TW:...and it certainly is not the progressives holding this up...
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy Mag:
"Here's a sensible note from a young Navy submarine officer who says he is writing because he wants people to understand that the obstacle to being openly gay in the military lies is Congress, not in the uniformed military:
'The debate may exist in the media, and certainly exists in Congress, but on the ship, if it's talked about at all it with a little bit of confusion about what the big deal is. Don't get me wrong, there is homophobia and there are a few loud, mostly uneducated, mostly very junior, and mostly still well-meaning people who would tell you they think its wrong -- but they're the kind of people who are just saying it because its what they were brought up to say, and even they aren't saying it with much fervor. I can tell you with certainty that if the ban were lifted tomorrow -- no year of preparation -- life would go on exactly as it did before....
Life would go on. Mostly what I heard after Admiral Mullen's declaration was, "it's about time." There is no question if the military is ready -- the military is waiting.
... I just want the press to understand that it is the Congress that needs pushing, not the military, and that excuses such as "senior military officials like the CJCS and SecDef are out of touch with the low-level, young guys on the ground" may be true on many issues, but not this one.'
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/04/openly_gay_soldiers_and_sailors_the_view_from_a_navy_submarine
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Douchebag Alert: Saxby Chambliss
From Politics Daily:
"...Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga...strongly opposed repealing the law [DADT], noting that the military prohibits soldiers from a range of personal behaviors, including displaying tattoos and body art. "In my opinion, the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual activity would very likely create an unacceptable risk to the high moral standards of the military."
TW: So being gay is an abhorant personal behavior and a much greater risk to national security...are we in the 1950's or twenty teens? Your vote counted and will continue to count.
From same article:
"...Sen. John McCain, the top-ranking Republican on the panel, called Don't Ask Don't Tell an "imperfect, but effective" policy..."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/02/senators-clash-over-dont-ask-dont-tell-as-pentagon-readies-ann/
Update from Taegan Goodard:
"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."
-- Sen. John McCain, in an interview on Hardball in 2006, about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
"At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy."
-- McCain, quoted by NBC News earlier today, after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs recommended changing the policy. "
"...Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga...strongly opposed repealing the law [DADT], noting that the military prohibits soldiers from a range of personal behaviors, including displaying tattoos and body art. "In my opinion, the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual activity would very likely create an unacceptable risk to the high moral standards of the military."
TW: So being gay is an abhorant personal behavior and a much greater risk to national security...are we in the 1950's or twenty teens? Your vote counted and will continue to count.
From same article:
"...Sen. John McCain, the top-ranking Republican on the panel, called Don't Ask Don't Tell an "imperfect, but effective" policy..."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/02/senators-clash-over-dont-ask-dont-tell-as-pentagon-readies-ann/
Update from Taegan Goodard:
"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."
-- Sen. John McCain, in an interview on Hardball in 2006, about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
"At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy."
-- McCain, quoted by NBC News earlier today, after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs recommended changing the policy. "
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Republican Logic
From Taegan Goddard:
"Although today's vote in New York to legalize same sex marriage did not receive a single Republican vote, the Log Cabin Republicans [Gay Republican group] issued a statement blaming Democrats:
"Today we share in the frustration and disappointment that the Senate did not pass the marriage equality bill. We are deeply saddened that the Democratic Conference failed to secure the votes they promised, undermining the possibility of a credible bipartisan vote of conscience on the merits of marriage equality. Winning marriage equality in New York requires the Democrats to keep their promises, and Log Cabin will continue to work to ensure that Republicans vote their conscience when that finally happens."
TW: The vote was 38-24 against legalization with zero Republican votes yet the Dems are blamed by the Republican group. The warped logic apparently being that Dems should fall on their electoral swords so that perhaps a few Republicans could do the right thing by "voting their consciences". I would imagine being a Log Cabin Republican is conflicting but still.
Gays want marriage unfortunately for them a solid majority of their fellow Americans do not. Do you think those Dems who voted against the measure did so despite their constituents pounding the table FOR the measure. They did so because their constituents are against the measure. This was in New York, not Utah. There is obviously more work to be done in making the case for marriage.
The Dems nationally have NOT campaigned on marriage because to do so would electoral suicide. Similarly strong anti-gun control and pro-choice can mean electoral suicide as well even though I personally support both. African-American rights advanced legally once a strong majorities NATIONALLY imposed their interpretations upon strong LOCAL majorities. Right now gay marriage does not have the needed majorities.
