ENDA and Us

by on

[Update: As of 10/1 there are apparently reliable reports that Pelosi and Frank have reversed course and agreed to delay the "mark up" of ENDA until later this month in response to activists' demands, and presumably to mark up a bill with transgender inclusion. It's also likely that, good vote counters that they are, they expect that a T-inclusive ENDA will likely fail, in which case it will be up to the activists to decide whether to try again with a T-less variation (and I'm guessing the activists are so wedded to T-inclusion that the answer will be no). I'd also bet that the overwhelming majority of lesbigays would be fine with a T-less ENDA, but it's not like anyone cares.]

Original post: Looks like congressional Democrats, following the lead of openly gay Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, are moving forward with two versions of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): One for LGBs (lesbians, gays and bisexuals ) and one for Ts (transgenders). The Democratic leadership, however, is "marking up" the LGB version and pushing it forward, leaving the T bill in legislative limbo.

I'm ENDA neutral. Gay libertarians are firmly against it, opposing all laws telling employers who they can or can't hire, fire or promote. I see ENDA as less intrusive than other anti-discrimination measures-i.e., no assumed "disproportionate impact" requirement that hiring reflect regional racial/ethnic breakdowns (leading to race-based preferences), or that drug addicts be kept on the payroll because they have a disability. ENDA would probably criminalize any official statements that gays won't be hired (with perhaps an exemption for religious groups), but it's rather easy just to not state why someone is or isn't offered a job or promotion. ENDA advocates wildly overstate what it will accomplish.

Planet Out reports that:

Leaders of 12 LGBT rights groups issued a statement Thursday opposing any effort to remove transgender protections from the latest iteration of the 33-year drive to add gay men and lesbians to federal anti-discrimination law....

Signatories included leaders of PFLAG, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Stonewall Democrats, Lambda Legal, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and the AFL-CIO's Pride at Work, among other groups...

The likelihood that activists such as the NGLTF and maybe even the HRC (see below) might oppose a "non-inclusive" ENDA would certainly be a political spectacle (read: meltdown). Already, Pride at Work announced it will picket when Pelosi speaks at the HRC's upcoming National Dinner. But since it's likely that Bush would veto ENDA anyway (with Ts in or out), it may all be sound and fury-and fundraising-anyway.

The HRC is asking for feedback on what it should do about ENDA, but there's no doubt that it's committed all-out to passing the federal hate crimes bill (the group, you see, is against hate crimes except if committed by black thugs against a straight white teenager, and then it favors letting the bashers go free).

On hate crimes laws, I'm with the libertarians in opposing measures that criminalize intent [added: animus is a better word here; punish the crime and the degree of planning that went into it, not accompanying "thought crimes"] and so don't favor the bill that congressional Democrats have attached to an Iraqi funding act (which Bush, who is against bringing the federal government further into local hate crimes prosecutions, may or may not sign). But the religious right's scare-mongering over this bill is also way overblown-I don't expect anti-gay sermons to be criminalized anytime soon, at least I hope not, for the sake of all our freedoms.

Relatedly, some gay activists are targeting one of the good-guy Republicans, New Hampshire 's Sen. John Sununu, a libertarian-leaning small-government conservative who stood up to his party and opposed the federal marriage amendment. That's a sorry development.

Because Sununu opposes ENDA and the hate crimes bill, he's been labeled "anti-gay." But his opposition to these measures (a view shared with gay libertarians) derives from his belief that there are constitutional limits on the role of the federal government, not from anti-gay animus. And despite what liberal (albeit supposedly nonpartisan) activists may think, having at least some GOP senators who vote no on anti-gay marriage amendments is a positive thing.

Larry Craig Watch. Via Opus.

30 Comments

A Bipartisan Marriage Fight

by on

This is a partisan season, and will only become more so. I must therefore beg your indulgence while I defend the following assertion: Several recent developments suggest that significant further progress toward marriage equality in America will require that it be approached as a bipartisan issue.

