They Keep Dragging Me Back In!
I’ve tried. Lord knows how I’ve tried to just stop giving a damn about the dumb-show that American political life (and the attending culture wars) have become. It’s just that I’ve noticed that every time I pay attention to the latest executive order from the President or the latest screaming ninny fit induced by our new POTUS within the screaming ninny brigade, I begin to feel hope. And if there’s one thing the last twelve years have taught me, it’s that the only purpose hope serves is to provide profit for the hard liquor sector of the economy – because hope exists only to be brutally dashed, leaving one more bitter and miserable than before.
So, I’ve been trying to ignore current events and spend my time focusing on things less depressing, like the history of the Black Death – did you know that recent tests on preserved soft tissue found within the teeth of Black Death victims confirms that the pestilence which felled half the population of the European continent was, in fact, Y. pestis? And I thought I had finally shaken the addiction – that I had gotten out of the soul-sucking vortex which is the modern Dummkopfenkulturkampf.
DENVER — Disgraced evangelical leader Ted Haggard’s former church disclosed Friday that the gay sex scandal that caused his downfall extends to a young male church volunteer who reported having a sexual relationship with Haggard — a revelation that comes as Haggard tries to repair his public image.
Brady Boyd, who succeeded Haggard as senior pastor of the 10,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, told The Associated Press that the man came forward to church officials in late 2006 shortly after a Denver male prostitute claimed to have had a three-year cash-for-sex relationship with Haggard.
Boyd said an “overwhelming pool of evidence” pointed to an “inappropriate, consensual sexual relationship” that “went on for a long period of time … it wasn’t a one-time act.” Boyd said the man was in his early 20s at the time. He said he was certain the man was of legal age when it began.
Damn it all to hell! Now I feel hope again; hope that stuff like this is enough to make some of the idiot “traditional marriage” brigade (like, unfortunately, our new POTUS) recognize the stupidity of the cause they champion. After all, if your ideology is so mind-controlling that it leaves you unable to recognize that this:
might not be completely heterosexual….perhaps it’s time to reconsider that ideology.
And, of course, I’m now also hooked on that sweet, sweet schadenfreude once again, and will soon probably be jonesing for my next fix. But for now, I’ll just ride this one for as much as I can.
Update: Derelict, in the comments, asks for a citation on Obama being one of the “traditional marriage brigade”. Here’s Obama in his own words:
And as for why “civil unions” absolutely do not cut it, one need look no further than the words of our own government. Or the history of Plessy v. Ferguson. Or one’s own frigging conscience. Obama is completely wrong here, and a total wanker for not standing up for what is right. Just because he’s a better president than Bush doesn’t mean he’s a great president, or that he’s above criticism. And his position on this issue stinks.
“Thankful for the schism”
good lord that was hilarious.
Someone needs to sit poor Ted down and explain to him that he’s gay.
…that sweet, sweet schadenfreude
It never gets old, does it?
…some of the idiot “traditional marriage” brigade (like, unfortunately, our new POTUS)…
Um, got a cite for that? I don’t seem to recall him advocating for a Constitutional amendment on this, or echoing any of the right-wing talking points, or promising to go to war against teh ghey like McCain said he would. So I’d like to know where you get the idea that Obama is part of the traditional marriage brigade. (I mean, other than the fact that he’s in a traditional marriage.)
Is Haggard still insisting he’s the secret identity of Definitely-Not-Gay-Man?
Disgraced evangelical leader Ted Haggard’s former church disclosed Friday that the gay sex scandal that caused his downfall extends to a young male church volunteer who reported having a sexual relationship with Haggard
If they’d been married they could have gotten a blender and a waffle iron out of it.
But he’s cured now! Haven’t you been paying attention? No more ghey.
“Marriage is between a man and a woman” has been the operative phrase for Obama. And Bush. And practically everyone else in national politics.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071022031145/http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_26/index.php
You know, “I agree with…Cheney” is not a phrase I’d ever want to utter. Even if he was just saying that the world is round.
Matt Barber certainly has a limited imagination. Wait – it’s more than that, he didn'[t even have to imagine those things happening becuase lots of people predicted them. I luvs ta see dem wailing and gnashing dere teefs.
Did you see the other day where Kirsten Gillibrand, the freshly minted Senator from NY, the one who was so disappointing to the LGBT & allies sector by repeatedly publically opposing “full marriage” changed her position pretty much on day one? She couldn’t have had a pro-full-marriage stance before because she wouldn’t have gotten elected. As her new seat no longer depends on saying happy happy nice thoughts to her generally right leaning district, BANG! Take heart.
What distresses me is when otherwise normal people – people such as yourself – go screaming ninny your own self. B. Hussein probably isn’t in the “traditional marriage brigade.” It’s politics dear, the art of the possible. Really think about it: he’s going to get DADT yanked, and possibly/probably DoMa. He’s also against any “constitutional” prohibition. So what could he do, really do to get ss marriage? It’s going to happen in the states. It *is* happening in the states. B Hussein X is working to ensure that the federal gummint doesn’t prevent the states from doing what they will do. Many of them, anyway. It is extremely unlikely that same sex marriage will come from DC. Leastways not until we get a few more states under our belt.
I’ll repeat my advice from last year: drink, chill, abuse some drugs in a recreational fashion. It’s getting better all the time …..
PeeJ beat me to it. I would only add that it’s worth reading Obama’s stated positions on civil unions, constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, etc. Doesn’t really sound like he’s marching in the homophobia parade.
