I understand that there's a difference, legally-speaking, between pleading guilty to a criminal offense and tacitly confessing to a crime you haven't - and probably won't - be charged with, but I still think it's unfortunate that Larry Craig might be forced to resign by his fellow Republicans, while David Vitter has apparently survived being outed as a client of a major D.C. prostitution ring. I agree with Megan that what Craig did was arguably a greater betrayal of his wife than what Vitter may have done, but from any social-conservative calculus (or at least my social-conservative calculus) prostitution has to be considered a greater social evil than cruising for gay sex in bathrooms. This relates to a point I fumbled through in my conversation with Mark yesterday - the unfortunate extent to which socially-conservative politicians have focused their fire on gays, because opposing gay rights was for a long time an 80-20 issue for the Right (though no longer), while studiously ignoring the various beams in heterosexuals' eyes. It's a hard pattern to break, but the GOP could find worse places to start than making sure that Vitter shares whatever political fate awaits Larry Craig.
« Anti-Americanism, Again | Main | The Politics of Mad Men » Social Conservatism and Double Standards29 Aug 2007 04:45 pm Comments (79)
It seems like a lot of social conservative commentators haven't really shed their strong opposition to homosexuality even as they find it necessary to avoid directly conveying that antipathy. So instead of coming right out and saying, "Look, we just think homosexuality is wrong", social conservatives end up merely mocking gays and lesbians. Take, for example, the National Review cover soon after the Lawrence v. Texas decision--a cartoon of a very fey gay couple walking down the aisle with the liberal Supreme Court justices celebrating on either side. Even if you think gay marriage is wrong, does the idea of a wedding really inspire that much dread in you? Is there any need to portray two people's happiness so contemptuously? That kind of thing seems much more mean-spirited to me than the old-fashioned, explicitly religious opposition to gay rights. 
Moe's two reasons sound about right. #1 is the kicker, clearly. Vitter loses a seat, Craig saves a seat. Not a very complicated decision from the straightforward political calculus POV. Also, there is a general expectation, morality aside, that DC politicians may be sleazy types who hire high-end call girls -- read any racy political potboiler! Vitter clearly was a scumbag, but hey, scumbags are a dime a dozen. I think hiring a hooker is just closer to most people's "well, I could see myself if I was a politician and a worse person than I am doing _that_" -- while Craig looks like a complete freak. There's a subset of the gay male population that thinks trolling for sex in airport bathrooms is outlier behavior, and a much much larger subset of the Idaho population. If your scandal marks you as bad, you may survive, but if it marks you as outlandish in the eyes of your constituency, you're toast.
TMoC says: "If your scandal marks you as bad, you may survive, but if it marks you as outlandish in the eyes of your constituency, you're toast." Of course it's not the constituency that the GOP leadership cares about here, but that's probably true. The leadership also knows that Craig will end up getting whacked next year by a GOP challenger, but contribution money will be slim enough as it is, and splitting it between two Republicans won't help in the general election. By all accounts the Dems will be much better financed for the coming election. It's much better for the GOP to have their next Presumed-Straight White Male Cranky Wingnut from Idaho in the Senate right now.
I think we're discounting another possibility, which is that a sufficient number of the Republican Senators actually do think homosexuality is immoral, and therefore don't want to have to think about there being openly gay members. I mean, clearly for Inhofe and Coburn the anti-gay bits of social conservatism are not just a charade, and I would imagine that's true for a number of other Senators (Thune? Chambliss? Cornyn?) I would have to believe that at least 25 of the 49 GOP Senators actually dislike gay people.
Yes, but probably at least 25 of the 49 GOP Senators also think sleeping with prostitutes is immoral. I'd hope more than 25 think anonymous bathroom sex is not just immoral but pretty seriously immoral.
I love your angle, Nicholas - they're not cynical, experienced pols, they're just bigots! Except I highly doubt they didn't already know Craig was gay - and Republicans, even the truly out-there ones like Inhofe and Coburn - would never call for Craig to step down if it actually harmed their party's standing. Are you saying they're not asking Vitter to resign because they don't think banging hookers is immoral? Or have they just not asked WWJD about that case yet?
Republicans, even the truly out-there ones like Inhofe and Coburn - would never call for Craig to step down if it actually harmed their party's standing This is true. Just look at what Hastert and his crew planned to do about Mark Foley in an election year: Cover It Up And Get Through November. I still think the wacky senatorial duo from Okie, along with a few others, are big fat bigots and hate the gays. But still: Party considerations come first.
Woody Bombay says: "I still think the wacky senatorial duo from Okie, along with a few others, are big fat bigots and hate the gays. But still: Party considerations come first." Big grin at "the gays." But yeah, with this crowd the Party comes first - before Jesus and certainly before country. Just watch how the Coburns and Inhofes will fall in line behind Rudy G and his pro-choice, pro-gay record if he gets the nomination. The only way any of them will step away is if it looks like there's no way he can win.
I don't see why patronizing a call service should be worse than soliciting public sex. At least with a call service, the particiants can find each other without bothering bystanders. Don't you think that salaciously poking the foot of a perfect stranger who may very well just be trying to go to the bathroom is a pretty obnoxious thing to do?
The most important thing to come out of this is that I'm going to keep my feet darn close together from now on when I'm going to the bathroom in an airport. Geez, I was in that Minneapolis one not too awful long ago.
Why is it that these men are not "repressed bi-sexuals" or straight guy looking for easy sex & so forth. It doesn’t take a lot of empathy for human sexuality and distance from gay propaganda to realize that the simplistic notion of closeted gays lurking in repressed hiding is overwrought. Does this gentleman not love his wife (and is sexually attracted to her)
Fitz writes: "Why is it that these men are not "repressed bi-sexuals" or straight guy looking for easy sex & so forth. It doesn’t take a lot of empathy for human sexuality and distance from gay propaganda to realize that the simplistic notion of closeted gays lurking in repressed hiding is overwrought. Does this gentleman not love his wife (and is sexually attracted to her)" Well, let's see - The stories about Craig go back 40 years, including one when he was in college. In 1982 he made an odd public statement denying he was involved in the page scandal despite the fact that no one had said he was. A few months later he married a staffer who already had three kids. Last year the story surfaced that he had engaged in bathroom sex with several men. He denied it. This year he pled guilty to lewd conduct involving very specific behavior. His press conference was exceptionally odd and his wife stood there like the penguin on the television set. Is there anything that indicates this guy is sexually attracted to any woman, let alone his beard, um, I mean his wife?
