• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Polls are now a reliable indicator of what corporate Republicans want us to think.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

I was promised a recession.

When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

It’s easier to kill a dangerous animal than a man who just happens to have different thoughts/values than one’s own.

Come on, man.

Republicans don’t trust women.

“Cheese and Kraken paired together for the appetizer trial.”

Peak wingnut was a lie.

People are complicated. Love is not.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

The revolution will be supervised.

Quote tweet friends, screenshot enemies.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson is the bland and smiling face of evil.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Let’s Clear Something Up

Let’s Clear Something Up

by John Cole|  June 13, 200511:43 pm| 31 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

I see I am being quoted quite liberally by liberals on a specific post I wrote, and I need to clear some things up.

I don’t think everyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic. I can think of several reasons against gay marriage (have even advocated some in the past), all of them quite valid, none of them based on homophobia. I currently reject many of those arguments, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist and they are not legitimate arguments free of hate and fear.

I don’t think the Republican party is a party of racists. Are there racists who vote Republican? Sure- just as there are plenty of people who vote Democratic who are racist to the bone. That doesn’t deny the fact that our recent electoral success (last 30 years) isn’t at least partially due to a migration of reformed segregationists from the Democratic party to the Republican party.

As far as perceptions go, ask yourself- is it predominantly Republican or Democratic voters who usually fight tooth and nail to preserve the Confederate flag, and don’t get caught up in the mixed symbology of the Confederate Flag, which is always confused. The answer- normally it is Republicans- but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are racist. There are a lot of reasons why people defend the flag- it stands for a southern way of life (meaning rural, NASCAR, whiskey and tobacco- not race related but profoundly southern), it stands for a sense of rebelliousness and independent spirit, and for some it stands for standing up to the people in urban northern and west coast cities who are always demeaning the south.

And, for A SELECT FEW, it does have racist connotations. But to Democrats and blacks (for good reason), it is primarily about race and an obvious source of tension. If you see the flag and all you think is racism and slavery and lynchings, it makes perfect sense to suspect the motivations of people trying to preserve it. Thus, southerners who love the flag but don’t have a racist bone in their body, and I know a bunch of them, are unfairly tarred as racist for just wanting to be left alone and to keep an important symbol to them. Go to the south sometime- there aren’t lynchings and cross burnings and separate fountains and the like- for the most part, the south is over it and racial harmony rules the day.

At any rate, the lineage and ancestry is there, but that doesn’t mean I think the Republicans are racist or have racist policies. I am one (a Republican, for the sake of clarity), and I wouldn’t hang out willingly with people I thought were closet klansmen.

Another point- I don’t think all religious people are bigots. I don’t think most religious people are unreconstructed racists. For goodness sakes, only a fool would deny that the civil rights movement found its energy, its passion, its strength, and, in large part, its justification, in the religious movement. But that was a broad-based, ecumenical religious movement. Not the narrow sectarian power-mad groups that seem to dominate the headlines as of late.

In the previous post, I wrote:

This is part of the reason I have had such a bee in my bonnet about the all-out demonization of homosexuals and the recreational and, for the most part, politically motivated gay-bashing that the far right of my party seems all to quick to engage in as of late. It disgusts me, and it is, in my eyes, nothing more than a throwback to the obscene old days of our embarassing segregationist past.

If this really were about the sanctity of marriage, it would be one thing. But, it is pretty clear to me at least that it isn’t, and all I see is the same old reliance on selected biblical passages, the mean-spiritedness, the anger and venom and unfounded hostility, the dire predictions of apocalypse and the absurd invocation of states right’s and the future of our children. It is the same old hate wrapped up and packaged for another demographic. And, as far as I can tell, it is coming from the same crowd of people who 40 years ago would have been fighting to keep my black students and my black next-door neighbor drinking in a different fountain. Quite frankly, I have had enough of it.

No one should take that and use it as a license to claim I think all Republicans are racist, all religious people are racist, etc. Hell, you shouldn’t even take it to mean that I think current members of the extreme religious right are racist. What it means is that I do see a parallel between the rhetoric and actions and attempts at marginalization that look a helluva lot like the same things that were going on in the 40’s and 50’s but with a new target group. The same rhetoric, the same narrow biblical interpretations and the same selective quoting of scripture and verse.