To be sure, more Democrats than Republicans support civil unions, and more Democrats opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment that Republicans used in 2004 and 2006, along with anti-gay state ballot initiatives, to mobilize social conservatives. Encouragingly, there are signs that the Republicans went to that well once too often. But Democrats already held the progressive congressional districts before 2006. To win control, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois) had to recruit more conservative candidates to match more conservative electorates. His success, consequently, did not change the fact that most American politicians oppose civil marriage equality.

In short, advocates of marriage equality have already picked the low-hanging fruit. Like Rep. Emanuel, we have to win over more moderate and conservative voters to gain the margin of victory. But how? As Providence would have it, a Republican stepped forward last week to show us the way.

By now you have surely seen the video from San Diego. On Sept. 19, Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders, a former police chief who is up for re-election in 2008, announced a change of mind. With his wife Rana standing beside him, and struggling with emotion, he said that he would sign a city council resolution petitioning the California Supreme Court to allow marriage equality. He revealed that his daughter Lisa and members of his personal staff were gay.

"The arrival of the resolution - to sign or veto - in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do. I have decided to lead with my heart ... to do what I think is right, and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is sign this resolution." He continued, "I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, than anyone else, simply because of their sexual orientation."

Sanders made it clear that his basic values have not changed. "A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with the values I have embraced over the past 30 years." He then offered a simple yet crucial insight: "I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that's natural, and certainly it is true in my case."

When a public figure conspicuously switches positions on a controversial issue and prevails, others may be emboldened to take the same step. Many such conversions are needed if civil marriage equality is to carry the day across the country.

Don't get me wrong. If the choice in a given race, at least on gay issues, is between a flawed Democrat and a worse Republican, then the choice in favor of the Democrat is relatively easy. But the whole point is that we are not talking about voters who already embrace gay-affirming positions. Members of Congress generally reflect the views of their constituents, and we are not likely to make much more headway until we change conservative hearts. Even assuming a Democratic sweep in 2008, there will still be many Republican legislators at the state and national levels, and it ill behooves us to write off all their supporters. Between elections, even a fierce partisan like my own congresswoman, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), reaches across the aisle on issues such as voting representation for D.C. in Congress.

As for those officeholders who say yes to civil unions but no to marriage, it will take more than rhetoric to change them. This is where our dollars, letters, and volunteer efforts come in.

We have our work cut out for us. Time and again, otherwise gay-friendly officials shy away from supporting marriage equality. In California, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger again threatens a veto. In Maryland, Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley backs away from his earlier support. These officials need to hear from us and they need to pay a price for their political cowardice. This requires us to re-examine our own calculations and ask ourselves whether it is truly in our interest to give money to someone just because he is a Democrat when he endorses an anti-gay ballot initiative as former Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tennessee) did last year during his U.S. Senate race. Make that his failed Senate race.

The social context is ever changing. On Sun., Sept. 23, near the end of NBC's Chris Matthews Show, the host congratulated panelist Norah O'Donnell on the birth of her new babies, then turned to Andrew Sullivan and congratulated him on his recent wedding. Matthews mentioned Andrew's husband Aaron, and showed a photo of the happy couple.

It was a simple, gracious and profound moment. We need many more. To translate them into electoral victory, we have to do more of what has worked in Massachusetts: more conversations, more phone calls, more targeted contributions, more voter mobilization.

Until they succeed in changing the prevailing wisdom, leaders like Jerry Sanders will be few. Let's be sure to thank and reward them, whatever their party affiliation.

10 Comments

‘Coalition-Building’ Run Amok

by on

Jamie Kirchick does a masterful job exposing the Human Rights Campaign's inane support for the Jena 6 thugs, "a group of black teenagers who beat and stomped a 17-year-old white boy [Justin Barker] into unconsciousness last December," and who have now become a cause celebre among the pc chic crowd-including our biggest, and always trendy, LGBT lobby. We can now add "Free the Jena 6!" to "George Bush, You're Fired!" among the highlights of HRC sloganeering.

A key observation:

Last week HRC president Joe Solmonese traveled all the way to Jena, La., along with thousands of other supporters and declared that "this injustice cannot stand." By "injustice," he was presumably referring to the prosecution and sentencing of the young men responsible for the beating...