Anne writes: "I don't see why patronizing a call service should be worse than soliciting public sex." Did anyone say it was? Who are you addressing/debunking?
Publicly soliciting sex. Not soliciting public sex, and not (exactly) soliciting sex in public. I really doubt Craig wanted to actually do it in public.
Things ought to change once Ross's post gets read by GOP politicians and commentators. They're nothing if not unstinting in their pursuit of intellectual honesty and coherence.
Here's one reason I might disagree -- if Craig's restroom encounter was who he is rather than a stupid mistake, and he's been living a fake marriage with children all these years in order to gain access to the halls of GOP power, then that is a worse crime than either the restroom encounter or visiting a prostitute, and merits a more severe punishment.
johnMcG writes: "Here's one reason I might disagree -- if Craig's restroom encounter was who he is rather than a stupid mistake, and he's been living a fake marriage with children all these years in order to gain access to the halls of GOP power, then that is a worse crime than either the restroom encounter or visiting a prostitute, and merits a more severe punishment." Since the stories about him predate the marriage and the kids aren't his, I think it's quite possible that the marriage was a sham from the beginning. Either way the marriage is no crime and there's no legal punishment accrued from it. If the marriage breaks up at this point, though, he may have some huge financial problems depending on the vagaries of Idaho law. What a mess.
MoeAndLarry, I think there's a difference, for some SoCons, between an immoral act (Vitter) and an person who's existence is immoral (Craig). There's just no redemption for Craig.
It may not be a legal crime, but coming from Ross's main point, is a serious blow to any kind of "family values."
aside from the good point that Vitter holds a contested seat and Craig does not, there's this distinction - more people will be grossed out by what Craig did (esp in Idaho) than what Vitter did (esp in La). this may not matter on the morality scale, but it does on the political scale.
Nicholas Beaudrot "I think there's a difference, for some SoCons, between an immoral act (Vitter) and an person who's existence is immoral (Craig). There's just no redemption for Craig. Not if these "SoCons" are Christian, if they are that - then they know well; every man is redeemable.
But yeah, with this crowd the Party comes first - before Jesus and certainly before country. Please, with any crowd Party comes first. Like it or not that's how this country is set up. You could almost say putting Party first IS putting country first, i.e. following the dictates of how our two-party system was intended to play out. I mean, that's only slightly spurious. This whole Larry Craig business is just politics. Even the die hard bigots in the GOP can't ever really express their bigotry in anything other than politically calculated terms. Morals don't really matter, except insofar as the appearance of this or that morality wins you elections.
Bill's rather too cynical. I think that politicians on both sides occasionally do something because _they think it is the right thing to do for the country_, not because it has great political merits. At least some policies are tricky to explain otherwise -- does Brownback actually think Darfur is winning him any votes? Or prison reform? Most of the people in Washington (or your state house) want power, sure, but a good number of them wanted it in order to do good. Heck, that's what makes some of them so dangerous. That said, when it comes to things like this, yeah, most politicians are going to make the political calculation first.
I don't like the idea of "double standards" and comparing heterosexual pecadillos and homosexual ones. As a soc-con I think homosexuality is worse because it also injures non-sexual relations between men, and is normatively more perverted. Second, as I understand it Vitter had ceased his prostitute service activity and patched up his marriage. By the time it came out it was old news. If he does it again he is toast. Craig is new news and he does not seem reformed. He was being followed by his local news paper on this issue but did it anyway. There is something pathological and unbalanced about that. Also, even patronizing homosexual prostitutes seems to do less damage than trolling public bathrooms-see Barney Frank.
Marquis: At least some policies are tricky to explain otherwise -- does Brownback actually think Darfur is winning him any votes? Or prison reform? Most of the people in Washington (or your state house) want power, sure, but a good number of them wanted it in order to do good. Heck, that's what makes some of them so dangerous. Putting Party first really means avoiding taking positions or acting in ways that would hurt the Party. Brownback's position on Darfur may not win him any votes (he probably thinks it does, taking a moral stand and all) but if it was a net negative for the GOP you could be certain he or his position wouldn't be around for long. Anyway it isn't a universal truth - there will always be exceptions among individual players and stances. That said, when it comes to things like this, yeah, most politicians are going to make the political calculation first. I think most lawmakers don't have a choice. You start off believing what you believe, but idealism doesn't survive in politics, which as everyone knows is all about compromise. Therefore the only thing to consider about Larry Craig is whether his actions make him a political liability. I think it's fair to say that illegal gay bathroom sex works out to be a net negative regardless of what party you're talking about.
Totally agreed on Vitter, Ross D. BTW, no one who uses the term 'Christianist' is worth taking seriously.
What a year the Republicans are having to require judgments such as "prostitution has to be considered a greater social evil than cruising for gay sex in bathrooms."
As a soc-con I think homosexuality is worse because it also injures non-sexual relations between men, and is normatively more perverted. Well, I'm sure that's quite convincing to the substantive voting bloc of today's Americans who were recently teleported forward in time from 1947. As for the thesis that Craig's non-paying adulterous sex with a man was a greater betrayal of his wife than Vitter's adulterous paid sex with several women...this is because why? Because the gays has the AIDS? Oh, brother. Can you at least try not to sound utterly cretinous? Not adopting the public health views of Thabo Mbeki, Robert Mugabe and Muammar Qaddafi would be a good place to start. Incidentally, lemon and garlic actually don't work against HIV, and you can't get it from a blowjob, or even from a yucky man-kiss. Who knew!
Anne writes: "I don't see why patronizing a call service should be worse than soliciting public sex." Did anyone say it was? Who are you addressing/debunking? Moe, She is debunking Ross who said, "from any social-conservative calculus (or at least my social-conservative calculus) prostitution has to be considered a greater social evil than cruising for gay sex in bathrooms." Do you read the posts?
Brooksfoe, I could be wrong, but my guess is that most spouses would feel doubly wronged if their spouse is revealed to be not only a cheater but attracted to a different sex. After all, a marriage can survive an affair - take the Clintons for ex. Not sure how it survives if the husband actually likes guys.
Craig is clearly beyond the senatorial pale with this egregious sexual behavior in a public bathroom compounded with risible lying about a guilty plea. The Republicans who hold principled positions on the subject of gay marriage are quite properly pressuring this sleazy character to resign. The worse things the Republicans could do would be to follow the Democrat example of keeping and reelecting such characters as Studds, Frank, and Jefferson.
