No. You’re reading waaaay too much into my statement. I did not say that I was beginning to see how gay rights=special rights. What I said was that I was beginning to see how people get the idea that gay rights=special rights. Those are very different statements.
That’s ironic on sooo many levels.
Actually, the quote was from matt_mcl.
The complete statement by matt_mcl was:
You really think that taking “our” to be “homosexual” was a wild assumption?
I have never expressed agreement with DoMA. I just don’t think that opposition from the homosexual community in and of itself should be enough to obligate anyone, gay or straight, to vote against a bill.
We will have a better world when somebody mentions a sexual orientation or ethnic background and the audience says “So?”
Outing should apply to an Excursion, like for a couple or family. And I am not talking about that huge Ford SUV! Cheers!
DoMA is anti-gay legislation, specifically engineered to deny one group of citizens the same legal protections that are afforded another. If a person of that group (i.e., a gay congressperson) were to vote in favor of such legislation, they obviously do one thing (are gay) while act in a different way (anti-gay). They’re shooting themselves in the foot, but they’re also being dishonest and disingenious elected officials. If I had hard and fast irrefutable proof of this, I would expose it.
It doesn’t. Your point?
And to answer your question:
I’m not sure why you’re nit-picking this to death. Someone who criticizes something but does it himself is a hypocrite. Disagreeing with the majority does not necessarily make you a hypocrite. Actively working to deny others what you take for yourself does.
DoMA is certainly not in the best interests of the gay community. I’m not saying there aren’t gray areas, but some of the things we’ve been talking about here are fairly clearly pro- or anti-gay.
Let’s put it this way - I would have more respect for an openly gay politician who voted for DoMA than a closeted one. I might disagree with him and lobby my damndest to get him to change his mind, but his decision is his decision. If I had evidence of a closeted politician using the same rhetoric, I would make that information known.
The other part of this is, how is making information on a public official public a “lynching?” Certainly didn’t harm Barney Frank’s career, and he was outed by the media. And Clinton survived his “outing” as well.
OK, how about knowingly, willingly and actively benefits and then turns around and decries it.
We seem to be dancing around what action does or does not justify a public outing. We both, I think, agree on what basically a hypocrite is, but we disagree on what would warrant outing someone who is behaving as such. Correct?
Actually, there isn’t a legitimate difference of opinion - DoMA actively denies a segment of the population equal treatment under the law, and because it does, it by default relegates that population to second-class status.
The statement that I’m talking about appeared immediately after your disagreement with muy statements about hypocrisy. The natural conclusion is that it was an attempt to refute those statements, but you admit that it does not do so.
What do you mean, “nit-picking this to death”? Is it too much to ask that you explain what you mean?
You still haven’t answered my question.
Yet another non sequitor.
No, i don’t think so. You seem to think that anyone who does work for the “group interest” is a hypocrite.
That’s not true. DoMA makes absolutely no distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
I explained it here, at least insomuch as I’m trying to grasp what exactly you want answered:
What part of this don’t you understand?
I am assuming you mean this series of questions you asked:
OK, in order:
I suppose they might not be, but you’d have to give me an example. If somebody criticizes eating blueberry pies and still eats them, I don’t see how that’s not being a hypocrite.
Maybe, maybe not - it would depend on the circumstances, as I’ve been saying.
In general, I’d say no, but again, there may be specific instances where I feel they are.
In general, I’d say no.
No.
Based on those questions, there is something I’d like to re-state to you - an openly gay elected official who voted for DoMA, in my opinion, is not being a hypocrite - they are already honest about who they are, where they stand, and then go about doing their elected duty. Do I disagree with them? Absolutely; but I also understand there is a wide range of opinions in the gay community about the issue. (In addition, I seriously doubt an openly gay official is going to stand in Congress and espouse cruel homophobic rhetoric.) However, if a closeted elected official were to vote in favor of DoMA (and, in turn, may be more likely to be openly anti-gay), and I knew they were gay, I’d call Barbara Walters. Why? They’ve lied to their electorate - I feel that should be exposed. Would it hurt them politically? Maybe, maybe not, but I suppose that would be up to the people who voted him or her into office in the first place - they can always vote them in again the following year.
No, and hopefully I’ve clarified that for you.
Yes, you’re right, it does. Do you believe the legislation was introduced to be anti-heterosexual, or are you really that naive? The non-married heterosexuals were included to make the bill seem more “fair” so it would pass and not seem anti-gay; it was, after all, introduced in response to the Hawiian Supreme Court deliberating over its state marriage laws regarding a same-sex couple.
