Equality for homosexuals is as American as apple pie

In my recent post, “Bookworm has advice on how to talk to liberals,” I wrote, “social conservatives, who believe I do not deserve equality as a U.S. citizen because I am a lesbian,” which prompted an objection by a gentle reader named Mary Beth. I wrote a reply that was detailed enough to deserve its own post, and her comment and my reply are below. Then I discovered from Legal Insurrection that two of the most distinguished constitutional lawyers in America filed a federal lawsuit on Friday asserting that California’s Prop. 8 is a violation of the U.S. Constitution with the intention of pursuing the matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The lawyers handling the case are former Bush administration solicitor general Theodore Olson, a conservative, and David Boies, a liberal. Olson and Boies opposed one another before the U.S. Supreme Court when they argued Bush v. Gore in 2000 to determine the outcome of the presidential election. They are working with the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which advocates equality for homosexuals.

Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner:

“I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions,” Olson told me Tuesday night. “I thought their cause was just.”

I asked Olson about the objections of conservatives who will argue that he is asking a court to overturn the legitimately-expressed will of the people of California. “It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution,” Olson said. “The constitution protects individuals’ basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy … I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

Greg Hengler posted this video of the Wednesday (5/27) press conference to announce the lawsuit at Townhall.com — it is about 27 minutes and worth watching:

I have taken the liberty of lifting the embed code for the complaint Perry v Schwarzenegger from Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

Perry v Schwarzenegger – Complaint

Now here is Mary Beth’s comment:

Submitted on 2009/05/27 at 3:06am

Hello! I am a new reader of your blog…actually I noticed a link via redstate and decided to pop on by.

I very much appreciate a lot of what you have to say. I did notice something that really popped out at me though that I wanted to address since I believe given the open dialog and intellectual honesty you’re doing a great job of projecting with your well thought out blog posts, you’ll be open to reading and considering. I don’t presume that my humble comment will change your mind about this but perhaps what I write will allow you to see this issue from a different perspective and provide you with, at the very least, a respectfully submitted dissent as food for thought.

The phrase that jumped out at me was this : “social conservatives, who believe I do not deserve equality as a U.S. citizen because I am a lesbian”

As a social conservative, may I say that nothing could be further from the truth and in fact, this is not the perspective most(?) conservatives have on this issue.

Let me explain please.

I imagine you’re referring to the marriage issue, correct? Well, marriage has always been defined as a very specific relationship between a man and a woman. But what does this mean in context and why do we say that this is not for two women or two men?

Consider this example.

You’re selling pies. Apple pies to be precise. You know, with the crumblies baked on top and cinnamon throughout?

I come up to you and say, “Hey there! I want a pie please. But instead of apple, I want you to use blueberries and instead of cinnamon and crumblies, I want a crust overlay on top. But I want you to still call it an apple pie.”

You’d probably look at me funny, right? Not because what I’m asking for is bad…but because what I’m asking for, by definition, is not apple pie because an apple pie has, at the very least apples in it. (I adore the crumblies although I concede they’re not considered a necessity.)

Likewise, marriage by definition includes one man and one woman. This does not devalue other relationships, but rather merely acknowledges that the marriage relationship has a very specific construct culturally and historically. It is not an issue of equality any more than not calling a blueberry pie an apple pie is an equality issue. It’s simply not what it is by definition.

I have several gay friends…some pro prop8 and some against…and I want nothing but the best for all of them. They each live happy and full lives…some with partners and some not…and I’d never deny any of them equality under the law. I respectfully submit though that that is not what’s going on in this instance.

Take care and I look forward to continue reading your blog.

Are you on Twitter? You can follow me (if you’d like) at @marybethhouse and of course, I’d love to follow you.

Have a great day!

Mary Beth

Here is my reply:

Mary Beth,

Thank you for your kind praise and thoughtful comment. It helps me to learn how others see things.

Actually, social conservatives are busy on every aspect of denying equality to lesbians and gays — not just marriage equality, but also in employment, housing (both renting and buying as a couple), enjoying public accommodations (such as stores and restaurants) and by blocking positive representations of us in television and film (I’m not saying there’s a legal right to that, but it definitely shows that we are second-class citizens when we can be so easily be rendered not just invisible or less-than but actually non-existent).

