Thursday, August 30, 2007

Not Gay

OK, I'm going to venture into politics again...put on your safety goggles and helmets.
Senator Larry Craig--he's the latest anti-gay crusader who, by the strangest of coincidences, just happens to be gay. I can't decide whether it's more sad than funny or vice versa!
I want to thank my friend Derek for noticing that in Senator Craig's recent press conference he began by saying, "Thank you all very much for coming out today." Coming out, indeed. Priceless!


becky said...

Yeah, they've done research, and have found (via means of measurement that I won't mention in polite company) that, outta the people who call themselves heterosexual, the MOST homophobic people are the ones who are the MOST turned on by naked pictures of people of their own sex. (I think I got that right; it's been a while since I read it).

sharon spotbottom said...

That's a real toe-tapper Kenny.

Anonymous said...

I'm not gay, and I've never been gay. Why would he say this? Are there episodes when people use to be gay? I have to agree with the great philosopher, Andrew Dice Clay, "either you suck **** or you don't". This guy needs to quit, leave his wife, and move into a bathroom stall.



Anonymous said...

As the Original Anonymous, here are my thoughts on Craig:

You label him an anti-gay crusader. Feel free to correct me, but I have never seen anything where he says he condemns homosexuals and consigns them to hell or something similar for being gay. I have only seen information about him being anti gay marriage. If that is true then the cries of hypocrisy are misplaced and are being used to discredit arguments against gay marriage which are held by the majority of people in this country.

As for Craig personally, he should be condemned for poor judgment and dangerous behavior. This is not the first time for him either, there were rumors before of him doing the same thing last year at Union Station. People have the right to their own sexual preferences but not the right to carry out lewd behavior in public restrooms.

He should be pressured to resign for the good of the party and for the good of the government. He may have a right to keep his seat absent a recall vote but being a public official should mean you have some integrity which he obviously does not. That’s hopelessly idealistic considering all the sex scandals in government from Bill Clinton to Mark Foley and outright graft and criminal acts symbolized by John Murtha and William “Cold Cash” Jefferson but not living up to standards is not a reason for their elimination.

As to Craig and gay marriage, I would say that not wanting gay marriage does not mean you are anti gay. “Anti-gay” means you are opposed to what consenting adults do in private. There are very good and legitimate arguments against gay marriage: marriage is a construct of society because of the need to create and properly rear children, since women bear children marriage has traditionally protected them by making the man jointly responsible for the baby the woman alone carries, that traditional marriage is part of our 2000 year old Judeo-Christian heritage, that our entire body of laws relating to marriage were designed for different sexes in mind, not that of two consenting adults, etc, etc. Whether you agree or not, these are valid beliefs, and they happen to be held by the majority of Americans. Craig is anti gay marriage and by supporting that position he is representing the values of his constituency.

If Craig were anti-gay marriage but was in a long term monogamous homosexual relationship then the hypocrite label would be a proper fit to discredit his views. As a bathroom cruiser he is just plain creepy.

Now on to a tangent to make this interesting: I keep reading about how Craig is a hypocrite because he “wants to deny rights to homosexuals”. That is the gay lobby playing the victim card, the implication being if you disagree with them you are a hater and a homophobe. There is, at present, no right to gay marriage, so there is no right that exists to be denied. What I personally find offensive is how the proponents of gay marriage want it implemented. Gay marriage was on the ballot in 11 states in 2004. It lost in all 11 states. So the proponents want it enacted through the courts. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found the right to gay marriage in their constitution, but when the judges of the New York Supreme Court could not find the right in their 230 year old constitution Chuck Schumer denounced the decision as “bigoted”.

The problem with enacting gay marriage other than through a vote of the people is that it violates the consent of the governed which is a fundamental premise of our representative republic. Here in California the State Legislature wanted to enact it into law even after it had been voted down by popular vote in 2004. Schwarzenegger, a gay marriage supporter, wisely vetoed the bill as not being the will of the people.

When Gavin Newsome, mayor of San Francisco was marrying gay couples in contravention of state law the gay marriage supporters cheered. How would those same people react if he had been giving out Concealed Weapons Permits? The Right to Bear Arms actually IS in the Constitution—yet I doubt they would be cheering it on.

Those who want to enact gay marriage should do it by convincing voters of its value and through convincing arguments, not by ramming it through the courts when the people vote it down. When we enhance or modify the rights of the people it has to be done via consensual governance.

johnnybaffo said...

That is a very rational argument and puts things into a better prespective for me. I think maybe we should impliment a legal union for gays that is different from marriage but still grants gay couples similar rights as marriage. A commited life partner should have say in his or her partners estate and decisions of regaurding health and wellfare.
Craig has been portrayed not only a joke but a demon by all the gay rights groups and in crowd liberals. Maybe he's just a fucked up little man who is trying to do what he feels is expected of him by his family, peers and constituants. Too bad he was'nt born in San Francisco so he could be true to himself.

dominic said...

Once again another member of the GOP - the Grand Old Perverts - has come out of the closet and revealed himself to be a... hypocrite.