Once strong national majorities exist, then laws will drop quickly. Convince your fellow Americans.
"Although today's vote in New York to legalize same sex marriage did not receive a single Republican vote, the Log Cabin Republicans [Gay Republican group] issued a statement blaming Democrats:
"Today we share in the frustration and disappointment that the Senate did not pass the marriage equality bill. We are deeply saddened that the Democratic Conference failed to secure the votes they promised, undermining the possibility of a credible bipartisan vote of conscience on the merits of marriage equality. Winning marriage equality in New York requires the Democrats to keep their promises, and Log Cabin will continue to work to ensure that Republicans vote their conscience when that finally happens."
TW: The vote was 38-24 against legalization with zero Republican votes yet the Dems are blamed by the Republican group. The warped logic apparently being that Dems should fall on their electoral swords so that perhaps a few Republicans could do the right thing by "voting their consciences". I would imagine being a Log Cabin Republican is conflicting but still.
Gays want marriage unfortunately for them a solid majority of their fellow Americans do not. Do you think those Dems who voted against the measure did so despite their constituents pounding the table FOR the measure. They did so because their constituents are against the measure. This was in New York, not Utah. There is obviously more work to be done in making the case for marriage.
The Dems nationally have NOT campaigned on marriage because to do so would electoral suicide. Similarly strong anti-gun control and pro-choice can mean electoral suicide as well even though I personally support both. African-American rights advanced legally once a strong majorities NATIONALLY imposed their interpretations upon strong LOCAL majorities. Right now gay marriage does not have the needed majorities.
Once strong national majorities exist, then laws will drop quickly. Convince your fellow Americans.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Gay Marriage Will Happen
TW: Maine overturned declined to accept gay marriage on Tuesday. A setback for gay rights advocates (Maine is not Utah so if they are not ready to move then there is some distance to cover yet) but as these charts show it is only a matter of time. The tides are headed one way and as older less accommodating folks pass on the tides will accelerate. But these numbers have come a long way in a short period of time.I understand folk's impatience but these things take time. Rights are only truly valuable if a strong majority perceive them to be legitimate and valid. Clearly majorities do not yet agree with gay marriage. Gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions which themselves are relatively new) was barely even on the radar screen of viable social policy ten years ago. The evolution of African-Americans from slaves to full rights took over 200 years. Gays emerged very tentatively from the closet forty years ago and far more aggressively within the past twenty.
Gays especially as it relates to the concept of marriage as opposed to the legal rights and obligations associated with civil unions are seeking the imprimatur of society. Courts and calling marriage opponents bigots and idiots will not validate this imprimatur. Persuasion and reason based upon the merits will lead to this fundamental change in terms of how the majority of Americans view gay marriage. Transitioning from legal rights to folk's belief systems is big step. Changing beliefs takes time, force feeding a belief system risks counter-productive results.
Monday, July 13, 2009
The Evolution Of Culture, Mores and Politics
TW: Time linked to one of their own old essay's/editorials from 1966. It was about homosexuality, it was a pretty stunning piece although I assume reflective of the times (Time was no bastion of progressiveness but middle brow nevertheless). To me it is a metaphor for how culture, science and politicals can evolve over time. Reading the piece now would make most Americans cringe. There are a few holdouts who would identify with the sentiment expressed but not that many.
While I understand those impatient for faster evolution, pieces like these speak to how far the evolution on gay rights has come. More importantly those who still hold onto the sentiments expressed below or were the slowest to change are probably holding on to other views which will, forty years from now, seem equally specious and antiquated.
From Time Magazine Jan 21, 1966:
"IT used to be "the abominable crime not to be mentioned."...A vast majority of people retain a deep loathing toward him, but there is a growing mixture of tolerance, empathy or apathy. Society is torn between condemnation and compassion, fear and curiosity, between attempts to turn the problem into a joke and the knowledge that it is anything but funny, between the deviate's plea to be treated just like everybody else and the knowledge that he simply is not like everybody else.
...chances are that growing permissiveness about homosexuality and a hedonistic attitude toward all sex have helped "convert" many people who might have repressed their inclinations in another time or place.
