Posted on 08/10/2003 8:50:57 PM PDT by new cruelty
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:09:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
FARMINGTON -- Jan Stevenson plans a summer wedding, a small affair with 30 or 40 friends and family. She hasn't picked a chapel or even a city. But she has picked a country.
She and partner Susan Horowitz will marry next summer in Canada. The gay couple's union will be a ceremony laced with private sentiment and public symbolism.
(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...
I suppose that now a gay couple will be added to the statues of the fugitive slave family.
This is all part of their left-wing agenda to destroy the American family and the traditional values we hold dear.
There are no "generations" for homosexuals, since they are incapable of reproduction without the assistance of a third party. In order to "produce new generations" they have to take away someone else's kids. Unfortunately the "homosexuals' children" are all being sucked down a sink at some abortion mill somewhere.
That is why they have to indoctrinate and recruit YOUR AND MY children into their deviant life style.
Would you call going from 3rd to 33rd in the last lap having a good day?
Gay rights movement hits high velocity by Dick Polman (really!) Philadelphia Inquirererer
PHILADELPHIA - Gay Americans, after a stunning string of spring and summer triumphs, have reached a historic moment in their long struggle for equality. And Evan Wolfson is girding himself for an inevitable conservative backlash with the help of Frederick Douglass.
The civil-rights leader has been dead for 108 years, but his words resonate with Wolfson, who pulls a piece of paper from his wallet and reads: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will."
So when Wolfson, a national gay-rights leader, hears that his opponents are vowing to wage total war against gay marriage, and reminds himself that his life priorities are opposed by the pope and the president of the United States, he takes comfort in Douglass' admonition that one cannot assume a cleansing rain will arrive "without thunder and lightning."
The climate has been stormy, to an unprecedented degree, since early June, as two camps with large megaphones prepare for what looms as an epochal battle for the American soul.
Even partisans with the greatest personal stake in the issue seem overwhelmed by events. In the words of Matt Foreman, who directs the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "This is both the most promising and most frightening moment in this movement's history. There's nothing to compare it to."
Historic moments have occurred before - the 1969 Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village, when police raided a gay bar and met resistance; the 1973 declaration by the American Psychiatric Association that homosexuals were not mentally ill - but none can match the sheer velocity of events that seemingly began with a nationally televised kiss between two male composers at Broadway's Tony awards.
The rest is a blur: Canada legalized gay marriage; the Bravo cable network debuted two pioneering gay-themed programs; traditionalist Bride magazine published its first gay-marriage article; Wal-Mart (the nation's largest private employer) banned bias against its gay workers; the Chili's restaurant chain unveiled the first TV ad featuring an openly gay athlete; Volvo introduced the first national car ad with gay and lesbian couples; the Episcopal church agreed to consecrate its first gay bishop; the Massachusetts Supreme Court readied a ruling on whether to allow gay marriages …
And in a ruling that could do for gays what the landmark 1954 school-desegregation decision, Brown vs. Board of Education, did for blacks, the U.S. Supreme Court - in a majority decision read aloud by one of former President Ronald Reagan's appointees - threw out the 13 remaining state anti-sodomy laws, and declared it unlawful to police the private conduct of same-sex lovers.
All that in a mere eight weeks.
On the high court, four of the six majority justices were Republican appointees. And in the key passage - arguably, fertile ground for advocates of gay marriage - Justice Anthony Kennedy said: "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
It was a marked departure from the 1986 high court decision that upheld gay anti-sodomy laws - with pivotal help from Justice Lewis Powell, who told his law clerk at the time, "I don't believe I've ever met a homosexual," not knowing he had just addressed one.
Thirty years ago, the disease stigma was removed; now the criminal stigma is gone, and that crucial legal development should influence the debate - in adoption cases, the workplace, the military, the schools, the political arena - for decades to come. The pace of change seems particularly dizzying when one considers that, as recently as 1966, Time magazine published an unsigned essay declaring that homosexuality was "a pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life."
Now, instead, we have the Bravo network's "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,'' in which five gay men act as style mentors for a succession of unhip and hapless heterosexuals - who willingly accept these life lessons.
