The HHH – Hamas/Hezbollah Huggers on the Left, LGBT Rights Deniers on the Right

Between the Hamas and Hezbollah Huggers on the left and the gay haters on the right, it can get lonely.

Let’s call the Hamas/Hezbollah Huggers the “HHH”. And, then, there are the “gay haters” on the religious right? Are they merely strong “dislikers” of The Gay and LGBT in general?

OK, these gay “dislikers” claim they don’t hate, they just think the Gay is a “lifestyle” that can be cured or prayed into non-existence. Good luck with that.

I’m not always inclined to eschew hyperbole, but in political discourse a person must tread carefully, if he or she wishes to communicate and not simply engage in rhetorical grandstanding. But, it is hard having to hear nonsense about LGBT people on one hand, and on the other – to hear the most radically hateful torturers of gay and lesbian, and sometimes trans people lauded, often by LGBT people themselves.

But let’s start with the facts. The Christians who are anti-LGBT are easy targets. Which isn’t to say they aren’t dangerous or at least — very irritating, but they are sitting duck targets. Call them stupid, hateful and misinformed and you’ve won the day. Not only because you are right as per their views on LGBT rights and people, but also because they are now becoming easy pickings. Even prominent conservative Republicans are beginning to see that gay people have rights and can’t be prayed to straight salvation. I mean Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Rob Portman, and of course, the fighter for gay marriage — Ted Olson. So, it is easier now, with the tide turning, to ridicule the conservatives who cling to gay hating, and you can kick their imagined or real Hillbilly ways and government funded wheelchairs, as in this post:
When your godless Marxist president and his thuggish fascist cabinet officers and his entire godless liberty-hating socialist democrat party and sicko sycophant complicit leftist mainstream media and the god-hating, constitution-twisting black-robed socialist liberal activist judges continue conspiring to promote homosexualism and perversion as not only normal but a healthy, wholesome, desirable activity and way of life and then force it into the curriculum of even our youngest school children, that is tyranny!

You can, poke fun at their perceived inability to distinguish Hitler from Stalin, as some commenters on the above rant do. Certainly this will prove that you are very smart…right? But then, what do you do with the LGBT activists who are often unable to distinguish Hamas from the NAACP?

In the universe of left wing Hamas huggers, anyone who would chide Hamas and deign to point out that women in Gaza are being jailed for having out of wedlock babies, and that people who smoke Hashish are being executed, after a year in prison, are simply being “racist. Hamas and Hezbollah don’t want simple peace and a beneficial co-existence with Israel; they want Israel’s complete and utter destruction. You don’t even want to know how they kill gay people. Let’s leave it at that. These left wing sophisticates seem to want to ignore willfully, that Islam is not a race, and that the radical Islam of Hamas is anti-woman’s rights, and very much anti-gay rights. In fact, it is anti-human rights, and so anti-equality. The concept of “human rights” appears to be missing altogether from the Hamas charter; the idea that every last Jew on earth must be killed, is not.

But I can already hear the cries, the Hamas and Hezbollah Huggers screaming, “But, what about the horrible Christians!” It is true, of course, that there are indeed “horrible Christians” walking amongst us, or at least, Christians who are against gay marriage, or possibly — against even any semblance of gay rights. Most extremely, again, there are Christians who believe that lesbians and gays are “perverse”, and can be prayed to a “cure”, their numbers are dwindling, but they are around. I won’t deny it. These same Christians are most likely not friendly with transsexual people either, or transgender. They are a problem in my universe, don’t get me wrong, I have real issues with this particular Jesus fandom.

However, it is also true that some of these Christians while having reprehensible or just plain mistaken beliefs about LGBT people are otherwise, decent and good people. I know at least one online, and I have known a few in passing, I am related to a few.

Hamas and Hezbollah hugging (“HHH”) left-wingers may also otherwise be decent, intelligent and even – “educated”. Take for example, the well known and influential Hamas/Hezbollah hugger Judith Butler! That woman is obviously “educated”, she now teaches gender performativity at Columbia, but apparently still can’t distinguish Hamas/Hezbollah from social movements that are part of the progressive left. Here:

“Understanding Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important. “

Below, a nuanced and fair denouement of Butler’s views by Michael Totten. The entire statement from Butler above is quoted and put in context, and her latter statements are also considered. Totten points out that to her credit, Butler has stated she is not in favor of violence, although, as he also points out, violence is certainly being used by the most un-socially liberal Hamas and Hezbollah to accomplish their stated goal of erasing Israel. There is no other way to eradicate a country. And, how Butler can conflate Hamas or Hezbollah with social progress is an obscure point indeed.

