...maybe it's because I'm of a younger generation that seems less hung up on identity politics, but I don't quite understand the story about Washington having the 2nd largest gay caucus in its state legislature.
Let's pretend for a minute I'm gay and in the Legislature (Mrs. Earling is not present as I type so can't immediately object to either proposition). If so, I don't think I'd be entirely thrilled with being pigeon-holed like that, because like a lot of Americans I think there's a lot more to my personality, my beliefs, and my politics than my sexual identity.
I mean, do we have a heterosexual caucus? A missionary position caucus? A S&M caucus? A porn watchers caucus? An undersexed and angry about it caucus?
But, maybe that's just me.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Email ThisAnyhow, we are in Washington state, we could have an anti-Christian caucus, a Black Caucus, an Asian Caucus, an S&M Caucus as you put it, we could have all those, but if you have a white male caucus, or a Christian Caucus, or a heterosexual caucus - watch out, that won't even be allowed.
Posted by: Doug on January 26, 2008 11:37 AMDon't expect we'd read any cheerleading articles in the local media about it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 26, 2008 11:41 AMIt's sad, and we won't get to a world free of racism by their path. That's why conservatives are the way forward.
They claim we are ignoring racism that still exists, which is false. No decent modern conservative is calling for the 1960s era Democrat politics of the South where there was real suppression of blacks. And no one is denying that there is not latent racism, that should be admonished. But, the left also realizes that by moving forward to a colorblind society, we neutralize their identity politics.
And that scares the heck out of them, because they depend on the ignorance of identity politics for votes. Simple solution is to scream bloody murder that conservatives are racists for even daring to suggest that we move on to a colorblind society. And that's where we are today.
Meanwhile, those of all colors, or whatever, continue to focus on their merits and realize that such merits and good character are what actually gets them ahead in today's world, and not their physical attributes. Today's racist left will be dragged in to the colorblind 21st century, whether they like it or not.
I've lived long enough to witness the left play the race and gender cards over and over. The degree to which they've played those cards has resulted in a country that bears no resemblence to the America I remember in 1963.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 26, 2008 12:30 PM1) If someone feels the need to constantly remind us that they are gay, and that we need to pay special attention to the fact that they are gay, then eventually, that's going to dominate their outward impression. They want that to be their central identification, and not whatever it is that they do.
2) Barack Obama who is trying to avoid playing the race card, and rightfully so, because he wants to be judged on his ideas and not his color. There are some in his party who insist on making the primary race about color or gender, but that hurts candidates because voters actually care about ideas. They care about issues that effect the country our economy, etc. and not about the color or religion of the candidates.
Ultimately though, we do deal with people for their value, and not their attributes. Because that's how things get done. We are not interested in for example, a person's orientation when we take our clothes to a dry cleaner, we are interested in getting our clothes dry cleaned. It's those who make their attributes more of an issue than their merits that appeal to the left, but that ultimately turn off everyone around them who are rightfully more interested in simply trading value for value.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 26, 2008 12:30 PMWere we talking a bit about playing the race card? It's almost a knee-jerk reaction by now, isn't it, Duffman?
Isn't the term "good 'ol boy" racist? Maybe we need a "good 'ol boy" caucus in Olympia.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 26, 2008 12:41 PMO-no, did that guy from the democratic party show up here? (senate)
You know the one.. he wore a white sheet and liked birds I think. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 26, 2008 12:45 PMThose boys should be considered two-faced discriminatory bigots, that's what they should be considered.
They are members of the legislature, people whose job it is to make laws and they get together as a selected group to promote laws based on sexual orientation, that's just as bad as having congressmen band together based solely on race to promote and attempt to enact racially prejudiced laws that specifically address their race.
I know I can't hire or fire based on race, gender, religious preference (and I think this state may now be sexual orientation) but, my goodness, upstanding members of the lawmaking body in our state are allowed to discriminate based on those issues?
They are two-faced discriminatory Bigots, each of those boys.
Posted by: Doug on January 26, 2008 12:46 PMI've got several friends and business associates who are friends and business associates, and oh, who happen to be gay. They are conservative too. They don't advertise their sexual orientation any more than I do. And frankly, we don't care sexual orientation, it doesn't matter to us because we care about or merit based interactions like our friendships and business dealings.
I've also got yellow, brown and white friends and business associates, and we enjoy each other's company and do business based on enjoying each other's company and the business we have in common. We don't care about each other's color. It just doesn't matter at all.
This is how non-racist conservatives are moving us in to the colorblind 21st century. Person by person, bit by bit.
We'll wait for you racists to catch up, and we will forgive you for your ignorance that depends and insists on hoping that there is still latent racism, and delaying the inevitable.
