays and lesbians are not, for the most part, different in this respect.
Having said that, though, I think that it is important to remember that the US is a “second-tier” country when it comes to gay and lesbian equality under the law. We are not as repressive as Nigeria, for example, but we are not at in the “first tier” with Europe, either. Gays and lesbians are struggling for basic human rights, still.
For example, we are struggling in many states to maintain basic gains such as the right to adopt and foster children, and in most states to obtain laws giving us the right to work without fear of being fired because of our orientation. A lot — perhaps the majority overall — of gays and lesbians are not “out” except to other gays and lesbians, close friends and family, and do not come out more widely because of legitimate fears about the social and financial consequences.
We are engaged in a hard struggle against the forces of repression in our own country. It is going to be a long, hard struggle, and victory is by no means certain. Gays and lesbians who live in relatively gay-friendly urban areas tend to forget how far we have to go, yet, as a country and as a culture.
Within that context, the GLBT focus on our internal struggles is understandable, even if it is wrong.
posted by Brian Miller on
obtain laws giving us the right to work without fear of being fired because of our orientation
I would argue that the conflation of basic rights (the right to live as one chooses, the right to equal protection under the Constitution, etc.) are severely damaged by efforts to conflate special privileges (like the above-quoted laws) with “rights.”
I don’t have a “right” not to be fired (or indeed, to a job at all). And frankly, only an idiot would choose employment with an organization where his sexual orientation would be an issue.
It’s certainly nowhere near as important as getting equal treatment under the law — and in fact, it’s an objective that many gay people legitimately oppose (i.e. we want equal rights, not special ones).
I also disagree with your characterization of Americans as stereotypically inward-looking. After years of living in Europe, there’s little difference between the average European and the average American in that regard. Neither is particularly aware of what’s going on outside of his backyard, and Americans of stature and education often have an excellent view of international issues just like their “non American” bretheren/sistern. In fact, the whole “Americans are inward-looking” always struck me as a closed-minded clich
posted by Audrey B on
I just want to say that I agree with with everything Brian Miller said in the comment above.
posted by MeToo on
And frankly, only an idiot would choose employment with an organization where his sexual orientation would be an issue.
======
So we ought not to waste time with the DADT, then, right?
(or indeed, to a job at all).
==========
… uh, proving the point once again, although admittedly indirectly, how many may view life as sacred and everyone’s problem until birth, but economic and not-my-problem thereafter. Nifty that, eh?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Brian Miller: “I don’t have a “right” not to be fired (or indeed, to a job at all).”
Of course not. But you need to read what is written before jumping on your hobby horse. The phrase I used was “laws giving us the right to work without fear of being fired because of our orientation”. I won’t bother you with the grammar, but the sentence doesn’t suggest an inherent right to gainful employement, notwithstanding the position of the Catholic Church. The sentence refers to “laws giving the right to work without fear of being fired because of our orientation”, and that is all it does.
Brian Miller: “And frankly, only an idiot would choose employment with an organization where his sexual orientation would be an issue.”
… or, I presume, live in one of the 34 states which have no laws protecting gay and lesbian workers from being fired for no reason other than their sexual orientation …
Brian, I think that this is circular. Unless a company has a stated non-discrimination policy, a job applicant has no way, other than outing themselves at the job interview, of finding out whether or not sexual orientation might be an issue.
Brian: “I would argue that the conflation of basic rights (the right to live as one chooses, the right to equal protection under the Constitution, etc.) are severely damaged by efforts to conflate special privileges (like the above-quoted laws) with “rights.”
“Sexual orientation”, I would presume, applies to almost all human beings, straight or gay. It is, legally, a “special protection” rather than a “special right”.
Roughly, these are the issues that gay and lesbians are working on, to different extents and in different contexts:
(1) Marriage – Many gays and lesbians want to be able to assume the responsibilities of marriage, and to provide the benefits and protections of marriage to their partners and children.
(2) Families – Many gays and lesbians want their families (particularly their children) to have access to the same benefits that families headed by straights are afforded under the law (for example, two-parent adoption, social security survivor benefits to children of gay or lesbian couples), at both the federal and state levels, that may not flow from marriage or may not be available if marriage is not permitted.
(3) Immigration/Citizenship – Many gays and lesbians want to be able to petition for immigration of their partners, and for their partners to be able to obtain citizenship, on the same basis as straights.
(4) Military Service – Many gays and lesbians want to be able to serve in the military on the same basis as straights.
(5) Workplace Discrimination – Many gays and lesbians want to end legal protection afforded to employers who discriminate against gay and lesbian workers.
(6) Hate Crimes – Many gays and lesbians want sexual orientation to be included in hate crimes legislation, at both a state and federal level.
