“Mommy, Daddy, why are those two men holding hands?”
“Because they are friends.”
Next fucking question?
Anybody that would use the word “expose” to describe taking a child to Disneyland on Gay Day is a fucking moronic idiot. “Did you take the kids to Disneyland this year, Helen?” “Oh no, it was Gay Day and we were afraid little Sally might come down with a case of gay if we took her.”
You’re being an ass now, Dewey. You’re indulging in a stereotype that gays are inherently lascivious and can’t control their behavior. I submit that you’re in no more danger of seeing risque behavior from the gay folk at Disney than you would of any heterosexual couple of the same age. You’re more likely to see inappropriate behavior from straight teens than from adult homosexuals at Disney.
That’s a crock of shit. A nominee’s character is an entirely legitimate qualification for public office. If Pryor believed that blacks are genetically inferior, that hispanics are wetbacks, and the Jews killed Jesus, that would damn well be a reasonable subject of inquiry before the Senate. Same thing with homosexuality.
I would say that if a parent has that much of a hangup about it then they’re really not that enlightened or tolerant after all…and how could we be sure that a judge would not permit his “irrational hangups” to influence his decisions?
In fact, I just thought of a good example of what I’m talking about. Go rent Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?. Spencer Tracy is a perfectly enlightened champion of racial equality, who has been outspoken on that issue in his newspaper. But when his daughter brings home her fiance…well, suddenly things are a little more uncomfortable. Does that make Tracy’s character a bigot? If Tracy’s character was being nominated for a federal judgeship, would knowledge of his reaction to his daughter’s engagement suddenly be relevant to the question of his future performance on the bench? Suppose he hadn’t come to terms with his daughter’s engagement that evening – suppose it took him a few months or even years to fully accept it. Is all his prior work on behalf of blacks suddenly suspect because of that?
Take it easy, Homebrew. Gay Pride events are not often noted for their straightlaced (ha!) sensibilities. I would suggest that Dewey’s concern about risque behavior is a more or less legitimate one, though I do not believe it has any application at the particular event under discussion. Dewey’s not, in my experience, a bigot in any way, shape, or form.
Yes, it does. Indeed, the very point of the movie is to explore the disconnect between a person’s ideals and his underlying prejudice. That doesn’t mean we are a slave to those underlying feelings, as Tracey’s eventual acceptance of Poitier demonstrates, but it does mean that we are responsible for both our ideals and our prejudices.
I never said that gays are inherently lascivious or that they couldn’t control their behavior.
But is foolish to deny that there is a segment of the gay community that sees risque public displays as a positive and empowering statement of their sexuality. The Gay Pride Parade’s a good example: certainly, the overwhelming majority of participants are more or less restrained in their expression. But many aren’t, and I have no problem with a parent keeping his younger kids from seeing that sort of thing.
Any public celebration of gay pride is likely to have at least some of that element present, precisely because some folks find that kind of display to be empowering and because gay pride events are a logical place to make those kinds of displays. More power to 'em. But don’t get upset when someone elects to keep their four year old away from events where such displays might occur.
What you appear to be demanding is not just that a judge be honest and fair with the litigants that appear before him in court, but also that he be a perfect emblem of tolerance in every situation, no matter how personal, and that he feel no difficulty or awkwardness in demonstrating that tolerance in every situation that is presented to him. Which is absurd. He’s nominated for a judgeship, not sainthood.
Yeah, in a metaphysical sense, but like I said, we’re nominating judges, not saints. On the basis of the first half of the film, would you deny Tracy a seat on the federal bench?
Every day is a gay day at Disney!
Gay days are pretty much like every other day. I’ve never heard any legitimate complaints about gay days. Legitimate would be something illegal or lacivious. Honestly, Disney doesn’t put up with much crap from anyone. They’re family friendly, even if that means busting some heads!
If men holding hands is a problem, just say “honey, they’re European.” 
“Mommy, why do Europeans wear short shorts and tank tops?”
OUCH! Quit poking me!
I still don’t see the race / orientation comparison as a legitimate metaphor. Perhaps you feel the private is private argument is a crock of shit because your opinions about homosexuality are more enlightened and more popular than Pryor’s. But even so, Feingold didn’t have to take that line of questioning. I’m sure you’ll concede there are many personal and private decisions people make in their lives that could be unpopular and politically damaging. Whether it be recreational sex, swinging, a belief in astrology, devil-worship or the fact he put his parents in a nursing home: I see no reason why nominees for public office really need to be grilled on them, especially when he already has a clear, public audit trail to look into.
More like…
“Mommy, Daddy, why are those two men holding hands?”
“Because they’re sinners.”
“YAAAAY! The Lord said to Noah, go build yourself an arky, arky…”
No. But with Pryor, we’re talking about a guy whose ideals and his prejudice appear to coincide quite well. Remember, this is the guy who wants to send Alabamans to jail for possessing vibrators.
As I said, a nominee’s character is fair game for inquiry during the confirmation process. If Senator Feingold had information that Pryor snorted coke out of the buttcracks of $50 whores, it would be perfectly appropriate to ask about that “personal and private decision” and give it due weight when deciding whether the man was fit for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Because character is not necessarily reflected in a nominee’s public record.
If Pryor’s record shows intolerance, then there is no need to delve into his choice of vacation timing. If his record doesn’t show intolerance, then asking about his vacation timing is the equivelant of grilling Tracy’s character on his reaction to Sidney Poitier. **
Shame on you, you really should know better – we discussed this issue some time ago.
As you know, the law in question does not ban possession of vibrators, but their sale. And also as you full well know, the AG is obligated to defend the laws passed by the state legislature when they come under attack. Pryor may well be opposed to vibrators, but his defense of the anti-vibrator law is not evidence of that fact. You of all people should know better than to evaluate a lawyer’s personal beliefs based on the arguments he advances on behalf of his clients.
Ya can’t possess a vibrator if you can’t first purchase one. They don’t grow on trees, you know. 
Incidentally, you’re getting right straight back into that habit you have of defending indefensible policies on the basis of metaphysically defensible legal theories. Let’s not go there, shall we? Pryor’s anti-gay, anti-vibrator legal record speaks clearly of his preference for anti-gay, anti-vibrator policies. Try not to pretend otherwise.
Internet, mail-order and driving to Mississippi or Florida remain viable options in the state of Alabama. The law is not a ban on ownership. You misstated the law.**
A lawyer’s ethical duty to his client to defend it from legal attack is a “metaphysical legal theory”? Bullshit. An AG is obligated to defend the laws of his state from legal challenge, regardless of how he personally feels about those laws. It would be unethical for an AG to do otherwise.
If you personally, morally approve of every law you’ve ever cited on a client’s behalf, congratulations. You are truly blessed. You are also an incredible rarity in our profession. Just because a lawyer cites to a given law or defends a law from attack does not mean that lawyer personally approves of that law. It means he’s fulfilling his ethical obligations to his client, and nothing more.
You and Gobear were making different points you arrogant fuck. Stay out of this.