Another Washington Post column looks back at the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 Loving vs. Virginia ruling, striking down state bans on interracial marriage. Law prof. Kermit Roosevelt, noting that the equal protection clause was ratified in 1868, asks why voiding these laws took so long:
Interracial marriage bans now seem obviously invidious. But go back far enough and the consensus flips. At one point, most everyone thought such bans were legitimate. The same is true of segregated schooling and discrimination against women. It is true of just about everything the Supreme Court has held that the equal protection clause prohibits.
At one point, all of these practices were seen as legitimate reflections of the world, not as invidious attempts to impose inequality. When the court held these practices unconstitutional, it was neither enforcing a rule that had existed since 1868 nor creating a new rule. It was recognizing that social attitudes had shifted, and with them the understanding about what is reasonable and what is invidious.
He adds:
This point connects Loving to current social struggles, most notably the debate over same-sex marriage. Opponents decry the "activist judges" in Massachusetts who struck down that state's same-sex marriage ban and warn that the Supreme Court will someday follow. So it may-but, if it does, responsibility will not lie primarily with judges.
In other words, when the battle has been won in the court of public opinion (and most state legislatures), the Supreme Court may be free to sweep away the last remaining areas of intransigence. But pursuing marriage equality through a judicial strategy while a majority in most states are strongly opposed is a recipe for reaction, including state (or a federal) constitutional amendments blocking same-sex marriage for yet another generation.
64 Comments for “The Long Path to ‘Loving’”
posted by ETJB on
It would be more credible to tell people to look to legislators first and judges much, much latter if we actually had free and fair elections.
I said this time and time again. Maybe gay marriage or abortion would not be decided by judges if our elections were not artifacially limited to two parties.
posted by Brian on
I agree Stephen. We can ask people to recognize marriage bans as discriminatory or expect them to be OK when judges or legislators do as long as they continue to think that our very existence is sick and sinful. Marriage bans, the lack of non-discrimination policies in employment, etc, etc are all symptoms of a deeper problem.
Address the problem and all of those ugly injustices will fall away. So how can we start doing that every day?
posted by Timothy on
In other words, when the battle has been won in the court of public opinion (and most state legislatures), the Supreme Court may be free to sweep away the last remaining areas of intransigence.
I think you misunderstand the facts. When Loving was determined, the vast overwhelming percentage of the populace opposed mixed race marriages. In fact, current support for gay marriage is MUCH higher than that for mixed race marriage at the time of Loving.
The argument about “don’t go to the courts” assumes a homogenous nation – which we most definitely do not have. I agree we stay away – for now – from SCOTUS. But pursuing the courts in California is the right move. The legislature has passed gay marriage and the Governor said he’ll sign it only upon approval of the courts or by referendum. The anti-gay activists (the rational ones) fear any sort of public vote because they are afraid they’d lose and it would kill their claims about “the will of the people”.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Sure, changes in the law will inevitably lead to a public reaction.
However, the reaction was balanced in such a way that the reaction became more positive than negative. And mixed marriages raise very little hostile reaction.
Better the law to protect you in the most profound matters, an in what the reaction can get away with if equality wasn’t in place.
I was in an interracial marriage. And there was latent, subtle prejudice in my in laws.
But I was still married, anywhere in the entire world and anywhere in this country that my ex and I traveled.
And in every crisis, we had the power of custody over each other’s needs.
Whether or not someone liked seeing us together, didn’t matter in the law.
SCOTUS has to first recognize, as in the case of Loving vs. VA, that gay people are citizens and human beings with the same needs, obligations and responsibilities as such. And being gay doesn’t disqualify your from the responsibility that is inevitable of that station.
So nor should you be also disqualified from equal rights for the same reason.
posted by Randy on
When Loving was decided, a poll was taken, and 80% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. So where was the backlash?
posted by Brian Miller on
You don’t win a struggle for your constitutional rights by putting it off for a couple of generations. You win it by fighting for it now, every day.
One of the reasons that desegregation took so long for African Americans was because much of the black populace and leadership bought into an “incrementalist” approach. Once MLK (and Malcolm X) advocated full equality without apologies, things advanced quite rapidly.
We should learn from their example and not spend 80 years in the wilderness “waiting for society to catch up.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I think you misunderstand the facts. When Loving was determined, the vast overwhelming percentage of the populace opposed mixed race marriages. In fact, current support for gay marriage is MUCH higher than that for mixed race marriage at the time of Loving.
There is a lovely interactive map on this page that rather convincingly demonstrates the fallacy of that statement.
For comparison purposes, set the date to “1947”, and then scroll through to “1966”, the year before Loving was decided.
In short, if the “vast, overwhelming percentage of the populace” was opposing interracial marriages, they certainly were repealing a lot of miscegenation laws — or allowing their overturning — on a rather spectacular basis.
Contrast that with the current situation relative to gay marriage, in which the vast majority of the states in the past few years have enacted laws with large majorities prohibiting it.
The anti-gay activists (the rational ones) fear any sort of public vote because they are afraid they’d lose and it would kill their claims about “the will of the people”.
Mhm.
