If You Hate Hillary, You Must Hate Yourself

|

Bill Clinton speculates that gay Republican consultant Arthur Finkelstein, who recently married his partner in a civil ceremony at their Massachusetts home, "may be blinded by self-loathing." Either that, or "this guy believes his party is not serious and he's totally Machiavellian." As far as Clinton is concerned, those are the only possible reasons why a gay man would work for Republicans, despite the GOP's opposition to gay marriage and its kowtowing to the religious right. And surely they are the only conceivable explanations for Finkelstein's current project, a group called Stop Her Now dedicated to the defeat of Clinton's wife.

But maybe Finkelstein, who in recent years has described his politics as libertarian, simply prefers the Republicans to the Democrats, despite his disagreement with the official GOP positions on issues such as gay marriage and abortion rights. Maybe he thinks that, on balance, they make a more credible claim to be the party of smaller government. I'm not sure I agree, and I admit that I find it hard to understand how a self-described libertarian, regardless of his sexual orientation, could have worked for Jesse Helms. (In truth, I find it hard to understand how anyone could have worked for Jesse Helms.) But Finkelstein's involvement in Stop Her Now seems much less problematic to me. I might even send him a check.

NEXT: Distributed Surveillance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. While it may be inconceivable that a gay man would run a campaign for Jesse Helms, in the man’s defense, it’s important to remember that Republican candidates pay really, really well.

  2. Mr. Sullum, I know you have mentioned that you hate HC, and I can understand that, but damn, there is some pretty heavy pathology in gay men supporting the repubs. I mean really, smaller government or not, if the GOP had been able to dictate things, Mr. Finklestien would literally be illegal, completely, his very existence would be prohibited. I think you are kind of missing the point when you say they “kow tow” to the theocrats. They are the theocrats, no two ways about it. Luckily they didn’t dictate the conversation in this one area, and we aren’t locking up gays (for instance the way Texas tried to). Remember, red states like Texas REALLY did try to jail men for being gay.

  3. Whew joe!

    Thought you might miss your chance. Even though “Hillary” wasn’t mentioned by name, you couldn’t resist being the first to respond to a post with a sly attack someone who doesn’t agree with her holiness’ politics.

  4. I used to hate Hillary, and its husband. Thought they were the worst thing i’d ever seen. Hated em, ranted and raved about em, couldn’t wait till they were out of office.

    Then Bush came along, and i found myself suffering from something strange, like a kind of Clinton nostalgia. I’ve forgotten what the Clintonhate was even like. Compared to Bush, the Clintons to me are like George and Martha Washington.

    Could not have ever imagined this would be possible.

    For the record, i also hate Hillary, but i love myself, but then i’m not gay, and don’t work for the GOP. Then again, i don’t work for the dems either, then again they’ve never offered me a job; then again, i don’t do anything they’d ever offer me a job doing, so i guess the whole comparison is pointless.

  5. In tangentially related news, Joseph Farah calls for the criminal prosecution of Judge Greer in Florida and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. No, I’m not making that up: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43752

  6. I’m not a big HRC fan, but I’ve always wondered about the animus toward her. You don’t see anyone getting that upset about Elizabeth Dole, who has had essentially the same career on the other side of the aisle.

  7. SR:

    That’s really insane. I’m picking up the sounds of the fringe Right moving right back to the verge of blowing up federal buildings in Oklahoma again. Despite holding damn near every federal office worth holding.

    There’s just no pleasing some people.

    Death to all fanatics!

  8. i can’t quite wrap my head around gays supporting the gop myself.

    i do like the idea of married gays working for the gop, even offhandedly a la this stop her now thing. (which is insane in its unnecessariarityness)

  9. If you weren’t such a Big, Fat Idiot, BigFatIdiot, you might have noticed that I’m a Kerry guy, and will probably by trying to make sure she loses in three years.

    It’s funny, the way the Idiots assume that liberals all wuv Hillary, just because they hate her.

  10. So how many gay men did Texas actually lock up for being gay? Can you name one?

  11. Hey SR:

    Joseph Farah gets a lot worse. From my blog where I comment on what is the dumbest fucking op-ed in world history, authored by one J. Farah:

    Notwithstanding, ladies and gentleman, I present to you, officially, the dumbest motherfucker on the planet: Joseph Farah.

    I came across this iteration of his syndicated column through a friend. Here Farah provides an exegesis of his support for the theory of creation.

    A few choice samples:

    “The evolutionists insist the dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago and became extinct long before man walked the planet. I don’t believe that for a minute. I don’t believe there is a shred of scientific evidence to suggest it. I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I’m not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!”

    “Think of all the world’s legends about dragons. Look at those images. What were those folks seeing? They were clearly seeing dinosaurs. You can see them etched in cave drawings. You can see them in ancient literature. You can see them described in the Bible. You can see them in virtually every culture in every corner of the world.”

    “And what about the not-so-unusual sightings of contemporary sea monsters? Some of them have actually been captured.”

