The libertarian Cato Institute today hosted a forum on the topic "Is There a Place for Gay People in Conservatism and Conservative Politics?," featuring Nick Herbert, MP, the British Conservative Party's openly gay Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. Responses to Herbert's remarks (an affirmative reply to the above question) were provided by Andrew Sullivan, a supporter of President Obama who detests the Republican party, and anti-gay activist Maggie Gallagher, who opposes any conservatism that might grant gay people the freedom to legally marry and thus equal liberty under the law.
Rick Sincere has blogged a richly detailed account, which I highly recommend. It's well worth reading.
More. I see that over at Positive Liberty, Jason Kuznicki also has blogged his views of the event (as a libertarian, he's skeptical of the proposition). While Dan Blatt at the proudly conservative and pro-Republican Gay Patriot site takes umbrage at the absence of an actual gay American conservative on the panel.
114 Comments for “Gays and Conservatives: The Cato Forum”
posted by BobN on
There an audio version (missing the first part of the intro) at:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/listen-andrew-sullivan-vs-maggie-gallagher-at-the-cato-institute/politics/2010/02/17/7922
posted by BobN on
God, I get so sick and tired of Andrew Sullivan and his “conservative arguments” for gay rights. There’s not a single argument he claims as “conservative” that hasn’t be a LIBERAL argument for gay equality for decades.
The only innovation is that he, as a conservative, repeated them.
posted by another steve on
Well, I get tired of Andrew Sullivan being referred to as "a conservative." At best, he’s an ex-conservative, like Arianna Huffington. He backs all the big-government excesses of the President he adores, including government-run health care. Just how is he a "conservative," BobN?
posted by BobN on
Just how is he a “conservative,” BobN?
Don’t look to me to defend his politics. I believe he has written a book or two that might explain his conservatism to you.
posted by BobN on
My, my, Andrew doesn’t much like Maggie, does he?
posted by Jorge on
Well, as an ex-liberal, I’m not very sympathetic to the question, or to the dilemma of conservative history vs. civil rights history. Liberals and conservatives are both good at certain things and bad at certain things. They are two sides of American politics and culture. The hope of winning the gay rights movement is not with the conservatives but with the progressives. The hope of winning the peace after the gay rights movement succeeds is not with the progressives but with the conservatives. You cannot possibly talk about the future of American conservatism in isolation and make any sort of sense.
Here’s what none of the links said directly: both liberals and conservatives have in their movements a bigoted element that hates freedom and betrays American principles. You cut that away, you make room for debate. But neither conservatives or liberals police their own, so the other side does the purging.
posted by Lori Heine on
Mr. Sincere’s blogged account of the event was very illuminating — and heartening. As I might have expected, it was a friendly environment.
Maggie Gallagher showed herself, again, to be an idiot. Just wind her up and let her go…she’ll do more to discredit herself than anyone else ever could.
Andrew Sullivan has also turned into a self-pitying fool. His blog used to be a must-read for me, but now I can hardly stand to look at it. All he does is worship the Great Messiah in the White House and obsess over Sarah Palin’s reproductive system.
It would have been great to be a fly on the wall at the Cato event. The account given by Rick Sincere is the next best thing.
posted by Amicus on
Glad to see Herbert with clarity on liberty for trans people.
Glad to see the ‘radical middle’ pissing off the right, in spades.
Alarmed to see that Stephen thinks/implies that McCain-Palin deserved support, on almost any metric.
posted by Anthony on
I voted Republican for president and most other offices for years, believing the party stood for fiscal responsibility, self initiative, personal responsibility and a commitment to a strong military to keep the country safe. No longer. I cannot and will not support a party that, overwhelmingly, does not support me being a fully participating American. No marriage equality. No federal employment law protections. No this, no that. It is time to simply recognize that the GOP is a bloated group of largely angry people who want government to do very little for others to improve their lives and yet drool at the notion of marriage amendments and abstinence education, so on and so forth. It makes me want to vomit.
So, is there a place for gays in the conservative movement? Sure, if you’re willing to trade in who and what you are in order to placate the haters. Pretty easy decision, if you ask me.
posted by l.d. on
The GOP is returning (under pressure) to its small government, fiscal responsibility, down-playing social issues roots, and you’re now saying that you voted Republican but no more? Okay, I’m suspicious that you ever voted GOP. (Sorry, but this is an old activist trick; at a GLAAD meeting we were told to write letters to advertisers saying "I’m a conservative Christian but I oppose the boycott…"
posted by Bobby on
Andrew Sullivan was never a conservative. The man hates guns, hates Sara Palin, hates Israel, I don’t see what he has in common with any conservatives. A real conservative would certainly find common ground with Sara Palin, yet he resorts to character assassinations against that courageous woman. You know, Palin could do the same against him, she could mention that Andrew is HIV positive and was caught seeking other HIV positive sex partners, yet Palin is such a classy lady that she will only attack people based on politics instead of the cheap shots Sullivan prefers.
posted by jim on
yet Palin is such a classy lady
on how many levels is this line hilarious — and oh so pathetic. again, who the hell are you people? the 1950s will never end, as long as you “conservatives” keep clinging to the past. pitiful, really.
posted by jim on
… and you’re such a classy guy, bobby, to mention someone’s HIV status. in what “conservative” world is that anyone’s business?????
posted by BobN on
The GOP is returning (under pressure) to its small government, fiscal responsibility, down-playing social issues roots
Huh? Where do you find any evidence of that?
posted by another steve on
BobN, you can’t be serious? Have you followed the elections of Scott Brown, Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell? All won stressing fiscal conservatism, and all rarely mentioned social issues (even McDonnell, who prior to the election clearly was a social conservative, but no gay bashing in this race).
posted by Bobby on
“yet Palin is such a classy lady
on how many levels is this line hilarious — and oh so pathetic. again,”
—That’s because you don’t understand what class is all about. You think class is Ariana Huffington comparing republicans to nazis or Rachael Maddow referring to tea-partiers as tea-baggers. You think class is the liberal a-holes that refer to the rest of America as flyover country because they’re too sophisticated to vacation in Mississippi or appreciate the natural beauty of Arkansas. Palin has real class, the class that has nothing to do with money or stupid Harvard degrees or being seen at Prince Andrew’s reception in New York. I am proud to support Palin, she’s a real American unlike people like Bill Maher who want us to become European.
“who the hell are you people? the 1950s will never end, as long as you “conservatives” keep clinging to the past. pitiful, really.”
—I would rather cling to the past than experiment with progressive marxist policies. You want progressive values? Go to Canada, this is America and I don’t have to put up with socialism.
“… and you’re such a classy guy, bobby, to mention someone’s HIV status. in what “conservative” world is that anyone’s business?????”
—Please, Sullivan mentioned his HIV status years ago, he also posted ads of himself seeking bareback partners. Sullivan’s actions are no different than those of politicians who commit adultery. When you’re a public figure hardly anything you do is private.
posted by BobN on
BobN, you can’t be serious? Have you followed the elections of Scott Brown, Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell? All won stressing fiscal conservatism, and all rarely mentioned social issues (even McDonnell, who prior to the election clearly was a social conservative, but no gay bashing in this race).
Promising something in a campaign is just hot air. I am old enough to have witnessed the GOP campaign on “fiscal conservatism” many times in order to get into office and then renege on their promises in a fashion so spectacular that it takes ones breath away, with such profligate spending and fiscal recklessness that we barely avoided running off the road (not that we haven’t avoided an eventual collapse in the near future).
As for Gov. McDonnell and not bashing gays, did you miss this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/bob-mcdonnell-strips-non_n_466198.html
His defense is that the order was unconstitutional, a nice cover, I guess, if you’re willing to ignore that identical executive orders in dozens of cases have never been found to be unconstitutional.
posted by BobN on
Oh, and I have been following Crist’s campaign in Florida. Have you been watching Rubio’s?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I voted Republican for president and most other offices for years, believing the party stood for fiscal responsibility, self initiative, personal responsibility and a commitment to a strong military to keep the country safe. No longer. I cannot and will not support a party that, overwhelmingly, does not support me being a fully participating American. No marriage equality. No federal employment law protections.
You do realize, of course, that a huge swath of the country, i.e. white people, males, those under the age of 40, and so forth, do not in fact have any federal employment law protections, and in fact quite legally can be discriminated against in favor of those in protected classes for educational opportunities, employment, and government contracts?
And you do realize that thousands, if not millions, of people annually are denied marriage to their chosen sexual partners for a multitude of perfectly-legal reasons?
In short, there are quite a lot of people who, by your definition, are not “fully participating Americans”. What makes you so special?
So, is there a place for gays in the conservative movement? Sure, if you’re willing to trade in who and what you are in order to placate the haters. Pretty easy decision, if you ask me.
Obviously it is. You traded in your belief in fiscal responsibility, self initiative, personal responsibility and a commitment to a strong military to keep the country safe in exchange for “I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman” and a party which freely violates nondiscrimination laws. You have successfully reduced yourself to your sexual orientation and made it clear that gays and lesbians consider their minority status to outrank fiscal responsibility, self initiative, personal responsibility and a commitment to a strong military to keep the country safe.
Yours is perhaps the starkest example of the belief of liberals and the Obama Party — what you do and what you believe are not as important as who and what you are. You believe that your status as a minority is what makes you worthwhile, not your behavior or beliefs, and you believe that government decisions should be based on minority status and nothing else.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I am old enough to have witnessed the GOP campaign on “fiscal conservatism” many times in order to get into office and then renege on their promises in a fashion so spectacular that it takes ones breath away, with such profligate spending and fiscal recklessness that we barely avoided running off the road (not that we haven’t avoided an eventual collapse in the near future).
Just as it has been made clear that “profligate” and “reckless” change definitions on a regular basis.
