It will be run by Richard Socarides, a former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton who has been deeply critical of President Obama’s record on gay rights. A well-known gay journalist, Kerry Eleveld, the Washington correspondent for The Advocate, will leave that magazine in January to edit the new group’s Web site, equalitymatters.org, which is to go online Monday morning.Yes, there's the obvious issue of marriage, and one might want a federal statute forbidding employment discrimination. All right. Fine. But let's look a little farther into the future and think about the political repercussions. What would happen to the gay rights movement if the specific discrimination ended and ordinary legal equality were achieved?
“Yesterday was a very important breakthrough,” Mr. Socarides said... “But we will celebrate this important victory for five minutes, and then we have to move on, because we are the last group of Americans who are discriminated against in federal law and there is a lot of work to do.”
Right now, gay people look to the Democratic Party (and to judges appointed by Democratic Presidents) to get these basic rights. The Democratic Party gets a political advantage by looking like a repository of hope. But would gay people continue to favor Democrats if the Democrats actually followed through and satisfied those hopes? There'd be some gratefulness, but — unless Republicans succumb to the temptation to say mean things — wouldn't gay people melt into the general population and, from that point on, vote based on what they thought about economic policies, national defense, environmental issues and so forth? Achieving equality would liberate gay people in may ways, but one of those ways would be that they could vote for Republicans if they agreed with them about issues other than gay rights issues.
Ironic, no?
Posts
256 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 256 of 256Do a search: The First Scandal Adam and Eve.
Jason/ Palladian:
We had you gays fooled. We are all for sex but it has to be normal hetero sex!
[I am kidding].
There's just no telling what us devious homosexuals will visit upon our innocent straight victims next!
As if "distracting" us, and making us "weaker" wasn't enough. Sheesh.
AJ Lynch said...
Edudtcher:
No I am assuming the real world all over which surrounds the catholic church is similar to America.
The church can run but it can't hide from reality- smaller families in America, Ireland, Italy,Germany, Poland mean most families are way less eager to give one of their [perhaps only] son to the Church. The priesthood has to evolve into more of a normal career choice. That's all. Or the church will be way smaller in 100 years.
You're still talking first world, so to speak. I'm talking second and third. Catholicism is a poor man's religion, you're thinking of Protestantism, the religion of the middle class.
Hey Jason(the commentor) it's not all about you!
And Merry Christmas.
Robert, you think that Hieronymus Bosch was on to your theory?
Edutcher:
That is an interesting and accurate way of looking at it. It's like when Hispanics become successful, they vote Republican, maybe join an Evangelical church and start to laugh at and make fun fun of Garage and Alpha.
If the rules of the Church are so immutable, whatever happened to interdiction? How often do you see a priest running to the ER after midnight to give last rites?.....Sex is a cultural artifact. Mores change over time. Masturbation used to be considered a sin to be struggled against,and taking up smoking was a rite of passage. Nowadays, I venture that even the most orthodox here would consider smoking a greater sin against the natural law than masturbation....I think not only does society view homosexuals differently than they did a generation or two ago, I think homosexuality itself is evolving. I would hope that with increasing tolerance, gays would feel less of a need to parade bare assed in leather chaps. At any rate, in NY there seems to be more and more gays who are less histrionic and melodramatic about their sexuality. I think the NY Giants have shown that a macho organization can integrate gays into their ethos and shower room without severe disruption of the mission.
Trooper:
There's a lot of commentary I could give--and some of it has already been given--but here's the bottom line on the Catholic Church, women priests and changing the essence of marriage:
> The Catholic Church will never ordain women. Pope John Paul II declared definitively--i.e., infallibly and for all time--that the Church lacks authority to do so.
> The Church will never accept same-sex "marriage." Marriage is a matter of natural--not divine--law, and the Church doesn't have authority to change either natural or divine law, but only her own laws.
