On Gay Marriage, Gay Activists Prefer Insults to Debate
On Saturday and again today the president made his case for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. If opponents of the amendment were serious about debating this important issue, they would have offered thoughtful rebuttals taking issue with his arguments. They could thus have turned the occasion of the President’s public statement into an opportunity to advance their own cause — promoting gay marriage.
Leaders of gay organizations have, however, attacked the president (in rather childish terms) and ignored his arguments. Instead of contributing to the debate on gay marriage, they have provided more rhetoric for the burgeoning files of Bush-hatred. And won few converts to their cause. Despite some recent sensible actions, on this issue, the ostensibly Republican gay group, Log Cabin, has shown itself to be no different from the left-of-center gay activists.
All have used language which further poisons political discourse on gay issues.
In a statement filled with hysterical language (at odds with his recent statement on anti-gay actions in Moscow), Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) called the president’s action an “immoral attack on gay people, our families and fundamental humanity.” Geez, the president may be wrong on this one, but all he’s doing is offering his opinion on an important social issue. And while his solution may be the wrong one, his remarks did not include any attack on gay people or their families.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights campaign (HRC) who seems to have made it a priority for his organization to avoid debate of gay marriage, called the president “out of touch.” His statement on the president’s address was similarly inflammatory, faulting the president for using his radio address “to divide us as nation” (as if no president had previously addressed a divisive issue in his radio address) and for suggesting he has failed to “lay out an agenda to address the challenges facing our country.” But, I guess to Joe Solmonese the failure to lay out an agenda to his liking means the failure to lay out an agenda altogether.
It seems that on the issue of gay marriage, an issue which is indeed controversial, all Joe can do is call the president’s position divisive while failing to put forward an agenda on the topic which might unite the nation.
In a longer piece which Bruce wisely posted on this blog, Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero also seems to prefer name-calling to serious discussion. The tone of his open letter to the president hardly seems that of one Republican writing to another. He lectures the president, calling his stand an “insult” as well as “offensive and unworthy of the office of the Presidency”! Great way to engage someone with whom you disagree!. Seems he’s been taking lessons from some of those who comment to our blog.
While Patrick notes the president’s call for “civility and decency,” he calls the president’s expression of an opinion “intolerant and uncivil.” Yup, just like Joe, if someone expresses an opinion he doesn’t like, Patrick calls him names. Finally, he accuses the president of desecrating the White House! This is mean-spirited juvenile, name-calling plain and simple. It shows that, again, like Joe, Patrick would rather attack the president than take issue with his arguments. In short, in his letter to the president, Patrick Guerriero is neither civil nor decent.
This letter, full of venom and vitriol, but devoid of ideas or argument is not the type of letter a Republican would write. Indeed, it’s not even the type of letter a civil Democratic opponent of a Republican president would write.
The Stonewall Democrats’ response seems tame by contrast.
The president made two statements on the topic. In both, he reaffirmed his position by defending the institution of marriage as it has existed for millennia. In neither did he attack gay people, yet he has advocated an amendment which, in the unlikely event that it is ratified, would both prevent our society’s understanding of marriage from evolving while similarly preventing Americans from reaching a consensus on gay marriage.
Let me repeat; the president is wrong on this one. But, in gaining a public audience for a topic so important to gay and lesbian Americans, he has given advocates of gay marriage an opportunity to take issue with his points and articulate a positive case for gay marriage. Alas, that activists have preferred insults to ideas.
It appears they believe vitriol is the only way to address those who disagree with them.
In his remarks today, the president focused on taking “the issue away from the courts and put[ting] it directly before the American people.” It seems he should instead be proposing an amendment that read something like this, “The elected legislatures — or the people of the several states — shall determine qualifications for marriage in their respective states.”
In words similar to those in his radio address on Saturday, the president today articulated the standard social conservative defense of traditional marriage — and so provided an opportunity for advocates of gay marriage to correct misunderstandings these gay-marriage opponents might have about same-sex unions. He said:
For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.
