२२ मे, २००६
"McCain sez 'I don't' to backing constitutional ban on gay nups."
Daily News headlines crack me up. I mean, I gay rights are a serious matter. But "gay nups"? Oh, I don't know. Maybe if we'd all get along better if we lightened up and talked about gay nups.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
Good for McCain.
Ford didn't actually say "Drop dead."
This isn't news. He opposed it last time, for the same reasons as do I.
McCain favors the Arizona amendment that would not only ban gay marriage, but civil unions as well.
He might be a true federalist, but he's still anti-gay.
"McCain favors the Arizona amendment that would not only ban gay marriage, but civil unions as well. He might be a true federalist, but he's still anti-gay."
Be that as it may, it is for each state to make the decision, and in Arizona, John McCain has no more sway over the fate of the matter than any of his 3,763,685 fellow Arizonan voters. I would have thought that those who stand to lose the most from this amendment would be more interested in the more nuts-and-bolts business of defeating it, than in the ideological purity and reasoning of those voting against it? It seems to me that y'all have enough of a fight on your hands at the state level, where bans have passed in every state where the voters have been given a say, without worrying about this federal ban.
"Headless Body Found in Topless Bar"?? Oh, Gawd, that's terrible!!! I'm groaning on so many levels!
Reminds me of the NY Post cover a few weeks back that featured a reproduction of the new oil portrait of President Clinton for The National Portrait Gallery with the headline "WELL HUNG".
I would have thought that those who stand to lose the most from this amendment would be more interested in the more nuts-and-bolts business of defeating it, than in the ideological purity and reasoning of those voting against it?
It's actively being fought at the state level. I think it even has a shot at being defeated in Arizona, although that fight would have been a lot easier had John McCain not supported the state amendment.
McCain has every right to his views. I just don't want him getting a pass, by having people think that he is moderate in his views on gay rights. He's not.
"McCain has every right to his views. I just don't want him getting a pass, by having people think that he is moderate in his views on gay rights. He's not."
What does it mean to have "moderate" views on gay marriage? I think for your comment to stick, you're going to have to define what a "moderate" view actually is - and really, for reference, what the "hardline" pro and anti views that it exists in counterpose to are.
I would have thought that the hardline pro argument is "there should be gay marriage or civil unions," the hardline anti argument is "there should not be gay marriage or civil unions," and thus, saying that no one state should impose their determination on other states, but that the Federal government shouldn't pick sides either, would very much be a "moderate" view, insofar as it says "y'all need to make your own decisions in your own communities."
McCain DOES believe that there should be no gay marriage NOR civil unions. You've already stated that you view that as hardline.
Granted - he doesn't want a FEDERAL amendment, but that just means that he values states rights more than he hates gay people.
McCain still prefers that ALL states pass amendments that would bar gay marriage AND civil unions AND any benefits for gay people whatsoever (which is what the Arizona amendment does).
Actually - I think he personally doesn't "really" believe this, but I couldn't give a rats ass about his personal beliefs. His PUBLIC beliefs are pretty bigoted (i.e. removing benefits from gay people).
I don't dislike McCain. He's pretty good as far as Republicans go. But he's taken a hardline anti-gay view. That's fine. But he can't have it both ways and pretend that he's moderate on gay rights. He favors writing discrimination into the constitution of his state, so he is nothing of the sort.
I also have a hunch that McCain was misled about the Arizona amendment. I wonder if he realizes that it bans civil unions as well.
Someone should ask him.
Here's info on the Arizona amendment:
http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/dailystar/76204.php
Hospital visitation rights for gay people would be removed. How moderate . . .
Yes, but he also believes (or claims to) in a policy which permits each state to reach their own conclusions, which is to say, he doesn't foreclose the possibility of any particular state permitting gay marriage. That seems like a middle ground to me, and the fact that he thinks his particular state should ban it doesn't detract from that. It might mark him as a moderate who leans no the "against" side rather than a moderate who leans on the "for" side, but I think it still makes him a moderate...The proximate effect of which appears to be (and we might even use this as a metric to demonstrate that he is a moderate) that hardliners on both sides hate him for his stance.
I should add that McCain and I do not have quite the same position, so I'm not just defending my own view by proxy. I oppose the federal amendment on federalism grounds, as I already explained (see comments linked above), but when it goes on the ballot in Indiana, my views range anywhere from mild disinterest to outright indifference. I'll probably vote against it, but if it passes, I'm not going to take to the streets over it. The simple fact of the matter is that I was told a couple of years ago - at a time when I was far-better disposed towards your cause - that my opinion and help were not welcome, which is just fine by me. It's not my fight and y'all are welcome to it - although I will offer some free advice: no emancipation movement ever took flight by alienating potential supporters. How many slaves voted for the Thirteenth Amendment? How many women voted for the Nineteenth Amendment?