> Married priests are a different matter. While there are a lot of practical and theological reasons to explain and support the very longstanding discipline of celibacy--in the Roman "wing" or Rite of the Catholic Church--for priests (and bishops but not deacons), that doesn't mean it could not be changed. In the non-Roman parts of the Catholic Church, there are married priests and always have been; same with the Orthodox Church.
> The pope cannot do whatever he likes. So he cannot declare an eighth sacrament.
"Don't know the book, but I've read of cases in which a soldier was used to entrap another soldier to prove homosexuality. One case given by the media in support of Willie's original policy."
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
Between 1981 and 1993, DoD policy explicitly barred homosexuals from service on the grounds that homosexuality was incompatible with military service.
When that policy was in place, entrapment of the sort you're talking about made sense.
That policy went away seventeen years ago though. It was replaced by DADT, which was just repealed. If the DoD tried to enact such a policy today it would be illegal and highly unconstitutional; the DoD isn't allowed to override Congress.
"Also, a college prof (back in the 60s) mentioned (he was in during WWII) his knowledge of a case where a homosexual NCO would pull rank to force recruits to put out. A court martial ensued (hearsay, I know)."
Whether it's hearsay or not, it's a valid point, and I have no doubt that cases like that have popped up.
However, that sort of abuse of rank happens fairly frequently in the military. A former NCO of mine did hard time and got a dishonorable discharge after fucking a female subordinate.
Your claim was that the military would dig up "old regs" to punish homosexuals who were no longer shielded from those regulations by DADT. But DADT wouldn't have shielded a homosexual servicemember in such a case.
In fact, the case I linked to earlier (U.S. v. Marcum) was very similar. The idea there is that any relationship between an officer or NCO and a subordinate, even a consenting one, is against regulations. The sexual orientation is irrelevant. (And, yeah, heterosexuals have been brought up on sodomy charges in such situations too, such as a fairly famous case in which a male recruiter received a blowjob from a female recruit.)
I'm still not seeing any old regs which'll be brought out of retirement now that DADT has been repealed.
That's because there is no old reg against homosexuality or homosexual behavior.
The closest that the military ever got was the DoD policy I mentioned above. Before that, the policy was to use psychological screening to keep homosexuals from enlisting in the first place, with administrative discharges meted out for those who the screenings didn't catch.
Before that, during WWII, homosexuals were discharged on psychological grounds.
Before that, actual or suspected homosexuals were simply given administrative discharges.
Administrative discharges are watched far more closely now, so the traditional way of getting rid probably won't make a comeback.
It's unlikely that homosexuality will ever be classified as a mental disorder, so that avenue'll be blocked to. And, as I already said, the old DoD policy won't make a comeback unless there's a military coup or something like that.
I declare John Paul II the winner of this thread!
Trooper York:And Merry Christmas.
Happy holidays! (Time to get naughty!)
Father I thank you for your quick response and of course I accept you teaching as definitive to this point.
However I have seen volcanic changes since I was a kid. When I was an altar boy and there were one hundred kids in my class and there were fifty nuns in our convent and ten priests at the rectory. When if you even thought about a meatball hero on a Friday you would burn in Hell. I just think that things change. You just never know what is going to happen. Even God changes his mind once in a while. One minute he is turning you into a pillar of salt and the next he is ok with you being in the army.
I wish that everything would be the same with the Church like when I was a kid. But it's not. It never will be. I gather that you are from my side of the church divide. Who doesn't want change. I don't want it either but I think it is gonna come whether I want it or not.
You see where AJ Lynch and I are coming from. We are good Catholics who abide by the teachings of the church. But the ground has shifted under our feet enough times that we know we have to hang on because it is going to be a bumpy ride.
Also in this holiday season I have a lot of love in my heart. It just makes me laugh that I am here defending these positions.
I mean I am more conservative than Jean Kilpatricks pap smear but I am here the last couple of days trying to find a way to figure out how we can come to a sensible understanding with the fanooks and the beaners.
I just think that is what the Baby Jesus would have wanted.
Don't mind me. I have been hitting the eggnog pretty hard.
So are we now ready for this?
troop -- what happened to your Giants against the Iggles?