And we will forgive you for your inability to see that their are good ideas and bad ideas that come in all shapes, colors, sexual orientations, sizes, etc. The trick is to focus on the merits of the ideas, and not the packaging. Keep trying, you will eventually get it.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 26, 2008 12:50 PMIt's a nutty world, folks. We've got the left to thank for it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 26, 2008 12:57 PMI think these are lovely "words to live by" coming from someone who was on parole for a robbery conviction, led police on a high speed chase because he didn't want to go back to jail, was probably on drugs, and couldn't follow simple instructions from police officers, even after being tasered.
/sarc
Not to mention his later life:
He was arrested for spousal assault in 1999. In 2001, he was then ordered to undergo a year of drug treatment after pleading guilty to three counts of being under the influence of PCP and one of indecent exposure.
On August 27, 2003, he was arrested again on similar charges as in 1991. It is alleged that King was speeding, ran a red light while under the influence of alcohol and failed to yield to police officers, and then slamming his SUV into a house and broke his pelvis.
Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on January 26, 2008 01:10 PMSince straight people do not face such things the idea of a straight caucus or a straights right movement makes no sense. Straight people have never had to hide their identity, remain celibate to serve in the military, be unable to marry the person they love, face organized movements focused on converting them and/or denying them basic rights, ect.
Posted by: Giffy on January 26, 2008 01:23 PM
Just as one of Dino Rossi's goals might be to restrict abortion rights, but it is probably not something he would strongly advocate given the political impossibility of doing so at this time. HOwever anti-choice voters might vote for him knowing that while he might not be able to stop abortino in Washington, he would at least be a step in that direction.
Likewise, I support the election of gay people, and gay rights supporters because I agree with the overall goal even if I know that they might not soon accomplish it.
Posted by: Giffy on January 26, 2008 01:50 PMI wonder how that works, remaining celibate in order to serve in the military?
Does that mean Giffy that straight guys and gals in the military have had free reign to do it with anyone they want? Are you implying gays should be able to do so with impunity? Ridiculous.
Oh no! The very idea of electing someone that opposes the killing of unborn children!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 26, 2008 02:04 PMYet polls consistently show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to homosexual marriage. So why are leftists continually shoving it down our throats despite the poll numbers?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 26, 2008 02:20 PMCan I sign up for the porn-watchers conference here, or do I need to go to another web site?
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on January 26, 2008 02:24 PMAnd just what might those "options" be?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 26, 2008 02:27 PMWe are all individuals, and our rights are individual. They do not come to us through membership in minority (or majority!) groups. There IS an assymetry in that a "white caucus" would be censored and discriminated against by the liberal/PC crowd. There is a Hispanic group called "La Raza," which means "the race." Yet the liberals do not see this as the racist organization that it must be.
BUT:
Because our rights are individual, and we are all equal under the law, the government may not discriminate against us on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. This means that as long as state marriage licensure is not open to gays and lesbians, their individual rights are being violated.
Not being able to discriminate against gays and lesbians is the price that social conservatives are paying for allowing the State to take over marriage licensure. If we had left marriage to churches, where it belongs, then governments would always have granted civil unions to all. By the way, state marriage licensure was instituted as a way to outlaw miscegenation: inter-race marriage. It was racism that caused State governments to begin licensing marriage in the first place. But no government has the right to tell you whom you may and may not marry, as long as all parties are consenting adults.
Racism, sexism and homophobia are disgusting, but they must be tolerated in the private sphere, as long as they are peaceful. This means that private churches must be allowed not to recognize gay marriage if they don't want to, and should be able to discriminate against gays and even women in hiring if they like. Black churches must be free to openly cater to blacks at the expense of whites as Obama's African church in Chicago appears to do.
Those of us who agree as I do that this behavior is disgusting, are free to write about it and boycott, but we may not infringe on the rights of bigotted church members to their freedom of association. Biggots can associate and march, but they must not receive taxpayer funding, and they must not hurt anyone physically or steal from anyone. The right way to fight biggotry is through public exposure and boycotts, not through legislation. You can't force people to like each other in private. It just doesn't work, and creates a reaction in the other direction.
The significance of a large gay caucus in Washington State is that it indicates that enough voters in this state do not see being gay as a good reason not to vote for someone. This is a good thing. I do not rule a candidate out because of his or her sexual orientation. I happen to like the gay and lesbian community, and think that it's diverse culture adds a lot to private society in Washington. One would expect 5 to 10% of the legislature in any state to be gay or lesbian; perhaps more since out-of-the-closet gays and lesbians are, on average, smarter and more successful than we straight folks.