That’s why they’re raising referendum petitions in California and Massachusetts to do just that.
Meanwhile, instead of raising a similar proposition in California to repeal Proposition 22, gay leftist organizations like “Equality” California keep trying to backdoor bills through the Legislature using the questionable argument that the voters only meant to ban out-of-state marriages in Proposition 22 — and oddly enough, only in non-election years.
On the other side of the country, gay leftists in Massachusetts are harassing petition signers, trying to manipulate the Legislature, and trying to ignore the Constitution to avoid having an amendment banning gay marriages come up for a public vote.
In short, for supposedly being afraid, the so-called antigay forces are doing a lot of bold things…..and despite having “the will of the people” on their side, gay leftist organizations seem completely and totally afraid of any such vote happening.
And to Brian’s statement, the single biggest issue we have is the fact that leftists, knowing an easily-manipulated minority when they see one, have continually used us as a smokescreen for antiwar, anti-military, anti-Republican, anti-capitalist, anti-religious, and anti-whatnot campaigns that are at best tangentially related to gay issues.
The place we start is by kicking all these people to the curb and telling them that, if they want to support gays, they can support all gays, including the ones whose opinions differ from theirs.
posted by Brian Miller on
The place we start is by kicking all these people to the curb and telling them that, if they want to support gays, they can support all gays, including the ones whose opinions differ from theirs.
I have no disagreement — I merely would point out that before this happens, we’ll need queer leadership who are as unafraid to take on Democrats as they are Republicans, independents, etc.
Right now, nobody’s stepping up to the plate to hold politicians’ feet to the fire — they’re used to getting an easy pass on the issues.
posted by Timothy on
In short, if the “vast, overwhelming percentage of the populace” was opposing interracial marriages, they certainly were repealing a lot of miscegenation laws — or allowing their overturning — on a rather spectacular basis.
Yes. One of the interesting things about our country is that they can not like something and still let it be allowed.
That’s why they’re raising referendum petitions in California
The efforts by Vote Yes Marriage and by Protect Marriage were not able to get enough signatures to make it on the ballot in 06. This was, in part, because those who fund such effots refuse to provide the funds necessary for a signature drive.
Probably the most significant reason is because the anti-gays are not content with only banning marriage, but also want to ban domestic partnerships, which in CA are one word shy of marriage. But Californians won’t vote to ban relationships – hence no funds.
The place we start is by kicking all these people to the curb and telling them that, if they want to support gays, they can support all gays, including the ones whose opinions differ from theirs.
Why don’t we start by you showing us a good example of supporting all gays, including those whose opinions differ from yours.
I think a little more supporting and a little less kicking to the curb might give your plea for “support for all” a bit more credibility
posted by BobN on
“In short, if the “vast, overwhelming percentage of the populace” was opposing interracial marriages, they certainly were repealing a lot of miscegenation laws — or allowing their overturning — on a rather spectacular basis.”
Well, back in those days, not only was the judiciary “activist”, so was the legislative…
posted by BobN on
But seriously, both the legislative and the people had far greater respect for the judiciary’s decisions in those days. You can look back and find a few “conservatives” (who were Dems) calling for constitutional amendments to overturn the rulings of the state supremen courts that allowed interracial marriage. Of course, back then, those guys were ridiculed and scorned for their open disrespect for the Constitution. Nowadays, people build their entire political career on such an attitude…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why don’t we start by you showing us a good example of supporting all gays, including those whose opinions differ from yours.
Sure.
I am adamantly against the idea of hiring or firing someone based solely on their sexual orientation and without consideration for their job performance.
But I also am against gay Democrats and leftists like Bonnie Bleskachek who exploit nondiscrimination to facilitate their sexual harassment, discrimination, and manipulation of peoples’ careers in order to get lesbian sex — and find the silence of national gay groups on this obvious and blatant example of an LGBT person they supported breaking the law to be quite telling.
The problem in our community, Timothy, is that one cannot do both; in order to be truly “supportive”, you must ignore the misbehavior of people like Bleskachek in the name of “gay unity”.
And that is why our community is so easy to exploit; people know, as Bleskachek did, that all she has to do is scream “homophobia” and “sexism”, and gays will come running to protect her. After all, it always worked before.
posted by Timothy on
Who came running to protest Bleskachek?
posted by Timothy on
rather…
Who “came running to protect” Bleskachek?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Read that second link, Timothy.
Bleskachek had been doing what ultimately got her in trouble for years. But because she was female and a lesbian, that was regularly overlooked and complaints about it were called “homophobia” and “sexism”, and regularly quashed.
posted by dalea on
Maybe first someone could actually name all these leftists. And maybe even go out on a limb and provide evidence that they are leftists instead of the rather ordinary liberal democrats they all appear to be. The constant conflating of career liberal politicians to ‘leftists’ is ridiculous. And probably why gay conservatives are not taken more seriously.
Actually the backlash from Loving, and Brown and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came as the Republican’s Southern Strategy. Which is to say, the modern Republican Part and Conservativism.
posted by Timothy on
OK. So we are agreeing that no one has come running to protect Bleskachek this time.