How many people have checked out Robert Hagedorn's blog?
Fascinating stuff.
He's a little more explicit on the comments he's left on The Huffington Post.
'cause if we are, it will inevitably lead to this
They got beat bad. The Eagles have our number.
The only thing I can hold onto is that it is real hard to beat a team three time in one season. So if we make the playoffs and then we play the Eagles maybe the odds will be in our favor.
I'm not trying to wave that issue away, but I'm not clear on how co-habitating with an open homosexual is all that different than co-habitating with a closeted one.
Youngblood, I think you are missing a rather obvious point: If you are a man, but were also a master of disguise and could look just like a woman (even naked) then women in a communal shower would not be bothered by your presence. A closeted homosexual man is heterosexual as far as his fellow soldiers, Marines or sailors are concerned.
Youngblood said...
"Don't know the book, but I've read of cases in which a soldier was used to entrap another soldier to prove homosexuality. One case given by the media in support of Willie's original policy."
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
...
It's unlikely that homosexuality will ever be classified as a mental disorder, so that avenue'll be blocked to. And, as I already said, the old DoD policy won't make a comeback unless there's a military coup or something like that.
Didn't link the whole thing because of Blogger's buffer reqs; as to existing regs, that is my understanding from some of the military sites - strategypage, paratrooper.net, etc.
One thing about your last statement. The idea of homosexuality being mental originated with Freud and was only dropped by the APA after the ACTUP treatment. This is a change wrought by radicals using Alinsky's methods and I think, like the gradual winnowing away of support for abortion and a few other things, this idea of homosexuality being another kind of normal is also transitory - like the whole multi-culti 'all cultures are equal' business. I don't think it has much support and a perception that country's defense is being compromised will perhaps bring a faster change than anyone thinks.
The Eagles have our number.
I've given up on the Pack for this year. If you can't win close games, you won't win post-season.
"It's unlikely that homosexuality will ever (AGAIN) be classified as a mental disorder, so that avenue'll be blocked to."
With the addition of the word "again", I think your statement becomes correct. Homosexuality used to be officially considered a mental disorder.
Hey you never know MadisonMan. They might have a chance.
Unless they play the Giants of course. Overcoming adversity is part of being a champion. If the Giants can do it they will win the Super Bowl.
But there is one thing the Giants, Packers, Eagles and even the Cowboys can be proud of......they are not the dog ass Jets.
Yeah, but gay people tend to be outsides and outsiders tend to be liberal [and smarter] because outsiders are not conformists to the [largely bogus] apple pie version of America.
So most gays will remain that kind of Democrat. Of course, some may become fiscally conservative Democrats but since there are very few fiscally conservative Republicans [700 billion in tax cuts anyone?] then I would say the only thing you mean when you say Republican is right wing crazy tea party Republican. Which is a bad choice for outsiders with brains.
And as an added bonus. Here's a recent incident at Trooper place of business
Yeah, but gay people tend to be outsides and outsiders tend to be liberal [and smarter] because outsiders are not conformists to the [largely bogus] apple pie version of America.
Is this excerpted from the
Pocket Guide to Liberal Dogma?
With the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," where will the gay rights movement go?
Well there will be something for gay activists to be wildly indignant about. You can trust me on that. There always is.
It's absolutely boringly predictable.
It's not Matt, it's Ann Althouse under pseudonym trying to perpetuate this thread indefinitely now that the Catholic furor has faded. Because you can't believe really that rubbish: nonconformist gays? Lady Gaga, Ricky Martin, Fire Island, Calvin Klein, Cher and a perfect skin. What an elite. I don't want to use stereotypes... and that's why I've not used them.
Matt: Yeah, but gay people tend to be outsides and outsiders tend to be liberal [and smarter] because outsiders are not conformists to the [largely bogus] apple pie version of America.
Smarter and not conformists? Try watching some of the gay programming on LOGO and then tell me about how smart gays are. And try talking to a group of gays about bisexuality and see how nonconformist they are.