Note two important things about the list, bearing in mind the difference between “equal treatment” (removing existing laws that discriminate based on class, such as segregation laws in the case of African Americans), “special protections” (a law intended to eliminate private discrimination based on class, such as the equal accommodations laws for African Americans) and/or “special rights” (a law intended to right a past wrong based on class, such as affirmative action laws for African Americans).
The first thing is that of the six:
(a) none require “special rights”;
(b) two (workplace discrimination and hate crimes protection) require “special protections”;
(c) four (marriage, protection of families, immigration/citizenship, military service) are “equal treatment” issues that do not require the extension of either “special protections” or “special rights” to gays and lesbians.
Of the two that do require “special protection” (workplace discrimination and hate crimes protection), neither involves or is connected to “special rights”. Both are intended to eliminate private discrimination based on class, and are not intended to right a past wrong, as is, say, “affirmative action”.
posted by ETJB on
It is interesting that he chose to mention the KSA, instead of Iraq. Was that because he did not want to taint his magical war for freedom and democracy?
BTW, I grew up in Saudi Arabia (KSA) and I might just know what it is like to be gay or Jewish in such a place.
posted by kittynboi on
“”I don’t have a “right” not to be fired (or indeed, to a job at all). And frankly, only an idiot would choose employment with an organization where his sexual orientation would be an issue.””
Not exactly. It is illegal to fire people over race, religion, gender, and political affiliation, is it not? If someone is fired for a reason realted to that, they have to prove it is a GOOD reason, and not just because.
As for your second comment, thats VERY unrealistic. You never KNOW when someone will have a problem with your orientation, and any ordinary business where it might not otherwise enter you mind could be run by some homophobe.
posted by Al on
A “right not to get fired? Well, if one is getting fired on the basis of a companies bigotry, yes, they most definitely have a right to not be subjected to discriminatory practice in the workplace.
As far as “only an idiot” choosing to work in a climate which may have been historically repressive, not every one in this country has the luxury of picking and choosing their employment locale on the basis of its progressive attributes.
posted by Audrey B on
Most companies don’t have the luxury of hiring and firing based on race, religion, and/or sexual orientation. Such policies limit the talent pool for no good reason, and cost them business due to bad publicity.
posted by Brian Miller on
It is illegal to fire people over race, religion, gender, and political affiliation, is it not? If someone is fired for a reason realted to that, they have to prove it is a GOOD reason, and not just because.
There’s a problem in nomenclature here. Simply because religious, ethnic and gender groups have received a special government privilege through legislation doesn’t make that privilege a “right.” It makes it a privilege.
Now, if the government is going to extend that privilege, then yes, it’s definitely necessary that *everyone* get that privilege, including gays. However, I don’t think that gay people would like where that would lead.
Further, if anyone believes that such laws protect them from homophobic employers, they’re totally blind. Employers seeking to terminate an individual, within the writ of the law, can decide to fire that black lesbian because she’s a black lesbian and do it “by the book” despite violating laws against racial, religious, and gender discrimination.
not every one in this country has the luxury of picking and choosing their employment locale on the basis of its progressive attributes
Sure they do. The United States is the world’s largest economy, and offers freedom of movement for all of its workers. Anyone who would choose to work for an employer who hates them, rather than avail themselves of the many opportunities to work for employers who value hard work and results (over sexual orientation) are just plain stupid.
Most companies don’t have the luxury of hiring and firing based on race, religion, and/or sexual orientation. Such policies limit the talent pool for no good reason, and cost them business due to bad publicity.
Quite right — not to mention ensure that a great deal of the talent pool works for their competitors by default.
Access to talent remains one of the biggest frustrations for businesses of all sizes — the free market ensures that discriminatory businesses eventually lose their competitiveness and collapse (if not saved by government policies first).
In any event, this pernicious practice of redefining “rights” to include special privileges needs to be confronted more often. My rights (and everyone else’s) are guaranteed by the constitution and violated by government daily — including by politicians loved by the gay lobby’s “leaders.” They include equal protection under the law (i.e. marriage equality, immigration equality, etc.) and free speech.
Special privileges, such as regulations governing HR practices and other commercial practices with regard to sexual orientation, might be widespread and offered to other groups as well, but they’re not “rights” — they’re “special rights” afforded only to those who fit the regulations in question. That’s an important difference.
posted by Brian Miller on
The sentence refers to “laws giving the right to work without fear of being fired
Where in the constitution does it outline the “right to work without fear of being fired”?
I’d like to see that law.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Brian, I understand your gist, and I actually support it — in theory. I agree that the Constitution should provide more than enough cover for us to live our lives in complete equality without the need for “special” laws. Nevertheless, in reality, when we still have majorities in the states voting to drastically restrict our rights via state constitutional amendments, I think that we’ll unfortunately need to continue to fight for our basic rights. I agree — it’s a slippery slope, and we can’t start arguing for every little thing, but a little walk down that slippery slope is still an unfortunate necessity.