    “There are also countless contemporary sightings of what appear to be pterodactyls in Asia and Africa.”

    It is days such as these where I wish I possessed the verbal acumen to describe the depths to which words such as “unbelievable”, “implausible”, “comical”, and “psychotically irrational” fall tragically short in accounting for what Farah’s opinion piece represents. I am not even sure there are words in the English language that can conceptualize the imbecility of such a thing.

    The whole thing here:
    http://www.comedysoapbox.com/comedianblog.cfm?ComedianID=515&ComedianBlogID=1142

  12. “You don’t see anyone getting that upset about Elizabeth Dole…”

    Perhaps because Elizabeth Dole handles herself with a little class.

  13. “So how many gay men did Texas actually lock up for being gay? Can you name one?”

    two actually…lawrence and garner.

  14. So how many gay men did Texas actually lock up for being gay? Can you name one?

    If I’m not mistaken, those two men in Texas, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, spent at least a night in jail for having anal sex.

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

  15. Say, this sounds like the argument I was trying to make last week: some gay people have higher priorities than gay rights.

    Skeptikos,

    Do you really think “his very existence would be prohibited” if the GOP called all the shots? I think a clear majority of Republicans are opposed to sodomy laws, let alone genocide. Especially in the Northeast, where Finkelstein operates. Hell, something in the area of 50% of Republicans approve of civil unions, including the president. Now, if FreeRepublic were calling all the shots, things might be different…

  16. phocion,

    He ran one of Jesse Helms’ campaigns fer Chrissakes.

  17. The fact that Hillary has stayed married to Bill clearly indicates her own self-loathing.

    Or is it the other way around?

  18. joe,

    I think I’m with Jacob on that one. How anyone gay or straight can work for him is beyond me. I’d be curious to get his take.

    Anyway: Anytime a Clinton story comes up now I mourn the loss of Bill Clinton’s Daily Diary. Anyone have the real story on what happened to that blog? I guess the real Clinton’s people took it down.

  19. you might have noticed that I’m a Kerry guy

    I think I’ll go with Alf Landon, he’s probably got a better chance than Kerry in ’08.

  20. My own dislike of the Republican rhetoric on ‘family values’ is tempered by my perception that such rhetoric is largely impossible to be converted into law in this day and age. They are on the wrong side of history on those issues.

    I’ve always found fear of the Religious Right to be an odd response. I sort of look at them like museum pieces. They don’t get what they want to any great extent. They hate abortion more than almost anything, and they haven’t really made a dent in it.

  21. Jason, you get your panties in a bunch about the heart-stopping, freedom-stealing power employed by sociology professors, but the faction of Republicans that controls the White House, both houses of Congress, and a third of the Supreme Court isn’t a worry because everyone will realize they were wrong in 2 or 3 decades?

  22. For instance I really do know for a fact, as we all do, that they are trying to lock up American citizens without recourse to the courts, based on the undeclared war they are fighting.

    Oh wait, not supposed to mention that…

  23. Why go after Hillary? She has zero influence over the awful laws and reforms in the air right now.

    Now, if someone wants to create TELL SANTORUM WHERE TO SHOVE IT 2006, I’ll open my wallet.

  24. I can tell you very simply why a homosexual might be a Republican: while it may be “common knowledge” that the Democrats are more “gay-friendly”, they still have not (on a national level) actually come out in favor of gay marriage!

    So if neither party is actually supporting you in terms of your sexual orientation, it’s pretty irrelevant. It’s possible to be homosexual and believe in Bush’s foreign policy, or any number of other elements of the Republican Party’s ideas.

    The Democrats WILL NOT offer a presidential candidate in favor of gay marriage. They WILL NOT make an issue of it in Congress. For one, it would alienate a great deal of their base — Catholicism and fundamentalism still hold a great deal of sway in the Hispanic and black populations, respectively, and there are a number of white Union Democrats who aren’t too sure about those gay people, either.

  25. . . . but the faction of Republicans that controls the White House, both houses of Congress, and a third of the Supreme Court isn’t a worry because everyone will realize they were wrong in 2 or 3 decades?

    They control all of this because everyone now realizes the Democrats were wrong three decades ago

  26. I certainly see that the notion of a Gay Republican doesn’t make much sense. I suppose that there are more than a few homosexuals who don’t like the Democrats views on economics. Free market gays/lesbians stay in the GOP for the same reason that some libertarians do: The futile hope that by working on the inside, they can get the party to lighten up on cultural issues. However, since the fundies are the ones cutting the checks to and casting the votes for the Republicans, that’s not likely to happen.

  27. Meh, I’ve known gays who have worked for the Catholic Church before, so working for the GOP (even if it is J-Hel) doesn’t really shock me. It’s entirely possible to buy the GOP line even if you disagree with one issue.

    The whole “Republicans are bigots” cliche is far too overused. I mean, if he has any economic sense he can’t really support the Dems, the Libertarians can’t win elections, so it falls to the GOP.

    Still, Jesse Helms. Wow.

  28. dagny, gay marriage isn’t the only issue on the table.