Defenders of the Jena 6 have little to say about the group's mauling of Barker, which no one denies happened, even though the assault could be considered a hate crime and is reminiscent of a gay bashing....

How does HRC square its backing for hate-crimes legislation with its support of the Jena 6, who are themselves guilty of a racially motivated attack?

Of course, they don't even see a need to try.

More. Chris Crain, himself the victim of a violent gay bashing, has pictures of swollen-faced Justin Barker and blogs: "Shame on you, Joe Solmonese. Whatever moral authority you had to lead a gay rights group, much less the movement, you squandered today....Shame, shame, shame."

Ah, but Chris, Solmonese and his ilk have no shame; after all, he's a leftist, and so who are we to question his obvious moral superiority?

45 Comments

Banned Books Week

by on

As an appropriate follow-up to last week's column about a New Jersey school district that dropped a gay-inclusive video about different kinds of families, Banned Books Week (BBW) is coming right up, Sept. 29 to Oct. 6.

BBW is a project of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom designed to draw attention to the number of formal challenges to books in school and public libraries lodged by parents or patrons urging that the books be removed from the shelves.

In 2006, there were 546 known attempts to remove books from libraries--and those were just the ones reported. Most book challenges were reported by school libraries--71 percent; most of the rest were reported by public libraries--24 percent. Parents lodged 61 percent of the book challenges, library patrons 15 percent, and administrators 9 percent.

As the ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom points out, 546 challenges is more than one per day. Considering the 380 or so challenges to books in school libraries alone, that amounts to more than two a day during the typical 180-day school year.

The challenges were typically lodged on the basis of a small number of objections: sexual content, homosexuality, occult or satanic content, violence, drugs, offensive language, rather vague claims of being "anti-family," of "insensitivity," and the all-purpose "unsuitable to age group."

Not surprisingly, I suppose, given the number of "pro-family activists" around these days, four of the 10 most frequently challenged books drew objections in part because of "homosexuality." As I mentioned last week, the single most frequently challenged book was the children's picture book "And Tango Makes Three," about two male penguins who brood and hatch an egg and begin raising their baby penguin.

"Tango" (and again I urge you to read it) drew objections for homosexuality, anti-family content and unsuitability for age group. Never mind that there is not a hint of homosexuality in the book. Anti-family? The two males with their chick seem more like a traditional family than any single parent household. And since the story is true, Nature appears to have a broader understanding of "family" than the religious right--but some people must not want children to know that.

The other three books that drew challenges in part because of homosexuality were "Athletic Shorts" by Chris Crutcher, "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky, and books in the "Gossip Girl" series by Cecily von Ziegesar. (Other Top 10 challenged books are listed at the BBW website.)

A year or so ago for a different project I began reading gay-themed children's and "young adult" books. There are quite a number by now--upwards of 200, maybe. I have not read the "Gossip Girl" books but "Athletic Shorts" is a collection of six short stories about young athletes, one of whom has two gay fathers, and another of whom meets a young man dying of AIDS.

"The Perks of Being a Wallflower" is a sort of omnibus of problem situations high school students might encounter, one of which is the presence of two gay students. Considering all the other things in the book--rape, child abuse, etc.--the two gay youths come across as perhaps the most decent and least troubled characters in the book. Maybe that is what the challengers really objected to. To be honest, I found parts of "Perks" uncomfortable reading, but that is not to say that the book shouldn't be in libraries. It may actually help young people be better prepared if they encounter some of the things included in the book.

Fortunately, not all the challenges to library books are successful. Most are rejected by librarians and library boards--and the books stay on the shelves. In many ways, librarians are real heroes of the First Amendment, dedicated to keeping materials with a variety of social and political viewpoints available for readers.

Many people don't seem to grasp this point. They think that if they and their children use the library and their taxes help pay for the book, they should be able to determine what books the library offers. But they ignore the fact that other people might want to read precisely the books they object to and that their taxes also help pay for the books.

Putting that another way, what they want is to control not only what they and their children take out from the library and read, but what everybody else and their children can take out and read. In other words, they have no regard for individual freedom or respect for the working of other people's minds. I think we know where that can lead.

