dagblog - Comments for "The Myth of the Militant Homosexual"

Michael,

Bruce Levine — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:20:17 +0000

In reply to The Myth of the Militant Homosexual

Michael,

I'm sorry I've not focused on this but you're point is on really solid grounds and is a critical one. One additional particular concern of mine is this bill like others that this notion of corporate peoplehood, while enshrined in all kinds of precedent, did not before Hobby Lobby include the kind of First Amendment rights that we see in this law as originally written. Nice work.

Thank you, DD. I feel bad

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 23:55:55 +0000

In reply to I do not know why I had to

Thank you, DD. I feel bad that I don't blog much anymore and a little guilty when I append a "read the full story at..." link to the end of my rare posts, but dag is still the place that I always come home to. And I'm grateful the support and encouragement that you and other daggers have generously offered me through the years.

I do not know why I had to

Richard Day — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 01:18:54 +0000

In reply to You know we all forget about

I do not know why I had to sound so cheap.

But you and Mike M end up at my favorite link.

The Daily Beast.

And this site LIKES you.

What a fine site to be acknowledged.

I make no fun of this.

And the subject matter is not some magic shoe-in.

I am proud.

I really am.

I work hard here and you and Mike M are honored here.

THANK YOU.

NO KIDDING.

I'm sure I'd remember it if

ocean-kat — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 04:08:45 +0000

In reply to Hmmm ... maybe it's a bride

I'm sure I'd remember it if there was an actual wedding. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think it's just semantics. The view of a marriage license isn't that it's already a civil union and that's a cultural mind set. That mind set would have to be changed in addition to convincing people gays should have one.

The question is moot anyway. Gay marriage has won. We're just looking back at the history of the fight while we watch the end game just to see how long it takes for the score to reach 50.

Hmmm ... maybe it's a bride

barefooted — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 23:02:20 +0000

In reply to Well sure, that's what I did.

Hmmm ... maybe it's a bride thing. My marriage didn't last but I remember every detail of the wedding. Might also be because I planned the ultimately damned event.

You're mostly talking semantics here. After all, a "hashtag" used to be the "pound sign" - still the same symbol but with a broader, more modern interpretation. All I'm proposing is that the legal argument for civil unions is already in place and practice. And same sex marriage will likley be the same before too long. The Christian conservative outrage isn't about marriage, civil unions or even legal equality. At its root lies the sense that sin is being accepted ... and that belief is as real to some as the morning sunrise. Perhaps something as simple as changing terminology could help to bridge the gap between honest faith and civil justice.

Well sure, that's what I did.

ocean-kat — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 22:23:42 +0000

In reply to Civil unions under the

Well sure, that's what I did. But we didn't tell people we've been civil unioned. We decided to get married. We got a marriage license. We got married by a judge, in a "ceremony" so perfunctory I can't recall a single detail of it. Then we told people we got married.

Again with a rational negotiating partner this could have been solved easily. Just have governments issue a Contract of Civil Union to everyone. Once it's signed the union is legally recognized. And churches can issue a Proclamation of Marriage in fancy calligraphy all embossed in gold if they want. The couple can call it anything they want.

Given the current system and the colloquial understanding of that system fighting for civil unions against an intractable opponent gets complicated. Simpler to just fight for equal rights through the current system, marriage.

There's a certain simplistic

barefooted — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 22:04:13 +0000

In reply to But liberals don't have to

There's a certain simplistic beauty to the "hippie" idea that as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, it's okay. But while many Christians have a problem with the premise, the devil's in the details.

But liberals don't have to

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 21:48:17 +0000

In reply to I get horrified when

But liberals don't have to become prisoners to using conservative tactics either, do they? Sure, fighting back here & there (probably the Indiana outcry was a good example, especially since it was combating overreach in use of government, and remember the fightback against Anita Bryant as being a good turning point) - but it's hard to foster being tolerant through no-tolerance campaigns - a certain amount of contradiction there - it's not that I give a damn about the Douthats of the world - it's just the tactics corrupt one's own soul. There is a good deal of hatred towards religions, towards regions, and of course the continuing invective against white men - so what, we drop white from the rainbow? not the kind of "why can't we all just get along?" that I'm a fan of. Can we do a positive agenda?

Civil unions under the

barefooted — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 21:35:47 +0000

In reply to Yes, it did seem like a nice

Civil unions under the umbrella of marriage take place every day. I would guess that the percentage of heterosexuals who marry with no religious inclusion whatsoever is quite high. Whether it's City Hall, a drive-through in Vegas or on a beach with all the trimmings - all that's required is a license, witnesses and someone with state legal authority to perform the "ceremony".

A union can only be dissolved through a court procedure, whether you were married by the Pope or a county magistrate. Legally, marriage - the civil union - has never had anything to do with religion. (If it did, rather than being religiously offended by homosexual marriage, it would make more sense to oppose one between two athiests.)

So, yes, anyone who marries enters into a civil union. If a couple desires their religion sanctify it, then they can do so.

I get horrified when

Michael Maiello — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 20:41:06 +0000

In reply to No, it's not "life" - it's a

I get horrified when "liberals" think public shaming is a great thing.

I agree with you about that. I think there's way too much shame in society, or too much shame about the wrong things, at least. Shame is, after all, what was unfairly imposed on gay people for many, many years. We should open minded when dealing with our fellow citizens and far less judgy than we are.

The problem is, this only works if all sides are not judgy.