This seems to be the crux of the president’s opposition to gay marriage. So now that he has made this point, it behooves advocates of gay marriage to show how gay marriage could promote the well-being of society. And to show how gay families can pass along values and shape the character of our children. They need to make clear that changing marriage from a union between individuals of different sexes to a union of two individuals would not undermine family structure.
Too many social conservatives assume that gay people are not serious about family and values. They think we wish to get married while continuing to sleep around and otherwise lead a licentious lifestyle. And hurling insults at those articulating such views will do little to correct their misunderstandings. If anything the tone of these statements will only serve to ratify the narrow views many social conservatives have about gay people, particularly their views of advocates of gay marriage.
The president, in two different statements, civilly made his case for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. He made two basic points, (1) that an amendment was necessary so the people, not the courts, could decide this important issue; (2) that changing the definition of marriage would undermine this ancient institution.
Advocates of gay marriage should be taking issue with these two points.
As I have been saying even before I began blogging, while marriage has always been a union between two individuals of different genders, society’s understanding of that institution has evolved over time. Perhaps now, it will evolve to include same-sex unions. Those who advocate such a significant social change should be prepared to face opposition from advocates of the status quo and should not reduce the opponent’s arguments to hate-filled epithets. If they’re serious about changing this institution, then they should be eager to articulate the reasons for the change.
Unfortunately, too many advocates of gay marriage have chosen to insult those defending the status quo and are so bypassing an opportunity for serious debate. No wonder in state after state, citizens vote for referenda affirming the traditional definition of marriage.
The returns migh be different if advocates of gay marriage made a better case for changing this ancient institution.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Chalk the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) as another gay organization descending into the left-wing gutter to attack the president for his support of what it calls “The Federal Marriage Amendment.” In a letter e-mailed today to its mailing list, Executive Director, Kate Kendell, proves herself to be part of the angry left, so angry that she calls a vibrant economy “sinking” and calls our health and education “system” failing. Yep, it’s all about how showing how bad things are in George W. Bush’s America.
She calls the president and Republican leaders “unconscionable” for focusing attention on this “divisive amendment.” Um, Kate, don’t you realize that this issue is itself a divisive one in this country? And many on the right, indeed, many in the middle might accuse gay groups of being divisive for pushing gay marriage — or, as all too many activists have done, by bypassing the people and their elected representatives and forcing the issue through the courts.
Gay marriage is, alas, a divisive issue in America today. But, there’s nothing wrong with divisive issues. (Ending slavery was such an issue in the mid-19th century.) Kate Kendell’s angry accusations won’t do much to heal that gap, indeed, they only serve to exacerbate it. Her rhetoric is far more divisive than that of the president.
Those who promote — and engage in — civil debate on this divisive topic are, by the very tone of their arguments, are attempting to make this divisive issue less so. While we may not succeed, we are at least trying to promote a serious debate on a controversial topic.
It’s too bad that Kate Kendell, like the other gay leaders, has cast her lot with those whose angry rhetoric only serves to poison the debate and exacerbate divisions in our society on this issue of paramount importance to our community.
(Interesting side-note: a search for “Mary Cheney” on the NCLR web-site yielded this response: “Your search for Mary Cheney did not return any matches (677 documents were searched): No documents were found.” It’s clear that this group might better be styled, the National Center for Liberal Lesbians as they ignore the prominent conservative lesbian. As Kate’s comment on the sinking economy shows, she’s pretty focused on painting the president in a bad light. So, a positive portrayal of his Vice President might undermine her dark portrait of the president.)
38 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
For crying out loud, do you really believe that the President is really looking for a debate on this? Get over it, already. Your President screwed you hard today. Take it like a man and stop whining about those that refuse to take it.
Comment by jimmy — June 5, 2006 @ 11:52 pm - June 5, 2006
“And while his solution may be the wrong one, his remarks did not include any attack on gay people or their families.”