Well, to be fair -- I'm a cranky mean-spirited social conservative. And Barney Frank in some ways is one of the Democrats I _like_ best in Congress.
Both offenses are equally immoral, I think. But Vitter has owned up to his failing, expressed contrition, and moved on. Anyone deserves a second chance, IMO, assuming they demonstrate some level of contrition. Craig, who remains in stubborn denial of the plainly obvious, has done no such thing.
The history matters. If Vitter was banging random women in bar restrooms and had a history of this behavior going back years, I think he'd be shown the door as well. Craig also appears to have lied to a cop.
Anyone deserves a second chance, IMO, assuming they demonstrate some level of contrition. Well, sure, but forgiveness doesn't require keeping someone in the Senate. And I think if Vitter hasn't resigned, his 'contrition' is questionable.
"focused their fire on gays" Oh please do not pander to the pathetic liberal belief that all opposition to their positions is driven by wickedness and bigotry! Social conservatism is ultimately reactive and defensive at this time. As a movement it has reacted and defended against the attacks on traditional morality that have come mostly recently, most strongly from the gay movement. Some of this movement's activites have been focused on getting the government out of their face. But most of the movement has been focused on getting the government to back the gay agenda and to punish the opponents of the gay agenda. This is most obvious in some other countries, like Britain and Canada where people have been sanctioned by the state for saying things that are allegedly offensive to gays. In our country the most obvious example of this is the gay marriage movement. Of course gays can marry and hold themselves out as such if they want, they can do that now. But with gay marriage they have the power to force others to recognize this relationship against their will.
Senator Craig's milkshake brings all the Boise to the yard.
"In our country the most obvious example of this is the gay marriage movement. Of course gays can marry and hold themselves out as such if they want, they can do that now. But with gay marriage they have the power to force others to recognize this relationship against their will." BH: Aren't you equivocating on the terms "marriage" and/or "marry" here? Quite obviously "marriage" is meant, insofar as the gay "marriage" movement is concerned, to be the legal status of marriage and the rights attendant thereof. Gay men and women CANNOT "marry" in that sense and cannot "hold themselves out as" married right now. As a gay man, I could care less what you or others think of my relationship with my partner or whether you "recognize" it at all. What I do want, however, is to be able to enjoy the same rights in a stable committed relationship vis-a-vis the state that can be enjoyed by heterosexual couples. The mere fact that the provision of certain rights to a group of persons is imposed "against the will" of some portion of the US population is not, in itself, relevant to whether those rights should (or will) be granted. If the denial of such rights from the given group of persons is deemed to be a Constitutional violation, then it's entirely irrelevant what portion of the US population opposed the denial of those rights. That's part of what the Constitution is meant to do: protect minority rights. Where denial of such rights from the given group of persons is deemed NOT to be Constitutional violation (as I assume you would say is the case with most states denial of a gay person's right to marry their chosen, consenting partner), then the fact that gay marriage would "force others to recognize this relationship against their will" is only relevant to the extent that a majority of the population of the state (or governmental unit) agrees with that sentiment. For the moment, it seems that the voting population in many areas of this country (if not most) are on your side. Thankfully, the trends are going in the right direction and towards support of gay marriage, in some form. The important thing to realize, BH, is that the gay marriage movement is NOT about you. Nor is about any of the people who don't feel like recognizing gay relationships. Whether or not my partner and I can file jointly on our federal and state taxes does not impact your life nearly to the extent as it impacts mine. Whether or not my partner and I can avail ourselves of laws surrounding the transfer of assets upon the death of a spouse does not impact your life nearly to the extent it impacts mine. Whether or not I am denied the ability to visit my partner in a hospital due to local laws only allowing "family" visitation does not impact your life nearly to the extent it impacts mine. Whether or not I am allowed to make medical decisions on behalf of my partner does not impact your life nearly to the extent it impacts mine. Some subset of these rights are available by contract. But not all of them. And many other rights are unavailable to me, as well. But fundamentally this is about me and people like me. And the burden of the denial of marriage rights on a gay person is infinitely greater than the burden people like you would suffer by having to abstractly "recognize" my relationship (where "recognizing" the relationship amounts, in its entierty, of refraining from using the power of the state to deny a group of people a set of rights entirely avaiable to those who are orchestrating that denial).
David “If the denial of such rights from the given group of persons is deemed to be a Constitutional violation, then it's entirely irrelevant what portion of the US population opposed the denial of those rights. That's part of what the Constitution is meant to do: protect minority rights.” “But fundamentally this is about me and people like me. And the burden of the denial of marriage rights on a gay person is infinitely greater than the burden people like you would suffer by having to abstractly "recognize" my relationship.” You are assuming too much. Chiefly that extending marriage “rights” to same-sex couples only impacts society in an abstract way. This is manifestly not the case. Rather than just extending benefits to a larger group of people; same sex “marriage” necessarily changes the very concept of marriage for the society as a whole. You seem to be engaging in the very rhetorical slight of hand that the Washington Court properly recognized as a conscious obviation around the core issue. “To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.” 2
Numerous legal scholars, some very much in favor of gay marriage, agree that there are looming battles, if gay marriage happens, between the full right of that marriage and religious freedom. The forced withdrawal, in MA and the UK, of the Catholic Church from its long-standing role as an adoption services provider, was just a start. Recall how Bob Jones University lost public funding because of its opposition to interracial marriage -- Bob Jones was wrong, but the precedent isn't appealing for any orthodox Christian who thinks that traditional sexual morality (with respect to homosexuality at least) may someday be the kind of minority abhorred view that racial segregation is now. But that's precisely what gay marriage advocates are after.
That you so quickly move to public health as my supposed view as the reason it is more repellant behavior marks you as a "thoroughly modern Millie" on this subject. I do not support either Vitter's actions or Craigs but Craig's are worse both because homosexual activity is objectively worse than heterosexual activity and because it is continuing unrepentant behavior. What Justice Kennedy called "acts common to the homosexual lifestyle" in Lawrence remain creepy, and the widespread (on the internet) support for his activities if he were an open homosexual are a large reason why those of us who would rather not think about this subject oppose the "gay agenda." A bunch of folks who think it ok to proposition (and then sodomize) other men in a public restroom are not those I want in charge of public policy on any subject. That would be so in 1947, 1958, 1968, 1988 any portion of the 90's and today. Homosexual attraction may, in part or in the main, in men determined in the womb. The society's response to it need not be permissive if that turns out to be the fact. I suspect most men remain attracted on some level to a large number of younger women throughout their lives. It is not in society's (or the individuals) interest to have them act all of those attractions either. Homosexualists have had much success in arguing homosexual and heterosexual sex are coequal. They are not. If everybody did it there'd be nobody is my flippant response but societal acceptance of open same sex attraction has a host of other bad effects and the public bathrooms are only one problem.
