October 3, 2006
Brick-a-Brack
Matt says,
Two gems from MeFi this morning:
December 16, 2005
Retail Politics
Matt says,
Jay Bookman tells it like it is:
Think back a little more than a year ago, to the political campaigns of 2004. One of the hottest issues in presidential debates and congressional campaigns was the threat to traditional marriage posed by gay people seeking the right to wed. ...But a year later, it seems pertinent to ask: Have you heard or read a single word about a federal gay-marriage amendment since the election?
August 17, 2005
Gay O'Clock
Matt says,
This BoGlo piece exploring the possible genetic and biological roots of homosexuality has made its way all over the gayosphere et al., but I didn't actually get around to reading it until today and wow, is it chock full of goodness. Did you know, for example, that every older brother a guy has makes it significantly more likely the guy will be gay?
June 13, 2005
The Eternal Sanctity of Marriage
Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, I always thought this one, given by Maggie Gallagher to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in March of 2004, was the most rational: The available evidence indicates that children raised by both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage tend to fare the best, on average, in our society. Government should have the freedom to promote this most successful arrangement above any other family structure, reserving for it the prized label of marriage.
Or, to put it another way:
Society is structured on the institution of marriage. ... It has more to do with the welfare and civilizations of a people than any other institutions. ... The state has a natural, direct, and vital interest in maximizing the number of successful marriages which lead to stable homes and families and in minimizing those which do not.
And honestly, it's also true that families headed by partners of the same sex "are subjected to much greater pressures and problems" than straight families are, no doubt. Of course, the principal cause for that is probably societal bigotry, but when it comes to protecting the children, we must legislate with a mind to consequences as well as causes.
While I'm on a roll, it's worth agreeing that removing the ban on same-sex marriage really does put us on a slippery slope towards things society considers unsavory, since it stands "on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage."
You have to admit, these are all rational arguments. Fortunately, the Supreme Court didn't find them convincing 38 years ago yesterday, when it ruled against Virginia in the case that made interracial marriage legal in every US state.
All the quotes in this post were from the arguments made by Virginia's counsel in that case, R. D. McIlwaine III, reproduced from the transcript of the case.
April 26, 2005
Someone REALLY Wants the Oil
Matt says,
This is my new favorite thing. Also see: The Daily Show's GayWatch. (Via my 2nd favorite thing.)
April 23, 2005
Gates & the Gays
Kevin is the latest to call my attention to a story that's been roiling the gay blogosphere. Microsoft, long beloved of gays for its progressive partnership policies, done did us wrong (in the eyes of many) by "withdrawing its support for a state bill that would have barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."
Thing is, this isn't a straightforward "cruel, giant corporation screws oppressed minority" story. This is more like "giant corporation declines to back legislation preventing cruel majority from screwing oppressed minority," which makes it a bit murkier in my view. Why?
As gay MeFite dirtynumbangelboy points out in the related MetaFilter thread, progressives usually decry corporate muddling in politics. That MS is stepping out of the legislative fray rather than throwing its dirty corporate weight around should give us cheer, right?
While I don't know that there are any progressives out there who want corporations to have no voice in civil affairs, I do think this is a matter best decided by the Washington state legislature, not Microsoft. A solid, coherent progressive strategy on this front might be to say, "Oh, so you're withdrawing your voice on legislation now? How about you dial down your attacks on some of these antitrust laws then?" I have a sneaky suspicion that using this to rally for Microsoft's greater withdrawal from public affairs would have a more positive effect than excoriating them for dooming this bill.
It's not Microsoft's fault that employers can still discriminate against gays in Washington, it's the fault of the legislature. Let's not forget that.