Poll taxes and literacy tests weren’t explicitly racist. But they were racist.
How much more mental gymnastics will go thru before you realize that the President and those apparently running the Republican Party at the moment do not like you, personally, who you are, what you are…?
Comment by jimmy — June 5, 2006 @ 11:56 pm - June 5, 2006
Jimmy the issue here is not the president’s stand so much as the gay activists’ rhetoric.
I have called his support of the MPA wrong; can you bring yourself to call their angry insults counterproductive?
Comment by Dan (aka GayPatriotWest) — June 5, 2006 @ 11:58 pm - June 5, 2006
And of course, the fact that Democrats like Howard Dean and John Kerry loudly proclaim that you don’t deserve marriage and should be stripped of your rights through state constitutional amendments and legislation proves that they like you.
When you can say positively, jimmy, that supporting legal bans on gay rights makes one dislike gays personally, who they are, what they are, regardless of party affiliation, then you’ll have room to speak.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 6, 2006 @ 12:03 am - June 6, 2006
#3. It isn’t counterproductive at all. You assume that something productive could be done with this President, when Dick Cheney can’t even get him to back off? People are angry and have every right to be. You, again, say that the President is wrong on this issue, but you fail to see that it is, in fact, an attack on gay people. Just because he does say “faggot” in his talk doesn’t meant that it isn’t an attack on gay people. What is the name of the Amendment? What else is being done to ‘protect marriage’? Put two and two together.
#4. Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Kerry…
…got it already. Bored with you.
Comment by jimmy — June 6, 2006 @ 12:09 am - June 6, 2006
Wow, GayPatriotWest, you’re sure thin skinned when it comes to criticism of your “good man” George W. Bush.
I thought Patrick Guerriero’s open letter to the president was an eloquent defense of freedom for all Americans. In fact, I thought Patrick was restrained considering the president’s promotion of an amendment that would make millions of Americans second class citizens. Especially since the president’s radio address and White House speech were obviously designed to toss some red meat to the snarling theocratic wackos in the Republican right wing.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 6, 2006 @ 12:42 am - June 6, 2006
I agree that this is a War of Words, a war that may ultimately be more important than the War on Terror.
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/06/war-of-words.html
Comment by Jon Swift — June 6, 2006 @ 1:50 am - June 6, 2006
Calling me thin-skinned for calling these gay activists out for being so thin-skinned themselves that they insult the president for daring to state an opinion contrary to their own? What an Orwellian word we live in.
The president’s remarks wrong-headed though they were, were civil. Patrick, Joe and Matt were juvenile in response. There’s simply no other way to characterize their failure to make an argument. I guess for you thin-skinned means taking issue with those who can’t tolerate opposing viewpoints, no matter how civilly expressed.
At least the president laid out his case.
Let’s face it, Trace, this is a controversial issue which, alas, divides our nation. And Patrick has joined those angry activists in furthering that divide by preferring name-calling to civil discourse.
I’m simply making the point that the way to bridge that gap is through civil discussion. Eloquent, restrained writers do not lecture the president of the United States, calling his positions insulting. Restrained writers do not accuse the president of desecrating the White House for putting forward an argument with which they disagree. Eloquent, restrained writers debate contentious issues on the merits.
The president is wrong on this one. Along with the other gay leaders, Patrick has failed to make clear why he believes the president is wrong. And that’s a real shame. He had a chance to further the debate; instead he furthers the divide.
But, maybe for you, eloquent means self-professed Republicans attacking Republicans, just as Kevin Phillips has been doing for the past quarter-century.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 6, 2006 @ 4:44 am - June 6, 2006
I don’t believe there is any desire on the part of the adminsitration (or the leadership of the Republican party) to engage in debate on this issue - I think Patrick did the right thing in simply making his position known.