    How about empowering the police to drag you from your home to a jail cell because of who you sleep with? Democrats: against. Republicans: for.

    Try searching for the Texas party’s platform, or even the national party’s platform.

  29. Wellfellow writes, in response to me:

    “You don’t see anyone getting that upset about Elizabeth Dole…”

    Perhaps because Elizabeth Dole handles herself with a little class.

    With all due respect, saying that you don’t like someone because they lack “class” just begs the question. What is the thing that sets people off about HRC? What am I not getting here? Alas.

  30. How about empowering the police to drag you from your home to a jail cell because of who you sleep with? Democrats: against. Republicans: for.

    You’re hopeless.

  31. I completely understand why some gays support some Republicans, even if I’m baffled why a gay person, or anybody else, would support Jesse Helms, of all people.

    But working as a consultant for a candidate says exactly nothing about the consultant’s views. All it says is that the candidate’s check didn’t bounce.

    As to HRC: I’m not a fan of hers. I don’t think she would be a good President. I wouldn’t vote for her. I disagree with her on a lot of stuff.

    But I’ll never understand why some people view her as the Antichrist.

    And because so many people do view her that way, I really, really, really, really hope she doesn’t win the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2008. That would be an incredibly divisive election, and I believe that in the end it would cement GOP hegemony.

    Even worse, it might make it feasible for Jeb Bush to be the GOP nominee. The American people will be reluctant to go for 12 consecutive years of rule by the same family, but objections to hereditary rule will cancel out if the Dems nominate the wife of a former President. The last thing we need is hereditary rule.

  32. Santorum might froth at the mouth over gays

    heh heh

    He said Santorum

    [giggle]

  33. The entire Texas thing was a setup. That aside a couple of excellent articles from a libertarian point of view.

    Marriage and the Limits of Contract

    A Really Long Post About Gay Marriage

  34. If a person were only a gay man, I would guess voting for the repubs would be an act of self-loathing. For most gay men, being gay is only one small part of who they are. They are also taxpayers, businessmen and gun owners. A vote for Hillary might result in some hate crime law, which I don?t think is needed anyway, but you might also get socialized medicine, the minimum wage being raised to $10.00 an hour, and an assault weapons ban. That would be kind of like a minister in an African American church telling his congregation they should vote for David Duke over a democratic candidate because David Duke is pro-life.

    The Republican Party is made up of different factions; such as the religious right, the moderates (Christine Whitman), the skinhead types, and the Goldwaterites. It seems the religious right has taken the party over, so I cant support it anymore. The Log Cabin Republicans didn?t endorse George Bush in 2004 either, being that they are Goldwater followers or moderates.

  35. I thought Santorum frothed out of something other than a mouth?

  36. The entire Texas thing was a setup.

    Billy would you care to prove your statement instead of linking to totally irrelevant articles??

  37. it’s important to remember that Republican candidates pay really, really well.

    Heh. As opposed to Democrats whose campaign workers and managers are all volunteers, I suppose.

  38. For most gay men, being gay is only one small part of who they are. They are also taxpayers, businessmen and gun owners.

    It all depends on your priorities, but… I think being gay is a little more fundamental than being a gun owner or a businessman. And no, I don’t care about BillyRay’s acceptance (I know I’ll never get it), but I’ll settle for either the same priveleges as married straight people or the removal of all such priveleges.

  39. I don’t think Finkelstein is self-hating, but I think he is deluded. He thinks the GOP Right’s anti-gay rhetoric is just red meat for the rubes and nothing will really ever come of it. These people are serious and they are in it for the long haul.

  40. alkali,

    You’re probably correct, I begged the question. What I meant was that people’s dislike of HRC, I believe, is primarily for the policies she advocates, but closely following that would be for aesthetic reasons. She tends to be loud, antagonistic, appears perpetually angry, and is frequently condescending. These are not the qualities of a confident woman, they are the qualities of a crass woman.

  41. A gay man actively supporting anti-gay Republicans absolutely sounds like a case of self-loathing to me. That’s just speculation of course, but there’s something very twisted about a persecuted minority working hard on behalf of his persecutors. Whatever, free country and all.

    Jacob, I’m very surprised that you’re aligning yourself with the wingnut crackpot wing of that wingnut crackpot party. Lately I’ve had a real hard time taking Reason seriously and this is the latest silly example. By all means, send the nutters a check. Make it for $14.95 and maybe they’ll pick up the annual Reason subscription I just let lapse.

  42. A setup?

    Shackleford believes that although the facts of the case are not as important as the principle, the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Garner and Lawrence are suspicious.

    “This was a setup to do what they want to do,” he said, arguing that the sodomy law is almost never enforced.

    An anonymous caller falsely told police that a crazy man with a gun was in the apartment.

    “He leads police into apartment,” Shackleford recounted, “and they find two men engaged in anal sodomy.”