Social conservatives in Virginia have been particularly successful and reveal that their activities to oppose marriage equality are in every way a nationwide movement by a coalition of religions to deny equality to homosexuals and use the apparatus of government to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone.

Here are some articles that will explain — please do read them because Mr. Rauch explains why the right to make contracts was considered by the Founders to be a fundamental element of personhood:

The Washington Post, Jonathan Rauch, “Virginia’s New Jim Crow,” June 13, 2004: “In the Marriage Affirmation Act, Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals’ right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there. ‘Sorry,’ the hospital might have to say to her frantic partner, ‘your contract means nothing here. Now leave before we call security.’”

From the blog, Obsidian Wings, “Rauch on Virginia’s Marriage Affirmation Act,” June 14, 2004: “But even if the law is not interpreted to deny Virginia’s gay couples the right to contracts such as power of attorney and medical directive (and clearly the only ones who will benefit as that’s sorted out are lawyers), it is quite successfully designating gays as second-class citizens.”

The Washington Blade, Feb. 11, 2005, “Virginia poised to become ‘most anti-gay state,’” “The anti-gay bills this year have taken on a particularly nasty tone, especially after last year’s Assembly passed the Marriage Affirmation Act, a measure that not only bans gay unions, but outlaws legal agreements between residents of the same sex that resemble marriage rights.”

(Jonathan Rauch is author of the book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.)

Recently two lesbians who had durable medical powers-of-attorney AND produced them were denied access to their dying life partners. For more on that, see this piece by ABC News and this story by the New York Times. So these legal contracts, which do not have to be recognized throughout the U.S., are no substitute for the rights that come with marriage.

BTW, I always had to have multiple copies of my durable medical power-of-attorney for my life partner when she was hospitalized (she had multiple sclerosis and was paralyzed). I learned to carry several copies for the claims that the one I’d gotten put in her record in the ER had somehow been “lost” when she was admitted. When my mother was dying, my father only had to say he was her husband to be allowed to take over her care. No one asked for a marriage license.

The history of marriage shows that it is in a constant state of being re-defined. You really ought to do some more research (try here and here). The traditional marriage of the Old Testament was polygamy — a man had as many wives as he could afford. Solomon not only 700 wives but ALSO 300 concubines. Also traditionally, and within my own lifetime, women have been considered legally the property of their husbands. In many places around the world, women still are property. The idea of equality for women is really still brand new and is having quite the dramatic effect on changing the concept of marriage in the U.S. and around the world.

The fight for marriage equality is indeed a fight for equality. We are only fighting for the right to have the spouse of our choice and to have the legal rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals have with their own chosen spouse. Religions certainly should not be restricted from banning same-sex couples from marrying within a particular religion. Instead of fighting to take the word “marriage” away from us, they should be branding the marriages they perform: Catholic marriage, Mormon marriage, Black Liberation Theology marriage, Evangelical marriage, and so on. We’ll be happy with having just plain “marriage” and being married by judges, justices-of-the-peace, ministers of the Metropolitan Community Church, and Internet-certified ministers — as long as they have the legal authority, we won’t be fussy.

I’ll be happy to follow you on Twitter, where you may also follow me as @aconservativelez.

Thank you for your comment!

Cynthia

P.S.

I should add that it amazes me that social conservatives who oppose marriage equality for lesbians and gays do not realize that they may have homosexual children — those who do are opposing equality for their own children (see my posts here and here). BTW, Lynn Cheney supports marriage equality for her lesbian daughter and GOD BLESS MARIE OSMOND for supporting her lesbian daughter AND marriage equality for her lesbian daughter!

Lynn Cheney is here on CBS News, Sept. 15, 2008, saying “freedom in this country ought to mean freedom for everyone.”

Update: I was just perusing Hot Air and found that Ed Morrissey predicted an appeal in federal courts.

