Anti-Gay Gay Republican Apologizes
You might remember Roy Ashburn, the anti-gay California state Senator who got a drunk-driving ticket a few months ago, leaving a gay bar. I used to live in Fresno, not far from his Central Valley district, and I can tell you it is a very conservative region, lots of farmland, ranches.
Senator Ashburn published a piece yesterday on a web site called Gay Politics. It is rather a unique document. It's a little on the longish side, so I won't republish the whole thing here, but will excerpt a few chunks.
This is a tough thing to read. I believe this guy, he was scared to death.
But ... is that what we do as Americans? When we are oppressed, do we adopt the beliefs of our oppressors and try to force our fellow citizens to abide by those beliefs? Keep in mind, if this guy hadn't been caught he would have operated as an agent for anti-gay bigotry forever. But ... he did get caught, and now he's switched sides. You do have the feeling he's now on the side he genuinely endorses, but ... you know how double-agents are. Now he's a "gay Republican." It's not quite an oxymoron, but close.
You wonder how many others there are in state and federal legislatures and other powerful positions, people who vote against what they believe just to protect themselves. You might tend to sympathize with them as victims, but someone who actively campaigns against his own people is a traitor. Maybe somebody in the comments section will explain where my reasoning is wrong. Is it harder to be gay in a homophobic society than to be a capitalist in a communist country or a communist in modern capitalistic America? Is it harder than being an atheist in Texas, or a Christian in Syria? I have the feeling a lot of people are "in the closet" about who they really are, playing along with the majority, traitors to themselves.
Now he can't see why anybody would want to support the beliefs he promoted until that night the cops pulled him over:
You would think we would hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Not so much these days. Not with guys like Ashburn-before-he-was-busted in office.
This next paragraph makes you feel a little sad. He's talking to his own party ...
In fact, he is on-target in a certain way, there really is no debate over where Republicans stand on the rights of LGBT Americans -- they're against them.
There's quite a bit more, I am including only one more paragraph.
Someday people will look back at a statement like this one and wonder what the big deal was about. What was the guy afraid of? It's like if you tell girls today that women could be fired fifty years ago for getting pregnant -- it doesn't seem to make any sense, they think you're making some kind of dumb joke. Someday people will wonder why anybody bothered to discriminate against gay people, of all things.
All in all, the net change here is positive, one bigot came out of the closet and started playing for the other team. Maybe he will open a couple of hearts.
Senator Ashburn published a piece yesterday on a web site called Gay Politics. It is rather a unique document. It's a little on the longish side, so I won't republish the whole thing here, but will excerpt a few chunks.
Startled by the blurry reality of a red light glaring in my rear-view mirror at 2 am on the morning of March, 4, 2010, I knew my life was about to change. The California Highway Patrol stopped me as I was driving drunk after leaving a gay club in Sacramento, California’s capital. With my arrest and the media inquiry that followed, my deeply-held secret was no longer my own business. My private life as a closeted gay man was now the public’s business, and I had a lot of explaining to do.
I should begin with an apology. I am sincerely sorry for the votes I cast and the actions I took that harmed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Just as important to me, I am sorry for not stepping forward and speaking up as an elected official on behalf of equal treatment for all people. For nearly 26 years, the voters in my area of California trusted me as their elected representative. I look back now knowing there is so much more I could have done to inform the public about LGBT people and to fight for equal rights under the law. Regrettably and selfishly, I took another path in my life and political career—I chose to conceal who I truly am and to then actually vote against the best interests of people like me. All this was done because I was afraid–terrified, really–that somehow I would be revealed as gay. My journey, my party and LGBT rights
This is a tough thing to read. I believe this guy, he was scared to death.
But ... is that what we do as Americans? When we are oppressed, do we adopt the beliefs of our oppressors and try to force our fellow citizens to abide by those beliefs? Keep in mind, if this guy hadn't been caught he would have operated as an agent for anti-gay bigotry forever. But ... he did get caught, and now he's switched sides. You do have the feeling he's now on the side he genuinely endorses, but ... you know how double-agents are. Now he's a "gay Republican." It's not quite an oxymoron, but close.
You wonder how many others there are in state and federal legislatures and other powerful positions, people who vote against what they believe just to protect themselves. You might tend to sympathize with them as victims, but someone who actively campaigns against his own people is a traitor. Maybe somebody in the comments section will explain where my reasoning is wrong. Is it harder to be gay in a homophobic society than to be a capitalist in a communist country or a communist in modern capitalistic America? Is it harder than being an atheist in Texas, or a Christian in Syria? I have the feeling a lot of people are "in the closet" about who they really are, playing along with the majority, traitors to themselves.
Now he can't see why anybody would want to support the beliefs he promoted until that night the cops pulled him over:
Gay people being treated with respect and having the same opportunities for a good life regardless of sexual orientation should not be topics of political debate. How can it possibly be that there is a partisan political divide over equal rights in America? At a time when our country is deeply divided over the proper size and scope of government, when people are hurting in a bad economy and when we face real threats from terrorists determined to end our way of life, shouldn’t we be united on at least one principal–that equality for all Americans is fundamental to who we are as a nation of freedom-loving people?