    The Texas attorney insists there is virtually no way to enforce the law because the Fourth Amendment “doesn’t allow the government to come into people’s homes.”

    here

  43. “The entire Texas thing was a setup”

    exactly!

    the gay figured out a way to pass legislation banning sodomy – in secret, like a very well-matched illuminati – and then dropped a dime on lawrence in order to set up its removal by – drumroll – ACTIVIST JUDGES.

    it’all so clear now. so very, very clear.

  44. “She tends to be loud, antagonistic, appears perpetually angry, and is frequently condescending. These are not the qualities of a confident woman, they are the qualities of a crass woman.”

    if she were a classy lady, people wouldn’t hate on her? are you seriously saying this?

  45. How about empowering the police to drag you from your home to a jail cell because of who you sleep with? Democrats: against. Republicans: for.

    joe, that may be true, but realistically there’s very little danger of anything like that becoming law. It’s in the platform because it gets the radical right-wing kooks into the polls to vote for Republican candidates instead of right-wing kooks like Pat Buchanan. Likewise, the Democratic platform doesn’t explicitly support gays because there are just enough anti-gay lefties who wouldn’t bother to vote if they did. If it weren’t for that, I’m sure the Democratic party would be more open about their support for things like gay marriage. Likewise, the Republican party would probably be officially indifferent to gay rights issues if it weren’t for the subset of whackos who insist on calling it immoral. Once the election is over, the whackos on both sides are easily ignored and the politicans can get back to screwing the whole country.

    I’m not trying to defend the behavior of the Republican party here (which I find reprehensible), but rather to explain it. What I really want to know is why the Supreme Court hasn’t declared that preventing gays from getting married is pure discrimination.

  46. dhex,

    Please re-read my earlier post. That may not be the primary reason, but yes, people are influenced a great deal by one’s presentation/charisma/whathaveyou.

    I believe people feel that when Hillary speaks to them they are being scolded, talked-down-to and otherwise belittled. Partly because her policies are essentially anti-individualistic, but also because her method or presentation is offensive. So, yes, I am being serious. People respond negatively to those qualities.

  47. Well lets look at the facts. An anonymous caller tells the cops some crazy man with a gun is threatening people in the Montrose section of Houston. Montrose is on the edge of River Oaks the most affluent area of the city. It’s known as the SF of the south. Police are led into an apartment where a white and black man(surprise surprise) are well engaging in sodomy. Next thing you know, PR firms are hired and it gets splashed on the frontpage of papers. Of course it was a setup.

  48. I think wellfellow is right. People vote on appearance as much as, if not more than, policy.

  49. Reagan..Bush..Clinton..Clinton..Bush..Bush..
    Clinton..clinton…Bush…Bush….then who?

  50. wellfellow: sure they do. however, i don’t really think it has much to do with her tone so much as her politics, and that fundamentally, some people really just hate her. a la bush. the biggest immediate complaint you hear about bush is his being stupid (i work in an office which happens to dig on the sillary, much to my amusement) and how he’s condescending.

    billyray: um, you may be interested to know that the call came in from a jilted lover type.

    i like how you can turn this around to “if only they didn’t complain and use modern public relations techniques, none of this would be a problem.” as opposed to the idea of sodomy laws being a horrible, totalitarian, closet-case load of bush-league, pee-wee soccer nannystate busybodying. i know you don’t want to catch gay and all, but couldn’t you guys just go back to wearing ugly jackets?

  51. where a white and black man(surprise surprise)

    WTF?

  52. OPUS,

    Chelsea CLINTON, obviously 🙂

  53. Of course it was a setup.

    And dhex makes a good point: sodomy laws ARE “a horrible, totalitarian, closet-case load of bush-league, pee-wee soccer nannystate busybodying”. So who cares if it was a setup? I have no problem with a setup designed to topple a blatantly unconstitutional law.

  54. dhex,

    Perhaps her tone and her politics are a frightful combination. I think that the people who “just hate Bush” do so for the same reason. It’s one thing to hear how the government will infringe on your rights. It’s another to hear it from someone you find aesthetically repulsive. I’m not saying it’s right, I think that’s the way people are.

  55. Rhywun, are you saying that because I’m heterosexual it influences my politics more than any other factor?

    Nope. Sorry, not buying it. Just doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever.

    Of course, I would like to see (and would vote for) either party if it would just run on the platform that all adults deserve equal protection under the law and freedom from unreasonable interference by government, corporate or other private citizens.

  56. I sure like to get some comodity trading lessons from HRC.

  57. are you saying that because I’m heterosexual it influences my politics more than any other factor?

    Of course not, because you are the unpersecuted norm. I’m not sure why you twisted around what I said.

  58. In 1978, Hillary Rodham Clinton opened a trading account with only $1,000. Records from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reveal that she was able to increase her account by 630% within approximately one week trading live cattle futures. Within the next ten months, her account ballooned to more than $100,000.00? a return of 10,000%!

    ***

    And people say that she won’t be able to find the money for HillaryCare? Just give her a billion to play with and she’ll have it up to 100 billion in no time!

