The gay standard

What if I said one of the most widely read political bloggers was talking about someone he disagreed with politically and he brought up a rumor that the person was gay?

Of course it would have to be a conservative blogger. Only a conservative would try to use someone's sexual orientation as a political tool. Only a hateful right-wing bigot would spread rumors about a political opponent being gay. And of course only a conservative would see that as being worthy of mentioning in modern day political discourse.

Of course it was a conservative blogger - except for the fact that it wasn't.

When Atrios, one of the most widely read liberal bloggers today, decided to comment about John Roberts being nominated as the next Supreme Court Chief Justice. He led off his post with this:

Well, I suppose it will be nice having an openly gay man for chief justice.

What if Instapundit, Powerline, Michelle Malkin or any of the top right-of-center bloggers had said something like that about a liberal justice? Would it be meet with such deafening silence? I doubt it. I think Atrios would be one of the first ones screaming "bigot!"

It has ceased to be funny how hypocritical many on the left are when it comes to issues dealing with minority rights. It seems the thing they really care about is being able to sling mud at conservatives about their lack of concern for minorities, not to actual do something themselves.

For them the only minorities that matter are those that fall in lock step with the Democrats, the minority party. Their punishment for the sin of hypocrisy will be to remain simply that - a minority party with no chance of becoming the majority party.

Comments

[Louis]

Geez, Aaron, consider the source. I think the odds of Bush appointing a gay Chief are about zero. Calm down.

[Aaron]

I know Bush isn't appointing a gay chief justice. Atrios was echoing the rumor that Roberts is gay. I won't get into the sick reasoning behind it, but many liberals began to spread the rumor shortly after his nomination.

[Louis]

Yes, that would be a fate worse than death, a gay Chief Justice. I don't know what is worse, the alleged liberal whispering campaign or the conservative bigoted reaction.

[Louis]

btw: Today the state legislature in my home state passed the first gay marriage legislation to be so approved in the nation (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/06/D8CF5BP00.html). Now, the conservatives who whine and wail that the courts are legislating should just shut up because we now see elected representatives voting and passing it.

Of course, no such miracle will occur. I'm certain that conservatives and christianists will continue their crusade of bigotry and try to tear down this law as well.

In fact, the word is that Schwarzenegger will probably veto it. He's a Republican, you see. I can't believe I actually voted for him.

And the conservatives and Republicans and christianists are trying to push through a ballot initative to amend our state constitution to forbid, not only gay marriage, but also eliminate our domestic partnership laws, thus writing gay second-class citizenship into the law of the state. There seems to be no limit to the hatred and bigotry emanating from the right.

[Aaron]

Who reacted in a "bigoted" way? I don't know of any conservatives that took the allegation seriously. Liberals were using a rumor of someone's sexuality to try to damage them.

I only saw one conservative group drop their support for Roberts and that was because of his work on the gay rights case, not because they thought he was gay. And that group is a very small group in Virginia. Have you read here of any of us pulling their support because of the liberal rumor mill?

Now as to your legislation in California, if your legislation goes through all the measures, gets approved and signed into law I really have no issue with it. I do find it odd that California's passed a proposition that was struck down by the courts, but under a representative government dichotomies between the people and the government will happen.

So I guess what I am saying is there is a limit to my "hatred and bigotry" in that I am not willing to disallow states from deciding their own basic sense of morality. I'm not sure how much of a "crusade" I am on against gay marriage. I personally do not want it in my state, but I can see no reason that other states cannot decide for themselves as long as DOMA continues to be upheld.

My principles stand above my bigotry, as you call it, even when it extends to issues such as abortion. I am appalled by abortion and believe it to be murder of innocent people, but seeing the moral ambiguity that covers the issue, I believe it should be determined by the states as well. It's funny what happens when we actually look at the Constitution and do what it says.

[Louis]

If it wasn't for conservative anti-gay bigotry the liberal whispering campaign would have no effect. Why else try it?

"So I guess what I am saying is there is a limit to my "hatred and bigotry" in that I am not willing to disallow states from deciding their own basic sense of morality. I'm not sure how much of a "crusade" I am on against gay marriage. I personally do not want it in my state, but I can see no reason that other states cannot decide for themselves as long as DOMA continues to be upheld."

So, then, you oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment? And, if DOMA is stuck down as unconstitutional, you would continue to oppose the FMA? Or would you then support it, thus destroying all gay marriage laws (and, arguably, civil union and even domestic partnership laws as well)?

btw: I consider your statement opposing gay marriage in your state to be bigoted.

[Tony]

If it wasn't for conservative anti-gay bigotry the liberal whispering campaign would have no effect. Why else try it?

The possibility that they're simply MORONS leaps to mind.

[Aaron]

Yes, I understand that you equate opposition to gay marriage as bigoted, but I would think that such a serious charge would require a bit more than simply not supporting gay marriage in my state.