California state Supreme Court rules in favor of Prop 8

At his blog, Legal Insurrection, Cornell law professor William Jacobson has an even-handed analysis of today’s decision by the state Supreme Court of California upholding Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage by defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. (See here for the decision.) Prof. Jacobson writes, “The Court rejected the notion that the People, through Constitutional amendment, could not restrict the right to marry,” and quotes material that in essence says, “Homosexuals can have civil unions that are separate but equal to marriage, so we find that heterosexuals can reserve the word ‘marriage’ for themselves and define it to describe only their legal unions.”

Prof. Jacobson points out that this sends the matter back to the political arena where lesbians and gays must persuade the majority of Californians to repeal Prop. 8 if they want the word “marriage” to include same-sex civil unions.

Gay Patriot — specifically Gay Patriot West, who lives in California — approves of the decision and hopes that lesbians and gays who are disappointed will find ways to be civil toward the opponents of their equality to create grounds for persuading them to support marriage equality in the future. I am troubled by the court’s support of majority rule in limiting equality for minorities, but I agree we must be civil about it.

I don’t know what the response of the National Organization for Marriage is to the decision, but on their Web site, here’s is one of the talking points they recommend for defeating marriage equality for same-sex couples:

Language to avoid at all costs: ‘Ban same-sex marriage.’ Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM [same-sex marriage]. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. [Emphasis mine.] Don’t use it. Say we’re against ‘redefining marriage’ or in favor or ‘marriage as the union of husband and wife’ NEVER ‘banning same-sex marriage.’

Screen shot from the "Marriage Talking Points" page of the Web site for the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage equality.

The way I read this is that NOM and its allies know they can speak in code to defeat same-sex marriage AND civil unions and that they use this code-speak to win over people who would never otherwise deny equality to homosexuals. But their true intention is expressed in their words, ” ‘Ban same-sex marriage.’ Our base loves this wording.” They love it because that’s what they want to do. So I expect that they will not rest with their success on Prop. 8, but will use it as leverage for repealing same-sex civil unions.

I’ve read the statistic that 85 percent of blacks voted in favor of Prop. 8 in order to defeat same-sex marriage. It occurs to me that black opposition to same-sex marriage is a safe expression of an intense and virulent anti-white racism because the majority of people who are openly lesbian or gay are white. I suspect this anti-white/anti-gay hatred — if I am correct and it exists and is widespread — is founded in Black Liberation Theology. But whatever foundation it has, homosexuals are the safe white people to hate and the minority that can safely be denied equality. No good is going to come of either of those things.

What I hope that the organizations fighting for civil rights for homosexuals will do to win the hearts and minds of a majority of the electorate to vote in favor of equality for lesbians and gays is to work hard to make it safe for more people to come out to their families, friends, colleagues and church congregations. That will make it difficult-to-impossible to demonize us. And when people find out that people they already know and respect or care about — or who are their children or other relatives — are gay or lesbian, the case for denying us equality starts to melt away.

Update: Thank you, Afrocity, for your cross-post and your perspective. I value your insights and those of your readers.

Bookworm has advice on how to talk to liberals

Bookworm’s advice on how to talk to liberals — if you want to be persuasive to them — is at her blog and American Thinker. She took a shellacking in the comments at American Thinker from conservatives who do not suffer fools gladly. I am sorry to see that. She replied by politely pointing out the advantage of her methods is that they work and if we want to start winning elections again, successful persuasion skills are the way to go. I’m with her.

Based on my own intuition, I see I have been applying a couple of the approaches she recommends because I am in the vexing position of having to reach out not only to liberals but also to social conservatives, who believe I do not deserve equality as a U.S. citizen because I am a lesbian. I also realized that my behavior sets the tone for my blog — and I want my blog to be a respectful and compassionate place where thoughtful people can exchange views, even when they disagree. So I don’t call names — well, hardly ever, I think I said some mean things in strikeout text about George Will, which I will not retract because the main reason I never understood conservatism before the fall of 2008 is that he’s been the columnist explaining it to me.