  59. Of course not, because you are the unpersecuted norm. I’m not sure why you twisted around what I said.

    How are gay men persecuted other than occasionally having to deal with the ocassional bigoted person? I seems to me you being sold the victimization bill of goods.

  60. Of course not, because you are the unpersecuted norm. I’m not sure why you twisted around what I said.

    Based on what I see on TV, I’d have to guess that gays are the “worshipped minority”. Not sure what persecution they face . . .

  61. Ken,

    Your comment about Hillary and cattle futures reminded me of this article I read last year about senators and stock market performance:

    http://www.nytimes.com/financialtimes/business/FT1075982783472.html?ex=1393131600&en=84995e065fb67b58&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

    (Sorry, I don’t know html.)

  62. Likewise, the Democratic platform doesn’t explicitly support gays because there are just enough anti-gay lefties who wouldn’t bother to vote if they did. If it weren’t for that, I’m sure the Democratic party would be more open about their support for things like gay marriage.

    As someone else pointed out, the Dems need blacks, hispanics, and union members in their coalition. These are the primary Democrat demographics that recoil at homosexuals, and they are the reason the Dems can’t fully embrace homosexuals.

    I suspect that blacks and hispanics (more so the latter) will trend Republican, and the unions are just becoming less relevent. I’m wondering how things will unfold as the Dems fade into minority status.

  63. OK, perhaps “persecuted” was the wrong word. But you cannot possibly pretend not to understand that because large numbers of politicians explicitly target gays in their platform in regards to such matters as sex and marriage – in other words, pretty fundamental aspects of life, gay or straight -, and these politicians are almost without exception Republican, and nobody is targeting straight people in this manner anymore, that most gays tend to vote Democrat.

  64. There are dumber people than Joe Farah, like the people who read his website and cite it as a backup for their arguments.

  65. Just heard a gay guy on Rush who is a Republican. And he said he made a couple of converts himself.

    Looks like the gay republicans are coming our of the closet…again.

  66. Ken, that’s easily possible in the futures market. Very high risk. Very high reward.

    And the futures market should not be confused with the stock market.

  67. How delightful – Bill Clinton speculating on someone else’s personal motivations and agenda, because they have the termerity to work against his missus. Apparently, casting aspersions on someone’s character and committment is only bad when the target is Mr. Clinton himself.

    Being human, Mr. Finkelstein undoubtably has a complex array of reasons for acting as he does, some of which may seem self-contradictory; however, I don’t think Mr. Clinton has any damn business opining about them without any real knowledge of the man.

  68. So how many gay men did Texas actually lock up for being gay?

    This made me think up a joke:

    Q: How many gay men in Texas does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

    A: None – the lightbulb is too small to fit any person. Besides, sodomy is illegal in Texas.

    wockawockawocka

    I need a drink….

  69. “Based on what I see on TV, I’d have to guess that gays are the “worshipped minority”.”

    maybe you don’t watch enough religious programming?

  70. Rhywun,

    What I said was the converse of what you said. I’m not trying to twist what you said. I was just trying to point out (clumsily, no doubt)that for many of the folks I know – like me – their sexuality is not the core of their political beliefs.

    Plenty of things in my personal life are targeted by politicians, but that doesn’t make me persecuted. (Mostly it just irritates me.) But I generally don’t vote one issue, apparently neither do some of the people who vote Republican.

    I’m not sure why it’s unthinkable that someone might vote for a party that has slightly more of their interests at heart than the other.

    I would guess that if someone voting based on identity politics picks the party that endorses that approach, if they’re voting based on which party is in line with the majority of their interests, they choose according to that.

    I just want to vote for a party that will support the same basic principles I hold dear. Neither side of the two-party system is doing that.

  71. Let’s look at this “self-hating” idea. Is a gay man who votes for Republicans, who are promoting the notion that homosexuality is wrong, self-hating?

    Is a libertarian who votes for Republicans, who are actively increasing the power and scope of the state, self-hating?

    I think there is more at play than just single-issue politics. I can’t understand a libertarian who votes Republican (yeah, I know: “Kerry would have been worse”), but that doesn’t mean the Republican-voting libertarian doesn’t have good reasons that make sense to himself. Same with Finklelstein.

  72. I can see that if the man worked for Lincoln Chafee or Ron Paul, but Jesse Helms?

  73. But you cannot possibly pretend not to understand that because large numbers of politicians explicitly target gays in their platform in regards to such matters as sex and marriage

    It is actually on the issue of marriage. And frankly, I am not keen on the idea of gays getting married and adopting (unless one of the partners is an actual parent of the child being adopted). I’d prefer a civil union that has all the advantages of marriage absent the ability to adopt children who don’t have biological ties to one of the couple.

    My understanding is that W likes the civil union idea.

  74. maybe you don’t watch enough religious programming?

    Avoid it whenever possible. Except back in 1980 something, when some tv-evangelical had a great pitch where all he really did was ask for money. The guy was so blatent he was a blast to watch. Well, for 10 minutes or so–I have a very short attention span.

