I’ve been quiet on this site for a while, in large part because I’ve retired my weekly column at 365gay.com, which has since announced that it’s going to shut down. (I’ll resist the temptation to commit the post hoc fallacy.) Meanwhile I have been working on the book Debating Same-Sex Marriage for Oxford University Press, in which I argue against Maggie Gallagher; we’ve made progress and expect it to appear in Spring/Summer 2012. And I’ll be doing my usual Fall Speaking Tour, so if you’re near one of the venues, come listen, ask questions, applaud, cheer, heckle, or whatever.
Where I’ve Been
ADVERTISEMENT
6 Comments for “Where I’ve Been”
posted by BobN on
Is there just no market for a one-sided book, as opposed to these exercises in “balance” that do more for their side than ours?
posted by Houndentenor on
There are already too many one-sided books on the market on a whole range of topics. We have nothing to fear from laying both sides of this argument next to each other. It might be the only way to get Gallagher’s crowd to realize there even is another point of view.
posted by Jorge on
Balanced books have their uses. Over the years I went from a blank slate to pro-choice to [eh] all because of one book.
posted by William Quill on
I’d trust John with this one re balance, his 1997 book Same-Sex, covering every near angle and point on the spectrum was very good. People who are wavering or curious will buy a Corvino/Gallagher book, while mostly only those only already there would buy a Corvino only book. And surely we can trust John to come across more senisibly.
Great to have you back, one can tire of Stephen Miller’s excessive and repetitive partisanship.
posted by another steve on
I believe you are confusing John Corvino with another (and like minded) occasional IGF blogger, Jonathan Rauch, who wrote the book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.
Miller has criticized the GOP front-runners for their support of the anti-gay federal marriage amendment, and (I think) made it clear it won’t be supporting anyone who favors such an amendment. He argues that efforts to achieve gay equality should be bipartisan, and because today’s LGBT efforts are aimed mainly at electing Democrats (indeed, the efforts are really controlled by organizations run by Democratic party operatives), he takes aim at that as bad strategy.
What so funny is that many of those who constantly attack Miller for partisianship are themselves knee-jerk party-first partisans, far more Democratic foot soliders than Miller is for the GOP.
posted by William Quill on
I would have responded sooner had I seen this comment. The Corvino-edited book I’m referring to is Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality, quite a good book if you happen to come across it.
Miller seems to turn everything to making the comment that focusing on electing Democrats rather than reaching across the mainstream weakens the case. I think he’s right. I think gay rights organization should champion and stand firmly behind Republicans like Tom Campbell and Dede Scozzafava, and I said so myself during their campaigns.
I am from Ireland, where politically I find myself taking a similar approach to that which Miller advocates. I am a member of Fine Gael, our conservative party, which has a vocal Christian democrat wing. I will make the case to my friends in the Labour Party (with whom we are in a coalition government with) that progress won’t happen without our support. Which is why in July I put effort into getting a motion passed at Young Fine Gael summer school in support of marriage equality.
But really, today’s post about David Cameron was turned by him to make this point. Were I to finish every single thing I posted with a criticism of the failings of members of our Labour Party, rather than being constructive in creating a gay mainstream, I would simply end up weakening what informal associations and links I have with people in the Labour party.