I am also aware that much of this may have been brought on by over-reach from the activists in the homosexual community. Gavin Newsome did homosexuals a grave disservice- he may have put the issue on the map, but it was done in such an in your face and supra-legal manner that there was bound to be blowback. But that doesn’t excuse the recent attempts to wage all out war against gays.

This war is lead, in my opinion, a very narrow group of the religious and Republican spectrum- a group that seems to have an entirely disproportionate share of the political power in my party at the current moment. When you have leaders of the ‘Christian Coalition’ running around expressing an interest in having the government pin warning labels on homosexuals and wrapping it up in religious prose, it isn’t that difficult to see the parallels between the racism of the past and the war on homosexuals.

Again, that doesn’t mean I think everyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot, or a racist, because I wouldn’t be in a party that housed those people, and if you see someone claiming I think everyone in my party or everyone in the religious right is the same as the nasty old racists of years gone by, you can correct them for me. It does mean that I see a connection between the rhetoric and the behavior of a few, and it does mean that I see a few individuals who have gotten over race but found a new group that it is more acceptable to attack.

Dobson and his followers may also entirely believe that homosexual marriage will be the end of America. Simliar things were said about integration, and, I bet if we looked into it, women’s suffrage.

I think you can chalk up part of the confusion to my rambling prose and my splenetic writing style (it has been said the written language here at Balloon Juice is ‘high dudgeon,’ and toss in the fact that I have written so many damn posts on these topics that it may seem like I think all those things. But it just ain’t the case.

And for the record, if I could have my way, I wouldn’t have government legalizing gay marriages- I wouldn’t have the government granting any marriages. I would like the government in the civil union business, and gays and straights would be treated just the same, with the same rights. Churches could then grant marriages, and be free to decide whether or not their sect wants to grant gay marriages.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Petty Principal’s Principles
Next Post: I Would Give Anything »

Reader Interactions

31Comments

  1. 1.

    ppgaz

    June 14, 2005 at 12:51 am

    Well done. I withdraw my earlier interrogatories on this subject. The current post answers them or makes them moot.

    Your last paragraph describes exactly what I hope — and expect – the future to look like. In the fullness of time.

  2. 2.

    SomeCallMeTim

    June 14, 2005 at 1:00 am

    Yeah, agreed with above. I’m exactly the sort of Dem with whom you are disagreeing (i.e., I’ve come to think of Southern Republicans as a cancer), and, while I might disagree with the weighting of factors in various formulations, there isn’t much that you say that I could gainsay on principle. Very nice.

  3. 3.

    foolishmortal

    June 14, 2005 at 6:38 am

    “that doesn’t mean I think everyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot”

    Not everybody against gay marriage is a bigot, but such bigots exist, and in great numbers. I have a hard time imagining motivations beyond bigotry that would lead a man to oppose a secular gay marriages, but am willing to admit they exist. However, maintaining that bigots do not exist, or that they do not form a large part of the Republican constituency in this matter is intentional blindness.

    “I wouldn’t be in a party that housed those people”

    Of course this is your choice, but at the moment, you are in such a party. In my attempt to avoid this a fate, I find myself politically aligned with people advocating all sorts of stupid things. Nevertheless, I find it worthwile.

  4. 4.

    Craig Press

    June 14, 2005 at 7:48 am

    While I am a democrat and I agree with your stance on gay marriage, you analogy to the hatred of the Confederate Flag is not quite on. At some point people have to realize that a symbol is to abhort for what it stood for at one time that it is an insult to display it, regardless of what you think it stood/stands for. For example, the swaztika is one of the most vile symbols I can think of, but for some it may stand for a conservative, colonial, all powerful Germany and not the killing of 12 million for eugenic reasons.

    I understand wanting to have pride in your heritige, but find some different symbol than one that stood for lynchings and slavery.

    Likewise, the anti-gay part of the republican party wears the “anti-gay” badge with pride. They see it as the way life should be. It is not a matter of law, it is a matter of right vs wrong. It is this absolutist attitude that they are trying to sell. The whole platform is based on absolute right vs absolute wrong.

    By this logic, I am sorry, but you are “for” gay marriage.

