Gay Day for Gays.

[Ed Hudgins]

Gay Day for Gays.

by Edward Hudgins

May 10, 2012 -- President Obama’s announcement that he supports same-sex marriage is likely to mean that in a decade or two this will no longer be a major public policy issue. Individuals of whatever gender will be able to enter into marriage contracts.

But in the short term the politics will be problematic, to say the least.

Allowing gays to enter into such contracts in no way limits the liberty of others—including those with religious objections to such unions—to marry, not marry, or anything else. Conservatives who are for limited government thus should leave such choices to individuals and focus on paring back all the other government intrusions into our lives and wallets.

In my commentary “Questions for Conservatives about Gay Marriage and Sock Drawers,” I argued that those who do object in most cases wouldn’t even know if there was a legal paper with the letters M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E on it somewhere in the house of a gay couple, and that they should live and let live. But to give you an idea of the moral sense of many of those individuals, on the conservative Free Republic discussion board for my reasoned opinion I was called a “pimp” and “faggot” (my marriage to a woman and fatherhood of two daughters notwithstanding) and banned from posting there, which I now wear as a badge of honor.

The timing of Obama’s announcement was certainly political. Perhaps he sees that he’s lost many morally traditional independent and Democratic voters anyway, so he wants to focus on energize his own disillusioned base.

Unfortunately, many Republicans will make this symbolic issue a major campaign theme. This will energize some conservative voters by stoking the Santorum “I’m from the government and I’m here to tell you how to live your life” arrogance and pretense that has no place in the culture of a free society. It will also alienate those independent voters who are concerned with bread-and-butter issues and the disastrous Obama economy but who rightly distrust those Republicans obsessed with micromanaging our bedrooms.

If Republicans take the White House and Congress, many conservatives will crow about a mandate for their social agenda. But the good news is that younger Americans are more libertarian, and as they become the majority, the opposition to same-sex marriage will fade.

Obama has told his fellow Democrats that who one marries should be a matter for individuals, not government. Too bad there’s no Barry Goldwater today to say the same to Republicans.

[Selene]

Too bad there’s no Barry Goldwater today to say the same to Republicans.

Ed:

Yes. It is more than a real tragedy. It is treachery to the basic elements of that Taft-Goldwater classical liberal/libertarian core of a once great party.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Too bad there’s no Barry Goldwater today to say the same to Republicans.

Ed:

Yes. It is more than a real tragedy. It is treachery to the basic elements of that Taft-Goldwater classical liberal/libertarian core of a once great party.

Adam

After the 1964 election I gave up on the Republicans. Goldwater was the last of the true breed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

In my commentary “Questions for Conservatives about Gay Marriage and Sock Drawers,” I argued that those who do object in most cases wouldn’t even know if there was a legal paper with the letters M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E on it somewhere in the house of a gay couple, and that they should live and let live. But to give you an idea of the moral sense of many of those individuals, on the conservative Free Republic discussion board for my reasoned opinion I was called a “pimp” and “faggot” (my marriage to a woman and fatherhood of two daughters notwithstanding) and banned from posting there, which I now wear as a badge of honor.

The article shows the foresight that can come from not being a politician. Hudgins owes nothing to the Republican Party, neither loyalty nor acquiescence. I salute his independence and the punch of the telling observation above.

Politicians need to get elected. Politicians need 'support.' Politicians will pander, dress up as clowns, swim to the bottom of the pond, lie, evade, swerve, obfuscate and do all manner of other neg/positive, ig/noble, non/Objectivish things.

Ed is no politician in the sense of operative for Party interests (I think his circles of trust are well-staked and defended). I respect those like Ed under the Big O, those who respect Ayn Rand and yet who respect foremost the evidence of their senses (allied with best reason). I frankly loathe Ed's 'politics' in the sense of partisan left/right boilerplate, but hey, I am a Socialist and captive of Canada ... my obvious bias and sensitivity should not render me blind and deaf and unappreciative of his humanity and his perceptions.

As I applaud Diana for occasional forays into nondenominational reasoning, I applaud clear sight.

My senses, even once adjusted for the distortion of my bias goggles and inbuilt temperament lenses, even after discounting the insidious effects of my Socialism and my Canadianism -- my senses tell me that this year's crop of Republican candidates and policies shows just how willing they are to do anything, say anything, to be elected, and to fuck around with settled freedoms.

The 'gay thing,' like the 'woman thing' is generational and enduring. The newest generation is not interested in restricting reproductive health services (even Catholics, even Latinos, even gasp Republicans) or same-sex partnerships. The only holdouts are the Tea Partiers, who prefer to live in the glory of the 18th century, when men were men, women were women, and gawd revealed the Constitution to America.

I would have thought that the pandering sluts and creepy nose-in-other-peoples'-crotches legislators of the GOP would attract scorn and critical scrutiny here at a site for Independent Objectivish things.

I thought that the Transvaginal Express (coming to 26 states with Republican administrat9ons near you!) would attract the kind of eviscerating scorn Ayn Rand was good at -- a no holds barred takedown of Mr Magic Pants Plutocrat Slut for Wall Street and the other two-faced sluts, gigolos, lap-dancers and hypocrites (yes, Hi, Governor of Virginia!).