3 Comments

Genuflecting to Bigotry

by on

There are always those who misguidedly believe that "unity" trumps all else, including justice. Sadly, that is the view now taken by the U.S. Episcopal Church, which has bowed down to Canterbury's demand, on behalf of African Christofascists (who campaign in their home countries to make gays socializing together a crime) that it stop blessing same-sex unions and ordaining gay bishops.

Why the U.S. Church didn't break with Britain in 1776, I don't know. But unless the Episcopalians belatedly declare their independence, it makes no sense for gays to stay with them. This church worships the false idol of "unity" above all. It has chosen the dark side.

More. Have I over-reacted to what is, in effect, a "cooling off period"? Maybe, but it seems to me that gay Episcopalians have shown enormous loyalty to their church through the years. I don't see that being responded to in kind. Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria is an evil man who corrupts the essential gospel message, and instead of going the distance to placate/appease him, he should be called out for the promoter of hate that he is.

Larry Craig watch. On a much lighter note, catch this video.

14 Comments

Yes, It Is the Face of Evil

by on

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country." So declared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as he in effect proclaimed the Islamofascist tyranny over which he presides (and in which known homosexuals are arrested and executed) to be gay-free. Chillingly, Ahmadinejad went on to defend the use of capital punishment against anti-social elements, saying:

Can a physician allow microbes, symbolically speaking, to spread across a nation? We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sell drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran, and some of these punishments-very few are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they are executed or they're hung, but the end result is killing.

Some conservative sites have made much of Iran's murderous state-sponsored homophobia, as for example, on the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

His regime funnels sophisticated munitions to Shiite militias in Iraq, who use them to kill American soldiers. Oh, and by the way, his regime also executes homosexuals for the crime of being themselves. Maybe if Columbia University President Lee Bollinger were aware of the latter fact he would reconsider his invitation to the Iranian president to speak on his campus today.

A cynic might say that this is a tactic to divide the left (where some still feel if you hate George Bush with enough vehemence, it excuses all else). But it's still good to see the right take on gay bashing-even if it's in Iran.

Update. Iran's state news agency has censored all references to gays from the official Farsi-language transcripts of Ahmadinejad's remarks.

More. Right Side of the Rainbow is rightly appalled at left-wing students, "some of whom are surely gay themselves," who cheered and applauded the butcher, and who say they'd rather have him as president than Bush. Blogger Paul provides a video of an Iranian execution of gay teenagers, but don't expect anything to get through to some of these Ivy League idiots.

21 Comments

Power of Love

by on

The Republican mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, has reversed his opposition to gay marriage, noting that his daughter is gay (here's video of his announcement). As the AP reports:

[Sanders] fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws. ''In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships-their very lives-were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana,'' Sanders said.

So much for the good news from the Golden State. Unfortunately, California Gov. Schwarznegger has said he will once again veto legislation that would give same-sex couples the right to marry, as he did two years ago, and pledges to keep vetoing the measure as long as lawmakers send it to him (so much for those who claim same-sex marriage is always imposed by activist judges superceding the legislative process). Conservative groups, naturally, warned Schwarzenegger to take a strong stand against the bill.

Mayor Sanders is up for re-election next year and the religious right is mobilizing against him. A victory could send an extremely positive message to the party. (Here's more, from the San Diego Tribune, looking at the election implications for Sanders.)

22 Comments

Straight Families, Gay Sex, Double Standards

by on

The Evesham Township School District in New Jersey has been embroiled in a dispute over whether to show Debra Chasnoff's video "That's a Family" about non-traditional families. The video includes families with adopted children, mixed-race families and same-sex couples with children.

According to the New York Times (Sept. 14) several parents objected after the video was shown to third grade students. The objections eventually led to the video being dropped.

Divorce, adoption, even mixed-race parents, those are just facts about the modern world. But same-sex couples with children? That's not a fact. That's a controversy.

Parents who objected to the video claimed that they were not motivated by prejudice against gays but by concern that the video was not suitable for such young children.