You would think we would hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Not so much these days. Not with guys like Ashburn-before-he-was-busted in office.
This next paragraph makes you feel a little sad. He's talking to his own party ...
It’s time for fair-minded Republicans to speak up for what our party really stands for—individual freedom and limited government. If we truly believe the greatness of America is founded on the individual achievements of ordinary citizens acting with the maximum amount of personal liberty, then there should be no debate over where Republicans stand on the rights of LGBT Americans.
In fact, he is on-target in a certain way, there really is no debate over where Republicans stand on the rights of LGBT Americans -- they're against them.
There's quite a bit more, I am including only one more paragraph.
I am no longer willing, nor able to remain silent in the face of unequal and hurtful treatment of my community. It may have taken me a strange, incoherent and long path to get here, but this is where I find myself as a gay Republican Senator. It’s time for Republicans to find our way and fight for equal treatment for all people, especially the freedom to be unique and have our rights acknowledged and protected.
Someday people will look back at a statement like this one and wonder what the big deal was about. What was the guy afraid of? It's like if you tell girls today that women could be fired fifty years ago for getting pregnant -- it doesn't seem to make any sense, they think you're making some kind of dumb joke. Someday people will wonder why anybody bothered to discriminate against gay people, of all things.
All in all, the net change here is positive, one bigot came out of the closet and started playing for the other team. Maybe he will open a couple of hearts.
posted by JimK at 8:54 AM
38 Comments:
A year after President Barack Obama's political honeymoon ended, his job approval rating has dropped to a negative 44 - 48 percent, his worst net score ever, and American voters say by a 39 - 36 percent margin that they would vote for an unnamed Republican rather than President Obama in 2012, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
This compares to a 48 - 43 percent approval for Obama in a May 26 national poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University and a 57 - 33 percent approval last July, just before the political firestorm created by opposition to his health care plan galvanized political opponents and turned independent voters against him.
In this latest survey of more than 2,000 voters, independent voters disapprove of Obama 52 - 38 percent and say 37 - 27 percent they would vote for a Republican contender in 2012.
American voters also say 48 - 40 percent Obama does not deserve reelection in 2012.
Voters disapprove 59 - 31 percent of the job Democrats are doing and voters say 43 - 38 percent they would vote for a Republican in a generic Congressional race.
Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department Georgia Director of Rural Development, says she is a victim. A victim of poor reporting and, as she contends, clear bias and racist coverage from both Andrew Breitbart and Fox News.
"When you look at their reporting, this is just another way of seeing that they are (racist)," Sherrod told me about Fox in a lengthy interview Tuesday night. "But I have seen that before now. I saw their reporting as biased during the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration."
Sherrod was forced to resign on Monday after a portion of a taped speech she gave last March was posted at Breitbart's Biggovernment.com.
In the edited tape, she spoke about how she had not initially helped a white farmer as much as she could have in 1986 when he was going to lose his farm. In the posting, Breitbart made it appear as though the story had occurred during her time as a federal official and not 24 years ago when she worked for a non-profit organization.
Breitbart also did not include the entire context of the speech, in which she later explained that she learned from the situation and ended up helping the farmer, Roger Spooner and his wife. Both Spooners spoke out several times Tuesday to support Sherrod and voice that they would have lost their farm if not for her help.
"In the posting, Breitbart made it appear as though the story had occurred during her time as a federal official and not 24 years ago when she worked for a non-profit organization."
Imagine a white official was filmed saying he purposely refused to help a black family.
Imagine he was fired for this.
Imagine it later turned out he had said it 24 years ago rather than a couple of years ago.
Imagine.
It's easy if you try.
Imagine -- that's what Breitbart and FAUX news did to con everyone into believing their lies and half truths like the one you just implied.
Shirley Sherrod did not only say she "purposely refused to help a black family." I can understand how folks who read Breitbart and watch FAUX News too much would think that because that's what Breitbart and FAUX News said. You'd have to watch the entire video *now* posted at either of those pathetic excuses for media outlets to find out what else she said. Visiting a non-right wing nut media outlet from time to time would teach you what the white farmers in her story themselves say about their dealings with her.
The non-profit she worked for in the 1980's (not the USDA like Breitbart claimed) was set up to help black farmers keep their family farms. When the first white farm couple came to that non-profit and asked her to help them save their own farm, she sent them to a white lawyer to get help rather than help them herself. When that white lawyer didn't help them because they were too poor to pay him, they went back to the non-profit and reported the lawyer didn't help. That's when she realized it was poor farmers who needed help and that poor farmers come in every color of the rainbow.
After the death of her father at the hands of white men who were never charged with any crime when Ms. Sharrod was 17 years old, she made a commitment to stay in rural Georgia and work to improve life for black farmers who lived there. In the 43+ minute speech she made (Breitbart and FAUX show less than 5 minutes of it), she credits God with putting in her path the truth that poverty affects people of all races equally. Starting the day the white farmers returned to the non-profit after being turned down by the white lawyer, Shirley Sharrod worked to help poor farmers save their farms in a colorblind way, regardless of race.
