Today's Question From Your Resident Right Winger

[Guest Conway]

Carrie Prejean quote:

"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage, and you know what, in my country and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama Quote:

"I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."

Why is one (Prejean) considered a pariah by the gay community while the other (Obama) received the full support of mainstream gay political causes? Since I don't espouse the "gay political agenda" I was hoping that someone who locksteps a little more efficiently and effectively to it could explain it to me.

[TotallyOz]

Conway, I am the last one that should give my opinion as I know I'll never have a marriage for a gay guy in the USA. But, I did like the way the Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon said:

Now the main argument I hear against legalizing same-sex marriage is that in some way this will forever alter and mar traditional marriage, and what I want to know is: How? How will my girlfriend and I getting married have any affect on you and your wife, or you and your husband sitting at home? I also hear that the right to legal same-sex marriage is seen as an attack on traditional marriage, and I want to say that you are not the ones being attacked, we are.

And please believe I'm not being flippant when I say this: The right to marry is about us, it is not about you, any more than the fight for integration was about white people, or a women's right to vote was about men. It is only about you to the extent that you have to live with yourself knowing that you are depriving a significant portion of the population their basic civil rights.

http://www.afterellen.com/people/2009/5/cynthia-nixon

[manticore]

Speaking for myself, not "the gay community"--

I don't pay much attention to what contestants in Mr or Miss <whatever> contests say.

Obama is a disappointment in several ways, but the choice in November was between him and McCain, and I deemed McCain worse (in several ways).

I was hoping that someone who locksteps a little more efficiently and effectively to it could explain it to me.

You might get more responses if your request weren't so snide.

[MsGuy]

Oz: Thanks for the Nixon quote. The "it's not about you" passage gave me a much clearer insight into the question of gay marriage. Never would have seen this if you hadn't taken the trouble to post it.

Conway: Some of the guys who post here are more conservative (less liberal? ) than you might think. At any rate, I find it makes for a better conversation if I'm not too quick to slap a label on folks.

[BigK]

I didn't take Conway's comments as being snide. I don't support the gay political agenda regarding gay marriage. I believe the gay community could win the civil union overnight. The in your face attitude of the extreme gay marriage advocates are doing more to set the issue back then effecting change. Homo's are different then Hetero's, so why do we want to be just like them. We want the same rights and this could be accomplished much more easily then going against the religious concept of marriage.

[TotallyOz]

Homo's are different then Hetero's, so why do we want to be just like them. We want the same rights and this could be accomplished much more easily then going against the religious concept of marriage.

I am sure you did not mean it this way, but this reminded me of Separate but Equal. That was not right and neither is the question of marriage between two people of the same sex IMHO. Like I said, I'll never have a pony in this race.

[Guest Conway]

Well, for the record, I support marriage period. In my mind, person should be allowed to marry whomever they wish. Be they gay or straight. Call it the libertarian bone in my boxers.

I also understand guys like BigK who see gay marriage as some sort of selling out with regard to what was unique in our community. In that regard, I personally would not choose to marry someone myself.

I was more curious as to the political reaction of those who follow the "political agenda" that some folks think we should have as gay people. Sorry if I sounded snide. But, I really have a problem with people who believe that they have the right to think for me.

I appreciate your answers.

[AdamSmith]

Well, for the record, I support marriage period. In my mind, person should be allowed to marry whomever they wish. Be they gay or straight. Call it the libertarian bone in my boxers.

For this I will buy you a week with Andre. Tho I understand Cody is no longer available into the bargain.

I also understand guys like BigK who see gay marriage as some sort of selling out with regard to what was unique in our community. In that regard, I personally would not choose to marry someone myself.

On daddy's forum, this argument has been made intelligently and eloquently (and persistently!) by Tom Isern. I happen to disagree, and have said so in perhaps too acid terms. I see his view as an elitist, privileged point of view, available in practicability only to a few. The reason for my disagreement is that the protections of federally recognized civil marriage for same-sex couples would benefit not only us (I) who are economically and electorally well off, but more importantly the least protected, most vulnerable among us.

I was more curious as to the political reaction of those who follow the "political agenda" that some folks think we should have as gay people. Sorry if I sounded snide. But, I really have a problem with people who believe that they have the right to think for me.

I appreciate your answers.

You're right. It is presumptuous of anyone to assume, or pretend, to think or represent for you.

But to your legitimate question about supporting vs. denouncing Obama: Unlike mass-cultural-representation figures, in the political arena one is offered choices of A or B. One chooses, full-throatedly, either A or B, based on which is closer to,and more likely convicable to enact, one's own positions. Then, after the chosen has cemented its power, one may, depending on the tripartite (checks and balances) disposition of power, begin at higher volume or lower to petition for redress.

[caeron]

I think it's simple politics. I disagree with both Obama and Prejean. Obama is in a position to give me some things I want, however, and is much better to me than the alternative. Hence, I leave it alone. Prejean is nothing but a political adversary so I'm happy to take a dump on her.

I imagine that's what most people are thinking.

[lookin]

Why is one (Prejean) considered a pariah by the gay community while the other (Obama) received the full support of mainstream gay political causes? Since I don't espouse the "gay political agenda" I was hoping that someone who locksteps a little more efficiently and effectively to it could explain it to me.

I don't find this Board to be especially hidebound. Maybe I just show up at the wrong times, but discussions here seem pretty nuanced and civil to me.