You don't think abolitionists alienated people? You don't think women's suffragists alienated people?
You are sadly mistaken. Read up on your history.
People are welcome to hold anti-gay views. They are welcome to support anti-gay laws. Just please don't insult my intelligence by saying that those anti-gay views are actually "pro-gay" when they are clearly not. They might be "moderate" by some people's definitions, but they are not, and never will be "pro-gay". That's what I have an issue with.
What's so bad about Gay Nups, anyway?
"You don't think abolitionists alienated people? You don't think women's suffragists alienated people? You are sadly mistaken. Read up on your history."
If I were mistaken, the Thirteenth and Nineteenth Amendments would not have been passed. I don't doubt that some people were alienated, but the mere fact of the passage of those amendments demonstrates that not only a majority but a supermajority were not alienated. Still, as I said before, it's your campaign, and you're welcome to drive it into a wall at 120mph if you like.
"People are welcome to hold anti-gay views. They are welcome to support anti-gay laws. Just please don't insult my intelligence by saying that those anti-gay views are actually "pro-gay" when they are clearly not."
Uh...I didn't say McCain was pro-gay. I said he was a moderate. The only way I could "insult [your] intelligence by saying that those anti-gay views are actually 'pro-gay'" is if you actually think that being a moderate means being pro-gay.
Simon,
Maybe you should actually take a minute to understand what I'm writing, before criticizing it.
McCain is trying to create the facade that he is pro-gay by opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
At the same time - he's actively supporting an Arizona amendment that will remove protections from Tuscon residents. The right of gays living in Tuscon to visit their dying partners in the hospital will be removed.
You can call that "moderate" if you want to.
But that is NOT pro-gay.
If you want to be anti-gay, go for it. I don't care. But at least have the guts to admit it.
Sorry - but when a KKK member claims to be in favor of civil rights, I don't buy it. When a politician actively tries to write anti-gay discrimination into the Constituion of his state, I don't buy his claim to be kind to gay people.
And sorry - but I'm not going to be intimidated into silence by you, just because you're offended by my desire for civil rights. If the fact that I have an opinion and wish to voice it drives you to become a bigot - I don't really care.
It's times like this when I actually have respect for the Pope.
At least he says what he actually believes - that gay people are "intrinsically disordered", "evil", etc. He doesn't try and hide his true beliefs. He has the guts to say what he actually believes.
It's the charlatans who say one thing and do another that disgust me. And they actually think we won't notice.
"McCain is trying to create the facade that he is pro-gay by opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment."
That is question-begging. What gives you the idea that McCain is is trying to convey the impression that he is pro-gay? As we have seen, there are other - and frankly, more important - issues surrounding the FMA than the subject matter it purports to address. It seems to me that McCain is opposing it because he thinks it incompatible with Federalism. You're right: I can call that moderate, and I will.
"And sorry - but I'm not going to be intimidated into silence by you, just because you're offended by my desire for civil rights."
How on Earth are you getting from my comments an attempt to "intimidate[] [you] into silence" from my comments in this thread? Moreover, how do you get from the fact that I no longer care to accusing me of being a bigot? This is precisely the point I made in my last post; everything about your last two comments telegraphs your view that "moderate" means pro-gay and "bigot" means "not enthusiastically and actively pro gay." That is an interesting and novel attempt to recast the meaning of those terms, and it is precisely the sort of "you're either with us 100% and on our terms, or you're a bigot" nonsense that alienates people from your cause.
Well why don't we ask McCain if he's anti-gay? What do you think his answer would be? Do you really think he'd say "yes"???
Of course he wouldn't. But since he wants to remove EXISTING benefits from gay people, it's quite obvious to anyone with a brain that he clearly is.
And Simon - I never said you were a bigot. But you were making subtle threats that you would become one, by supporting anti-gay amendments, if I didn't just sit there and shut-up when my rights are taken away. If the fact that I have an opinion bothers you - and cause you to become an anti-gay bigot by supporting anti-gay amendments, I don't care. Go for it.
You can define "moderate" all you want.
As a gay person, I get to define "anti-gay bigot". Not you. If people don't want to be called an anti-gay bigot, then perhaps they should think twice before voting to remove health insurance from gay people.
And if these people are not "anti-gay bigots" than please tell me what are they?
Are they "pro-gay" Simon?