I know why the liberal whispering campaign was started, my question is did it work? I think the answer is quite positively no. Which speaks well of conservatives in my opinion.

Actually, I do disagree with the FMA. I am not sure what striking down DOMA would do to my position. I can't give a blanket answer because I would need specifics to evaluate in order to give an informed position. I'm not sure what that would accomplish because most states now have traditional marriage amendments.

That question is one that needs to be looked at on both sides. Christians should think about their position and what it means for years to come, but gay rights activists should also consider the ramifications of campaigning for DOMA to be struck down. That would most certainly drive many fence-sitters toward the FMA and fan the flames in support of it.

[Louis]

That's a purely political analysis. I was thinking more in terms of what is right.

So, say I get married to another man in my state (CA), but have to move to your state for his job. I even move into your town and get to know you. You even get to know me. You see I am a generally moral person (although not xtian) and my marriage is upright and loving. You would still not want to see it recognized (and all that means)?

I bring this up because I really feel that this isn't just some abstract political or religious or moral issue - it's personal. It deals with real human beings, not abstractions. I suppose if, like seeker, you consider me to be perverted and mentally ill, that you wouldn't change your mind. But that position is really untenable, isn't it? It requires, not only a hugely arrogant and self-righteous leap, but also ignoring the vast medical and psych establishment.

I just can't understand why I should have to support hetero marriage and its results (ie, schools) through my taxes while being denied its benefits for myself. This is un-American. And this is bigotry. Am I or am I not a full American citizen? Evidently the majority in many states think not. And, also, the majority of christianists, as well.

[Aaron]

Two seperate questions there.

I do not think it possible for marriage to mean anything but one man and one woman, but I also think you should be able to file for "recognition" of some kind. In that, you can visit in the hospital, leave things in the will, etc. But that is merely my personal opinion.

Scripturally, I consider any sex outside that of man and woman in marriage to be sinful. That is no self-righteous or arrogant stand, merely God's standard as revealed in the Bible. That same standard applies to anyone - straight or gay.

Having said that, your being gay would not (and should not) prevent me from going to lunch with you and thinking you an all around good guy. In fact, we probably could develop a friendship were your hypothetical situation to arise.

I am well aware that this issue is an intrinsically personal one to you and numerous Americans. I sympathise with you on that end, as abortion is a deeply personal issue to me for many reasons.

I tend to agree with you that you as a single person (regardless of sexual orientation) get robbed when you have to pay for schools and other things you do not currently use. I myself am in the same position (my children are not in school yet). You will not find me arguing the fact that taxes are taken from people and do not benefit them.

But I do find it curious that you, Sam and numerous others when arguing for gay marriage or against the continuation of traditional marriage almost always resort to the "un-American" meme. It seems that conservatives are the ones who are always accused of throwing that at liberals or those who disagree with us, yet in this debate it is liberals (at least in terms of this issue) who use it so haphazardly.

I find that label being applied way too broadly on both sides. It is neither bigotry or un-American to suggest that marriage should maitain it's current and traditional form. It may not fit how you would like America to be, but America has been void of gay marriage since it's inception. Has America been "un-American" since the founding?

A gay person is free to go about his or her life and do basically as they please. They can even enter into long term relationships with numerous benefits provided to them by their employer, state and even federal government in some cases.

It is vastly different from slavery days when blacks were classified as only part human and as property. Gays are not treated like that. Virtually the only issue that gay people have not sought and received is the rewritting of the definition of marriage.

To say that someone who is in favor of leaving marriage as it has been for countless years is automatically bigoted, is a dramatic weakening of the language and detremental to any effort by gay activists to help their side. If I am not a gay activists then why should I try because whether I agree with you 0% or 99%, I am still bigoted unless I agree with you 100% and support full, complete gay marriage. That's not a great place to put people in.

[Louis]

When I read comments like yours I am constantly forced back into what has become my standard analysis of the situation: straights just can't - won't - get it. It's really impossible to overcome this barrier. You just keep repeating the same ol' argument, no matter what. And what it boils down to is this: heterosexuality is the norm, is the only normal path, and nothing anyone says will ever change that for most straights. Oh, yes, a certain grudging tolerance will be extended, but certainly not equality. And because things have always been this way, they must always remain this way, no matter what. It's an entire, hermetically sealed worldview, sort of like how white folk are just better than black folk.

And, of course, you christianists add to this the further unanswerable proviso of making it God's will. How can one challenge that? It is beyond, or outside, reason. God says so, that's why. End of story. No wonder I rejected your religion.

Can you imagine what it's like to walk around knowing that this is what you face, day in and day out, for your entire life?

Despair.

[Aaron]

I feel for your despair Louis and it doesn't have to be that way.