I must vehemently disagree with your comment about people being “idiots” to work for non- gay-friendly organizations and who don’t live in gay-friendly areas. Not every gay person is a college-educated, upwardly mobile, city-dweller. What about a gay person who is taking care of their family & who lives in a rural area where their employment options are extremely limited? Why should they have to put up with employers who want to bring bigotry into the workplace? Let them eat cake?
Sorry, but we’re unfortunately far from the utopia you envision.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: The sentence refers to “laws giving the right to work without fear of being fired” …
Brian: Where in the constitution does it outline the “right to work without fear of being fired”?”
Tom: Brian, you aren’t bothering to read the sentence. The sentence reads “laws giving the right to work without fear of being fired”, and does not refer to the Constitution. The sentence refers to laws like ENDA at the federal level and the similar state statutes passed in 16 states at this point. The state laws typically add “sexual orientation” to existing state laws banning “without cause” firings on the basis of race, religion and so on. It is not a constitutional issue, but a question of social policy.
Brian: “I’d like to see that law.”
Tom: I’d like to see the law enacted at the federal level and in the 34 states that haven’t yet.
posted by ETJB on
Some people seem to want to abolish civil rights legislation and return to the ‘good old days’ of pre-1964.
posted by Alex on
ETJB: What are you talking about? They have openly declared they want to return to pre-1937 legal precedents. (I don’t have a link handy, though…)
posted by Brian Miller on
Some people seem to want to abolish civil rights legislation and return to the ‘good old days’ of pre-1964.
Nah, this homosexual just wishes that the homophobic liberal attitude of today would give way to something more progressive. The liberal agenda for gays today treats us as the callow who require “protection” from gay bashers through “hate crime” laws (that prosecute bashers after we’re dead) and “job protections” (that assume that gay people are useless and the only thing keeping us employed are government laws rather than our own capabilities).
As a gay man who has successfully defended himself from gay bashers, and who understands that one’s output (rather than one’s sexual orientation) keeps one employed, I’d prefer to have liberals recognize and honor my *existing* rights under the constitution — the right to bear arms, the right to self-defense, marriage equality — before inventing a whole passel of new “rights.”
posted by Brian Miller on
we still have majorities in the states voting to drastically restrict our rights via state constitutional amendments
No, you have a majority of a slim majority.
Take the Missouri anti-gay amendment (which passed after it received John Kerry’s endorsement during the 2004 presidential election). Or any other anti-gay state amendment for that matter.
In the average anti-gay ballot state, only 61% of voters turned out to vote for the amendment. The average support of passage was 54%. That means anti-gay amendments were passed, on average, by less than 33% of the electorate. Hardly an “overwhelming majority.”
In any event, we don’t need new “rights” to protect us from such predation — we need politicians who will protect our *existing* rights, including our equal protection right (which is in the Constitution).
A majority cannot deprive a minority of equal protection under the law, so all these anti-gay marriage amendments are moot and will eventually be struck down. Meanwhile, if we really *did* need all these “protections,” why would we ally ourselves with Democrats like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, etc., etc., etc. who all supported anti-gay laws of this nature on a state level, a federal level, or both?
Effectively, you’re arguing that we should ask key supporters of those anti-gay laws for “protection” from their own laws!
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Brian:
“No, you have a majority of a slim majority.”
Nevertheless, a majority is still a majority. I have no argument with your statistics (BTW, kudos on your research), but as long as it takes only one more vote to pass an amendment, we still have a long way to go.
“In any event, we don’t need new “rights” to protect us from such predation — we need politicians who will protect our *existing* rights, including our equal protection right (which is in the Constitution).”
Agree, but how do these politicians get into power? The popular vote. And how many votes does it take for a politician to beat their rivals? One. Thus, my point still remains: a majority is a majority, and as long as enough energized anti-gay voters make it to the polls (despite them possibly being a minority of the entire population), one more vote is all they’ll need. The courts (whose members are either elected directly or appointed by the same politicians just mentioned) are a mess, and thus, they can’t be totally relied upon, either.
Brian, you seem to be arguing that a “silent majority” exists that supports our right to have all of the equality that the Constitution allows? Perhaps that’s so, but when polls show that many of the issues (marriage, adoption, etc.) have either a negative or slim positive result, I’d say we’re still far from reaching nirvana. I also don’t think you’re considering the “PC factor” when considering these polls, whereby people respond by “voting” how they think they should in order not to appear prejudiced, while their true feelings (which are often manifested in the privacy of the voting booth) are often very different. Just look at how accurate exit polls have been in the last few elections . . .
“Meanwhile, if we really *did* need all these “protections,” why would we ally ourselves with Democrats like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, etc., etc., etc. who all supported anti-gay laws of this nature on a state level, a federal level, or both?”
I’ve hardly been a supporter of these people, especially that master of fraud and amorality, Bill Clinton. But, politicians in both parties have shown an occasional ability to do the right thing (as they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while). And until the day (hopefully) comes when we move away from this failed, two-party system, we’ve got to put up with what we have.
