Saw it back then. Well, yeah, sometimes, with some people, it takes a gay child to turn them around. And it has nothing to do with political parties. Crypto-conservatives in the Democratic party are more dangerous.

November 3, 2008 @ 11:06 am | Comment

No matter which party they’re in, it’s great to see someone come forward like that. Republicans, unfortunately, have been far more outspoken and closed-minded on this issue, and he even states that people may think less of him for speaking out. He knew he was breaking with the party line, which made his openness and courage even more touching.

November 3, 2008 @ 11:25 am | Comment

One phenomenon that continues to mystify me is the phenomenon of “THE GAY REPUBLICANS”—they use a pink elephant as their political symbol. How can one be a member of a party whose core membership consists of people who want to kill you?

The only thing analogous to the gay republicans that comes to mind are the fundamentalist muslim women. I suppose that people will support anything (including their own destruction) as long as it gives them power?

November 3, 2008 @ 3:16 pm | Comment

Richard, I’ve never been quite clear on the difference between gay marriage and civil unions. Can you elucidate in short, just the facts?

Buck, which republicans want to kill gays?

November 3, 2008 @ 3:26 pm | Comment

[…] Os divertidos grupos de interesse Novembro 3, 2008 Posted by claudio in Uncategorized. Tags: escolha pública, falhas de governo, grupos de interesse, rent-seeking trackback Eis aí uma briga difícil. […]

November 3, 2008 @ 4:04 pm | Pingback

Sam_s wrote: “Buck, which republicans want to kill gays?”

Answer: Those that shout and/or carry signs that read “God hates fags.”

http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=e647x8xFKTs

November 3, 2008 @ 4:05 pm | Comment

Buck, not a fair response – the Phelps freaks do not represent the Republican Party. That is not a Republican philosophy. About your earlier comment: yes, it is always fascinating to see far-right celebrity Republicans get exposed for partaking in the activity against which they protested most loudly. Maybe their venom is a technique for suppressing their own desires. I don’t know….

Sam, you can do your own research, Meanwhile, the point is about discrimination. To use laws to single out a specific segment of society and say they have no right to what is afforded other segments.

November 3, 2008 @ 5:33 pm | Comment

Marriage is a very interesting topic. Although the issue of gay marriage would never have influenced my vote in any way, shape or form I used to be against it solely from the point of view that for so much of history the definition of the word has been to hitch a male and female, and changing it’s trendy seems a bit frivolous somehow. Then i did some research on the institution and found out how much the concept had changed even in the last 50 years. Marriage used to never really have any connection to love, for example, but in today’s society they are supposed to be inseperable. (Even in the sixties a quarter of american females would have married a man they didn’t love if he was a good provider)It never used to be a matter of choice, but now any suggestion otherwise provokes howls of derision. It used to be an institution based on economics and procreation, not emotion, which many societies actually considered a dangerously combustible element if it occurred in matrimony. I personally think it’s an outdated institution and our society should get past its destructive infatuation with it, but since that is not gonna happen, it seems only fair that any one who wants to tie themself up in this way should be welcome to do it.
That is my pearl of wisdom for a monday afternoon.

November 3, 2008 @ 5:54 pm | Comment

Or, as Texas Gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman said, “Why shouldn’t gays be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?”

I’m for whoever marrying whomever they want, and whoever wants to object to it should have the right to, but when it gets down to the issue of legal rights, like survivorship benefits, next of kin privileges, or spousal exemptions in court, I think the legal definition makes a difference. I’m guessing that’s probably the main difference between civil unions and marriage, but I’m not going to go research it now.

November 3, 2008 @ 6:39 pm | Comment

“Buck, not a fair response – the Phelps freaks do not represent the Republican Party. That is not a Republican philosophy.”

To be honest, I don’t know anything about this Phelps weirdo, except that he has this pathological fixation with sodomy. Quite frankly, I’m also not sure what the Republican Party stands for anymore. The Republicans that I used to know seemed like normal people who supported the US Constitution. One could have a civil debate with them and remain friends afterwards. The Republicans that I remember advocated personal and fiscal responsibility and rule of law. These are not the Republicans that I see today. The Republicans that I see now are lunatics who advocate “preventive war”, national bankruptcy, a surveillance state, nuclear war on Iran, religious intolerance, etc., etc., etc.

November 3, 2008 @ 7:00 pm | Comment

The only thing analogous to the gay republicans that comes to mind are the fundamentalist muslim women.