The Times quoted one parent as saying, "I don't think it was appropriate. If it was maybe in the fifth grade, but in third grade they're a little too young." But then the parent retracted even that plausible position, adding, "It's something to be discussed within families. I think it's the parents' responsibility to teach the kids about that stuff."

Another parent reportedly said that children "shouldn't learn questionable things in school that they're not ready for and don't understand." What is questionable? Whether gay parents exist? Whether they love their children?

Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said the opposition was fueled not by concerns about parental control but "about fear of gay people."

But I suspect that Goldstein is not quite correct on either point. The opposition to the video was likely fueled not so much by fear of gay people as by plain, old, ordinary antipathy--disapproval, hostility--to gay people and to any mention in the curriculum of their existence.

And the objections were prompted precisely by the issue of parental control. Parents understandably want to determine what and how their children learn, but parents who want to keep their children from knowing about the way the world is are doing them few favors.

It is hard to justify letting some parents control what government (tax-supported) schools teach since the schools are paid for by parents with a variety of values and attitudes. In other words, the objecting parents want to control what other people's children as well as their own are "exposed to."

In other times and places, these are the same type of parents who object to school lessons on other aspects of the modern world--evolution, birth control, sex education, comparative religion. In the past they would have objected to any mention of interracial marriage. And now they are objecting to saying anything about gays--whether gays as parents, gays as couples or just the fact that gays and lesbians exist.

None of the parents bother to explain why they think young children "aren't ready for" and "don't understand" about gay parents or gay couples. What is so hard to understand about two men adopting a child or two women raising the child of one of them from a previous marriage? If children grow up with that information it does not seem odd or incomprehensible; it is just another aspect of a fascinating and varied world they are learning about. The children probably think of the gay couple as "best friends" or "roommates."

The problem is not with the children's understanding, but with the parents' importation of a different issue. When religious conservatives think about gays, they think primarily of sex. Gays? Sex. Gay couples? Sex. Gay parents? Sex. And they do not want their children learning about gay sex. But it is doubtful that third graders connect gay parenting with sex. Conservative parents see sex where it isn't even mentioned.

This is the same mentality that made the children's book "And Tango Makes Three" the library book that drew the most parental objections last year. The book is a charming true story (by all means read it) about two male penguins who together brood and hatch an egg and begin raising the baby penguin. Homophobic parents objected to the book because it was "about homosexuality." But nowhere in the book is there even a hint that the two penguins engaged in sex.

Such beliefs border on psychosis.

If conservative parents fear anything, it is not homosexuals, but that their children may abandon the parents' hostility toward gays and come to accept gays as just another part of the world around them. It is this loss of control over their children's values and social attitudes, not the facts that the children learn, that upsets conservative parents most. But that is always the risk of education.

25 Comments

Mish-Mash

by on

The Classical Values blog ponders why sexual liberation for gays and others got tied to the nanny state left. Blogger Eric writes:

I don't think it is rational for Republicans to declare war on sex and to appear to embrace erotophobia, because of their traditional "leave people alone" philosophy, but there's not a damned thing I can do about it except write posts like this. As to the Democrats, they see sex not as a form of freedom to be embraced, but as something to be manipulated to gain power.

He continues:

I think that the anti-sex wing of the GOP is colluding with the Democrats to make other Republicans afraid. Not merely afraid of sex, but afraid to talk about sex unless they condemn it.

Of course, civil equality for gay people is not the same as "sex," but it may be true that "erotophobia" is as much responsible for anti-gay animus as the nebulous "homophobia." In any event, the "right" has become a coalition of libertarian/small government "leave us alone" types, capitalist free marketers, pro-trade globalizers and social reactionaries who don't mind using the state as a cudgel, while the "left" conjoins civil libertarians with anarcho-nihilists, enviro-Luddites, union reactionaries, redistributionists and total-statists. So why expect coherence?

5 Comments

How David Blankenhorn Helps Our Kids

by on

David Blankenhorn is the kind of same-sex marriage opponent you might consider inviting to your (gay) wedding.