I’d like to hear the gay conservative rational for the invitation of Alan Chambers of Exodus International to today’s press conference to support the president’s position on gay marriage. To me, the inclusion of Exodus is a truly shocking statment of the administration’s mindset.
Comment by David — June 6, 2006 @ 6:20 am - June 6, 2006
Comment from a liberal here: Gay Patriot has a good point. Gay rights activists should spend less time criticizing the Bush directly, and more time showing why it is important the MPA not pass. I do this. In any conversation with a person accross the aisle, I speak so as to educate people on ways marriage would benefits gays and lesbians. I make a concerted effort NOT to make sweeping generalizations about gay or straight conservatives. Perhaps people on both sides might use language that caters to the exception rather than the rule.
Another point is that it may help both sides to understand the reason for our reactions. If Bush truly is concerned about marriage, then he most likely represents a generation that is not ready for the social change that isn’t happening in this country, but has already happened. His and other proponents’ thinking on gays, lesbians, and marriage is a strange mix of antiquated thought and religious indoctrination. I think my disappointment is that I’d thought we’d reached a point in our country’s history where we would know better, where we could recognize discrimination in even its simplest language. Whether it is intent or not, if one substitutes the words “black”, “Jew”, or “hispanic” for the words “gay” or “lesbian”, Bush’s remarks take on the eerie tone of Nazi propoganda (I should know, I grew up in Germany, and I’ve studied that period of human history). His tone is simply softer. And yes, such language should be considered insulting, no matter how unintentional.
The gay rights movement is still relatively young, and as with most things youthful, there is a great deal of impatience. As a black person, I believe I have some insight into why that impatience exists.
Comment by James — June 6, 2006 @ 6:57 am - June 6, 2006
After hitting that “Say It” button, I realized that what I really want to say is: Your beloved president is sh*ting on you and you are trying to politely explain away the sudden brown rain shower. It’s clear to jimmy (above) that “those apparently running the Republican Party at the moment do not like you, personally, who you are, what you are.” They are willing to use you in a dangerous (amending the constitution) and cynical power game. Moreover, by inviting Exodus International, they are not just clarifiying the definition of marriage, they are saying that you are sinful and defective. Perhaps you agree.
Comment by David — June 6, 2006 @ 7:05 am - June 6, 2006
Jimmy the issue here is not the president’s stand so much as the gay activists’ rhetoric.
Gay Activist rhetoric? Rhetoric meaning - EQUALITY FOR (ALL AMERICANS) Gays and Lesbians have families/children, and NEED and DEMAND the SAME protections as everyone else. I have NO need to be married..but I will fight for the RIGHT TOO MARRY for my fellow gays and lesbians, Gays kids, and FUTURE GAY Children…Why you are so Blah-zay about this administration USING us as pawns in thier Game of HATE & Bigotry. “ACTIVIST JUDGES” - U mean the SAME activist judges in the 60’s who made/declared “INTER-RACIAL” MARRIAGE LAW OF THE LAND. …AGAINST THE MAJORITY! WE DESERVE EQUALITY - NOTHING MORE - NOTHING LESS!!!!!!!
Comment by JRC — June 6, 2006 @ 10:22 am - June 6, 2006
JRC, jimmy, and David-dearest, it is a cruel world out there for gays; you bet. But Dan is right in calling out the rhetoric from the GayLeft as counterproductive. It’s illustrative that not one of you can comprehend that point… instead, you’re all about rage, anger, Bush Hatred, circling the wagons, revoking GayCards, and slamming anyone –including Dan here– who doesn’t fall into line and bash the Prez on command.
Political lesson #1 is that anger works to energize your base, it may work to generate donations, but in the end you’re left with bitter people who each have a monopoly on the correct opinion about what to do next. That’s the GayLeft and we’ve had lots and lots of examples of those people comment here recently.
Bitter, impotent, rage-filled and near implosion. The Gay Community needs new leaders, new ideas, a new agenda and needs to put Hate on the back burner for a generation… it isn’t a constructive impulse in the first place and it screws up political operations.