Again you resort back to the unfair comparrison of civil rights and insinuating somehow that I feel I am "better" than you. I have never said that, nor will I ever say that.

I have no goodness of my own. As Isaiah recognized, all "my righteousness is as filthy rags." I do not appeal to my own sense of goodness or rightness as a standard by which to judge others.

We both face the same "barrier" in this discussion. It is virtually impossible to see things from your perspective and understand completely your arguments, just as you repeat the same statements and expect me to grasp them if you say them enough.

I know this issue is a very personal one to you, so I will leave our discussion at that, hoping not to see you disengage from the overall conversation here.

[Sam]

Sorry to jump in Aaron, but I only use the unAmerican argument on gay marriage because I am sick and tired of conservatives who act as if they're the only ones who love America. I promise you that I love America AT LEAST as much as the Toby Keiths of the world, and arguably far more, as I do more in a day to make this country better than Keith does in a week worth of terrible songwriting.

I don't really think you're unAmerican, although opposing freedoms for some of our citizens gets awfully close. However, you at least support legal recognition - Seeker seems far "righter" than that.

[Aaron]

As I said everyone uses the "un-American" line too much. It is much like Godwin's law, perhaps it could be Toby Keith's law.

It is all in how you look at things. One's "opposing freedoms" is another's "protecting values."

As to Seeker's positions, I don't know if he is far "righter" than me or not. He is most definitely far "lefter" than me on abortion. We may balance one another out.

[Sam]

The American value of freedom should trump any Christian value of whatever Aaron. We're all Americans after all - we're all not Christians.

[Louis]

I hereby take back the "un-American" argument. In my opinion, using the ballot to oppress despised minorities is very American indeed.

As for "protecting values." I want to protect my values of reason and truth-seeking, therefore I want to make christianity and all related monotheisms illegal.

[Aaron]

I knew that might get your riled up. But some values are protected at the expense of possible rights.

We protect the value of life at the expsense of someone else's possible "right" to murder. We protect people's property at the expense of someone else's possible "right" to steal.

I am not suggesting that gay marriage is the equivalent to murder and stealing, but we do place some values above absolute freedom and rights. Murder and stealing are value questions.

The KKK may have a right through freedom of speech to burn a cross, but we may also value someone else's life or peace of mind.

We confront value questions all the time. Our society can not simply rely on total freedom. Total freedom is total chaos. Values help to underpin freedoms and establish them in the areas where they need to be and limit them in areas where they need to be limited.

We can question and debate whether a certain value is right or wrong, but you cannot remove values from the debate.

[Louis]

So what? My proposal stands.

[Aaron]

If you can go to the marketplace of ideas and prove that your value is valid and should be implemented, then your proposal will stand.

[Sam]

Aaron,

If you aren't comparing gay marriage to murder or theft, then those examples don't hold. Unlike murder and theft, which I'm sure at least 99 percent of Americans disagree with, gay marriage is a far murkier subject. And as far as I'm concerned, it always make sense to err on the side of freedoms, even though allowing for gay marriage clearly isn't any sort of error at all. It is as American as apple pie.

Besides, what would be a better way to stick to all of those crazed Muslims that you guys hate? I mean, you hate terrorists don't you?

[jpe]

So, ya missed the joke then.

[Louis]

"The marketplace of ideas"? Surely you jest. The extreme majority of this country is christian and immune to such an idea. I stand no chance. Nevertheless, I can hold to my own conscience and my own light of reason, and stand alone if needs be.

[seeker]

Glad to see I've been missed ;). Reading this thread, I have a few observations:

1. Legislation and Homosexuality
As I mentioned in Legislating in the Moral Gray Zone, because homosexuality is not clearly immoral or harmful, yet not clearly natural or normal - there are good naturalistic (it would be selected against in natural selection), moral (biblical) and sociological arguments against it (i.e. it's "bad for society"), so it will probably always live in the moral gray zone.

I propose that the best way to handle such things is to neither condemn nor condone them, legislatively speaking - that means don't criminalize gayness, nor condone it through making gay marriage officially accepted. This is the best course of action.

I must note that evolutionary arguments for and against homosexuality exist.

2. Equating Gay Rights with Civil Rights
Unlike many conservatives, and conservative blacks (thankfully, no longer an oxymoron), I am not offended by the gay claim that their case is one of civil rights. Based on their (mistaken) assumptions that their condition is a natural variation and morally inert, their conclusion is logical.

I just disagree with their assumptions, and so I disagree with their conclusion that theirs is a civil rights issue - rather, theirs is a case of truth vs. error, morality vs. immorality, self-interested legislation vs. scientific and naturalistic fact.

In seeking legislative validation, they are foisting their immoral position upon us all, attempting to normalize their maladaptation, and thereby ruining society by preaching their lie as the truth. They should be ashamed.

