Gay Marriage Update

[Paul Schroder]

The Bigots? Last Hurrah ... an op-ed post from the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/...tml?_r=1&em

This should brighten your day.

[Cole Parker]

Good link, Paul. It is day-brightening.

Odd that major money to pass Prop 8 came from Utah, and now, only a few months later, they're reassessing their position on the issue and deciding this should be an issue about families instead of politics or religion, and saying maybe gay unions aren't so bad after all. I just wish they'd put their thinking caps on a few months earlier.

C

[DesDownunder]

The Bigots? Last Hurrah ... an op-ed post from the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/...tml?_r=1&em

This should brighten your day.

Thanks for the link Paul. Very interesting reading.

In the first paragraph you will find a link to the anti-gay marriage video, "The Gathering Storm". This should not be confused with the excellent movie of the same name, based on the autobiography of Winston Churchill's rise to becoming Prime Minister in England in 1940. By choosing this title, the National Organisation for Marriage (NOM) people appear to have tried to align themselves with Winston Churchill's fight against the fascist Nazis.

By inference therefore, it appears the NOM are trying to say that those who promote gay marriage are somehow related to fascism.

Since when did fascists promote love and compassion? Fascists by their nature seek to instill fear and hate in people. Love and compassion are foreign concepts to the fascists who are more in keeping with NOM's attack on equality and gay marriage.

Now I won't claim that Nom's members are in fact fascists, but they obviously lack the intelligence to see that their video is propaganda making them appear that way and that would be just as bad if it wasn't so ludicrous.

After you have looked at the link above, and stopped throwing up all over the carpet, have a

to it. He's very easy to look at too.

[Paul Schroder]

Good link, Paul. It is day-brightening.

Odd that major money to pass Prop 8 came from Utah, and now, only a few months later, they're reassessing their position on the issue and deciding this should be an issue about families instead of politics or religion, and saying maybe gay unions aren't so bad after all. I just wish they'd put their thinking caps on a few months earlier.

C

Lol... that's because the money came directly from the church hierarchy. There was no attempt at an opinion poll among the church members. The twelve apostles and church leadership are used to laying down the letter of the law and expecting their members to follow it faithfully. It makes me wonder if there has been some sort of backlash that has shaken up these church leaders. There was certainly a great amount of ire directed towards the state following prop 8's defeat. We need to remember that this was the last Christian aligned faith to allow blacks to become members. On the face of that, their about-face has come about remarkably swiftly.

[The Pecman]

And apparently the loser of Miss USA is not a fan either.

Gay marriage row at Miss USA show

The runner-up at the Miss USA beauty pageant says her outspoken opposition to gay marriage cost her first place in the competition.

During the televised event, Carrie Prejean - Miss California - said she believed that "a marriage should be between a man and a woman".

She had been asked for her views on the subject by one of the judges, celebrity blogger Perez Hilton.

"It did cost me my crown," said Ms Prejean, after the competition.

The eventual winner of the pageant was Kristen Dalton, Miss North Carolina.

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," said Ms Prejean, in a section of the show that has become a popular clip on YouTube.

"I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," she continued.

"No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

The remarks drew a mixture of booing and applause from the audience.

Speaking after the show, which was broadcast on Sunday evening in the US, Ms Prejean said: "I wouldn't have had it any other way. I said what I feel. I stated an opinion that was true to myself and that's all I can do."

Hilton said he had been "floored" by Ms Prejean's answer, which, he said, "alienated millions of gay and lesbian Americans, their families and their supporters". He told ABC News: "She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that."

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, released a statement condemning Ms Prejean's comments.

"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman."

The issue of same-sex marriage is a flashpoint in American politics.

Four US states now allow gay marriage, but many other states have passed legislation outlawing it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8009359.stm

[Paul Schroder]

I've just been informed that the NY Times now requires people to register in order to read their articles... grrrr. So, if you didn't read the piece titled "The Bigots? Last Hurrah" that I posted above, go here to read it without registering. It's a definite feel good article.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/19

That Miss California runner-up should read it.

[DesDownunder]

I've just been informed that the NY Times now requires people to register in order to read their articles... grrrr. So, if you didn't read the piece titled "The Bigots? Last Hurrah" that I posted above, go here to read it without registering. It's a definite feel good article.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/19

That Miss California runner-up should read it.

She can read? Who knew?

[Guest Fritz]

Understand that I am not setting out to defend Miss California because I disagree with her, but I invite anyone, who views her position on gay marriage negatively, to read the following piece and then examine themselves honestly to see if they hold different people to different standards. In short, if you are going to condemn her position,, then you should also be condemning Pres. Obama's position on the subject, along with Vice Pres. Biden's.

Pres. Obama, during the campaign, made clear many times that he is not in favor of gay marriage. As I see it, either he means what he says and he is against gay marriage, or he was lying about his position in order to attract votes. I choose to believe that he is honestly against gay marriage because that is a morally honorable position whereas lying about his position is morally dishonest.

[DesDownunder]

Understand that I am not setting out to defend Miss California because I disagree with her, but I invite anyone, who views her position on gay marriage negatively, to read the following piece and then examine themselves honestly to see if they hold different people to different standards. In short, if you are going to condemn her position,, then you should also be condemning Pres. Obama's position on the subject, along with Vice Pres. Biden's.

Pres. Obama, during the campaign, made clear many times that he is not in favor of gay marriage. As I see it, either he means what he says and he is against gay marriage, or he was lying about his position in order to attract votes. I choose to believe that he is honestly against gay marriage because that is a morally honorable position whereas lying about his position is morally dishonest.

An interesting argument, Fritz. Your link above leads us to an article by Andrea Tantaros, who is an admitted conservative commentator. That of course is not sufficient to condemn her, but it does mean that she is likely to think similarly to Prejean (Miss California,) and therefore likely to be looking for a way to not only defend the contestant, but also to push a conservative view in this matter.

Neither does her conservative outlook mean she is wrong in criticizing Perez's language or stating what she believes is wrong with his argument or its form of bad language.

I think calling people names, like the those she claims Perez used, doesn't really serve his argument either, unless he was using such language in deliberate bad taste in a comedic parody, but let's assume he wasn't and Andrea is correct to point out his language as unacceptable.

Where I have difficulty with Andrea, is not with her statement about Perez, but with her idea that a meat parade such as Miss USA or Miss America is somehow "supposedly designed to advance women." Her column reeks to me of diversionary tactics that I think are part of the arsenal, conservatives use to attack gays, as well as the Left in general.

To claim justification of a beauty contestant's views on a hot topic like gay marriage, because it was a politician's expedient policy during an election is disingenuous, especially when she uses it as lead-up to attack the Left as being only interested in suppressing debate. That she should use Donald Trump's name the way she does, is further evidence of her attempt to appear, how shall I say, fair and balanced?

Personally Andrea Tantaros gives me the impression that her stated desire for debate on free speech, tolerance and treatment of women, would fall short of reasoned debate as evidenced by her use of inflammatory phrases like "...the Leftist jihad of intolerance and disrespect toward females, and free speech." Jihad and Leftist in the same sentence? That doesn't seem remotely rational to me.

That seems to me to be as bad as calling somebody an unacceptable word, if not worse, because it seeks to misconstrue the facts, to conceal just who really is disrespecting women and free speech.

I am left with the thought that what we are seeing is an attack not only on free speech, but conservative forces trying to attack the new administration from any standpoint it can devise.

Of course these are just my thoughts on the matter.

[TracyMN]

Hello All:

Since when does a Beauty Pagent participants opinion on anything matter? They have been

answering the equivalent of this question forever ( well, ok, since my forever or just a bit longer than a tv to do it on, haha that sounds funny enough to leave as is...) I see this two ways, it is either just one more Jerry Springer episode, or it is significant that it is not the word "GAY" itself that gets everybody excited, but what is associated with it. That to me is progress. The rest is just the circus in town, and a monkey os only a monkey even if he can ride a bike.

I don't see much threat to free speech in these tactics, Des, but it does have me thinking about

the exercise of it. And the radical right has a smarter face these days, and a new vocabulary

that employs what has worked elsewhere, like political convolution, PR buzzwords, and sentences that if followed to completion would make no sense, but they only want us to hear a couple of them, and that, sadly, is most effective of all. My friend's brother sends me forwards that contain endless

inflammatory and patently untrue statements, most of which I delete without opening, but I use

one now and then because I feel it unwise to dismiss or underestimate the power of these things

to promote pieces of racism and hatred and separative influences totally free of responsibility for

the content or it's distribution. I am not ready to say there is such a thing as too much freedom,

but if children have parents because they can not be expected to comprehend the implications of action, how much more dangerous is choosing not to.

Semantics, the weapon of choice for those with no real argument.

Off to work, where theoretical is a luxury.

Peace, all,

Tracy

[Guest Fritz]

Des, while I agree with part of what you wrote, you skipped over the main point of my post which is that we all have a tendency to overlook flaws in people we like or agree with while at the same time loudly condemning those same flaws in people we dislike or disagree with. We often end up holding people to different standards based only upon labels such as liberal or conservative. In short, Pres. Obama gets a pass from the gay community because he is perceived as a liberal whereas Miss California gets excoriated because she is perceived to be a conservative, yet both hold the same position on the subject. Perhaps the worst part is that we don't truly know what Carrie Prejean's political views are except for the one subject. If we learned that she agrees with Pres. Obama on all other political subjects would that then mean that we should likewise overlook her views on gay marriage?

As for Andrea Tantaros, I suppose I should have clarafied my opinion of her because in many ways I think she is as bad as Perez Hilton except that she uses better language. In my opinion she tries to read far more into the incident than is justified, however her point about double standards is still valid.

[DesDownunder]

Firstly Tracy and Fritz, I thank you for your contributions to the discussion.

You have both added to the interest of the subject with your thoughtful contributions.

Fritz, I am not at all certain of Obama's personal position on gay marriage, it may well be different to his political policy, which is why I qualified my reference to that policy with the word, expedient. This does not make him dishonest, but it does mean he adopted a policy which he and probably his advisers believed would be most acceptable to the majority of voters. His often stated respect for the equality for all under the US constitution leads an outside observer to think he may well be more sympathetic to not only gay issues but gay marriage as well.

We had a similar position here in South Australia back in the 1970s, where the Premier of our state could not afford the public image of either being gay (which he was) or the political backlash from repealing the law against homosexual acts. So behind the scenes away from the political and media spotlight, he made certain to let it be known that should the opposition party at that time or any other member of his own government party, wish to introduce such a repeal in parliament, then it would be given fair hearing. And that is how he enabled the state to be the first one in Australia to decriminalise homosexual acts for consenting adults, without endangering his own position or that of his government. More progressive laws followed over the years.

As for Prejean, I think Perez's outburst has done more damage than good in that without his statements everyone might have thought her answer to the question was based on her attempt to be honest, even if somewhat obtuse, and would probably have slipped into the obscurity it deserves with a few parodies on the way.

So while I see your point that both Prejean and Obama are perceived to have taken the same position, they may both in fact, have very different motivations. Perez may even feel justified in his statements. Personally I am not impressed.

We may have to disagree about Andrea Tantaros, as I think her language, along with her manipulative style, is more offensive than Perez's, even if it is not as filthy. Free speech for her seems to me to be an opportunity to cloud an issue to conserve her own position, irrespective on any rationality and is fraught with the dangers of convolution etc., that Tracy points out.

Tracy, your circus comment is spot on, and without Perez we would have been left with only one clown in a beauty contest gown, but he just couldn't resist the spotlight.

Can we have too much freedom? Not while we have people trying to dictate what their beliefs say those freedoms should be.

It appeals to me that the ongoing question of human freedom must be balanced with an ongoing answer of maintaining human rights. That the secular arena is the proper place for such maintenance is I think a self-evident truth, but I don't expect that to be a popular notion in some cultures...just yet.

[Guest Fritz]

Des, I'm sorry, but you appear to still be dancing around the issue that I tried to bring up. For the sake of argument let us stipulate that Pres. Obama's and Miss Prejean's position are the same. My question is under that stipulation should we be more tolerant of Pres. Obama because he is perceived to be a liberal than we are of Miss Prejean because on the basis of one answer she is perceived to be a conservative? To put it another way, are we holding people to different standards because of our own political preferrences or are we being fair in our judgments?

You also bring up another subject, political expediency. I'll ask a question about that. Assuming that a politician takes a stand because of political expedency, is it ever proper for him to act against that stand provided that the facts about and surrounding the issue have not changed? In other words and to boil it down to its essentials, is it proper for a candidate to lie about his positions simply to get elected? Or to ask it a different way, does the end justify the means?

[DesDownunder]

Fritz wrote:

Des, I'm sorry, but you appear to still be dancing around the issue that I tried to bring up. For the sake of argument let us stipulate that Pres. Obama's and Miss Prejean's position are the same. My question is under that stipulation should we be more tolerant of Pres. Obama because he is perceived to be a liberal than we are of Miss Prejean because on the basis of one answer she is perceived to be a conservative? To put it another way, are we holding people to different standards because of our own political preferences or are we being fair in our judgments?

My point which is my answer to the issue you raise, is that these two people may have a different motivation for the same stance.

The differences in the motivation may be for any of a number of different reasons. Assuming the President was being expedient in order to be elected and that Miss Prejean was attempting honesty to her own values, is as close as I can get to the issue. I do not find myself comfortable with trying to judge them further than that based on their political leanings. I have been around long enough to know that a good or a bad person may well be on either side of the political pendulum. There are certainly enough idiots to go around on both sides.

In particular I would say that the question as to whether we allow our personal political allegiances to influence our opinion of a public person is that, it happens. I think it is also important that we be aware that it happens, so that we may avoid attacking them like Perez did, because of our own leanings. That does not of course mean that satire and parody are not useful weapons in revealing infringements against human rights. Both the left and the right are quite capable of extremist behaviour against humanity.

You also bring up another subject, political expediency. I'll ask a question about that. Assuming that a politician takes a stand because of political expediency, is it ever proper for him to act against that stand provided that the facts about and surrounding the issue have not changed? In other words and to boil it down to its essentials, is it proper for a candidate to lie about his positions simply to get elected? Or to ask it a different way, does the end justify the means?

I would have to say that the art of politics is to say one thing (in order to get elected or win public approval) while perhaps meaning something else. The question of the end justifying the means in a political context has become unfortunately, common place, and has been so since at least the times of the Roman Empire. Cicero, an ancient Roman Senator of conservative persuasion is reported as saying that an honest man won't last 5 minutes in politics. So lying in politics is not knew, but that does not make it correct. It just is.

Obama seems to instill in his speeches the feeling that he at least will try to be above lying, but that in itself does not rule out the expediency or the diplomacy needed to realise an acceptable means to an end.

Each of us needs in the philosophical sense to be prepared to examine each issue in our lives as they occur. This means that what is unacceptable in one situation may well be permissible in another. This is called creative morality and does not rely on a set of rules from someone else. It is a personal moral code based on ones' own internal sense of right and wrong, on one's own set of ethics.

There are means that are unacceptable, no matter how good the end result may be, but there are also ends which can justify means that are, in some circumstances, a last resort.

[TracyMN]

Each of us needs in the philosophical sense to be prepared to examine each issue in our lives as they occur. This means that what is unacceptable in one situation may well be permissible in another. This is called creative morality and does not rely on a set of rules from someone else. It is a personal moral code based on ones' own internal sense of right and wrong, on one's own set of ethics.

A person can wait their whole life, Des, to meet a part of themselves in another. While I believe we are born with all we are and will become in the present form and life, there was nothing in the road I was on to indicate I was on my way to anything; one self-imposed prison after the next doesn't LOOK like the road to freedom. No doubt you have had your own lessons in chaos.

There are means that are unacceptable, no matter how good the end result may be, but there are also ends which can justify means that are, in some circumstances, a last resort.

A powerful and dangerous statement, and it is the danger that gives it it's power. Which

appeals to the courageous, and fools alike.

At the core of what each of you have said here, Des and Fritz, is Intent. Proven over and over,

by OJ Simpson, President Obama, or Ms Prejean, intent is definite when set in operation, but once

set the course of it is variable.

I believe honesty is be Obama's first choice in everything; and his campaign appeared self-directed.

I voted for him and now I trust him to do his job the best he can. Today tomorrow or four years from now will not find me asking for any more than he has done. Eight years of Bush and not a peep, how much stake should put in anything these people say now, their capacity to be offended

highly suspect. And while his support of Gay Marriage is desireable, and would lend considerable weight to the cause, the struggle at the State level will need to be fought and won regardless.

It may sound ridiculous, but I consider this fight already won, just delayed by a few obstacles.

By the way Des, I love your quote. There is some work to be done along those lines for sure.

Night Beautiful Boys, thanks for letting me think,

Tracy

[DesDownunder]

[...]

Night Beautiful Boys, thanks for letting me think,

Tracy

It wasn't us who let you think, Tracy. You did that yourself and all praise to you for it.

I like your reduction to intention, a very important point. Thanks Tracy.

And I agree Tracy, gay marriage is very likely a won fight, but like all marriage ceremonies, someone has to be late getting to the wedding.

Anyone want to write a story about same sex relationships being accepted in the fashion of the movie/play "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?"

There is no doubt in my mind that our stories can break down barriers through humour and pathos which informs, but that is another discussion.

[TracyMN]

Thanks Des, such a kind word, praise.

What I might have said, was thanks for tossing the ball back and forth, my favorite

thing in the world.

Great idea, "Guess Whose...Redux". Any particular reason you shouldn't be the one to do

it? Or we could get Clint Eastwood to do a movie version, he'd be perfect for the Spencer Tracy

role.

If it's 3am in the US central time zone, what time is it where you are? Is it Thursday? Spring?

It hardly seems possible that I could have slept through Geography every year. A writer in New Zealand informed me recently that April = Autumn there, throwing my tenuous sense of balance

spinning of into space. EmmyLou Harris does a song called "Defying Gravity" that is a good analogy,

using the Earth's rotation as an explaination for dizziness. My daughter would simply say "dork".

Her sum of everything Tracy.

Haha, yup, we need a new topic, or another angle on marriage.

Tracy