Generally, it’s not considered an intelligent tactic to endorse and support larger deficits while accusing others with smaller deficits of being “profligate”. But again, in the liberal world, what you actually say and do is irrelevant as long as you’re of the correct minority status.
posted by BobN on
Let’s take ND’s point that the Dems are just as bad. Fine, I’ll go along with that for argument’s sake. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with two parties that both lie and both fuck things up. One does so while passing constitutional amendments that ban legal recognition of my relationship.
Thank you, ND, for distilling the choice to its essence.
posted by BobN on
Since it appears that ND is back, I, for one, would enjoy reading his response to the Tory politician’s case for integrating gay people into the Conservative Party (note the caps, I’m talking about the British party).
(Yes, I confess that I suggest this in hope of 1) avoiding the tedious round-n-round we’re so familiar with and 2) testing the extent of ND’s filing system.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It leaves us with two parties that both lie and both fuck things up. One does so while passing constitutional amendments that ban legal recognition of my relationship.
Thank you, ND, for distilling the choice to its essence.
Indeed it does.
For example, you would support and endorse this politician and his beliefs because he supports gay-sex marriage.
As the gay community conveniently did, even though the man was rated as unqualified.
After all, who needs qualifications or has any other concern as long as you support gay-sex marriage? That’s the only thing with which the gay community should ever concern itself.
posted by BobN on
you would support and endorse this politician and his beliefs
Actually, I voted for the other guy.
posted by Debrah on
“(Yes, I confess that I suggest this in hope of 1) avoiding the tedious round-n-round we’re so familiar with and 2) testing the extent of ND’s filing system.)”
*****************************************
Well, now.
Perhaps we will be regaled, instead, with misogynistic ad hominem from a superfluous little “man” like you.
ND30 provides the goods.
People like you offer up the cutting floor scraps of the most insipid episodes of “Queer as Folk”.
posted by BobN on
Well, Debrah, so you did read my response about you’re having benefited from social change without having lifted a finger nor whined a whine nor thrown a tantrum.
Just so we’re clear, I don’t think you’re slutty nor would I consider you a spinster. Dense Diva, perhaps. I was just pointing out that previous generations and, indeed, many “social conservatives” of today would view your life choices with disapproval.
Someone who has watched QAF will have to explain your insult to me. ND?
posted by Debrah on
“…….indeed, many ‘social conservatives’ of today would view your life choices with disapproval.”
**************************************
Just so we’re clear, I would request that you and all those “social conservatives” sit back and try to imagine how little I care who or what might “view {my} life choices with disapproval”.
And just so we’re extremely clear……
…….my “choices” do not require a Star Trek venture into a Vulcan rendition of “marriage”.
Social change from which I and innumerable others might have benefited does not require that the intended function of the human body be turned inside out.
posted by Jorge on
Andrew Sullivan was never a conservative. The man hates guns, hates Sara Palin, hates Israel, I don’t see what he has in common with any conservatives. A real conservative would certainly find common ground with Sara Palin, yet he resorts to character assassinations against that courageous woman
Well, to be fair, if there was one group of “ordinary” Americans Palin put barriers in front of her against during the campaign, it was gays 🙁
So if Sullivan is such an angry unprotected hole, it’s not too surprising he hates Palin.
posted by BobN on
Anal sex on Star Trek?!?!?
I must have missed that episode. Damn.
But thank you for reducing us to anal sex, AGAIN.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
You’ve illuminated several important points in your previous posts.
I had always admired Andrew Sullivan’s work; however, in recent years he does seem to be going off the deep end.
You’re perhaps more conservative than I on many things, but it’s clear that you do your homework regarding the key issues.
Both Arianna Huffington and Andrew Sullivan come across as faux journalists in many ways.
Wasn’t it Arianna who expressed shock when her husband announced that he was gay—although I think he copped to being bisexual at the time—even though he reportedly sat her down during the initial stages of their courtship and told her that he dated both men and women?
GOL!
I must confess that I’m no huge Sarah Palin fan; however, it’s refreshing to see a female politician who is naturally attractive and has nice gams for a change….instead of the usual stodgy fare.
Dennis Miller joked that the reason so many in Washington are having trouble with her is because she and her husband come across as a married couple who actually have sex. LOL!
posted by Bobby on
“You’re perhaps more conservative than I on many things, but it’s clear that you do your homework regarding the key issues.”
—Thanks, I am a liberal on some things as well, but unless we’re debating the virtues of Lambert’s hypersexual routines or why Perez Hilton is a great human being, you’re not gonna hear lots of liberal stuff coming from me. 🙂 Anyway, I was under the impression that you’re a libertarian, was I wrong?
“Both Arianna Huffington and Andrew Sullivan come across as faux journalists in many ways.”
—Yes, except that Sullivan does have training as a journalist and he has worked as an editor. Ariana doesn’t even try to be objective, her blog is nothing more than a collection of liberals, leftwingers and progressives complaining against conservatives. It’s moveon.org without the videos.
“Wasn’t it Arianna who expressed shock when her husband announced that he was gay—although I think he copped to being bisexual at the time—even though he reportedly sat her down during the initial stages of their courtship and told her that he dated both men and women?”
—I’ll give Ariana a break in that area, you know, she used to be a good republican and a conservative but I think that gay husband of his ruined her. I think she felt so humiliated that decided to be everything her husband wasn’t.
“I must confess that I’m no huge Sarah Palin fan; however, it’s refreshing to see a female politician who is naturally attractive and has nice gams for a change….instead of the usual stodgy fare.”
—I know her pro-life stance pisses of a lot of people, but she’s a small-government advocate, and I like what she did in Alaska.
“Dennis Miller joked that the reason so many in Washington are having trouble with her is because she and her husband come across as a married couple who actually have sex. LOL!”
—That’s a great line. By the way, I’m happier with Miller when he does stand up comedy than his weekly “Miller Time” segments on The O’reilly Factor. I just hate it when comedians improvise and try to have a conversation.
posted by Anthony on
Apparently, someone who goes by ID this or that, questioned whether I ever voted Republican because I dared to suggest that I wouldn’t be any longer and I provided reasons for it. What are the reasons for those who insist the GOP is getting back to its so-called roots? Seems to me you’re just finding more excuses to be slapped around and abused by the haters because you do not possess the courage or fortitude to move on. My biggest problem with many of the folks who post here is they’re just so determined to keep going back for another black eye or cracked ribs or a broken wrist. The abuser will always want you around, because it keeps them in control of your thoughts and views and such.
I have left the GOP because I have NO choice. I am not a Democrat either. One side wants to control your economic life and not take terrorism seriously, while the other wants to demonize you and deny you basic rights and fairness under the law because it is, in fact, beholden to racial homophobes. Don’t like that? You’ve got a choice. But, if you choose to stay and “fight the good fight,” you’ll only end up in the political emergency room . . . perhaps one day you’ll realize those cracked ribs and broken wrists lead to your destruction. Hmm.
posted by Anthony on
NDF, you have only confirmed what I already knew . . . that most gay Republicans are indeed self-loathing and clamor to be accepted by the Tom Delays and Maggie Gallaghers of the world, clinging to the tattered belief that these folks are gonna embrace you for waving the flag, praying on your knees and waxing poetic about the injustices white people face. It’s a moving tribute to self-denial and the tired, worn out argument that gay people should shelve their own freedom and opportunity in favor of the latest Republican talking points. You’re my hero.
The day my partner and I have full marriage rights is the day I am waiting for and it’s gonna happen. The Supreme Court will have to address this issue at some point and when it does I suspect the decision will be to silence the haters and their apologists like yourself forever and ever. Ah, can’t wait. The day my partner and I are not forced to have to produce documentation just to be in the same hospital room with each other is coming as well. I can only imagine how disgusted that thought makes you, NDF. Oh, and when I can pass along property to him and vice versa without having to go through a blood-letting with fundamentalist, REPUBLICAN family members over it, you’ll be cheering them on.
I also believe that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell must go, not in a year or so, but now. I suppose you’d disagree on that one too, because it’s not fair to ask that we be able to serve openly as who we are when we’re willing to die to protect so many who consider us an abomination?
Does any of this mean I’m not concerned with the debt, deficit, taxes, so on and so forth? No, but to act as if none of these issues are of concern seems to me to be a tragic mindset. Just support candidates and parties that say they want to keep taxes and spending low and preserve tradition and it’ll all be okay, right NDF?
posted by Bobby on
Anthony, the republicans aren’t perfect but they’re better than the progressives by far. The progressive’s main agenda is the total transformation of this country, they want hate speech laws, wealth redistribution, and big government control over every aspect of our lives. Is that worth same-sex marriage and DADT? If Hitler had been gay friendly would you be wearing a swastika? I have seen what they’ve done in europe, a continent where people who speak against radical Islam are either shot by muslim extremists or face prosecution for “hate speech.” I don’t like what Obama is doing, I don’t like who he associates with, I don’t like his wife lecturing parents about their childrens obesity. It was Benjamin Frankling who said that those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. Well, I would rather deal with “homophobic” repbulicans that protect freedom vs. the “gay-friendly” democrats that oppose it. I have debated progressives on advocate.com, they are insane. Look at this comment:
“is there not some way that we can stop these millions of dollars accruing to Fox and specifiically this little runt ( I’d like call him something else that rhymes but I had better not) Can’t we get a list of advertisers that support Fox and Beck and Limbaugh and boycott them in a loud voice ? Surely if we, the gay population and the liberals and the democrats can make ourselves heard in a way that the advertisers will pay attention.”
—See how deluded the progressives are? Why would advertisers listen to people that don’t even watch the programs they are boycotting? That’s like black people boycotting country music!
Our gay community has thrived without progressive help, we have done great things in the private sector and in states where our numbers are large our rights are protected for the most part. Go back to Fox News, Anthony, watch Glenn Beck once in a while, listen to Rush Limbaugh when you drive out for lunch and you’ll see how much sense they make.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby—
Your (9:50 AM) is chock-full of excellent points…..and many which touch on things I have experienced often.
It takes most people a long time to come out of the fog of believing that Liberals are more than tyrants spewing soft effulgences and bad poetry.
Ultra-Liberals are some of the most parasitic humanoids on the planet.