3. Anti-Americanism
I understand this claim, but I think it is amiss. Sure, America's founding principles guide us towards equality and separation of church and state powers (but not separation of principles necessarily). I am also sure that, based on the aforementioned assumptions of gay-rights advocates, they would see anti-gay marriage folks as opposing their human rights, and thereby being anti-equality.

But because most conservatives do not believe that gayness is natural or normal, they see this as a moral issue. So in opposing gay marriage, they feel quite American in preserving our legislation from the scientifically and morally baseless assertions of the gay lobby who are merely trying to push their religious and moral minority view on us. They are really abusing our system of laws, and ruining society to boot.

4. Science and Gayness
Contrary to Louis' claims, science and psychology do not support the gay-rights position - all the facts are not in, and many of the facts support the developmental model for gayness, rather than the physiologic model, which has proved difficult to prove, (perhaps because it is not true). The only real support their position has is the very politically motivated position of the APA, which de-listed homosexuality, not based on science, but on political and social pressure.

5. Public Schools and Taxation
This seems off topic, but most liberals would argue that providing basic education is the responsibility of all, not just those who bear children. It is strange to hear a liberal oppose such ideas as public education. I am not a big fan of public education, and would like to home school my kids. However, I'm not sure I would like to defund public schools. That's a tough subject to address.

[Aaron]

jpe - I didn't miss the joke, I just thought it was in poor taste and is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the left.

Sam - I agree that gay marriage is much murkier, as is abortion. That is why it should be left up to the states - because of the murkiness. There is no clear national consensus, as there is with murder and stealing, so why not let states decide for their citizens?

I understand your joke and I have a better idea to anger the terrorists. Why don't you all become Christians? That would really make them go crazy!

Louis - Many times to affect change, we have to seemingly stand alone. If you feel your views are right and just, continue to hold them and seek change through the correct measures. I will do the same.

[Louis]

Gee, what a surprise! seeker finally weighs in and - gasp! - he takes an anti-gay stance. So predictable - in fact, so predictable that no answer is available (all answers having been gone over ad nauseum). Bigotry - like religion - is, by definition, irrational, no matter the arguments waged on its behalf. I come back to my reply to Aaron: you don't and can't get it. Straights just live in this bubble of privilege where all things revolve around them, political, moral and scientific (as I've often joked, the two most common things in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity). The heterosexual dictatorship may be developing a few cracks, but it's counter-attacking with force ("The Empire Strikes Back"). As for me, I am becoming increasingly indifferent to you christers and your mindless opposition to all things non-christianist. It may be that you will infect our body politic to such an extent that living in Amerika becomes untenable. Canada is nearby. I would prefer a civilized country to this increasingly theocratic enclave of mindless belief and vulgar money-grubbing compounded by the most nauseating hypocrisy.

As to Aaron: I await the fate of marriage, civil union and domestic partnership here in CA. Never mind Arnie, an initative is being prepared by christers and their Republican cohorts that will amend our constitution to outlaw any and all provisions to protect gay families (sort of seeker's wetdream). If this passes I will no longer consider myself an american. Instead, I will cultivate my garden and to hell with all of you.

Of course, I comfort myself with the fact that, eventually, this will all be meaningless anyway. The virus that is humanity will, eventually, kill its host and thus itself. You breeders will have your ultimate comeuppance. And a thousand years from now (or a hundred or a million) this will all be meaningless. Until then, I intend to live in the moment, enjoying what remaining fat this land still affords, enjoying my music and my books and my heretical sex and screwing over the hetero dictatorship every chance I get.

[seeker]

Well, Louis, your theology seems to be:

1. Anyone who considers homosexuality a sin and a maladaptaion is a bigot.
2. Christians involved in politics are "mindless" (but only if they disagree with your politics?)
3. Christianity is an infection.
4. Humanity is a virus on earth. Nice view of humanity. I'm not sure what your plan is, then, to redeem the earth and humanity, short of the extinction of humanity, which you seem to recommend.

The problem with this theology is that it confuses the problem (sin) with those affected (humans and the earth). Sin is the infection. Repentance and faith towards Christ is the solution. But you can't repent of sin if you don't recognize sin.

That's why the Apostle Paul said that although we should not and can not live according to the moral law, it is good in that it shows us our guilt and need for help. He went as far as to say that if it wasn't for the moral law, he wouldn't have known he was a sinner (but he would have gone on hurting himself and others unknowingly).

I am glad to be "predictable", i.e. consistent. You are right though, straights may never fully understand gays, any more than anyone can understand someone different from them. But I can tell you, the growing number of ex-gays who agree wiht the theology and politics I have outlined here *do* understand what it is like to be gay. But of course, gays discount them as anomalies, self-deluded or not really gay in the first place. Convenient, but not reasonable.

[Louis]

whatever