Unlike Breitbart and FAUX News, real journalists have reported (emphasis and information added):
Despite admitting in the edited version of the taping [shown by Breitbart, FAUX News and other right wing website] that she **once withheld help to the couple on the basis of race**, Sherrod was defended Tuesday by the wife of a white Georgia farmer.
Sherrod, "kept us out of bankruptcy," said Eloise Spooner, 82, of Iron City in southwest Georgia. Spooner, in an interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, added she considers Sherrod a "friend for life." She and her husband, Roger Spooner, approached Sherrod for help in 1986 when Sherrod worked for a nonprofit that assisted farmers.
Sherrod, who is African-American, was asked to resign Monday night by a USDA official after videotaped comments she made in March at a local NAACP banquet surfaced on the Web. Recounting her dealings with the Spooners, Sherrod said she didn't help them as much as she could because of their race.
But a review of the entire 43-minute, 15-second speech -- released Tuesday on the NAACP Web site -- showed that Sherrod was giving a cautionary tale about the evils of racial separation.
"When I made that commitment (at age 17 years old to remain in Georgia and help people), I was making that commitment to black people, and to black people only," Sherrod said nearly 15 minutes into the recording, just seconds before the segment that brought her trouble. "But you know, God will ... put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle was really about poor people."
Shirley Sherrod told the tale of her evolution to a higher life form. You really ought to consider trying it sometime, Anon.
"Anonymous":
It might be considered courteous to address the issues that Jim speaks about instead of wandering off of the reservation, monopolizing the discussion with irrelevant issues, and evading the point of his post. That kind of behavior, in itself, says a lot about the acceptance of GLBT in our society.
Those in our communities who are uncomfortable with or who moralize about the existence of GLBT people amongst them often use such tactics to sidestep this issue...because they probably feel that it is an argument they cannot win and, you know, "people might suspect that I am gay if I open my mouth in support of their rights" Egads!
"Is it harder to be gay in a homophobic society than to be a capitalist in a communist country or a communist in modern capitalistic America? Is it harder than being an atheist in Texas, or a Christian in Syria?"
I suspect that one can still be accepted within their families and circle of friends if they are a communist or a capitalist or a Christian in Syria (maybe being an Atheist in Texas would be an exception)and not face the possibility of being cast out...
But, Jim, that is often the one compelling reason why many gay or lesbian folks hide their orientation...and that is the ultimate fear that their own parents, families, and often their friends and work associates, will reject them and withhold the love and support that every person covets and needs.
It is not at all unusual for a closeted gay person to become an oppressor...any attempt to divert suspicion about his/her own orientation is utilized by that person to cover up what he/she fears the most: discovery.
Diogenes
"Someday people will wonder why anybody bothered to discriminate against gay people, of all things."
well, if they're talking about today, they'll be hearing a bunch of historical fiction
gays aren't really discriminates against in any intolerable way
they have their own circle of support, like everyone else and don't deserve specially protected status
they are engaged in behavior most don't agree with and while they aren't embraced by those people, they aren't under any real persecution either
Dio, stop ignoring what a colossal failure Barack Obama is
his incompetence is an overarching issue that touches every other subject
you notice we still have DADT and DOMA a year and a half after he was elected
gays aren't really discriminates against in any intolerable way
they have their own circle of support, like everyone else and don't deserve specially protected status
How would you know about discrimination against gays? Are you gay?
No one is asking for "specially protected status." LGBT people are simply asking for equal rights, for the same rights everyone else has to live and be free to pursue happiness. This is America, we pride ourselves on our founding father's belief that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights.
IMHO it's homophobes like Anon and his shower nut friends who are asking for "specially protected status." They do not want LGBT people to be mentioned in sex education classes and they want folks undergoing or who have undergone sex reassignment treatment to be denied housing, jobs, taxi service, and use of public facilities. They want straights alone to have "specially protected status" with no information in sex ed classes and with no housing, jobs, taxi service and use of public facilities for non-straights. They want to reside in a "specially protected" straights-only world, not in the real world.
"LGBT people are simply asking for equal rights, for the same rights everyone else has to live and be free to pursue happiness."
they have these rights
what they want is for the government to guarantee social acceptance of their desires and behavior
no one has denied them, for example, the right to advocate their views in the sex ed curriculum
what they want to is a guarantee of success
that's special
no one else has it
no can do
let's face it
Barack Obama has been so concerned abiut his liberal agenda that he has failed to deliver on jobs:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance climbed last week, the government said Thursday.
The number of claims was much higher than expected according to the Labor Department. A consensus estimate of economists surveyed by Briefing.com expected new claims to rise but by much less.
"It's very disappointing to have this leading indicator of economic conditions jump higher," said John Lonski, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "This is the latest reminder of a weak labor market, and the jump preserves worries regarding the adequacy of economic growth.""
cut business taxes, baby!
here's something else he screwed because he lacked focus:
"WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced a new strategy for Afghanistan in December, he argued that by setting a deadline of next summer to begin drawing down troops he would create a sense of urgency for the Afghan government to take the lead in the fight, while acknowledging the limits of America’s patience with the longest war in its history.