Brooksfoe [re: jjv] Can you at least try not to sound utterly cretinous? Actually, jjv made reasonable remarks, however objectionable to the gay view. The gay militants are often involved in this sort of crude ad hominem polemic with social conservatives. Apparently, they smoke their own politically correct dope.
same sex “marriage” necessarily changes the very concept of marriage for the society as a whole. I've heard this before, but usually in the manner of argument by assertion, so: In concrete terms, what does this mean, exactly? That is, what are you suggesting would be the negative impact on me if David gains the legal right of marriage with his partner? jjv: I am refreshed by your honesty (I do not mean this as snark) -- not everyone is willing to admit that the homosexuality itself is part of their response, which was the initial point. But I am wondering what the "objectively" refers to -- the descriptions you apply ("creepy" and "would rather not think about this subject") seem decidedly subjective.
Brad L, Judeo-Christian marriage traditionally and ideally involves a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman in order that they may bear and properly nurture children. This is a core part of Western and indeed most other civilized order, though you may disparage it as pretentious ideology. As to homosexuality being objectively worse than heterosexual sex, that comes from the natural law view that homosexuality is objectively, however compulsive, a disorder of nature and nature's God. You might view this as as absurd and heady stuff from the point of view of a romantic left-liberal, though it is at the heart of the very real culture war we're fighting.
That jjv's views on homosexuality are timeless is simply an indication that for a portion of humanity bigotry is timeless. For a portion of humanity racism and patriarchal domination of women is also timless - hardly a convincing argument for a revival of slavery or Jim Crow, or for the outlawing of abortion, contraception, or the universal franchise. Whether bigotry is a majority or a minoritry sentiment is irrelevant to the reality of its irrational and invidious social effects - its only relevant to its scope. Reactionaries must exploit public ignorance and couch their desires to dominate and punish those they fear may gain freedom and equality in pseudo-scientific claptrap or fundamentalist obscurantism - its really no different among Nazis or the KKK, among Wahabis or Catholics. Thus we have jjv's moronic observation that if everybody did it there'd be nobody - as if homosexuals recruit among heterosexuals, as if sexual orientation were a "choice". This one is right up there with the idea that "miscegenation" threatens the "white race" with "mongrelization". There is no point in politely pretending that this is an argument about religious freedom, or the regulation of prostitution or public sex. This is an argument about using the state as an instrument of oppression against women and homosexuals, or any other traditional scapegoat of patriarchal domination. We who defend enlightenment, democracy and equality - and are capable of living with the ineviatable tension between them - are not responsible for jjv's ignorance, much less his stupidity, on this subject, any more than we are responsible for the ignorance and stupidity of Pat Robertson, David Duke, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the Pope. The hope that history will condemn these figures and their doctrines to lasting infamy will come to naught if we don't exercise our real responsiblity to organize and fight to politically defeat them now, while they still poison the world with their hate and cause immeasurable suffering for millions of human beings.
A point for Mr. Riehle; I don't hate anybody because of their sexuality. I believe that a laisse faire attitude to sexual behavior has bad consequences and I dislike and oppose political support for that attitude whatever the nature of the person's sexuality espousing it. I believe that those people and nations that adopt the homosexualist ethos diminish in population, and purpose. I believe this not soley from my religious belief but because of observable facts. I don't go around calling you a Communist (although were I to mimic you I could describe your agenda as a radical atheistic project to impose a vision of man at odds with stubborn reality without the consent of the governed). I would expect the same courtesy. As to bigotry, is your mind open to the idea that homosexuality is objectively disordered? Will you even consider it? If there is a "gay gene" or hormone can we spend public funds on changing it if parents want? If not why not? Are all the questions about sexuality and the public sphere answered by a reflexive resort to "anything goes?" Is any thought required? May we ask why lesbianism differs from male homosexuality (sheltered as I am I have never heard of lesbians trolling for bathroom sex). Bisexuality, transgenderism differ from pure homosexuality and may make demands that we change our familial institutions. Apparently, failure to do so is Wahabism. What will these changed norms and institutions do to the behavior of the heterosexual majority? What have the changed norms and behaviors as to sex done to them since 1964? Forgive me if I am not sanguine about the answers to these questions. Your seething hatred of the Roman Catholic Church, which at this moment is caring form more homosexuals afflicted with AIDS than any other organization on earth, belies your assertions of love and tolerance. The mere fact of disagreement with you, even when it emerges from millenia of study of philosophers asking the question "How should men live." is dismissed as "bigotry." In John Kennedy's America of 1962 homosexual acts were slightly criminalized in almost every state. America was a free country and not Nazi Germany. In Ronald Reagan's America of 1986 Bowers was the law of the land and same-sex "Marriage" had not been foisted on an unwilling public. America of 1986 was not a Wahabi outpost. In GWB's American of 2007 trolling for sodomy in public restrooms is still illegal and frowned upon. It is not Orwell's 1984. Attempt for once to fashion an argument without resort to Jim Crow, Nazis or 16th century attitudes towards women. It might render you mute. I also for the record oppose most forms of feminism. Men and women are different. Biology is showing how different every day. Our social and political institutions (including marriage) ought to be able to reflect that difference without Constitutional challenge or cries of witch burning from our progressive wing. " We who defend enlightenment, democracy and equality.." wish that those of you adhering to an ideology impervious to questioning or rational thought hesitate before calling others ignorant. I think in the context of sexuality, Ronald Reagan's quote that, "Its not so much what they don't know, its what they know that ain't so that's the problem." is applicable here. I do not attempt to inflict my views of proper public policy on San Francisco. I wish San Francisco would reciprocate. Larry Craig will resign tomorrow. I hope he finds solace and peace.
There is really no limit to Christianist idiocy, is there? Relax, guys. No one is forcing you to have sex with each other... or with gay seagulls, or polar bears, or even with members of your own clergy or the closeted gay members GOP. So calm down. Gays getting marriage licenses is no more a threat to you than gays getting gun licenses is. For the record, the "marriage is for bearing and raising children" argument is dumber than Bush's war in Iraq, and that's world class dumb. I have yet to see a Christianist dumb enough to say a woman who has had a hysterectomy should be denied a marriage license. That's because even those evil dumb clucks know most decent people would laugh at them over that. So they just stick with their crowd-pleasing bigotry.