  5. 5.

    p.lukasiak

    June 14, 2005 at 7:59 am

    Again, that doesn’t mean I think everyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot, or a racist, because I wouldn’t be in a party that housed those people, and if you see someone claiming I think everyone in my party or everyone in the religious right is the same as the nasty old racists of years gone by, you can correct them for me.

    just curious john…. do you also think that everyone who was opposed to “miscegenation” was not a bigot as well?

    We’re there Germans who supported the holocaust, but not because they were Anti-Semitic racists?

  6. 6.

    caroline

    June 14, 2005 at 8:43 am

    Considering there are a bunch of Senators who are refusing to sign onto an anti-lynching statement, I have to wonder have we really advanced a whole lot down here in the south.

  7. 7.

    caroline

    June 14, 2005 at 8:53 am

    The problem with the confederate flag is that there were several. The stars and bars version was adapted as the symbol of the Klan. That’s why it’s so offensive to minorities. If someone used one of the other confederate flags, there probably wouldn’t even be a discussion.

    I can’t understand why these people want to carry around a reminder of getting their butts kicked. Of course, though, some schools down here teach that the confederacy really “won” the civil war.

  8. 8.

    Sojourner

    June 14, 2005 at 9:10 am

    The problem with those who are against gay marriage is that so many of them don’t want to stop there. They don’t want to give gays *any* rights as a couple. They may claim this dicrimination is based on religious reasons but what really is the basis for this selective literalism? Given the scientific data that strongly indicate a genetic basis and its occurrence in non-human animals, at some point their refusal to acknowledge homosexuality can only be seen as either bigotry or a determined ignorance.

  9. 9.

    mac Buckets

    June 14, 2005 at 9:59 am

    Given the scientific data that strongly indicate a genetic basis and its occurrence in non-human animals,

    Leave Rosie O’Donnell out of this…

    I’ve debated whether or not to post the following paragraph out of fear of being misunderstood (same reason I haven’t asked ny gay friends, I suppose), but I’ll go ahead. I’m looking for the answer to a question about the genetic component of sexual preference: If homosexuality is genetically predetermined, then what’s with all the lisping, mincing, and “gay” affectations in that community which are almost certainly NOT genetically predetermined? Why would a group distinguished by an inborn genetic code which is specific to sexuality be statistically over-represented in certian industries? Is there a corresponding “fashion and interior design” gene? So much of the broad interpretation of the homosexual “lifestyle” seems to be sociologically imposed — I’d like to hear an expert talk about the role of the genetic component.

  10. 10.

    metalgrid

    June 14, 2005 at 10:14 am


    And for the record, if I could have my way, I wouldn’t have government legalizing gay marriages- I wouldn’t have the government granting any marriages. I would like the government in the civil union business, and gays and straights would be treated just the same, with the same rights. Churches could then grant marriages, and be free to decide whether or not their sect wants to grant gay marriages.

    John, I really think you should come out and call yourself a libertarian because this is just another area where your current party is at odds with your position and such libertarians are doing a great disservice by tolerating the destructive nature of the current extremist views promulgated by the current Republican agenda.

    I have always reasoned that government shouldn’t be in the marriage business – however, it does serve a role in recordkeeping – much like it records births and deaths, give it the responsibility of recording marriages. Then move marriages to the realm of private entitities – churches, temples, etc.

    As for the monetary benefits of marriage, do you think it’s fair to have a single person tax? Because, monetarily speaking, that is what marriage currently is.

  11. 11.

    cminus

    June 14, 2005 at 10:58 am

    Why would a group distinguished by an inborn genetic code which is specific to sexuality be statistically over-represented in certian industries?

    (Using gay men as an example, because I have more contacts with gay men than lesbians.)

    At a guess, selection bias. Stereotypically gay men are easier to spot and identify.

    If you were a gay macho guy with terrible fashion sense who fixed brakes at a Pep Boys, your peer group would be disproportionately jocks and blue-collar workers, neither known for tolerance of homosexuality when compared with, say, fashion designers. Natually, you would take care to avoid stereotypically gay mannerisms, because, even if you were out to your friends and they were comfortable with it, there’s no guarantee that the customers, or the guys on the other team at the softball game, would be. If someone didn’t know you, they wouldn’t know you were gay.