Anonymous said...


The concept of civil unions makes perfect sense—I think anyone who would oppose those kind of equal benefits to homosexuals would be a legitimate bigot. Civil unions enjoys a much greater % support than gay marriage and would have a much better chance of being implemented and popularly accepted.


Crying “hypocrite” has become the all purpose easy way to condemn an opposing position, having replaced using a rational argument of your own.

However, since you brought it up—have you ever noticed the difference between conservative and liberal hypocrisy?

Here is an example:

Two weeks ago in front of the largest teachers union in the country (NEA) Hillary Clinton declared that she will fight school vouchers “with every breath in my body”. No surprise there, the teachers unions are one of the top Democrat donors and give 98% of their money to Democrats. The fact that the public schools are a disaster that traps poor people’s kids in a hopeless environment never mattered to Hillary—she sent her kid to private schools—just like Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore.

More examples:

John Edwards wants everyone to give up SUV’s except the one in the driveway of his 28,000 sf house;
Al Gore wants you to pledge to live in a yurt while he flies around via private jet;
Michael Moore denounces oil companies and claimed to have no stock but was a shareholder in Halliburton, Boeing and Honeywell and does postproduction in Canada to avoid union wages;
Noam Chomsky opposes private property but has two luxury homes;
Nancy Pelosi owns a vineyard that will not use union labor, etc. etc, etc….

Do you see what the difference is?

When a conservative is a hypocrite they hurt themselves. Every one of them who has a drug problem or an extramarital affair,etc. brings shame and opprobrium upon themselves.

When liberals are hypocrites it results in them making their lives better, wealthier, more comfortable or with more choice. When it comes to their own families and finances they abandon their public liberal ideals and act as a conservative would. Their notions of society that they want to impose on you through government are meant for you, not them.

david gemmill said...

hahhaa his jowls look like separated ballsacks. closet gays are interesting characters

Christy H. said...

I find these arguments frustrating. And I don't understand why a civil union for gay people is acceptable whereas an actual "marriage" is not. To me it comes down to the purpose and nature of marriage, which is somewhat different from that characterized here.

A marriage has three components: a social union, a legal union (formal government recognition) and/or a religious union/acknowledgement by the church/synagogue/etc. Many heterosexual couples eschew the religious ceremony for a simple, City Hall type legal ceremony. This is known as civil marriage. To say that gay people should be able to participate in civil unions is no different, in my mind, than saying that they should be able to go down to City Hall and get married by an officiant. The only difference is that you are basically saying that it's okay for the state to recognize these unions, but you are not also saying that it's okay for this recognition to extend to society or religious institutions at large. As far as the churches are concerned, they can and will make up their own minds about what kind of personal unions to sanction, and that is as it should be. Period, full stop. If anyone in this country is worried about the erosion of the religious institution of marriage, all I can say is: dude, there are so many other things worth worrying about. Virtually zero conventional Protestant churches recognize gay unions. The Unitarians (who are crazy, bless their hearts) do; an occasional rogue minister in the Methodist or Episcopalian church will perform gay marriages, before he or she is stopped by their church. The Episcopalian church, actually, may end up starting to sanction these marriages, but I think that's unlikely - and if it does, there will be a schism and there will be some form of that church that will not perform these marriages.

Part of this does come down to the definition and construct of marriage. Marriage is not solely a construct of society because of the need to create and properly rear children. If that were the case, maybe we should deny marriage to the millions of couples who, either by choice or not, are childless. (Maybe we should allow these couples to participate in civil unions, though.) Putting aside ideas of romance, marriage is about stability. A stable environment in which to raise children, a stable environment in which to protect property (including an orderly means of passing property along to children), and/or a stable emotional union for two people who have decided that their needs are best served through a partnership. Nothing in this definition would seem to exclude gay people, in my mind. Why should we deny them the same chance for stability and a loving environment that is enjoyed by the rest of society?

Also: really, let's not fool ourselves that the historical, Judeo-Christian roots of marriage have to do with protecting women by making the main jointly responsible for the baby the woman carries. Women have historically (in terms of the last few thousand years of history) been part of the marriage property package - they came along with a dowry, and gave up their rights to hold property. Until relatively recently, it wasn't even recognized that women have a right to hold property. In legal terms (in early modern Britain, for example), wives were referred to explicitly as the "property" of the husband. It's true that a married woman had a more protected status than an unmarried one, but only in view of the fact that an unmarried woman was generally shit outta luck when it came to social protection, unless her father could live long enough to continue to protect her (and even this was no guarantee). This is a very important point. And even in modern society, marriage does not always protect women and children, especially in the case of spousal abuse, which is still one of the most under-recognized and under-prosecuted crimes in this country.