When you strip away all the BS, it’s just bad poetry—and the country responds (as voters did in Massachusetts recently) out of a sense of self-preservation.
As I mentioned to you previously, I never watched Beck until recently and have only listened to Limbaugh a few times; however, I was struck by the comprehensiveness and the accuracy of their reports and their commentary.
I’m perhaps more of a centrist.
Pro-choice, fiscally circumspect, and socially individualistic.
In my view, civil unions at the federal level for gays get the job done.
I wouldn’t work against SSM, nor would I work for it. There is a considerably large segment of the population who feel that the word “marriage” will never apply to gay unions. Just as a technical matter.
Most Liberal Democrats will tap dance around how they really view this issue, and it’s all a show. They want to appear sensitive and avant garde, but in reality many of these Liberals are some of the most backward people you will ever meet. They have an all-consuming need for this endless schtick, however.
As for myself, I’ve been avant garde since the age of 4. LOL!!! And that much will never change; however, assuming such a perch does not require one to accept SSM as authentic “marriage” as it was intended. The gay community would do well to refrain from conceptualizing everything from inside the SSM bubble.
I’m not a libertarian. I’ve always been a registered Democrat, but vote for the particular candidate instead of along party lines.
It’s so ironic that gays remain tethered to the Liberal line. One man—whom I didn’t know at the time was gay and who was a very strong Obama supporter—openly bragged, as if he wanted a medal or something, that he had never voted for a Republican in his life.
For such an intelligent man, that is such a stupid way of viewing the political landscape. It’s just as you illustrate, Bobby—gays tow the party line to their own detriment.
Look how Obama has repaid their undying support!
Those who want SSM to become the law of the land should be compelled to begin voting more strategically.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “In my view, civil unions at the federal level for gays get the job done.”
You might want to think about that a bit, Debrah.
The idea of “a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally-sanctioned marriage”, as Obama put it, is a legal mirage.
To obtain that result — to make civil marriage and civil unions legally equivalent — our governments — local, state, federal — would have to:
(a) review and modify every local, state and federal law having application to marriage and/or the benefits and responsibilities attendant to marriage, to make certain the the laws treated civil marriages and civil unions exactly the same way;
(b) review and modify every local, state and federal policy and regulation having application to marriage and/or the benefits and responsibilities attendant to marriage, to make certain the the laws treated civil marriages and civil unions exactly the same way;
(c) review and modify every international treaty having application to marriage and/or the benefits and responsibilities attendant to marriage, to make certain the the treaties treated civil marriages and civil unions exactly the same way;
(d) enact a host of additional laws, policies and regulations to ensure that non-governmental and quasi-governmental entities treated civil marriage and civil unions as equivalent when required to do so by law.
I have no doubt that, given enough time and enough lawyers toiling away at it — at taxpayer expense, mind you — we could reach a reasonable level of equivalence, but I think that reaching total equivalence will be an almost impossible task.
As a result the courts will end up with a swarm of cases to sort the mess out. A further waste of time, talent and effort.
The only certain result of trying to create a parallel system of civil unions for gays and lesbians, in my view, is a huge waste of private and government resources for no useful purpose.
President Obama might think that is a good idea to embark down that path, but I think that it is fool-headed, given that the same result can be achieved by simply extending civil marriage to include gays and lesbians. There is much to be said for applying Occam’s Razor in law, as in all things
And what is really galling is this: Even if we could reach the legal result you posit — legally equivalent civil unions — that would not resolve the constitutional question posed by Perry: Does legal equivalence meet equal protection and substantive due process requirements of the constitution?
So at the end of the boondoggle, we are right where we now are, still fighting about it.
posted by BobN on
Why would advertisers listen to people that don’t even watch the programs they are boycotting?
Put on your thinking cap, Bobby.
When Focus on the Family — the 800 lb. gorilla when it comes to boycotts in this country — calls for a boycott of Acme Widgets because ACME provided ball bearings for a float at a Gay Pride Parade, do you think the executives of ACME sit back and calculate the threat based on the number of FOTF members who attended Pride or are they more concerned about widget sales at NASCAR events?
posted by Bobby on
“When Focus on the Family — the 800 lb. gorilla when it comes to boycotts in this country — calls for a boycott of Acme Widgets because ACME provided ball bearings for a float at a Gay Pride Parade, do you think the executives of ACME sit back and calculate the threat based on the number of FOTF members who attended Pride or are they more concerned about widget sales at NASCAR events?”
—Well duh, NASCAR is dominated by conservatives so of course ACME is not going to want to piss them off. Here’s how it works, you’re allowed to be controversial and offensive as long as your don’t offend your primary target audience. However, a few radical gays are not going to undermine the power of Rush Limbaugh’s 10 million listeners. As for Glenn Beck, whatever advertisers he lost he has replaced and now those new companies reap the benefits of targeting millions of loyal viewers.
posted by Debrah on
Tom—
You slay me with your methodical deliberations!
“The only certain result of trying to create a parallel system of civil unions for gays and lesbians, in my view, is a huge waste of private and government resources for no useful purpose.”
***********************************************
At the heart of the matter is the fact that much of the population actually believes that a “parallel system” is warranted, necessarily.
Some will never think of gay unions as “marriage”. Even if they become the law.
Obama knows that this topic is too hot for him, politically.
However, I totally believe that he does not personally support SSM or the leader of the free world would not consistently approach this issue with such dramatic obfuscation.
It’s a no-brainer….to use a nauseating cliché.
This issue is clear-cut. Not like health-care or foreign policy. Yet Obama behaves as if he’s been neutered.
That should tell you something.
Illustrative of my previous points, yesterday I spent most of the day out of town and had a long lunch with a media wonk. Some might call him a mover and shaker of sorts.
Well-educated, handsome, black, and extremely Liberal in all things……..except on gay issues.
During our provocative conversation on all things related to the never-ending culture wars, I was struck by his unwillingness to discuss the gay world.
However, he wanted my opinions on DADT and gay marriage….as well as what I thought of Timothy Geithner.
I told him that I would probably favor the repeal of DADT simply because of the testimony and views of men who had been in the military all their lives and could speak with authority on the pro’s and con’s.
On gay marriage I gave him the same opinion that I have voiced here many times.
That conversation as well as the body language exhibited during the discussion of gay marriage provide yet another example of what I have said many times.
Many Liberals, as well as black Liberals, don’t seem very progressive when core gay issues are on the table.
I deliberately pushed the conversation to the point that he was so uncomfortable he was wincing.
When gay activists use “conservatives” and “Republicans as their whipping posts, I always laugh out loud because so many of the “boogy men” who vote against SSM and who are viscerally repulsed by the gay lifestyle are sitting right beside them in the Liberal camp.
That conversation was both surprising as well as enlightening.
And it only reinforced what I’ve been saying all along.
posted by Dave Porter on
So the conservatives in this country want limited government. Fine.
To that end, as supporters of small government, they would then keep the government out of my relationship and treat my legal marriage (in Connecticut) as equal to all other marriages in this country.
That’s conservative thinking.
posted by Tom on
Tom: “The only certain result of trying to create a parallel system of civil unions for gays and lesbians, in my view, is a huge waste of private and government resources for no useful purpose.”
Debrah: “At the heart of the matter is the fact that much of the population actually believes that a “parallel system” is warranted, necessarily.”
Maybe so, but I don’t think that three of them have actually thought about what it would mean to try to implement a parallel system. So educate the people who think that way about the implications, Debrah, instead of just giving in to them and endorsing the damn-fool idea.
posted by Debrah on
” So educate the people who think that way about the implications, Debrah, instead of just giving in to them and endorsing the damn-fool idea.”
************************************************
Why would I wish to attempt to sway someone else toward an opinion that I do not hold myself?
Who do you think I am? Barack Obama?
posted by Throbert McGee on
News flash, Tom: All roads forward on this involve a big mess of court cases. Are you really willing to argue that legal matters would be significantly simplified if SCOTUS ordered all 50 states to make their existing marriage laws gender-neutral? Pass the dutchie ‘pon de left-hand side, mon.
posted by Tom on
Tom: ” So educate the people who think that way about the implications, Debrah, instead of just giving in to them and endorsing the damn-fool idea.”
Debrah: “Why would I wish to attempt to sway someone else toward an opinion that I do not hold myself? Who do you think I am? Barack Obama?”
Nope, but I think you are both making an identical mistake.
Both liberals and conservatives, it seems to me, have a responsibility to think critically, rather than to fly like moths to the current “easy” or “political” solution.
In the case of civil unions, in my view, thinking critically requires a careful and thoughtful look at the legal and constitutional mess a parallel system of marriage would make, and the short-term and long-term costs of creating and maintaining the parallel system.
I have no idea why Obama bought into the “civil unions” notion, and I have no idea why you buy into it, either. It doesn’t make any sense to me to create year another layer of laws, policies and regulations when there seems to be no useful purpose to it.
posted by Tom on
Tom: “As a result the courts will end up with a swarm of cases to sort the mess out …”
Throbert: “All roads forward on this involve a big mess of court cases. Are you really willing to argue that legal matters would be significantly simplified if SCOTUS ordered all 50 states to make their existing marriage laws gender-neutral?”
Yes, I am, Throbert.
While I think that there will significant litigation in either event, it seems to me obvious that if a single legal system, civil marriage, is extended to gays and lesbians as well as straights, a lot less litigation will result, over time, than by trying to maintain two parallel legal system in synchronization. A whole layer of complication disappears by using a single system rather than a parallel system.
posted by Debrah on
“I have no idea why Obama bought into the ‘civil unions’ notion, and I have no idea why you buy into it, either.”
***************************************
Yes you do, Tom.
You’ve seen combat, for G/d’s sake.
Stop playing coy.
Real life and real decisions take place far from methodical lists and observations (although you devise them well) and bright warm platitudes uttered from behind microphones on the white light stage of idealism.