    On the other hand, certain professions — fashion, the performing arts, academia and some other knowledge industries — are on average more tolerant of eccentricity than others, because the mindset to be good at them is often a quick pass to social ostracism in junior high school. If you’re in such a setting, you can be as stereotypically gay as you want, because (a) fewer people will mind, and (b) it increases the chance that other gay men will know you’re gay. There are lots of perfectly straight-seeming gay guys in these fields, too — I know a gay communications consultant who uses empty cardboard boxes as end tables — but, again, if you didn’t know he was gay, you wouldn’t be able to tell it from his behavior.

  12. 12.

    Ben Lange

    June 14, 2005 at 11:23 am

    Hell, John, don’t worry about it. The libs just mistook you for one of their own for a moment, that’s all.

  13. 13.

    Mr Furious

    June 14, 2005 at 12:05 pm

    “nothing more than a throwback to the obscene old days of our embarassing segregationist past”

    Is that why the “laws on the books” that romney wanted to use to strike down gay marriage where actually laws banning interracial marriage? You’d think htey’d be smart enough to steer clear of drawing that kind of correlation.

  14. 14.

    Kimmitt

    June 14, 2005 at 12:19 pm

    John is a libertarian; he’s just not a Libertarian. He has some profound disagrements with the direction the Libertarian Party has taken, and he is not content to languish in permanent minority Party status.

    (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

  15. 15.

    metalgrid

    June 14, 2005 at 12:29 pm


    John is a libertarian; he’s just not a Libertarian. He has some profound disagrements with the direction the Libertarian Party has taken, and he is not content to languish in permanent minority Party status.

    Of course that’s understandable. I can see the traffic on this site trickle down to 1 or 2 people the moment John leaves the GOP and joins the LP or even goes independent. So as far as having a podium and relevance, staying in the GOP would be the pragmatic choice.

    I’m just wondering how far is too far before the GOP crosses the line to lose the small “l” libertarians like John.

  16. 16.

    Sojourner

    June 14, 2005 at 12:48 pm

    None of my gay friends are in the fashion industry or any of the other stereotypical “gay” jobs. They work in restaurants, computer businesses, manage clothing stores, work as botanists, work as statisticians.

    The reality is you will find them in all professions, just like straight people.

    They also vary in terms of traditional “masculinity”. Some are easy to tell, others aren’t.

  17. 17.

    mac Buckets

    June 14, 2005 at 1:32 pm

    None of my gay friends are in the fashion industry or any of the other stereotypical “gay” jobs. They work in restaurants,

    Funny, when I said gays were over-represented in certain professions, I mentally included the restaurant business (having worked in it myself) as one of those professions.

    Anyway, regardless of your friends, it’s commonly accepted that there is over-representation of gays in certain jobs (hairdressers, fashion, anything on HGTV……….gay porn).

    OK, I’m starting to feel uncomfortable posting about this again!

  18. 18.

    Steven

    June 14, 2005 at 1:39 pm

    I usually find your views enlightened. This time I certainly do not. You say:

    There are a lot of reasons why people defend the flag- it stands for a southern way of life (meaning rural, NASCAR, whiskey and tobacco- not race related but profoundly southern), it stands for a sense of rebelliousness and independent spirit, and for some it stands for standing up to the people in urban northern and west coast cities who are always demeaning the south.

    It stands for a WHITE southern way of life. I don’t see African-Americans, Latinos or Asians that live in the South rallying around the Stars and Bars. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t represent their independent spirit.

    You also say:

    Go to the south sometime- there aren’t lynchings and cross burnings and separate fountains and the like- for the most part, the south is over it and racial harmony rules the day.

    It’s good to know they’re over lynchings. I’m comforted. But outside the major metro areas of the deep South, non-whites are still not particularly welcome in polite society. I know one shouldn’t make sweeping generalizations based on personal experience, but as my Asian girlfriend and I traveled through the South, there were several times that we couldn’t get service at restaurants. The staff wasn’t rude, they just wouldn’t wait on us. We finally would get the message and leave. This wasn’t universal, but it happened enough to convince me that the deep South hasn’t really changed all that much.

  19. 19.

    John Cole

    June 14, 2005 at 1:46 pm

    It stands for a WHITE southern way of life.

