He and I both support gay marriage. That may be the only area in which we do agree, but at least there’s that. I was suspicious of Dennis , however, when he remarked to the Democrat’s forum on gay and lesbian issues: “All I can say is, keep those contributions coming … and you’ll have the president that you want.” Contributions? So we get more Dennis – the man who has been rejected by the American electorate by a greater margin than anyone in living memory, yet still pops up to pollute airwaves on a more consistent basis than anyone since Arthur Godfrey? Everything about Dennis seems to be about Dennis, just as it is about John Edwards. I don’t believe it for a second when Edwards asserted at the same forum he was “comfortable” around gay people. I have no doubt that Bob Schrum was telling it like it was in his memoir when he recounted Edwards’ homophobia. Edwards is the quintessentially inauthentic man to me, no matter what he says.
Actually, we all know the candidate most comfortable around gay people in the genuine sense and that’s Rudolph Giuliani. And I don’t mean because he danced around in drag or whatever he did. I mean because he strikes me as a modern New Yorker who has lived in the real world. He has gay friends and straight friends as a matter of course and doesn’t think much about it. That’s life.
But, as I have said before, gay marriage is a done deal and people should stop worrying about it (except to get equal partnership legal rights). Anyone paying the slightest attention sees gay “married” couples all around us- some happy, some not, some in between. Yawn.
Now – to be frank – I have not seen this forum, only read reports. I’m sure I will catch bits of it later tonight on television. So I would like to ask if anyone mentioned the huge elephant in the room and I don’t mean Republicans. I mean Islamic fascism and its outright assault on gays and women beyond anything that has ever been conceived in our culture. Did Melissa Etheridge and her fellow and gal panelists show any interest in that? Did the candidates?
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
10 Comments
1. OregonGuy:Sure. This is how it starts.
First, the attack on Arthur Godfrey. But where does it stop?
Is Durward Kirby next?
Garry Moore?
Please, stop the madness.
Aug 10, 2007 - 12:25 pm 2. Anthony (Los Angeles):The only objection I have is making gay marriage a right. I’m in favor of providing a legal framework for gays that’s either marriage or the functional equivalent, but I don’t want it set in stone as a civil right. We define too many things as “rights,” which usually translates as “whatever I want.” This is a matter for each state to resolve on its own through its legislatures.
Aug 10, 2007 - 1:01 pm 3. Captain Hate:Somebody should ask Kucinich why his divorce settlements forbid his ex-wives from ever talking about him in publications.
Aug 10, 2007 - 3:10 pm 4. jane m:“This is a matter for each state to resolve on its own through its legislatures.”
When it comes to issues of the unborn, the born, sexuality, family and marriage, does anybody even remember the 10th Amendment anymore? Aren’t we still a federation?
Aug 10, 2007 - 3:15 pm 5. Roger:jane m, I recognize your states rights argument… but in the real world of 2007 where people live in an incredibly mobile, often virtual, society that could never have been envisioned by the Founding Fathers, it does seem a little, well, sentimental to define marital status one way in Georgia and another in South Carolina.
Captin Hate, regarding Kucinich, I didn’t know that. Maybe I should have made that a requirement for my exs. (just kidding) Actually, I’m not surprised. Dennis is all about publicity.
Aug 10, 2007 - 3:58 pm 6. Captain Hate:Roger, I’m really surprised that, since this is his second “campaign” for President, that one of those hard hitting, speak troof to power MSMers hadn’t dug those nuggets up. Maybe the current one won’t go so quietly.
It’s funny that in Cleveland some journalists despise him but a seemingly equal number worship him, either through laziness (he’s a human quote machine; not necessarily intelligent quotes) and/or he appeals to their inner idiot.
Aug 10, 2007 - 4:28 pm 7. jane m:Roger
Yes, the framers of the Bill of Rights and our federalist system of government could not envision much of our modern American society. All modern political, economic, cultural, religious facts of life would be near science fiction and fantasy to the founding fathers. Your argument could be applied to almost every aspect of our current framework of local and state governance.
So do you advocate ignoring the 10th Amendment only as respects same-sex marriage or should we include all the messy issues of marriage, divorce, adoption, taxation, etc that are made inconvenient and complicated by the enactment of 50 different sets of legislatures? Granted, we have a lot to keep track of as a mobile society but where do we make exceptions to the “powers not enumerated”? Should the right to privacy trump the 10th Amendment in all cases and not just the case of abortion and, now, perhaps, same-sex marriage?
Aug 11, 2007 - 10:46 am 8. Jim Rockford:Roger –
Let me explain bottom-line why Gay Marriage is a non-starter for Straight Men.
Absent wealth/power/status, straight men only benefit when marriage and monogamy generally is defined as one man and one woman. It’s the only way we win and the traditional nuclear family can be considered the “secret sauce” of the West’s advantage.
Under Gay Marriage, you will find a few takers for gay marriage, but many for polygamy. This has been the experience in Ontario.
Result? The average straight man loses and women, gays win. Women win because they can now formalize polygamous arrangements with powerful, high-status men. Gays win of course. And Straight Men lose.
This is why Gay Marriage is a political loser because non-high status guys understand they’ll lose. It’s why they oppose it. Because their fundamental interests (exclusive sexual/reproductive access to a woman) are threatened. There are far more Straight Men than gays, and many women have sons who will of course lose under Gay Marriage (because it also legalizes polygamy).
Let’s be honest about what Gay Marriage is all about: raw power politics creating winners and losers in the marriage market by redefining what marriage constitutes. It’s why it’s not going anywhere. [I'll agree that the religious arguments are meaningless, like most things this is about who wins and loses. Given that the huge numbers of losers know they'll lose this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Domestic partnerships don't threaten straight men by legalizing polygamy so that will find ample support.]
Aug 11, 2007 - 4:54 pm 9. triticale:Don’t be too hard on Arthur G-dfrey.
Aug 11, 2007 - 5:31 pm 10. AlanC:He gave Patsy Cline her big break.
I have had significant contact with Gays, including a “married” relativee (this is Massachusetts afterall).
Some of them in an uncensored moment agree that this is all about the Benjamins.
Jim Rockford is correct about the power politics. Just look at the implications of the NY ordinance that requires gay partners to get medical, etc. benefits BUT straight unmarried partners don’t. Why is that? Cause there are so many straights that it would break the bank. I find it humerous that NOONE ever brings up the alternative of getting government totally out of marriage and relationships of all kinds. Now why do you think that is?
You can’t address this stuff in a non-gender specific relationship manner. This opens the door to all sorts of things like polygamy that would devolve society back to the days of the Dark Ages.
After all, do we really want a society where might makes right in all things domestic? That’s where this is heading.
Aug 13, 2007 - 7:22 am