March 27, 2005
A Landmark, Controversial Film Starring Bernie Mac
I have long thought that casting James Van der Beek as the lead in the movie Rules of Attraction was a giant missed opportunity. The lead character is supposed to be this sardonic, aloof, drugged-out playboy lusted after by almost everyone who sees him. The creators of the movie clearly cast Van der Beek in the role to subvert the loser-ish image he'd cultivated as Dawson in the television show "Dawson's Creek." (Dawson was on an image-remaking kick at the moment, having just come off the hit football movie Varsity Blues.) I never believed him for a second as the protagonist of RoA.
Everyone who's seen Cruel Intentions, Igby Goes Down, or Gosford Park knows that Ryan Phillippe exists on this earth for the sole purpose of playing that role. He's been decent to mediocre in everything else, but I just know he would have taken that role in that movie to some unimaginable height, making it much, much more than the fun, hot trifle of a film it ended up being.
Now Hollywood's gone and delivered Giant Missed Opportunity #2.
In June 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a hugely controversial unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia, forcing all the states to allow interracial marriage (at the time, 16 states banned it). That December, Hollywood came out with Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.
... Read more ....December 9, 2004
Conversion Therapy
I really don't know what the big deal is about "reparative" or "conversion" therapy, as it's known. Yes, I definitely think we should do more careful studies of it to make sure any deleterious psychological effects are completely offset by the psychological benefits, but many people nowadays seem unwilling even to let those studies happen.
If a person is unhappy with his sexuality and wants to change it, and we attain the ability to do so clinically, safely, possibly even chemically, why not oblige? It's not like there's going to be a huge population-wide rush for the service. (Hell, if it didn't take too long, I might even pop into a clinic and give girls a try for a weekend or so, just to see what all the fuss was about.)
Anyway, put me on the record as being all for conversion therapy.
And let's begin by turning this poor bastard gay.
September 28, 2004
The Revolution Will Not be Oklahoman
This is the wrong category for this post, but whatever.
Sensational piece of writing by my personal journalistic demi-goddess, Anne Hull. It's a portrait of a naive, gay, 17-year-old boy and his equally naive mother. But I think it's especially about the rest of us -- the worldly, jaded, cosmopolitan, secular, sexxxtacular, post-post-bohemian creative-class-holes who think we know everything -- who have to grapple with the exact same thoughts that seem so unformed coming out of the minds and mouths of Michael and Janice Shackleford:
Michael tried sending his mom a clue about his sexuality early on. He took her to a Cher concert in Tulsa, but she failed to make the connection.
"Apparently a lot of people don't know she has a gay following," Janice says, defensively. "The guys at work said how neat it was that I was going."
She pauses, thinking back. "I have to say, it was a fantastic concert."
Here's part two.
Part three and four will be along next Sunday and Monday.
If you wanted to get a taste of the worldly and cosmopolitan, try a little Lance Arthur. Especially the Gay Agenda.
April 9, 2004
Gaystation 2
The point didn't need to be argued, but I was trying it anyway. I was attempting to illustrate my point to Robin that tech is the beat of the future -- technology increasingly informs everything we journalists journal, from the environment to foreign policy to ... gay marriage.
Only I was getting stuck on gay marriage. What does technology have to do with gay marriage? I briefly considered making a point about how maybe they'll come up with a way for men to have babies, but I thought better of it.
Fortunately, Snarkmarket-approved blogger and top-notch techie Clive Thompson has a much better imagination than I do -- and a better video game collection. He writes in Slate today about video games featuring same-sex unions.
Having created at least half-a-dozen gay Sims in my day, I'm definitely looking forward to some groom-on-groom action in The Sims 2. Er...
Thompson takes it one step further with a glance at the long, wonderful history of console cross-dressing.
How is it that the average gamer, whom I tend to think of as an adolescent boy (and thus casually homophobic by default), is so open-minded about the sexuality of his pixelated avatar?
There's an excellent fraywatch on the topic as well.
File under: Fairy-Tale Marriage, Video Games
March 3, 2004
Just Think of the Children!
Matt says,
From The New Yorker, here's a "pro-family" argument I can get behind.