You deliberately avoid the other issues—the everyday human issues—which inform the way people view SSM, etc……
That’s where the conversation lies. Not in methodical briefs and attorney speak.
posted by Anthony on
What’s the point in arguing about any of this? To me, it comes down to one simple, basic thing â do you actually believe that you have the same rights as other Americans or not? Or, more importantly, do you place a higher value on tax cuts, etc.? Do you think a political party that looks at you (by and large) as choosing your “lifestyle” and panders to the anti-gay, anti-Christian bigots deserves your vote? And, do you think that by not being fully free (in employment law, in marriage, in the ability to adopt or serve as a foster parent, in employment insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, on and on and on) is acceptable? If so, then your choice is quite easy â the GOP.
For me, it’s no longer enough. It’s kinda like being black in the 1950s and thinking that it’s fine to have to sit at the back of the bus because at least those kind white folks “let” you on the bus in the first place. Or, being a woman in an physically abusive situation and staying with your man because he cries and apologizes each time after he beats you senseless, thereby giving you some level of validation. It’s about being a full person or not. Trivialize by suggesting that taxes and spending are more important, but there again, when you’re paying taxes to a state and nation that don’t consider you REALLY equal yet expect that check to come either way, it’s wrong and not to be tolerated, unless, again, you do not value yourself fully.
My greatest frustration with this site is that there are far too many people who have rationalized their views by medicating their thoughts with silly notions about “a strong national defense” or “personal responsibility”, yadda, yadda, yadda. It goes back to putting up with being less than equal because, apparently, many of the posters actually think they ARE unequal.
I care about many issues and, in the past, voted primarily based on them. Now, I see that I have to do more and be outspoken about why, as a gay man, I am responsible for moving the bar, even if far too many other gays seem content with the back of that bus or the corner of the political room, which is, by the way, where gay Republicans are and will likely remain.
posted by Anthony on
Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? My God . . . are you serious? Next, you’ll tell me that Sarah Palin is a towering intellect who is destined to be president. Uh huh. If your news sources are these folks, it is no wonder you look at the world the way you do, Bobby. Try getting really involved in a Republican or Tea Party campaign and see how much they “know” about respecting differences.
My political heroes, insofar as they exist, are Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton. A strange combination, yes, but examples of two people who were/are gutsy and willing to take a lot of heat to stand firm on their convictions. Beck and Limbaugh make money off rousing up poor guys like you. Sad.
posted by Lori Heine on
“…silly notions about ‘a strong national defense’ or ‘personal responsibility’…”
Why, pray tell, are these “silly notions?”
If we can’t defend ourselves against attack, and are not willing to be responsible for how we run our country (the only form of responsibility that really means anything is “personal”), then how will our “equality” matter?
I am tired of the false choice that’s continually presented to us. With the notion that we can let our country go to hell in a handbasket, but that “equality” will somehow be adequate compensation for having no jobs, no homes and no future. That is political quackery.
I don’t believe there are enough haters and bigots to carry the day against everyone else. Sure those who are haters and bigots will persist in their hatred and bigotry, but they will be increasingly isolated in their views and increasingly powerless to influence others.
Crying “Waaah! We want our equality!” has not done much, in my opinion, to help us.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “You deliberately avoid the other issues — the everyday human issues — which inform the way people view SSM, etc.”
You bet I do. Straight revulsion at the thought men having sex (anal or otherwise), flamboyant dress, tattoos, and all the things you seem to obsess about, as well as a few hundred other reasons I’ve heard from straights about why straights don’t think much of us or want us around, aren’t relevant. A lot of straight people don’t like us, are afraid of us, and have negative reactions to us. Live with it. It is a fact of gay life, and the only way to change that would be to cease to exist.
Debrah: “That’s where the conversation lies. Not in methodical briefs and attorney speak.”
That — anal sex, flamboyance, tattoos, personal put downs, and all the rest of the middle school crap — is where it lies, all right, and I don’t think that it is a good thing.
Same-sex marriage, DADT repeal and other issues surrounding the struggle for equal treatment under the law involve serious legal and constitutional questions. David, Dale, John and the others who contribute to IGF write serious and well-reasoned posts about those issues, and it seems to me that the least I can do is try to respond in kind.
posted by Tom on
“My political heroes, insofar as they exist, are Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton … who are/were gutsy and willing to take a lot of heat to stand firm on their convictions”
Mine are Barry Goldwater and Robert Kennedy, an equally odd mix, for the same reasons.
posted by Bobby on
“Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? My God . . . are you serious?””
—This isn’t advocate.com, a lot of gays here don’t fit into the stereotypical progressive mold.
“Next, you’ll tell me that Sarah Palin is a towering intellect who is destined to be president.”
—She has more common sense in one finger than Obama has in his entire body. She was a wonderful governor in Alaska, she improved things there. Besides, who says we need a towering intellectual? Obama is supposed to be an intellectual (I say “supposed” because he hasn’t released his grades from Harvard) and I think he’s a terrible president. Besides, I’ve known plenty of A-students that do terrible outside the academic world. This is not the United States of Elitism, government is by the people, not by the academic elite that went to Harvard.
“Uh huh. If your news sources are these folks, it is no wonder you look at the world the way you do, Bobby. Try getting really involved in a Republican or Tea Party campaign and see how much they “know” about respecting differences.”
—I’m a frequent guest at conservative blogs and I’m treated very well for the most part. It’s at places like advocate.com that people call me all kinds of names when I express politically incorrect opinions. Tell me, have you been involved with the Tea Party people? All they’re asking is for government to stop the spending spree and get out of people’s lives. The Tea Parties are not about abortion, same-sex marriage or any controversial issues, they’re about returning this country to what the founding fathers created.
posted by Anthony on
Sigh . . . I realize this isn’t The Advocate, but nor should it be the Baptist Church bulletin or Republican National Committee talking points memo. As for Palin . . . she’s an embarrassment to me as an American and I’d be perfectly content if she went back to Alaska and tried finishing something she started, you know, unlike her TWO years as governor of that state, before deciding it was more important to have someone else write a book so that she could reap the profits.
I’m not a fan of Obama and haven’t suggested that. You seem to assume that because I’m not spouting the GOP line and smooching the backsides of the party I must be a liberal Democrat. Actually, I consider myself an independent-libertarian. I used to be like you – believing that the two major parties should be the only game in town and their coalitions were the only ones that counted. It’s amazing what a little independent thought can do for you.
It’s amazing how quickly you and others here leap to your feet to trumpet your “it’s about more than being gay,” when it seems that it’s about everything BUT being gay for you and, in my view, you are pulling down the efforts to attain things that our community has been denied so far in American society. I also noted how you didn’t address a single comment I made about not having inheritance rights, hospital visitation, etc. Guess those things do not matter to me. You must be single, because if you shared your life with someone you’d see how important that is. I’m just guessing here.
Lori, your suggestion seems to be that a person cannot be FOR gay rights and take foreign policy, taxes, etc. seriously at the same time. Yet, you, Bobby and others here appear to have the attitude that accepting second-class citizenship is fine and dandy, the way America is supposed to be. And it may be good enough for you, but not me and millions of other gay people. All the stuff you bring up is a deflection from not having to deal with the fact that you are gay but, apparently, wish otherwise. Again, I’m guessing, because nothing you write indicates that you are aware of your sexual orientation. You seem to subscribe to the same beliefs that the haters follow religiously – you know, that being gay is a choice, is all about sex and why give it any recognition? I’ll say it one more time – that may suit you, but not me.
If I have a choice between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin in 2012, or Obama and just about any Republican, I’ll have to find another candidate. I wish the Libertarian Party would get its act together and provide the millions of libertarian-minded voters like me a REAL choice. And no, Bobby, the tea partiers and the GOP are NOT it. They may not talk about abortion, same sex marriage and other cultural issues now, but rest assured, once they obtain power it’ll come back in spades. And you and Lori and others like you will just stand there . . . shrugging your shoulders and saying. “Yeah, but they want to cut my taxes.” Pathetic.
posted by Anthony on
You know, Bobby, the more I think about it, you sound an awful lot like an evangelical parading as a gay guy to vent your views here and pass them off as what most IGF contributors and posters believe. Funny. How many times have you heard Rush or Glenn make fun of gay people? The songs, the parodies? I’m picturing you howling with delight, perhaps flailing your arms about in mock laughter at the “queers” being put in their place. It’s called internalized homophobia, and every time you engage in it, you create more and more self-doubt.
There are no excuses for not supporting the rights that you should have. But even worse, there are excuses for gay people to cling to some hope that they’ll be accepted by a party and movement that views who and what they are as sinful and a flippant choice.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The funny thing about watching Anthony is that he tries to shame and humiliate gay people into doing what he wants by linking them to other people who he claims are trying to shame and humiliate gay people into doing what they want.
Apparently his goal in life is to convince the rest of us to be as miserable and as oppressed as he believes himself to be — and what better way than to namecall us as “self-loathing”, call our beliefs “silly notions”, compare us to battered spouses, claim that we lack “courage and fortitude” and state that we are in “self-denial” and “medicating” ourselves. I imagine he’ll get to the “Jewish Nazi”, “kapo”, “Judas”, “Uncle Tom” and other comparisons here shortly that make it clear just how inferior we are to “enlightened” gays and lesbians like himself.
Or maybe he’ll just jump to the favorite of his fellow liberal gays and lesbians on this very website — telling us, quote, to “Try a .357 to your ear canal to clear that out, you’d be doing us all a favor” or wishing death and injury on the children of conservatives.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Wow…..and the hits just keep right on coming from Anthony.
Claiming that we’re incapable of independent thought:
It’s amazing what a little independent thought can do for you.
Claiming that we don’t care about our relationships:
You must be single, because if you shared your life with someone you’d see how important that is.
Claiming that we hate our sexual orientation:
All the stuff you bring up is a deflection from not having to deal with the fact that you are gay but, apparently, wish otherwise.
Claiming that we hate ourselves:
It’s called internalized homophobia, and every time you engage in it, you create more and more self-doubt.