I'm gay and I love gays, but most gays, like most people, are pretty average. Even most of the "interesting" ones are interesting in a mass-produced sort of way.
Have you ever used communal showers at a gym? At school? Then you've already showered with a gay.
"But I didn't know for sure! I can only handle the world if I pretend it's completely different than it really is!"
I wish I had your problems.
Edutcher,
The APA dropped homosexuality as a mental disorder fifteen years before ACTUP was even founded, so I assume that you're talking about the early gay activists who protested the AMA.
While gay activists naturally play up their role in declassifying homosexuality, Dr. Evelyn Hooker's work in the 1950's was probably the single biggest factor there, although criticisms of Freudian theory throughout the 1950's and 1960's played a major role too.
I can't see the future. For all I know, we could see the kind of backlash you're talking about.
I doubt it, though.
Over 60% of Americans know a homosexual personally, and over 40% know one who is a close friend or family member. Too many gays have come out and too many people have had direct experience with gays and lesbians who don't match up with the negative stereotypes that a lot of people try to push (or, to be fair, that some gays and lesbians sometimes reinforce).
Jason (the commenter)
Let me slightly alter my view here. Most gay people I know are liberals. Liberals tend to be outsiders with regards to social norms. So that makes them vote for Democrats more than Republicans because many Democrats tend not to be ...well traditionalists or conservative. Republicans are bound to traditions a little more. It's just one reason there are few Conservative comedians. The very nature of most humor derives from undercutting the very foundations we stand for. In real humor there are no sacred cows....
Sure, Democrats are not smarter than Republicans. I know 'dumb' people who are both Dem and Rep. But hands down the smartest folks I know are liberal. But I live in a very liberal area. If I lived in a conservative area I might think otherwise.
Matt: Sure, Democrats are not smarter than Republicans. I know 'dumb' people who are both Dem and Rep. But hands down the smartest folks I know are liberal. But I live in a very liberal area. If I lived in a conservative area I might think otherwise.
Continuing with that line of reasoning:
Most of the country is conservative and many more people consider themselves conservative than liberal. Hence the majority of smart people are probably conservative.
The 20-year pent up demand of gay activists and their liberal backers to join the military?
1. A rush to the Recruiting Stations won't happen. Similar to if we had a ban on radical Muslims or sons of millionaires serving - that ended. And certain people anticipated a rush of Wharton Biz School students and bearded Allah-lovers to flock to the Army.
2. Of those that want to join, a high percentage would have infectious diseases that block their entrance. THe CDC says that the rate of AIDs infection and other incurable communicable diseases of young men having sex with men is 44 times the rate found in young straight males or women of any sexual persuasion.
3. Some military studies suspect that of the 14,000 that got out under DADT, alsmost half were straights claiming they were gay to leave early with a good conduct discharge, vs. the more tainted "drug use" early out.
4. Whatever the numbers that join, expect and endless barrage of gay agenda articles from the manipulations of gay activists, liberals, progressive Jewish people in the media.
Expect that hazing gays, unlike straights, will be considered a "hate crime" like men hazing women in the military. Expect that any gay who does anything significant will be lauded like the "only female helo Negro pilot" in her class of 560. And endless articles about how unless gay marriage is legalized, our "gay heroes in the Armed Forces" are still "2nd Class Citizens".
I don't think Buchanan was gay. Now maybe PAT Buchanan...
"gay activists, liberals, progressive Jewish people"
...oh my! Gay activists, liberals, progressive Jewish people, oh my! Gay activists, liberals, progressive Jewish people, oh my!
Palladian, love the new icon.
From Wikipedia on Buchanan's love life:
In 1819, Buchanan was engaged to Ann Caroline Coleman, the daughter of a wealthy iron manufacturing businessman and sister-in-law of Philadelphia judge Joseph Hemphill, one of Buchanan's colleagues from the House of Representatives. Buchanan spent little time with her during the courtship: he was extremely busy with his law firm and political projects during the Panic of 1819, which took him away from Coleman for weeks at a time. Conflicting rumors abounded, suggesting that he was marrying her for her money, because his own family was less affluent, or that he was involved with other women. Buchanan never publicly spoke of his motives or feelings, but letters from Ann revealed she was paying heed to the rumors.