Right?
posted by Timothy on
And looking closer into the article, it appears that Bleskachek was promoted because she had been groomed by the previous straight male chief. And it seems that all the protecting was done within the city – good ol’ boys (and girls) protecting the status quo and power structure.
Perhaps there was some gay Democrat leftist protection, but I was unable to identify it in the article. Mostly what I saw was everyone who was gay was roundly criticizing Bleskachek – but maybe there were gay supporters that just weren’t interviewed for the article.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Timothy said “When Loving was determined, the vast overwhelming percentage of the populace opposed mixed race marriages.”. Randy said “When Loving was decided, a poll was taken, and 80% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage.”.
Do either of you have a link for this? I’ve come across similar statments myself but could use something to actually back it up. I looked at the map Northdallass linked to, but as is commonly the case it didn’t “demonstrate the fallacy of that” as he promised.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “The place we start is by kicking all these people to the curb and telling them that, if they want to support gays, they can support all gays, including the ones whose opinions differ from theirs.”
Timothy said to Northdallass “Why don’t we start by you showing us a good example of supporting all gays, including those whose opinions differ from yours. I think a little more supporting and a little less kicking to the curb might give your plea for “support for all” a bit more credibility.”
Northdallass replied “Sure” and then went on to indiscriminately smear “gay Democrats” and “leftists” for the actions of Bonnie Bleskacheck with which they had nothing to do. Once again, even when Northdallass promises to take the high road he can’t restrain himself from attacking innocent gays whose opinions differ from his even while he disingenously calls for others to do so.
Northdallass, contrary to your lies no gays came running to protect Bleskachek and no one dismissed complaints against her as homophobia. You just won’t pass up any excuse to smear all gays with the wrongdoings of one. And then you’ve got the nerve to pompously and disingenously demand that “leftist” gays support all gays regardless of their opinions. Practice what you preach Northdallass Dirty.
posted by Craig on
>backdoor bills through the Legislature
posted by Craig on
>backdoor bills through the legislature< ??? Yeah that's awful, when people ask their representatives to address inequities in the law. Buncha leftists
posted by dalea on
One of the great tragedies of Loving and the other major civil rights laws is that it introduced to politics a new creature: the ‘limited government’ conservative. Under the cover of having a system of ‘thought’, these agents put forth the notion that the Bill of Rights was solely a Federal concern. It had nothing to do with what majorities at the state or county or municipal level wanted to do. The Fedeeral government could not maintain separate but equal water fountains; any local government could if a majority of the population went along with this. If your particular county voted to, for example, render all Jews into soap, it was purely a local matter.
At the time some opportunistic politicians saw their golden moment. Make common cause with the ‘limited government’ types to advance a more or less Libertarian program. Which has resulted in people like Brian, who espouse a pure Libertarian program, speaking in ‘segregationese’.
This website surely has an opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of this viscious ideology of ‘limited government’ conservativism.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah yes, the usual “gays didn’t support her” backpedaling.
Mhm, and mhm.
Meanwhile, if I may summarize Timothy’s, dalea’s, and Randi’s takes, they go as follows; what Bleskachek did, and to which her leftist, gay, and Democrat supporters ignored and covered up, was so awful, so horrible, so disgusting…..that I am a bad, wicked, and horrible person for pointing it out and holding her and her supporters accountable for her doing it.
Again, there is nothing that gays, leftists, and Democrats can do that is worse than a person who reports it. That is really what the three of them are mad about; not what Bleskachek did, but the fact that someone — a GAY person, no less — DARED to report it and demand accountability from the community that praised her before and insists that the very laws and attitudes that allowed her to do what she did without consequence for years be exposed as such.
Again, the problem is as I stated above; in order to be truly “supportive”, you must ignore the misbehavior of people like Bleskachek in the name of “gay unity” — and attack those who don’t just shut up and protect her.
And yes, I said “backdoor bills through the Legislature”. That’s what it’s called when you deliberately try to get around the normal legislative process.
posted by Brian Miller on
you must ignore the misbehavior of people like Bleskachek in the name of “gay unity” — and attack those who don’t just shut up and protect her
What an absurd proposition.
I haven’t seen anyone “ignore” her behavior. I *have* seen people not fly into an extended multi-paragraph tirade about her behavior as you demand, but that’s far from “ignoring” her behavior.
In addition, most mature adults understand that unacceptable behavior such as sexual harassment is unacceptable regardless of sexual orientation — and don’t feel the need to spend dozens of virtual column-inches on over-the-top condemnations of certain individuals who engage in it (but not others!) in order to voice their disapproval.
Further, the right-wing mindset in general is rather fractured on this issue. I am not required to apologize for Ms. Bleskachek’s alleged behavior because she’s queer any more than you’re required to apologize for Mark Foley’s behavior because, like you, he’s a queer Republican.
People must shake themselves out of the collectivist, fractious mindset that Republican and Democratic socialism has steeped us in and start viewing individuals as individuals — responsible for their own behavior and endowed with inalienable rights, just like every other individual.
The whole “apologize for the actions of another, and maybe then we’ll consider recognizing your constitutional rights” schtick is the inevitable result of this.