**
What I don’t understand is how it answers my question.
**
Why did you leave out the very first question? All of the other questions are clarafications of that question (I figured that, considering the lack of comprehension displayed by you previously in the thread, I should spell out exactly what I was asking). My main question remains unmanswered.
**
**
No, they haven’t.
**
No, of course not. The majority of those who voted for it probably did so for anti-homosexual reasons. But that does not mean that everyone did so.
Perhaps it’s time you re-stated your question, unless you meant, when you said:
I left out the first question because I figured answering the more precise follow-up questions would suffice, but, since you insist, let’s go back. I originally wrote:
This was in reference to DoMA. You responded:
I responded:
You responded:
And then added in the rest of the questions I answered above.
My answer was not precise. I agree with both your statements, “A hypocrite is someone who criticizes something, but does that himself. It is not simply someone who disagrees with others who share one of his charecteristics.” I meant to say that I disagreed with your implication that DoMA is not anti-gay legislation; in other words, you seem to say that a gay congressperson might vote for DoMA because he does not believe in gay marriages himself, whereas I say DoMA is about more than just the issue of marriage, but rather a foot in the door to legalized discrimination. Obviously we differ on this opinion, as we’ve already discussed.
Also, looking back, it seems we’ve latched onto DoMA as the prime example of possible hypocricy, when it’s really only one example - also mentioned were closeted gay media figures who publicly decry homosexuality, cops who beat up gay suspects, mayors who harass the gay community, etc. I do agree with you there is a difference of opinion over the issue of DoMA in the gay community (although the majority does* oppose it, from all the sources I’ve seen).
I wrote:
You responded:
Then we disagree. I maintain that a closeted gay or lesbian candidate is lying to the people voting for them.
OK, so the legislation is anti-gay and anti-straight.
Probably because it was where there was the most disagreement. My main problem was that you seemed to be saying that there were “right” and “wrong” political positions, and that people don’t have the right to diasagree with you politically. Someone explicity stating that they are against homosexuality, while practicing it themselves, or beating up suspects (regardless of the reason) or abusing their power is definitely wrong, although I think that “hypocrisy” is a clearly correct term only the first case.
Perhaps in a metaphorical sense, but not literally.
No; while many of the people who supported it are anti-gay, the legislation itself is not.
Trying to extricate myself from the earlier arguments. In the interest of furthering this debate at a rational level, I have a question for both sides (meaning essentialy The Ryan and Exprix). You can assume that all of my scenarios involve public figures.
Should an atheist who goes to church while campaigning be outed.
Should someone who uses illegal drugs but passes laws against them be outed.
Should someone who uses illegal drugs, supports decriminalization and uses dugs without telling be outed.
Should someone who abuses legal drugs be outed.
Should someone who molests children but, does a lot of good for every other cause you believe in be outed.
Also I would like to state that DOMA is anti-gay legislation. What it says is that California does not have to recognize mariages in other states. There is no reason to pass it, if it had failed gays would not have the right to marry. But, what it does state is that even though other states may grant you rights, we will not honor them. I liken it to passing a bill not recognizing marriages performed in WV.
IMHO, the possibility exists, sure. DoMA is explicitly “safeguarding” the institution of marriage as a heterosexuals-only club. The army can’t seem to get its act together to provide equal opportunity for its gay servicepeople. Hell, even the Supremes say the BSA is a private organization and can discriminate as they see fit. Precedents are powerful things in government. (Not to say that there haven’t been great strides in the movement for equal rights - Vermont being a shining example - but there is still a long way to go.)
Stop disagreeing with me! If someone’s going to disagree with me I at least expect them to be genuine about it and not hide behind falsehoods; I can only respect them if they’re disagreeing honestly.
Semantically you may technically be right about the definition of “hypocrisy,” but my concern is about honesty among our public figures, particularly those in government (yeah, yeah, like that’s ever going to happen, but still…).
I see failure to disclose as lying. A public official’s private life, for better or for worse, is open to public scrutiny in today’s society.
Please explain to me how DoMA is not anti-gay legislation.
(I’m going to use “he” because it’s easier to type.) This needs clarification: Is he honest about going to church, or is he doing it covertly? Is he anti-church, anti-atheism, or neutral?
Well at least in the second scenario he’s at least honest about his intent, but in both cases he’s still doing it secretly, and, more basic, what he’s doing is against the law. For both reasons he should be exposed.