...increasingly, deviates are out in the open, particularly in fashion and the arts. Women and homosexual men work together designing, marketing, retailing, and wrapping it all up in the fashion magazines. The interior decorator and the stockbroker's wife conspire over curtains. And the symbiosis is not limited to working hours. For many a woman with a busy or absent husband, the presentable homosexual is in demand as an escort —witty, pretty, catty, and no problem to keep at arm's length. Rich dowagers often have a permanent traveling court of charming international types who exert influence over what pictures and houses their patronesses buy, what decorators they use, and where they spend which season.
...There is no denying the considerable talent of a great many homosexuals, and ideally, talent alone is what should count. But the great artists so often cited as evidence of the homosexual's creativity—the Leonardos and Michelangelos —are probably the exceptions of genius. For the most part, thinks Los Angeles Psychiatrist Edward Stainbrook, homosexuals are failed artists, and their special creative gift a myth. No less an authority than Somerset Maugham felt that the homosexual, "however subtly he sees life, cannot see it whole," and lacks "the deep seriousness over certain things that normal men take seriously...
Homosexual ethics and esthetics are staging a vengeful, derisive counterattack on what deviates call the "straight" world. This is evident in "pop," which insists on reducing art to the trivial, and in the "camp" movement, which pretends that the ugly and banal are fun.
...Even in ordinary conversation, most homosexuals will sooner or later attack the "things that normal men take seriously." This does not mean that homosexuals do not and cannot talk seriously; but there is often a subtle sea change in the conversation: sex (unspoken) pervades the atmosphere...The late Dr. Edmund Bergler found certain traits present in all homosexuals, including inner depression and guilt, irrational jealousy and a megalomaniac conviction that homosexual trends are universal. Though Bergler conceded that homosexuals are not responsible for their inner conflicts, he found that these conflicts "sap so much of their inner energy that the shell is a mixture of superciliousness, fake aggression and whimpering. Like all psychic masochists, they are subservient when confronted by a stronger person, merciless when in power, unscrupulous about trampling on a weaker person."
...The once widespread view that homosexuality is caused by heredity, or by some derangement of hormones, has been generally discarded. The consensus is that it is caused psychically, through a disabling fear of the opposite sex. The origins of this fear lie in the homosexual's parents. The mother—either domineering and contemptuous of the father, or feeling rejected by him—makes her son a substitute for her husband, with a close-binding, overprotective relationship. Thus, she unconsciously demasculinizes him. If at the same time the father is weakly submissive to his wife or aloof and unconsciously competitive with his son, he reinforces the process. To attain normal sexual development, according to current psychoanalytic theory, a boy should be able to identify with his father's masculine role.
Fear of the opposite sex is also believed to be the cause of Lesbianism, which is far less visible but, according to many experts, no less widespread than male homosexuality—and far more readily tolerated. Both forms are essentially a case of arrested development, a failure of learning, a refusal to accept the full responsibilities of life. This is nowhere more apparent than in the pathetic pseudo marriages in which many homosexuals act out conventional roles—wearing wedding rings, calling themselves "he" and "she."
Is homosexuality curable? Freud thought not...Many of Freud's successors are more optimistic. Philadelphia's Dr. Samuel Hadden reported last year that he had achieved twelve conversions out of 32 male homosexuals in group therapy...
That is the crux: most homosexuals apparently do not desire a cure. A generation ago, the view that homosexuality should be treated not as a vice but as a disease was considered progressive. Today in many quarters it is considered reactionary. Homophile opinion rejects the notion that homosexuals are sick, and argues that they simply have different tastes. Kinsey had a lot to do with this, for to him all sexual pleasure was equally valid. "The only unnatural sex act," he said, "is that which you cannot perform." His coauthor, Wardell Pomeroy, also argues that homosexuality should be accepted as a fact of human existence, and claims to have known many happy, well-adjusted homosexual couples.
...New York State Supreme Court Justice Samuel Hofstadter, who believes that "discretion and privacy" cannot make the difference "between a wrongful and a lawful act"—as, for instance, in the case of incest. He supports a compassionate attitude but feels that "to legalize homosexual conduct is an injustice to society's future and an evasion of the problem."