I see. We "christianists" need to relax and let the gay folk do their own thing, which is of no consequence to us uptight straights. Sexual "freedom" rules. Viva deviancy down. Meanwhile, my daughter from Europe who recently made a trip here tells me that she faced a crisis when her young son needed to use an airport privy. Young mothers are well aware that an airport privy can be a dangerous place for young boys. I, also, have a niece whose husband opted out of a marrriage with two children on the grounds that he really liked guys better than gals.
"[t]here are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation." "In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form." "Of more immediate importance than the debate about causality is the question what we in our country can do in order to reverse this harmful development. We call upon politicians, academics and opinion leaders to acknowledge the fact that marriage in The Netherlands is now an endangered institution and that the many children born out of wedlock are likely to suffer the consequences of that development. A national debate about how we might strengthen marriage is now clearly in order." Signed,
"For the record, the "marriage is for bearing and raising children" argument is dumber than Bush's war in Iraq, and that's world class dumb. I have yet to see a Christianist dumb enough to say a woman who has had a hysterectomy should be denied a marriage license. That's because even those evil dumb clucks know most decent people would laugh at them over that.
"Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to “marriage,” but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings." 1
As for the thesis that Craig's non-paying adulterous sex with a man was a greater betrayal of his wife than Vitter's adulterous paid sex with several women...this is because why? Because the gays has the AIDS? Oh, brother. Can you at least try not to sound utterly cretinous? Not adopting the public health views of Thabo Mbeki, Robert Mugabe and Muammar Qaddafi would be a good place to start. Incidentally, lemon and garlic actually don't work against HIV, and you can't get it from a blowjob, or even from a yucky man-kiss. Who knew! Sorry, brooksfoe, when spread sexually, AIDS is spread mainly through anal sex, and then usually from penetrator to penetratee. As heterosexual anal sex does not usually involve the man getting penetrated (at least not by an object that releases bodily fluids), AIDS can spread in the straight community only from men to women, meaning that it can't spread very far (only women whose sexual partners belong to a risk group are at risk, and as they will not transmit AIDS to men, the disease stops there).
Re: but my views on homosexual behavior are timeless and shared still by a majority of Americans (and most of the world).
2. A majority of Americans do not condemn homosexuality. At most about 45% do, and about 45% claim to have no moral issues with it (while the remaining 10% don't seem to care one way or the other). 3. As for the opinion of the world, no pollster has ever sampled "the world" but I find it odd that people who normally claim we should ignore public opinion outside the US (on Iraq, global warming, healthcare, the death penalty etc) would rush to embrace it in any other matter. Re: What Justice Kennedy called "acts common to the homosexual lifestyle" in Lawrence remain creepy There are no sex acts engaged in by gay men or lesbians which are not also engaged in by straight people. I think we have to assume the poster must be grossly ignorant of sex in general since he is claiming otherwise Re: A bunch of folks who think it ok to proposition (and then sodomize) other men in a public restroom are not those I want in charge of public policy on any subject. bait and switch. We go from talking about homosexuality to talking about public solicitation. I'm gay, but I find public solicitation quite unacceptable too. Re: I suspect most men remain attracted on some level to a large number of younger women throughout their lives. Don't presume to pontificate on the inner lives of people you have never even met. I have women friends. I am not interested in bedding any of them, and never have been. Re: Homosexualists have had much success in arguing homosexual and heterosexual sex are coequal. They are because A) we are all equally human no matter our gender and B) it's the same acts no matter whether the participants are men or women. re: jjv made reasonable remarks, however objectionable to the gay view. His remarks are not reasonable. They overwhelm with both ignorance and arrogance and offer not one scintilla of evidence in support to his views except a vague appeal to public opinion (on which he is incorrect anyway) Re: I believe that those people and nations that adopt the homosexualist ethos diminish in population, and purpose. You may belive this if you wish but there is no evidence in support of it. The ancient Greeks, who allowed certain forms of open homosexuality and even honored it, suffered so much from overpopulation that they founded colonies all over the Mediterranean to export their surplus peoples, and eventually settled much of the known world, as far east as modern Afghanistan, after Alexander's conquests. Re: As to bigotry, is your mind open to the idea that homosexuality is objectively disordered? Mine is not, because the very fact that there is vast disagreement over the issue proves there is nothing objective about the question (as there is about such objective questions as the velocity of light, the chemical composition of water and so forth.) Objective truths are knowable by objective means, but moral questions are not. One's conclusions on moral issues depend entirely on what axioms and defintions one chooses to accept, and in the end that is a matter of private (and subjective) taste and desire, not something that can be scientifically grounded. And for this very reason moral issues (like the closely related matters of religious beleief) should be relegated to the private sphere in so far as possible. Just as it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg if your neighbor believes in one god, no gods or many gods, so too it is a matter of no concern to you if your neighbor loves a man or a woman. Re: May we ask why lesbianism differs from male homosexuality Of course this is so. Lesbianism involves women not men (much as the rich differ from the rest of us because they have more money) Re: In John Kennedy's America of 1962 homosexual acts were slightly criminalized in almost every state. And in George Washington's America slavery was legal, but the USA was still a freer country than Tsarist Russia or the Ottoman Empire. Re: Men and women are different. Their similarities, as humans, overwhelm their differences. Moreover, as individuals we all differ from everyone else in ways that dwarf out group differences re: Meanwhile, my daughter from Europe who recently made a trip here tells me that she faced a crisis when her young son needed to use an airport privy. There are no "privies" in European airports. "Privies" are outhouses. There are public restrooms. Children of course may be endangered in any space, public or private Most child abuse, including sexual abuse occurs in private homes and most abductions of children are by their own (non-custodial) parents. I can understand some of the natural paranoia that parents feel over their children, but it's also, way, way, way overdone. A child is far more likely to be killed or injured in an auto accident than to be assaulted or abducted by a stranger, yet there seems to be no epdemic of paranoia over children in cars. Re: Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. This sort of group think is illegitimate from the get-go, IMO. We should make judgments based on people as individuals not on their membership in external groups. Re: As heterosexual anal sex does not usually involve the man getting penetrated (at least not by an object that releases bodily fluids), AIDS can spread in the straight community only from men to women, meaning that it can't spread very far Then how has it spread so widely in Africa? The answer may well involve poor hygiene and nutritional problem, and perahps some Darwinian genetic issues too. But no one pretends that Africa's AIDS epidemic (which dwarfs the rest of the world) is not spread by heterosexual sex.
