Larry Craig: still guilty. Gay people: still not married…yet.

Tuesday, December 9th, 2008 @ 10:20 pm | teh gay

Not that anyone doubted the charges would stick like a dab of wet toilet paper to the restroom ceiling, ha ha.

But Craig is guilty of more than soliciting sex from an undercover officer in an MSP bathroom. He’s also guilty of being a hypocritical closet case. When he wasn’t hiding behind a toilet stall door, he was hiding behind a wife and a wedding ring, and opposing myriad same-sex civil issues, including protection from job discrimination based on sexual orientation, expanding the definition of hate crimes to include those committed based on a person’s gender and sexual orientation, and same-sex marriage.

So it’s fitting that his appeal to continue living his guilt-free, duplicitous delusions ends on the same day that the Iowa Supreme Court’s hearing about same-sex marriage begins.

These couples want nothing more than what any other married couples are given: legal recognition, and all of the rights and privileges that are automatically afforded married couples. A lot of quotes from same-sex proponents talk about “legalizing love”, which irritates me because there’s so much more to it than that. I love my partner to the end of days, but that’s not going to help either of us when I’m barred from visiting him in the hospital (god forbid), or when we’re navigating a legal jungle just to arrive at some rudimentary, officially-recognized level of financial interdependence.

There is a group here in Minnesota that took the time and trouble to figure out just how many different ways the law currently discriminates against same-sex couples. The answer: 515 specific ways, in everything from the big issues like inheritance, health care, and parenting rights to hunting and fishing privileges.

(I got over being surprised about the interests of other gay people the day I learned that there are gay Republicans…so joke about stereotypically effeminate men with rifles and fishing poles all you want, there’s just nothing to top that one for sheer cognitive dissonance in my mind!)

Opponents keep trying to tag this as the beginning of a slippery slope that leads directly to the end of a thousands-year-old tradition and society as we know it, but that’s a total line of BS. Marriage has evolved as society has evolved. After decades of Larry Craigs, celebrity marriages, and who only knows what else freaky straight people do behind doors–or in the Metrodome (seriously, what is it with out-of-staters in our public bathrooms?)–if the legal recognition of these six couples, and others like them, is the straw that breaks the camel’s back, I will invite the lot of you to witness one frail-ass camel!

There’s also the bogus religious rights issue. People are free to believe whatever they want. Their church can also believe what it wants–that’s not going to change, and I honestly don’t think it should (unless they really cross the line like the LDS). Those beliefs should not be codified in law that the rest of us have to follow.

-JJB Mpls

11 Responses to “Larry Craig: still guilty. Gay people: still not married…yet.”

  1. Dana Says:

    So, JJB, given that you have written a post based entirely on what rights you believe same-sex couples should have, does this mean that you would be completely satisfied with a civil unions statute which provided that same-sex couples had exactly the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but did not call it marriage?

  2. Jeremy B Says:

    Well you know, I’m not exactly alone in my beliefs…And no, I don’t think separate but equal is fair.

    If the term is the problem, then let the government grant civil unions to all couples, same-sex or no, with all of the legal rights and privileges. Let churches decide which couples are eligible for the religious sacrament of marriage.

  3. Dana Says:

    Thank you, Mr B. You have just answered my question: it isn’t really about rights, which can be extended without the term marriage, but about respect.

    Let’s be brutally honest here: same-sex marriage advocates are not satisfied with civil unions because the notion of civil unions implies that their relationships are different from those of heterosexual married couples, and more, it implies that those relationships are not as good or acceptable as heterosexual marriage.

    This isn’t really a fight for rights, but a fight for acceptance, acceptance meaning more than tolerance.

  4. jeromy Says:

    It kind of is, in that those opposed to it disrespect homosexuality and will utter all manner of falsehood in order to keep it from being treated equally under the law.

    “Separate but equal” is the temporary compromise those concerned about civil rights for homosexuals have fought for and reached at the moment in most places, which means true equality is just around the corner.

    Dana wants his argument to be “you can’t make us respect or accept you.” Yet the issue isn’t his feelings, or those of all the others who use sham logic, kindergarten darwinism, and bunk theology in order to foster their disrespect and lack of acceptance. It’s about being equal under the law, and Occam’s Razor points to the simplest and most effective manner to accomplish it: one civil arrangement for gay and straight. Call it marriage, call it civil unions, but they should be as legally identical in every respect as possible.