...Even in purely nonreligious terms, homosexuality represents a misuse of the sexual faculty and, in the words of one Catholic educator, of "human construction." It is a pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life. As such it deserves fairness, compassion, understanding and, when possible, treatment. But it deserves no encouragement, no glamorization, no rationalization, no fake status as minority martyrdom, no sophistry about simple differences in taste—and, above all, no pretense that it is anything but a pernicious sickness."
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,835069,00.html
While I understand those impatient for faster evolution, pieces like these speak to how far the evolution on gay rights has come. More importantly those who still hold onto the sentiments expressed below or were the slowest to change are probably holding on to other views which will, forty years from now, seem equally specious and antiquated.
From Time Magazine Jan 21, 1966:
"IT used to be "the abominable crime not to be mentioned."...A vast majority of people retain a deep loathing toward him, but there is a growing mixture of tolerance, empathy or apathy. Society is torn between condemnation and compassion, fear and curiosity, between attempts to turn the problem into a joke and the knowledge that it is anything but funny, between the deviate's plea to be treated just like everybody else and the knowledge that he simply is not like everybody else.
...chances are that growing permissiveness about homosexuality and a hedonistic attitude toward all sex have helped "convert" many people who might have repressed their inclinations in another time or place.
...increasingly, deviates are out in the open, particularly in fashion and the arts. Women and homosexual men work together designing, marketing, retailing, and wrapping it all up in the fashion magazines. The interior decorator and the stockbroker's wife conspire over curtains. And the symbiosis is not limited to working hours. For many a woman with a busy or absent husband, the presentable homosexual is in demand as an escort —witty, pretty, catty, and no problem to keep at arm's length. Rich dowagers often have a permanent traveling court of charming international types who exert influence over what pictures and houses their patronesses buy, what decorators they use, and where they spend which season.
...There is no denying the considerable talent of a great many homosexuals, and ideally, talent alone is what should count. But the great artists so often cited as evidence of the homosexual's creativity—the Leonardos and Michelangelos —are probably the exceptions of genius. For the most part, thinks Los Angeles Psychiatrist Edward Stainbrook, homosexuals are failed artists, and their special creative gift a myth. No less an authority than Somerset Maugham felt that the homosexual, "however subtly he sees life, cannot see it whole," and lacks "the deep seriousness over certain things that normal men take seriously...
Homosexual ethics and esthetics are staging a vengeful, derisive counterattack on what deviates call the "straight" world. This is evident in "pop," which insists on reducing art to the trivial, and in the "camp" movement, which pretends that the ugly and banal are fun.
...Even in ordinary conversation, most homosexuals will sooner or later attack the "things that normal men take seriously." This does not mean that homosexuals do not and cannot talk seriously; but there is often a subtle sea change in the conversation: sex (unspoken) pervades the atmosphere...The late Dr. Edmund Bergler found certain traits present in all homosexuals, including inner depression and guilt, irrational jealousy and a megalomaniac conviction that homosexual trends are universal. Though Bergler conceded that homosexuals are not responsible for their inner conflicts, he found that these conflicts "sap so much of their inner energy that the shell is a mixture of superciliousness, fake aggression and whimpering. Like all psychic masochists, they are subservient when confronted by a stronger person, merciless when in power, unscrupulous about trampling on a weaker person."
...The once widespread view that homosexuality is caused by heredity, or by some derangement of hormones, has been generally discarded. The consensus is that it is caused psychically, through a disabling fear of the opposite sex. The origins of this fear lie in the homosexual's parents. The mother—either domineering and contemptuous of the father, or feeling rejected by him—makes her son a substitute for her husband, with a close-binding, overprotective relationship. Thus, she unconsciously demasculinizes him. If at the same time the father is weakly submissive to his wife or aloof and unconsciously competitive with his son, he reinforces the process. To attain normal sexual development, according to current psychoanalytic theory, a boy should be able to identify with his father's masculine role.
Fear of the opposite sex is also believed to be the cause of Lesbianism, which is far less visible but, according to many experts, no less widespread than male homosexuality—and far more readily tolerated. Both forms are essentially a case of arrested development, a failure of learning, a refusal to accept the full responsibilities of life. This is nowhere more apparent than in the pathetic pseudo marriages in which many homosexuals act out conventional roles—wearing wedding rings, calling themselves "he" and "she."
Is homosexuality curable? Freud thought not...Many of Freud's successors are more optimistic. Philadelphia's Dr. Samuel Hadden reported last year that he had achieved twelve conversions out of 32 male homosexuals in group therapy...