March 1, 2004
Three Grafs of Goodness
All hail the BoGlo Ideas section!
Sunday brought us three grafs on multicultural marriage by Joshua Glenn.
The middle graf:
According to a statement from the executive board of the 11,000-member American Anthropological Association, more than a century of cross-cultural anthropological research provides "no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution." Instead, anthropologists have concluded that "a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies."
Now, I -- as someone who is perhaps too credulous of basically all claims originating at a university -- think this sounds totally legit. I can imagine some people taking issue with the spirit of this statement, though:
"People tend to rank their own culture as best, but anthropologists try to take a broader view," said Brumfiel.
Uncharitable translation: Anthropologists are amoral relativists with no values. None.
I am not qualified to comment on the issue of cultural or moral relativity. I am, however, qualified to give props to the BoGlo for their continued excellent use of nugget-sized stories in the Ideas section. Three grafs is all you need, baby!
February 24, 2004
A Line in the Sand
In case you've been hiding under a nipple disc, I'll break the news to you: President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage today.
I, for one, am quite glad.
See, people (e.g. our dear President) keep on tossing around these phrases -- "activist judges," "activist courts," "judicial activism." The words don't much mean anything; an "activist judge" is for all intents and purposes one whose judgment you disagree with. In this case, the charge of "judicial activism" is the last refuge of a group of zealots bent on imposing its dominance over a minority. The will of the majority is being subverted!!, they say. Four judges in Massachusetts, five judges on the Supreme Court, two judges in California are all defying the desires of the people!!
Fortunately for civil rights in America, judges don't represent the people, they represent the law.
· PEDANTIC CIVICS LESSON TO FOLLOW ·
Legislators elected by the people create the laws, the judges interpret them, and the executives enforce them. It's an elegant little triangle. The role of the judges is often protecting groups of people against the casual tyrannies of the majority. The judges in these marriage cases have interpreted the highest will of the people to be equal rights for all, and have forced the executives to comply. If that is not the will of the people, let them tell us so.
The core of the power always belongs to the people. And that power is held above all else in one document — the Constitution — that embodies not just the will of the majority, but the will of the people, the judgment of a vast, varied segment of America. That document contains the truths we all, more or less, hold to be self-evident, and every inferior law must pass its muster.
So to change that document requires an unmistakeable quorum — over two-thirds of both legislatures in over three-fourths of the states must agree on the change.
· END PEDANTRY ·
So now we get to actually see what the people want the law to do. If the determined will of the people truly is to officially invalidate hundreds of thousands of relationships, then Vancouver, here I come.
But I look forward to the fight, because I believe that is not the determined will of the people. I think it's a panicked, reactionary response to progress by a frightened plurality, and such weak sentiments do not a Constitutional Amendment make.
February 19, 2004
How Blacks Became White
Minorities in the U.S. have been pitted against each other for ever since this place was colonized. Read Howard Zinn, he'll preach it to you. Talk about how the Irish became white. Or how Jewish folks became white. There's just a long tradition of one minority group, usually blacks, being set against another minority group, with the victor winning higher social regard, more rights, etc.
It's happening again, and this time, it's gays and blacks.
Read Franklin Foer's article in The Atlantic Monthly about one of the chief architects of the anti-gay-marriage movement, an Irish-American who grew up in black churches and realizes the value of not allowing this fight to be painted as a simple oppressor-oppressed divide.
Key graf:
Daniels's savvy was also evident in his launching of the FMA. He had made the case for his amendment to leading social conservatives, but he hadn't tried to enlist them as his main allies, because of their polarizing language and stance. ("The traditional social-conservative movement harkens back to an era of white Protestant cultural hegemony," he told me.) And because he knew that gay-rights activists would cast marriage as a civil right and evoke the African-American struggle, he had devised a strategy to pre-empt this line of argument: he chose African-Americans, including the Boston minister Ray Hammond and the civil-rights veteran Walter Fauntroy, to be his spokesmen.