Please tell me what I should call somebody who not only opposes gay marriage, but opposes civil unions? What should I call someone who opposes hospital visitation rights for gay people? What should I call someone who wants to remove health insurance coverage for domestic partners?
If that's not "anti-gay", then what exactly is it?
I would have thought that the inference of "[i]f you want to be anti-gay, go for it . . . If the fact that I have an opinion and wish to voice it drives you to become a bigot - I don't really care" was accusatory. And it is ludicrous to suggest that I made some kind of prospective threat; what I said was that I am unwilling to provide any kind of active support, and have been for two years.
I don't object to you having an opinion. I don't have an objection to you voicing your opinion, to the extent it is appropriate for any of us to voice an opinion in a given context. But what I certainly object to now, and objected to strongly two years ago, was being told that I was not entitled to an opinion: I was to do what I was told, because as a straight person who was somewhat sympathetic to the homosexual cause, I was entitled (mandated, in fact) to support the dictates of whatever leadership there was or is in the LGB cause, and as a "straight ally", had no right to question those dictates. It doesn't work that way. You don't get unqualified support, period. They say you play with the team you've got, not the team you wanted; too many folks on your side seem to be perfectly happy to tell their supporters to cheer more loudly or go home. Problem is, you take that attitude, and a lot of folks are going to say "fine, I'm going home."
And no, you don't get to arbitrarily redefine the term "bigot." Is it really accurate to describe as a bigot someone who opposes the FMA, and would probably vote against a state ban, merely because they profess something between disinterest and indifference? No. The term's prevalent understanding - "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" - requires an active and strong sense of disapprobation, not merely a lack of active interest or support. That is, a person who tolerates but does not actively support falls outside of that definition, and a fortiori, a person who has no underlying disapprobation certainly falls outside of it.
"what I should call somebody who not only opposes gay marriage, but opposes civil unions? What should I call someone who opposes hospital visitation rights for gay people? What should I call someone who wants to remove health insurance coverage for domestic partners? If that's not 'anti-gay', then what exactly is it?"
You're trying to reframe this outside of the context of the debate. In this debate, the hardliners on each side want to define marriage at the Federal level: hardliners on the left want the Supreme Court to extend Lawrence and find a right to homosexual marriage in the Fourteenth Amendment, and hardliners on the right want to amend the Constitution to prohibit states from recognizing gay marriage. I dissent from both propositions, needless to say, albeit for differing reasons. But in any event, almost by definition, any position that does not fall into those two categories is moderate. McCain's stance is that each state should be able to define marriage as they see fit, and he thinks his state should ban gay marriage; my stance is that each state should be able to define marriage as they see fit, and I lean against Indiana banning it. McCain and I thus differ - wherever the middle of this debate is, I doubt either of us are sitting precisely in it - but we are both moderates on this issue. You, I take it, are not a moderate: you want it to be legal, certainly in your state, prefereably everywhere, and I would imagine you're not too picky about how. Moreover, nobody likes to think of themselves as a hardliner; that's such an ugly word, particularly when your cause is "open" and "inclusive," and I'm sure you're no exception. So I can see that from where you sit, it probably doesn't look much like folks like McCain and I are moderates; after all - if we're moderates, what does that make you?
Simon - Your assumptions about my views are flat out WRONG.
I think the Constitutional right to gay marriage at the FEDERAL level is murky at best. I'm not talking about constitutional law. I'm talking about a group of people who are trying to enact amendments that makes life difficult for gay people.
I'm still intelligent enough to realize that someone who encourages constitutional amendments at the state level that will remove benefits from gay people, and allow hospitals to ban gay people from visiting their partners - I realize that that person has declared war on the gay community.
I favor this being decided at the state level as well - and I'm allowed to think that you're a bigot if you're on one side of the debate. Heck - the anti-gay side thinks you're causing the end of civilizaiton if you favor gay-marriage. They're allowed to believe that if they want.
These people are not just concerned with "marriage". Why else are they banning civil unions as well? Why else did they file a successful lawsuit to remove health insurance from gay people in Ohio? Why else do they favor the repeal of Lawrence V. Texas and the re-implementation and enforcement of sodomy laws? Why else do they favor banning gay people from the military? Why else do they want gay people to go back in the closet?
It's just about the word "marriage"???? Give me a break.
I like to know who my enemies are. Life is short. If they have declared war on me - trust me - I have no time to engage that person.
They have every right to their opinion. And if that opinion is anti-gay, which it SOOOOOO obviously is, then what I want to know - is why are they so wimpy that they can't admit it?
If they would just come out and admit that they favor these amendments, because they don't like gay people (the real reason), then we can just agree to disagree and move on.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा