The democrats will be in Los Angeles discussing gay issues. This is an unmitigated disaster for me personally.
I could care less about homosexuality. I just hate traffic. I live in Los Angeles, and near enough to a Federal Building to know that protesters will be out tonight. Whether you support or condemn homosexuality, I hope that both sides in the debate know that I may have to trample over your rights with my car if you try to trample my right to get home and watch television. Be as activist as you want, but stay on the sidewalks and do not block traffic.
For the sake of full disclosure, I had a homosexual roommate for 5 years. He had no social skills, did not get along with women, could not decorate, had no fashion sense, and was very good with computers.
I remember when he first wanted to move in, and he told me he had a boyfriend. I never thought I would ever ask another person this, but I asked, “Is your boyfriend going to be ok with you living with another man?” He asked me, “Are you straight?” I replied I was, at which point he stated that there was then no problem.
My attitude towards gay people has always been simple. Be as gay as you want, but don’t crash a plane into the World Trade Center. Coincidentally, this is my attitude towards straight people as well. Los Angeles is simply not middle America, for better or worse. You could pass by a guy on the sidealk screwing a sheep, and the only reaction to the sheep would be, “Wow, that guy needs a shave.”
The problem I have with some aspects of the gay community is that their most militant supporters do not understand that not everybody is gay, and more importantly, not everybody is passionate about their issues. I am not anti-gay. I just don’t care. I am Joe Average, a guy who wants to watch the news or a ballgame with my burger and my soda in peace and quiet.
Candidates running for President do not have that luxury. They have to answer questions, although the current crop of democrats bobs and weaves better than Muhammad Ali in his prime. Tonight’s debate will be notable only if candidates are forced to honestly answer questions.
This column largely stays away from social issues, preferring to focus on the War on Terror, economics, Israel, and republican Jewish brunettes, because that is what I care about. I cannot force myself to be passionate about an issue that I rarely see, and would have a neutral reaction if I did.
However, since I am forcing the candidates to develop a spine and answer questions, I will reveal some of my views.
Like sane people everywhere, I was horrified that Matthew Shephard was beaten for being gay. That was an act of viciousness, and has no place in society. I find the f-word that rhymes with maggot to be disgusting, and inappropriate. I believe people are born gay, and I have no idea why. I believe people should be paid equal work for equal pay.
Now for more complex matters. I personally favor ending the ban on gays in the military. If people engage in inappropriate sexual conduct, heterosexual or homosexual, they should be punished. However, being gay does not imply that inappropriate conduct. Having said that, military experts know more than me, since I have never served. I personally feel it would not reduce morale, because the military would weed out the bigots. However, it is unfair to assume that if a military leader has legitimate complaints, that the leader is automatically a bigot. People should be listened to, and pre-judging straight people is just as wrong as pre-judging gay people.
I support civil unions. I think that if two people want to get tax breaks, this is America. If they want to visit their loved on in the hospital, they should be able to do so.
Gay marriage makes me “uncomfortable,” and I am not sure why. I think it is the word “marriage” I am hung up on. To me marriage is a religious ceremony. If a religion does not support gay marriage according to their bible or other holy text, how can the marriage be legal from that religion’s standpoint?
Let’s say that a particular religious institution refuses to perform a ceremony, be it gay marriage, or even interracial or interfaith marriage. Can the denied couple then sue the religious institution? Would the religious institution be denied its tax exempt status? People say this would not happen, but signs such as “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” are often meaningless. America is litigation nation. How can we ensure that if gay marriage becomes legal, gay couples will not have the right to sue churches, synagogues and mosques to force them to perform such ceremonies? How can we balance gay rights with the rights of religious institutions? Some religious institutions would be totally ok with performing these ceremonies, but could a money hungry gay couple purposely pick a hard line chapel to force the issue? Sure.
What bothers me about the democratic candidates is that they will not do what I just did. They will issue mealy mouthed namby pamby platitudes about marriage being between a man and a woman, but they will not mean it. Dennis Kucinich is far from me ideologically, but he has integrity on the issue. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton try to have it both ways by taking one position and having their spouses take the opposite view. Barack Obama and John Edwards have both claimed that they are conflicted on the issue. They must say why they are conflicted. The people have a right to know what motivates their views, whatever their position. I suspect their position on gay marriage is identical to their position on the Iraq War. Whatever the polls say, they blow with the prevailing winds. That is not leadership. Leaders must be willing to take clear stands even when they are unpopular. George W. Bush on the Iraq War is a perfect example of this.
One problem with the gay rights movement is that they are simply going beyond the law. You have to work within the system, otherwise there is anarchy. In Massachussetts, gay marriage became legal. Fine. However, it was not legal in San Francisco. Mayor Gavin Newsome set the gay rights movement back several years by performing illegal marriages. Many moderates supported in principle the right of gay people to be married, but did not like that the laws were being openly violated.
The victory that the gay rights movement achieved was fleeting and phyrric. The backlash led to anti-gay marriage amendments that passed in every state they were on the ballot in 2004. Many people believe that this galvanized people to the polls, contributing heavily to George W. Bush’s reelection.
Legislation will not survive until people’s hearts change. The gay community has made much progress in the last two decades, but their insistance on getting everything they want immediately could hurt them further. Whether it be Hillary Clinton on health care or Newt Gingrich with the Contract With America, Americans like evolution, not revolution. They like incrementalism, not radical change.
If the gay community savages the democrats, that will only help republicans. As a republican, I am fine with this. However, the gay community will have every right to be angry if the democrats do not have the guts to stand up and say who they are and what they believe. The reason they do this is because if they are honest, they fear they will lose the election. That should tell them something about their beliefs, but it will not. They will just blame republicans for being bigoted and fooling the voters in the middle.
The gay community deserves a place at the table, but they are not entitled to the entire table. The democrats have some very creative groveling to do. It is tough to be tough while pandering. We shall see. It shall be a gay old time.
eric
great post! i am with you on the marriage thing making me feel uncomfortable as i also see it as a religious ceremony. last line was classic by the way.
I never understood why a gay Christian couple would want to be wed in a church of God and expect the blessings of God on an act that has been described in the bible as an abomination.
This why I am also uncomfortable with the term ” gay marriage “
Eric, I’m with you on this one. This is the sort of thing I have been saying for a long time now. I am just a guy. I don’t care how people find love so long as they’re lucky enough to find love in their lives…
I married into a family and ended myself up a gay brother in law and a lesbian sister in law. For the most part, I didn’t care. I spent plenty of time with them and was treated like anybody else. I went to the occasional gay club or bar with them and usually had a good time. Hey, to each their own as far as I’m concerned.
However, my brother in law was also a fierce political activist and despite our common ground and positive relationship, we disagreed on some very fundamental issues; the biggest of which was the fact that thought that being gay meant he could have his cake and eat it too. While I agreed with and helped the cause for “equal treatment” as far as he was concerned, it was never enough. He advocated (very strongly) for the same rights as straight people along with the added benefits and preferential treatment that came from being gay. That was something that really got to me, and the more time I spent in the community the more I saw that sort of attitude.
As I said, I think that anybody who finds love in this life is lucky and I don’t care if that love comes from another man or a woman or a transsexual. So long as they’re happy, that’s great… But like you, I just tire of the demands. gay or straight or other, you can have your cake or you can eat it, but demanding both just pisses the rest of us off.
‘One problem with the gay rights movement is that they are simply going beyond the law. You have to work within the system, otherwise there is anarchy.’
Just like African-Americans should have kept operating within the laws of segregation and second-class citizenship – totally valid for their time? Just because something is law does not necessarily make it any less objectively unjust.
As for the allegedly excessive demands, most queer people are only ever asking for the same rights that our straight friends take for granted every day – no more, no less. This is hardly radicalism. You talk of ‘militant supports’ but don’t actually identify any specific examples – can you cite any or were you just jumping to a pre-existing stereotype you have in your mind?
The issue of (apparently) compromising religion and biblical teachings by allowing same-sex couples to marry would be resolved if the institution operated in the same way as France – two distinct ceremonies, one civil and one ceremonial. Same-sex couples could be married, or ‘unionised’ for those ‘uncomfortable’ with the dreaded M word, before the State, with all corresponding rights and responsibilities attached, and if churches did not want to bless that union, so be it.
The US like Australia has a constitutional separation of church and state so law-abiding civil citizens who happen to be gay or lesbian should not be denied civil rights because mainstream churches don’t happen to agree with our orientation or relationships.
Sam said;
“Just like African-Americans should have kept operating within the laws of segregation and second-class citizenship – totally valid for their time? Just because something is law does not necessarily make it any less objectively unjust. ”
You’re not justifying the riots in Watts and South central L.A., are you.
Also I dont care what your sexual preference is, so dont think I am bias by my next statement.
But are you really comparing the suffering of Black americans for the last 200 years to the gay scenario today ? Give me a break.
Also I might add that part of the authors wish for gays to operate within the law was that if you’re going to protest he should not have his right to drive home violated.
Sam: what rights do ‘gay’ Americans not currently have? Explain that one if you please?
Equal rights? Every guy has the right to marry any girl he wants, as long as they aren’t related or underage; I realize this isn’t what a gay guy wants, but it is equal :)
Why would I want to sue a religious establishment to perform my marriage ceremony when there are so many options available and so many churches and temples that already support same-sex commitment ceremonies and would be willing to perform a legal ceremony as well?
As a lesbian citizen in this country, I want the same rights as any other citizen and the same responsibilities: legal recognition of my marriage, the same rights of hospital visitation and inheritance and tax filing that heterosexual couples have, the same protections against discrimination in employment and housing that other minorities have. That I have to fight against religious influences in government to have these rights recognized is the travesty. As a citizen, I am supposed to be treated equally under the law. Religion should have nothing to do with law.
As for the question of suing religious establishments to perform same-sex marriages: I am not saying that someone somewhere is not going to try this. However, the majority of us seeking the right of marriage recognition are seeking the legal version of that; not the spiritual version of that. We can arrange the spiritual ceremonies ourselves, with religious leaders who already support us and who actually want to perform the blessings. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is our responsibility to handle the spiritual part ourselves, with supportive and caring clergy, our friends and families around us, sending us into our future with love and joy.
Suing a religious establishment to perform this would be ludicrous. How could any couple start a happy marriage if it was performed under duress by the clergyperson? How could that ceremony be filled with joy at all? It couldn’t. And I, for one, wouldn’t go near a ceremony like that; either as a participant or as a guest.
So I feel that your fears on that point are unfounded. We already have options. There are already churches and temples who are joyfully embracing our community and there are more every day. What we lack is state and federal recognition of our marriages under the law. That is the focus of our activism.
Why is it so important to the gay community that they actually be labeld ” married ” ?
You can call it anything you want really.
I havnt done theological studies to the point where I’m as knowledgable as the Pope.
But I have read enough of the bible to know that a gay marriage is not blessed by God.
I think you are all fooling yourself if think your marriage is valid in the eyes of God just because some church says it is.
I might get jumped on for saying this but, shouldnt people that actually procreate while married get some kind of preference ?
Sure, gay couples can adopt. And I think thats cool, But can you actually add another life to the face of this earth?
Can you actually perpetuate the population that is needed to sustain mankind ?
If you want equal rights in this world , shouldnt your contributions be equal ?
Hey Micky! Generally, I think you’re ‘Fine’. But that last statement ‘If you want equal rights in this world , shouldnt your contributions be equal ?’ really can’t hold water. There are many people in this world with equal rights, but their contribution can’t be equal, by virtue of their differences.
Sounded good though…;->
And, while I sympathize with people that have made a commitment to each other that do not get the civil legal rights that a married couple get, I truly do not see why the reality of the country must be changed to accomodate their choice.