And my personal favorite; claiming that we’re not even gay or lesbian:
You know, Bobby, the more I think about it, you sound an awful lot like an evangelical parading as a gay guy to vent your views here and pass them off as what most IGF contributors and posters believe. Funny.
And then wrapping it up with his final summary about our beliefs and our lives.
Pathetic.
In other words, Anthony has spent this entire thread, again, trying to shame and humiliate other gay and lesbian people because they dare to think, act, and behave differently than he does.
He’s like a lavender Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
posted by Lori Heine on
Anthony, you clearly speak for an abysmal ignorance. I am a seasoned and often-published writer for the LGBT Christian media and have been so for a number of years. I have stood up tirelessly for gay rights — sometimes in the face of death threats — and probably done more for the advancement of our equality than many of those who whine about oppression and call gay conservatives and libertarians names.
You might want to find out something about the people you malign before making a fool of yourself.
Then again, like most “progressives,” I guess you think you know it all already.
posted by Lori Heine on
Furthermore, if anyone here is creating a false choice between advocating gay issues and advocating every other important issue, Anthony, it is you.
Pot – kettle – black.
posted by Lori Heine on
One more observation. An anti-gay ranter was just booed off the stage at CPAC. Yes, this was the very event all those smart “progressives” told us we’d be frozen out of.
How edifying and enlightening it would be to hear Anthony and his cohorts try to spin this. That is, if their heads don’t explode first.
posted by jimmy on
The incident with that individual at CPAC is the only indication in recent memory of any signal that the Republican party, which used to have a few decent people in it, might actually pull itself back from going headlong over a cliff.
posted by Throbert McGee on
What a vivid imagination you’ve got, sonny! But the thing is, even if I found Rush or Beck hilarious (which I don’t), or indeed listened to them at all (which I don’t — see previous parenthetical), the very last thing I would do is howl and flail my arms around, because that’s just too dang theatrical. And by “theatrical” I mean “faggy.” Instead, I’d guffaw while holding my belly, or something like that. Es más macho.
posted by Anthony on
Oh no, Jimmy . . . you shouldn’t have uttered anything the least bit critical of the GOP here. NDF and Lori will go over the edge. I wonder why THEY aren’t at CPAC? Wouldn’t you need a token or two just to give the room some semblance of diversity?
And Lori, do you really think that one speaker being booed off the stage makes up for the huge mountain of anti-gay venom that these people and their supporters spew on a regular basis? I took the time to check out that speech and the speaker wasn’t booed for the reason you so desperately want to believe. You really are a dupe for these guys.
posted by Jorge on
As for Palin . . . she’s an embarrassment to me as an American and I’d be perfectly content if she went back to Alaska and tried finishing something she started, you know, unlike her TWO years as governor of that state, before deciding it was more important to have someone else write a book so that she could reap the profits.
I’m not impressed by your reasoning. I could say the exact same thing about Obama, especially if Palin has some sort of grand strategy to be president. So why do you think she’s pathetic again?
You know, Bobby, the more I think about it, you sound an awful lot like an evangelical parading as a gay guy to vent your views here and pass them off as what most IGF contributors and posters believe.
Oh, please. Bobby is much too… commandingly libertarian for my tastes to possibly be a fake. He’s unpredictable enough not to be a fake, too. Also even I’m more evangelical than he will ever be. The giveaway between different types of conservatives is what they hate the most.
posted by Jorge on
Re: This anti-gay ranter being booed off the stage. Now that was really obscure. I hate going on these scavenger hunts, but I had to see for myself:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002190044
Hmm, now that I’ve seen it, I’d like to see how “Anthony and his cohorts” will spin it, too, but I’m not willing to wait for them.
Notice how young this guy was? And how belligerant toward the audience? It’s not an isolated incident, he’s of a type I’ve seen before. Young Republicans and conservatives may be more accepting of gays and gay rights than the older ones, but there’s a couple of very young, very intelligent, very tempermental (very irritating) young conservatives who seem to enjoy attacking the gay rights movement with an anti-PC fervor.
An effective leader among conservatives would be able to maintain both a GOProud supporter and an anti-GOProud person–if not necessarily the two speakers in question–on the same team. I’ve seen it done.
posted by Jorge on
You know what? I take that back.
I think older conservatives are more accepting of gays but less accepting of gay rights than younger conservatives. There is something to be said for age.
posted by Debrah on
“The giveaway between different types of conservatives is what they hate the most.”
*******************************************
Although I’m not a “conservative”, politically speaking, I would very much like to see this intriguing statement explored further.
For the basic spine of the statement could be transposed and used to analyze other “groups”.
By the way, I hope that Anthony cuts back soon on his Starbucks expresso (made with l’eau minérale, of course).
That guy is going nuclear with his rants.
posted by Bobby on
Anthony, I am certainly not an evangelical by any means. And if you think my views are controversial, learn about Steve Yuhas, that guy served in the military, is gay, and supports don’t ask don’t tell.
As for the Rush Limbaugh music parodies, most of them aren’t about gays except the really funny one, “Banking Queen” about Barney Frank. Is that homophobic? I don’t think so, calling Barney a queer would be homophobic, making a song called “banking queen” when the gay is obviously gay and somewhat effeminate is fair game.
posted by Debrah on
” A lot of straight people don’t like us, are afraid of us, and have negative reactions to us. Live with it. It is a fact of gay life, and the only way to change that would be to cease to exist.”
*********************************************
Well…….I don’t have to live with anything.
It doesn’t matter who you are—a member of my family or my lover—I won’t edit my opinions. No one should.
I don’t know anyone out there who is “afraid” of anyone else.
It’s perhaps more of an issue of some gays using the “victim” schtick to get away with behavior that most people would find very objectionable. And this does happen quite often in ultra-liberal areas and where there’s a powerful gay community.
Nothing’s wrong for any self-identified “minority” to have clout and representation. Who cares? However, many in-your-face gays border on the repulsive.
In an academic atmosphere, there is nothing hostile going on. Quite the contrary. Criminals who are gay and who have even admitted to their criminal behavior are treated with kid gloves so that no one will come off as a “gay-basher”.
Some of the same men who whine about the “rights of gay and lesbian citizens” choose to avoid the very real special treatment that is given by those who are “afraid” of being accused of homophobia.
When the three innocent young men (lacrosse players) at Duke University were going through that miscarriage of justice a few years ago, many of the professors there were not only using the worn-out race/class/gender agenda to slander them before there was ANY evidence of guilt, but a number of those professors are tethered to the gay agenda as well.
It was like watching something out of the KKK era taking place. And they LOVED going after macho straight boys. To them, it seems like a gift from heaven for their Leftist agenda.
But when this took place among their own, there was SILENCE.
Bobby can tell you about that guy’s (a high official employed by a prestigious university) “wish list” on his Amazon page…….which has now been erased.
The gay community, which is powerful, circled the wagons and the guy received absolutely none of the treatment that the innocent lacrosse players received.
It’s an egregious way of operating; however, that’s what a lot of “gay activism” is about.
And don’t even think about saying that this case was an aberration.
The gay community feeds the suspicion that observers might have by their silence on such matters. The university was silent, but they did have to “let him go”. LOL!!! LOL!!!
We all know that there’s unfairness and discrimination in this world; however, the “victims” are often the “victimizers”…….even as they continue to whimper.
posted by Anthony on
Oh my goodness . . . just saw a story on “the” CNN about gay Republicans at CPAC. Seems they’re not being well received by most attendees. Shocking. A few of the folks interviewed even suggested that gay relationships are “undermining and destroying the American family.” Others said they “tolerated” gays but wouldn’t go any further. So, Lori and NDF, still feeling embraced and validated by this crowd? Of course you are, because how you are treated, viewed and marginalized and misrepresented is of no concern. It’s all about hating Obama, demanding proof that he’s an American citizen, cutting your taxes, etc.
posted by Anthony on
Seems to me it can all be boiled down to whether you value yourself as a gay person or not. If you are complicit with being treated unfairly, that’s your decision and you can vote for people who will see to it that you remain less than equal. If you think you’re not worth fighting for, again, you have plenty of candidates to support that stance. But, if you demand that you be treated equally and fairly and will not accept anything less, you are left with few voting choices.
Most of what I see here represents the “we’re gay but wish we weren’t” crowd, people who apologize incessantly for the haters because they clamor for their approval and recognition. They have no problem with the rantings of the anti-gay lobby and its cavalry of fans in the GOP and with some Democrats too. They refuse to see the world for what it is, somehow believing that they can just cower in the corner and speak out in the safest of venues where they won’t be shouted down or told to go away because they are freaks or do not belong in proper society. Sigh. Why am I posting here? It’s a bright, sunny day where I live . . . time to get out there and enjoy it and leave the self-loathing rationalizations to others.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Seems to me it can all be boiled down to whether you value yourself as a gay person or not.
Actually, it’s whether or not the only thing you have of value is being a gay person.
Obviously Anthony is in that situation; the only thing that makes him worthwhile or of any value to society, in his mind, is his sexual orientation.
And given his behavior here, he’s quite likely right.
posted by Anthony on
NDF . . . do you think by ignoring all the facts around you that you can send me a message that I’m somehow unworthy because the only contribution I can make to society is via my sexual orientation? You have yet to offer one ounce of a rebuttal to my comments about CPAC or the numerous laws that discriminate directly against gays. Why? I have no clue. When presented with all these examples (and there are countless others), you seem to just bask in the glow of denial and think because a few people post here in agreement with you that you’re correct.
You simply cannot deny that the GOP national (and the vast majority of states) platform is implicitly anti-gay. And the Texas GOP platform has been particularly evil in its treatment of gays. Like it or not (and I’m beginning to think you do enjoy it), these are facts. You choose to align yourself with people who tend to view you with contempt and disgust, barely able to allow you to be truly free. Wasn’t Texas the state where the nation’s last sodomy law overturned a few years back? Hmm.