Except that vast majority of ‘fundamentalist’ muslim women don’t choose that life. Gay republicans choose to be republicans.

Not a good analogy.

November 3, 2008 @ 7:17 pm | Comment

But many fundamentalist muslim women do support the system. Some support it for the power. Usually, systems, including fundamentalist Islam, only survive and perpetuate themselves because of support of the people, even if such support consists of resigned acceptance of the system—“Well, that’s just the way it is.” That’s why it’s important to speak up since even silence is support of the system.

November 3, 2008 @ 7:40 pm | Comment

I once worked for an organization whose owners/senior management were gay Republicans. At first, I thought: “Great! If they’re gay, then they’re likely to be accepting of me as an individual.”

Wrong!

As it turns out, they’re just as greedy and intolerant as other Repugs.

Later, I found out that who they truly had it in for were not the independent-minded employees, but pregnant employees. You don’t want to be a married, pregnant woman working for these people.

November 3, 2008 @ 7:48 pm | Comment

Thank you for sharing this- most moving thing I’ve seen for some time.

November 3, 2008 @ 8:49 pm | Comment

Thanks Keir. I am surprised more blogs aren’t showing it. (Well, maybe they are, I’m kind of hiding out from blogs at the moment.)

Rhys, excellent comment, thanks.

November 3, 2008 @ 10:35 pm | Comment

Then i did some research on the institution and found out how much the concept had changed even in the last 50 years.

Rhys, though I do not know the details of your research some of your generalisations strike me as being a tad cynical. It’s definitely true that marriage was at times used for economic, political and other “non-love” benefits. However, even centuries ago many people had loving and stable relationships that were not just built on practical concerns.

Sure, there are good reasons other than feelings to get married (in the past in the UK it was even better because you got direct benefits just for being married). But that’s because the State recognises that marriage is often a good thing in regards to bringing up children. It’s no wonder that the children of single parents generally do worse at school than those who have two parents in a stable relationship. Marriage is a formal commitment to that relationship. I don’t think that it’s bad to encourage people to stay together.

I’m sure that many women said they would be happy with a man who brought home the bacon (and little else) because that’s an overriding human instinct – a male who can help her look after her/her and her children. Those particular ones would have thought they “had” to stay at home or otherwise needed a man to support them financially. But these days women feel they can work much more easily, so it’s not a problem for so many to attach themselves to a man who might be what they want emotionally but do not have a good job/income.

The usual trend of “man at work, woman in kitchen” is even reversed in some relationships. Though few would admit they’d be happy to stay at home, far more men these days are willing to accept their significant other having a higher salary than they do. During the 2005 election I talked to one man who happily admitted that his rich solicitor wife brought the money in while he could take time off work to stand for election (in an unwinnable seat). Previous to that he would sometimes reduce his working hours (self-employed) so that he could go down to the pub more often during the working day.

I personally think it’s an outdated institution and our society should get past its destructive infatuation with it

I think the problem is not that society still says that marriage is “good”, it is that people are too hasty and confuse lust/passion with love. A couple may get married and only later find out that really they didn’t love each other at all. If people thought things through more carefully there would be fewer divorces because they would realise their partner wasn’t right for them. So either they’d ditch them or not get married in the first place.

Marriage isn’t a fairy-tale way of living happily ever after. It has to be a sign that you really want to be with this person for the rest of your lives. It’s also a lot of work, though that’s the same with any relationship.

Interestingly some people would advocate that we’re simply not “built” to have such long relationships because we should die in our 30s or 40s (e.g. killed by a lion or something). I wouldn’t be that surprised because we weren’t intended to live until our 80s and 90s but many do.

November 3, 2008 @ 11:24 pm | Comment

Just got off the phone with a friend of mine in San Diego, told him I didn’t care who he voted for in the election (it doesn’t matter, California is going for Obama whatever), but I would personally go over there and kick his arse if he did not vote against Proposition 8.

November 4, 2008 @ 7:22 am | Comment

But many fundamentalist muslim women do support the system. Some support it for the power. Usually, systems, including fundamentalist Islam, only survive and perpetuate themselves because of support of the people, even if such support consists of resigned acceptance of the system—”Well, that’s just the way it is.” That’s why it’s important to speak up since even silence is support of the system.

Golly, I didn’t realise that it was so simple.

My first comment stands.