Mort, a kindler and gentler homophobia is still homophobic, and denying people an entire group of rights that every other person is entitled to because you don’t like the way they conduct their personal affairs is homophobic, end of story. Civil unions are NOT marriages and do NOT give members of such unions the same rights that marriage gives. Please look into the issue – civil unions are a sham as far as the “rights” issue goes, at least in America…my understanding is that the UK law works a little differently.
I am constantly reminded of late of that great like from MLK’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” where he expresses greater upset and disappointment with the lukewarm advocate of civil rights than he does the KKK-er.
I know exactly what he means.
I also agree with PeeJ – politics is the art of the possible. but that shouldn’t be taken to diminish the very real anguish felt by many in the glbt community. Myself among them. I’m just glad I’m not in a Haliburton re-education camp. Give me a few months and I’ll see if Obama is living up to his promises.
Jillian – yes, I know what he means too. It’s impossible to argue for delaying justice without running face-first smack into the hypocrisy of it.
But I can’t see that coming out before the election and declaring himself an advocate of gay marriage would have helped at all if it cost the election.
I also can’t see that pushing too hard on this first thing out of the gate will be all that helpful, if all it accomplishes is loss of political capital that will be needed for big jobs like health care reform. Clinton tried that approach and it didn’t work out all that well.
Does it suck? Hell yes it does. But I think Pee J is right that marriage equality isn’t going to come from DC – at least not from a president or congress. It’s going to happen when someone from a state who has a legal marriage ends up in a state that refuses to recognize the marriage, and it will go through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court – maybe more than once – and that will go on until we get a Supreme Court ruling that forces all the states to recognize gay marriages as equal to “traditional” marriages. That’s the whole point of the silly constitutional amendment banning it – so the courts won’t eventually do what everyone knows they will eventually do.
But yeah, it sucks that it’s going to take more time. It’s not fair or right. But it’s also not Barack Obama’s fault and there’s little he could do or say to change it.
“But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs…”
There is no possible rational conclusion to that sentence.
Jillian, not that I don’t agree with you in some fashion, but even up here in the Gay Dominion of Soviet Canuckistan, same-sex marriage didn’t happen overnight. In terms of legal history (not that I am anything close to knowledgeable on this subject) the first big cases that started to give the same rights to gays and lesbians as married couples weren’t until the 90s. Even in ’99 parliament voted overwhelmingly that marriage was between a man and a woman. It’s only been about four years here. I am not saying that one should settle for civil unions or anything, merely that even in ideal circumstances these things take a lot of time. But it will happen.
As one of teh gay, President Obama’s stand is quite the pisser only because I just know he doesn’t believe that nonsense in his heart.
Saying you’re okay with with me marrying Charlie Hunnam – WHICH I WILL DO ONE DAY DESPITE THOSE CEASE & DESIST ORDERS – on the national stage is honey to whacko right wing Christianized Killer Bees. I get that, and the thought of him losing the election in a tight race because of the Charlie and me getting hitched would have broken my heart.
I just wish supporting gay rights wasn’t such a dirty, taboo issue like being gay once was. President Obama and others need to come out of the closet on this and be unequivocal in their support. One hand he’s been awesome by including us in a vision for this country’s future. On the other hand we have that fat piece of shit, Rick Warren.
I have faith it will be going our way, though.
As I posted on Pharyngula:
My gaydar is far from perfect, and when I was young some of my mannerisms and my awkwardness with women made a lot of people think I was gay, so I certainly don’t think one can always discern the sexual orientation of others from externals, but…
the first time I saw Ted Haggard on TV I thought he must be an avant-garde performance artist doing a multilayered imitation: Paul Lynde as a televangelist. Everything about him just screamed “deeply-in the-closet gay.” To this day I don’t understand how anyone couldn’t tell that, or fail to see through his religious schtick for the moneymaking scheme it always was at heart. Of course, I don’t get how Benny Hinn can fill a basketball arena or soccer stadium with suckers, either.
If Haggard weren’t a con man, I’d actually feel a little sympathy. He’s gotta be really, really, really insecure and unhappy. I do feel deeply sorry for his kids, and–possibly–his wife.
If only Obama’s position on health care didn’t actually suck, Jennifer, that might even be an almost persuasive argument. But ultimately, it doesn’t really matter – me and mine will just go and sit at the back of the bus like just about everybody seems to want us to. I can’t even care too much about it anymore, because I have to save that energy for caring about what goes on in my classroom – which is, of course, not going to be helped by Obama’s crummy stance on No Child Left Behind and his appointment of Arne Duncan, who seems to like nothing more than turning our low-income school districts into military training camps.
If all that’s left to me is the ability to sit in the corner and shoot spitballs at our sacred cows, taking glib joy in the incoherent stances of our political leaders, and occasionally laughing at adolescently crude humor….can’t I at least have that?
Everybody should have ‘civil unions’ and if you want to have a ‘marriage ceremony’ more power to you.
And every time I hear this explanation given about anyone, it always puts me in mind of my absolute, all-time favorite quote from Kurt Vonnegut:
Hey, Ted Haggard MUST be straight — Alexandra Pelosi is about to give him a blowjob on HBO! And she’s a “liberal” just like her mom!
Obama is pro gay marriage, sure, but he is the President of an awful lot of people who are still absurdly and passionately anti-gay anything, and there’s only so much air in the room, and time on the Shows of Gasbags, who would never be able to resist a good culture war clash. So I don’t think his “position sucks” all things considered.
Why spend political capital from the top down when all the signs point to the problem going away from the bottom up? Especially, with too many other huge fish to fry.
It’s highly unlikely he could accelerate the process in substantive ways. This one is generational, and he’ll move the ball forward at an official pace, I suspect, roughly commensurate with the pace of the change happening culturally. In fact, I think he’s already done a little of this.
I don’t get why anyone is opposed to gay marriage, either, but too many are to sacrifice the troops on that particular hill in the political war.
“Especially now,” I meant to say. Sheesh.
Obama is not pro-gay marriage. He said so. If you don’t believe him when he says that he is opposed to gay marriage, then why do you believe him when he says he’s going to help working families and create new jobs and everything else he say’s he’s going to do?
You can’t believe someone only when they say things you like. It’s either true that he does not support gay marriage, which makes him – at least in this instance – a bigot, or he actually DOES support gay marriage and he’s lying about it, which means he’s willing to use the suffering of millions of Americans caused by homophobia to further his own political capital, in which case he’s a right bastard for profiting off the suffering of others. You can take your pick, but I don’t see how the one’s all that much better than the other.
Why do you have to love everything about a politician to be able to support them? I don’t understand this logic at all. Hell, I voted for Obama myself! Mostly just because he was the best possible choice. But good goddamn, does that man suck major ass on a number of hugely important issues. How does his presidency benefit from us not pointing that out?
I would call Obama prejudiced by his upbringing on the issue. I don’t think he nurtures the bigoted idea that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals.
Well, Jillian, they say that politics is the art of the possible.
For an American politician in 2008, campaigning on equal marriage was deemed impossible, especially for a black guy named “Hussein”. I can’t say I disagree with the assessment. After all, the fundies beat the crap out of the Dems with the issue just four short years ago, even the ones not on record in favor of it.
Just like, if Gavin Newsom had simply signed the order and shut the fuck up, we might not have lost on Prop 8.
Obama is too smart to tell the right-wing to blow it out their ass in a speech from a podium on national television, but he’ll tell them just that to their faces behind closed doors. Like Billy Flynn said, “that’s how we do it in Chicago.”
If you push on the Overton window too hard, it snaps and rebounds back the other way, cutting you up in the process. Ask Bill Clinton.
owlbear: I agree, but the problem is that the “Civil Unions Only” position is both legally more difficult to attain (since it requires rewording many federal and state statutes and regulations all at once) and less well-supported.
A significant minority of Americans support gay marriage. A substantial group beyond that supports civil unions. The remainder are pretty much hardline Christianists and homophobes, and we’ll never make direct headway on the issue with them (although we’ll gain indirect headway through attrition and increased apostasy on the margins as the general cultural attitude becomes more tolerant).
The problem is that the current “Civil Unions Only” camp is a tiny fraction of both the “Gay Marriage” and “Straight Marriage, Gay Civil Unions” camps. And my gut feeling (sorry) from talking to both gay marriage and civil-union proponents is that they’re mostly opposed to the concept of abolishing civil marriage. It is less radical to expand an existing institution than to replace it entirely, and there is always a strong resistance to radical change in the social realm.
What did Bill Clinton ever do for me or people in my slice of the political spectrum? Bill Clinton was a horrendously awful president. What is this strange mental fugue people seem to have for the Clinton years? Why do people continue to make excuses for him? Is it some sort of strange political version of battered wife syndrome?
And why would you think Newsom’s position had anything to do with the success of Prop 8, when similar measures succeeded everywhere else?
I’m not angry, I’m just honestly puzzled.
Why he kept you safe from terrorist attacks!
Because being pro those other things doesn’t keep him from getting elected. You know I’m queer, right? The Ho and I have been notmarried for nigh on to 20 years now. I say this because I want you to understand that lots of us despise the bigotry and hatred but also understand that demanding 100% NOW DAMNIT is clearly not a winning strategy.
As a 50 year gay man who’s been out since the 70’s, I can tell you that this is a different world than the one I used to live in. It isn’t right that we can’t get married. It isn’t right that we can be fired from our jobs, kicked out of our apartments, etc. etc. just for being gay. It sucks. It has always sucked.
What several of us (it seems, don’t mean to presume) are trying to get across to you is that you’re giving yourself ulcers and maybe a heart attack. Unnecessarily. Strategy. Patience. It will come, that much is clear. But yelling and bitching and being confrontational and getting your and everyone else’s blood pressure up won’t make it come any sooner; provocation only raises their hackles and delays real progress.
the “Civil Unions Only” position is both legally more difficult to attain
Everything currently called ‘a marriage’ is now called a ‘civil union’.
If you are already re-writing laws to allow for ‘gay marriages’ just take the next step.
The idea is to seperate the legal/property issues and the religious dogma involved.
At its core ‘gay marriage’ is a freedom of religion issue.
This card is meant to convey whatever feelings are appropriate to your legal ceremony-thing called “a civil union.”
Honestly, PeeJ, I’m not “demanding” anything. I don’t expect that any politician will ever treat me and mine with even a modicum of respect, so demanding that – from my point of view – would be like demanding that some politician repeal the law of gravity or something. I don’t even expect to be treated with a modicum of respect by your average American. I’m not going to get an ulcer over it, because I won’t be disappointed by what happens. I can’t be. In order to be disappointed, you have to believe that things could possibly be better. I think I’ve been pretty well cured of that misconception.
I just think the Ted Haggard story is unbearably funny. I feel bad for his kids, though.
And the really funny thing is that I’m not even a lesbian. I’m bisexual, and could probably run out and get married any time I wanted to some nice guy. But that’s so far from the point that I never even bother to bring it up. I do hope that people see that – and that they see what the point is.
Guess you can’t cure a person of hope completely.