Groups like Act Up may have allowed us to think we could stand tall and do it all alone through rage, public contempt for civil discourse, and violent words and actions. But it didn’t work for long –it only deepened the ditch that separates us from our goal of a just, fair, equitable place at the American table. Hey screamers? It deepened the ditch.
Rather than continue to strike at those who Hate us, we need to find mechanisms of cooperation and opportunities to rechannel the gay-str8 conflict. The GayLeft miss the biggest point when pondering why str8s “hate” us… str8s don’t hate us; they just don’t trust us to be included in the society THEY control. The don’t trust us to keep our sex drive in check and in the bedroom. They don’t trust us with their kids in school. They don’t trust us at the pulpit as moral leaders. They don’t trust us as political allies in the political arena. And they may tolerate us living next door… but they’ll be watching out the window for transgressions from our camp.
They don’t hate us. They just don’t trust us.
And for damn good reasons, too.
You guys, like PatrickG, take us three more steps down that path of conflict with str8 America by pandering to the worst instincts in gays: a misplaced sense of moral supremacy in the face of social injustice.
Thanks, but you’re aren’t helping us advance; you’re holding us back from progress.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 6, 2006 @ 11:25 am - June 6, 2006
Very well said Michigan Matt… eloquent in word and deed.
Comment by Ed in Tampa — June 6, 2006 @ 11:54 am - June 6, 2006
Dan, the logical and rational arguments for SSM have been made for over ten years. Do a search for books on “gay marriage” at Amazon.com and you’ll get a listing of over five hundred. I haven’t read them all obviously but I can’t imagine they leave out any substantive arguments in favor of SSM. The second book in the list even argues from a Christian perspective.
The arguments in favor of gay marriage have been repeatedly over a long period of time. At some point you realize that what’s happening today has nothing to do with debating the issue. What you have is a GOP leadership that either agrees wholeheartedly with the prominent anti-gay faction within the party OR who couldn’t care less about the issue but see it as a means of gaining some political advantage for the November elections. I’m not sure which is a greater insult to gay folks like you and me: that they really WANT to make us second class citizens or that they care so little about us that they will treat our relationships as nothing more than a political football. Why that should not inspire some righteous indignation on our part is beyond me.
Comment by Ian S — June 6, 2006 @ 12:17 pm - June 6, 2006
I’m not sure which is a greater insult to gay folks like you and me: that they really WANT to make us second class citizens or that they care so little about us that they will treat our relationships as nothing more than a political football. Why that should not inspire some righteous indignation on our part is beyond me.
Simple.
“Gay rights” groups like HRC and NGLTF have made it clear that gay rights ARE a political football, to be used to raise money for Democrats, then suppressed and thrown back into the closet when Democrats need to appear on The 700 Club or support state and Federal legislation and constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights.
Furthermore, these selfsame organizations have made it clear that their support is based solely on political affiliation; Republicans are bad, Democrats are good, regardless of their actions.
It’s rather hard to get indignant over a self-inflicted wound.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 6, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - June 6, 2006
“But Dan is right in calling out the rhetoric from the GayLeft as counterproductive. It’s illustrative that not one of you can comprehend that point.”
The claim, repeated often here as an undisputable fact, that the Log Cabin Republicans represents some mythic gay left says quite a bit about the Alice in Wonderland quality of the Gay Patriot universe. Gay left as defined here is simply short hand for any political view not sanctioned by the hosts of this blog.
It is also amusing that the supportes of the hosts have seen to adopt the latest rhetorical device to silent dissent. If someone disagrees with a post they are immediately accused of either not reading the post or lacking the ability to comprehend. I asked a friend (one of my few friends who is a republican) to look at this blog and especially the postings on the MPA and tell me what he thought. His immediate reaction was that he was certain that the blog was meant as parody and it was only when I told him to read more that he was convinced that folks here seriously believed what they posted.