That is the crux: most homosexuals apparently do not desire a cure. A generation ago, the view that homosexuality should be treated not as a vice but as a disease was considered progressive. Today in many quarters it is considered reactionary. Homophile opinion rejects the notion that homosexuals are sick, and argues that they simply have different tastes. Kinsey had a lot to do with this, for to him all sexual pleasure was equally valid. "The only unnatural sex act," he said, "is that which you cannot perform." His coauthor, Wardell Pomeroy, also argues that homosexuality should be accepted as a fact of human existence, and claims to have known many happy, well-adjusted homosexual couples.
...New York State Supreme Court Justice Samuel Hofstadter, who believes that "discretion and privacy" cannot make the difference "between a wrongful and a lawful act"—as, for instance, in the case of incest. He supports a compassionate attitude but feels that "to legalize homosexual conduct is an injustice to society's future and an evasion of the problem."
...Even in purely nonreligious terms, homosexuality represents a misuse of the sexual faculty and, in the words of one Catholic educator, of "human construction." It is a pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life. As such it deserves fairness, compassion, understanding and, when possible, treatment. But it deserves no encouragement, no glamorization, no rationalization, no fake status as minority martyrdom, no sophistry about simple differences in taste—and, above all, no pretense that it is anything but a pernicious sickness."
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,835069,00.html
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Obama: Brilliant Or Contemptible?
TW: I have a feeling the Obama Administration is going to announce the removal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" some day soon and it will be met with shrugs. If so what does that mean? Was Obama contemptible for waiting or brilliant in letting public opinion continue to evolve to the point where a collective shrug results? If a shrug results, then are not additional measures to push gay rights forward more politically achievable? Interest groups are right to press their agendas in an effort to influence public opinion. But generally only when that public opinion has shifted can real change be manifested.
From Economist:
"THE latest Gallup polling on whether gays should be able to serve in the military really flummoxes the White House's decision to slow-peddle some kind of reform. Everyone's in favour of letting gays serve. Weekly churchgoers? Sixty percent. Conservatives? Fifty-eight percent.
It's worth remembering, though, how unimaginable this used to be. In the 1993 debate over gays in the military, Robert Byrd (still a Democratic senator from West Virginia) thundered that letting gays serve was exactly the kind of decadence that led to the fall of Rome. Since then there's been a dramatic mainstreaming of gay culture and two hot wars that cast unwelcome attention on the plight of talented gay translators who couldn't keep their jobs. The courts, meanwhile, have punted on the issue.
Barack Obama's timid approach is in part a result of memories of the 1993 debate, which bogged down Bill Clinton's presidency in its early days. "[W]hile the political logic behind the administration's thinking is understandable enough, the moral logic is contemptible," said Matthew Yglesias last month, noting the recent dismissal of two gay soldiers. Now, though, even the political logic seems unreasonable, so we are left with an unpopular, immoral policy. What to do next might be the easiest decision Barack Obama makes over the next four years. There is no excuse for further delay."
From Economist:
"THE latest Gallup polling on whether gays should be able to serve in the military really flummoxes the White House's decision to slow-peddle some kind of reform. Everyone's in favour of letting gays serve. Weekly churchgoers? Sixty percent. Conservatives? Fifty-eight percent.
It's worth remembering, though, how unimaginable this used to be. In the 1993 debate over gays in the military, Robert Byrd (still a Democratic senator from West Virginia) thundered that letting gays serve was exactly the kind of decadence that led to the fall of Rome. Since then there's been a dramatic mainstreaming of gay culture and two hot wars that cast unwelcome attention on the plight of talented gay translators who couldn't keep their jobs. The courts, meanwhile, have punted on the issue.
Barack Obama's timid approach is in part a result of memories of the 1993 debate, which bogged down Bill Clinton's presidency in its early days. "[W]hile the political logic behind the administration's thinking is understandable enough, the moral logic is contemptible," said Matthew Yglesias last month, noting the recent dismissal of two gay soldiers. Now, though, even the political logic seems unreasonable, so we are left with an unpopular, immoral policy. What to do next might be the easiest decision Barack Obama makes over the next four years. There is no excuse for further delay."
