NYTimes – gobsmacked that homophobes elect gay people [Darleen Click]
via The Gay Conservative, The NY Times can’t quite make sense of why “anti-gay” people keep electing gays.
Take Texas, by many measures one of the most conservative states in the nation. In 2005, it enacted a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage; the voters passed the referendum by a ratio of three to one.
Yet in the last decade, an openly gay woman has twice won election as the sheriff in Dallas County, and another openly gay woman was elected district attorney in Travis County, which includes the city of Austin. Gay candidates have also won city council seats in Austin, Fort Worth and Houston.
Then, this month, Annise Parker, the city controller who is a lesbian, swept to a solid victory in the mayoral race in Houston, the nation’s fourth largest city.
How can this be? Quick, cue the political scientists
One reason for the shift in attitudes, some political scientists contend, is a rising number of gays acknowledging their sexual preference openly in various walks of life, from workers on factory floors to Hollywood stars.
What shift in attitudes?
Far be it from me to contradict some scientists, but further on the NYTimes gets close to the answer by asking the [gay] politicians themselves.
Yet, most of the openly gay politicians who have won races recently have done so by avoiding being labeled as single-issue candidates, several gay politicians said.
In Houston, Ms. Parker never hid her sexual orientation but did not champion gay issues either, focusing instead on municipal concerns like crime, the city budget and drainage.
People who happen to be gay are not some separate, exotic species, no matter how much straight Leftists try and make them. So it shouldn’t be surprising that a politician running on the issues will be judged on those same issues first and foremost, instead of who they are sleeping with.
B. Daniel Blatt
Social tolerance of openly gay people grows with each passing day. An overwhelming majority of Americans, including (I would daresay) most conservatives, don’t really care about an individual’s sexual orientation, they just don’t favor the “equality” agenda of the left-wing gay groups. And while said groups may tar opponents of their ideology “anti-gay,” a good many (but alas not all) of these opponents are anything but.
Many simply believe the word “marriage” means a lifelong monogamous union between individuals of different sexes.
“Equality” agenda is anything but. Regardless that men and women aren’t fungible and that an opposite sex relationship is fundmentally different than a same-sex one, the “equality” the Leftcult seeks is one that actually ends marriage
[F]or a long time, many gay rights activists have expressed the concern that focusing on marriage rights would distract from the larger struggle to not privilege one family type over another in terms of rights—basically, that focusing on allowing gay people to marry would distract from things like the health care needs of the unmarried, and reinforce the incorrect belief that married people are superior to unmarried people. And some of us, like myself, have argued that the struggle for equal marriage rights is a step towards the ultimate goal of de-privileging the married over everyone else.
Amanda drivels on, alternating between preening hector
De-privileging marriage will only benefit gay couples who want to marry. More importantly, gay people in general will be served by de-privileging marriage, because it’s tied up with de-privileging straightness
…and whining juvenile…
It’s immoral to use basic rights like health care (sic) and the right to define your own family as a tool to coerce people into marriage.
After getting over a fit of giggles of seeing the word “immoral” in a Mandy rant, I want to say HELL, YES, MARRIAGE IS A PRIVILEGED INSTITUTION. And it should remain so. No one is coercing anyone into it, any more than providing the GI bill, Veteran’s healthcare and VA loans to ONLY military members is coercing non-military people to join. There are all manner of institutions and policies that America promotes for the general welfare and the legal support via contractual rights for the public institution of marriage, as the ideal relationship for fostering independence, accumulation of wealth and the care of children, is the proper purview of government, including setting the standards of who can participate in that institution.
Questioning or even opposing same-sex marriage is not “anti-gay”, as the NYTimes is surprised to note. And it just further exposes the endgame of “marriage equality”.
As the villain, Syndrome, in the sly movie The Incredibles says, “Oh, I’m real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I’ll give them heroics. I’ll give them the most spectacular heroics the world has ever seen! And when I’m old and I’ve had my fun, I’ll sell my inventions so that *everyone* can have powers. *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone’s super — no one will be.”
Posted by Darleen
.....
Comment by Log Cabin on 1/5 @ 7:29 am #
What are you saying Darleen? That there are gay people that care more about limited government, sensible economic policies, and killing terrorists than they do about marching in a parade while in full drag or about being able to call their domestic partnership a “marriage”?
Who knew?
Comment by Bilwick on 1/5 @ 7:30 am #
I’m not bothered by Gays or homosexuality myself, but even if I were a total homophobe, if the choice came between a Gay politician who respected my liberty, and some straight State-f/cker like Obama who believed my life, time and property are his to dispose of, I’d have to be pretty stupid and masochistic to vote for the latter.
......
Comment by SDN on 1/5 @ 7:42 am #
Austin is understandable; it isn’t called “Berkeley on the Brazos” for nothing. Otherwise, that’s it: what you do behind your own bedroom door is your business. Bring it into the public square (and force me to pay for the trip) and it’s my business.
Comment by Joe on 1/5 @ 7:44 am #
My wife is dead set against it. She has plenty of gay friends, supports gay politicians (if they are the best candidate), but does not equate marriage as something that is equal. They can have civil unions.
I would vote for gay marriage. But the key is I would vote for it. The burden is on the gay community to convince the rest of voters about this and pass it through legislatures or referendums, not force it on us.
Comment by Log Cabin on 1/5 @ 7:44 am #
Sex-traitors, unite!
And bravo to the voters of Texas, who realize that a politician’s governing philosophy, not whom they sleep with, is what really matters.
Damn those tolerant conservatives! They refuse to act as the left attempts to portray them.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 1/5 @ 7:45 am #
No doubt they are considered so, Darleen. Any member of a Designated Victim Group wot dares stray from the plantation is to be flogged mercilessly. Because the “victims” of our society are but a means for the WASPY Left to order all things according to their revolutionary vision.
The Eschaton, it will be immanentized.
.......
Comment by Jeff G. on 1/5 @ 8:31 am #
When people who aim “teabagger” my way as a means to diminish me start hectoring me about the immorality of opposing same sex marriage as sanctioned by the state, I laugh a little. Then I cry. Then I laugh some more.
......
Comment by Rougman on 1/5 @ 9:02 am #
Was the NYT surprised that a whole nation of racists elected a black president?
.....
Comment by Mr. W on 1/5 @ 9:11 am #
Appointing a man who had his penis sugically removed to a meaningless post in the fabulously bloated Federal bureaucracy is the kind of decision that Obama excells at making.
Thinking about it that way, that transexual appointee is the perfect symbol of the Obama administration.
.....
proteinwisdom.com |