Comment by Brendan Flynn — June 6, 2006 @ 1:20 pm - June 6, 2006
The parody is that any of the gay groups think anyone in Congress or the rest of America listens or cares to their childish, screaming press releases.
Comment by GayPatriot — June 6, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - June 6, 2006
Ian S in #15, fair point (in the first paragraph). So why not just repeat those arguments now, especially when they have a national audience?
Back then, they were merely talking to other gay people and to already-sympathetic straights. And my point is that advocates of gay marriage should have used the publicity of this debate to get their message out to a wider audience.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 6, 2006 @ 2:13 pm - June 6, 2006
Because the debate is not about gay rights for them; it’s about anti-Bush, anti-religious, and anti-Republican hatred.
What HRC, NGLTF, and other groups are hoping is that, by zeal against Bush, they can win their way back into favor with the DNC. They figure that Howie will love them more if they only prove how much they hate Bush and how irrelevant gay rights are; it’s more important to hate Bush instead.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 6, 2006 @ 2:16 pm - June 6, 2006
Nutcase alert.
Comment by rightwingprof — June 6, 2006 @ 4:23 pm - June 6, 2006
Dan’s right again.
The logical and rational arguments have been made for a long time now, AMONG CENTRIST GAYS. Newsflash, folks: They obviously haven’t made it to Middle America. And it will probably take years longer for them to sink in. And it is up to us (pro-marriage gays) to keep repeating them, in a rational and mature fashion, until they do.
And yes, that sucks. Yes, it takes forever. Yes, throwing little (or big) fits of rage and screaming is way more satisfying. But that’s not how you change the minds of democratic majorities. Maturity, patience and persistence are how. That’s life.
Comment by Calarato — June 6, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - June 6, 2006
“His immediate reaction was that he was certain that the blog was meant as parody and it was only when I told him to read more that he was convinced that folks here seriously believed what they posted.”
“The parody is that any of the gay groups think anyone in Congress or the rest of America listens or cares to their childish, screaming press releases.”
I, too, thought this site was a parody at first. And either the “GayLeft” groups wield destructive power or they do not. You can’t have it both ways. Either they are taken seriously enough to make straight Americans hate gays as a result, or they are “childish and screaming” and nobody “listens or cares to listen to them.” Which is it?
There’s a lot of anger and frustration on this site because of the simple fact that at this time in the U.S. we are not yet accepted as full citizens. Rather than find common cause in that realization, we’re tearing each other apart. Given our present status, this is all so much narcissism of small differences.
My politics lean far enough to the left that I actually agree with much of the stuff written here about the Democratic Party and our gay organizations. Someone should finally call them on their hypocrisy, and maybe that’s what blogs like this are good for. I do wish, however, that the conservative gay bloggers here were more principled and less partisan. Right now, the Republican Party has screwed them over, and all this site can muster is tepid expressions of disappointment, combined with the usual vitriol against the so-called “GayLeft”, which is alternately portrayed as a money-grubbing Leviathan or a bunch of feckless babies.
Comment by Chris — June 6, 2006 @ 6:25 pm - June 6, 2006
#23 last paragraph. I agree completely, Chris, and couldn’t have expressed it nearly as well myself. Kudos!
Comment by ndtovent — June 6, 2006 @ 9:09 pm - June 6, 2006
Chris-
This blog represents views that will always be contrary to the Gay Left mindset.
Comment by GayPatriot — June 6, 2006 @ 9:18 pm - June 6, 2006
#22: “And it is up to us (pro-marriage gays) to keep repeating them, in a rational and mature fashion, until they do.”
No, it will take a generational shift which is actually happening. The homohaters over 50 will simply have to die off. There is no way to reach them. Right wing media is not going to help; neither are the churches. The only hope is the next generation. Meanwhile, I see no reason to give legitimacy to homohatred by accepting as a valid argument that gay marriage will destroy the institution.