Jon F: Objective truths are knowable by objective means, but moral questions are not. You are then arguing from the quicksand of moral relativism. While one can't come to "scientific" conclusions on moral issues, there is in fact substantial agreement among civilizations on moral issues including that of homosexuality. The most succinct and incisive statement on the subject of moral truth regarding homosexuality homosexuality is found in the Catholic Catechism: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [1], tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [2].” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstance can they be approved. On the subject of ancient Greek homosexuality R. E. ALLEN Prof. of Classics, Northwestern U. Evanston, wrote as follows in a letter to the New York Times: In "What Plato Says" (letter, Feb. 13), Catherine Glass suggests that Phaedrus in the "Symposium" says what Plato thought. This gets Phaedrus and Plato wrong, for Phaedrus is praising pederasty, not homosexual intercourse in general, and Plato condemns homosexual intercourse in both the "Laws" and the "Republic." The "Laws" (Book VIII) rejects homosexual intercourse because it can render men unfit for marriage and because it is contrary to nature and a shameless indulgence.
Re: You are then arguing from the quicksand of moral relativism. While one can't come to "scientific" conclusions on moral issues, there is in fact substantial agreement among civilizations on moral issues including that of homosexuality. It should be staringly obvious that no such agreement exists or else this issue would not even be under debate, here and aroudn the world. Re:The most succinct and incisive statement on the subject of moral truth regarding homosexuality homosexuality is found in the Catholic Catechism The Catholic Church (and even my own church) has gotten a number of things wrong over the centuries. Once upon a time interest-charging was universally condemned (and not just by Christians) as a "sin against nature". But when was the last time ayone heard a Chrsitian sermon on this topic? Re: In "What Plato Says" (letter, Feb. 13), Catherine Glass suggests that Phaedrus in the "Symposium" says what Plato thought. Plato's political opinions were frankly totalitarian and should not be a model for for any free people.
@ Peter - While one can't come to "scientific" conclusions on moral issues, there is in fact substantial agreement among civilizations on moral issues including that of homosexuality. The most succinct and incisive statement on the subject of moral truth regarding homosexuality homosexuality is found in the Catholic Catechism: This, though, is a demonstration of the weakness of the position - that the first (and usually only) defense of it is a religious one only. For example: one need not be religious to find murder wrong. It is enough to believe in basic inalienable rights (life, liberty, property) and the social contract. Or to believe that you should "do unto others," etc. There are any number of moral frameworks that reject most of what we criminalize (murder, theft, etc etc), one need not be of a particular religious faith (or of any) for these laws to have purchase. None of these moral frameworks address the "wrongness" of homosexuality (or gay marriage, as we seem to be discussing both topics simultaneously), as best I can tell. Instead, the arguments collapse into some variety of "God says it is wrong" or "it makes me feel icky to think about it," neither of which seems like an appropriate basis for law.
Everyone has a fundamental right to “marriage,” but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. [emphasis mine] This is no more than a glorified call to tradition. And one that begs the question, since the point of the debate is whether we should redefine the [legal] institution of marriage to begin with. I wonder how much of the problem would be obviated (and how much wouldn't) if we could agree that it is in the state's business to sanction unions (equal to all) and the church's business to sanction marriages, as your own church may see fit. If they weren't called "marriages," would it still bother you for gay couples to have an equal legal right of property transfer, tax reporting, hospital visitation (and on and on...)?
"This is no more than a glorified call to tradition. And one that begs the question, since the point of the debate is whether we should redefine the [legal] institution of marriage to begin with." But its not, it the law as consistently understood and applied. This is a refutation of the claim from fundamental rights, and a sound one. Under or over inclusiveness has never been a barrier to application of fundamental rights. If the point of the debate is whether we should redefine the institution of marriage to begin with then the proper venue is the legislature. In as much as it has been brought to them it has overwhelmingly failed. It is only with the (fallacious) assertion of fundamental rights that same-sex “marriage” has gathered the moral authority to be worthy of public debate. Rather telling I think.
JonF: The best moral precept I know comes from Jesus' own lips: the Golden Rule. Loving someone of the same gender does not trespass against that precept so I have no problem with it. Jesus made clear that He came to fulfill the Law not to abrogate it. He forgave the adulterer, though asked her to go and sin no more. As Jewish law was unambiguous on homosexuality, He would presumably have forgiven a homosexual without eliding the sin part. While Paul argued that some ancient Jewish law went properly by the board, he was crystal clear about homosexuality, viz. Romans I: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts...
Re: While Paul argued that some ancient Jewish law went properly by the board, he was crystal clear about homosexuality If I had a dime for every time someone used proof texts like this wrenched out of context (and on any subject, not just thus one) then insisted it was "crystal clear" I would be the richest man in the world, but also the saddest, seeing such misuse and corruption of Scripture. So here's a proof text of my own: "You shall know them by their fruits" Well, the fruit of those who hate and seek to justify it by divine ordinance is pretty foul and I have no desire to debate it further. I'm not your conscience or your judge, neither are you mine.
This is a refutation of the claim from fundamental rights, and a sound one. I am not sure that it is sound. His analog is child-raising rights, which he says have no bearing (positive or negative) on childless couples. This is fairly plain to see; indeed, one would have trouble trying to find instances that apply rights of parenting to non-parents. Put more simply, what priveledges might a childless couple ask for that a parenting couple receives? But it is a poor analog to marriage -- the legal marriage rights are fairly broad in scope, and it is rather easy to see where a comitted same-sex couple might very well want the rights that a traditional marriage affords. Unlike in the analogy, there is no "bounds" which the relationship naturally affords. Instead, two people in a long-term relationship are naturally going to want the same types of rights: property transfer/inheritance, family priveledges (such as in legal settings regarding health), etc etc. Unlike the case of child-raising vs. childless couples, the only material difference that I can see in these types of relationships are their religious/traditional associations, which is why I emphasized that portion of the text. Further, I keep going back to the harm aspect. In the absence of any (that I can see) beyond upsetting the sensibilities of a certain (and large but aging) group of people, I really don't understand what the harm is in allowing the institution.
Let's have some equality here! Stake out the local bars with agent provocateurs busting all those guys looking to hook up with a girl playing footsie under the table and then subject them to humiliating and demeaning questioning, get them sacked from their job and get put on the front page news. Yes, Larry Craig is a hypocrite of the first degree, self-delusional and a coward as well but he didn't deserve to be treated like this.