In both cases yes. Abuse of drugs is not only illegal, but it hinders his ability to effectively perform his job duties, and child molestation is a most heinous crime - I’m surprised you even asked.
You’re speaking specifically of Prop. 22 (the Knight initiative) that was passed in California. We were referring to the national Defense of Marriage Act passed in DC which specifically states that “marriage” is reserved for being between a man and a woman only. For this reason, too, California’s proposition was redundant.
You mean, someone who creates an outward appearance of being Christian but is secretly an atheist? I don’t think that such a person’s religious beliefs is a legitimate issue unless the person makes them so (e.g., the candidate tries to use his church attendance to his political advantage).
That’s atough question, but I’d say no.
No.
Only if it affects their suitability for the office.
I’m very suspicious of any argument that relies on associating an issue with other issues rather than debating the original issue on its own merits. For instance, there are some people that argue for affirmative action on the basis that getting rid of it is going “backwards” and going “backwards” eventually one gets to the point where slavery was legal, and since slavery was bad, getting rid of affirmative action is bad.
What if a homosexual person genuinely is opposed to same-sex marriage?
You may very well see it that way, but that doesn’t make it true.
Is this debate about what is, or what should be?
It’s rather hard to prove a negative, but: DoMA does not in any way interfere with people’s ability to be gay. It does not make any direct distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Esprix, I’d like to alter that statement slightly: a public official’s private life is of public concern when he banks on it in order to buy votes.
“If an individual presents himself to the public for election as a happily married father of three, then he has made his weekend with a secretary or his visit to a prostitute of either sex a matter of public interest. If he makes a point of drinking milk in public, then the public will want to know whenever he gets drunk. If he buys his suits at Wal-Mart for the cameras, then proceeds to holiday on rich men’s yachts, he will be photographed with telephoto lenses.”* And if he adopts a position of moral superiority over homosexuals, it becomes a matter of public concern whether he is homosexual or not.
I do see your and matt_mcl’s point here – if said politician were to use something that they lie to the public about as a campaign/political issue, it has more merit than if they don’t. If the above example were to vote to restrict religious freedom while publicly maintaining his atheism, and a Christian were to have pictures of him attending Sunday morning mass, I’d say more power to the Christian for taking it to the papers, and I’d also add the politician would seem to be shooting himself in the foot for legislating against something that’s important to him.
You don’t mind a government official conducting illegal activities? I’m the last person to be labelled anti-drug, but if it’s on the books, it’s the law, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a publicly-elected official to obey the law, regardless of his or my personal opinion of the law.
Be suspicious all you like, but that’s part of the way politics works – everything is related. On its own merits, however, DoMA specifically limits rights to one group of people, and that makes me suspicious.
There are a few who do – more power to them. But I don’t expect them to lie to me about it.
Didn’t say it did – I was just giving my opinion.
I assumed both. Which do you think it is?
It still amazes me that you don’t see DoMA as relegating gay and lesbian people as second-class. An act of Congress has directly limited the rights of a defined group of people, intimately interfering in their most personal of relationships, and denying them equal treatment under the law. Perhaps it’s just a difference of opinion, but it amazes me nonetheless.
I have made these noises before, on long-dormant threads, but let me make a very important point again. In my considered opinion, the “Defense of Marriage Act” is not merely unconstitutional but a major violation of the Constitutional rights of all Americans on a scale not seen since 1801. And regardless of your feelings about gay rights (I support them; others do not – their privilege), it sets a truly dangerous precedent.
Allow me to quote from the U.S. Constitution:
Read this very carefully. This is the provision that says that you can own land, stocks, etc. anywhere in the U.S., or get married or divorced anywhere in the U.S., and whatever your rights and privileges are as regards your locale, the rest of the country must respect them. If I own land in Berks County, PA, and want to sell it to Welfers, and to appoint Esprix my attorney-in-fact to handle the sale, and they both agree to participate, I can go to the nearest notary here, do up a power of attorney appointing Esprix, send it to him with the deed, and relax, knowing that the NC power will be honored in PA, the transfer of title under PA law will be recognized by NC, and so on.
Unless, says DoMA, I decide to take it into my head to run off to Vermont with Esprix and establish a civil union with him.