But gays and lesbians do not obtain their rights from government any more than any of us do. They do not obtain rights because of their membership in a minority group. Their rights are born with them, and are theirs because they own their own lives, just as the rest of us do. Some think their rights come from God. Fine. But rights pre-date governments. And as long as governements violate the individual right to liberty, they lose some of their legitimacy. This is what Washington State is doing by not defending full marriage rights for gays and lesbians. It's about Liberty.
Washington has gone a long way to rectifying this injustice through civil unions and legal partnerships. This is progress. One day, I hope that gays and lesbians will not be discriminated against by the government. I think that marriage equality is the civil rights battle of our time. And government always lags society, and does not lead, in civil rights issues.
By the way, the most closetted minority group in Washington State is not gays and lesbians, but atheists and agnostics. There is still a majority of voters in this state who would not vote for an avowed atheist, no matter how qualified for the office. This is why we are more closetted than gays and lesbians in these parts.
I wonder when we will hear about the atheist caucus in Washington State? Probably not in my lifetime, I fear.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 26, 2008 02:48 PMAnd unmarried, right?
Gays in the military are perfectly free to do the same as long as don't run around on base telling everyone about it. Most straight people aren't in the habit of blabbering to everyone they work with about their sex lives.
I've worked with lots of gays and lesbians. I didn't share my sex life with them and they didn't share theirs with me. Why is that so difficult?
We have an "atheist caucus". It's otherwise known as the Democratic Party. Where have you been, Bruce?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 26, 2008 03:08 PMBut its not about talking about their sex lives, its about sharing very basic details. My hunch is that you have told your coworkers whether you are married, about a family vacation, when a kid was born, etc etc etc. Its not about sex, its about being able to open about what is one of the most important parts of ones life, who they are in a relationship with.
One should not lose their job, especially when that job is servings their country for low pay and often too little repect, simply by saying their partner is of the same sex.
Posted by: Giffy on January 26, 2008 03:09 PMThis is discriminatory.
If the military were a private organization, it should be able to discriminate like this. I wouldn't approve, but I would have no right to prevent them. But the military is a branch of the government, and the govenrment may NOT discriminate on the basis of race, sex or sexual orientation because that would violate our individual rights. Defending our equal, individual rights is the only legitimate function of government.
The fact that you can not see the discriminatory nature of this case is really strange to me.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 26, 2008 03:09 PMI agree with you and Bruce on that point, Giffy.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 26, 2008 03:18 PMWhy do they always want more and more access to children???
Why do they always want more and more access to children???"
It's just what the left does. The indoctrination starts in daycare and continues through college. It isn't just the "gay agenda", it's the whole smorgasboard of leftist causes, big government, abortion, conservatives are racists, we're all going to die because of "climate change" and on and on.
This goes back at least 15-years. My wife worked in a daycare in Seattle. One day she was attempting to teach, at least on a rudimentary level, the alphabet to 3 and 4 year olds. She brandished an example to represent each letter, for example an apple to represent the letter A. When it came to the letter I my wife put up a picturre of an igloo.
You would have thought the world was ending. "You are stereotyping native americans" she was told by her boss.
We don't have to make it up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 26, 2008 04:06 PMI'm straight, but I've often kept one foot in the gay scene because it was, and is, full of interesting people.
Let's see a show of hands by those on this list who know any of our own 1970s Whiz Kids, ever been to the 311, the Golden Horse Shoe, Tugs, The Eagle, The Brass Door etc.
Not many gay men are asking for sympathy or crying for some elusive equality. They are smarter than average, richer than average, have better than average senses of humor, better senses of style than me, and generally feel much superior to male "straights".
Lesbians. Well, that's a different matter. They might deserve a bit of sympathy. I've never figured out why they want to look like the very gender that offends them. The Lipstick Dyke still confuses me. Maybe we can get an opinion from Anne Heche.
Just put me in the "I think global warming is the smallest problem on earth caucus", and be done with me.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on January 26, 2008 04:32 PMYou see, I have a prejudice: I believe that the best place to dance in town is almost always the gay bar, and I love to dance!
Out-of-the-closet gays are, indeed, smarter and richer than average, and who can dispute their superior sense of style?
I agree with you on global warming as well! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 26, 2008 04:45 PMExpanding basic rights?? Where was it ever codified that gays and lesbians could not run for or be elected to public office? It never was. Its just that most voters now don't care about the persons sexual orientation, just their ideas and actions.
As Bruce says @ 26: "The significance of a large gay caucus in Washington State is that it indicates that enough voters in this state do not see being gay as a good reason not to vote for someone. This is a good thing."
Please don't perpetuate the myth that the right to run for, be elected, and hold elective office was ever withheld from gays or lesbians.