"from any social-conservative calculus (or at least my social-conservative calculus) prostitution has to be considered a greater social evil than cruising for gay sex in bathrooms" No, cruising for gay sex in bathrooms, parks or other public spaces is worse than prostitution in private under my social calaculus, at any rate.
Brad L, I'm a little late to this thread, but I just wanted to get in a few quick points. The Catholic Church's positions on homosexuality and gay marriage are rooted in natural law arguments that can be grappled with by people of any faith or no faith. These arguments go beyond "because God says so" and "it makes me feel icky to think about this". I grant you that most people who subscribe to natural law today tend to be Catholics, but it is possible to oppose homosexual acts and gay marriage without being religious. I take your point about childless married couples who still receive the benefits of marriage. I guess the rejoinder is that these couples are in the minority, which makes them an exception, and you will always have exceptions when it comes to designating privileges based on certain criteria. The majority of married couples have children, and so it is important to recognize this when assigning benefits. Ramesh Ponnuru wrote an interesting article on a compromise on this issue that gets at the heart of what you are saying with respect to giving the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Just google his name and The Fourth Option to find it. Interesting reading. As for what potential harm gay marriage might bring, I think Stanley Kurtz probably laid out the arguments as best as any one could in his debates with Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch from a few years back. I doubt he will persuade you, but the arguments are worth considering (he does not argue from a religious standpoint). Cheers.
So here's a proof text of my own: "You shall know them by their fruits" Well, the fruit of those who hate and seek to justify it by divine ordinance is pretty foul and I have no desire to debate it further. Translation: if you don't celebrate every time a gay man BFs or BJs his BF, you must hate him. Then how has it spread so widely in Africa? The answer may well involve poor hygiene and nutritional problem, and perahps some Darwinian genetic issues too. But no one pretends that Africa's AIDS epidemic (which dwarfs the rest of the world) is not spread by heterosexual sex. No, they pretend it is spread that way. There is something strange in the fact that a disease which supposedly spread so far heterosexually in Africa for some reason never made major inroads into the heterosexual community in the western world. Even if it is spread somewhat heterosexually in Africa, Africa has a number of problems that could make heterosexual spread more likely, including, e.g., female genital mutilation, etc., that would make heavy bleeding by females more likely. Nonetheless, there is a good deal of controversy over whether or not all of the "AIDS" cases in Africa are actually AIDS, and as to how AIDS is actually spread. In any event not all gays practice anal sex so this is a fallacy of irrelevance. The point is that the gays who do (Whom I suspect are the vast majority of gay men, because I have a hard time believing that most gay men are satisfied with oral, and traditional intercourse is obviously not an option as men only have half the equipment for it) are the ones who spread AIDS.
Peter Leavitt writes: "Meanwhile, my daughter from Europe who recently made a trip here tells me that she faced a crisis when her young son needed to use an airport privy. Young mothers are well aware that an airport privy can be a dangerous place for young boys. I, also, have a niece whose husband opted out of a marrriage with two children on the grounds that he really liked guys better than gals." Homes run by religious traditionalists can be dangerous places for young boys and young girls, too. I also suspect that if your niece had been paying attention and wasn't more than a bit gullible she might have noticed that her husband was never exactly "straight." She's also better off without him - or are you so out of touch with reality that you think otherwise?
Fitz writes: "It is only with the (fallacious) assertion of fundamental rights that same-sex “marriage” has gathered the moral authority to be worthy of public debate. Rather telling I think." You would. You're probably still smarting over what happened when "the coloreds" and "the wimmenfolk" did the same thing. Where did those people think they got off demanding the right to vote? And when those issues came up, where were the Fitzes of the world? Throwing ropes over tree limbs, laughing while cops sprayed protestors with firehoses, throwing tomatoes at suffragettes, that sort of thing. Hey, Fitz! What Would Jesus Throw? (Granted, it's a trick question - he probably can't throw much of anything with those mangled paws... courtesy of the Fitzes of the 1st century...)
Glaivester writes: "Translation: if you don't celebrate every time a gay man BFs or BJs his BF, you must hate him." Is it possible to write a sentence like that and be enjoying a healthy and happy sex life of your own? I would guess not. That sort of comment gives a small insight into how the self-loathing, pathetic Larry Craigs of the world develop, I'd say.
Is it possible to have a handle like "MoeLarryAndJesus" and have any sort of healthy spiritual dimension to your life or any sense of purpose other than trivializing other people? My point is simply that while I bear no ill will to homosexuals, I am tired of being told that all traditional ideas of sexual morality have to go and that I must approve of all forms of consensual sex or else there is something wrong with me. It's stopped being about tolerance and started being about tearing down all social norms and trying to eliminate any traces of tradition lest someone, somewhere, disapprove of someone's behavior, like Ian McKellen tearing out pages of the Bibles in his hotel rooms.
Point for jjv, and all those like him: as Nietzsche remarked in his advice to conservatives, once the idea of equality is proclaimed and endorsed as a general principle the game is lost. If equality before the law is "natural", as Jefferson believed, it can hardly become "unnatural" again - whether in reference to his cobbler, his slave, his wife or mistress, the native Americans blocking the extension of his plantations, the foreign immigrants crowding his docks, or to the one whose voice would soon sing the Body Electric and of the beautiful love of "comrades". Although originally introduced by untitled white men endowed with money and property and intended soley as an attack against the monopoly of state power by aristocrats, the idea of equality had "legs", walked abroad among the great unwashed, and the rest, as they say, is history - although not the kind written by Francis Fukuyama. Its popularity among the marginalized and excluded has survived both the attempts of Fascism to abolish it and the efforts of Stalinism to drain it of any meaning or effect, so I don't think that millinarian fundamentalism or the construction of an international police state to fight a "war on terror" will blunt its appeal among the hoi palloi either. It remains a subversive historical force independent of elite attempts to define its meaning or its scope, as does its related concept of "democracy". It ain't over till the fat lady sings, but in the meantime the genie is out of the bottle, and no one can put her back.
Note this quote rebuke of same-sex “marriage” offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York, Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to racism & segregation. “[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.”