  75. Lawrence and Garner were not locked up for “being gay”. The were locked up for comitting sodomy, which, while a ludicrous law that was correctly overturned, was an equal opportunity offense – the law did not discriminate against anyone based upon sexual orientation, it only criminilzed certain sexual acts which they happened to be doing when a cop walked in on them.

  76. “And the futures market should not be confused with the stock market.”

    Right. But in any market, the more information you possess, the better your performance (as a general rule), right? That was my only point.

  77. matt, absolutely, but “inside information” about commodities is not exactly easy to come by, even for the First Lady. Unless she knew that, for instance, the cattle population would suddenly drop by 20% or some such unlikely event, there’s not much “inside” info that really could have helped her.

    A foreknowledge of certain gov’t regulations could be very handy in futures trading, but that’s so blatantly obvious that even HRC wouldn’t have the balls for it.

  78. for many of the folks I know – like me – their sexuality is not the core of their political beliefs

    Neither is it the core of mine, actually. But I was trying to point out that as part of the 95% or so majority, it’s no surprise that yours isn’t. Consider the example raised by Don:

    I’d prefer a civil union that has all the advantages of marriage absent the ability to adopt children who don’t have biological ties to one of the couple.

    By what rational reason should two gays in a committed relationship not be able to adopt? There is no rational reason that I can think of. The only excuse that one can offer is that they’re GAY. This is precisely the sort of issue that gays face, that straights either don’t understand or don’t care about because they’re in the vast majority.

  79. “Lawrence and Garner were not locked up for “being gay”. The were locked up for comitting sodomy”

    Uh huh. Black people weren’t beaten, jailed, and killed for being black, but for miscegenation, or disorderly conduct, or tresspass, or disobeying an officer, or any other of the sundry laws, all of which identify certain behaviors, that were created to allow the cops to harrass black people when they felt it was necessary to show some force.

    Don’t hide behind technicalities.

  80. the statute overturned by lawrence specifically applied to same-sex couples. fwiw.

    the state of texas was just protecting its citizens, of course, from a highly-infectious form of cooties known as “the gay.”

  81. It all depends on your priorities, but… I think being gay is a little more fundamental than being a gun owner or a businessman

    That’s not really the issue. Being gay is presumably as fundamental to a gay man’s being as being heterosexual is to a straight man’s being, sure. But the government has no control over your sexuality. What it controls is what people with your sexuality are allowed to do.

    Gay people in the United States are allowed to form relationships with, and have sex with, whomever they please. That’s a change that is here to stay, regardless of which party’s in charge. On the other hand, gay marriage isn’t going to receive federal government sanction anytime soon — again, regardless of which party’s in charge.

    The remaining “gay issues” are ones which gay people could reasonably either oppose (e.g., a gay libertarian would oppose hate-crime laws, hiring quotas, and hiring-discrimination laws) or not especially care about (e.g., adoption, or the serving in the military).

  82. joe:

    “Jason, you get your panties in a bunch about the heart-stopping, freedom-stealing power employed by sociology professors, but the faction of Republicans that controls the White House, both houses of Congress, and a third of the Supreme Court isn’t a worry because everyone will realize they were wrong in 2 or 3 decades?”

    Heh. I don’t know what particular panty bunching behavior of sociology professors you are referring to, but I get the gist of your point.

    Let me be a little more clear:

    1) It would take a tossing out of every interpretation of the constitution in the last hundred years to impose any new religion based restrictions on behavior.

    2) By ‘the wrong side of history’, I mean that there is likely not enough popular support right now to do anything significant, and the direction of opinion is only getting worse for them. Where some see shades of things to come in the denial of gay marriages, I see an existing tradition that people aren’t willing to let go of just yet. It isn’t a starting point for a new God centered society, it is an act of final desperation.

    3) The right coalition won’t support significant concessions to the religious right. There is tacit agreement that they get token gestures. Like I said, they hate abortion and can’t touch it. You can make a case out of Texas and sodomy laws if you want, but it is fairly obvious that there is not a resurgence of support across the party for new enforcement.

    All in all, I think that the religous right has less influence on the republicans than the committed liberals do on the democrats, and I don’t think that is all that much, either.

  83. I actually have a personal reason to dislike HRC. When I graduated with a BA from SFSU, HRC was the guest speaker. Her lefty lackies sold so many of the tickets for the graduation to Dem-hacks that my own family couldn’t attend my graduation. I was not the only victim. My mother wrote a civil letter to her explaining the situation. Not only did she not get an apology, but HRC’s people contacted the president of SFSU and complained. HRC and her people are the scum of the Earth, period.

  84. By what rational reason should two gays in a committed relationship not be able to adopt? There is no rational reason that I can think of. The only excuse that one can offer is that they’re GAY. This is precisely the sort of issue that gays face, that straights either don’t understand or don’t care about because they’re in the vast majority.

    Actually, I wouldn’t want two strait guys adopting little girls, just as I wouldn’t want gay guys adopting little boys. It ain’t strait/gay per say, it is a loophole for sexual abuse. This could happen with a married man & woman (and no doubt does), but I tend to view women as moderating men’s excesses. Frankly, I’d be more concerned about lesbians adopting than gay males, but the easy solution is: no gay marriage period.