Mainly I look for the good in my readers and try to call it forth by shining some light when there are gaps between their intentions and their actions. I genuinely love my social conservative readers’ love of God and desire to do right. That’s our common ground. I suppose if I have one thing to add to Bookworm’s list, it is to remember that truth and dogma are two separate things, but dogma always poses as truth. Remembering that is the foundation of learning to tell them apart. My theory is that people will drop a dogma that is dividing them from their values once they feel the constriction of the dogma and see their way to the higher truth that is consistent with their ideals.

No equality for me despite an ancestor that served at Valley Forge with Washington

Washington at Valley Forge, painting by Edward P. Moran, Library of Congress.
Washington at Valley Forge, painting by Edward P. Moran, Library of Congress.
Baron von Steuben training the troops of Gen. George Washington at Valley Forge, 1777. Painting by Augustus G. Heaton, U.S. Archives, 111-SC-83897.
Baron von Steuben training the troops of Gen. George Washington at Valley Forge, 1777. Painting by Augustus G. Heaton, U.S. Archives, 111-SC-83897.

It is Memorial Day and I do wish to honor all the members of our armed services, living and dead. But I am going to have to start insisting on having me all of that equality they talked about today that every other citizen has, and, frankly, practically every illegal alien, too.

I attend Memorial Day services because I play bassoon in the Bel Air Community Band, one of the largest and best community bands in the U.S. We play for the Memorial Day services held in Bel Air, Maryland, because we are patriotic. Many of our members have served in the armed forces, including our conductor, Scott Sharnetzka. Some are currently serving — Aberdeen Proving Ground is nearby.

In the past four years or so since I’ve played with the band on Memorial Day, the talks have been very moving — including a Marine sergeant who lost an arm and both legs in Viet Nam, and last year a father reading a letter from a fallen son. The Air Force National Guard general who spoke this year will be leaving for Afghanistan in a couple of months.

But thanks to Carrie Prejean touting as one of her credentials for speaking against marriage equality for lesbians and gays the fact — I assume she’s telling the truth — that one of her grandfathers fought in World War II in the Battle of the Bulge, I found myself listening to the speeches today about liberty and American values and getting angry. One of my ancestors — an I-don’t-know-how-many-greats-grandfather — spent the winter in the Revolutionary Army under Gen. George Washington at Valley Forge in Pennsylvania. (There was no battle with the British at Valley Forge, but it was a turning point of the Revolutionary War simply because enough of an army stayed with Washington to keep the war for independence going.) Grandma said he was so hungry that when he caught a frog and it got away before he could cook it, he cried. Why does the service of MY ancestor not count? Where is MY equality? Why is it legal to deny me marriage equality, a job, a home or the right to enjoy a public accommodation, such as a restaurant or store, for the BEING crime of being homosexual? Why does MY equality vary from state to state, even county to county or city to city?

One of the answers is that our military’s policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” goes a LONG way toward perpetuating inequality for lesbians and gays. It gives our inequality a rationale — we do not have equality because we haven’t paid for it with our service. Never mind that foreigners are allowed to serve in our military as THEIR path to FULL citizenship.

I don’t know my family’s military service history between the Revolutionary War and World War II. During World War II, I think both my mother’s brothers who were old enough were in the Army. I know Uncle Herbert was — I have photos of him in uniform. Both of my father’s brothers were in the military in World War II — his brother Donald was a Flying Tiger in China. (Yes, the same Flying Tigers as the John Wayne film.) His brother Paul was in the Army — oh, and I think Uncle Paul was gay. My parents met in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, separating uranium for the Manhattan Project. (My father is nuclear physicist Hubert P. Yockey.) My mother’s father and one of her sisters worked there, too.

So — why doesn’t MY family’s service count toward MY equality as a homosexual?

And — since we have a far-left Democrat in the White House who promised to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” AND Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate, NOW really seems like the time for the legislation to remove this policy of inequality. It’s time for liberal gays and lesbians to give Obama a deadline for repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell” because enough lesbian and gay pioneers like me have settled in Fiscal Conservative Land that they really do have a place to go now when Democrats don’t keep their promises.