Michael Wilke, who advises corporations about how to advertise in the gay community, lauds this kind of programming (including "Queer as Folk," "Will and Grace," and "Boy Meets Boy"). He said, "It gives straight viewers a chance to make friends with gays in their living rooms. It's like sensitivity training."
Bob Thompson, an expert in popular culture at Syracuse University, said, "This is the genius of television. Gay characters are a hot genre, the shows have a cumulative power, and they end up moving the center of public opinion."
Gay historian Eric Marcus said, "I turn on the TV today to see what's happening, in the news and the shows, and I'm in awe." As a closeted high school student in the 1970s, he wanted to write a term paper about gays, but he masked his interest with a broader title, "Marginal Men: Alcoholics and Homosexuals." Back in those days, "I used to think I'd never live to see gay marriage. But I no longer say that."
Matrimony won't come easily, however, because social and religious conservatives, along with Republican allies, are vowing to wage war against gay wedlock in every legislative, electoral and judicial venue in the land, for however long it takes, because they sincerely believe the future of Western civilization hangs in the balance.
"It's the ultimate moral issue," said Peter La Barbera, an official at the Culture and Family Institute, a conservative Washington group. "Gay marriage is a signal of moral breakdown. If society can't even agree on the definition of marriage, as a man and a woman, then we're in big trouble."
Genevieve Wood, a vice president at the conservative Family Research Council, called gay marriage "the line in the sand. Americans tend to be libertarian on most gay issues - `leave `em alone' - but gay marriage is different. Then people say, `We don't want to give you a public stamp of approval.'
"Americans just don't want this lifestyle to be shoved in their faces. My sister was telling me the other day, `I can't turn on the TV anymore, because I don't want my son to see the pictures on CNN.' Men kissing men, women kissing women. Values-wise, this is a debate that nobody can be neutral about. It's black and white."
Some groups are far more outspoken. The Traditional Values Coalition, which represents 43,000 fundamentalist churches, is contending that "the homosexuality movement's roots in America are based in Communist ideology." But it also senses that the fight may be futile: "Homosexuals are clearly winning, and profamily forces are losing."
Other conservatives echo this sentiment. Commentator Jonah Goldberg writes that the latest wave of gay TV "signals the final stage of mainstreaming homosexuality." Ramesh Ponnuru writes in William F. Buckley's National Review magazine that "the trend lines favor gay marriage."
La Barbera, however, vows that the movement against gays will rival the movement against abortion. And some politicians want to help. In the U.S. Senate, the Republican Policy Committee declared in a July 29 memo that, referring to gay marriage, "it is imperative that Congress not allow the institution to spread," and that a new constitutional amendment would provide the ultimate firewall, and disempower the justices.
This move is necessary, according to the Republican memo, because Justices are "predisposed to support a remaking of marriage," in defiance of public opinion. The memo says that U.S. Supreme Court justices, as most recently evidenced in the sodomy ruling, has "dismissed mainstream values," relying instead upon "European laws and norms when crafting their opinions."
The memo doesn't mention that seven of the nine justices are Republican appointees. But Wood, the Family Research Council official, acknowledged that: "They were bad appointments. This is why nominees need to be more closely checked - and they will be in the future."
A constitutional amendment already has been drafted ("Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman"), but some conservatives aren't sold on the idea, because it would require ratification by the legislatures in 38 states - a tall order.
Still, such a battle, regardless of outcome, would be a major headache for the gay-rights movement. Foreman, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force director, said with a wince, "It makes me sick to my stomach just to think about it. It would be incredibly difficult, expensive and draining."
Some gay activists contend that the marriage issue is too scary for average Americans, and overly ambitious, especially since the gay lobby hasn't even won passage of a federal job-protection bill after nearly a decade of effort. But national gay leaders are adamant that marriage is the ultimate crusade.
Wolfson, the Frederick Douglass fan and a former federal prosecutor, has launched Freedom to Marry, a group backed by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union. He said that "gay marriage is an important statement about equality. It's a statement about who you are and who you love. We're trying to hold America to its promise of equality."