But no. Off to the altar goes Mitt and Newt and Rick and Michael and Adam and otherwise wise and discerning people. Perhaps Ed will next be labelled 'biased' or otherwise dismissed as a tool or slave of Them/The Media/Not-Glenn Bad haters. Me, I think we bear responsibility for who we get into bed with. As when Diana slunk into bed with the Emperor of SOLO, sometimes politics makes strange bedfellows.

Thanks, Ed. You got class and integrity enough to mention the big fat lumbering sleazebag Christian nut-fed elephant in the room ... while not insulting delicate socialists like myself.

Edited May 13, 2012 by william.scherk

[9thdoctor]

But to give you an idea of the moral sense of many of those individuals, on the conservative Free Republic discussion board for my reasoned opinion I was called a “pimp” and “faggot” (my marriage to a woman and fatherhood of two daughters notwithstanding) and banned from posting there, which I now wear as a badge of honor.

How about a link? Sounds entertaining!

Here’s a piece taking Obama to task for invoking states rights when it comes to gay marriage, while ignoring them on marijuana.

http://reason.com/bl...nemy-in-gay-mar

Is the electorate perceptive enough to see that when a politician of Obama’s ilk says something like this in an election year, that he’s already planning a volte-face for next year? Not that I have a formed opinion on whether gay marriage ought to be a states rights issue, it’s just a matter of perceiving political maneuvers in progress.

[william.scherk]

Ed seems to be busy with the pumps and outflow valves over at Lindsay's sewage farm, with a few good comments addressed to those with brains who linger at SOLO.

He also gets to read and react to statements like this: It's not as if gays are being marched off to concentration camps ... It just shows you how good they've got it.

http://www.solopassi...#comment-109892

-- and: n the UK, homosexuals are one the most dominant lobby groups next to pensioners, feminists and the racism sensitive.

Oh, Ed, we hardly knew you. Come back, come back to Marlboro country.

Edited May 15, 2012 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

The man whom I consult in cases of extreme wit, the only doctor whom I tend to obey, says, "Not that I have a formed opinion on whether gay marriage ought to be a states rights issue, it’s just a matter of perceiving political maneuvers in progress."

Very close to my sentiments, once you remove my Obama-goggles. Because these issues in Canada were settled the slow way, through Trudeau-era policies set in the Charter, decided in courts. So, in Canada, it does not matter. We tend to not revisit a right once notched. Alberta was fiercely, fiercely opposed to homosexual marriage until the court said whoa. Alberta public opinion lurched heavily to do-not-give-a-shit afterwards. Public policy decisions rendered from a long process of suits and countersuits and lengthy challenges and appeals, on numerous social fronts began long ago, and are now decided.

A long way of saying that the only game in town for Canadians on social issues is America. All our playoffs are over except polygamy.

WIth the Bawdy House provisions of the criminal code struck down,** we have few remaining areas to continue the mad socialist equality rampage. We are kind of stalled, with Argentina, at full public health services for the transgendered. Our PM said recently that his government would not revisit gay marriage, and failed to note his personal objections (of fierce longstanding stripe). Snoo ooze.

There is no action up here.

So, I thought Ed perfectly captured the Train She's a Coming moment for the USA in what will not likely be a circus, but a stately measured curbwallow of a campaign, shrill, emotive and thrilling to the bone, unlike our melodramatic socialism. As a sideshow or a Bearded Lady attraction, the USA gay thing is a rare salt to our dull legal-political salad up north. A very modern interesting moment in America when it is okay to talk about gay 'rights' (in the Charter sense) in the foremost campaign, and for Objectivish alike to advise the advanced in years that new generations give not a shit. As as sideshow I hope gaywise the campaign is a snooze and conservatives (social) stick to decaf ...but the Santorum lives and may strike again.

Look at how things are settled in a Royal nation like ours.; The Crown said, let the people marry in Alberta, and so they did. The Crown decided there could be no more legislation on abortion in Canada, and there wasn't.

Dull. That is why we collect long guns. Not afraid of change, just afraid of sudden movement. So we snoozed our way to purely social liberties still unworkable under 'state' legal regimes. It will take longer for change in America, because, as I intuit from the Doctor's remarks, a state can restrict and legislate or free up and deregulate where and what the hell it wants in some instances, and should.**

So in warm, sunny and deeply socialist New England states (cursed, no doubt, with stains of Canada and Kerouac), no one now gives a shit about gay marriage or ladies' bits and abortion insurance. But in Virginia, the mad Xtian douchebag government does, and legislates widely, wildly. We have no equivalent to Rachel Maddows and the Transvaginal Express, because we are sickeningly boring and have destroyed our society and our peoples' wills. At least with regard to social liberties.

Sad but true, we can but watch as y'all catch up.

____

** another sad legal fact of the Crown and our hideously confederated state, the feds have the Code. So no 'state' may override either the Charter or the Feds or the Courts -- which all carry the weight of this heavy heavy thing called The Crown. So, 'states rights' is a Jeopardy question only in this benighted hellhole. The same Crown that stomped on the Métis now gives them status and the same Crown that shed blood on the Plains of Abraham denotes Quebec as a nation. Snoo ooze. Only America in its throes is exciting, despite the evil of Canada. A dull, plodding evil can get away with so much more, and so has been victorious here and we are ruined. The USA has so many more playoffs to come..

Edited May 16, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

Well, well said. We were not born of fiery ideal, but of compassionate compromise, and so continue.