Yeah, with a lot of them using clips of Newsom with his snarky “…whether ya like it or not!!!” speech.
I live here, I saw the commercials the Prop 8 assholes made with Newsom’s sneering mug in them. Prop 8 was *losing* until they started running that shit.
Marriage equality will come, not as a huge wave crashing to the shore, but the way the tide comes in. You don’t notice it until you’re hip deep in water. But either way, you’re just as wet.
And the point was not that Clinton did so much for people in our slice of the political spectrum. But as soon as he announced he was going to lift the ban on gays in the military, he handed the reactionaries a club to beat him with. He took the courageous stand on a gay issue and got handed his ass over it. His presidency went downhill from there as he furiously backpeddled to prove he wasn’t really a liberal. And Newt Gingrich took over the House two years later.
So you disrespect Obama for not going to the mat over marriage equality. Well, it didn’t stop you from voting for him, but a clear declaration from him in favor of SSM would have stopped a lot of people in places like Indiana and western Pennsylvania from voting for him, and right now we’d be getting used to saying Vice President Sarah Palin, and I’d be trying to commit seppiku with a spork.
I understand that 100% NOW DAMNIT is only fair. I agree.
Acceptance of teh ghey in modern society is inevitable, too. The younger generation simply doesn’t see it as a problem.
But Obama can’t be responsible for everything. We need to be leaders ourselves. FDR always wanted pressure from the left to force his hand. Let his words be a rallying point and representative of how much hard work is left to do.
This needn’t occur by edict. Lord knows the man has some serious shit to deal with right now.
***BREAKING NEWS***
Just this morning Biblical scholars poring over long-lost texts found near the Dead Sea discovered a major mistake in Leviticus. Instead of reading “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination,” Leviticus 18:22 should actually read: “He who lives in the closet is a self-hating fuck that brings disaster upon his family and community.”
Awshit, I need to stop being so fucking serious . So,
How long befire we find out about the other liaisons of Teh Haggard? The ones where the boys are underage. We should start a betting pool.
because hope exists only to be brutally dashed, leaving one more bitter and miserable than before.
Others call this pessimism. I prefer to call it self-defense.
It’s all good, PeeJ. Some day, some nice liberal will start a fund to help people who have lost the ability to give a shit, and then maybe my ability to give a shit can be restored through physical therapy paid for by some goddamn universal healthcare. I should give a shit – all decent people should. I just can’t anymore.
I’m waiting for the REALLY shocking scandal to break. The one where Ted Haggard has sex…with a woman! With icky womanparts and everything!
Just out of curiosity, are there ANY straight Republican men at all? Shouldn’t we be showing our liberal bona fides and starting a support group for them? Lord knows it’s hard being a minority.
Can I get a (g)A(y)men!?
I think it’s seriously unfair to call Obama a bigot. Call his stance bigoted. But to put him in the same camp as Peter LaBarbera and his ilk is neither accurate nor helpful. The man is actively seeking to end discrimination against gehys in many areas of our society. He (maybe) has a (huge) blind spot regarding one area. We all have blind spots, but we are not all bigots.
Awshit, I need to stop being so fucking serious.
Yeah, I was going to say something about James Franco peeing in your pool.
Ted Haggard is a lot of things, but Catholic is not one of them.
If Obama doesn’t want to be called a bigot, perhaps he should stop taking bigoted stances. I refer you once again to Martin Luther King, Jr.:
In this case, I agree with MLK. At least men like Pat Robertson have the guts to hate me to my face. Obama tells me he’s my friend and tries to put his arm around my shoulder, but only for the purposes of stabbing me in the back. He may be a kinder, gentler bigot, but none of that changes his bigotry, and making excuses for him because he likes us so much in so many other ways is just enabling.
When forced to choose between bitter disillusionment and Stockholm Syndrome, I’ll take the bitters every time. They make a good Manhattan.
So, our new president is either a timid bigot or a gutless hack. And he’s the best choice, because you know without a shadow of a doubt the other side is staffed with nothing but active bigots who will go out of their collective way to be bigots. AND THAT’S FUCKING IT, and if you ever considered otherwise, every dead child in Iraqistan is totally your fault.
This is why I’m joining the first monestary that’ll take me. You’d be surprised how much they frown on atheists joining the brotherhood. Fuck.
There were many blacks who also urging King to slow down too. Does that make them bigots as well?
A difference in strategy is not hatred.
Yeah. That’s, like, my very least favorite feature of all political engagement, that outrage is best directed at nervous but well-meaning _allies_ rather than at implacable and malicious _foes_. Yes, OK, sometimes we have to trust that go-slow types really are “well-meaning,” and there are times when they probably aren’t, so that’s an important caveat.
I guess it’s a sign of my own privilege, but I really don’t get the intensity of the vitriol vented on those who believe that incremental change at least moves somewhere in the right direction. Slow is better than stopped. 49% principled hardcore support loses. 25% principled hardcore support and 26% “meh” support wins. I think it’s easier to move opinion on matters of justice from soft opposition to soft support than to demand hard support as fast as possible, and I don’t think that a hardcore vanguard really does succeed in pulling opinion in its slipstream. This probably makes me a wuss and/or a quietist who would get chewed out by almost all revolutionaries and movement leaders. But I’m OK with that.
Of course, owlbear, none of those blacks were telling King that they didn’t think he had a claim on civil rights at all, and that their deity told them that blacks should always sit at the back of the bus, but at least he’d make the back seats nice and cushy.
What if governments simply stopped recognizing the whole concept of “marriage”?