Marcus, the historian, who has been pushing gay groups to launch national ad campaigns, said: "There's a growing impatience that we don't want to be second-class citizens anymore. This is about gay couples getting the same access to pension benefits, the same hospital visitation rights (as heterosexual couples), the same 1,000 legal protections that go with marriage under state and federal law …
"My partner and I are already dealing with this stuff, trying to figure out our estates. These are literally life-and-death concerns," Marcus said.
Gays are encouraged by the long-term rise in public support for greater tolerance, particularly among young people. But conservatives are encouraged by a Gallup Poll, conducted shortly after the high court's sodomy ruling, indicating a sudden, double-digit drop in support for "legalized homosexual relations" - which La Barbera of the Culture and Family Institute attributed to a natural American desire to step back and reassess at a moment of social upheaval.
"People don't mind being tolerant of gays," he said. "They can deal with that. But they're not so sure they want to celebrate gays."
And gay leaders, mindful of the impending battle for hearts and minds, are well aware that they have fared badly in the political realm. Hawaii and California, two heavily Democratic states, have decisively rejected gay marriage in state referendums. And since 1996, Congress and 36 states (including Pennsylvania) have passed "Defense of Marriage" laws designed to exclude same-sex couples.
Foreman acknowledged the problem. He said that conservatives were skilled at manipulating the public mood, "because they go for the visceral stuff, the videos of gay-pride parade floats. They exploit the `ick factor' (gay sex), which is still very much out there, despite all the attention lavished on the gay TV shows, and they bring people's gut fears to the surface.
"Frankly, I can understand the visceral reaction, because I have it in reverse. It makes me queasy to think of straight people having sex, and I try not to think about it. But what does that have to do with anything? This is supposed to be a serious debate about civil rights."
Conservatives, however, fear that the TV shows are undercutting their ability to persuade. Wood said, "They have caused a softening of attitudes in the public square," by showing gays in a favorable light. Will on "Will and Grace," for example, is the perfect straight gal's pal, and he never cavorts with a lover.
"These shows don't tell the negative aspects of the homosexual lifestyle," she said. "The gays are always so funny and so smart. Making over the straight guy who can't get the girl without their help, it's just ridiculous. And `Boy Meets Boy' - you don't see them talking about the AIDS statistics."
But conservatives have other ways of influencing the debate in the months ahead, such as keeping the heat on President Bush. He wants those conservatives happy and primed to vote in 2004; hence his July 30 statement reiterating his opposition to gay marriage. At the same time, however, he wants to attract gay-friendly suburbanites; hence his biblical plea for tolerance.
"A big battle is looming, and so far we've been disappointed by Bush," said conservative La Barbera. "A lot of us having been saying, `What's up with him?' He's been playing it down the middle, but he can't finesse the homosexuality issue. He's gambling that we have no place else to go, but we could stay home" on Election Day.
It's also tricky for Democrats. If half the nation opposes gay marriage, particularly in the crucial Southern and Sunbelt states, will the presidential candidates crusade for social change? Or, as a skeptical Foreman put it, "Are politicians going to risk their necks for gay people?"
These questions will loom larger after fresh developments. The Massachusetts supreme court is expected to rule on gay marriage by summer's end, and most observers expect the justices to side with gays. A similar case is moving through the New Jersey courts. There is a sense that the final chapter in this saga has begun.
Said Marcus, the historian, "Buckle your seat belts, it's gonna be a bumpy ride. Bette Davis' famous line lives on. Although I hate to be so campy about it."
Just what I said too. Good comments about them seeking approval - I think homosexuals want some type of reassurance and spin that their behavior really isn't all that disgusting.
When I'm running to the sound of the guns, I want you with me. Kind regards,
Bedford Forrest
Right. The problem is this: no matter how much reassurance they are able to conjure up, it's never enough. Why is that? Could it perhaps have something to do with human nature... their own human nature?
By the way, African Americans are not big supporters of the gay culture. The comparison (by gays) of their situation to that of pre-civil-rights-era blacks does not go over real well.
The homosexual community has apparantly decided to "floor it." If they do, there will be lots of unexpected consequences. One may be another wedge issue (along with school vouchers) to separate African American votes from the party of their plantation masters.
(steely)
Oh man, you ARE cruel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.