    No, to you it does. To me, it does. To some people who like the flag, it does. But to a lot of people who don’t have a racist bone in their body, race isn’t even in the calculus. It is a symbol of southern independence. Now you can say that is a crock of shit, but trust me, I have known plenty of people who look at the flag as representative of many aspects of southern culture that have nothing to do with racism.

    This wasn’t universal, but it happened enough to convince me that the deep South hasn’t really changed all that much.

    Considering that attitude used to be universal and worse, I wuold argue the oppositie- it has changed a lot. That doesn’t make it a multi-cultural panacea, and it doesn’t mean that there is not room for imporvement, but by and large racial harmony is the order of the day.

    I should also add that everything in northern cities is not a rainbow coalition moment every minute of every day, either.

    I should further add that I would support getting rid of the flag everywhere, despite all the defenses I have offered.

    And I am not a southerner. I am not a northerner. I am a West Virginian, where we are all just confused.

  20. 20.

    p.lukasiak

    June 14, 2005 at 2:54 pm

    Now you can say that is a crock of shit, but trust me, I have known plenty of people who look at the flag as representative of many aspects of southern culture that have nothing to do with racism.

    well, since you have given us permission…

    That’s a crock of shit.

    First off, what aspects of “southern culture” that aren’t “steeped in racism” are represented by the Confederate Flag?

    Secondly, given the fact that the Confederate Flag is associated with so many racist aspects of Southern Culture, are we really expected to believe that these people are unaware of how offensive their embrace of the Stars and Bars is? Or are we expected to tell Blacks to
    “get over it”, because there is some (still unknown) aspect of Southern Culture represented by the Confederate Flag that is not “steeped in racism”.

  21. 21.

    Nash

    June 14, 2005 at 2:58 pm

    I wouldn’t have the government granting any marriages. I would like the government in the civil union business, and gays and straights would be treated just the same, with the same rights.

    John, perhaps it’s just a semantic confusion for me, but doesn’t the government have a big interest in “sanctioning” (read, licensing) marriages in terms of, e.g., not allowing siblings to wed and in certain levels of medical testing? Or are you just saying that public interest is best served under the “civil union” sobriquet?

    And fwiw, in general, your style is more properly termed “lightly elevated dudgeon” (LED). And in any event, compared to the warmed over potatoes so common at other tables, any approach you make to splenetic is a good thing. Causes us to chew carefully. IMHO.

  22. 22.

    Brad R.

    June 14, 2005 at 4:16 pm

    Here’s the thing: I have nothing against the South or showing Southern pride. But please, isn’t there a better symbol for Southern pride than the flag of a country that existed for less than a decade before getting its ass kicked by us Northeastern sodomites?

  23. 23.

    Kimmitt

    June 14, 2005 at 5:37 pm

    My wife is selling off an old Rice jacket on e-Bay (it’s too small). She went to school there for a few years, and she got to know the area pretty well. We’ve got to get female friend of ours to wear it so we can, you know, post a photo. We were going to get this multiracial friend of ours to model, but then we remembered that we were selling the jacket to Texans.

    We found a nice white girl to model it.

    That’s the South.

  24. 24.

    Laura

    June 14, 2005 at 6:26 pm

    mac Buckets:

    I find it pretty easy to believe that gays are disproportionately represented in certain occupations — in fact, I’d find it difficult to doubt. Further, I’m quite willing to stipulate that gays are at least more likely to have certain manners of speech, wear certain clothes, and the like. However, this doesn’t lead to the conclusion that homosexuality isn’t genetic in origin.

    By analogy, black people are overrepresented in certain occupations (pro basketball, civil service, and the like), are more likely to wear clothes marked as ‘black’ (FUBU apparel, backwards baseball caps), and to speak with certain mannerisms uncommon among the non-black. Yet all this doesn’t add up to the conclusion that blackness isn’t genetic. In this case, blackness itself is entirely genetic, even if the nonbiological characteristics described above are not. People tend to like people who are like them, so they end up forming idiosyncratic communities with distinguishing markers having nothing to do with their underlying similarities.