Rather, they would issue licenses for civil unions for any consenting couple who wanted one, which would provide all the legal protections marriage now confers (medical decisions, inheritance/tax issues, etc.) Then it would be left to churches to hold whatever kind of ceremony they like, and to call it “marriage” or whatever. But it would be a religious/ceremonial distinction only, with no legal weight.
This way, everyone is legally equal, and church-state separation is preserved.
I don’t think this is universally true or should be enshrined as a political principle, although there may be cases where it is in fact a crucial sentiment. Then again, I’m fortunate enough not to have to endure daily petty humiliations, discrimination, and violence.
Did you see the other day where Kirsten Gillibrand, the freshly minted Senator from NY, the one who was so disappointing to the LGBT & allies sector by repeatedly publically opposing “full marriage” changed her position pretty much on day one?
That was actually pretty great and funny. Seems obvious that Obama would change his mind if it was proven that his more stupid stance could be given up at no cost. That requires activism.
Grondo, I’ve often thought this would be the best possible solution as well. There’s just one problem……
The Religious Right would suddenly shriek “Look! The Gays Have Destroyed Marriage!”
We can’t win with these guys no matter what we do.
“When forced to choose between bitter disillusionment and Stockholm Syndrome, I’ll take the bitters every time. They make a good Manhattan.” Jillian
Really? These are the two choices you get over this issue? I’ve had this same argument over and over with my circle of queers and it hasn’t ended this poorly.
Manhattan’s are delicious but they will fuck you up eventually but if you enjoy them and see the other side as unicorn riding captives racing straight to President Obama’s work camp, well, that’s disheartening.
I just ain’t giving up yet.
But the “civil unions” position (as I understand it) exists precisely to acknowledge that claim to civil rights, not to deny it entirely. As a matter of policy, I completely agree with the “civil unions for all” idea, separating the whole thing from anything having to do with churches unless those involved — in my mind, there’s no good reason it can’t be even more than two people — choose to have it be so. Civil unions should include at least as many protections and confer at least as many benefits as “marriages.” And I think it’s idiotic to be fretful about the word “marriage.” But I too worry that there aren’t enough people who see it my way for the law to match that view without a horrendous and paralyzing fight, and while sometimes those might be required, I’ll confess to being loath to seek them out.
Seems obvious that Obama would change his mind if it was proven that his more stupid stance could be given up at no cost. That requires activism.
Well, fuck that bullshit. Actually doing something cuts into our complaining time.
Obama on DOMA:
For the record, I opposed [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted. …
When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue. … Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist. While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress.
I can’t quite bring myself to call him a bigot Jillian.
Didn’t we just get done reading this:
After much therapy and prayer, he does not think of himself as bisexual, Haggard said. “I think of myself as a heterosexual but with issues,” he said. “Those labels just don’t work, and from the research, they don’t work for most people. The boxes don’t work for me,” he said.
Now what could those issues be I wonder. From the research, that is.
Flip, the problem with civil unions is that, in our legal system, they DON’T provide the same legal benefits as marriage. If they did, I probably wouldn’t care. It’s a bait and switch game they’re playing, and it works, because marriage law is really complicated so people don’t end up seeing how this doesn’t work.
I should also add, we need to hold him to that.
You are right that ‘civil unions’ aren’t the same as marriage but only because of DOMA.
Yeah, I was going to say something about James Franco peeing in your pool.
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your publication.
Not only because of DOMA, owlbear. There’s more to it than that. There is no clear layout of what “civil union” entails legally at the federal level, which goes beyond DOMA. If I’m your civil partner, do my children (my biological, your legal children) get Social Security if you die? Can I be compelled to testify against my partner in federal court? And so on. It’s a big, ugly complicated mess that only gets made more ugly and complicated by civil unions.
Look, we didn’t get a choice between Obama and Perfect. We got a choice between Obama and McCain, who would have been much, much worse in every way. Go to you-tube and look up McCain’s answer to this same question. He immediately started talking about Supreme Court nominees. Do you think his nominees would rule in favor of gay marriage? Do you think Obama’s might?
Right, I realize that civil unions /= marriage, but I would think souping up “civil unions” would be the solution least capable of galvanizing the reactionary hordes. And I also like the idea of straight couples being able to choose a civil union instead of a “marriage.” I am sympathetic to the idea that civil unions have the ring of separate-but-equal about them, and I don’t quite know how to deal with that effectively. But as I recall the separate-but-equal civil unions option polls very well (and it didn’t use to, which is heartening), and if we’re societally gravitating in the right direction, half a loaf and all that…
I would not want to join any club that would admit someone like me.
To me it would be much easier to define ‘civil unions’ as legally indistinguishable from ‘married’ than it will ever be to re-define marriage.
Hey, I voted for Obama. And I did that because I agree McCain would’ve been much, much worse.
Does that mean I can never call Obama an asshole again? Because if that’s the case, I’m taking my damn vote back.
Sorry Jillian, no take-backs. You voted for him that means un-questioning loyalty and approval.
See if you complain TOO loudly they’ll put McCain in his place and we wouldn’t want that now would we?
Hmmmm?
Wait, I thought Obama was a bigot. Now you’re telling me he’s an asshole, too. Jesus Haploid Christ, just who did I vote for, anway? Next you’ll be telling me he doesn’t like Elvis, and my world will be destroyed.
Dude, you voted for a politician. OF COURSE you voted for a bigoted asshole.
The difference between Obama and a lot of others is that he doesn’t appear to take any pride in being a bigoted asshole. It’s a step in the right direction, at least.