  5. Thomas Tallis Says:

    Dana that’s a nice effort, B+ for sure, but rights and acceptance are one and the same from a legislative perspective. Nobody’s saying you have to [i]feel[/i] a certain way, or trying to legislate that, as much as you’d like to argue that that’s the issue. As far as the law is concerned, respect and acceptance are equivalent. You want to move to argument to a more comfortable emotional place, but this isn’t about your feelings, it’s about equal protection under the law.

  6. Jeremy B Says:

    My goodness, Dana, but that’s an amazing leap of logic that I do not follow. Can you slow it down for a second-class citizen…?

    I mean, I was pretty sure I explained in my post that it is all about rights and privileges. I’m failing to understand how you can read it and my followup comment, and then tell me what I really said is that it’s all about gaining respect over mere tolerance.

    I simply think it’s silly that the government should assign two different names to what is supposed to be the same set of rights and privileges under law. Again, I am not alone in this belief. Separate but not equal is not equal.

  7. jeromy Says:

    Dana had to move the argument from a losing stance to something squishier that people who think it’s icky for gays to kiss can accept.

    It’s hard work squashing individual rights in America.

  8. Dana Says:

    But that’s just it: there certainly is a way to even out the “rights” argument, and some states have done so, California being one of them. Were “civil unions” statutes the ones being put before the people in ballot initiatives, they’d probably pass in most places.

    But attach the word “marriage” to them, and the issue is a loser for same-sex couples, everywhere.

    California is supposedly one of the most liberal states in the union. Barack Obama carried California 61% to 39%, but Proposition 8 won 52% to 48%; that’s a 13% “gap” for the liberal positions, in a state where homosexuals are “out” more than anywhere else.

  9. jeromy Says:

    And it gets smaller every year. You’d better be mailing your absentee ballots from the nursing home or else gay marriage will arrive a lot sooner. Not to mention that the No on 8 crowd ran a crappy campaign, and that the usual religious crooks were whining about “teaching your kids about teh gay.” My wedding prep Deacon even brought up in class his fear that “they’ll sue the Church for not doing gay weddings,” an absolutely insane proposition as no Church is required to perform any wedding whatsoever.

    The polling on it swung back and forth depending on the ads being run and the public mood. Ultimately it lost, but subtract you old farts and all the lying you do for Jesus and the numbers move in favor of full citizenship for gays.

    Oh, and constitutional rights being nicked on a 51% vote aren’t something to be proud of either, Dana.

  10. Dana Says:

    Mr Brown, there were no “constitutional rights” nicked there, because such a constitutional right never existed. The notion of same-sex marriage is a very recent innovation, and every society of which we have any knowledge at all has restricted the relationships it would allow to count as marriages; we have restricted marriages based on the number of people involved, on previous marital status, on consanguinity, on mental capacity, on gender and on age.

    The same-sex marriage advocates are pressing for an innovation; sane society does not accept this innovation as wise.

    As for your deacon, he was right. If same-sex marriage is recognized as legal, at some point a same-sex couple, denied a church wedding because the church from which they requested it doesn’t hold such things as proper, will sue. Given the idiocy of some judges andd juries, they just might win.

  11. jeromy Says:

    Perhaps you should know the details of Prop 8. It rewrote the California state constitution to combat a legal ruling that said equality in marriage was indeed a right.

    And do not evoke “sanity” here. Bigotry, hatefulness, ignorance, deception and irrational fearmongering are at the heart of the campaign to keep gays unequal citizens.

    Look no further than your “Somebody could sue, and they MIGHT win!” crap. Anybody can sue for any reason, but there’s no reason they might win, beyond the judge showing up drunk. Does the Catholic church fear Protestants showing up demanding marriage? I mean, seriously, I’m sitting in a six week class *required* of me in order to be married in the Church. It’s private property, they don’t have to marry anybody they don’t feel like marrying. It’s about denying gays the right to marry in front of a judge that is at stake here, not a priest, and it’s completely reprehensible to use such slimy tactics to defend the “purity” of the church. If God was on your side the truth would suffice.