Brian, I think we basically agree; it’s just that I think you see us getting our full Constitutional protections around the corner, while I believe we have many miles to go. In the meantime, there are plenty of people out there who don’t have a college degree, a high-paying professional job, a fabulous house in the gayborhood, and lots of disposable income who are being denied the very basic, fundamental Constitutional rights — a job and a place to live — based solely on their sexualtiy. Again, until then, some stopgap measures must be enacted. It’s not a perfect world.
posted by Brian Miller on
you seem to be arguing that a “silent majority” exists that supports our right to have all of the equality that the Constitution allows
A majority could be built pretty easily if the understanding was developed — and persistently repeated — that one protects his own liberties by protecting those of other people. I’ve seen NRA ‘right wingers’ become passionate gay rights supporters when they’ve seen gay people become passionate second amendment supporters.
These sorts of alliances can and do happen — but they require a breakthrough in the political system. That is either a sea change in one of the two old parties that transforms that party into a “party of civil liberties,” or an end to the practices that exclude the other two national parties — the Libertarians and Greens — from federal taxpayer-sponsored election debates.
If an effective grassroots campaign motivated just 1/3 of the people who stayed home and didn’t vote in anti-gay marriage bans to turn out and vote “no,” you’d have a new “majority.” Engage them in politics and show them the benefits of freedom and preserving our constitutional order, and you’ve got a political revolution on your hands that would be infinitely more beneficial to the majority of gay people than the shallow 20-year-old “hate crime and ENDA” schtick of the moldy oldies in the undemocratic national gay lobby groups.
plenty of people out there who don’t have a college degree, a high-paying professional job, a fabulous house in the gayborhood, and lots of disposable income
I was one of those poeple. I borrowed to go to school, got a college degree, worked on the weekends and during evenings (when other “discriminated against” gay folks went out to party), saved my pennies, and now rent a nice place nowhere near the gayborhood.
Anyone who puts his mind to it and works hard can do the same. There will be ups and downs, but such is life.
If someone isn’t willing to exert himself and put effort into his own success, why should it be guaranteed for him by the government?
And, incidentally, as a total aside, I’ve found small-city living in a university town in the Bay Area a *lot* more open and welcoming than life in the gayborhood. Fewer people make judgments of a person’s gayness here than in the Castro 30 miles up I-280! I think that the thinking that says that the only good gay life is one in the gay ghetto is 20 years out of date — along with the hate crimes and ENDA agenda.
Gay people are integrated, 70% of straight Americans report that they know a gay person, and most people discard the notion of anti-gay discrimination on the job or in the military or in housing as idiotic. There’s no need for such a law and there hasn’t been for quite a while!
posted by Brian Miller on
Incidentally, a funny story that I suspect addresses the psychology of many folks. . .
In my first ever job, I worked with an eclectic and interesting team managed by a woman who was obviously a lesbian, but considered herself closeted. She wasn’t a very good manager, she maintained a confrontational attitude with her staff, she blamed failures on her employees rather than taking responsibility, etc., etc.
Though I learned a lot in the job, a better offer came along and I accepted it. In my exit interview, she glared at me and announced that she knew why I was *really* leaving. I asked “oh, really, why?”
She narrowed her eyes and said “you’re homophobic. You obviously don’t like working for a lesbian!”
When I laughed my ass off, she got more and more angry. Then I took out my wallet and showed her a picture of me with my partner (at the time) and she almost fell over. Yes, she truly thought she was the only gay in the village, and was convinced that I was moving on because she was gay — rather than because I got a better offer (and she was a poor manager).
Well, about six months later, she came out in a big dramafest and hired her partner to work on the team as well. This caused an uproar amongst the remaining staff, who she quickly denounced as “homophobic” for being uncomfortable with the idea that the boss’s spouse would be at the same level as they were and would create an uncomfortable dynamic.
As people left the team and the division started to fail, she had a spectacular tantrum about all the people “undermining her because she was a lesbian” and attacked another person on the team as “homophobic.” That person was, ironically, the other GAY MAN on the team (who, again, she had no idea about — convinced she was the only homosexual in the universe).
The entire division was canned a couple of weeks after this, and she left convinced that homophobia did her in and lamenting that there were “no laws protecting her.” The reality is that it was her own management incompetence, nepotism, and a chip on her shoulder about her own sexual orientation that assigned every negative reaction to “homophobia” rather than her poor management skills.
I suspect that a majority of people who “need” an ENDA law are like my boss from my first ever job. She saw homophobia everywhere, or claimed it as a mask for her own failure and laziness, when her employer not only didn’t care but was actually pretty supportive of gay people.