November 4, 2008 @ 8:10 am | Comment

TC,

The point is that it is quite common for some people to support groups whose political agenda is contrary to their interests. For example, the GAY REPUBLICANS, (some) Muslim women (here consent may be active or passive consent), academics who support totalitarian causes, lawyers who support totalitarian causes (Attorney General Gonzales; John Yu of UC Berkeley Law School, etc.); Reagan democrats, etc.

November 4, 2008 @ 10:29 am | Comment

Thanks for posting that, Richard. I saw it back when he did that press conference – being a San Diegan, I was amazed and impressed that he did the right thing here.

I think I will put it up on my site too. Deserves to be seen widely.

November 4, 2008 @ 11:01 am | Comment

Raj wrote:

“Rhys, though I do not know the details of your research some of your generalisations strike me as being a tad cynical. “

Raj, I have also done some research on the institution of marriage, and my findings matched those of Rhys. For most of history, marriages were usually arranged by parents, romantic feelings between the two individuals were not a factor. Marriage was more about your future in-laws than your future spouse.

Marriage was primarily a practical, economic and political decision about forging connections between families, household management, child bearing, and adding to the family labor force. The idea of marrying someone because you fell in love with them really originated in the late 18th century.

In fact, as Rhys noted, it was widely held by many cultures for much of history that marrying for love was actually a wrong and potentially dangerous idea. When the idea of romantic marrage started to become popular, traditionalists warned that “love would be the death of marriage”!

For more on this topic I recommend Stephanie Coontz “Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage”. Here’s a link to a podcast interview with the author: http://tinyurl.com/6abnwh

Here’s a blurb from a review on the book’s site:

“Among Coontz’s revelations: that the founders of Christianity believed that remaining single and celibate was a far more sacred state than taking a husband or a wife. That until the Victorian era, marriage had everything to do with acquiring influential in-laws, forging political alliances, hoarding wealth, and expanding a family’s labor force. That contrary to the current widespread nostalgia for a postwar Leave it to Beaver “golden age of marriage,” divorce rates from the mid 1940s through the ’50s were higher than in any previous decade–and have actually fallen since 1981. That in America’s conservative Bible Belt, out-of-wedlock birth and divorce rates are higher today than in any other region of the country. Coontz’s endlessly fascinating history lends some much-needed perspective to present-day political caterwauling that marriage is in unprecendented peril, and that America has lost sight of its core moral values.”

Source: http://tinyurl.com/5dfndu

November 4, 2008 @ 1:53 pm | Comment

Thank you, Slim. It is wonderful to see you back.

November 4, 2008 @ 4:35 pm | Comment

Further to what Slim added

In many cultures marriage wasn’t even just the joining of a man and a woman. In some cultures men take several wives, in some cultures several brothers married one woman, while in still other cultures having lovers as well as spouses has been considered an appropriate and socially accepted practices. In many aus aboriginal tribes ppl would get married twice – first time to someone much older than them, the second time to someone much younger. Marriage is a societal construct – and in our society it has through most of history been linked with economics and procreation. Also with taxation and the controlling influence of religion in some instances.

I also don’t buy into the whole notion that a kid needs a nuclear family to be successful. Of course, having two (or more, ideally) loving parental figures in a child’s life is important, but they don’t need to be living under the same roof to play those roles (necessarily). In most tribal societies the raising of children was a group effort rather than two individuals – even in English there is still the saying “It takes a village to raise a child.” Yes kids need healthy, functioning, loving adults around them. It doesn’t HAVE to be in one nuclear family living in one house.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to marry, I just think in the last 50-100 years our society has developed a peculiarly distorted view of the institution, and it’s causing a lot of unneccessary stress. I argue it’s high time we moved past that as a society, but as i said, that is not gonna happen any time soon so my point is basicaly moot anyway.

November 4, 2008 @ 4:52 pm | Comment

One phenomenon that continues to mystify me is the phenomenon of “THE GAY REPUBLICANS”—they use a pink elephant as their political symbol. How can one be a member of a party whose core membership consists of people who want to kill you?

The only thing analogous to the gay republicans that comes to mind are the fundamentalist muslim women. I suppose that people will support anything (including their own destruction) as long as it gives them power?

They are probably acculturated into that type of thinking and simply join those groups as a token of their “membership”.

Not only fundamental Islam but Christianity, too.

November 5, 2008 @ 7:27 am | Comment