Thursday, May 7, 2009
How Times Have Changed
TW: When I dug up yesterday's LBJ reference from White's "Making of the President 1964" I recalled another passage"
From "Making Of the President 1964":
"On October 7th [1964], Walter Jenkins, the President's closest personal associate...walked...to the basement of the DC YMCA, a notorious gathering place of homosexuals...35 minutes later, in the men's room, he was arrested...within 48 hours the story leaked to the Republicans...Barry Goldwater...had been informed...but he remained silent...[several days later the story leaked out to the MSM and was publicized widely]
...it was apparent...that Jenkins...must be hospitalized...the nation had to face the fact that the President's closest assistant...was a sexual deviate...
For 24 full hours Republicans and Democrats alike held their breath to see how the nation would react. And perhaps the most amazing of all events of the campaign of 1964 is that the nation faced the fact fully- and shrugged it shoulders.
...the only important matter was national security- had Jenkin's illness weakened or opened a latch on matters of security..."
TW: Two things struck me from the passage. One, the event occurred on October 7th just about a month before the election amidst the white heat of a race for the White House (albeit one that was not close at the time). In today's environment a scandal of this sort would have blown into the central theme of the campaign for at least a week. Whereas Barry Goldwater and his surrogates largely ignored the event, I suspect pundits and surrogates in either party would have turned the scandal into a complete 24/7 obsessive free for all overflowing with righteous indignation and extrapolated implications. In this respect, the good old days are perhaps missed.
Secondly, the way homosexuality was treated. Ted White was a progressive but took pity on Jenkins as a diseased deviate requiring hospitalization. Perhaps one of the reasons for the muted public reaction was how far beyond the pale such matters were considered 45 years ago. Nevertheless, to say the role of gays in society has evolved in the past decades is a considerable understatement.
From "Making Of the President 1964":
"On October 7th [1964], Walter Jenkins, the President's closest personal associate...walked...to the basement of the DC YMCA, a notorious gathering place of homosexuals...35 minutes later, in the men's room, he was arrested...within 48 hours the story leaked to the Republicans...Barry Goldwater...had been informed...but he remained silent...[several days later the story leaked out to the MSM and was publicized widely]
...it was apparent...that Jenkins...must be hospitalized...the nation had to face the fact that the President's closest assistant...was a sexual deviate...
For 24 full hours Republicans and Democrats alike held their breath to see how the nation would react. And perhaps the most amazing of all events of the campaign of 1964 is that the nation faced the fact fully- and shrugged it shoulders.
...the only important matter was national security- had Jenkin's illness weakened or opened a latch on matters of security..."
TW: Two things struck me from the passage. One, the event occurred on October 7th just about a month before the election amidst the white heat of a race for the White House (albeit one that was not close at the time). In today's environment a scandal of this sort would have blown into the central theme of the campaign for at least a week. Whereas Barry Goldwater and his surrogates largely ignored the event, I suspect pundits and surrogates in either party would have turned the scandal into a complete 24/7 obsessive free for all overflowing with righteous indignation and extrapolated implications. In this respect, the good old days are perhaps missed.
Secondly, the way homosexuality was treated. Ted White was a progressive but took pity on Jenkins as a diseased deviate requiring hospitalization. Perhaps one of the reasons for the muted public reaction was how far beyond the pale such matters were considered 45 years ago. Nevertheless, to say the role of gays in society has evolved in the past decades is a considerable understatement.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Spread Of Gay Marriage
TW: As usual Nate Silver comes up with some insight. He projects the pace by which gay marriage will be approved nationally state by state. As I mentioned previously no other cultural right has evolved faster in my lifetime than gay rights. Not fast enough for some for some of our friends, far too fast for some others but fast nevertheless. Silver builds his model on three fairly straightforward metrics and determined other variables are essentially extraneous. The tipping point has probably been reached on this issue, conservatives should look elsewhere for a wedge.From Nate Silver at 538.com:
"It turns out that you can build a very effective model by including just three variables:
1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.