I'm not saying you should. After all, in his books, articles and talks, Blankenhorn has defended the position that same-sex marriage weakens a valuable institution. So when your minister intones "If anyone here has any objections to this union…" all eyes would be on him.

But Blankenhorn is virtually unique among same-sex marriage opponents in his insistence on "the equal dignity of homosexual love." He has stated this belief repeatedly in his talks, particularly those to conservative audiences. And he stated it again recently in an online "bloggingheads" discussion with same-sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch. Despite his ultimate opposition, Blankenhorn concedes that there are a number of strong reasons for supporting same-sex marriage, not least being our equal worth.

This is an unusual, refreshing, and significant concession.

Before you call me an Uncle Tom-excited about crumbs from the table rather than demanding my rightful place at it-let me be clear.

I think Blankenhorn is dead wrong in his opposition to same-sex marriage. In particular, his argument is marked by some serious fallacies:

(1) The leap from "Most people who want to dethrone marriage from its privileged position support same-sex marriage" to "Most same-sex-marriage supporters want to dethrone marriage from its privileged position." That's like moving from "Most professional basketball players are tall" to "Most tall people are professional basketball players." In fact, most couples who want same-sex marriage do so precisely because they recognize marriage's special status.

(2) The leap from "Same-sex-marriage support correlates with 'marriage-weakening behaviors' (non-marital cohabitation, single-parent childrearing, divorce)" to "Same-sex marriage should be opposed." Putting aside the questionable claims about correlation, this argument falsely assumes that only bad things correlate with bad things. As I've argued before, that's not so. (Worldwide, affluence correlates with obesity, but it doesn't follow we should oppose affluence.)

Besides, Blankenhorn overlooks all of the good things that correlate with same-sex marriage (higher education rates, support for religious freedom, respect for women, and so on).

(3) The move from "Children do better with their biological parents than in other kinds of arrangements" to "Same-sex marriage is bad for children." Blankenhorn's argument here is more subtle than most. It's not that gay and lesbian couples make bad parents (indeed, Blankenhorn supports gay adoption); it's that same-sex marriage reinforces the notion that marriage isn't primarily about children. And widespread acceptance of that notion-particularly in the hands of the heterosexual majority, who do not escape Blankenhorn's critique-is bad for children. This argument (which deserves more than a cursory treatment) is marked by a number of dubious empirical assumptions; it also ignores children who are already being raised by same-sex parents and would palpably benefit from their parents' legal marriage.

Beyond these concerns, I'm tempted to respond to Blankenhorn's point about "the equal dignity of homosexual love" with an exasperated "Duh!" Yes, we love our partners! We rejoice with them in times of joy; we suffer when they ail; we weep when they die. The failure to notice this is not just obtuse, it's morally careless. Thanking someone for acknowledging it feels akin to thanking the neighbor kids for not peeing on my lawn, or thanking my students for not sleeping in class-those were never supposed to be options, anyway.

Ironically, it's largely because of kids that I resist giving this kind of snarky response. It's all well and good that I think truths about our lives are obvious. But in the real world-the one we actually live in-people believe and spread vicious falsehoods about us. I'm concerned about our kids' hearing them.

Blankenhorn may be mistaken-even badly so-but he isn't vicious. What's more, he has the ear of audiences who would never listen to me, much less to the ideological purists who call me an "Uncle Tom." And he's telling those audiences about the equal dignity of our love. I'm genuinely grateful for that.

Would I prefer that Blankenhorn preached the equal dignity of same-sex love without opposing marriage equality? Of course. But I don't always get what I prefer. And I also realize that, if Blankenhorn shared all of my preferred views, he wouldn't have the attention of opponents I want to convert-if not to marriage equality, then at least to a belief in our equal dignity.

Do I need Blankenhorn's approval for my relationship? Of course not. But public discourse matters. Ideas matter; votes matter. They matter to us, and they matter to those who come after us.

When Blankenhorn tells our opponents about "the equal dignity of homosexual love," he's talking to people with kids. Some of those kids will be gay. For their sake, I'm critical of him. For their sake, I'm also grateful to him.

6 Comments