But over the past two weeks — on Capitol Hill, in Kabul and even in conversations with foreign leaders — Mr. Obama has been reminded of the absence of serious progress this year. There are new doubts, here and abroad, that Mr. Obama will be able to reach even the scaled-down goals he set for America’s mission in the time he laid out in his speech at West Point seven months ago."
how about this affair where Obama jumped at some news report without checking the facts?
can he be trusted?
"The Obama White House is back to a teaching moment on race, once again playing the student.
This time, it tried so hard to steer clear of a black-white controversy that it wound up planting itself firmly in just that kind of a spectacle.
Now, President Barack Obama is trying to fix things with a mea culpa — offered through his spokesman — to ousted Agriculture Department worker Shirley Sherrod. But the incident proves that nearly halfway through his term as the nation's first black president, Obama is still struggling to strike the right balance between taking a stand on race and leading the country past it.
The Sherrod firestorm dragged Obama into an ill-timed debate this week that overshadowed what was supposed to be a high moment for him: signing a significant legislative accomplishment, Wall Street reform, into law. And the incident reinforced the damaging perception that his White House caves too quickly to criticism from the political right.
Sherrod certainly thinks so. She accused the administration of losing its backbone in pushing her out of her job."
what was he thinking?
Obama so far has refused to directly address Sherrod's plight, contrary to his own statements encouraging people to speak more openly about race. His silence leaves unclear whether this flap will fade or continue to steal focus from his message.
I knew that once they read the polls that Democrats would come around to my way of thinking:
"Two more Senate Democrats called for extending tax cuts for all earners—including those with the highest incomes—in what appears to be a breakdown of the party's consensus on the how to handle the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said in an interview Wednesday that Congress shouldn't allow taxes on the wealthy to rise.
In what appears to be a breakdown of party unity, two more Senate Democrats called for extending the Bush-era tax cuts to all earners, including those with highest incomes.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said through a spokesman that he also supported extending all the expiring tax cuts.
They are the second and third Senate Democrats to come out publicly in recent days in favor of extending all the tax breaks. Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) made similar comments last week.
"As a general rule, you don't want to be raising taxes in the midst of a downturn," Mr. Conrad said.
The comments from the senators represent a departure from what appeared to be an emerging unified Democratic stance on the Bush tax cuts, which held that those for the wealthiest Americans should be allowed to expire.
President Barack Obama and most Democrats want to extend only the breaks benefiting taxpayers who make $250,000 or less.
Allowing breaks for higher earners to expire would push the top individual tax rate to 39.6% from 35%, and would raise rates on capital gains and dividends, too.
The breaks enacted in 2001 and 2003, which affect taxpayers of all income levels, expire at the end of this year.
Republicans and many business groups favor extending all the breaks, contending that increasing tax rates will hit small businesses hard. With U.S. employment still weak, some centrist Democrats are agreeing, prompted to change their stance by the still-ugly economic picture.
In addition to Messrs. Conrad, Nelson and Bayh, at least half a dozen House Democrats also have come out publicly in favor of not increasing taxes for higher earners."
The politics of resentment is losing again.
Maybe a rich person will hire some Democrats to do some stuff for them.
You have got to be the most obnoxious s.o.b. in Montgomery County, "Anonymous"
Your ego problem knows no bounds. Why do you insist in trying to take over this blog and make it your own? You are rude, inconsiderate, and boorish.
You definitely suffer from attention deficit disorder. The topic of this post is: "Anti-Gay gay Republican Apologizes". What you have to say about President Obama and your warped views about him are IRRELEVANT - totally off subject...and your persistence in trying to pirate this site for your own purposes is loutish and unwelcome.
If you think anyone here takes what you have to say seriously, you are also delusional. Go get your own blog site.
Derek V. Baker, director of congressional affairs for Americans for Limited Government, said, “Only in Washington can a bill be signed in to law in response to one of America’s greatest financial collapses with two of the prime culprits of the collapse on hand to receive praise for their efforts. Though there are multiple reasons for the housing market collapse and subsequent financial meltdown that ensued, it is a fact that the government policies aggressive pursued and implemented by Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank to rig the market and force lenders to meet artificial loan thresholds and quotas were a driving force behind the 2008 financial crisis as well.
I love anon. He's great !
anon don't take their insults personally.... they do it all the time, they don't know any other way to behave !
that Obama sure pulled a fast one on the American people:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.
The new estimates paint a grim unemployment picture as the economy experiences a jobless recovery. The unemployment rate, presently averaging 9.5 percent, would average 9 percent next year under the new estimates.
The Office of Management and Budget report has ominous news for President Barack Obama should he seek re-election in 2012 -- a still-high unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. That would be well above normal, which is closer to a rate of 5.5 percent. Private economists don't think the unemployment rate will drop to those levels until well into this decade.