Just a side note: Roy Zimmerman is freaking brilliant. If you’ve only played that one clip, go back and play them all.
Aha! I call “incrementalist” on you! 🙂
How long befire we find out about the other liaisons of Teh Haggard? The ones where the boys are underage. We should start a betting pool.
I actually believe this would make the wingnuts happy. It gives them the oppotunity to say “see gay = pedophile that’s why we can’t let these people marry and adopt children.”
Federal and state governments have no business recognizing anything but civil unions. If you feel what you have is a “marriage”, that’s between you, your partner, your family, your church, your therapist, your bowling league and anyone else who gives a shit. You can call it a marriage, a civil union, a partnership, a contract, a sentence or whatever else you want. You can call it Poindexter and make it wear a funny hat for all I care, and for all the Gummint should care. As far as the state cares, you are married once the marriage license has been signed and witnessed, whether by a minister, a JP, the captain of a ship (for some reason) or any other person “vested” with the power to do so. Once that document has been signed, you have certain legal rights and responsibilities under the law. In the final alalysis, tt’s just another contract.
Also, I’m hoping nothing of the likes of a Scalia, Roberts, Alito, or Thomas joins the Supreme Court under the Obama Administration.
Also.
Dude, you voted for a politician. OF COURSE you voted for a bigoted asshole.
Dammit, I voted for Black Moses who was gonna make everything perfect! I had no idea he was an actual flawed human being or I woulda voted for…ya know, I can’t even joke about voting for McCain/Palin. Jesus. McCain’s had the decency to keep to himself, but that woman continues to astound, terrify and amuse.
And on that thought, has anyone yet seen someone from the liberal end of the pundit/blogger/bullshit spectrum that’s upset that less than a week into his presidency, Obama has yet to walk on water? You see a lot of people rubbing their hands with glee over the lack of water-walking or lamenting how dumb everyone else was for falling for the O-man’s black (and I do mean “black”, winkwinknudgenudge) magic that they themselves were far too superior a being to be fooled in such a way. But people rending garments because the savior didn’t come, not so much. It’s sorta like the only folks who ever called him “The One” or rattled about his supposed “messiah” status wouldn’t vote for him anyway.
The difference between Obama and a lot of others is that he doesn’t appear to take any pride in being a bigoted asshole. It’s a step in the right direction, at least.
Careful. Almost sounds hopeful. You’ll be writing letters to your congressperson next if you ain’t careful. Scariest thing in the world is an active constituency. Someone recently told me that the French government is more or less terrified of the French people, which sounds about right.
And for what it’s worth, I personally don’t think all politicians are bigotted assholes. They’re all gutless, power-worshipping toadies who’ll sell out the weaker group for the strong group’s support, sure, yeah, but “bigotted assholes” seems a bit much. I doubt they actually give it that much thought. Casualties of war, and all that jazz.
Eh, I write letters to my politicians. Mostly just because I hate trees, and I like killing ’em for no good reason.
I teach civics and government, too. It’s a long story, but I lost this bet once.
Cry your bitter tears, troofie.
They make us happy!
President B. O.
Achtung! vere Frau Haggard vun uff mein patients – I haff a prakitce, yoo know; a medikal vun!!! – I vould rekkommend dat he be hung up by hiss heels und beaten vith sticks. Not for der being gay, but for der Krimes (vith a Kapital “K”) uff being a greasy little snake oil slaesman und con artist und hypokrite! Spare der rod und yoo vill spoil der asshole! Vhy, dat little filth should be held down und savagely kicked in der face vith an IRON BOOT!!!!!
Shouldn’t we be showing our liberal bona fides
So I tried that. The police agreed to drop the charges as long as I underwent counselling.
Bah! I misspelled “salesman”, even vith der spell check feat-chure. I must go home to flog meinself wiff a dozen long-stemmed red roses as penance.
I think I’ve used this line before, but you know that bumper sticker, “I’m already against the NEXT war”? I think “I’m already disappointed by the NEXT Democratic president” would be a big seller.
There is the school of thought that Ted Haggard has paid the price for his mistake, so the media hounding of Haggard’s family should cease, and he should be afforded the peace and privacy to sell all rights to interviews and publicity to HBO.
Jillian:
owlbear1:
It is completely irrational to create two, entirely separate legal institutions in every state that are intended to accomplish exactly the same goal. Do we need one set of property ownership laws for people under 5′ 11″ and another set for people 5′ 11″ and above, while strictly hewing to the goal of making them exactly the same?! What kind of maniac would propose this? Why would you want to spend precious resources on redundant bureaucracy?
But who could ever accuse the American people of being rigidly rational? Apparently 25% of Americans still think we can tax cut our way out of the recession/depression. There is so much stupidity and and ignorance and close-mindedness and envy and pathetic fear of change out there it will make you kill yourself if you focus on it.
The only reason civil unions were able to be pushed through years ago was because some bigots were sure they would never convey all the same rights as marriage. Other bigots have fought them all the way (eg. the Catholic Church) because they saw that the logical end was to simply declare that gay people were entitled to the same human rights as heterosexuals.
It seems to me that we’re fighting this on two fronts. One front is to keep making the civil unions more inclusive on the basis that gay families need legal relief. The other front is the cultural front, where we simply accept gay people as equal citizens. No big deal. As others have observed, this is already a reality among many more young people than older people. Homophobia will fade by attrition. These two fronts came together in states like Massachusetts and Vermont, where people were suddently struck with a rational thought–let’s change the words “man” and “woman” to “two adults” and it will make so many problems go away!