And just like gay people are feeling the sting in the form of activist right-wingers attacking our families, the activist right-wing religionists are starting to feel the sting as well in the form of eHarmony lawsuits. It’s a mutually deplorable situation that could be easily resolved, were both sides willing to recognize the fundamental rights of the *individuals* on the other.
That’s a uniquely American perspective that’s been drowned out in the European-style “clash of cultures” rhetoric that has had such currency the last 15 to 20 years.
We’re much poorer for it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Further, the right-wing mindset in general is rather fractured on this issue. I am not required to apologize for Ms. Bleskachek’s alleged behavior because she’s queer any more than you’re required to apologize for Mark Foley’s behavior because, like you, he’s a queer Republican.
Unfortunately for that argument, I roundly condemned Foley’s behavior.
Furthermore, given the shriek-fest that issues forth from national gay groups and their “allies” among womens’ groups whenever a straight man is even accused of demanding from a female sex as the price of advancement, or sexually harassing and discriminating against those who are gay or female, the silence on Bleskachek is rather deafening; after all, they certainly don’t use the argument that “most mature adults understand that unacceptable behavior such as sexual harassment is unacceptable”.
Why do you think national gay groups and so-called “womens’ rights” groups would be so silent over such a clear and obvious example of sexual harassment, demanding sex as the price of advancement, and discrimination against people based on their gender and sexual orientation — especially since they repeatedly attack straight males who do such a thing, loudly?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Once again Northdallass’s twisted mind rears its ugly head. For starters the two links you posted didn’t have anything in them about gays defending her actions, as is typical you made it up. You’re a back wicked and horrible person all right, not because you brought up Bleskachek, but because you continue to indiscriminately blame innocent gays in general for her actions and falsely claim they defended these actions.
You don’t give a damn about Bleskachek except to the extent that you can portray her actions as the fault of the LGBT community in general, which had nothing to do with it. Your insane hatred of gays is obvious given that you bring up the same isolated tired incident repeatedly and yet never acknowledge the frequent wrong doings of straights. To you only gays should be criticized, never straights, because you’re a bigot.
A dentist in Washington rapes a 15 year old female patient while she’s sedated in the chair, but that’s not the kind of wrong doing Northdallass brings up because to him it would reflect badly on straights and not gays.
http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_re_us/missing_dentist
A cop rapes a transexual female, but that’s not the kind of story Northdallass wants to bring attention to because its a straight and not a gay
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/01/012007txCop.htm
A bunch of cops beat up on gays, but that’s not the kind of story Northdallass wants to publicize because its straights doing wrong and not gays.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/01/012407cop.htm
A Quebec woman has sex with a 12 year old boy, but you won’t hear that from Northdallass because he can’t use that to falsely smear innoncent gays.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070329/national/crime_sex_boy_2
Northdallass whines about how ‘leftist’ gays should support all gays regardless of their opinions, yet he habitually smears all gays despite their being innocent of any wrong doing because most gays don’t share his political opinions.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Typical; instead of confronting and dealing with Bleskachek’s actions and the support Bleskachek received from the “LGBT community” and liberals, Randi tries to smear and discredit the person who points them out, straight people in general, and so forth.
You don’t give a damn about Bleskachek except to the extent that you can portray her actions as the fault of the LGBT community in general, which had nothing to do with it.
Wrong. I fully and completely condemn sexual harassment, regardless of who does it or what their orientation is. Period. Furthermore, I oppose laws written, like Minnesota’s, that protect people like Bleskachek from the consequences of their criminal behavior because of their gender and sexual orientation.
Meanwhile, one notices quite readily that you cannot do the same without pointing out how bad I am, how bad straight people are, and so forth. And that is exactly my point; people realize, that the “LGBT community”, when forced to recognize that the behavior of one of its members is wrong, follows it with “but so and so is bad, straight people are bad, etc.”
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
“Today I am urging the city council to act on a legal agreement with Ms. Bleskachek. She will no longer be Fire Chief and she will not contest this removal. She will not receive a severance payout. She will be completely and permanently stripped of ever holding leadership or management status in this city. She will assume an administrative position in the city without any supervisory function or chance of promotion. She has been severely and significantly demoted and her pay has been cut by more than 40 thousand dollars. Ms. Bleskachek has apologized in writing to the city, the department and the citizens of Minneapolis and has accepted theses drastic consequences with remorse. By removing Bleskachek today we are establishing complete control over her future employment with this city and guaranteeing that she will never supervise anyone. If we let this drag on into an uncertain future, we will run the risk of having her return to a senior management position in the department. I will not take that risk.”
– Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak.
THOSE DAMNED LEFTIST GAYS!! ALWAYS STICKING UP FOR AND DEFENDING EACH OTHER!! …oh wait, she quit in disgrace? nevermind…
PS
ND30, a question…have you ever been truthful about anything in your entire miserable life?
posted by Mark on
“Under the cover of having a system of ‘thought’, these agents put forth the notion that the Bill of Rights was solely a Federal concern.”
