Obsessed with sex

Leave a Reply

Comment as a guest.

  1. You mean all this bizarre Amendment-mania that has come from the Right has been about something besides sex?

    Yes, Polimom – surprising as it may seem, the ‘bizarre Amendment’ (I presume you are talking about that “marriage is only between one man and one woman” proposal) actually was about something other than sex. It was about attempting to prevent a small group of inDUHviduals (that would be what the VRWC calls “activist judges) from (re)defining an institution that has been in place far longer than the Republic (that would be the USofA.) Agree with the premise or not, that is one of the factors that was driving that effort (another more than likely was a knee-jerk reaction to a specific set of trigger events – but our gummint is real good at knee-jerk reactions.)
    Contrast this with someone threatening to “out” others, to reveal aspects of their lives they would prefer remain private, possibly because they are afraid of embarassment/persecution/whatever. When I was in the USAF, the “justification” for keeping homosexuals out was that they were subject to blackmail and thus represented “security risks”. Well, threatening to expose someone’s private little secret if they don’t do what you want sure sounds like extortion to me!
    Is that about sex(uality)? More likely than not, the connection is tenuous at best, and you could substitute some other hot-button issue and it would make no difference as to the level of outrage/amusement/whatever.

  2. Ed — There are many conservatives who, like you, see the homosexuality issues in terms of constitutionality, judicial and legislative roles, etc. That would be the rational residue of what used to be a conservative party that focused on less government.
    That allows for a much different dialogue, too. But the mobilization of the Republican “base” has been very much rooted in s-e-x.
    I wonder, though, whether judges would have been ruling on it at all, had there not been legislation that was in violation of someone’s rights?

  3. I wonder, though, whether judges would have been ruling on it at all, had there not been legislation that was in violation of someone’s rights?

    One would hope not! However, given our direction toward deciding everything in the courts, I wouldn’t be surprised (at least it’s better than settling issues with duelling pistols at 50 paces.)

  4. You know, the “deciding it all in the courts” thing is really a bogus complaint.
    For example: in Massachusetts, there’s ongoing debate about whether to amend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage. The courts found that under the state’s constitution, the marriage laws are discriminatory. They forced the issue. BUt ultimately it’s the people of that state who will decide.
    Sometimes, issues need to be forced.
    As for Craig? I tried to write about it and just couldn’t come up with anything I thought was worth saying. I’m suspicious of Rogers’ motives and techniques, but I have no real problem with someone’s hypocrisy being exposed.
    But the thing is, while Craig has an anti-gay voting record, he is not some major right-wing ideologue. I don’t like his votes but he’s hardly running around stirring up bigotry.
    And by not actually presenting his evidence, I think Rogers made himself look silly. I haven’t the faintest idea if any of it is true. Thus, I think it’s a non-story.

Read Next

Sliding Sidebar