Memorial Day seems like the right time to remember that fighting for equality is a virtue and that fighting for the right to serve in your nation’s military is patriotic and shows the willingness to pay the price of equality in full measure. It is time to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” It is time for homosexuals to have equality.

Update, 5/27: Becky, the lesbian libertarian at Just a Girl in Short Shorts Talking About Whatever, also has some worthwhile observations about “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and a pertinent video — plus, she has hot illustrations, while the closest I have ever come to heat here is a nude Bea Arthur portrait staid enough to be handing in the Tate Gallery.

HillBuzz has some good advice

HillBuzz, a group of extremely politically well-connected nice young gay men in Chicago, have some excellent advice for Republicans about limiting Obama to one term. They worked hard to get Hillary the nomination and experienced dirty tricks from Obama and ACORN up close and personal. When the nomination was stolen from Hillary, they supported McCain/Palin by blogging, volunteering, phonebanking, traveling to states where they were needed and fundraising and donating their own money. They love Sarah Palin as well as Hillary Clinton. They know an enormous amount of dirt about Obama and his wife.

OK, now that you know a bit about them, they have some excellent advice for Republicans here on how to limit Obama to one term, except for the implied part where Michael Steele would continue as chairman of the RNC. On that point we disagree.

My civil dialogue with Gay Patriot on same-sex marriage and marriage equality for lesbians and gays

Cynthia and Margaret on
Margaret Ardussi (left) and Cynthia Yockey -- we celebrated our twentieth anniversary while Margaret was in hospice care in our home. Margaret died of a stroke and complications of multiple sclerosis on Dec. 7, 2004, with me at her side.

Gay Patriot has a post from May 18 about Carrie Prejean, same-sex marriage and civil dialogue — my comment in reply is so long that I am posting it here first:

The rights that come with legally-recognized marriage are so many and various that it will never be possible to stipulate all of them in legal contracts. How, for example, will you contract for spousal privilege?

Each and every one of these rights was passed into law for the purpose of providing the married couple with some form of advantage or support for almost every imaginable situation (e.g., property ownership, responsibility for debts, children, inability to make medical decisions, intestate death, post-mortem funeral arrangements, divorce, etc.). For example, when my mother was dying, all my father had to do to take over making her medical decisions when she could no longer maker her own was to identify himself as her husband. However, whenever I took my late life partner of over 20 years, who had multiple sclerosis and was paralyzed, to the doctor or hospital, I had to show up with multiple copies of her durable medical power-of-attorney AND know the law on how to use it. (I had to bring multiple copies to fend off claims that the one I had already presented and gotten inserted into her chart was “lost.”)

The requirement for lesbians and gays to have to pay a lawyer and create these contracts is a heavy tax of both money and time that heterosexuals do not have to pay. Furthermore, the attorney can make mistakes. A respected lesbian attorney made my life partner’s will and told me that it empowered me to make her funeral arrangements. It did no such thing. We were lucky because I am a planner. When she was dying, I called a funeral home and found out that I could only make pre-mortem funeral arrangements for her using her general (financial) durable power-of-attorney. If I hadn’t had another attorney create one for her years earlier, I could not have made those arrangements.

Another unfair expense lesbian and gay couples must bear because they cannot marry is that they must buy separate insurance policies for their property. A gay couple who were friends of ours found this out the hard way when there was a fire in their townhouse in D.C. The owner of the house thought his policy covered everything in his home, including his life partner’s property. After all, his insurance agent said, “This policy covers everything in your home.” But it did not cover his life partner’s property, and his life partner did not have a renter’s policy so he lost everything. I call stuff like this the “gay tax.” This would happen to a straight couple who were living together, too — but they have the option to marry.

I notice that other gay bloggers and columnists and the commenters here do not come up with concrete arguments in favor of marriage equality for lesbians and gays as I have here. I believe there are two reasons for this. First, having marriage as an option shapes the entire lives of the people who CAN marry the spouse of their choice. Even when single, and from an early age, they imagine what their weddings and married lives would be like and they plan their lives to obtain those objectives. So withholding equality of marriage rights from lesbians and gays does an enormous amount to remove those objectives — and removing the targets does a great deal to remove the motivation for the behaviors that lead to obtaining those objectives.