Anti-Imperialism Fools

Butler later attempted a facile and smug de-construction of her statements with her usual rhetorical slight of hand, but I can’t help but feel cynical about her smug quibbling. To be fair, she may be denouncing violence, but she is not denouncing Hamas or Hezbollah, and she must if she is to come out on the righteous end of human history. And it is impossible to separate these two organizations from violence. Here a very good assessment of Butler’s inability to tell the good guys from the bad guys, here from writer Petra Marquardt:

“Unsurprisingly, Butler has reacted to criticism of her views regarding Hamas and Hezbollah by complaining that her remarks “have been taken out of context.” Butler mainly emphasizes now that she has “always been in favor of non-violent political action” and explicitly declares: “I do not endorse practices of violent resistance and neither do I endorse state violence, cannot, and never have.”

But it is arguably revealing that Butler chose the Mondoweiss website to publish her most recent rebuttal. Surely an academic of her standing had many other choices and did not have to turn to a site that has often been criticized for posts and as well as antisemitic cartoons? On such a site, it is somewhat strange to read Butler’s lament:

“For those of us who are descendants of European Jews who were destroyed in the Nazi genocide (my grandmother’s family was destroyed in a small village south of Budapest), it is the most painful insult and injury to be called complicitous with the hatred of Jews or to be called self-hating.”

And how come that somebody who evokes such a family history has nothing to say about the Jew-hatred espoused by Hamas and Hezbollah, and their acknowledged ideological sponsors, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian regime?”

Butler is not alone. There are more than a few Big Q – Queers who welcome Hamas into their bag of lefty tricks, and I regard them with as much opprobrium and bewildered angst as I regard the religious, conservative anti-LGBT right. Big Q Queers are, after all, more than simply LGBT, they regard their mission not as gay marriage or gay soldiering, but as a queer transformation of society, an in-your-face adolescent attitude that is as much uptight curmudgeon/snob and disdain of the ordinary or “normal” as it is visionary or leading edge. While I certainly believe it is important and life affirming to always be leading to the future from a place of new possibilities, the facts often lead just as often to older certainties. Sometimes Queer is a posture and a pose and not about leading us all to a better world. But again, let us distinguish between big Q Queers who wish to abolish marriage altogether, and those lesbians and gays who want the option to get married and have legal recognitions, responsibilities and rights — and who wish to lead productive lives, whether or not these lives are perceived as “in your face” or – well, normal. We can’t all be naked and polymorphous perverse in happy communes and not all of us want to be. I, for one, hate long meetings. Some of us are resigned to an LGBT normalcy that is not trend following, but often, profoundly satisfying to live. As a trans guy, I’m mostly just a normal dude. You wouldn’t think twice if you saw me on the street, and that suits me fine.

So, possibly, since they are “in your face” and hate to think of themselves as anything other than special and trendy, it is only logical that the far left Queer contingent would feign a friendly comradely relationship with the extreme and violently queer hating Hamas/Hezbollah. I mean, Hamas and Hezbollah both hate Amerikkka, and maybe, that’s enough.

Even so, I have always expected more discernment from high riding lesbians like Butler and Sarah Schulman. Schulman has been described thus by Daniel Greenfield… (she) was declaring that gay rights in Israel were part of a conspiracy to “pinkwash” the evil Zionist entity.

Sarah Schulman, a gay rights activist, had to make the confusing argument that gay rights activists should support anti-gay Islamists over Israel. And Schulman was predictably incoherent in trying to make that case. While Sarah Schulman accused pro-Israel advocates of pinkwashing Israel, Schulman was the one actually pinkwashing Hamas.

Butler, Sarah Schulman and other high visibility left wing Hamas huggers are a disappointment, a profound one. As a leftist in my not so distant past, I always had expected them to come down on the right side of human rights. But, possibly I was happily deluded. In fact, I now know for sure that I was. I mean, really now, when has the far left ever come down on the humane side of human rights? I don’t mean the moderate left of center of the Democrat party, I mean the far socialist left, and that’s why Jim from the first blog is not confabulating or confused, when he conjoins Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and Stalin – fascists and communists both in an alignment of tyrants, he’s actually absolutely correct. We can thank Jonah Goldberg’s book
Liberal Fascism for his uncovering of this similarity and conjoinment at the waist of Fascism and Communism. In hindsight, one can certain see the family resemblance.

Conflating the tyranny of National Socialism and Communism is not the sign of an uneducated, drooling rube, but of someone with more than a little common sense and possibly even, some historical acumen. If nothing else, it indicates that a person has a bedrock understanding that liberty, fascism and communism, are not bedfellows. Liberty is not aligned with communism or – fascism. Unfortunately, this simple, straightforward and utterly reasonable understanding does not extend to some of the most politically prominent if not actually astute, LGBT intellectuals. Possibly this is because ultimately, liberty is not their chief concern? It is not a core value. I think the same people who are now making positive, warm-feeling statements about Hamas would have been the same people making positive statements about Stalin. They would have declaimed Stalin as an important part of the “social movements” of the “progressive left”.

Now, this is odd, since you would think that Hamas/Hezbollah and the Christian religious right would make good bedfellows, since they are both not exactly queer friendly, however, obviously — this has not proven to be the case. I have found it confounding that the religious right hates Hamas as much as the queer left appears to embrace it. Even though Hamas and Hezbollah would happily make sure that gays are not only unmarried, but also not alive. This gave me pause; did this mean that our own religious, socially conservative right was different from what I come to believe? Well, yes, and also – no. There is a spectrum… some on that side are only critical of the use of the word “marriage” but would grant civil unions, and while not super keen on gayness or trans people are nevertheless of the understanding that LGBT people are not inherently deranged, evil or bad. Some conservatives are fine with gay people, but these cannot be understood as strict social conservatives. However, on the other hand, there are those on the religious right who don’t give two hoots about gay or trans people, make no mistake. They don’t understand us, they don’t like us, they clearly would rather we did not exist, however, they won’t join with Hamas and Hezbollah to kill us. The story is always more complicated, and in this blog I will attempt to shed the light I’ve found.

Certainly I have come to know, with some painful recognition, that the far left was different than what I had always believed. . Although there are also nuances on that side, and complications.

Complications, nuances, and deconstructions aside – the cold fact remains. Many, if not all, on the socially conservative and religious right are still in opposition to basic LGBT civil rights. The far left is infested with the HHH, Hamas/Hezbollah Huggers, who are oblivious to facts and apparently to basic human rights and liberty. Folks like me who see liberty as extending to all, and who believe in individual rights as bedrock to that fundamental liberty — have an issue. For me, neither the Hamas/Hezbollah hugging left, nor the social conservative religious right, are comfortable places to be. I remain an outlander, an outlier, and an outsider… I think both sides are nuts. And, I can’t decide which is more dangerous to my own personal mental health and peace of mind.

Advertisements

Chick-fil-A and Gay Marriage and — Government Overreach

Glenn Greenwald is one of those lefties I agree with on occasion, although his views on Israel are way off the mark. And, no doubt, he leans socialist. However, he is very interested in civil liberties, and in this — we at least approach agreement or sometimes even flat-out agree. Here, he brings up the recent Chick Fil-A business and how it is dangerous for a government to try and ban a business, simply because it does not agree with that business’s speech. It violates constitutionally protected free speech. And, I imagine that Greenwald, like me, is all for gay marriage. He believes that if you don’t like Chick Fil-A’s views on gay marriage, or their contributions to anti-gay marriage groups, write them a letter or don’t eat there. There are other ways to let them know you disapprove, and of course, you can ignore them and work for the side promoting gay marriage and drown their voices out with better, more articulate arguments. That works better in the long run, and — it keeps the anti-gay marriage groups from feeling, in this case justifiably, persecuted.

He writes:

“Should government officials be able to block businesses from opening or expanding due to disagreement with the political views of the business’ executives? Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel evidently believes he should have this power:

The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.

“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”

________________________________________________________________
I know this censorship (and that’s what it is, and in the constitutional sense) — is happening in Boston as well, thanks to the Mayor of Boston.

Rahm Emanuel’s Free Speech Attack

Greenwald points out to those on the left (or supporters of gay marriage on the right) who are still obtuse on this matter, that they most likely would object if a governmental body or agency decided to ban from the city or country any corporation or small business that supported choice, or gay rights or — (on the right) supported Israel. In Europe, I hear that governments are banning Israeli businesses, and this feels ominous to me as a supporter of Israel, but more importantly, it is an overstepping of the authority of government that we should never allow in this country. Let’s not be like Europe in this case, and I do think this is unconstitutional.