Gay people who are competent, confident, invest in their own skills, and work the extra mile will never have problems getting employed at companies that value them for their contribution and who don’t care about their sexual orientation.
posted by Bill from FL on
Brian Miller ….can I suggest something and I am not being sarcastic. Since you seem a long-time blue-stater like I was, Take a trip to a southern red state-one where you are among the lower/middle/upper class locals and observe their actions when they see a feminine guy walk past. When you see Anti-gay marriage canvassers, church signs, listen to their smug arguments, and view their bumper stickers. Think “These are the people that run state government and this community!” Then tell me how comfortable you are getting a job or moving in….you feel like an outsider. It’s a culture-shock even in “purple” CFLA!
However, the GOOD news is….the widely under-reported Anti-gay murder in nearby rural Polk County’s suspects have already been arrested (within 3 days) by the Sheriff’s Department. And, if they are convicted they will get the proper punishment-LIFE Imprisonment or Capital Punishment…which FL will carry out! Try that in NYC or SF!
posted by Bill from FL on
Brian Miller
I like the story about your ex-boss….interesting how people can project their own gay self-loathing and internalized-homophobia onto others….thinking it’s THE glaring issue that makes them dislike the gay person.
posted by Brian Miller on
Since you seem a long-time blue-stater like I was, Take a trip to a southern red state-one where you are among the lower/middle/upper class locals and observe their actions when they see a feminine guy walk past.
I grew up in a rural “red” area — staunchly Republican with anti-gay people everywhere. The present Congressman representing the district is Joe Pitts (Google his record on gay rights sometime!) I completely understand the “red state” dynamic.
But as Americans, we all have freedom of movement. I went where the opportunity is, just like everyone else. And lots of people who stayed behind also made a difference working for rational people who valued them for their contribution to profitability rather than bigoted notions. Either way, I had a choice and so does everyone else.
Besides, think about the implications of ENDA for a moment. If one chose to work for an anti-gay company or employer in an anti-gay environment — “protected” by ENDA — how stupid would he be?
African Americans are “protected” by “equal employment” laws — but I have yet to meet a black man who would work for a racist and trust the law to protect him from bigotry on the job.
We should learn from the experiences of black Americans’ own evolution in our society.
posted by ETJB on
Based on the theory; we should then not have civil rights laws because some people but abuse them…. (rolls eyes).
posted by Brian Miller on
Well, depends on how one defines “we” and “civil rights.”
If you mean that gay people should have a special right not to be fired, then you’re correct, we shouldn’t have them.
If, by civil rights, you mean equal treatment under the law (as the Constitution requires), then we definitely should have them — and Democrats are opposed to those civil rights, as evidenced by their segregationist policies on marriage, immigration, parenting, tax treatment, etc.
Either way, it’s difficult for Democratic partisans to argue that others are “opposed to civil rights” when their presidential candidates (with the exception of Dennis Kucinich) are resolutely opposed to equal treatment under the law in the areas I just described.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And besides, we have a fine example in Bonnie Bleskachek.
Her excuse for her behavior? Homophobia.
But, thanks to Minnesota’s special-privilege…..sorry, “nondiscrimination” law for gays and lesbians, they didn’t dare fire her.
Bleskachek has shown “extremely poor behavior” and committed “deep violations of public trust,” (Minneapolis Mayor R.T.) Rybak said Friday. He said he wanted to go the route of a settlement rather than running the risk of a lawsuit, which could have left Bleskachek in a position to supervise others.
“I will not risk having her return as a manager in this city,” said Rybak.
Meanwhile, for contrast, note that, when the CEO of the Boeing Company engaged in a relationship with one of Boeing’s employees, the CEO was immediately fired, DESPITE the relationship being consensual and having no bearing whatsoever on Boeing.
Or, put differently, a white heterosexual male can be fired for a consensual relationship with an employee that has no effect on the business, but a lesbian who has affairs in the workplace, engages in lewd conduct and sexual harassment, and sabotages the careers of those who won’t (or can’t) have sex with her, all of which have a marked effect on the business (AND on public safety, given the nature of the business) cannot be fired.
Meanwhile, not a single national gay organization has said one word about Bleskachek’s behaviors. Not one.
But they scream and whine about the necessity of the laws that keep her from getting fired.
posted by Bill from FL on
I grew up in a rural “red” area — staunchly Republican with anti-gay people everywhere. The present Congressman representing the district is Joe Pitts (Google his record on gay rights sometime!) I completely understand the “red state” dynamic.
RESPONSE: Oh lord….PITTS! His name says it all. I have visited his area plenty of times, mostly as a teen. Nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to flame there! And I thought I had it bad with Smith and Suxton, er Saxton.
But as Americans, we all have freedom of movement. I went where the opportunity is, just like everyone else. And lots of people who stayed behind also made a difference working for rational people who valued them for their contribution to profitability rather than bigoted notions. Either way, I had a choice and so does everyone else.
