For John, BLUF: What are the longer term implications of "Guy Marriage"? Nothing to see here; just move along.
Writing in The New Yorker, Mr Alex Ross asks what, for Gays is beyond a marriage victory. That is to say, is the politics involved in homosexual rights just about homosexual rights or is it about bigger issues of "justice"? The article makes the point that the changes have come against not just the opposition of Republicans, but also, earlier, Democrats. I am not sure the article articulates any path forward, but it does ask if there is going to be lost "a radical, insurrectionary tradition in gay culture". That is an interesting question.
Regards — Cliff
Nothing succeeds like opposition. Or, put another way--if conservatives really want to destroy "gay" culture, all they would have to do is stop opposing it.
ReplyDeletekad,
ReplyDeleteBut gay culture existed for a long time in Massachusetts all without gay marriage. Marriage declined on its very own, gay culture didn't have to destroy it. But I always connected gay culture with 'alternative' ideas though. But WFNX/Phoenix is dead, and a lot of ideas we connected to an alternative are gone as well. So odd to head about a gay pride parade on Kiss 108, a media giant.
For me it was never about destroying gay culture or being anti-gay. Did you know back in the day, when Ray Flynn was mayor of Boston he was a guest on the '1 in 10' the local radio show gays on WFNX back in the day.
I hold the french gay argument, in which many homosexuals in France oppose gay marriage openly, because marriage is about having a mom and dad for them.
The law will address the needs of families in new language and policy. Because even if you can't call it marriage, the state will always have the interest in a child being raised by biological kin in a stable environment.
I have to rebuild and strengthen the family without using the word marriage. That's all I can physically do at this point. Support parents being parents, engage both mother and father. If a couple plans on sticking it out, support their relationship and not just their wedding. Sad when a wedding favor lasts longer, then a marriage. Yeah, I save mine. When we live in a world, in which media sends the message that wants us to be more concern to saying yes to the dress, then to our marital vows.
I checked out the U.S. Senate candidates, they talk about DOMA and LGBT rights, but no talks about engaging fathers or mothers with their children. (One thing President Obama and President Bush, actually did something about.)
Over in England... they have new ideas to help stabilize the family.
"The Family Nurse Partnership currently sees nurses or midwives regularly visit first-time mothers under the age of 20 during their pregnancy and until their baby is two years old.
The nurses help the new mothers, and fathers, to prepare for labour, offer advice on looking after babies and toddlers, and help plan for the future."
Or, put another way, Renee, if you want to strengthen marriage, then just penalize people for doing it. Early Christians got thrown to the lions. (There's no better way to start a religion).
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of the "movement" is to force "normal" or "straight" folks to acknowledge and accept the "alternative" lifestyle as normal and not "alternative." The proponents will not rest until they can be in every straight's face and force them into total acceptance. My little brother is a very militant gay.....so I have heard it first hand.
ReplyDeleteThe political class doesn't speak of family values and other "foundational" values because that is not where the power lies today. Politicians always pander to the perceived power. Gays and illegals.....that is in right now. There is a certain fear that guns will edge those two out...but that won't happen. The two special interest groups have too much power.
Well, we're are penalized by being falsely stigmatized and labeled as bigots, so there's a start of a new beginning!
ReplyDeleteRemember a child can have two gay parents, but not two moms. A biological gay father won his rights to be a dad, over a married lesbian couple. The lesbian couple didn't have the right to equality or privacy because they were married, to deny the child his father. You can redefine words, but you can't mess around with nature. It catches up, and evens itself out one way or the other.
So you are saying that the old axiom rings true....."It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature?"
ReplyDelete