...All of the other variables that I looked at -- race, education levels, party registration, etc. -- either did not appear to matter at all, or became redundant once we accounted for religiosity. Nor does it appear to make a significant difference whether the ban affected marriage only, or both marriage and civil unions..."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Rick Warren Invocator As Provocateur
From NBC:
"When liberals attack: Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning with the news that gay-rights groups are angry that Obama has announced that conservative evangelical Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Why are they smiling? Because it never hurts -- at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election -- when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party’s interest groups (in this case, People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign). Just asking, but is anyone but People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign surprised that Rick Warren is going to give a prayer at the inauguration? Where was this outrage when Obama appeared at Warren’s Saddleback forum back in August? The difference may be that the forum came before Proposition 8 passed in California. As for the pure politics of this, when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to."
TW: I have posted several times on the theme of focusing on the policies not the people. This is a prime example. I really do not care for Rick Warren on several levels although he is in certain respects better than some of the evangelical leaders on the RIGHT. That is the crucial point, if Obama is to reach out in some form to the right-wing evangelicals, someone like Warren is going to be the vehicle regardless of how disdainful of certain Warren positions Obama or others may be.
Obama obviously could have chosen a more progressive evangelical but to what end? To express Obama's support for progressive policies, guess what we know that already. Politics is dirty, get used to it. This is not to say those opposed to Warren should applaud the appearance, they should not. But they would do well to remember the difference between implementing policy (Obama's job) and setting the policy agenda (activists of all persuasion's job with Obama being the arbitrator).
Btw many folks on the right are fired up as well, but for opposite reasons.
From CBN:
"...pro-life readers seem to be equally upset at Rick warren for agreeing to it. The Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this..."
From a CBN commenter:
"I just lost a lot of respect for Rick Warren. How can someone who professes to be a Christian, put himself into a situation where other Christians would question him? Rick has done some good work however he just lost my respect."
TW: This is the intolerance of many "Christians" (and Jews/Hindus/Muslims/Atheists etc.) that drives me insane. This commenter does not have a monopoly on what Christianity means but thinks he does. Guys like Warren actually try to bridge the divides, in his case with a conservative slant for sure, but at least he shows up to talk.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/504326.aspx
Update: Joe Klein agrees with me and say it better than I did but then he gets paid more to say things than I do.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/
"When liberals attack: Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning with the news that gay-rights groups are angry that Obama has announced that conservative evangelical Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Why are they smiling? Because it never hurts -- at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election -- when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party’s interest groups (in this case, People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign). Just asking, but is anyone but People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign surprised that Rick Warren is going to give a prayer at the inauguration? Where was this outrage when Obama appeared at Warren’s Saddleback forum back in August? The difference may be that the forum came before Proposition 8 passed in California. As for the pure politics of this, when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to."
TW: I have posted several times on the theme of focusing on the policies not the people. This is a prime example. I really do not care for Rick Warren on several levels although he is in certain respects better than some of the evangelical leaders on the RIGHT. That is the crucial point, if Obama is to reach out in some form to the right-wing evangelicals, someone like Warren is going to be the vehicle regardless of how disdainful of certain Warren positions Obama or others may be.
Obama obviously could have chosen a more progressive evangelical but to what end? To express Obama's support for progressive policies, guess what we know that already. Politics is dirty, get used to it. This is not to say those opposed to Warren should applaud the appearance, they should not. But they would do well to remember the difference between implementing policy (Obama's job) and setting the policy agenda (activists of all persuasion's job with Obama being the arbitrator).
Btw many folks on the right are fired up as well, but for opposite reasons.
From CBN:
"...pro-life readers seem to be equally upset at Rick warren for agreeing to it. The Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this..."
From a CBN commenter:
"I just lost a lot of respect for Rick Warren. How can someone who professes to be a Christian, put himself into a situation where other Christians would question him? Rick has done some good work however he just lost my respect."
TW: This is the intolerance of many "Christians" (and Jews/Hindus/Muslims/Atheists etc.) that drives me insane. This commenter does not have a monopoly on what Christianity means but thinks he does. Guys like Warren actually try to bridge the divides, in his case with a conservative slant for sure, but at least he shows up to talk.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/504326.aspx
Update: Joe Klein agrees with me and say it better than I did but then he gets paid more to say things than I do.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/
Thursday, December 11, 2008
A Civil Debate
TW: Wow two articulate people debating an important issue with facts and stuff, no yelling, snark or ad hominem attacks. Stewart can do it not sure why others cannot. Obviously our sentiments favor Stewart's position. However, Huckabee may be ultimately quacky but I would take him over a Palin any day.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Rebutting Gay Marriage Opponents
From Time:
"Arguments against gay marriage tend to fall into three broad categories: it is a threat to tradition (the idea is historically not sanctioned; the bible does not approve); it is a threat to children (kids will learn about homosexuality in school, confuse gender roles, or even become gay themselves); and it is a threat to heterosexual marriage (the straight family structure will collapse).