No matter what Obama believes personally (and it’s pretty hard for me to believe that he truly thinks his marriage is threatened by gay weddings) he is openly fighting on the front of civil unions and he’s willing to clear the way for the second front. That’s not the best, but it’s probably the best he can do with all the stupidity and and ignorance and close-mindedness and envy and pathetic fear of change out there.
I keep telling a friend that I think that deep down he’s also a closet atheist, but she says, no, no, sadly, no.
Hey, at least he mentioned us in the inaugural address! Maybe someday we’ll see the inauguration of the first openly atheist president! But I think we’ll see a gay president first.
A couple of years ago the New Zealand govt. tried the softly-softly approach of creating a new legal status of Civil Union, available for persons of any gender. Do you think that stopped the local Focus-on-the-Family franchise from whinging? Did it bogroll. Apparently if the gayz can join themselves up in relationships that are as good as marriage but have a different name, this is still Debasing the Sacred Status of Marriage.
Oddly enough, the same people were simultaneously telling us that gayz are incorrigible promiscuous horndogs who are incapable of wanting or forming long-term relationships. Overall, I couldn’t see the problem, possibly because I was dazzled by the projection.
In the short term, progressive politicians playing a phony wishy-washy “I’m against same-sex marriage but for gay rights” card may work for them right now– and I buy the argument that it did work for Obama– but, in the long run, this strategy always turns around and eventually bites progressives on the ass. As long as you hand the Religious Right an issue where you capitulate and suggest that you won’t fight back and draw out voters equal to or more than theirs on that subject, you politely hand them a trump card that they’ll use to help beat you again and again in many– not just one– elections, because their voters are jazzed and yours are not.
Progressives were caught off-guard, for instance, in 2004, because they hadn’t done the work necessary firmly establishing to their supporters that same-sex marriage is both a moral and civil right that deserves active attention. Thus, the Right knew that by tossing up a lot of anti-gay ballot initiatives across the country, they could draw out their own rabid supporters while many on the Left sat back, twiddled their thumbs and said “oh, well, not my problem.”
The repudiation of Bush on so many issues and the circumstances of the last four years rendered the Right’s anti-gay strategy less effective for the last two elections, but when the political winds start to shift again, if progressives haven’t begun to own GLBT rights issues like same-sex marriage, you’re going to see the same dynamic take shape where the Right uses it to draw out voters and the Left sits by haplessly wondering why yet another ballot initiative siphoned off key votes.
Progressive politicians saying “I’m against same-sex marriage but pro-gay rights” is like treading water; it’ll work for a while, but eventually you better learn how to swim. One reason gay rights issues won’t just go away is because as long as the Right sees them as a useful tool in their arsenal, they won’t let them go away. Until the Left develops a long-term strategy that begins to jazz up their voters to actually stand up on the issue and counter the Right’s continual use of the anti-gay strategy, rather than run from or capitulate on areas like the marriage issue, it’s going to keep coming back as a constant election problem.
I’m not calling for separate institutions, I am saying “Civil Unions’ are the Legally binding contract and “the marriage” is whatever you want to put on the cake.
So in light of the latest revelations about Haggard, will Alexandra Pelosi’s HBO apologia be cancelled? Modified? Retrofitted with a laugh track?
Others call this pessimism. I prefer to call it self-defense.
LOL. It’s self defense in the same way, “I like to kick myself in the nuts before someone else does” is self defense but you do get lots of Emo points for a stance like that.
because hope exists only to be brutally dashed, leaving one more bitter and miserable than before.
.
.
Others call this pessimism. I prefer to call it self-defense.
LOL. It’s self defense in the same way, “I choose to kick myself in the nuts before someone else gets the chance to” is self defense but you do get lots of Emo points for a stance like that.
Hey, since he’s been mentioned, do any of you kids know what MLK’s stance was on gay marriage. Surely he must have at least pushed for civil unions but my google skills are lacking it seems.
I, for one, am holding my breath until the first lesbian atheist of a more recent Afrikan heritage has served two full terms. And her V-P has to be an illegal alien, although s/he can be a stealth iceback, like a Canadian.
If Haggard only had a skill in a profession other than being a hypocritical minister , he could cut loose and be himself.
But that’s quite the well-paying job he’s got there. Whether it’s worth his lifelong sense of real happiness is his call.
And really, I see that particular group of wingnuts financing and forgiving any number of “slips.” It serves their nefarious purposes to simultaneously urge “gay curing therapy” and also proclaim that “curing gay people isn’t easy.”
Of course, if Ted Haggard is anything to go by, it appears to be easier to “cure people of being straight” than it does to “cure people of being gay”.
Hmmm…..I wonder if there’s a marketing opportunity in this…..
Jillian, that’s brilliant; if it were fast-acting, and then wore off.
Think of the marketing campaign; “He shops during the day, then he’s a tiger in the sack at night.”
Of course, there’s side effects. There’s always side effects.
I don’t think Republican gay sex scandals really help us. It really only show bigots that homosexuality is one heck of a drug. It also doesn’t help that secretly gay conservatives have to break all the taboos on their benders, so they get caught snorting cocaine off underaged rent-boys.
I’m with Owlbear & Grondo. Let’s find out what happens when President Obama signs an Executive Order saying “The word ‘marriage’ shall be striken from all federal laws, statues, etc. and replaced by the word ‘civil unions’.” For one thing, it’ll help the overpopulation crisis by causing some significant number of Talibangelical fartsacks to fall over deaddeaddead, and fewer Talibangical fartsacks means less airwave pollution. Maybe Obama can time it for Earth Day!