  85. Frankly, I’d be more concerned about lesbians adopting than gay males, but the easy solution is: no gay marriage period.

    I meant: “I’d be less concerned about lesbians adopting . . . “

  86. Lawrence and Garner were not locked up for “being gay”. The were locked up for comitting sodomy

    So, who called the police?

    Was someone trying to nail ’em (no pun intended), or did they report themselves as a test case?

    They were in their bedroom IIRC.

  87. Don, are you actually suggesting that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry because there’s a chance that some child molesters could get together and scheme up a plan to get married and then adopt children for the purpose of conveniently fucking them? Or are you just suggesting that queers are child molesters?

  88. personally, i don’t want women adopting. they injure children far too often, statistically speaking.

    in the case of lawrence v. texas don’t hold em, a neighbor called it in and later served time for falsely reporting a gun brandishing type incident. so if this was a conspiracy, it was a rather deep one.

    then again, aren’t they all?

  89. Most sexual abuse of children is commited by heterosexual males. Most murders of children are commited by their mothers. (Check the stats.) Should we prohibit heterosexual couples from adopting children, or remove all children of heteros from their parents? I think not. Why don’t we let any decent adult that can provide for a child adopt one? Single, gay, straight, whatever…
    Each child needs at least one loving adult in their life. Why deny them this because of primitive bigotry? And, yes, I do mean to say that all people that are anti-gay are primitive bigots.

  90. The right coalition won’t support significant concessions to the religious right. There is tacit agreement that they get token gestures. Like I said, they hate abortion and can’t touch it. You can make a case out of Texas and sodomy laws if you want, but it is fairly obvious that there is not a resurgence of support across the party for new enforcement.

    All in all, I think that the religous right has less influence on the republicans than the committed liberals do on the democrats, and I don’t think that is all that much, either.

    For the most part I agree. The GOP certainly tosses them some bones, and certainly doesn’t support a lot of social change, but neither have they granted the religious right the keys to the kingdom.

    Or so it’s been thus far.

    But I think the religious right will at some point have a confrontation with the rest of the GOP coalition. It’s almost certain that by 2008 either Sandra Day O’Connor or John Paul Stevens will retire from the Supreme Court. If a pro-choice Justice retires while Bush is President, the religious right will make its demand. This is their biggest issue, and this is their chance. If they can’t even get that, well, there will be some sort of reckoning. Maybe the GOP will call their bluff and force the religious right to back down and accept crumbs. Or, perhaps the religious right will actually bolt, with some of them going third party, some abstaining from voting, and a few voting Dem because of economic issues.

    Whatever happens, I think that a Supreme Court retirement will force a confrontation with the religious right.

    I don’t think the all-but-certain retirement of Rehnquist will do it. I think Bush will replace Rehnquist with another pro-lifer. There will be some wailing and gnashing of teeth from pro-choicers, but replacing a pro-lifer with another pro-lifer ultimately changes nothing, and America will adjust. OTOH, the retirement of a pro-choicers under a pro-lifer President represents an opportunity to move away from the status quo, and even a failure to seize that opportunity (for sound political reasons) will have repercussions.

  91. I’ve heard that the Supreme Court decided another abortion case in the early 90s that founded the right to abortion in the right to personal liberty, which is implied by the Constitution. Does anyone know anything about this? If this is true, wouldn’t overturning Roe simply eliminate the privacy-abortion justification leaving the personal liberty justification intact?

  92. “Neither is it the core of mine, actually. But I was trying to point out that as part of the 95% or so majority, it’s no surprise that yours isn’t. Consider the example raised by Don” -Rhywun

    Don’t confuse Don’s position and mine just because we both date women (or would like to date women, since I don’t know much about Don’s personal life).

    Unfortunately, marriage has grown out of religious tradtion and gov’t law into something very messy. Frankly, I think that since marriage is a contract, it should be handled legally as a contract between two (or more for that matter) people, and that the genders of the people involved in the contract are totally unimportant.

    But the fact that it is based on religious traditions and gov’t laws means that there will be a lot of resistance to what I see as the most sensible way to deal with the issue.

    Why would it be any more surprising for either the majority or the minority to base their political stance/who they vote for based on their bedroom preferences? You state this as though it is a given, but I just don’t see it. There’s no way to say this without sounding flippant, but I think gay Republicans are just as much proof of this as straight Democrats.

    As for HRC… She’s bad news on so many different fronts that I think she is a “No Sale” to the US voter. She just can’t be sold, at this late date, as something other than the bad news most US voters perceive her to be. Then again, I can’t figure out how she carpet-bagged her way into a NY Senate seat, either…

  93. Don, are you actually suggesting that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry because there’s a chance that some child molesters could get together and scheme up a plan to get married and then adopt children for the purpose of conveniently fucking them? Or are you just suggesting that queers are child molesters?