Boy, you are foolish. Prior to the 14th Amendment, there was no serious objection to this view. James Madison actually proposed an amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states, and ir was defeated. And it’s certainly arguable whether the 14th Amendment applied the ~entire~ bill of rights to the states. The debates over the amendment suggests that most people just wanted to ban government discrimination against blacks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
oh wait, she quit in disgrace? nevermind…
Mhm.
Kind of hard to say someone “quit” when she’s still employed in the same place, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, why wasn’t she fired? Oh yes — her leftist Democrat union threatened to sue, bragging how they had managed to win reinstatements for even police officers whose acts of brutality had cost the city a million or so dollars — and in her case, they could exploit Minnesota’s “nondiscrimination” law and claim that firing her was wrong because she is a lesbian.
And as for Rybak, you know, Bleskachek had been doing this for ten-plus years; you’d think he would have noticed before he promoted her in the first place. But I suppose being able to tout her hire was what was most important to him; after all, who cares about a lesbian sexually harassing other women and straight people? No gay group is going to get upset over THAT; they’re just going to attack the people who point it out and claim that it’s OK because those people don’t rip on straight people enough.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Kind of hard to say someone “quit” when she’s still employed in the same place {?}”
You are a horrible HR person aren’t you? She quit her position and took a pay-cut AND will NEVER hold a position of authority again. This isn’t hard, stop trying to make it that way. IDIOT!!!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
She quit her position and took a pay-cut AND will NEVER hold a position of authority again.
Mhm.
And she still works for the Minneapolis Fire Department.
And many of those Catholic priests who got frisky with altar boys were removed from their parishes, “demoted”, and taken out of “supervisory” positions.
Didn’t stop the problem, did it?
In HR, we know full well that sexual harassment is not limited to supervisor positions; someone who sexually harasses other people can do so regardless of whether they have anyone reporting to them or not. That is why, when an individual has as pervasive of a record of sexual harassment in several different positions as does Bleskachek, we fire them; once can be an honest mistake, but when the same behaviors keep recurring, there is obviously a problem, and it’s not fair to the other employees to keep that person around.
What is really funny to me in this is that you put Bleskachek ahead of the other LGBT employees she harassed; I guess the theory is that, if these people don’t like working with her because of her behaviors, THEY should leave.
posted by Timothy on
Typical; instead of confronting and dealing with Bleskachek’s actions and the support Bleskachek received from the “LGBT community” and liberals,…
I guess I can’t confront the LGBT community and liberals because I haven’t the faintest idea who to confront. I don’t know if there was a single LGBT person – or a liberal, for that matter – who supported her, though there probably were, nor would I have even the slightest idea how to reach them.
But for the record, I hereby confront them whomever they may be.
Now – back to regularly scheduled programming:
Where were we before this entirely irrelevant crap came up? Oh, yes.
Why don’t we start by you showing us a good example of supporting all gays, including those whose opinions differ from yours.
Sure.
Goodie. I’m looking forward to seeing it here on this site.
Ok, let’s go from there.
I think we were
posted by Timothy on
Ughhh. I wish we could preview before posting. My sentences were out of order.
Where were we before this entirely irrelevant crap came up? Oh, yes.
I think we were
Why don’t we start by you showing us a good example of supporting all gays, including those whose opinions differ from yours.
Sure.
Goodie. I’m looking forward to seeing it here on this site.
Ok, let’s go from there.
posted by Timothy on
Ya know, all this talk about some woman fire chief reminds me of a question for NDT:
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
(btw… does anyone else think this question is worth repeating until it gets an answer?)
posted by dalea on
What does this have to do with Loving? I think I should repost the definitions of ‘concern troll’.
I think the question deserves to be continuously posted. The most you will get is more evasions and assaults. Especially assaults. Think of it as troll kibbles and bits.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You already got an answer, Timothy.
You just didn’t like it.
That was because I made it clear that I did not support employment discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation — but also stated that that applied to LGBT people who discriminated against and harassed others as well, and that I held the community responsible for refusing to police that among its own, especially when it reacts so violently to other examples of sexual harassment and discrimination.
The first half was fine; the latter half is entirely contrary to what the “LGBT community” considers to be “pro-gay”, and likely is well into what the “LGBT community” considers to be “antigay”.
posted by ETJB on
(1) Most Americans traditionally opposed interracial relationships/marriages and they were generally du jure or de facto illegal.
(2) Backlash? You will notice that in the 1970s – 1980s the courts (and to some extend Congress) started to get much more hostile to civil rights issues.
posted by Timothy on
NDT,
I think perhaps you are having difficulty understanding the question. Please take a moment to read it again. I didn’t ask you if you oppose firing gay people. I asked you if there were any anti-gay proposals that you do not support.
There are a great many anti-gay proposals currently throughout the nation in both federal and state legislatures, as well as initiatives and, for that matter, existing policy. So far, you’ve not identified any that you oppose.
For example, you could say:
yes. I do not support the lawsuit in Michigan that is in appeals court which broadly applied their anti-marriage amendment and forced the city of Kalamazoo to cancel the health benefits of the domestic partners of their gay employees.
or
yes. I do not support Florida’s “no gay adoptions” policy
or
yes. I do not support DADT
Perhaps those are bad examples. But surely there is something which you do support.