How long befire we find out about the other liaisons of Teh Haggard? The ones where the boys are underage. We should start a betting pool.
From the way the press release by Haggard’s replacement was worded (‘we are sure this individual was over 18 when the liaison started’), they’ve already got signed statements from individuals who weren’t. This is old-skool media blackmail, intended to embarrass HBO into keeping the apologia off the air, even if it’s too late to get back the ‘expense money’ payoff they made to Haggard. Ted needs the sweet, sweet rush of more media exposure (the most addictive drug in modern America). Haggard’s ex-ministry wants him buried under Yucca Mountain, preferably yesterday. But the ministry can’t simply dump the nuclear-level blackmail material into the public domain, because (a) in the authoritarian worldview, since Haggard started the ‘church’, if Ted is discredited then the church no longer exists; and (b) Haggard surely has material about the ministry finances that would get them all in deep legal shite, should he ever be pushed to the point where turning to the government seemed worth more than preserving his own deniability.
Let’s see now: Alexandra Pelosi has fellated George W. Bush once and was taken in by Ted Haggard twice. Her mom must be so proud.
they get caught snorting cocaine off underaged rent-boys.
Actually, the rent ‘boy’ who finally blew the, uh, whistle, on ol’ Ted was a sprightly forty-nine years of age. (And had great voicemail skills!)
I don’t think Republican gay sex scandals really help us.
Not directly, no. But there is something to be said about fortifying oneself with a shot of that sweet, sweet shadenfreude when going out to battle the wingnuts. Getting nailed for hypocrisy drives them bug-nuttier, and makes them so mad they drop their talking points. The best part, for me, is that they get surprised by this every time. No matter how many of these neo-Puritan hack preachers and politicos get nailed blowing men in the boys’ room, the next revelation always smacks wingnuts upside the head like it’s a complete novelty.
As mentioned up-thread, if gay marriage arrives, it’s via the states. That’s us down here, so get moving. Senator Obama had already stated his opposition to the Demagogue on Marriage Atrocity, so we push Congress to send him a repeal; once that’s gone, gay marriage will have no federal impediments.
hope exists only to be brutally dashed, leaving one more bitter and miserable than before.
Others call this pessimism. I prefer to call it long-term memory.
(w/ apologies to stryx)
Obama = hateful bigoted bitterz ?
Not buying.
If you push on the Overton window too hard, it snaps and rebounds back the other way, cutting you up in the process. Ask Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton? Ask anyone from the ’60s and ’70s. Seems to me Ronald Reagan, not Newt Gingrich, is the ultimate example here.
it appears to be easier to “cure people of being straight”
Which is exactly what a wingnut would say, and the whole issue here. It’s probably even why the Right wants to give the (male) world a haircut.
Shorter Ted Haggard: Why do all these homos keep sashaying out of the closet to suck my cock, and why must they wear such a faaaaaaabulous feather boa and make it so hard for me to resist?
Why do all these homos keep sashaying out of the closet to suck my cock
Obligatory link to The Onion.
Obligatory link to The Onion.
Their. Best. Bit. Ever.
While Andy Young was helping Dr. King, he once got sick and tired of always having to be the left edge of the argument, always having to be the one to push. So he started going, “yeah, ok, whatever you say”. Dr. King took him aside and got on his case “Look, you have to be the extremist, I *need* you to be the extremist, because you have to make room for me to come down in the middle”.
Now Barack Obama ain’t no Martin Luther King, Jr., and I don’t know if he is playing or not. I hope he is playing (saying one thing and doing another) but either way, whether he’s pro equal rights or a homophobe, he needs to get ripped on the issue regardless.
I don’t give a damn about public statements (Vonnegut’s quote sure as hell didn’t apply to George W Bush) I just want the actions.
You know who else that Vonnegut quote doesn’t apply to? Ted Haggard. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s such a meaningful quote after all.
Just because he’s a better president than Bush doesn’t mean he’s a great president, or that he’s above criticism.
It’s up to us to force him to be a great president! At least he has thrown down the gauntlet, with his call for us to be active. We must never forget this, and we must make damn sure he doesn’t forget it.
What did Bill Clinton ever do for me or people in my slice of the political spectrum? Bill Clinton was a horrendously awful president. What is this strange mental fugue people seem to have for the Clinton years?
Bill Clinton was the best Republican president since Ike… but a Republican president nonetheless. The reason a lot of Democrats have a soft spot in their head for him is that Conservatives loathe him. It’s the flipside of “Conservatism is whatever pisses liberals off”.
What is this strange mental fugue people seem to have for the Clinton years?
Oh, I don’t know…8 years of peace coupled with the single greatest economic expansion in world history and the first reversal of income inequality since LBJ…kind leaves a soft spot in my heart for the guy.
How DARE you! How DARE you DARE to criticize President Obama! We’re changing the face of politics with our hope for change in the greatest era of progressive history ever! President Obama is the greatest liberal president in the history of the world and we’ll support him no matter what he does so just shut up!
And the Clinton Golden Years were a decade of peace and prosperity and anyone who says anything about NAFTA or Bosinia or Rwanda is a GODDAM DIRTY LYING REPUPLICAN!!!
And the Clinton Golden Years were a decade of peace and prosperity and anyone who says anything about NAFTA or Bosinia or Rwanda is a GODDAM DIRTY LYING REPUPLICAN!!!
Or on drugs.
Same diff.
Who here has read The Audacity of Hope? Just curious.
Also, Vonnegut was a moron.
Obama is a wanker for not supporting equality in marraige. But I still like him. The fucker.