The first argument, tradition, is the one closest to faith. It is not subject to much debate. If one believes that God condemns homosexuality, then that's what one believes, no matter what the American Psychological Association says. But precisely because this argument is so personal, and so religious, it is the least used by opponents of gay marriage in public debate. You don't see many quotes from Leviticus being read on the Senate floor.
The second argument, children, tends to only show up at the most heated political moments, often with devastating effect. During the Proposition 8 campaign in California, opponents of gay marriage repeatedly evoked innocent children in their advertising campaign. The campaign claimed that a state constitutional amendment to ban men from marrying men, and women from marrying women, had "everything to do with schools." This is an indirect argument, of course. No one has proposed teaching second graders about homosexuality. But if the state officially sanctions gay unions, the notion that gay unions are not an abomination (see tradition) is certain to filter down. The secondary argument, about gay parents and gender roles, meanwhile, is based on an unfounded fear, at least according to scientists at the American Psychological Association. There is no evidence that children of same-sex parents are worse off, nor is there evidence children of same-sex parents are more likely to become gay.
The third argument, that gay marriage threatens straight marriage, is the most prominent in the public debate. Outspoken opponents of gay marriage, like Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, can expand at length about Nordic marriage trends, where gay unions are not so frowned upon. This argument follows from the idea that marriage is a singular societal institution that is instrumental in keeping straight couples together. If the definition of the institution changed, goes the argument, then straight couples would be less likely to think marriage is important, and therefore less likely to stay together for the sake of their children. As President Bush likes to say, "Changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."
As a straight guy who grew up in San Francisco, where gay culture is ubiquitous, I have never felt the tug of this argument. Why would the gay couple next door make me less interested in monogamy, my fidelity to a woman I loved, or my desire to provide a stable family structure for my children?..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/26/feminism-and-the-3-arguments-against-gay-marriage/
"Arguments against gay marriage tend to fall into three broad categories: it is a threat to tradition (the idea is historically not sanctioned; the bible does not approve); it is a threat to children (kids will learn about homosexuality in school, confuse gender roles, or even become gay themselves); and it is a threat to heterosexual marriage (the straight family structure will collapse).
The first argument, tradition, is the one closest to faith. It is not subject to much debate. If one believes that God condemns homosexuality, then that's what one believes, no matter what the American Psychological Association says. But precisely because this argument is so personal, and so religious, it is the least used by opponents of gay marriage in public debate. You don't see many quotes from Leviticus being read on the Senate floor.
The second argument, children, tends to only show up at the most heated political moments, often with devastating effect. During the Proposition 8 campaign in California, opponents of gay marriage repeatedly evoked innocent children in their advertising campaign. The campaign claimed that a state constitutional amendment to ban men from marrying men, and women from marrying women, had "everything to do with schools." This is an indirect argument, of course. No one has proposed teaching second graders about homosexuality. But if the state officially sanctions gay unions, the notion that gay unions are not an abomination (see tradition) is certain to filter down. The secondary argument, about gay parents and gender roles, meanwhile, is based on an unfounded fear, at least according to scientists at the American Psychological Association. There is no evidence that children of same-sex parents are worse off, nor is there evidence children of same-sex parents are more likely to become gay.
The third argument, that gay marriage threatens straight marriage, is the most prominent in the public debate. Outspoken opponents of gay marriage, like Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, can expand at length about Nordic marriage trends, where gay unions are not so frowned upon. This argument follows from the idea that marriage is a singular societal institution that is instrumental in keeping straight couples together. If the definition of the institution changed, goes the argument, then straight couples would be less likely to think marriage is important, and therefore less likely to stay together for the sake of their children. As President Bush likes to say, "Changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."
As a straight guy who grew up in San Francisco, where gay culture is ubiquitous, I have never felt the tug of this argument. Why would the gay couple next door make me less interested in monogamy, my fidelity to a woman I loved, or my desire to provide a stable family structure for my children?..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/26/feminism-and-the-3-arguments-against-gay-marriage/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)