The gaping deficits are of increasing concern to voters. But Obama and Democrats controlling Congress are mostly taking a pass on deficit reduction this year.
The current record holder is the $1.41 trillion deficit for 2009.
Economists agree that the most important measure of the deficit is against the size of the economy. Opinions vary, but many economists say a deficit of 3 percent of gross domestic product is sustainable since it would stabilize the overall debt when measured relative to the economy.
The report put the deficit at 10 percent of GDP this year and 9.2 percent of GDP next year. It would never reach the 3 percent figure under Obama's predictions -- which underestimate war costs and depend on assumptions of tax hikes that may not materialize."
ouch!
if we're subsidizing health insurance, why not tax the unhealthy?
"(July 23) -- A tax on fat?
Marco Wanderwitz, a conservative member of parliament for the German state of Saxony, said it is unfair and unsustainable for the taxpayer to carry the entire cost of treating obesity-related illnesses in the public health system.
"I think that it would be sensible if those who deliberately lead unhealthy lives would be held financially accountable for that," Wanderwitz said, according to Reuters.
Germany's health system is paid for by a series of mandatory health insurance funds, all of which are reporting serious deficits as the system is overused.
Germany, famed for its beer, pork and chocolates, is one of the fattest countries in Europe. Twenty-one percent of German adults were obese in 2007, and the German newspaper Bild estimates that the cost of treating obesity-related illnesses is about 17 billion euro, or $21.7 billion, a year."
so that comes back to the questions they were asking of Elena Kagan that she refused to answer. ie, can you make a law about whether you have to eat two vegetables and two fruits every day, and if you did, would such a law be unconstitutional. elana kagan refused to answer the question. One person around the table simply said "well that wasn't a fair question". Liberals, always avoiding the question. Of course it was a fair question..any justice given our socialized medicine might very well be faced with that question. However, I wasn't going to argue with our hosts at dinner so I kept my mouth shut (though I was sure to go into detail with my daughter on the way home why OF COURSE it was a fair question)
this came up around the dinner table at some good friends who were visiting their parents in annapolis.
my daughter simply said, well how would you enforce such a law ? (good question, she is a bright kid).
My extremely liberal old neighbor across the table simply stated that she thought would encourage everyone to be more healthy, which would be a good thing.
Her husband, most of the time an independent, didn't know who Elena Kagan was. His father explained.
that launched a debate into socialized medicine. The father, a high powered executive and never confrontational, simply brought up what had happened to him in Germany when his appendix ruptured. I should learn more from the way executives approach presenting a confronting point, they manage to do so without being confrontational at all.
Germany has socialized medicine. He didn't have an admitting doctor. the hospital wouldn't take him. he laid in his room for 3 days while his wife frantically tried to get someone to help get him admitted. finally, she found a doctor through friends who came and saw him at the hotel. the doctor realized he was dying and got him admitted. It was almost too late. He almost died from that ruptured appendix because the German hospital turned them away 3 days before (even though they offered to pay upfront for all services, money was not the problem). By the way, he had originally been in France when he got sick, and they were advised to go to Germany since they had no hope of getting treated in France.
yet, my neighbor, who lived through that experience with her father in law 15 years ago still wants socialized medicine - because you have to cover the poor people who don't have insurance.
Yes, but you can put that insurance within their reach without breaking the system for everyone else, which is effectively what we have just done.
I know plenty of gay republicans, and soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Ask them if they're discriminated against in this country. Anonymous, you are an unregenerate buffoon.
Robert, you're an idiot.
Here's my astute remark:
"gays aren't really discriminated against in any intolerable way"
you see, we all face discrimination, some justified, some not...
it would really make for a boring world for the government to intervene in all these situations
gays are perfectly capable of coping
nothing INTOLERABLE is happening against gays
they have the same protection and rights everyone else has
and did I remember to say you're an idiot?
Anon claimed
“Here's my astute remark:
“gays aren't really discriminated against in any intolerable way"
“gays are perfectly capable of coping
nothing INTOLERABLE is happening against gays”
A number of children have been harassed about being gay until they committed suicide. In some cases, it’s not even clear that the children even were gay, but a concerted effort on the part of a few bullies was enough end the lives of these precious young people.
I find that intolerable.
In other cases, gay students have been shot to death or attempts were made to throw them off of a cliff.
I find that intolerable.
It does not surprise me that the anons that post here do NOT find that intolerable. I hate to be pedantic and point out the obvious here, but just because YOU don’t find it intolerable, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. I’m sure it’s not intolerable for you at all; in fact, you seem to enjoy it.
Enjoy it while you can.
Because it’s becoming clear that the only place that the Christian Homophobe Agenda might take root is Uganda. More and more Americans are smart enough to see that NOM, the FRC, the WBC, and the other anti-LGBT groups really have no LOGICAL reasons for denying gays the same right that straights have to serve openly in the military, or not to be fired from a job simply for who their partner is, or get married. As the anti-gay groups slowly lose the battle, their propaganda only becomes more desperate, paranoid, and nonsensical.
