I do not think that the question whether gay is a choice or inherent is relevant for the purpose of acheiving all the rights on the gay agenda ONLY if we are limited to the means of achieving these goals through the legislative process or through voter referendum; what largely matters there is the will of a majority of legislators (hopefully faithfully representing the views of the people) or a majority of the people. In this case, if done by majority will, it is a granted right.
However, for the approach that it is a pre-existing right and enforcing those rights through the courts it does matter a great deal. It is far more likely that an equal protection argument would succeed in the courts with evidence backing the claim that gays are born and do not choose it. Most of the suspect classes the Supreme Court has recognized involve matters one cannot choose with the exception of religion. This choice to change religion though is definitely a heavy choice, religion is usually ingrained from a young age. Religion also has had exclusive protection in the first amendment since the earliest days of our constitutional republic. Gay isn’t specifically enshrined as protected.
Gay activists seek to preserve the notion that gay is innate rather than chosen, in part because an equal proitection argument is much harder to frame if its a choice. Ergo, the gay cause is better off if there is NOT a lot of publicity and attention given to people who believe its a choice.
If we adopt an analysis that rights must be granted for lifestyle choices then there are all kinds of other groups that would have to be recognized as well, and it gets really really thorny. It seems fundamentally unfair, if gay is a choice, that we’d extend this right to only gays, who aren’t special. But if gays can argue they alone of the alternative lifestyles are compelled, rather than choosing, the question is a lot easier.
Strict strutiny is applied to religious discrimination because freedom of exercise is a fundamental right, not because religion is a suspect class.
I highly doubt SCOTUS will jump sexual orientation into the suspect classifications, even if it finds homosexuals to be a discrete and insular minority. They’ll move it into the intermediate scrutiny class.
It would be more of a threat if a lot of people knew who Cynthia Nixon was, I guess.
I would go out on a limb here and suggest most Americans wouldn’t know the name, that the percentage who know the name drops rapidly the further you get away from the base of people who have a liberal and tolerant attitude towards homosexuality no matter what yesterday’s TV stars think, and that Cynthia Nixon-aware people are a demographic that’s dropping every year. “That other woman on Sex and the City - no, not the pretty brunette, the other one, with shorter hair” isn’t a big public opinion swayer.
My problem with gay activists taking the “born that way” tack as a policy position is that there’s no evidence for it, and it tends to establish them as liars. And given that they lied about the extent and communicability of AIDs among heterosexuals during the early days of the AIDs crisis, the net result will ultimately be that gay activities in particular and gays in general will lose credibility. (Granted, the AIDS lie was the whitest white lie ever told, gay people were dying and no one cared, the gay activists correctly inferred that their best hope of getting action was to link AIDs to the possibility of a heterosexual epidemic. But still, it was a lie.)
The problem is, gay activists become less believable every time they embrace a whopper. Don’t wanna wind up with the general respect accorded Fox News commentators and such. It could happen.
Well, there’s some evidence, but you are correct that it hasn’t been proven definitively. At most, there may be some genetic influence.
The elephant in the room is that, if Nixon could choose to be gay, then presumably she could choose to be straight also, and others could as well. And the gay community has spent a lot of time debunking the ex-gay movement, and has a lot invested in that emotionally.
I wonder if it makes a difference that Nixon is a woman. ISTM that bisexuality in women is more acceptable than in men, for a variety of reasons. Wasn’t it Anne Heche who was gay for a while, or married to Ellen DeGeneres, or am I misrembering?
already has. usually I’m thinking “here we go again” when the gay rights subject comes up…and I’m far from alone.
Rather than the “inevitable success” gay marriage nationwide, I believe there will come a backlash, ultimately doing the gay cause more harm than good.
The problem is that she is using the words incorrectly, as far as I can tell, or we are interpreting them incorrectly.
When someone says “I"m gay” it usually means that they are attracted to the same sex. Ms. Nixon seems to be using it as “I’m in a same-sex relationship,” which is what gets confusing.
Does Ms. Nixon choose to be attracted to women or men at will? I would hazard to guess that no, she does not. Can anyone choose to be attracted to the same or opposite sex at will? If, when gazing upon a beautiful woman, can an otherwise straight man suddenly decide to become gay, and find her sexually uninteresting? Again, I would hazard to guess that the answer is no.
Now maybe I’m wrong. Maybe she really is claiming that she chooses to be attracted to women, and if this is true, it is a rare if not unique ability to her.
I suppose that’s possible, but it certainly would be a complete turn around from the trend as it stands. And from every other civil rights struggle, you know… ever.
Yes, but all others have ahd the distinction of being unequivacally correct in their facts. If the “majority” who support gay rights to marry ever knew that there really is little to no evidence that gays are “born that way,” and that their good will had been taken advantage of, it is entirely possible.
Besides, it doesn’t appear to me that gay marriage is “winning” when more than half of the states have taken action against it.
Look, Republicans aren’t even bringing up the gay marriage scare anymore, because it loses them votes; a HUGE difference from a few years ago when it was considered a great “get the vote out” tactic. And if you look at support for gay rights among younger people, its practically universal. As those people age, some will become more conservative, to be sure, but it would have to be an unprecedented landslide to keep gay civil rights from becoming a reality in America (thank god!). The reason old conservative assholes are scrambling to pass these laws is because they know they are rapidly being outnumbered and they want to make it as hard as possible.
And I would like some cites on these supposed “lies” that say people aren’t born gay. The current thinking is that NO ONE KNOWS what makes someone gay, and it shouldn’t matter anyway, and that is absolutely what every single gay rights organization I know of says. Cites or shut it.
As one article on this subject concluded, maybe people are simply different on this issue, as on so many others. Maybe most people can’t choose, but she can. Just another way that human beings vary.
Not really. Check out Newt and Romney’s positions on gay marriageon this site. Pretty damn hard core. Does NOT look like the stances of people afraid of losing votes. Granted, they are doing primary politics, their positions may be “adjusted” on the general election, but it would be hard for them to show any tolerance at all and not be considered flip-floppers.
NO ONE KNOWS= lack of evidence. I am citing your post. Shut it or become reasonable in your argument. Whether it shouldn’t matter is limited to the means of achieving the goal, as I said; if you want a popular vote or legislative action it does not matter. If you have a fantasy the U.S. S. Ct. will be quoting your reasoning, you’d better stick to “born that way” and hope some convincing evidence will come along.
She isn’t the first well-known person to take this POV, and not the first time someone mentioned it on GD. (Oddly enough, that other time was also a woman.)
Not a lot’s changed since then, it seems; a lot of the same questions remain.
Tell ya what, Miller, I’m not so unreasonable. We’d agree in some aspects of this argument. I do not like DOMA insofar that it violates the full faith and credit clause. As a 10th amendment supporter I am all in favor of different states having different laws; it seems beautiful to me that if you don’t like the law where you are you go somewhere that you do like it. And like I said, I believe in full faith and credit so you could marry in a state that allows it and have no problem recognizing that. What’s wrong with some states being friendly to gays and others not quite so friendly? I mean I love the idea that some states might legalize marijuana while others don’t. If you feel that strongly then, go where you like it!
Couldn’t America have common ground somehow? Maybe along these lines?