It’s STILL about self-respect and seeing yourself as worthy of being a FULL American under and by the law. As long as gay people are denied things like marriage, federal employment protection, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, all sorts of tax breaks afforded married people, not being able to serve as who you are in the military (all the while being able to die for the country that denies these rights), then you’re not truly free. Something tells me you’re not troubled by any of that, because freedom isn’t something you wait for others to grant you, you have to demand it.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
I’d be interested in your take on this goofy one.
This is why people just go “ugh” and why some should just shut up and sing.
LIS!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You choose to align yourself with people who tend to view you with contempt and disgust
And meanwhile, you are viewing us and treating us with contempt and disgust.
Yours is nothing more than the rant of the typical abuser, screaming to their spouse or significant other that no one else loves them, that they’re an awful person whose beliefs and attitudes are all wrong, that their perceptions are totally incorrect, that they just need to shut up and listen to you, and that they should be grateful to you for willing to put up with them, even as you wish death on their children or tell them that killing themselves would be “doing us all a favor”.
I suppose if I or others here had no respect or confidence in ourselves, that might work. But unfortunately, there is far too much life experience out there for me, and I daresay for Lori and Bobby and Jorge and Throbert, to buy into that one. Since you demonstrably refuse to respect and in fact outright condemn our own lives and views, you frankly present a worse picture than the comically-demonized one you try to paint of “the right”.
posted by Anthony on
You couldn’t possibly respect yourself and post the things you do. The theme here seems to be agree 110 percent or get the hell out, kinda like the GOP in general. I get it. See ya.
posted by Debrah on
“The theme here seems to be agree 110 percent or get the hell out, kinda like the GOP in general.”
**********************************************
Such a teller of falsehoods you are!
This is one of the most diverse and open-to-free-speech blogs on the internet.
I have voiced my disagreement on many things and there have been a number of bloodletting sessions, but the only freak show that had to be put down because of dirty tactics and false information being posted came from a someone on YOUR side of the ideological aisle.
And I am not even gay!
You’re program just isn’t as strong as many of the men here. Otherwise, there would be no need to run.
posted by Anthony on
Wow, Deb, you are amazingly insightful.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Debrah, I totally agree with Bill O’Reilly calling Elton John a pinhead for saying Jesus was gay. Elton John is not a religious person, I doubt he reads his bible on a regular basis, also, there is no proof that Jesus even had a sexual orientation.
If however, Elton had said that David and Jonathan were lovers because David said “thy love is superior to the love of a woman,” that might get fly, although I know Christians who think David meant “love” in a spiritual context vs. a romantic context. In the end, it’s better not to make statements about religious dogma unless you know what you’re talking about.
posted by Mesa on
This is my first time commenting on this site. I usually never take part in debates on websites, but I felt compelled to comment because of North Dallas Thirty and Debrah.
North Dallas Thirty: I used to be like you – absolutely convinced of my beliefs, absolutely convinced that everyone on the ‘opposite side’ was wrong and awful and stupid. Except, I was on the opposite side of where you’re standing; I was a far-left liberal. I used to frequent Democratic Underground and many other sites for ‘extreme’ liberals.
Used to. Not anymore. I realized years ago that it was wrong of me to demonize republicans and conservatives. I realized that I – and most of the other members of Democratic Underground – was engaging in the exact same behavior I so hated and condemned. I stopped going to that site, and became more moderate in my thoughts.
Sir, you must realize that you’re doing the same thing I did years ago – demonizing the opposite side. I understand that you’re bothered by the way some liberals are. I know there are a lot of liberals out there who demonize conservatives and treat them like they aren’t even human. These people are wrong. But you have to realize it isn’t only liberals who do this. Some conservatives – not all, but some – do this as well, to liberals. And it’s equally as wrong when they do it.
Sir, you seem like an intelligent person, which is why I’m pleading with you to revise your views on liberals. Not all liberals, or progressives as you call them, are bad. Some think and say awful things, but not all liberals are that way.
posted by Mesa on
Debrah, a post you left above is making my blood boil.
“It’s perhaps more of an issue of some gays using the “victim” schtick to get away with behavior that most people would find very objectionable. And this does happen quite often in ultra-liberal areas and where there’s a powerful gay community.”
Examples, please.
“Nothing’s wrong for any self-identified “minority” to have clout and representation. Who cares? However, many in-your-face gays border on the repulsive.”
Why is the word minority in quotes?
“Who cares?” A LOT of people care. If a lot of people didn’t care, then there wouldn’t be any gay rights movement, because gay people would already have equal rights.
“In an academic atmosphere, there is nothing hostile going on. Quite the contrary. Criminals who are gay and who have even admitted to their criminal behavior are treated with kid gloves so that no one will come off as a “gay-basher”.”
Really, Debrah? Can you present us with some examples? And please don’t just give 2 or 3 examples. That isn’t enough to justify your words. You have to show me that there really is a strong undercurrent of ‘gay favoritism’ in criminal justice.
“Some of the same men who whine about the “rights of gay and lesbian citizens” choose to avoid the very real special treatment that is given by those who are “afraid” of being accused of homophobia.”
Once again, examples. And once again, give plenty of them. Prove your case, instead of just making accusations.
And why did you put afraid in quotes?
“When the three innocent young men (lacrosse players) at Duke University were going through that miscarriage of justice a few years ago, many of the professors there were not only using the worn-out race/class/gender agenda to slander them before there was ANY evidence of guilt, but a number of those professors are tethered to the gay agenda as well.”
‘Gay agenda?’ Debrah, come on! I thought you were better than that. Even though I disagree with a lot of your opinions, it always seemed like you were above these things. I can’t believe you of all people would actually, seriously, use the term ‘gay agenda.’
“But when this took place among their own, there was SILENCE.
Bobby can tell you about that guy’s (a high official employed by a prestigious university) “wish list” on his Amazon page…….which has now been erased.
The gay community, which is powerful, circled the wagons and the guy received absolutely none of the treatment that the innocent lacrosse players received.”
What happened to the lacrosse players was a tragedy, but you’re playing it out as if the situation were some conspiracy orchestrated by gay people to slander these straight lacrosse players.
Admittedly, this is the first time I’ve heard of this Frank Lombard. But, once again, you make it seem like there was a conspiracy (orchestrated by gay people, of course) to cover this up. Is there really any evidence of that?
“And don’t even think about saying that this case was an aberration.”
Okay, I won’t say that. Instead, I’ll ask that you provide ample evidence that it isn’t.
“The gay community feeds the suspicion that observers might have by their silence on such matters.”
What do you mean by this?
“We all know that there’s unfairness and discrimination in this world; however, the “victims” are often the “victimizers”…….even as they continue to whimper.”
Gay people do bad things sometimes. Some gay people are outright awful human beings. As is the case with heterosexuals and bisexuals. I’ve never heard anyone claim that gay people were all angels who never did anything wrong.
Debrah, I’m sorry if I appear unnecessarily bitchy in this post. I just really, really don’t like the things you said (well, typed) in your post, and I had to respond.
posted by Jorge on
Anthony, I am certainly not an evangelical by any means. And if you think my views are controversial, learn about Steve Yuhas, that guy served in the military, is gay, and supports don’t ask don’t tell.
You Go, Girl! 🙂
Lately he’s been VERY quiet about it, though, or did I miss his reaction to Obama’s State of the Union Speech? I think it’s more significant that he opposes gay marriage laws.
The short version, Deborah, is that there are not only different degrees of right-of-center people, there are also different types. There’s the religious right, libertarians, Hawks, etc. Each has a different reputation for evil and heartlessness among the left, which has painted the Republican Party as all of the above. There is much confusion and many do not realize there are such things as moderates, let alone different types of conservatives.
Although the Republican Party does embrace various American conservative ideologies and oppose various American liberal ones, each type of conservative reserves the most rancor for the (usually liberal) policy idea or social trend it is most diametrically opposed to.
posted by Trevor on
Been reading the back and forth here. Not a big fan of ideologues or people who think they’ve settled issues for all eternity. Will go back to reading more rational stuff and wish you guys the best in being so certain of what you think you believe. I knew I was in trouble when I kept seeing Beck’s name pop up as a hero.
posted by Jorge on
Beck=hero correlating with people thinking they’ve settled issues for all eternity?
Does not compute. Beck following is a reactionary, anti-Obama trend.
posted by Debrah on
” In the end, it’s better not to make statements about religious dogma unless you know what you’re talking about.”
*******************************************
True, Bobby.
And I must admit that I am one who hasn’t spent an inordinate amount of time on that subject matter; however, I see that you and a few others here easily reference the Bible for appropriate contexts…..(as in your David and Jonathan analogy).
posted by Debrah on
“Although the Republican Party does embrace various American conservative ideologies and oppose various American liberal ones, each type of conservative reserves the most rancor for the (usually liberal) policy idea or social trend it is most diametrically opposed to.”
**********************************
To my surprise, the Repubs are much more diverse than I used to think; however, from personal experience, the very Liberal element of the Democratic Party often behaves like clones.
A seasoned groupthink that I’m not sure will ever evolve.
posted by Debrah on
TO “Mesa”–
I appreciate your very thoughtful comment and the way you express yourself without going nuclear.
It’s obvious that you feel very strongly about this subject….and rightly so.
Many of us do.
I initially started to make a journey across the web and gather links for you on this matter, but decided that the amount of time I would have to spend doing so would never convince you that there is an issue here that needs to be addressed by serious gay rights proponents.
Not in some official way, but in everyday handling and discussion of such cases as the Lombard case—which is one of the most egregious you will find.
This Lombard guy lived in a kind of communal neighborhood which is inhabited by other gays who hold key positions in that town as well as the university.
it would be impossible to explain in a comment here the enormous disconnect…..the contrasting nature of the media coverage of that case compared to the rabid media frenzy when a drugged-up prostitute accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape in the Spring of 2006. (As of Thursday, February 18, 2010, the false accuser in the Lacrosse Hoax is back in the news and has been arrested for attempted murder, along with a list of other charges.)