RESPONSE: I agree with you-those of us who CHOOSE to sit and silently suffer, make our fate. But those who stay and fight the battle deserve respect. And of course I am glad for the freedom of movement we have, but unfortunately we are often stuck with the “suffer or fight” option.
Besides, think about the implications of ENDA for a moment. If one chose to work for an anti-gay company or employer in an anti-gay environment — “protected” by ENDA — how stupid would he be?
African Americans are “protected” by “equal employment” laws — but I have yet to meet a black man who would work for a racist and trust the law to protect him from bigotry on the job.
RESPONSE: Ibid the “Stay and and Suffer or Fight”. Well plenty of blacks work for racists, just not knowingly anymore! But yes, one should have pride in themself and not be fed by the hand that hits them. But we don’t all have options!
We should learn from the experiences of black Americans’ own evolution in our society.
RESP: Yes, we should. Learn from their triumph and defeats, AND mistakes and correct actions.
posted by Brian Miller on
not a single national gay organization has said one word about Bleskachek’s behaviors. Not one
That’s a ridiculous point — as usual, you’re taking things too far in order to make your partisan points.
It’s a bit like arguing that gay Republicans support sexual predation against teenagers because you and the LCRs didn’t immediately issue press releases condemning Mark Foley’s behavior, and because you made only a conditional (and reluctant) condemnation of his behavior.
LGBT groups like NGLTF and HRC are undoubtedly wrong about ENDA and similar legislation, but attempting to claim that they tacitly approve sexual harrassment at the workplace is absurd and undermines the rest of your arguments by its sheer absurdity.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s a bit like arguing that gay Republicans support sexual predation against teenagers because you and the LCRs didn’t immediately issue press releases condemning Mark Foley’s behavior, and because you made only a conditional (and reluctant) condemnation of his behavior.
Sure, whatever.
LGBT groups like NGLTF and HRC are undoubtedly wrong about ENDA and similar legislation, but attempting to claim that they tacitly approve sexual harrassment at the workplace is absurd and undermines the rest of your arguments by its sheer absurdity.
What I have made clear, Mr. Miller, is that the laws they support enable people like Bonnie Bleskachek to harass for years — and then, when they are caught, to avoid being fired. You ask me to believe that, with such a prominent example, a group whose leadership is heavily weighted towards lawyers and lobbyists is completely unaware of the fact that the laws they are pushing allow glbts to get away with sustained, repeated behavior far worse than that which would get a straight white male fired — and indeed would be horrified if they knew it.
HRC and NGLTF are nothing more than the gay versions of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They believe that gays and lesbians do not have to follow the law, that they should be given special privileges, and that, as Bleskachek whined, anyone who calls a gay person out on their bad behavior is “homophobic”. And the reason they are keeping their mouths shut on the Bleskachek matter is because they don’t want to draw attention to the fact that a law along the same lines of the laws they are pushing now enabled a lesbian to openly and repeatedly discriminate, ruin peoples’ careers, demand sex as the price of advancement, and then still keep her job.
It seems odd that two organizations supposedly devoted to “equality in the workplace” would have nothing to say about such a gross abrogation of it — unless, of course, their point was not “equality”, but “special privileges” for gays and lesbians.
posted by Brian Miller on
What I have made clear, Mr. Miller, is that the laws they support enable people like Bonnie Bleskachek to harass for years
What you said was:
not a single national gay organization has said one word about Bleskachek’s behaviors
You are clearly inferring that they support a position that Ms. Bleskachek’s alleged sexual harrassment should be encouraged and protected. Which is certainly not a position that they’re taking.
As you know, I’m a regular critic of both HRC and NGLTF. But hyperbole stating that they support laws to protect and encourage workplace sexual abuse is just silly and counterproductive.
One can also criticize ENDA-style laws and the organizations supporting them without jumping to the right wing’s equivalent of Godwin’s law (invocation of Al Sharpton).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You are clearly inferring that they support a position that Ms. Bleskachek’s alleged sexual harrassment should be encouraged and protected. Which is certainly not a position that they’re taking.
How do you know? When have they said anything?
Again, you’re asking me to believe that organizations who insist that silence is not good enough and implies acceptance are not following their own rules.
One can also criticize ENDA-style laws and the organizations supporting them without jumping to the right wing’s equivalent of Godwin’s law (invocation of Al Sharpton).
If someone is taking over a country, ordering Jews into concentration camps to be killed, and conquering neighboring countries, I think it would be appropriate to compare them to Hitler, no?
In the same way will I compare organizations that do and support the same kinds of things as Sharpton does to Sharpton, thank you.
posted by Brian Miller on
How do you know? When have they said anything?
It’s a reasonable inference — just like the idea that it’s a reasonable inference that you don’t support US Marines raping Iraqi women (despite the fact you’ve never publicly declared this in a forum I’m aware of).
The concept of “truism” is an old one in rhetoric — the assumption that most people aren’t going to take radical, inhuman positions is a reasonable one.
