So the right-wing is furious that Larry Craig has been outed, and they demand that this hate-filled politics must stop. Which makes me wonder why they are supporting the party that is doing the following in Virginia:
At least people will be unable to plead ignorance if they vote to deprive thousands of Virginians of their basic civil rights come November.
The House of Delegates has given final approval to HB101, which requires that the fall ballot include the full text of a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage, among far too many things:
“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.”
So far, so good. “Marriage” is by any traditional definition, religious or semantic, the union of a man and woman. That’s simple fact, and it’s a definition most Virginians — including us — accept and endorse.
But incorporating it into the state Constitution won’t increase wedded bliss across the commonwealth or reduce the divorce rate. Defining it in the state Constitution is pointless and unnecessary except to the politicians who feel compelled to assume the mantle of moral authority.
Still, that’s their business. If only the General Assembly had used some restraint and deleted what comes next:
“This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”
Apparently fags visiting each other in the hospital in Virginia is such a problem that it requires the full-throated support of the GOP and an amendment to the state Constitution. But hey- let’s remember the real problem here- it is wrong to out Larry Craig.
I was going to go through and list the iniatives state by state, but why bother. Here is a summary:
With the mid-term elections just weeks away, experts are predicting at least five proposed state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage will pass.
But fights in three other states — Arizona, South Dakota and Wisconsin — are competitive and too close to call, sources said.
Political experts said voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia were likely to approve the constitutional bans next month.
“If there’s going to be a victory for the LGBT community, it’s going to be in Wisconsin,” said Dan Pinello, a City University of New York government professor and author of “America’s Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage.”
Again, I don’t approve of people being outed. But I am not the one running around using gay bashing and attempting to marginalize people simply because of their sexual orientation. Was outing Larry Craig mean and personal and wrong? Well, yeah. But no meaner than the conscious decision to villainize a large segment of our society.
So excuse me if I save my outrage and my pity for someone other than Larry Craig. And, I am willing to bet, if the GOP and their supporters would stop the politically motivated gay bashing, the ‘outings’ of gay Republicans would stop.
*** Update ***
But, hey- Gay Marriage bans aren’t all bad:
Ohio is one of those states that in a haze of gay panic (“OMG WTF! Teh gayz wants the marry!!!!11!!!!ONE!1!!”) passed a state constitutional amendment that not only defined marriage as between a man and a woman but went out of its way to make sure no other relationship could ever have the same rights and privileges as marriage. Yes, that sure showed the homos a thing or two — now they’ll have no choice in Ohio but to have the empty personal lives devoid of meaningful relationships that the particularly hateful have always demanded they have.
But it also means that when a straight male jackass beats the crap out of his live-in girlfriend, you know, maybe because she just wouldn’t listen, he can argue to the Ohio Supreme Court, as one Michael Carswell is doing after he was indicted on felony domestic violence, that he ought not be charged with the crime in question. Because the law covers “people living as a spouse” — and as we all know, no one in Ohio can live as a spouse except a spouse.
So go ahead, Ohio jackasses! Beat the crap out of your girlfriends! The worst you can be charged with is misdemeanor assault! You can probably talk your sentencing down to a fine and 15 hours of picking trash off the highway. Plus, it’s more difficult for your girlfriend to get a restraining order against you, which makes it easier for you to keep her in line. And remember, guys, nothing sticks it to the fags wishing for the rights and protections marriage provides than a straight man kicking in the ribs of his live-in lady. Yes, that’ll show ’em. That’ll show them all.
***Meanwhile, the Citizens for Community Values, one of the conservative groups that helped pass the anti-gay amendment in Ohio, and “officially Associated with Focus on the Family and Family Research Council as a Family Policy Council in Ohio,” has filed an amicus brief supporting the guy who is charged with beating the crap out of his girlfriend. Naturally, the Citizens for Community Values isn’t arguing for unmarried men methodically abusing their girlfriends, per se. It’s just that the sanctity of marriage is so important to protect that if it means some shameless hussy living outside the sanctifying grace of matrimony has to forgo the full protection of the law when her guy pushes her down the stairs, well. Some sacrifices have to be made. Unless, of course, she was pregnant at the time. In which case I’m sure all these fine folks would be happy to charge the guy with endangering a fetus. One has to prioritize one’s community values.
Sigh.
jeff
John Scalzi discussed one unintended consequence of the Ohio Gay Marriage amendment here and how beating up your girlfriend may now only be a misdemeanor because living together is not being married so domestic violence laws do not count.
Pb
Well, I can’t speak for everyone who might conceivably out a gay Republican, of course, but in this case it probably would never have happened–Mike Rogers has said as much, that it’s the hypocrisy.
DoubtingThomas
As a gay man I think I can speak on this: Anyone who chooses public life deserves to be outed. You may think it a privacy matter, but get real—this country gave up privacy rights years ago and every politician or person who works closely with politicians can expect everything contraversial in their past or present to be revealed. It may be wrong to out someone without their permission, but it is the best thing for them in the long run. I think if you polled gays who had been outed 2 years after they were outed they would say looking back, that although difficult and possibly embarassing to some at the time, in the end they are glad they are no longer in the closet. It takes a huge toll hiding your sexuality. Living in the closet is scary and frightening and emasculating. You are what you are and if someone has to push you out, so be it. Harsh, yes, but this is no longer the land of milk and honey and to pretend otherwise is naive.
ThymeZone
That, of course, is a deliberate blurring of the line between marriage as defined by a church, and marriage as defined in law. Marriage as defined in law cannot be limited to man-woman marriage unless one shrugs away equal protection. Marriage in church …. who gives a crap what a church thinks marriage is? That’s not the government’s concern.
“Defense of Marriage” basically says that Equal Protection can be swept away in the zeal to provide legal cover for church definitions of marriage.
Remfin
The Ohio ban is, in fact, that bad. It even makes joint ownership of property illegal in certain situations…business partnerships…all kinds of things. At some point it’s going to get overturned on national grounds for inteference with Commerce or something. It’s so bad we have 2 Republican Senators and a Republican Governor and in 2004 ALL of them put out commercials and editorials saying NOT to vote for it — of course, it passed anyway, since voters didn’t even bother to read the 2nd paragraph, or if they did they didn’t understand it
Pharniel
michigan one is similarly as bad.
my ass burns with the idiocy
Face
I’ve said this before, but how does one define man and woman? The amendment doesn’t do so. It doesn’t say anything about sex-changes, hermaphrodites, etc.
While not a big population, the lack of a legal def based on either phenotype or genotype could be a huge prob.
r€nato
We could save ourselves a whole lot of trouble if we would just call the civil ceremony a ‘civil union’ for everyone – gays and straights – and the church ceremony a ‘marriage’.
Of course that is much too sensible a solution to ever be seriously considered.