Comment by Ian S — June 6, 2006 @ 9:44 pm - June 6, 2006
You may well be right, Ian S, about the generational shift.
But until advocates of gay marriage make clear that gay marriage includes the same standards as its straight counterparts, social conservatives will continue to see it as a threat.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 6, 2006 @ 9:50 pm - June 6, 2006
Perhaps there is a segment of the gay and lesbian population who are sick and tired of “debating” this topic? Gays and lesbians continue to be the last minority that’s ok to villified by conservative dogma. Laws banning marriage between people of different races (which used to exist by the way), between people of different religions, between people of different economic backgrounds? Sounds pretty ludicrous doesn’t it?
And by the way, where’s the constitutional ammendment banning divorce if our conservative leaders are so high and might on keeping families together? Oh, that’s right…a law like that would stop the rich, powerful and connected from getting divorces themselves.
Comment by Kevin — June 6, 2006 @ 10:43 pm - June 6, 2006
#27 Well Dan, I’m not sure how we make clear what seems to me a given. Has any gay person who so far has been granted a license to marry anywhere asked for special marriage standards to only be applied to SSM?
I really think that we’ve reached the point where we’re not really going to be able to continue to convert those older people who have made up their minds. The incremental increases we see in approval of SSM over the years may simply be due to the older anti-SSM folks dying off to be replaced with a far more tolerant generation. I think that’s why the anti-gay forces are pushing so hard now: they see the writing on the wall and a federal Constitutional amendment is the only assurance they have that a ban on SSM will have any sort of long term endurance. I think they are right in that a federal Constitutional amendment will be awfully hard to undo. You can’t compare it to Prohibition because there was a huge segment of the population affected negatively by that amendment. Gay people are always going to be a small minority so there may never be a strong enough push to repeal the MPA.
I agree with you that we have to keep putting forth our arguments if for no other reason than to reach the younger generation. But I fear the old folks are immune to logical arguments that are apt to be lost within the political farce that is currently underway. Wait til this is over then we’ll continue to make the arguments and younger folks will have their tolerant beliefs confirmed by the fact that Massachusetts and Canada will not be struck by God’s wrath. If we can hold off the amendment for a few more years, support for it will literally die off.
Comment by Ian S — June 6, 2006 @ 11:00 pm - June 6, 2006
To GayPatriot in 25: Your reference to the gay left mindset reminds me that you haven’t explained what you meant the other day when you wrote that the Log Cabin Republicans have a leftist anti-American agenda. If you think LCR are “anti-American” what is your definition of “pro-American”?
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 6, 2006 @ 11:15 pm - June 6, 2006
#30: I suspect for GayPatriot that the easiest thing is just to replace “American” with “Bush”. Then it will all be clear
Comment by Ian S — June 6, 2006 @ 11:36 pm - June 6, 2006
Regarding the post
On Saturday and again today the president made his case for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. If opponents of the amendment were serious about debating this important issue, they would have offered thoughtful rebuttals taking issue with his arguments. They could thus have turned the occasion of the President’s public statement into an opportunity to advance their own cause — promoting gay marriage.
Oh, Danny boy. Apparently you misunderstand.
Your pResident didn’t make a case for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He repeated a set of talking points, none of which were arguments in favor of incorporating discrimination against gay people in the federal constituion. And, moreover, none of which were arguments in favor of institutionalizing anti-federalism. Something that you apparently wish to ignore.
Now, as to the issue of “debating this important issue,” it seems to me that there isn’t a whole lot to debate. Either someone believes that “equal protection” extends to gay people, or he doesn’t. (Apparently few Amis do.) And, either someone believes in federalism, or he doesn’t. (Again, apparently few Amis do.)
So what’s to debate? Andrew Sullivan’s mewly points about how gay marriage might help gay people? Oh, give me a break. It is doubtful that even a few Amis give a tinkers’ damn about actually helping gay people.