Polls (I know you love polls, because you always post ones that have something negative to say about Barack Obama – like in 2008, you had post after post showing McCain gaining a percent or two here and there and you were trying to convince us that this was the sign of McCain and Palin’s inevitable triumph) over the last 20 years have shown a slow but steady acceptance of the idea of gays serving openly in the military. The fact that gays couldn’t get married wasn’t even on the radar 20 years ago, now it’s possible in several states, and in a slowly growing number of countries – much to the chagrin of the Catholic Church and other anti-gay denominations.
“they have the same protection and rights everyone else has”
You’ve repeated that sentiment ad nauseum for years. It still isn’t true. Saying it again doesn’t make it less untrue.
That’s why they can’t serve openly in the military, visit a sick loved one in many hospitals, inherit their partner’s estate after they die without a huge tax penalty, or even get married in most states in this country, even though they may well attend a church that would be happy to marry them if they so desired. This is CLEARLY an infringement on their religious freedom. What other religious freedoms should we trample on in the name of “protecting marriage”?
The anti-LGBT folks have often claimed that allowing gays to marry would “destroy the sanctity of marriage.” Yet guys like Larry (8 Divorces) King and Tiger (How Many Mistresses?) Woods are still allowed to marry any woman they can convince to sign papers. Allowing these types of shenanigans to go on unpunished is what has led to the disintegration of marriage, roughly 50% of which now end in divorce. Drive-in wedding chapels probably don’t help either. And from the looks of the data from the Barna report, (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm) only a couple of religions can claim a divorce rate as low as atheists and agnostics – the rest are noticeably higher. This fact can hardly be blamed on the gays, which only make up somewhere between 2 and 4 percent of the population (depending on whose numbers you believe), and have only recently been allowed to marry in a few states.
Interestingly, despite the apocalyptic predictions of the anti-gay lobby, states that have enabled the right gay marriage have faired far better (in the marriage department) than those that have contrived to stop it.
From: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/13/14120/4811/Front_Page/Christian_Right_Wrong_On_Gay_Marriage_in_Massachusetts
“In 2003, total divorces in Massachusetts declined 2.1% relative to 2002. But in the first two years of legal same sex marriage in the Bay State, Massachusetts showed a more rapid decline and will very likely hold on to its title as the US state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The field is hotly contested -- divorce rates have fallen dramatically in the last few decades.
The institution of marriage in Massachusetts, as measured by the rate of divorce, has not been healthier in at least half a century regardless of dire predictions of Christian Right leaders and Catholic Bishops. But the states that have taken aggressive action against same sex marriage, have not done nearly as well during the two year period of legal same sex marriage in Massachusetts.
The preliminary data from 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 -- from the 17 US states which have provided data on divorce for 2004 and 2005 and whose voters also passed state constitutional amendents (sic) prohibiting same sex marriage -- presents a striking picture : the group of US states arguably most hostile to divorce, those which have passed both state laws and also state constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage, lag dramatically in terms of divorce rate improvement when compared to same sex marriage friendly states.
Among those US states that have no laws on the books specifically prohibiting same sex marriage or civil unions -- WY, NM, NY, MA, RI, CT, NJ, MD, VT -- the average divorce rate drop ( unadjusted for population changes ) was -8.74%. No states in this group had divorce rate increases in 2004 and 2005.
Among those US states that are most opposed to same sex marriage which have also provided divorce data for the time period -- ( alaska ? ) AR, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, ND, OH, OK, OR, UT, TX -- the average divorce rate ( unadjusted for population changes ) for 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 increased 1.75%. This group contains 4 of the 5 states with the highest divorce rate increases in the US during 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005.
(states in the second group may have on average a higher population growth rate but that will not change the almost 10.5% gap between the two groups more than a few percentage points )”
“you see, we all face discrimination, some justified, some not...”
No, discrimination is NEVER justifiable. I am referring to the portion of the definition of discrimination that reads (from dictionary.com):
“treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.”
Note that this does NOT preclude not hiring someone because their merits (i.e. specific job skills relevant to the application) are not as good as another candidate’s. If you deny someone a job because you don’t like their religion or their partner, you have just discriminated without justification. I’m sure you have an EXCUSE for it – but no justification.
Anon noted:
“it would really make for a boring world for the government to intervene in all these situations”
Indeed. It time for the government to end the intervention and stop coddling the homophobes. They’ve held sway for quite long enough.
We should get the government out of intervening in determining the sex and / or gender of the person we wish to marry. After all, it’s not the government that has to live with the other person – it’s none of their darned business. And if Massachusetts is any indication, maybe allowing the gays to marry will actually save heterosexual marriages.
I can just see it now:
“Bob, I can’t take this anymore, our marriage isn’t working – I want a divorce.”
“Celine, we CAN’T get a divorce, at least not now.”
“Why not BOB – are you waiting for a sign from God?”
“No. We got married the same summer that Steve and Eddie next door did – and we can’t get divorced before they do – because we’re HETEROSEXUALS – and if we get divorced before those homos do, it will be an EPIC FAIL.”