We do have protected free speech and just because it is speech that I don’t like, doesn’t mean I can get the Mayor of a major American city to ban it by banning the business. Since when does a government ban businesses based on their contributions to a cause? Plus, there is nothing more galling than a bunch of anti-gay activists feeling “oppressed”. Cry me a river. But in this case, they actually have a justifiable reason for feeling that way, and that’s just no good.

A new day for the GOP and the LGBT? Coulter at HomoCon, Log Cabin GOP

So, while I’ve been away in LA, at a certain book fair, the Grand Old Party has been continuing to build momentum toward a change, or at least a diversity of opinion, on the ever contentious issue of gay marriage. First, Ann Coulter’s highly anticipated and controversy causing appearance at HomoCon (for gay conservatives) was widely misrepresented in the liberal press as divisive. Looking for another perspective, I went to Coulter’s twitter feed to find out what she recommended as the real scoop, and found a link to the following article by Lisa De Pasquale of Human Events who reports:

“I was fortunate to be a guest of Coulter’s at a New York City cocktail party where she gave a short speech and did Q & A with GOProud, a group of conservative-minded gays. Unsurprisingly, Coulter stuck to her principles by defending traditional marriage between one man and one woman. They were completely charmed and loved every minute of the repartee. What’s a reporter to make of a crowded room of open-minded conservatives with Ann Coulter at the helm? Lie, of course!

Politico reported that there was “nervous laughter” when Coulter addressed the frequent argument that gay marriage is a civil right and akin to denying blacks their rights. Coulter pointed out, both with truth and in jest, “Gays have the highest income of any demographic group in America. Blacks must be looking at gay rights activists in bewilderment thinking, ‘Why couldn’t we be oppressed like that?’”

There was no “nervous laughter” except, perhaps, by a reporter unsure of the location of the 14th Amendment.

Toward the end of her speech, Coulter gave a reasoned argument for traditional marriage. She said, “The purpose of marriage isn’t for society to honor the strong feelings people have for one another, it’s solely and exclusively to provide children the best environment for developing into law-abiding, socialized, productive citizens—so they don’t end up on welfare or mugging us someday.”

There was no booing. No haughty retorts. No one left the room in a dramatic huff. Members of the audience were tolerant not because they’re gay, but because they’re conservatives.

Coulter also offered a proposition that was well-received by the event’s organizers and the crowd. After reminding the crowd of the devastation of single motherhood on children, she said, ‘Instead of promoting something that’s a terrible idea, that everyone hates and that I know you secretly don’t even want anyway, my proposal is that GOProud demand that heterosexuals start taking marriage seriously.’ “

Here’s the story: Reporters Freak as Ann Coulter Meets Gay GOPers

I think it’s true that in many respects, the conservatives I’ve interacted with SO FAR, and I admit these are not too many since really, I am only beginning this journey, but the ones I’ve interacted with are generally far more tolerant of viewpoints not entirely in agreement with their own. I can discuss choice or gay marriage with people who disagree with my perspective, and not be maligned as a woman hating, moronic, sexist, insane, or — (insert nasty insult of choice). The person I am speaking with does not appear to be about to explode or evaporate with anger. I learn a lot from many of these discussions, and I feel the other party might also, or I hope so. My experience with the (far) left is far more contentious and I add, far less respectful of disagreement. I’m not talking about you moderates out there! In any event, I am not surprised that Coulter went over well, after all I doubt that anyone thought she was going to go to HomoCon and pitch gay marriage, but her perspective and humor was valued nonetheless.

The GOP is grappling with gay marriage anew, as I’ve written recently. This is fascinating to watch and of course, I am hoping personally for a real change or an opening here. I think it will be a mixed bag, but I do see a change occurring. After all, the case for gay marriage can be made principally from the perspective of liberty and individual rights; when marriage stopped being about marrying girls off to the highest bidder, about property or status, when people decided to marry for love as much as for pragmatic concerns, gay marriage became inevitable. Some people, after all, fall in love with the same sex, and not – the opposite.

Another story on this strange and unexpected sea change from the GOP here by Matt Lewis:

“Other conservatives even went so far as to argue that supporting gay rights is inherently conservative.