Congress in DoMA is saying that Vermont has no right to permit two American citizens to form a civil union that will be honored throughout America, unless they happen to be of opposite sexes. And Article IV, Section 1 guarantees Vermont’s right to make such a decision and have it honored, and Section 2, backed up by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees Vermont’s residents the right to have their rights under Vermont law recognized as such elsewhere. In other words, if Louisiana or Utah chooses not to permit “civil unions” to occur in their state, that’s their right as states. But if Vermont so chooses, that’s its right as a state. And its decisions as regards the people and things over whom it has sovereign jurisdiction are required to be given “full faith and credit” by the other 49 states.
Okay, we are working specifically in the forum of gays creating pseudo-marriages here. But if DoMA is constitutionally valid, every single state decision whatsoever is subject to the opinion of Trent Lott, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Helms, Barney Frank, and the majority of 529 of their colleagues as to whether it will be recognized elsewhere. If the Supreme Court upholds DoMA, I would seriously consider driving out to I-95 and checking motels, and filing complaints against every out-of-state plate for suspicion of fornication (still officially illegal in NC, though never enforced). Then watch hundreds of people prove that they were in fact married in some other state and entitled to sleep together. And I’d question, based on DoMA, whether each of those out-of-state marriages is legal in NC.
If I were a Senator or Representative from Delaware, I’d be fighting to repeal DoMA, since it provides precedent for determining that Delaware corporations are not “legal persons” under other states with other statutes for incorporation. And if you own any stock in one of the myriad corporations with legal residence in Delaware, you could be separately liable for every lawsuit against that corporation…times 50, since the decision of one state court will not necessarily be bindin in the other 49 states.
Admittedly, I am using reductio ad extremum here. But if Congress can nullify “full faith and credit” at its pleasure in one case, it can do it whenever it takes its mind to.
Congress’s one power under Article IV is to establish a standard way in which one proves what a given state decided, and how that will take effect. It does not have the power to nullify the decisions of a state in the other 49 states. On gay marriages or any other issue.
And that, not whether two gay people can legally contract a pseudo-marriage in one state and have that legal union recognized somewhere else, is what is truly scary about DoMA.
Everything you cite is why every constitutional expert I’ve heard say that the first challenge, which will likely come out of Vermont, DoMA is gone. What happens afterwards, however, is anyone’s guess, particularly because “civil unions” are not the same as “marriages.”
Both reasons are truly scary, to me at least - end-running around the full faith and credit clause, and thereby undermining states’ rights, and denying equal treatment under the law to an entire class of American citizens. For both reasons people should be up in arms about this legislation.
Make no mistake, though, Poly - DoMA started very specifically as a reaction to the possibility of same-sex marriages in Hawaii, so although it’s turned out to be anti-states and anti-unmarried heterosexuals as well, it started out as knee-jerk anti-gay.
(quote) Jodie Foster and Gladiator star Russell Crowe have been recently seen in each other’s company publicly, and have been reported as being very amorous. Of course, he is also followed by gay rumors, so maybe they’re both beards.
(/quote)
I think Meg Ryan is the one carrying on with Russell Crow. Until recently, she was married to Dennis Quaid. I’ve heard that Jodie is gay for many years. Not that there’s anything wrong with that;)
I would evaluate such behavor on a case-by-case basis.
I do not find law and morality to be synomynous.
**
I don’t see the definition of lying as subjective as you make it out to be.
**
Perhaps it’s because it doesn’t.
**
No, not rights, privilidges.
**
Really? You consider the term “homosexual” to be well-defined?
**
DoMA does not interfere with any intimite relationships; it only interferes with civil relationships.
**
You aren’t asking for equal treatment. Equal treatment would be treating homosexuals in different-sex marriages the same as hetreosexuals in different-sex marriages. What you’re asking for is equivalent treatemnt.
You say that DoMA creates a group of second class citizens. Just who is in this group?
Person A is homosexual. He has found a man that he wants to form a family with. He thinks that this man would make a good father to adopted children, and he wants the government to recognize their union.
Person B is homosexual. He has found a woman that he wants to form a family with. He thinks she would make a good mother to his children. He has a strong frienship with her, and desires to sexually reproduce with her, but does not hjave sexual feelings *per se *towards her. He wants to marry her.
Person C is heterosexual, but everything else about Person A is true of him as well.
Person D is asexual. He might one day be in the situation of Person B or person C, of choosing a partner for completely non-sexual reasons, and would want to marry this person.
Which of these is in this “second citizenship” class?
If someone’s going to disagree with me I at least expect them to be genuine about it and not hide behind falsehoods; I can only respect them if they’re disagreeing honestly.