Have a nice day.
Cynthia
"A number of children have been harassed about being gay until they committed suicide. In some cases, it’s not even clear that the children even were gay, but a concerted effort on the part of a few bullies was enough end the lives of these precious young people.
I find that intolerable."
That has happened for a many reasons: kids are teased for being ugly or stupid or not dressing cool or yada yada
it's real but not something that is well handled by government intervention
certainly not discrimination laws
"In other cases, gay students have been shot to death or attempts were made to throw them off of a cliff.
I find that intolerable."
We all do, cynco.
This why we have laws against shooting people and throwing them off cliffs.
You notice I said "people" and not gay students.
Mixed-up individuals like cynco and assorted TTFers (mostly fruits and nuts with a few caramels) don't seem to realize that gays are people and all those laws we have protecting people apply to them too.
"It does not surprise me that the anons that post here do NOT find that intolerable. I hate to be pedantic and point out the obvious here, but just because YOU don’t find it intolerable, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. I’m sure it’s not intolerable for you at all; in fact, you seem to enjoy it."
I hate to be pedantic and point out the obvious here, but discrimination laws treating gays as a specially protected class will not decrease the likelihood of their being attacked.
cynco is stupid
"We should get the government out of intervening in determining the sex and / or gender of the person we wish to marry."
that was actually settled long ago by God when he created marriage
government simply is recognizing that this arrangement, instituted by God, is beneficial to a society and worthy of support
it's not likely any governemnt will recognize the same about gay sex partnerships as there is no evidence they beneit society
Anon claimed:
“Mixed-up individuals like cynco and assorted TTFers (mostly fruits and nuts with a few caramels) don't seem to realize that gays are people and all those laws we have protecting people apply to them too.”
Glad to hear you consider us “people” Anon, that doesn’t always seem to be the case. And actually I do realize there are laws against assault, murder, etc. that apply to everyone. But that isn’t enough and we can do better.
The animus harbored by homophobes is particularly prone to violent expression, and that is a threat to our entire society, not just gays. Here are but two examples:
Two Latino brothers walking home after a party at their Catholic Church and some bar hopping are found by a gang of gays driving around who think they’re gay because they happen to have an arm around each other (one of them has his brain bashed in with a baseball bat):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/nyregion/09assault.html
Then there was the Minnesota guy walking out of a gay bar who was assaulted by a construction worker because he thought the guy was gay. If you read the story below, the victim’s wife was pretty surprised gay bashing still happens:
http://www.minnesotaindependent.com/4254/35w-bridge-workers-accused-in-anti-gay-assault
The people who perpetrate violent crimes against gays seem to suffer from intermittent total lapses of self control that end up with brutal and sometimes deadly consequences, and they can’t always distinguish the gays from the straights. A hate crime enhancement to their punishment keeps these violence prone people off the streets a little longer and that is a safety issue for our entire society, not just gays. Consider it just another venue to be “tough on crime.”
I should also note that our legal system includes a legal defense called “gay panic,” which tries to convince jurors that the perpetrator of a crime is legally not culpable because they had a case of temporary insanity suddenly induced by the alleged murderer finding out that their (soon to be) victim was gay, and he didn’t want to believe he was gay too. Interestingly, we don’t have a similar “Catholic Priest panic” defense wherein the murderer claims that he had a case of temporary insanity induced by finding out that the guy playing with his children in the playground was a Catholic priest, and he thought that the priest’s overtures were a prelude to molestation. Until the “gay panic” defense is viewed by society as laughable as the “Catholic Priest” defense, our legal system has a problem.
Anon noted:
“I hate to be pedantic and point out the obvious here, but discrimination laws treating gays as a specially protected class will not decrease the likelihood of their being attacked.”
By themselves, no, anti-discrimination laws that put gays as a “specially protected class” on the same footing as Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Evangelicals, Scientologists, Moonies, and Branch Dividians will not suddenly decrease their incidences of being assaulted. However, as more people find out that some of their co-workers whom they’ve been working with for years and perhaps have even built up a friendship with are simply just gay, and not an abomination sent by Satan to destroy society, there is reason to hope that the pervasive animus against the LGBT community will slowly dissipate. And maybe one day, when someone finds out the person they just hired is gay, they’ll say “so what?”
Anon asserted:
“cynco is stupid”
Since you seem to be in the mood for evaluating intelligence, I was wondering how you might score the Anons, most of whom, even after posting here for several years and having seen numerous examples, have yet to master punctuation or capitalization, much less the paragraph form.
Case in point:
“that was actually settled long ago by God when he created marriage”
This only seems makes it more ironic that agnostics and atheists are in a 3-way tie with Catholics and Lutherans for the lowest divorce rate, while that of Baptists, Jews, and non-denominational Evangelicals are nearly 50% higher.
You are of course entitled to your beliefs. Some people also believe that the bible endorses polygamy, slavery, stoning adulterers, and killing disobedient children. Most of our society has decided that these beliefs, despite their origins in the bible, are not conducive to a healthy society. And since we have a government that used to aspire to a separation of church and state, we should allow people to have those beliefs, but not act on them in any way that would infringe in another person’s life, liberty, or their pursuit of happiness.