You really should consider getting out and noticing that your Republican party is throwing you to the wolves. The sad fact, though, is that they probably won’t accomplish much for their hypocritical base, largely because, if they actually pass their discriminatory amendment, they won’t have the issue which they can use to make money with. And, as we know, in politics, it’s all about money.
BTW, I’m sure that you are intelligent enough to know that, to Republicans, gay people are the latest substitute for the Negro punching bags. But everyone, even those from Cincinnati, knows that. “Can’t bash the Nigrahs (out loud). Can’t bash the Jews (out loud). So we’ll bash dem fags.” It’s your choice to support the Republican gay-bashing party, and it’s mine not to.
Comment by raj — June 7, 2006 @ 3:05 am - June 7, 2006
I love this. You can always count on the Patriots to trash everyone from Andrew Sullivan to Patrick Guerrero, to call people with divergent opinions “anti-American” moonbats. The comments are always full of invective from people like Matt….And here they are calling for “civil discourse” about the FMA.
Bush has utterly no interest in discussing this subject. This is nothing but a political move to placate the far right wing….and everyone knows that. If the party doesn’t get the wingnuts out to vote, it will sink big during midterm elections. This is no different from the 2004 election tactics.
The idea that America is being invited into a civil debate about gay marriage is just absurd. Bush’s talking points are just as offensive, moreso, than the responses you’ve linked. They are passionate, as they should be,, and they are not unreasoned.
As far as a debate goes, poll after poll has shown that the great majority of Americans disfavor this amendment even when they disfavor gay marriage. If there’s any “debate” being entertained, it’s about an amendment — not the issue of gay marriage itself.
Maureen Dowd (gasp! yes, her) has a great column on the subject today.
Comment by donny — June 7, 2006 @ 9:30 am - June 7, 2006
Kevin in #28, you anticipate a post I am working on where I will suggest (among other things) that if social conservatives are really serious about marriage, they will focus more on the greatest threat to the institution — no-fault divorce laws.
Um, Donny in #33, please show me where I’ve called people with divergent opinions “anti-American.” Once again, one of our critics misrepresents me in order to dismiss my opinions without considering them. I guess that just means I’m getting something right.
Maybe President Bush doesn’t have any interest in discussing this, but that was not the subject of my post (as indicated by its very title), but at least he didnt’ call his adversaries (on this issue) names. The gay leadership has proven by their very rhetoric that they’re not interested in debating this. it’s sad and unfortunate that their defenders would call their angry reactions “not unreasoned.”
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 7, 2006 @ 12:01 pm - June 7, 2006
And either the “GayLeft” groups wield destructive power or they do not. You can’t have it both ways. Either they are taken seriously enough to make straight Americans hate gays as a result, or they are “childish and screaming” and nobody “listens or cares to listen to them.” Which is it?
Think of it as a three-year-old throwing a tantrum.
They are “childish and screaming” and nobody “listens or cares to listen to them”. But what their action gets, at best, is being ignored, and at worst, a healthy swat for being a brat — hence the “destructive power” part.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 7, 2006 @ 12:33 pm - June 7, 2006
In Michigan, North Dallas 30, we call that bitch-slapping. And, frankly, I think gays gave the practice that name. It hurts more when those in power do it to our community’s self-appointed leaders.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 7, 2006 @ 3:14 pm - June 7, 2006
#34 - Some of your blog commentors (raising own hand) certainly call people like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan anti-American.
But, is that you (Dan) calling “people with divergent opinions” anti-American? Well, you know it isn’t.
Comment by Calarato — June 7, 2006 @ 5:57 pm - June 7, 2006
Calarato, in 37: Dan has not called those who disagree with him “anti-American”. But Bruce (and many who comment) occasionally comes close to questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with him.
A couple of days ago Bruce wrote that Log Cabin Republicans have a leftist “anti-American” agenda. To date he has refused to explain what he means by “anti-American”.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 7, 2006 @ 11:31 pm - June 7, 2006