    The same could be true of homosexuality — a preference for sex with one’s own gender may well be strictly genetically determined, and yet still gays could be disproportionally respresented in careers, for social and non-genetic reasons. Not that I’m claiming this is true — I have no idea whether or to what extent homosexuality actually is genetic. But it may well be, which I think addresses your concern.

  25. 25.

    worn

    June 14, 2005 at 8:57 pm

    As a Southerner myself I felt the need to comment on what I think is a weak analogy on John’s part. Denying the Confederate battle flags powerful symbolism through a assertion that for some unquantified percentage of folks it has no racist connotations to me seems irrelevant. The question is the degree of offense it causes others – more often than not those folks descended (either directly or even non-directly) from the slaves. Now I’m not positing (as some may) that anything that causes offense to anyone should be banned, but there was a civil war fought in this country and those from my part of the world saw fit to pursue the calamitous course of action that led to this by virtue of a morally abhorent position wrapped in the mantle of “States Rights”. That war of a hundred & fifty or so years ago left wounds that to this day have not healed (I know this from years of personal experience). Saying that the most recognizable symbol of the Southern side of the conflict is meaningless just because you say its so just seems, well, silly.

    Would you also assert that the Nazi swastika could also be drained of its meaning – and thus the people it gravely offends dismissed with a hand wave – by those who might brazenly brandish it in public merely stating that they meant it as a display of Teutonic pride?*

    If Southerners want to demonstrate a love of Nascar, for instance, then why not just buy some of the damned merchandise?

    Worn

    *Yes, I know that due to Goodwin’s Law I just lost the argument, but my point was really about social memory and the power of symbols. I mean, why in the world do you think Slobodan Milosevic made his famous speech (the one that lit the tinder of the 90’s Yugoslav conflict) at the field of Kosovo Polje on June 28, 1989? Could it have anything at all to do with the original Battle of Kosovo (marking the “end” of the kingdom of Serbia), fought in the same place 600 years earlier almost to the day? Or the tremendously powerful symbology of that place and date in the greater mythology of the Serbian people?

  26. 26.

    Sojourner

    June 14, 2005 at 10:42 pm

    Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the Confederate flag become popular again during the 60’s and 70’s, the Civil Rights era?

  27. 27.

    Kimmitt

    June 15, 2005 at 2:47 am

    That’s correct; it languished, unused and essentially ignored, until it became a symbol of Southern pride in response to the Civil Rights gains of the 60s and 70s.

    I have friends from the South, and many of them do claim that the Stars and Bars represents home to them in their hearts, warts and all.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The Phnom Penh says:
    June 15, 2005 at 4:27 am

    Gay marriage! Ack!

    “Separate but equal” won’t work, we learn from history. Besides, the opponents of gay marriage are also opposed to civil unions for gays.

    I would also oppose forcing churches to legitimize unions they don’t agree with, on freedom of religion grounds.

  2. The Phnom Penh says:
    June 15, 2005 at 4:27 am

    Gay marriage! Ack!

    “Separate but equal” won’t work, we learn from history. Besides, the opponents of gay marriage are also opposed to civil unions for gays.

    I would also oppose forcing churches to legitimize unions they don’t agree with, on freedom of religion grounds.

  3. Random Fate says:
    June 16, 2005 at 3:03 pm

    Confusion regarding writing, and a concurrence upon the role of government in “marriage”

    John Cole, at Balloon Juice, has had a similar problem as I believe I have had recently, where what I wrote was confused and misinterpreted to mean something different. He writes: I think you can chalk up part of the…

  4. Balloon Juice says:
    November 9, 2005 at 11:26 am

    […] In the past, I was more sensitive towards the desires of those who wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage, and supported civil unions for homosexual marriage as a nice, convenient middle ground. After watching the Arkansas covenenant marriage charade and the Republican behavior regarding the Schiavo marriage, I began to recognize the ‘sanctity of marriage’ crap for what it is- a load of divisive bullshit that employs the same biblical rhetoric used against blacks in the 50’s against gays today, in a clear and transparent attempt to create ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’ for little more than partisan gain. You want to protect the sanctity of marriage- stay the hell out of people’s affairs. […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • cain on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:29pm)
  • WaterGirl on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:27pm)
  • Brachiator on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:27pm)
  • gvg on Take the Fucking Win (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:26pm)
  • Dorothy A. Winsor on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:26pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!