“Conservatism and gay rights are actually natural allies,” said S.E. Cupp, conservative columnist and author of “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity.” “Conservatism rightly seeks to keep the government out of our private lives, and when you strip away the politics of pop culture, it’s this assertion of privacy and freedom that the gay rights movement is essentially making.”

This is how institutions evolve and emerge within a conservative culture,” says Jon Henke, a libertarian-leaning blogger. “In time, gay people will be married, extending the valuable social institution of marriage to more people. In time, conservatives will argue that the positive impact that marriage has on the gay community is further evidence of the importance of the institution of marriage.”

National Review’s Dan Foster believes the changing attitudes are largely generational, but added that “a central thread of conservatism, going back to Edmund Burke, is . . . gradualism.”

Change has come gradually, and it’s worth noting that Coulter’s decision to speak at HomoCon is merely the latest example of prominent conservatives (of all ages) lending, at least, tacit support to the cause of gay rights.

Conservative anti-tax activist Grover Norquist serves on the board of directors for GOProud, and RightWingNews, the blog site run by conservative blogger John Hawkins, has agreed to co-sponsor HomoCon.

Meanwhile, Ted Olson, the lawyer who represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, the case that resolved the 2000 presidential election, recently worked to overturn Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in California. Fox News host Glenn Beck recently said he thinks government should stay out of the gay marriage debate. And The Daily Caller’s Tucker Carlson is speaking at an event hosted by the Log Cabin Republicans.”

From this article by Matt Lewis: Ann Coulter Applauded by Young Conservatives for ‘HomoCon’ Speech

And, where does the notorious and populist Tea Party stand on this? Of course, the Tea Parties are not actually unified political parties, but they are swinging libertarian. An amalgam of political impulses, ideas, and passions, they are a work in progress and represent discontent with big government and a huge deficit more than a veering toward pushing government mandated traditional values. That’s not to say that social conservatives are not well represented at the Tea Parties, because they are, but these same social conservatives also share libertarian free market principles and appear presently, more engaged with pushing back what they believe is the encroachment of nanny state socialism and big government spending. Here, the founder of Log Cabin Republicans gives his take on the Tea Parties and LGBT politics in an interview on NPR with Linda Wertheimer:

Mr. TAFEL: Well, it was a big experiment in the Republican Party for a decade over a decade, which was the fiscally conservative, less government, free market party was going to become the family value, social conservative party. And it sort of switched identities. And I think, actually, the rise of the Tea Party and the loss of moderates and independents has been a signal to the party that hey, there’s a lot of people out there who’s issues are fiscal issues, less government, possibly the military issues, and probably pretty libertarian on a lot of social issues. Those folks have been lost and now they’re coming back in different ways, they’re finding their way back. And I think the social issues folks have lost.

WERTHEIMER: So Glenn Beck says that gay marriage is not a threat to the country. Ann Coulter, who is a conservative political commentator.

Mr. TAFEL: Um-hum, um-hum.

WERTHEIMER: Speaks at a gay Republican event; Senator John Cornyn who is a Republican chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee in the Senate speaking at your fundraiser for the Log Cabin Republicans. It’s beginning to sound like you’ve won.

Mr. TAFEL: Well, we’re not there yet. I always felt like we were going to win because I spoke to so many young people in the ’90s.

And, no the GOP is not there as the recent “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” vote shows, but time will tell, and — I have a feeling that a lot will change simply because – as Tafel describes in this interview later, the culture itself has changed.

The interview is included here in an audio clip and the transcript:

GOP Shifts Stand On Homosexuality Issues

As a heterosexual trans man, this is not actually even my fight. But, I am not foolish enough to believe that denying gay and lesbian people their right to create intimate partnerships is going to help make my rights any more secure. I understand that gay marriage represents a radical change, I won’t deny this, however, people universally have experienced many radical changes in the last few hundred years. Some have not worked out, and others are working just fine. The time has come to loosen the bonds that restrict people’s ability to choose who they marry or partner with . People are doing it any way, as Glenn Beck has pointed out, gay people are “marrying” for all intents and purposes. Marriage or at least, civil unions with the same rights as civil marriage, can only create more stability for society as it secures and strengthens the idea that people make commitments that have consequences and responsibilities, as well as privileges. I actually agree with Coulter when she said that gay people should try and make heterosexual marriage stronger, how about some no-fault divorce? Or, an automatic opt-in for such for couples with children. Of course people may be discouraged from having children, which would not necessarily be a good thing. So, I’m not sure about this issue people, but I do think we have to free people to create lasting partnerships, if they wish.