After Buchanan paid a visit to the wife of a friend, Ann broke off the engagement. She died soon afterward, on December 9, 1819. The records of a Dr. Chapman, who looked after her in her final hours, and who said just after her death that this was "the first instance he ever knew of hysteria producing death", reveal that he theorized, despite the absence of any valid evidence, the woman's demise was caused by an overdose of laudanum, a concentrated tincture of opium.[43]
His fiancée's death struck Buchanan a terrible blow. Circumstances surrounding Buchanan's and King's close emotional ties have led to speculation that Buchanan was homosexual.[47] Buchanan's correspondence during this period with Thomas Kittera, however, mentions his romance with Mary K. Snyder. In Buchanan's letter to Mrs. Francis Preston Blair, he declines an invitation and expresses an expectation of marriage.[52] The only President to remain a bachelor, Buchanan turned to Harriet Lane, an orphaned niece, whom he had earlier adopted, to act as his official hostess.
Jason (the commenter)
The majority of people in most countries [including the USA] are not what one would call politically smart. Most are just conformists trying to make a living and get by. Most are swayed by the media or the general thinking in their region or their family and friends and don't really think political things through. Hence they are reactionary. If the economy is bad they vote against whomever is in power. Almost always.
You would not have an an Obama [or Clinton] landslide in a conservative country. I find most people to be moderate for this reason.
I live in a very liberal area. The people I meet who are smart are generally liberal. But, sure, it's subjective. Although when confronted with people who think the Earth is only 6000 years old I have to conclude they are not too bright - and usually conservative. But they probably think they are right - and smart.
Just sayin.
Thanks, Peter. I change it every once in a while. They're all variations on a plate from Palladio's "Fourth" book of Architecture, published in London in 1736.
"You would not have an an Obama [or Clinton] landslide in a conservative country."
Obama's win wasn't a landslide. But certainly evidence that conformist behavior is not the exclusive province of conservatives.
"I live in a very liberal area. The people I meet who are smart are generally liberal. But, sure, it's subjective. Although when confronted with people who think the Earth is only 6000 years old I have to conclude they are not too bright - and usually conservative. But they probably think they are right - and smart."
I live in a very liberal area, and I'm confronted with people who think that their choice of shopping bag has some sort of effect on the global climate and believe that Yoga uncoils their Kundalini and that 19th century ideas formulated in reaction to the Industrial Revolution are still somehow the viable basis for government. These people definitely think they're the smartest people on earth, and think that people who think like them are, of course, smarter than other people, especially people that they don't like.
Einstein had dreadful trans-national socialist ideas about government, Picasso was an avowed communist (who lived in a chateau) and wife-beater, Richard Wagner was a virulent Jew-hater. Yet all of these men were vastly intelligent and changed the world of ideas if not the world itself.
Intelligence often occurs in spite of political preferences.
I like eggs.
(Larry Holmes, 1983)
Once they get gay marriage, they'll want to force all churches to solemnize them.
It's all about validation. They dream of everybody being forced to believe that there's no difference between same-sex and heterosexual marriages. Giving them legal recognition won't be enough. There really was no demand for gay marriages until Andrew S. started whining about how unfair is was that he couldn't be "given away" by his father and be married in a church.
Nothing the rest of society can do will ever satisfy them because they will always have the knowledge that they are different from the norm, and it will keep them dissatisfied and looking for something new to demand.
"
Nothing the rest of society can do will ever satisfy them because they will always have the knowledge that they are different from the norm, and it will keep them dissatisfied and looking for something new to demand."
THEM! THEM! THEM!
You're right! Our lust for the blood of gentile.... err, I mean, straight men cannot be sated! We will make it required for anal sex to take place on the altar of every church in the country and force all good-looking, well-proportioned straight men to wear nothing but a pair of Joe Namath netted slingshot briefs at all times! Hahahaha!