Additionally, I am tired of the general idea that to acknowledge an absolute in this world is to be intolerant. Absolutes are simply realities. Rocks are hard, water is wet, gravity is…no matter what you ‘believe’ about it.
Tab A was made to go in Slot B. That is the function, and that is the creation. The fact that you can stick Tab A in many places does not change that simple truth. The fact that in doing so you get your emotional needs that were more healthily denied earlier on, also does not change that simple truth.
For one to acknowledge this reality does not mean one sits in judgement of a person that has chosen to operate outside the reality. But just because someone has chosen to NOT accept reality doesn’t mean the real world must change. Reality simply is, and cannot change. It is all in how you deal with it…which is choice. Life is simpler when you cooperate with reality. I choose to do that.
If you – generic you – choose not to, that is your choice. And the consequences of that choice is your cross to bear, not mine. This is not heartless. This is reality. I feel for you, I sympathize with you, I empathize with you, and I even deeply identify with you. When it came to the crossroads of choosing to embrace reality, or to embrace my compulsion to get my emotional void filled despite reality, I chose reality. Given the choice between the actual, and the imagined, I decided the uphill struggle either way had a better chance of taking if I was working within the framework of reality.
And really…once you acknowledge reality, it is easier to function with reality AND get your needs met. Rather than have a temper tantrum about how unfair it was that gravity kept us down and expend energy to change reality, those with the need to go up found a way to use reality to do so.
Your right Carole, what I said is not what I had in mind, it was more in tongue.
I think what I really meant was more of the context of ” Inthe eyes of God”
You cant expect equal blessings when you distort the gospel.
Such as creating your own gay church just so you can feel like you are married with the blessings of the lord.
I guess that would opinion would sit side by side with your feelings on reality
I realize that there are millions that have no control over their situation.
I apologize to anyone who was offended by that “mouth in front of head “remark
My question to all is, when did you choose to be straight?
God created gays just like God created straights(breeding couples as stated above). Don’t you think Jesus would show empathy and love, not judgement and ridicule. My goodness if this is considered the Bible doctrine, it is truly scary. I pray that God heals your heart and releases the hatred towards anyone who is different. This is not meant as an attack but merely an observation. No offense meant, just shear and utter shock at the language of superiority. We are all connected none better or worse. May God Bless You and Keep You.
There is way too much bullshit to respond to here in detail, but anyway, on a few points:
“I support civil unions. I think that if two people want to get tax breaks, this is America. If they want to visit their loved on in the hospital, they should be able to do so.”
The federal government doesn’t recognize civil unions, or even same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Why should it recognize heterosexual marriages for tax purposes?
“To me marriage is a religious ceremony. If a religion does not support gay marriage “according to their bible or other holy text, how can the marriage be legal from that religion’s standpoint?”
Aren’t we a republic of laws? Doesn’t that include religious organizations? Are you saying that you don’t recognize civil marriages of any kind unless they are approved of by a religion?
“One problem with the gay rights movement is that they are simply going beyond the law. You have to work within the system, otherwise there is anarchy.”
Substitute “civil” for “gay,” and your statement suddenly looks naive, if not ridiculous.
“The gay community deserves a place at the table”
Why, thank you Massa. You’s a good Massa, yessir.
Get over yourself, bud.
“Why is it so important to the gay community that they actually be labeld ” (sic) married ” ?
You can call it anything you want really.”
Yes, we can call it anything we want. But the IRS doesn’t recognize it, and neither does the federal government. Why should the federal government deny same-sex marriages in Massachusetts the same rights that straight married couples in every state get to take for granted? Particularly when the federal government doesn’t issue marriage licenses in the first place?
“You cant expect equal blessings when you distort the gospel.”
Oh no, not the “gospel” argument again. Worn any blended cloth lately? Come on, ‘fess up… even if you’re wearing a wool/cotton blend, doesn’t Leviticus condemn this?
Does the constitution extend to every one of us, or doesn’t it? And please… no religious justifications for making me a second-class citizen.