If one truly intends to argue that HRC and NGLTF have a burning desire to promote sexual harrassment in the workforce, that’s a massively radical position to assign to them — and it requires evidence beyond a couple of inferential leaps tied together with a dollop of Republicanism in a lumpy, misshapen package! 😉
As I said before, there’s plenty to criticize about HRC and NGLTF in what they DO say — and thus no need to invent positions that they likely don’t have in order to get something to criticize. Such practices tend to make your argument fall out of favor with folks taking an objective view of the overall argument.
And while I realize that the Republican and Democratic impulse is to use questionable inference to associate their opponents with the most undesirable causes, people, and positions imaginable, it’s AMB (all mostly bullshit).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Let’s see, Mr. Miller; your argument before was that silence does not equal acceptance.
It’s a bit like arguing that gay Republicans support sexual predation against teenagers because you and the LCRs didn’t immediately issue press releases condemning Mark Foley’s behavior, and because you made only a conditional (and reluctant) condemnation of his behavior.
And yet…..
In the case of religious leaders, when they call for execution for gay folks, or condemn them as “morally weak human garbage” — and there’s no outcry or accountability from the membership — such silence represents tacit acceptance of the “acceptability” of those beliefs/statements. . . if not outright approval of them.
So which is it, Mr. Miller? Does silence equal acceptance, or not?
posted by Brian Miller on
*chuckles*
Very clever ND30. You get points for effort!
But you’re comparing apples to moonrocks. In the case of religious individuals who are voluntary members of an affinity group (i.e. a religious denomination), continued association is a choice and silence in the face of what that group’s leadership does — while maintaining membership — is reasonably considered as tacit acceptance.
Homosexuality is not an affinity group, but a sexual orientation. Silence by partisan gay groups on the activities of an obscure gay woman does not equal tacit acceptance — it’s an entirely different matter. The only thing linking them is that she’s gay and they’re gay, and it’s not as though either party can change their sexual orientations.
posted by ETJB on
The Libertarian Party seems to feel that “we” would all be better of living in a pre-Civil Rights Act of 1964 America.
Sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws are not a ‘special right.’ They apply to both heterosexual and homosexuals. They do not prevent some one from being fired who is incompetent. Just like similar laws for race, color, religion, sex, disability, etc.
Neither major political party suports equal treatment under the law. Some minor parties claim to support equal treatment but what they thing does not matter too much under our current electoral system.
Given that the Equal Rights Amendment failed to be ratified in 1982 it remains to be seen if most Americans believe in it.
Fact: The Libertarian Party opposes civil rights. Heck, libertarians played a role in opposing the Equal Rights Amendment. They want to repeal the civil rights act of 1964 and all other similar state laws.
posted by Brian Miller on
Remember when I referenced Democratic and Republican talking points that scream, shout, make scurrilous accusations without any factual basis, and often just plain lie?
ETJB’s post above is an excellent example of this. Not only is he inaccurate (deliberately) in explaining Libertarian Party positions (which are easily examined in the Libertarian platform), but he tosses around meaningless claims such as “the Libertarian Party opposes civil rights” (without mentioning that the Libertarian Party supports *civil rights* but opposes Democrats’ special rights legislation).
In short, rather than engage in a meaningful discussion of the issues, ETJB is engaging in a FOX News/Air America style hit-n-run post in an effort to generate talking points.
This used to be effective, but given the dreadful record of both the Republicans and Democrats on gay civil rights issues, it’s no longer effective.
That’s one reason why partisan Democrats and Republicans are so awkward in today’s environment. When asked why they haven’t done anything to advance “civil rights,” and asked what they’d do to change the situation, they typically either short-circuit or go on the attack rather than answer the question.
It’s not just gay rights this is on — it’s also on the Iraq War, deficit spending, balanced budgets, civil liberties, and a whole host of other important issues.
I’ll be ready to discuss the actual issues — in detail, with logical underpinnings. ETJB will never be — he’s too busy scanning the latest Democratic Party propaganda for zingers to use against his enemies.
For him, politics is a team sport rather than a thoughtful, considered look at the issues.
And that’s sad.
posted by ETJB on
Brain seems to be engaging in a rather typical libertarian game of bait and switch. I used to be a Libertarian, so I should know.
He states that I am a partisan Democrat (who also loves Fox News and Air America). I am not.
He statse that I am “busy scanning the latest Democratic Party propaganda for zingers to use against his enemies.” I am not. I do not see Brian as an enemy, and I do not visit the DNC web page, trying to ‘zinger’ people.
The LP platform has (prior to 2006) always stated that it seeks the repeal of civil rights laws that ensure equal protection in the private sector.
This would mean abolishing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similiar laws. This would mean a return to the era of ‘white only’ or ‘restricted’ or ‘Christians only’ or ‘Irish need not apply.’