Second, there don’t seem to be many lesbian and gay bloggers and columnists and opinion leaders who have had long, happy same-sex marriages. I have. And since my life partner was chronically ill and paralyzed, I had years and years of intense involvement with the inadequacy of legal contracts to provide the rights a marriage would have given me. (Although, ironically, because of the way health care is provided in the U.S., even straight couples in our situation are advised not to marry, or to divorce.)

I covered some of these points when I responded to something Bruce wrote with a post at my site titled, “You no playa da game, you no make da rules.” Just curious — is that post why you didn’t put my blog in your blogroll? I’ve had much more acceptance and dialogue with straight conservative bloggers, including one who is vehemently against gay marriage (also here — and see my reply here and my lampoons, which have been taken in very good spirit by their target, here and here), so I am perplexed, civil dialog-wise. I do hope it just got overlooked when you were busy and that we will be able to develop a good relationship despite our disagreements.

Cynthia

P.S.

I am going to post this reply at my site since it says a lot of things I’ve been meaning to post.

Update, May 20, 2009: Allahpundit has a “Quotes of the Day” post at Hot Air with video of libertarian Penn Jillette and Glenn Beck discussing whether or how much government should be involved in marriage. He includes a link to a disturbing story about how differently two lesbian couples — who presented the appropriate medical powers-of-attorney — were treated than straight married couples when one of the partners was suddenly stricken. I will write a separate post about that later today.

Update, May 20: My reply to a couple of comments responding to my comment above at Gay Patriot:

I see ILoveCapitalism defines anything he doesn’t like as not existing, for example, my concrete arguments for why lesbians and gays should have marriage equality. Nice try, no sale.

Both ILoveCapitalism and The_Livewire prefer to frame the conversation about marriage equality for lesbians and gays as a “worthy” (heterosexuals) vs. “unworthy” (homosexuals) argument. The foundation of all the “worthiness” arguments is the couple’s ability and propensity to make babies for the purpose of enriching and empowering a religious group or coalition and/or a political entity (government, dictatorship, whatever). Where is the Constitutional rationale — federal or state — for forced babymaking?

I think the equality approach is the one that resonates with the most people.

I have added a link to my post of my reply here at my site, which leads to a story about two lesbian couples who HAD the right legal documents and were still denied the opportunity to be together when one partner was suddenly stricken and died. I was able to avoid this because I had years of experience in using these documents. The medical professionals have tons of experience in thwarting people with durable medical powers-of-attorney and if you don’t know exactly how to navigate through their obstacles, you are in the same situation as if you had no legal authority at all. In contrast, married straight couples don’t have to show their marriage licenses to have full authority to make medical decisions for their spouse when the spouse can’t.

I am skeptical of arguments in favor of civil unions as a “separate but equal” marriage status for homosexuals. To make this happen requires that state legislatures pass the necessary laws for equivalency AND that they do so in a timely manner.* Being a state legislator is a part-time job in almost — or every, I forget — state legislature. Most state legislatures only meet for a few months from January to March or April, as if we were still an agrarian society. Some, like Texas, only meet every other year. It is inevitable that there will be some grandstanders who want to hold equality for gays hostage, or defeat it, whenever any of the civil union equivalency bills are proposed — and that they would be successful. Homosexuals therefore need to be written into the marriage laws as they currently stand. There is no other practical way to ensure marriage equality.

*There is the added consideration that once a law is passed, there is still a lag before it goes into effect because regulations must be promulgated to stipulate exactly how the law is carried out. Simply on the basis of being out-of-sync time-wise, civil unions have no chance of being equal to marriage.

Alan Keyes and Randall Terry at Notre Dame graduation fight for the unborn since 'you can always abandon or kill them later and if they're gay, not one conservative will utter a word against you'

Failed Republican perennial candidate Alan Keyes and pro-life advocate Randall Terry have been participating in demonstrations against Pres. Obama and his support of abortion at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana, where Obama is speaking today at the graduation ceremony and receiving an honorary degree.