Posted by: Michael H on January 26, 2008 06:52 PMI would hope the significance is that there are more members of the gay community that have the ability to bring to the table enough other qualities that they are getting elected.
Again, I wouldn't expect black people to get elected BECAUSE there's less reason to vote against a black person, I would hope they get elected because there is a smart intelligent candidate who happens to be black.
It is very clear from the South Carolina situation that many democrats, including blacks, have enough racist tendencies that they are voting because of a man's or woman's color. That's pretty sick to me. Same thing with the gays, if they are voting based on sexual preference (or in this case trying to create an association that promotes laws based on sexual preference) that to me is pretty sick.
That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans: The democrats think special groups are so disadvantaged that they need a leg up. Republicans believe every person was created equal regardless of trivial things like sex and gender.
Posted by: Doug on January 26, 2008 09:58 PMIts also the fact that voters are willing to look beyond the fact that one is gay in casting their vote. The fact that voters look beyond that as you say is pretty remarkable. Form the end of the civil war up until the 1950's it was perfectly legal for blacks to run for office, that does not mean that they were successful or that racism was dead.
Posted by: Giffy on January 26, 2008 10:02 PMUnfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (Book)
There is nothing noteworthy about having gay legislators. There is nothing noteworthy about having straight legislators.
If gays demand the right not to be singled out when it's "bad," then they need to get passed being giddy when they're singled out when it's "good."
The gay life style is not mainstream. And, right or wrong, it never will be.
Posted by: Hinton on January 26, 2008 10:47 PMQuick, off the top of your head, which Supreme Court justices were in the majority in the Kelo decision.
Posted by: Doug on January 26, 2008 10:50 PMthere used to be live & let live tolerance; keep to yourself, dont parade your lifestyle; now everything is a photo-op and "pride"-of-sorts parade;
now, it's forced tolerance with govt stick "recommending" behavior and private sector mandatory diversity training;
lifestyle aside, we'll be watching your voting records and chipping away at our rights or it you are truly preserving our rights as a whole, not as a narrow interest community;
Oh, yippee. Another Troofer in support of Doctor Paul.
You know, it's you - his supporters - that are Doctor Paul's biggest downside. I agree with a majority of his positions, but not all of them and certainly not the most important ones. But the overwhelming majority of his supporters make it impossible for me to even take him seriously as a candidate.
And for the love of God, he's a politician. A Congressman. OK? If I want a digital exam, I'll call him Doctor Paul. Until then, he's Ron Paul - Texas Congressman and Presidential Candidate.
Did you call Sen. Bill Frist - Dr. Frist? Of course you didn't.
But each and every time one of you refers to him as Doctor Paul, it simply makes you look like the cult that you are.
Posted by: jimg on January 27, 2008 09:10 AMThis thread is ALMOST dead, but I thought I might clarify my intent at post at #40 by fully agreeing with your post at #53.
Out "and proud" gays are less than 3% of the national population. Gays in committed relationships are a somewhat small proportion of that 3%. The media attention which that small proportion receives is WAY out of proportion to their "injury" considering that it seems to me that gays are doing quite nicely overall.
Partner benefits? Hell, anyone with a loyal partner is extremely lucky, whatever their sexual orientation. Get in line behind the unloved, unpartnered among all of us before gay lovers get a tear from me.
Hate Crime? All crime is hate. The concept of special status for certain flavors of crimes is number one or number two on my list of infuriating laws.
Gay Pride? Doesn't bother me a bit. Except the expression of it which is promoted in events like Seattle's Gay Pride Parade, on city streets, led by a fawning Seattle Chief of Police. The participants in the parade flaunt a lifestyle that, in my experience, is found to be embarassing, maybe even disgusting to the typical gay. It's mostly a charade, not a parade.
So. Gay Caucus. Why not? Media slavering over it? Why bother?
Posted by: Bart Cannon on January 27, 2008 01:53 PMAs I understand it, all members of the gay caucus are in the caucus by choice, and so certainly, all of them have chosen to be viewed that way.
Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2008 02:37 PMHmm. Looks like they have something else in common.
Posted by: Realist on January 27, 2008 04:15 PMGiven many of the comments that were posted here after he was blackmailed and forced to resign, it's a wonder if a competent Republican who happens to be Gay could get elected to office by his or her constituents.
If Curtis has come out of the closet do you think he would still be the Representative from Spokane?
I'm going to agree with Giffy @ 17. I vote for the candidate I feel best represents my district. I like to think I do it regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation. Give that, I'd say that 85% of the time I don't even get a choice. It's usually the incumbent vs. the person who I disagree with. I may not like either one and am forced to choose the lesser of the two evils.