As dismissals of the Living v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However – I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually a analogy that doesn’t hold up precisely because it is not the same kind of things being compared. As the Washington decision illustrates
Andersen v. King County
You're right that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have changed their minds on quite a few issues before, and that we should count on them to do so in the future. (Contraception is probably one). But I don't know that your chosen example, about usury, is convincing to me. As a socialist and a man of the Left, I generally have deep misgivings about the capitalist economy in general, and interest-lending in general, as it is a microcosm of everything that I dislike about capitalism (as T.S. Eliot said in 'Christianity and Culture', our entire society and economy is based on a glorified version of what would once have been condemned as usury). Do I think that the As I understand it the medieval argument against usury was that it was 1) exploitative, 2) unfair, and 3) unnatural (presumably in the sense that it separated the 'natural' link between work and reward- if you can get rich through lending someone else your money, then why bother to actually work). (I would appreciate clarification on the medieval arguments if anyone knows more about them). The early modern arguments for usury were eerily reminsicient of what we hear today- 'consenting adults' 'freedom' and all that. In retrospect, three hundred years later, we can see that the argument that to separate work from reward was not a good thing, were eerily prescient. The modern West has devalued human labor to an unbelievable degree. We celebrate bankers, speculators, entertainers and predatory businessman while essentially jeering at people like coal miners, industrial laborers, fishermen, etc. who do the work that keeps food on our tables and fuel in our homes. I think that the medieval scholastics had a good point about the 'unnatural' essence of financial industry, even though they couldn't quite express it in the terms that would have been effective. I don't have an opinion about the morality of homosexuality, as I haven't made up my mind. There are very strong arguments for tolerance, balanced out by the voice of Christian tradition and the New Testament. (Although I do think that whatever else, being gay is probably an innate trait and therefore gay people should be treated with compassion, respect, and equal rights- I have plenty of gay friends and my current boss is gay). My concern though is that we have made so many changes, so fast, in the 2,000 year old understanding of homosexuality, are we missing something? Are there arguments that don't sound convincing to us today, but will only become so in retrospect? Are the Churchmen of today who condemn gay marriage, much like the medieval Scholastics who condemned usury, voicing a deep intuition that we will understand hundreds of years from now to have been true? I wish that I could say flat out that I believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but I don't feel confident enough to say that just yet. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. , especially from an Orthodox perspective. Moe: I'm from Massachusetts, the first state to have gay marriage. The African-American pastors of that state were one of the strongest voices against the legalization of gay marriage in 2003. Many of them had participated in the civil rights struggle and were livid about it being compared to the gay rights movement. Try espousing your comparison with the civil rights movement in any bar in Dorchester.
Glaivester replies: "My point is simply that while I bear no ill will to homosexuals, I am tired of being told that all traditional ideas of sexual morality have to go and that I must approve of all forms of consensual sex or else there is something wrong with me. It's stopped being about tolerance and started being about tearing down all social norms and trying to eliminate any traces of tradition lest someone, somewhere, disapprove of someone's behavior, like Ian McKellen tearing out pages of the Bibles in his hotel rooms." I suspect that if the Levitican practice of stoning homosexuals to death were revived you'd start working out to improve your pitching arm, Glaivester. Not out of spite, of course - just because of your great respect for "tradition."
Hector replies: "Moe: I'm from Massachusetts, the first state to have gay marriage. The African-American pastors of that state were one of the strongest voices against the legalization of gay marriage in 2003. Many of them had participated in the civil rights struggle and were livid about it being compared to the gay rights movement. Try espousing your comparison with the civil rights movement in any bar in Dorchester." Hector, I'm from Massachusetts, and I still live here, and you're spouting pure bullshit here. SOME "African-American pastors" here were and are opposed to gay marriage, but hardly all, as your comment implies. Many were strongly in favor of it. Some made the civil rights comparison themselves. Your "any bar in Dorchester" line makes me think you've never been to Dorchester. I can tell you, though, that it's extremely hard to find anyone in Massachusetts who gets incensed about gay marriage these days. It's in place and the sky hasn't fallen, Jeezus hasn't zapped anyone with lightning bolts, and very few people here (and less, it seems, every day) think it is a problem. A few religious nuts yammer about it and hold up their nitwitted signs at the State House (anyone holding an "Adam and Steve" sign may as well tattoo "RETARD" on their forehead) but that's the extent of it. If you're still able to return to Massachusetts without worrying about being picked up on an old warrant, Hector, come up for a visit. You won't get any cooties.
Pretty funny, Moe. I lived in MA until a couple weeks ago (I moved for school), and I hope to come back someday. I love my state, and I always will. I'm sure you could find some African American clergy and laypeople who are OK with gay marriage, the community has diverse views, as does any community. Nevertheless, the bulk of the African American clergy were opposed to gay marriage and were deeply insulted by the comparison between the gay rights and the civil rights movement. See the public stances taken by Rev. Ray Hammond, Rev. Eugene Rivers, Bishop Gilbert Thompson, and many others. Here is an article from shortly afterwards: and here are two choice quotes from the article: "Just as it's distorting the equation of marriage if you press race into it, it's also distorting if you subtract gender." "Marriage was traditionally undervalued in slave communities, not by slaves, but by owners, so the black religious institutions sought to give African-Americans legitimacy as human beings, and that history has been woven together with the theology that God created man and woman for marriage."
Hector Dauphin-Gloire Probablt the most concise statement by a civil rights leader on the danger of same-sex "marriage". "Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage." Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
Fitz writes: "dundemental" I like it. I assume it's a neologism pointing out that fundamentalism generally turns its practitioners into dunces. I still prefer "fundidiot," though.
Here's one Fitz won't quote: "The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it. Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said Tuesday. "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages." Of course dundamentalists figure she wasn't a valid civil rights leader, her being female and all.
Moe, Do you know what the dictionary definition of a fundamentalist is? It refers to a very specific movement in evangelical Protestantism in the late 19th/early 20th century. It is impossible, in the strict sense, to be a Catholic and a fundamentalist, or a Hindu fundamentalist, or a Muslim fundamentalist. Sorry to get snippy about a lexical point, but words mean things. It's especially annoying when people conflate two different meanings of the word fundamentalist: someone who believes in the integration (as opposed to separation) of church and state, or someone who believes that their religious scriptures are to be interpreted literally and infallibly. Try and use 'integralist' for the former, 'literalist' for the second.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
There are two - and only two - reasons why the Repiglicans want to give Craig the boot but keep Vitter.
1. He's up for election in 2008, and the GOP is in enough trouble without losing what should be a sure seat for them. (This doesn't apply to Vitter.)
2. He's gay, and the GOP leadership knows that makes their base's collective Christianist skin crawl. (This doesn't apply to Vitter, either.)
I know there are non-Christianists in the base, too, but without the Christianists they're no longer a national party. They made their creche and now they have to lie in it.
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 5:52 PM