I can’t or won’t rehash that case here, but to get the definitive account of everything to which I refer, pick up a copy of “Until Proven Innocent”. It graphically outlines everything you will need to know about the 88 professors at Duke, their ideology, and all who support such an odious and harmful ideology.
One of the main culprits is a hefty lesbian who dresses like a man and who could double as Stanley Crouch on a good day. She’s been tenured but has not produced a publication or a book in over a decade. Since being tenured, her CV lists everything as “forthcoming”…….but the only thing “professors” like this one put “forth” is a race/class/gender agenda which plays easily in the academy as well as in the media.
It’s a do-nothing, parasitic existence. Therefore, going after young men who represent everything they hate—the “heteronormative” world—is something they yearn for.
But when someone like Lombard, who worked alongside them, was found to be leading such an egregious lifestyle, they said nothing.
Tell me. What can be more egregious than a man adopting two black baby boys—(Ooooh, gah, gah! “Minorities” just love that Madonna-esque-we-are-the-world kabuki bull-sh!t!)—for the purpose of turning them into his rimming partners, as well as offering them up to strangers on internet web cams?
Please read about this guy.
Yet NO ONE from the gay community—who had come out so rabidly slandering and maligning innocent men at their university whose parents’ $50,000/year tuition tabs fund their own salaries—spoke out against such a person who was a high official at the very school that had to pay millions to the lacrosse families for how they handled that case.
The issue for me is the same issue you find in almost all very Liberal communities and academic milieus, as well as in the mainstream media: whenever cases of molestation surface involving gay men and young boys or children, it’s deliberately avoided.
With the Lombard case, even some who castigated and criticized the behavior of the Duke professors and the administration and supported the innocent lacrosse players tried to avoid highlighting the very pertinent Lombard case.
In some cases this was because those people or that person is gay and, IMO, simply would not exhibit the integrity and the courage it would have taken to discuss this topic openly.
The fact that gays—especially the “activists”—did not come out and openly show disdain and contempt for such a case….even as they wail and moan for “gay marriage” to be the law of the land…..makes me throw up.
I put quotes around the word “minority” because I find the idea of a group of people attempting to act like “victims” because of the way they express their sexuality to be not only juvenile, but offensive.
And particularly offensive is that some continue to use race and ethnicity as analogies on which to piggy-back and plead their case.
I suppose it both angers and frustrates me to have seen very intelligent people behaving so emotionally and “girlishly” by making whatever goes on between their legs more significant than anything else.
And yes, ND30 is capable of providing a never-ending list of such examples of which I speak.
posted by BobN on
there is no proof that Jesus even had a sexual orientation
I don’t know about other theologies, but according to Catholic theology, Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Hence, he had human frailties and experienced human failures. I suppose he might have been asexual (a disposition that has recently been gaining traction as a bonafide sexual orientation in and of itself), but I suspect that’s rather unlikely. Why the Bible doesn’t mention sexuality probably has more to do with the authors and, my personal favorite, later editors.
As to which sexuality — hetero- or homo- — well, I think we can come down on the hetero- side, just for statistics sake. Not that I vehemently disagree with Elton John, since he could be right. If it’s any consolation for the pro-gay-Jesus side, we can return to statistics and consider the likelihood of same-sex activity in His youth. In the Middle East then, as today, the chances are high, very high.
posted by Jorge on
…..
Fine. I might be convinced if we saw evidence that some of the other famous prophets and so-ons in the Bible (I’m thinking of John the Baptist) were gay. Not that I even know the basis for Elton John’s statement in the first place.
posted by Bobby on
Hey BobN,
“I don’t know about other theologies, but according to Catholic theology, Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Hence, he had human frailties and experienced human failures. I suppose he might have been asexual (a disposition that has recently been gaining traction as a bonafide sexual orientation in and of itself),”
—That could be, some say he was a member of the Essenes which were a group that believed in chastity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes
“Why the Bible doesn’t mention sexuality probably has more to do with the authors and, my personal favorite, later editors.”
—Could be, although the bible does mention plenty of sexuality in the Song of Salomon, Leviticus, the letters of St. Paul, and others sources. Think about it, the bible even mentions crazy sexuality like the daughters of Lot getting their father drunk and having sex with them. (after the destruction of Sodom they thought they were alone in the world).
“If it’s any consolation for the pro-gay-Jesus side, we can return to statistics and consider the likelihood of same-sex activity in His youth. In the Middle East then, as today, the chances are high, very high.”
—I don’t know, the Hebrews were never crazy about homosexuality and I doubt Jesus, a rabbi, would violate his own religion. I doubt he had any same-sex activity further than a hug and a kiss (kissing men on the cheecks is common in the middle east).
Either way, it doesn’t matter what sexual orientation Jesus had because the world isn’t ruled by the bible. While a few homophobes may quote the bible, the people in power are for the most part using secular arguments in their defense or attack of our sexual orientation.
posted by BobN on
the bible does mention plenty of sexuality
I meant the bible does not mention anything about Jesus’ sexuality.
I doubt Jesus, a rabbi, would violate his own religion
You miss the point about what it means to be “fully human”.
kissing men on the cheecks is common in the middle east
So are a lot of other things.
the people in power are for the most part using secular arguments in their defense or attack of our sexual orientation
Nonsense. What secular arguments? The opposition is largely religion-based.
posted by Bobby on
“You miss the point about what it means to be “fully human”.”
—But the son of God is not supposed to commit any sins, otherwise why worship him? Why would anyone worship a flawed God?
“So are a lot of other things.”
—You think homosexuality is common there? I think it would be like every other country, a minority thing.
“Nonsense. What secular arguments? The opposition is largely religion-based”
—The people who support the opposition may be religious, but their leaders don’t use religious arguments. Instead they talk about tradition, “natural law,” what’s best for children or they find statistics about bad gay couples and use it against us. For example, if you visit the American Family Association you’re not going to find quotes from Leviticus, they know that to win they need secular arguments that can’t be dismissed as holly-roller propaganda.
posted by Jorge on
Under Catholic theology, Jesus is free from original sin. Mary as well. Jesus is not only fully human, he is the only human who has never sinned.
Under some interpretations the original sin of Adam and Eve was sex (Catholics are rather loath to acknowledge that Jesus’s “brothers” were biological.) Look, just because the Vatican has a picture of Jesus with an erection in plain view of the chapel the Pope comes out of doesn’t mean Catholics concede he’s not a virgin.
Hmm, wait a minute. I’m assuming that being gay means you actually have sex. Never mind.
posted by Craig2 on
Many other centre-right political parties have indeed recognised that LGBT rights has been effectively mainstreamed. New Zealand’s National Party has a gay Cabinet Minister in the current government, which has just dispensed with the provocation defence, one of the remaining inequalities in criminal law. Indeed, it was an earlier centre-right National Party government that was responsible for passing New Zealand’s LGB-inclusive antidiscrimination laws.
What needs to happen in the United States is that the Republicans need to be shown that the Christian Right is an untrustworthy and duplicitous extremist liability to its political success.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Bobby on
Craig, the Christian-right will always be a part of the republican party, they are not a liability at all. In fact, the way the system works is that every party has a base and to win they have to fight for the independents. The economy was bad so the independents went to Obama and the democrats, now that they see how dangerous progressives are, they will go back to the GOP.
By the way, conservatives are pissed off that Scott Brown has shown progressive colors by voting for the democrats job bill.
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/conservatives-livid-scott-brown-backs-dem-jobs-bill/
I hope Brown redeems himself with other votes, either way, the problem of American politics isn’t the Christian right but the progressive cancer that exists in both parties. And please, let’s not confuse progressive with liberal, let me state the obvious differences.
Liberals: Support gay rights.
Progressives: Try to put homophobic preachers in jail.
Liberals: Support abortion
Progressives: Want pro-lifers to pay for abortions.
Liberals: Support affirmative-action
Progressives: Accuse everyone of racism, as long as they’re white.
Progressives are the real extremists, these are the people that shout down speeches at universities if the speaker isn’t one of them. I’d rather deal with the reasonable Christian-right than the lunatic progressive left.
posted by Craig2 on
Hmmm. Well, that may be the case in the United States, although to be frank, abortion is a non-issue here. Granted, we still have a tiny anti-abortion movement, but it’s composed of elderly overly
religious sock cons. And New Zealand has had LGB-inclusive antidiscrimination laws for the last seventeen years, civil unions and relationship equality for the last five etc. Granted, this may have something to do with our rapidly declining levels of religious observance.
Down here, our centre-right is more concerned with strengthened criminal justice sanctions than issues of religious morality. Indeed, it has to be, for any such displays of militant fundamentalism have proven electorally poisonous beforehand to them. Our current centre-right PM even voted *against* pre-emptive obstruction of same-sex
marriage proper, back in 2005.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Craig2 on
And it wouldn’t be a bad idea if IGF featured centre-right social liberal and LGBT politicans from elsewhere in the world from time to time. Britain’s current Conservative leader, David Cameron, would be an excellent start…
posted by Debrah on
Oh wow.
The IGF commentariat perhaps should avoid being too nice to one another in the future.
Contributors, as well as further commentary, have been paralyzed for days, it would seem.
LIS!
By the way, Bobby. Some of your political allies cleaned up in Texas; however, word is that Alaska dame Palin has become too celebrity-driven and will have no political future as a result.
Plus!……even mono-brow Pelosi will not be able to save Charlie Rangel this time.
The comedy never ends.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Debrah, yeah, my party is taking over and as long as they concentrate on economic issues and don’t start trying to pass constitutional amendments, I think they’ll do just fine.
Craig2, what works in New Zealand doesn’t necessarily work in America. We’re talking about two very different societies here, for example, I don’t think a Rush Limbaugh could make a living in your country without being persecuted by the government.
And let’s face it, progressivism is not good for us, we’ve already seen what it has done in California:
Progressives against free speech at UC San Diego.