And another:
“it's not likely any governemnt (sic) will recognize the same about gay sex partnerships as there is no evidence they beneit (sic) society”
Ooops, too late, I guess you missed the news about Argentina last week:
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=2002209
Of course, the fact that the states with the lowest divorce rates include those that allow gays to marry, and many of the “Bible belt” states have some of the highest divorce rates may just be a fluke, or it may be God trying to tell us something.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
cyco
could you explain why you think the rate of divorce has any relevance to whether God created the institution of marriage?
maybe you could shed some light on what traspires in that Palace of Non Sequitur that the bugs built in your brain
I know it's summer, but you might want to consider ear muffs
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon asked:
“could you explain why you think the rate of divorce has any relevance to whether God created the institution of marriage?”
I thought that would have been obvious to the Anons here who so frequently argue for preserving the “sanctity of marriage,” and want to limit those who can enter it in order to maintain that sanctity. Perhaps your question is emblematic of a larger public ignorance of the VERY low tolerance for divorce noted in the bible. I’d be happy to expand on that.
However, before I do, perhaps we should back up a step and find a common reference to work from. I usually don’t use religious arguments in my posts as there are so many interpretations of the bible it’s hard to know what the “appropriate” conclusions one should draw unless you know which version of the bible someone is using, and their particular choice of interpretation.
For example, in one notable sect in our country, marriage is only an “earthly” binding, and can be surpassed and carried into the afterlife along with one’s family with a “sealing” carried out in a temple. If one is righteous enough in this life with their family, tithing, etc., then they will be rewarded with their own planet to lord over in the celestial kingdom. However, this interesting little sidebar may best be saved for a later discussion.
Let’s go back to the statement that originally prompted my comment:
“that was actually settled long ago by God when he created marriage”
In order to get us all on the same page, and so I can engage in the most cogent discussion of your points, can you please explain the evidence (i.e. proof) that God created marriage?
And in case folks want some background information, here is an interesting article on history of marriage in our western civilization:
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
Anon opined:
“maybe you could shed some light on what traspires (sic) in that Palace of Non Sequitur that the bugs built in your brain”
Well, it seems I have evolved! Up to the kingdom Animalia – and a chordate to boot! In your last post I had only managed kingdom Plantae. (“Mixed-up individuals like cynco and assorted TTFers (mostly fruits and nuts with a few caramels)”)
You are of course again welcome to attempt ineffectual snarky denigration.
“I know it's summer, but you might want to consider ear muffs”
I went shopping last weekend, found some very nice blouses and a black dress with a beautiful stylized print of a common arthropod. I didn’t see any ear muffs on sale though.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Suggestion: Maybe "Anonymous" should consider taking his ear muffs OFF...maybe then he could open his closed mind to information that would improve his impoverished life and enable him to enjoy and celebrate the diversity of humans on this planet!
cynco, it's always fun to read your posts
now that you've become a chordate, perhaps you can push evolution further and become one of those glowing brains in glass jars that the Starship Enterprise was always encountering
God created the institution of marriage in the opening chapters of Genesis
while some may believe the early Genesis stories to be allegorical, it seems that references to the stories by later individuals whose existence is generally conceded by most, especially Jesus himself, would tend to indicate that they are literal accounts
so, there's a common reference point
go ahead and "expand on that"
in the year 2525....
Anon noted:
“cynco, it's always fun to read your posts”
Glad you enjoy them Anon. I like to think that at the very least my posts are a novel diversion from the monotonic epithet expectorations of certain folks who shall remain “Anonymous.”
“now that you've become a chordate, perhaps you can push evolution further and become one of those glowing brains in glass jars that the Starship Enterprise was always encountering”
I LOVE Star Trek! I’m pretty happy being chordate too. Mr. Warf got a new spine in one episode though, and I’ve often wished that Dr. Crusher could do the same with mine – I’ve got several spinal anomalies that keep me in constant pain.
“God created the institution of marriage in the opening chapters of Genesis”
Excellent choice – we’ll start at the beginning then.
“while some may believe the early Genesis stories to be allegorical, it seems that references to the stories by later individuals whose existence is generally conceded by most, especially Jesus himself, would tend to indicate that they are literal accounts”
Hmmm, I have some difficulties buying the “literal” part of that.
“so, there's a common reference point
go ahead and "expand on that”
I certainly will. Unfortunately I will be travelling a lot in the next few days so I won’t be able to spend much time on this, but I’ll see what I can squeeze in.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
you have a good one too, cynco, and don't spend too much time where the sun don't shine!
"God created the institution of marriage in the opening chapters of Genesis"
And God changed those laws in the time of Moses, when the law forbidding marriage between close relatives was given (Leviticus 18-20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God's law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters like Adam's and Eve's children) married each other.
Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.
the man and woman character of marriage is fundamental to all that followed
it wasn't just the union of two people but two complemetary types of people
homosexuals don't complement anything
Post a Comment
<< Home