The current platform hides much of what libertarianism stands for by keeping it short and simple.
Yet, it does say, “we oppose all intervention by government into the area of economics. Goodbye private sector civil rights laws.
Many state LP chapters are still using the older (and more clear) platform. “We oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, such as in employment, housing, education, social clubs, or gatherings and business.” (LP MN platform)
I simply stated a fact. A fact to illustrate that the LP platform on civil rights is so embarassing that they have to hide it from their platform, attack anyone that points it out with talking point zingers and then simply claim to only oppose ‘special rights’.
A tremendous amount of good work was done on behalf of civil rights in America during the 1940’s – 1970’s. Yes, more needs to be done, but what was done was without the work of the Libertarian Party.
What happen? Well, a major factor was the rise of the New Right. The GOP moved much more to the right with a quasi-libertarian-Christian theocratic coalition that is still keeping the party afloat.
This pushed the Democratic Party leadership more to the center or more like the New Right. The re-alignment in parties meant that support (and opposition) for civil rights was increasingly coming from one party.
The two parties became much more polarized, much less willing to work for a common ground and much much more willing to insulate themselves from competitution.
posted by Brian Miller on
I used to be a Libertarian, so I should know.
That’s funny, I’ve never heard of you. 😉
A tremendous amount of good work was done on behalf of civil rights in America during the 1940’s – 1970’s. Yes, more needs to be done, but what was done was without the work of the Libertarian Party.
More clich
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This would mean abolishing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similiar laws. This would mean a return to the era of ‘white only’ or ‘restricted’ or ‘Christians only’ or ‘Irish need not apply.’
If you believe that laws are the only thing that prevent people from bad behavior, sure.
But are you and your fellow liberals really that convinced of the evil of humanity and of people in the United States that you insist that, were it not for these laws, we’d all be practicing racism left and right?
posted by Brian Miller on
My experience has been that “liberals” who support those sorts of laws are often VERY racist.
For instance, I was providing some colleagues of mine a tour of Philadelphia’s South Street when one of them, a prosperous white liberal woman from a northeast suburb, started freaking out. She was convinced that she was about to be mugged because “we’re the only white people on the street.”
Shd demanded I get her out of there immediately, but I didn’t. Once I got her inside a restaurant where she calmed down, she realized the mask had slipped a bit and apologized for “saying things that you might think are racist.”
MIGHT think are racist?
Ahem.
posted by ETJB on
I was a member of the Libertarian Party from about 1996 – 1999/00. Mainly after reading a book by Peter McWilliams. Yet, the more I learned about the party and its beliefs, less I liked about it.
I am defining “civil rights” how most Americans, and certainly most scholars, intellectuals, philosophers have done so (on the left, right and center).
The LP is seeking to redefine the term so that they do not have to be faced with the bad press for opposing civil rights.
In the 1990s, the LP and Libertarians had no problem stating that they opposed civil rights laws, so I see this is a little more then public relations, much like the fact that the party platform has been shorten.
“More meaningless mumbo-jumbo”
No, not really no. Again the fact that you keep attacking me as a ‘Democratic Party partisan’ or a ‘left-winger’ does not make it true.
The American LP was largely founded by a group of Republican conservatives upset for President Nixon’s price controls in the early 1970s.
This is around the same time that the Republican Party was looking to win the white South. To win the support of the newly visible white evangelical Christian voters.
Libertarian-Conservatives (who supported Barry Goldwater or Ayn Ran) were a part of this ‘New Right’ GOP coalition that the party, especially people such as Ronald Reagan felt would help get them elected and it worked well in the 1970s, and into the 1980s – 1990s.
History aside; the LP opposes ‘civil right’ laws that regulate the private sector to promote equal opportunity and basic fairness.
Yet, they also want most public services to be in private hands, so their would be few civil rights laws left in a LP nation.
posted by ETJB on
Fact; The Libertarian Party wants to abolish the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar equal opportunity and labor laws because they involve the government telling a private business what to do.
They do support EO laws when they apply to the government. Although, Libertarians would prefer to have just about every public service and good run by the private (unreglated) sector.
Their are certainly many private sector industries — large and small — that would jump at the chance to deny EO based on race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, etc.
Heck, I have known several friends in North Dakota — with very narrow civil rights laws — who have been were fired because they were gay, or even denied housing because they were gay.
They have no legal recourse and frankly the ND general public does not care and feels that such discrimination does not really occur.
Are civil rights laws perfect? No, but they do provide some legal recourse for illegal discrimination.
Civil rights, health and safety codes, environmental and labor laws do provide some measure of equal opportunity, safety and basic fairness that would not happen if everything was run by powerful and unregulated businesses.
If you believe that laws are the only thing that prevent people from bad behavior, sure.
But are you and your fellow liberals really that convinced of the evil of humanity and of people in the United States that you insist that, were it not for these laws, we’d all be practicing racism left and right?