With regard to gay marriage and gays in the military, it's a no brainer for me that we will end up on the winning side of both of those issues. I don't know when. If we look to Obama to do the heavy lifting on these issues, then we have to accept his timetable. If we want to speed up the change of public opinion on our own, we can do that too, and that will move them higher in the political agenda.

As far as Carrie Prejean, she can believe whatever she wants, and tell anybody who'll listen to her. No skin off my ass.

[MsGuy]

After a meeting in which the Civil Rights leadership had pleaded with LBJ to introduce the legislation that broke the back of segregation, the President is supposed to have told them to "get out there and force me do the right thing." Good advice for anyone seeking social change.

[TampaYankee]

I don't find this Board to be especially hidebound. Maybe I just show up at the wrong times, but discussions here seem pretty nuanced and civil to me.

With regard to gay marriage and gays in the military, it's a no brainer for me that we will end up on the winning side of both of those issues. I don't know when. If we look to Obama to do the heavy lifting on these issues, then we have to accept his timetable. If we want to speed up the change of public opinion on our own, we can do that too, and that will move them higher in the political agenda.

As far as Carrie Prejean, she can believe whatever she wants, and tell anybody who'll listen to her. No skin off my ass.

And a very nice ass it is!! So, what are you doing this weekend?

[lookin]

Getting the stitches removed.

[Lucky]

Getting the stitches removed.

That made me laugh. Thanks!

[stevenkesslar]

I don't support the gay political agenda regarding gay marriage. I believe the gay community could win the civil union overnight. The in your face attitude of the extreme gay marriage advocates are doing more to set the issue back then effecting change. Homo's are different then Hetero's, so why do we want to be just like them. We want the same rights and this could be accomplished much more easily then going against the religious concept of marriage.

Actually, what has been surprising to me is how normal, as opposed to extreme, the gay community has turned out to be.

About five or six years ago, a client of mine introduced me to a political activist he thought I might want to become friends with, who was working on the issue of gay marraige himself. I had lunch with the guy, and he basically told me, if I remember right, that most gays didn't really care that much about marraige, and that he didn't expect there would be gay marraige anytime soon, and that he personally didn't care if he had the right to get married, since he had never been in an ongoing relationship with a man for more than several months.

My how times have changed. All the same-sex couples that have been quietly building lives and families together for years or even decades are now coming out of the woodwork, and it is anything but extreme. The extreme face of the gay community used to be the naked weirdos in the Gay Pride parades, or maybe the muscled up and drugged up circuit boys on South Beach. These days the face of the gay community is becoming a gay or lesbian couple with a kid who just want a normal life. It has been an amazing, and rapid, transition.

I've had a line about gay marraige for years: the debate that will be fought and won in my lifetime is whether gays should have the same right to get married as straights. But the debate that will never happen, but would actually be more interesting, is which is better: gay or straight long-term relationships. What I mean by that is that straight relationships have thousands of years of backing from every tradition in the world, from the Bible to the Koran to the laws of every country and the feelings of your whole family. Included in this is lots of DON'TS - like don't have sex with your neighbor's wife, and especially not the neighbor's hot college jock son. Gay relationships are more about the subjective decisions of two people who want to make a relationship work, and they have had very little traditional or legal backing. They also usually have a lot more freedom, and the idea of being able to have sex with others without destroying years of emotional commitment is not so uncommon. In some ways, that makes them better I think. Its about what two intelligent, consenting adults decide to do, not what the Bible or the law says.

What seems clear is that the gay and lesbian community is flocking to traditional marraige in droves, and it has in fact become THE symbol for gay equality today, which is why I feel so strongly about it. Why shouldn't we be equal? As Wanda Sykes said, if you don't support same sex marraige, great. Then don't marry someone of the same sex.

What amazes me, and pisses me off, is the idea that somehow all the gays and lesbians in the world who want their dream of a sweet little home and family in a sweet little suburb are taking something away from the rest of the world, and somehow the world needs to be "protected" from these extreme gays and lesbians and their "radical" agenda. I don't agree with Tom Isern either, but his statements are interesting and they do make it clear that the gay community is flocking to conformity, not extremity.

The one other point that has to be said is that this is also a practical issue about rights, as well as symbols. One of my best friends is a retired escort from another country, who now has a loving partner, and if that partner was a woman, he would have the same rights as my sister-in-law, who is Canadian. He doesn't. My sister-in-law got a green card because she married my brother. My friend can't marry his partner. Fortunately, he was able to claim political asylum, but it was a complicated way around what is essentially discrimination. I think almost everyone now agrees that blacks who wanted to own houses didn't want to take anything away from whites, and women who wanted to vote didn't want to take anything away from men. Now we have to convince straights that we don't want to take anything away from them, we just want to be equal.

The exciting action today is going to be in California, but eventually this will land on Obama's desk. He is not into identity politics. As America's first black President, he really can't be. In some ways I think that will help matters, because when push comes to shove (and we will definitely have to push), he will likely support equality for gays, because those are the people that helped him win in swing states like Florida and Virginia, wheras the religious right has not been bending over backwards to help Obama. In my experience, the only time religious people bend over backward is in private, when they hire people like me to explore their secret, dirty fantasies. Talk about extreme! With luck, Obama will use his considerable verbal skills to frame the issue of gay marraige in a way that gets beyond identity politics, and just makes it clear that all people really want is the totally normal ability to be an equal, loving human being.