…
Incidentally, it really isn’t necessary to express your contempt for other gay people in every comment. It makes your appeal to accepting of all gays even if they disagree with you somehow less convincing.
posted by Brian Miller on
Totally unrelated question here, but am I the only person who is thinking — after reading ND-30s recent posts on this thread — that the candidate who is closest to his political ideals on gay stuff at the moment is Hillary Clinton?
Oh, the irony!
posted by Brian Miller on
I roundly condemned Foley’s behavior.
Ah, but you didn’t do it in the forum that I demanded!
So using your logic, you were “silent” because I’m too lazy to go hunting around on your own web site for what you had to say. And I can just keep beating that drum about your “silence” to support the “logic” that states that you’re an advocate of Mike Foley’s misbehavior.
Surely you see how tiresome such an approach is. Why, then, do you insist on continued employment of it?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Typical; instead of confronting and dealing with Bleskachek’s actions and the support Bleskachek received from the “LGBT community” and liberals, Randi tries to smear and discredit the person who points them out, straight people in general, and so forth.”
You lie, unlike you I never blaimed a group(straight people) for the actions of individuals. I made it clear that you won’t condemn the criminal behavior of straights given a chance, while you’ll attempt to smear all gays for the isolated behavior of one. Again, contrary to your lies Bleskachek didn’t receive any support from the LGBT community for her actions. I criticize you for lying and saying they did and for blaming all LGBTs for Bleskacheck’s actions, not for pointing out those actions. You don’t see me blaming all Republicans for your evil slander of all gays but you indiscriminately blame liberals for Bleskachek
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, one notices quite readily that you cannot do the same without pointing out how bad I am, how bad straight people are, and so forth. And that is exactly my point; people realize, that the “LGBT community”, when forced to recognize that the behavior of one of its members is wrong, follows it with “but so and so is bad, straight people are bad, etc.””
You lie, unlike you I never smeared all straight people with the actions of a few bad heterosexuals, I pointed out the obvious, that given bad behavior by straights you never choose to acknowledge it because you can’t use that to smear gays – your one sided portrayal of reality shows what a bigot you are.
Northdallass said “I oppose laws written, like Minnesota’s, that protect people like Bleskachek from the consequences of their criminal behavior because of their gender and sexual orientation…in her case, they could exploit Minnesota’s “nondiscrimination” law and claim that firing her was wrong because she is a lesbian.”.
The anti-discrimination law didn’t protect her from consequences of her behavior, you lie yet again.
Northdallass said “who cares about a lesbian sexually harassing other women and straight people? No gay group is going to get upset over THAT; they’re just going to attack the people who point it out and claim that it’s OK because those people don’t rip on straight people enough.”.
Once again you lie, no gay group said Bleskacheck’s actions were okay. The problem is that you smear all innocent gays with her action in an insane act of hatred.
Northdallass said “What is really funny to me in this is that you put Bleskachek ahead of the other LGBT employees she harassed; I guess the theory is that, if these people don’t like working with her because of her behaviors, THEY should leave.”
You may think your lies are funny, but no one else does. No one put Bleskachek ahead of the employees she harrassed.
Timothy said “Ya know, all this talk about some woman fire chief reminds me of a question for NDT:
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
(btw… does anyone else think this question is worth repeating until it gets an answer?)”
Yes Timothy the question bears repeating. Northdallass is afraid to admit the truth.
Northdallass responded “You already got an answer, Timothy.”.
You never answered the question Northdallass, you just pointed the finger at other people and said “look how bad they are”. Like the lying coward you are rather than accept responsiblity for your own malice you have to try to change the subject to someone else’s wrong doing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I made it clear that you won’t condemn the criminal behavior of straights given a chance, while you’ll attempt to smear all gays for the isolated behavior of one.
Mhm.
You see, Randi, you already cited the cases of the cop raping a transsexual and the cops beating up on the gay guys.
When a heterosexual rapes a transexual http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/01/012007txCop.htm
you never mention it. When heterosexual cops beat gays
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/01/012407cop.htm
you never mention it.
And I made a very clear response.
Of course it’s wrong to rape transsexuals and beat gays.
Now, either you were ignorant of that fact — which I doubt, given that you clearly recognized at the time that I said it — or you knew about it and just chose to mislead people.
So using your logic, you were “silent” because I’m too lazy to go hunting around on your own web site for what you had to say. And I can just keep beating that drum about your “silence” to support the “logic” that states that you’re an advocate of Mike Foley’s misbehavior.
You can keep beating the drum all you want, but it looks rather silly in the face of the evidence I provided to the contrary.
And I figure that, if you’d found a national gay group condemning Bleskachek’s actions, you would have told me about it by now. Heck, I’m still waiting for you to do it.
Totally unrelated question here, but am I the only person who is thinking — after reading ND-30s recent posts on this thread — that the candidate who is closest to his political ideals on gay stuff at the moment is Hillary Clinton?
So?
Right now, my “perfect candidate” is a composite of about six different people from different parties and their positions on an issue.
I don’t have any problem with saying Hillary Clinton is right or wrong in my opinion on gay issues. I just likely won’t vote for her because she’s wrong in so many other respects relative to my position.
posted by Brian Miller on
So?
I just found it striking, that’s all.
posted by Timothy on
My predictions for the next 75 threads:
1. NDT will not list a single anti-gay proposal he doesn’t support.
2. NDT will accuse the LGBT community and leftists and socialists (all of which will be interchangeable) of every evil he can imagine.
3. Randi will call NDT names and spew hate at him.
4. Brian will rail against Democrats and Republicans.
5. No one will listen to the other. Not one opinion will be changed. No one will rely on facts but instead just spout vile hatful opinions at each other.
6. Occasionally Richard or someone else will try to make a reasoned point. They will be ignored.
7. I won’t be here to see it.
posted by Brian Miller on
8. Timothy will assume it’s all about him and all other perspectives are somehow flawed because they don’t see it his way! 😉
posted by Lori Heine on
Personally, I will miss Timothy if he deserts us. I don’t always agree with him, but he always has something interesting to add to the debate.
I’m not being facetious here; I’m very serious. I have gotten mad and signed off on certain blogs upon which I regularly commented. (I know no one can imagine me ever getting angry — but yes, it’s true!) I departed with a huff and a puff and a flourish of my ermine cape.
And they missed me. I know they did!
Timothy, it wouldn’t be so much fun around here without you. We really don’t want you to go.
posted by Lori Heine on
P.S. Timothy,
It’s better to simply say, “Aw, well…I guess I’ll give you nuts another chance” than it is to tiptoe back later (and you know you will), wistfully listening in on all the fun and fearing you’d look silly if you came back.
posted by Timothy on
Thanks Lori,
I’m not angry so much as I just find it pointless. The frustrating thing is that some folks here have good points and it is a counterpoint to more liberal perspectives. But there is no conversation going on – it’s just screaming.
So, hey if that’s fun for y’all that’s cool. I get that some people like that sort of thing – it releases stress or strokes a fragile ego or fills some need or other or perhaps is just considered enjoyable for some folks.
It just isn’t fun to me – maybe I take the interplay of ideas too seriously. So I’ll just mosey on and I really don’t think I’ll be back – but if so I won’t worry about looking silly. 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And meanwhile…….
For example, you could say:
yes. I do not support the lawsuit in Michigan that is in appeals court which broadly applied their anti-marriage amendment and forced the city of Kalamazoo to cancel the health benefits of the domestic partners of their gay employees.
Which, as I pointed out elsewhere, is a result of bad benefits plan design.
Do I oppose Michigan’s amendment? Sure, just like I did its counterpart in Texas. But, as in that case, we lost; therefore, the question becomes if we actively try to reconfigure things to stay within the confines of the law, or if we sit and whine about lawsuits.
or
yes. I do not support Florida’s “no gay adoptions” policy
I do not support Florida’s “no gay adoptions” policy.
or
yes. I do not support DADT
I think it is fully the military’s place to choose when they are ready, and not ours to force it.
posted by ETJB on
Well, it would seem that all the major GOP candidates oppose lifting the ban on gays in the armed forces.
No doubt that this is somehow going to be twisted into being the Democrats fault and some one will tell us to support some fringe third party that opposes civil rights to advance civil rights…
posted by Brian Miller on
No doubt that this is somehow going to be twisted into being the Democrats fault
Actually, the Democrats haven’t done jack to get rid of the ban.
Practically speaking, there’s no real effective difference between Democrats who “support” lifting the ban (but won’t cosponsor a bill doing so in the house or the Senate) and Republicans who “strongly favor” keeping the ban.
Anti-gay Republicans or do-nothing Democrats don’t get things done.
Now contrary to talking points often quoted by partisan Democrats and Republicans on the forum, I do give credit where credit is due.
Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY Democratic candidate who has credibility on this issue as a cosponsor of Marty Meehan’s bill to lift DADT.
Democratic candidates Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Biden are all presently Senators and have not introduced corresponding legislation in the Senate to make the Meehan bill into a law (with a majority vote).
Nor did Edwards when he was a Senator.
Talk is cheap — gay people should demand action. And so far amongst the Democrats, only Kucinich has put his money where his mouth is. While I don’t agree with a great deal of his policy platform, I can respect him AND think that people who agree with the Democratic platform who are honest about gay rights have a solid choice in him.
(Incidentally, his honesty and sticking to principle is exactly why he’s not going to be the Democratic nomination — any candidate who stands for something is considered “dangerous and unelectable” by the power-for-power’s-sake Demopublican and Republicratic parties).
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You see, Randi, you already cited the cases of the cop raping a transsexual and the cops beating up on the gay guys.
And I made a very clear response.
Of course it’s wrong to rape transsexuals and beat gays.
Now, either you were ignorant of that fact — which I doubt, given that you clearly recognized at the time that I said it — or you knew about it and just chose to mislead people.”
Yes, I forgot about that and I apologize for the mistake. By the same token you’ve mislead people by claiming I didn’t condemn Bonnie Bleskachek’s actions when I did and you owe me an apology although I know you’re not decent enough to provide it.