    I was suggesting the former. I also suspect that gays are more likely to be child molesters, but that ain’t the same as saying that all are.

  94. Most sexual abuse of children is commited by heterosexual males. Most murders of children are commited by their mothers. (Check the stats.)

    And a gallon of gas is so much more expensive than it was in 1980!

    You can come up with all kinds of useless stats when you fail to account for inflation, or adjust for % of population and access, etc.

    My guess is that homosexual males commit a disproportionate % of sex abuse when you adjust for their % of the population–and it would get higher when you consider access.

  95. By what rational reason should two gays in a committed relationship not be able to adopt?

    Well, there are two reasons I can think of:

    The first is that it is in the best interests of children for married couples to be given preferential treatment over unmarried ones, “committed” or otherwise. This is of course unfair to gays, who through no fault of their own are unable to marry. But adoption isn’t about what’s best for the parents. In areas where gay marriage is legally recognized, of course, this reason doesn’t apply.

    The second is that we lack data about the effect, on children, of being raised by a gay couple. That’s kind of a catch-22, of course, since the only way to gather a statistically significant amount of such data is to allow gays to adopt. But we know that single-parent children have more problems than children of married couples, and that the problems differ in measurable ways depending on whether the single parent is male or female. This raises the possibility that children need a mixed-gender family. Of course, it seems unlikely that a same-sex couple would be worse than no parents at all, so this still isn’t a reason for *forbidding* gays from adopting. But it is hardly unreasonable to unwilling to “gamble” on a gay couple if a heterosexual couple is available; we having thousands of years of experience showing us that heterosexual parenting works.

    Personally I don’t find either argument terribly convincing, but neither is irrational.

    Most sexual abuse of children is commited by heterosexual males

    The more correct formulation of that claim is that most sexual abusers say they aren’t gay. That doesn’t mean much. People are biased against gays. If you’re on trial for a sex crime, admitting to homosexuality isn’t a smart idea.

    Maybe gays are less likely to molest. Maybe they’re more likely. Maybe there’s no difference. The truth is that we have no way of knowing, because our only means of testing require that we rely on child molesters being honest.

  96. The more correct formulation of that claim is that most sexual abusers say they aren’t gay. That doesn’t mean much. People are biased against gays. If you’re on trial for a sex crime, admitting to homosexuality isn’t a smart idea.

    It’s %s, not absolute numbers that matter here, since gays make up a small % of the population. So, first we need to find out what % of the population is gay, and we can’t even agree on that.

    Maybe gays are less likely to molest. Maybe they’re more likely. Maybe there’s no difference. The truth is that we have no way of knowing, because our only means of testing require that we rely on child molesters being honest.

    I have seen several studies (put forth by biased sources–but that doesn’t invalidate the conclusions) that claim that gays are significantly more likely to sexually abuse children. On the other hand, I wouldn’t expect any serious, unbiased look as this subject from any “respected” source. It’s not like anyone at Stanford, et al want to break ground publishing any studies that indicate gays are more prone to this.

  97. The second is that we lack data about the effect, on children, of being raised by a gay couple.

    I would actually be fine with a study that looked into this, if it was well done, etc. If it showed there wasn’t a significant problem, then fine, gays can adopt, subject perhaps to greater scrutany on possible molestation issues (and posible screening of the children based upon personality, etc., if indicated by the aforementioned study).

    However, I’m sure this won’t fly with the gay rights crowd, who are not concerned with the best interests of the children (and of course, it won’t fly with the religous right either, but none of them seem to post here).

  98. Don,

    Do you even know any gays? They are as diverse a group as any other. I used to think a bit like you, as I was raised in Hicksville, America, but then I was exposed to big-city people and after years and years, I realized that sexual preference has little to do with the goodness or badness of a human being. It was hard to accept, because the idea of gay sex still makes me want to puke. I just don’t think about it. All of the gay men I’ve ever met wanted to have sex with other gay men, not children.

  99. Actually, some of they gay men wanted to have sex with straight men as well, but they were out of luck. Also, some wanted teen-aged boys as well, but big deal. How many straight men do you know that would like to have sex with teen-aged females?

  100. The Real Bill,

    I used to go to Frog’s gym in San Diego; it was crawling with gay guys. Overheard in the men’s dressing room:

    “Wanna go out for a beer?”

    “No, I have a boyfriend.”

    I’ve also known plenty of straits, and none of them wanted to have sex with children. At least as far as I know.

    When I was about 6 (back around ’69), I was chased by a man who “wanted to play with little boys”. He didn’t catch me, and shortly thereafter the deputy sherrif convinced him he should go elsewhere. He’s the only person I’ve met who wanted to have sex with children (I’m assuming that was his goal, he never explicitly said so, and I’m sure some of the various wennies will chime in with “correlation doesn’t proof causation”, etc). Since he only wanted boys, I’ll also commit the taboo of assigning him homosexual status.

  101. Oh, and while many gay guys are hard to tell from strait guys, some are easy to identify blocks away. Diverse? Sure, but different too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.