Matt wrote:
"You would not have an an Obama [or Clinton] landslide in a conservative country."
We didn't have an Obama or Clinton landslide, though. President Clinton got less than 50% of the vote in both elections, and President Obama got 52%. Both ended up with solid electoral victories, but nowhere even close to the classic landslide margins.
Does that mean we're a conservative country or what?
AST: There really was no demand for gay marriages until Andrew S. started whining
Baker v. Nelson was decided in 1972, when Sullivan was 9 years old.
The next fight will be to further marginalize religious believers and religious institutions. That will be necessary as the push for greater inclusion of LBGT folks throughout society moves away from legal recognition of their relationships to questions about discrimination, etc. Religious organizations that discriminate against same-sex marriages, for example, will be classified alongside organizations that practice gender or racial discrimination. Think along the lines of the efforts to attack the Boy Scouts of America, only much stronger and much more focused.
Military perspective
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/112212664.html
Military perspective
He claims serving with openly gay people matters to the "boots on the ground," which do not include Air Force Captains like himself. So how can he speak for them?
The purpose of DADT is not to increase the number of homosexuals in the military. The purpose is to drive Christians and traditional Americans (members of the "Country Class") out. This will make things easier for the Globalists and Socialist elite when the time comes to turn the military on the people.
DJF, so you support DADT or you support overturning DADT?
Where will they go next?
Wherever they can disrupt society next. After DADT repeal, and after gay marriage is passed, they'll start in on churches that have a doctrinal belief that same sex marriage is sinful. They'll push to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for them. Churches that refuse will be called bigots and accused of hate speech. They'll start a campaign to force churches to perform marriages for gay people and if those churches refuse they'll demand the church's tax status changed.
A whole new set of demands will issue forth. Words will be redefined as necessary, just as "homophobia" has apparently been redefined to mean "antagonism towards gays".
I've been watching this crap all my life. Winning is never enough, people that do not believe the way gay protagonists believe must be crushed.
The homosexual political movement was driven primarily as a tool to divide the republican party.
When the homosexual political movement began in the 1950s, the aim of the political movement was to gain freedom. It is hard to overstate how dire the situation was at the time. The low point was reached in 1953, when Eisenhower signed an executive order forbidding the federal government and its contractors from hiring homosexual employees.
That order was the result of Joseph McCarthy's first crusade, prior to his anticommunist hunts. It was a crusade against "perverts" at the State Department, spearheaded in large degree by his closeted, self-hating aide, Roy Cohn.
Both parties were antigay prior to the 1970s, but the Republicans were worse and the Democrats eventually came around. The Republicans did show some promise in the '70s, but after Reagan elevated the evangelical christians the party as a whole became increasingly nasty.
The premise of the question, i.e., whether gays will be more receptive to the Republicans in the future, rests on a presumption that the Republicans won't be hateful. I think it's a dubious presumption, as illustrated by the nastiness in the comment section here.
That much said, I do there is an element of gays who are receptive even to what the Republicans offer today. They are and have been represented in Congress by people like Sens. Lindsay Graham and Larry Craig, and Reps. Ed Schrock and David Dreier, and behind the scenes operatives like Ken Mehlman and Roy Cohn -- closeted homosexuals who at some level have separated themselves (in their own minds) from the stereotypical "faggots" out there.
In fact, most if not all of the European and American fascist movements of the 20th century were heavily influenced by such people. That makes the Republican Party the natural place for our version of these antigay authoritarians.
Now, if the Republicans were to evolve in such a way as to really stand for what they say they do, i.e., personal freedom, then I see no reason why they couldn't eventually get a significant portion of the gay vote. But I don't think we'll be seeing that happen for quite a while, if ever.
I often vote Republican even though I feel very nearly no sense that my vote is welcomed or appreciated by Republicans. Well, too bad for them!
More like, "Too bad for you."
Post a Comment