But anyway. What really bothers me is that, implicit in this idea that it might be specifically okay for gay couples to participate in civil unions, there seems to me to be a silence with regards to the "social recognition" aspect of gay marriage. It seems as though it's okay for gay couples to be basically legally married...just as long as they don't really talk about it and as long as we can still distinguish them from the rest of humanity, i.e., mainstream heterosexual society. American society discriminates against gay people, in the same way that American society used to discriminate against black people. The circumstances are different, and the injustice is less severe, but if you doubt that this discimination happens, I can refer you to the teacher who was fired or the soldier who was discharged because they were gay, or the landlord who decided not to rent to someone because he was gay, or the couple who were attacked on the street because they were holding hands. (Or, for that matter, the senator who was forced to resign because he may or may not have been cruising for sex in a public bathroom. Which is a misdemeanor, let's not forget.) It is specifically because of this layer of discrimination that gay marriage, like mixed-race marriage in the 1960s, is not approved by society at large. It could violate the will of the governed to pass legislation approving gay marriage, if this is not sanctioned by the voters. But that's why we actually have that pesky ol' third branch of government - the courts, which (at best, anyway) dispense justice blindly. The courts were the instrument of civil rights for black people in the 50s, 60s and 70s. And if you haven't noticed, they continue to be the instrument of justice for gay people - see the aforementioned teacher, landlord, and couple walking down the street holding hands. (The soldier and the senator I can't help you with just yet.)

I actually don't think that the courts will be the main or primary vehicle through which gay marriage will become part of American society - I think that the social acceptance is going to come first. And it seems like maybe that will still take a while. Fuck, people. Happy, stable, loving gay couples are all around you, and they are contributing to society and to those values that are what make this country great. Just because they have the same anatomy as each other does not make them any less loving or good or productive or valuable than you or me. Open your eyes! and give a happy gay couple a hug today!!

thanks, KK.

Anonymous said...

Christy h.:

You make many good points in support of gay marriage. I was not making a pro or con argument, I only stated that the arguments against gay marriage exist and are not unreasonably held by majority of the voters at this point in time.

The fact that civil unions poll much more favorably supports the contention that the arguments against gay marriage are not about “denial” of rights but center around a desire to protect traditional marriage.

Civil unions are a good step towards the acceptance that you desire. Civil unions could later be rolled into traditional marriage. The problem with the implementation of gay marriage is that it is not currently accepted by the voters, and ramming it in via the courts subverts the consent of the governed and is not going to facilitate acceptance of it or diminish discrimination. While discrimination and other injustices are tragic, it is more important that they be addressed through the proper representation of the people.

As to what you say about that pesky ol’ third branch of government:

The judicial branch is where Thomas Jefferson himself felt tyranny was most likely to come from, as President Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in 1821:

“You seem … to consider the [federal] judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy … The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party its members would become despots.”

Unfortunately the history of the Courts are often not ones of dispensing justice blindly. The most famous instance of the Court desiring to make a social outcome is Roe vs. Wade. In Roe, had the Court strictly read the Constitution it would not have struck down the Texas law. The result was Roe made abortion on demand a Federal law when it hadn’t been voted on by the people or any legislature anywhere in the country (while abortion was legal in, I believe, 13 states at the time, in no state was it as unrestricted as Roe made it.) Before comments start about abortion I am not making the case for or against it, I am merely talking about the role of the Court. If Roe were overturned that would not make abortion illegal, it would make it a matter for the states where it should have been the entire time.

Here is what Bob Woodward wrote about Justice Powell at the time of Roe (similar comments were made by Justices Blackmun and Stewart):

“Powell came quickly to the conclusion that the Constitution did not provide meaningful guidance. The right to privacy was tenuous; at best it was implied. If there was no way to find an answer in the Constitution, Powell felt he would have to just vote his “gut”…When he returned to Washington, he took one of his law clerks to lunch…The abortion laws, Powell confided, were “atrocious”. His would be a strong and unshakeable vote to strike them. He only needed a rationale for his vote.”

That is NOT justice being delivered blindly. If the answer was not in the Constitution it was a matter for the States.

My point with this is, I do not want to see gay marriage imposed in a similar way. Abortion is a more contentious issue as a result of Roe than it would have been if the voters and their state legislators had decided on their own. Securing a right of gay marriage through the will of the people may take longer than having an activist court impose it, but the social benefit will be much greater.

Anonymous said...

I think all this legal wrangling is interesting but the question comes down, do you believe being gay is normal? Further, whether you believe it is normal or not should the government get into the position of dealing with people's private lives. Legal benefits are present for married couples that are forced upon companies and provided through tax and death benefits. I can't say this is a good thing, as regards to married people, but I am speaking of homosexual issues now. If enough people desire this sort of thing (gay union/marriage benefits), companies such as Disney will offer them. The government needs to stay out or our lives. When has the government interfering in people's lives improved their situations? Let homosexuals be, if you are against it politely let people know, if you are for it, politely let people know. Unfortunately, people get very militant about homosexuality and then try to force their opinions on others. Liberals say teach it in schools as a normal variant and how it should be accepted and welcomed. Conservatives say it is an abomination and should be stricken down. Either one of these approaches whether supported by the masses or by the elite judicial branch is detrimental to the group. Again, I repeat, the government, regardless of which branch, needs to stay out of this.


Matt, the unoriginal anonymous