“Free-speech advocates are crying foul after a UC San Diego student government official’s decision to freeze funding for 33 campus media outlets after one organization aired an offensive commentary about a controversial student party.”
http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/ucsd-muzzles-student-media-while-free-speech-groups-cry-foul
Here’s what they do in Australia:
Defamatory commenter hunted down and sued
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32538379&postID=7610464080614825028
Here’s what it does in Italy:
Google Italy ruling threat to internet freedom
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32538379&postID=5017227445791471429
posted by Debrah on
Bobby, your referenced article has gotten quite a bit of attention.
And the scenario is so typical of the academy in this country; however, in Europe it’s even worse.
There’s such a disconnect in the media regarding what people around the globe think of America. If you ask anyone on the streets of European cities what they think of us, most of what you get is overwhelmingly positive……a kind of admiration.
But if you talk with someone in academia in those countries, it’s almost always negative.
And it’s the negativity that is covered and highlighted by our own mainstream media.
Many of those in the academy would have no career at all without one based on “grievances” and “race/class/gender/sexual orientation”…….etc ……
The UC-San Diego Chancellor Marye Anne Fox is a simpleton, and like most who kneel at the altar of political correctness and its insidious, tyrannical agenda, she will be forced to acquiesce.
She was at NCSU—where the late Jim Valvano used to coach—before going to San Diego. I think she’s probably getting whiplash from handling this case.
LOL!
posted by Jimmy on
Anything that abridges internet freedom is a bad thing.
Defamation is not protected speech.
If a university has a policy that is understood by a given student group going into the agreement that grants them funding, it should be no surprise that the university will enforce the consequences when that policy has been broken. If you don’t like the policy, don’t accept the subsidy.
posted by BobN on
Here’s what it does in Italy:
Uh, Bobby, the Italian government is a rightist government. They’re the anti-progressives.
posted by Bobby on
“There’s such a disconnect in the media regarding what people around the globe think of America. If you ask anyone on the streets of European cities what they think of us, most of what you get is overwhelmingly positive……a kind of admiration.”
—Well, I’d like to think that but sometimes I’m not sure. I read the comments people leave at The Guardian, they’re full of vitriol against Sara Palin, our second amendment, the war in Iraq, our relationship with Israel, etc, etc, etc. I think Europeans admire America but they want us to be more like them which is ironic because if we w ere more like them we would not be worthy of admiration.
“The UC-San Diego Chancellor Marye Anne Fox is a simpleton, and like most who kneel at the altar of political correctness and its insidious, tyrannical agenda, she will be forced to acquiesce.”
—Yeah, she could have used the opportunity to speak about the marketplace of ideas, how some are not popular, to distinguish between vandalism and free speech, but no, she gave a speech about how the school will not tolerate hate. Funny, the school tolerates people who hate Bush, zionists, fat people, smokers, I guess it all depends on whether you hate the right people or not.
“Defamation is not protected speech. ”
—To prove defamation you have to show that the speech isn’t opinion and that there’s malice intended. And when it comes to celebrities or politicians, courts have ruled that they have less protection because they have access to the media and can correct the record. Besides, we shouldn’t be persecuted for what we write in blogs.
“Uh, Bobby, the Italian government is a rightist government. They’re the anti-progressives.”
—There are progressives on the right and the left. Progressive simply means “Big Government.” Have you ever read Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto? The similarities are striking, both works argue for healthcare for all, social justice, workers rights, the evils of the rich… They’re both the same except that one hates the Jews while the other looks at religion at the opiate of the masses.
Italy is like the rest of Europe with speech codes, government involvement in private industry, welfare, and all the rest.
posted by Jimmy on
“Besides, we shouldn’t be persecuted for what we write in blogs.”
Why? Sarah Palin’s lawyer would disagree with you.
I already know the parameters for what constitutes defamation. My statement was very clear.
posted by Bobby on
“Why? Sarah Palin’s lawyer would disagree with you. ”
—There is a difference between making fun of Palin and saying that her special-needs baby isn’t hers. See? That’s defamation with malice, thus not free speech. However, if you compare Bush or Obama to Hitler, that’s not defamation, that’s opinion.
posted by Jimmy on
So long as you’re clear on the fact that one can defame someone else through what they write on a blog and be sued for it.
posted by BobN on
Bobby, it’s clear that “progressive” to you is just a dirty word you fling at things you don’t like. It’s also clear you know very little about the policies of the Berlusconi government.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, it’s clear that “progressive” to you is just a dirty word you fling at things you don’t like. It’s also clear you know very little about the policies of the Berlusconi government.”
—You need to watch Glenn Beck and learn the history of the progressive movement which has had advocates from Hoover to Roosevelt and FDR. You also need to look at what’s happening in our college campuses, how pro-Israel speakers are shouted down while radical Muslims get to speak their mind in peace.
Did know you prohibition was a progressive idea?
“Susan B. Anthony was one of the many progressives who adopted the cause of prohibition. They claimed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind’s potential for advancement. Progressives achieved success in this area with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919. However, this was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1933.”
Why do you think some progressives compare childhood obesity to child abuse? Why do you think they fight to hard against tobacco, fast food, ATV’s, and anything man enjoys? Because they want to control man, because they HATE individualism and believe in social responsibility.
Here’s another quote:
“One of the hallmarks of progressive thought is the concept of redistribution: the idea that your money and property are only yours if the State doesnât determine there is a higher or better use for it. Teddy Roosevelt made this view clear in his speech on the âNew Nationalismâ in 1910, and I believe most of us recall Obama echoing this modern-day Robin Hood sentiment in his exchange with Joe âThe Plumberâ Wurzelbacher during the last presidential campaign. Roosevelt said that personal property is âsubject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.â Rooseveltâs thoughts on accumulated wealth were equally illuminating. In the same speech he said, âWe grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.â Theodore Roosevelt was also the first president to call for national health insurance. See a pattern here?”
Progressives are the enemy, and if you’re willing to get same-sex marriage and lift DADT by sacrificing freedom and embracing big government, you’re not different than a house slave choosing the comforts of his masters house over the perils of freedom.
posted by Jimmy on
The American people see through that garbage, Bobby. When they go to Mt. Rushmore, they see the faces of the best America had to offer as examples of leadership and statesmanship. The last modern Republican president worthy of having his face carved into a mountain was Eisenhower. Since then, they have hardly been worthy of having their faces carved into the wood on an outhouse.
The next time a wing-nut snaps and takes out his pathetic grievances against the American people by attacking the federal government, utilizing methods such as we have already seen in recent history, taking out a bunch of innocent Americans with him, egged on by the nasty rhetoric of the Glenn Becks of the world, I hope we drag Beck out of his chair at the station and into the public square and chop his head off.
I’ll pay extra in taxes for a front row seat.
posted by BobN on
—You need to watch Glenn Beck
What does Glenn Beck have to do with Italian politics?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The next time a wing-nut snaps and takes out his pathetic grievances against the American people by attacking the federal government, utilizing methods such as we have already seen in recent history, taking out a bunch of innocent Americans with him, egged on by the nasty rhetoric of the Glenn Becks of the world, I hope we drag Beck out of his chair at the station and into the public square and chop his head off.
Amazing.
Progressives like Jimmy and their Obama Party want to execute American TV and radio show hosts on the spot merely for what they say, under the assertion that it “causes violence”…..but throw screaming fits over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his ilk, who not only speak, but actually encourage, fund, support, plan, and carry out the murder of thousands of “innocent Americans” being temporarily deprived of their Koran or getting less than eight hours of sleep.
Then again, 9/11 removed a lot of those “little Eichmanns” that progressives and the Obama Party loathe, and also taught “God damn America”, as Barack Obama and his spiritual mentor refer to it as, a lesson. Perhaps that’s the key; progressives don’t really care about Americans getting killed, as long as it’s by people who share their viewpoint that America deserves it.
posted by Debrah on
” Perhaps that’s the key; progressives don’t really care about Americans getting killed, as long as it’s by people who share their viewpoint that America deserves it.”
**********************************************
This is cyber-triple-orgasm caliber.
Only Christopher Hitchens and historian KC Johnson elicit this brand of Diva endorsement……..although the full ideologies, sadly, might not be shared.
For further reading related to this subject the latest Dershowitz gem is but one example.
It’s Mad March!
posted by Rob on
Progressives are the real extremists, these are the people that shout down speeches at universities if the speaker isn’t one of them. I’d rather deal with the reasonable Christian-right than the lunatic progressive left.
Wrong word Bobby. Reactionary would fit the definition better.
posted by Bobby on
“The American people see through that garbage, Bobby. When they go to Mt. Rushmore, they see the faces of the best America had to offer as examples of leadership and statesmanship.”
—I don’t need monuments to know what this country is all about, a copy of the constitution is enough for me. You want role models? George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and Jefferson should be enough and if all the other presidents that came after them had not tried to mess with the country they created, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.
“The next time a wing-nut snaps and takes out his pathetic grievances against the American people by attacking the federal government,”
—What are you talking about? The guy you’re referring to wasn’t even a fan of Glenn Beck. Beck is a constitutionalist, he wants America to be what our founding fathers created, not a messy big government welfare state.
Instead of looking for the government to do everything for you, you need to take responsibility for yourself. Want a handout? Talk to your father but keep your manicured hands out of my taxes.
posted by Craig2 on
Well, Bobby, Rush Limbaugh actually did have his show screened down here for a brief time in the early nineties. His show ended up cancelled because no-one was watching and it was largely irrelevant to us.
And yep, we have our wingnuts, too, but no-one really listens to them. Talkback radio rates lowly down here, and they’re treated with amused contempt more than anything else. And some of you may be heartened to learn that NZ has ACT (the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) a vaguely libertarian party, in our current centre-right governing coalition.
I repeat, US gay libertarians and pragmatic centre-rightists need to learn from successful and effective centre-right parties overseas. Sooner or later, the militia/gun-nut/conspiracy theorist/anti-abortion terrorist/racist skinhead/’phobe raving right is going to end up causing one hell of an almighty backlash. And yeah, I’m glad that NZ is too settled for that kind of poison.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand