This is a bit inside-the-beltway, but the fact that the very socially conservative (oh, let's just say reactionary) Washington Times is abandoning some of its most egregious anti-gay stylings (using "homosexual" instead of gay; placing scare quotes around the "m" word in "homosexual 'marriage'") signifies something.
Real advances for gay legal and social equality come not just when the convention-abandoning left "progressives" move on (sometimes to positive effect, sometimes destructively and hubristically), but when the hidebound, clinging-to-tradition, puttin'-on-the-brakes other leg of the national psyche advances, albeit much more slowly, in the forward direction. That's why while the Democratic nominees clearly far outpace the GOP on matters gay (at least rhetorically), the fact that McCain is somewhat of an improvement over Bush (i.e., as when he called the proposed federal anti-gay marriage amendment "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans") still registers as important.
More. Scott Tucker, communications director for the Log Cabin Republicans, makes the case that if you happen to be gay and Republican, you can feel comfortable voting for John McCain.
Furthermore. Jonathan Rauch shares his thoughts in For The GOP, A Tonic Named McCain.
7 Comments for “Sign of the (Washington) Times”
posted by Jorge on
Hmm. I can’t argue much here. Interesting.
I don’t know anything about this paper, though. I’d like to know what kind of memo lead to what was there to begin with. You know it’s not often you catch supposedly professional or impartial people in the act. There was that general or something who let something slip about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell being about immorality (and we saw what happened). I don’t remember any conservative bias slipups before then. They’re all either blatant or tightlipped.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Senator McCain’s opposition to the FMA is based on his federalist view that states, not the federal government, should regulate marriage. I agree with him on this score, of course.
But I think it is important to keep in mind that Senator McCain’s opposition to the FMA is not based on support for gay and lesbian equality in marriage, or even on support for legal recognition of, or any protection for, gay and lesbian couples and their children.
Senator McCain was a vocal proponent of Arizona’s efforts to pass a state anti-marriage constitutional amendment in 2006, and is a proponent of the new and improved 2008 anti-marriage remix amendment in Arizona.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hmmmph. I’ve never cared for the word “gay” as a self-label, since it has a long history of campy and emasculating associations, and I think it’s still tainted by its origins as a euphemism.
“Homosexual,” on the other hand, is a totally splendid word that has the great virtue of not meaning anything else. (My response to those who complain that it sounds clinical is: “You say it’s clinical; I say it’s fucking Neo-Classical.”)
Of course, I’m aware that my position is idiosyncratic and that “Our Community” has expressed an overwhelming preference for “gay”; and that it was intended as a show of disdain when the Times used to insist on calling us “homosexual.”
So, this is a sign of progress. But I’m not especially thrilled by the change.
posted by John M. on
Is the Washington Times still owned by the Moonies?
posted by Richard on
Has Mccain come out in favor of any measure of equality for LGBT Americans?
Does he support Lawerence v. Texas, or will he appoint justices who would over turn it?
posted by Zeke on
Lord, with all the hoop jumping and contortions that the Log Cabin apologists have to get themselves into in order to separate their candidates from their ACTUAL records I’m surprised they’re not all employed by Cirque du Soleil.
It really is pure entertainment to watch their show.
posted by Randy on
The Times is still owned by the Moonies, but I do agree it’s a welcome sign to see them change their stylebook with regards to gays.