On December 29, 2006, 3:45pm in this thread :
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31138.html
I said “If Bonnie Bleskachek is guilty of your allegations I condemn her.”
Instead of acknowledging that you said “Typical; instead of confronting and dealing with Bleskachek’s actions and the support Bleskachek received from the “LGBT community” and liberals, Randi tries to smear and discredit the person who points them out, straight people in general, and so forth.”.
The problem with you Northdallass is that you blaim liberals, Democrats, and gays in general for the isolated wrongs of one individual. While you no doubt encounter wrongdoings of straights more frequently than wrongdoings of LGBTS you rarely if ever bring attention to the former and tediously bring up the one incident of the latter – you are obviously determined to distort reality to demonize gays and give straights a free pass.
It’s obvious that you are an enemy of LGBTs
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
By the same token you’ve mislead people by claiming I didn’t condemn Bonnie Bleskachek’s actions when I did and you owe me an apology although I know you’re not decent enough to provide it.
Sorry, Randi; what you said was conditional.
You said, “IF Bonnie Bleskachek….”…..but you’ve never said that she was guilty.
Now, say Bonnie Bleskachek was guilty, and you will be condemning her actions.
It’s obvious that you are an enemy of LGBTs
(smiles, gives a wink to Lori)
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
It appears more likely than not that Bonnie Bleskachek is guilty of wrongdoing, I condemn her actions.
Now how about you apologize for falsely blaming innocent gays, liberals and democrats for defending her actions. And how about you apologize for lying when you said I have multiple sex partners, demand to have public sex, and assault christians in every possible manner.
posted by dalea on
Bonnie Bleskachek is a douchebag. This is not controversial. Now what?
posted by Lori Heine on
Mr. (Ms.?) Schimnosky,
This may come as a huge surprise to you, but not everybody who disagrees with you is “an enemy of LGBTs.”
You sound exactly like those religious zealots who are convinced that anyone who departs from their vision of the true, the beautiful and the holy must be an enemy of God.
You can, of course, always enlighten me by sending me another personal email — as you did a couple of weekends ago — asking me if I am a “liar” like NDT.
I do not consider NDT a liar, so the question was merely absurd.
Do he and I disagree on some matters? Certainly. Does it make him an evil person because he disagrees with me sometimes? I would hardly say so.
What is it with some people on this site, anyway? Threatening to get people’s ISP numbers and “deal with” them…sending them personal emails…
I will say whatever the hell I think — on this website or any other. I’m not going to be shut up by anybody who doesn’t like it. Neither will NDT, and neither — I trust — will anybody else the bullies and the trolls decide they don’t like.
I understood IGF to be a free speech zone. I’m pretty sure that’s what it’s intended to be.
“Deal with” that.
P.S.: I still hope that Timothy comes back.
posted by Craig on
>Talk is cheap — gay people should demand action.< Agreed Brian - from a practical standpoint, how is that done, though? Many of us live in red states, where we get all tingly if our neanderthal Republican Senator actually says the word "gay", without a scowl on his face, let alone actually does something about removing discrimination against us. You're absolutely correct about the Dems. But in a lot of places, they may be the best hope we have.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Lori, its Ms Schimnosky. And if you don’t think Northdallass is a liar then ask him for his proof that I have multiple sex partners, that I demand to have public sex, and that I assault Christians in every possible manner. Note in this thread alone Northdallass falsely claimed gay people said Bleskacheks actions were okay and he falsely claimed liberals, Democrats and gays defended her actions. If you don’t consider those lies then you have a definition of lie that is in conflict with the universally accepted understanding of the word.
Notice how he hides from those lies of his. You chose to align yourself with Northdallas, while I’ve not seen much of your comments that in itself speaks ill of you.
posted by Lori Heine on
Ms. Schimnosky,
I do not recall ever having seen NDT say most of the things you claim he said. Are you sure he said them, or are you inferring it from something that might be taken more broadly or generally?
I don’t see how anybody who doesn’t personally know you, for example, could claim they even know how many sex partners you have.
This thread is getting so nasty that frankly, I no longer have any interest in posting on it.
Does anybody even remember what it was originally supposed to be about?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Well Lori, check it out for yourself:
On this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31164.html#commentform
at January 27, 2007, 11:14pm Northdallass said “I can handle continued verbal abuse from your direction; there’s no need to completely crush you publicly, given the havoc it could wreak on both you and your sex partners.”
On this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31198.html?success=1#comments
at March 15, 2007, 2:04pm Northdallass said “since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible, that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.”
On this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31151.html
at January 11, 2007, 5:14pm Northdallass said “You see, sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want because they’re gay are justified because heterosexuals allegedly “don’t intervene” when other heterosexuals do it.”
I appreciate your willingness to look at this objectively, that’s something I could never get from Northdallass.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
To make it easier, here’s the actual posts with the first, the second, and the third.
And I stand by every one of those statements.
Lori can make her own decisions.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, like your standing by anything has any credibility. Where’s your proof if you stand by those lies?