It's remarkable how brazen this guy is about it, though. Take a look at his Alliance for Marriage home page, a.k.a. "Happy Black Heterosexuals for Christ." Click around for a while. Or, if you're lazy, I'll just link to every image besides the logo I can find on the website in the extended entry.
... Read more ....December 23, 2003
Letter to George Curry
Because this horse I've been beating isn't quite dead yet, here's the letter I wrote to George Curry in response to this column:
Dear Mr. Curry,
As a young black journalist, I have looked up to you. It heartens me to see the heights you've achieved in your career, and the accolades you continue to garner.
But, as a black man, it disappoints me greatly to now see you and other black leaders fall victim to the same prejudices that our community battled against so short a time ago. And as a journalist, it pains me to hear you discard truth in favor of sloganeering and propaganda.
December 21, 2003
One Way Ticket to Canada
Full Disclosure: Yes, I am. And yes, I purposefully call opponents of gay marriage "anti-marriage," instead of making the distinction, because I think it's distasteful and Orwellian that a remarkable little bit of doubletalk like the "Defense of Marriage Act" is still just humbly acquiesced to in 2003. I'm kind of a radical on this point, I understand that.
I won't say I didn't see it coming, but it's bad news, nevertheless.
By and large, Americans pretty much don't like the prospect of same-sex marriages, and a larger number than had been thought (a significant majority, in fact) favor a Constitutional amendment banning it.
I'm still rather cavalier about the prospect of an anti-marriage amendment making it through the long process of ratification, but it's not impossible. Once such an amendment made its way through Congress (which it easily might), it would go out to all 50 states. If the amendment fails in one house of Congress in at least 13 states, it fails, period.
Those seem like pretty good odds. But we can't forget that 37 states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts prohibiting same-sex marriage.
And even though we knew this was coming, the article itself is interesting, frightening, and sort of weird.
... Read more ....November 20, 2003
Procreation Schmocreation
The short version of this post: Marriage is about responsibility, not reproduction.
I intend to disembowl Jeffrey Rosen's straw-man-laden, equivocating ghettoric from yesterday's TNR Digital with a dull machete in due time. But first off, let's define one term central to this debate:
Procreation. You will hear many, many times in the near-future the argument that gay unions aren't entitled to state protection, because of the state's "compelling interest in fostering procreation."
Savor that little statement for a moment. Let it tiptoe on your tongue. Chew it gently. Spit it out.
What, exactly, could the state's interest in fostering procreation look like? I picture official State Department broadcasts featuring Colin Powell crooning "Feelin' On Yo' Booty" while Katherine Harris twerks it on the White House lawn in a "Capitol Hill Is For Lovers" baby tee.
... Read more ....November 19, 2003
Matt-rimony
The MA Ruling:
What did the court actually do?: The Massachusetts Supreme Court court said to the state legislature, and I quote, "This whole only-straight-people-get-the-pretty-cake business is a load of bull-honky." They gave the legislature 180 days to create a civil marriage status for gays with the exact same legal rights and privileges as heterosexual marriage.
What could happen next?: The Mass. legislature has two choices — 1) Suck it up and do what the court told them to. 2) Create a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as being between a man and a woman, nullifying the court's ruling.
What happens if they choose Door #1?: Gay people in Massachusetts get married, they move elsewhere, and immediately begin testing the other states' bans on gay marriage, through the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
What's the Full Faith and Credit clause?: It says that every state must recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other, but that Congress is free to make "general laws" regarding the "effect" of these acts.
What does that mean?: In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, or as one wonderful law professor nicknamed it: Dumb and DOMA), which said that no state has to recognize the "effect" of another state's gay marriages.
November 18, 2003
Frabjous Day
I hope you've heard the good news. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has finally handed down their long-anticipated ruling that denying gay couples the privileges of marriage violates the state Constitution.
And now comes the hard part.
... Read more ....
Subscribe