Both Keyes AND Terry are not famous for abandoning their homosexual children. I cannot find any condemnation of either of them by conservatives for abandoning their homosexual children.

I also have to admit that neither Keyes nor Terry actually said they were fighting for the rights of the unborn since “you can always kill or abandon them later and if they’re gay, not one conservative will utter a word against you.’ They just expressed that with their actions, just as conservatives expressed approval with their silence. After all, making your teenager homeless and penniless for the BEING crime of homosexuality, as Alan Keyes did in 2005 to his daughter Maya, is an utterly moral and righteous thing to do in the moral code of social conservatism. Randall Terry did as much as he could to destroy his son, Jamiel, pre-emptively for the crime of telling the world that he, Jamiel, was gay, according to a story in the Washington Post. In contrast, saying some bad words and getting angry with a beauty queen who just ground her stiletto heel in the face of millions of people who are denied equality in the United States of America is the blackest evil and in the moral equivalency of social conservatism an appropriate justification for sentencing all those millions of people to the hell of inequality forever and ever, amen. (NOT!)

Here’s the deal, people: pro-lifers/anti-abortionists are angry with Obama because he is expressing his opinion. Wasn’t it just a few days ago that expressing an opinion that outraged homosexuals was a sacred act of self-expression? Now the shoe is on the other foot. Now suddenly there’s no sacred First Amendment right because Obama’s opinion has consequences. Well, social conservatives, that’s why homosexuals were and are so angry with Carrie Prejean and the National Organization for Marriage. Her opinion — which also is the opinion of Obama, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Hillary Clinton — has devastating, life-damaging, even life-destroying consequences for homosexuals. That’s why SOME of us were not all that kind or tactful about expressing our objections. The cruelty and injustice of conservatives who then loudly proclaimed this as their justification for reversing their support for — or continuing to refuse support for any remote facsimile of — equality for homosexuals is beyond measure.

And if the lives of children are so precious and sacred, why have social conservatives been so quiet about all of the lesbian and gay teenagers thrown out of their homes for the BEING crime of homosexuality? Why have Alan Keys and Randall Terry gotten a pass for their abuse and abandonment of their own children? Why are social conservatives so comfortable with this moral crime?

Hey, hey, ho, ho, Michael Steele has got to go

You don’t just know a minority has arrived when one of its members — Barack Obama — becomes president. Or — Michael Steele — head of a major political party.

The real sign of having arrived for a minority is for its members to start bashing on the gay people who truly believed the rainbow coalition was real and that their hard work and donations for other minorities — mostly blacks, but also illegal aliens, Hispanics and Asians — would be rewarded with reciprocity for OUR equality.

Well, Obama  says “no” to gay marriage and “don’t hold your breath” to serving openly in the military.

And Michael Steele says expense should be a determining factor in whether a minority should have equal rights — and equality for gays, including equal marriage rights, would be just too darn expensive:

Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”

As Steele talked about ways the party could position itself, he also poked fun at his previous pledge to give the GOP a “hip-hop makeover.”

“You don’t have to wear your pants cut down here or the big bling,” he said.

I suppose it’s a coincidence that Mr. Steele is using the talking points of the National Organization for Marriage, which is working hard to claim that equality for gays will be just too onerous a burden for small business owners.

Guess what, Mr. Steele? Lesbians and gays are the natural constituency of fiscal conservatism because we are discriminated against in so many places and so many ways that quite a lot of us HAVE to be entrepreneurs. Thirty percent of gays and lesbians voted for McCain/Palin. The margin of victory in the 2008 presidential election could have been decided by the gay vote ALONE. And there are enough gays and lesbians who have awakened to the fact that they can be fiscal conservatives without being social conservatives that we’re just not going to wait for an engraved invitation and a welcome mat like a bunch of liberal losers. We’re freaking conservatives, gosh darnit, and all we have to do to  transform the Republican party and the conservative movement so that they live up to their ideals of equality for every citizen and limited government IS SHOW UP — and then WE’LL MAKE OUR OWN WELCOME MAT, thank you very much, and I promise you, IT WILL BE FABULOUS!

P.S. Attila, dear, are you still standing by your man?