I just believe ultimately in individual liberty.

GOP and Gay Marriage- a conservative case for gay marriage

Could it be? Possibly so! A sea change coming in the GOP over gay marriage, watch out! I mentioned this not long ago, but the articles keep coming, and in the Huffington Post, no less, an article by Sam Stein:
Steve Schmidt, Former McCain Campaign Chief, On Mehlman Fundraiser: Same-Sex Marriage Becoming Conservative Cause

From the article:
If anything, the hostility between the social conservative element of the party and those less adherent to that doctrine is already palpable. As one prominent Republican who supports gay rights put it:

“Possibly, the socially conservative elements in the party are taking a back seat, and the more libertarian side is coming to power. Here — think there is a growing mass of people in Republican politics who are fundamentally sick and tired about being lectured to about morality and how to live your life by a bunch of people who have been married three or four times and are more likely to be seen outside a brothel on a Thursday night than being at home with their kids… There is a fundamental indecency to the vitriol and the hatred directed against decent people because of their sexuality. People have reached a critical mass with this…”

And here, Steve Schmidt on gay marriage as a conservative cause: “There is a strong conservative case to be made in favor of gay marriage,” The former McCain campaign manager and fellow same-sex marriage fundraiser Steve Schmidt told the Huffington Post on Tuesday. “Marriage is an institution that strengthens and stabilizes society. It is an institution that has the capacity to bring profound joy and happiness to people and it is a matter of equality and keeping faith of one of the charters of the nation, the right to live your life.”

Well, I agree. And, ironically, many “queer radicals” would also agree that gay marriage is too “conservative” of a cause and that their attention is better spent fomenting class and racial unrest, in other words, attempting to create “social justice” by redistributing wealth one way or another. And, ultimately, destroying marriage and the bonds of blood and legal family, replacing them with “chosen family” or maybe, just the latest “community” struggle or trend. I see the shallowness and complete bankruptcy of that approach to life, having lived it long enough to see where it leads – just about nowhere. Destruction and – destruction. Oh, I love my “community” as much as anyone else, but I wouldn’t expect them to save me from a fire or from drowning, so contentious they are and so driven by ego and political game playing. Other queer radicals worry they’ll become assimilated, and what would life be like without a chip on your shoulder? Without feeling special because you are in a victim group?

So, yes, in some respects, gay marriage or legal partnership, is a conservative cause and possibly one whose time has come. It is also a libertarian cause in that, as the above states, it’s time to get government not just out of the bedroom, but also out of the marriage ceremony!

Possibly, everyone should have civil unions gay or straight and leave the marrying to your church or pastor or rabbi or imam or priestess. Or possibly, everyone should just get married if they wish, and who actually cares once it is said and done? I kind of doubt it will make that much difference to hets, once it actually happens.

I feel that marriage should be strengthened if anything – how about some “no-fault” divorce? Maybe, well maybe not – but it is something to chew on and consider.

As a man who is of transsexual background, I can actually get married legally as a heterosexual. So, gay marriage is not really my issue. However, gay marriage being legal would protect me in the odd event that my legal heterosexual marriage was challenged for some reason by family, or otherwise — in a divorce or in the event of the death of my wife. In that dire case, at the hands of unscrupulous people, I could have legal issues on my hands. With gay marriage, my gender or biological sex, will not be an issue. As it stands now, I might win, and I might lose. And, while I am certainly man enough (!) to withstand most scrutiny, no one knows how these things will turn out.

Of course, I have gay friends who wish to be married and I do not feel it is my place to deny them that right and privilege.

Of course, with privilege comes responsibility and when the time for gay divorce comes for some, there may be some regretting! But, at least, they will have had the chance to live out their happiness and forge that bond – or not.

This is all very interesting, and certainly it bears watching, this dance of conservatives in the GOP with gay marriage.

What is interesting to me is that most of the people I know getting married now are trans men with women in what could be seen as non-traditional heterosexual marriages (legal), or gay and lesbian people (trans or not) who are legally able to get married because they live somewhere that this is possible. . My het non-trans friends tend to stay as far away from marriage as they possibly can, and they are nearly against it, as though it is an old-fashioned and embarrassing heirloom that they don’t wish to be associated with. Possibly, gay marriage will make marriage trendy again, cool again, or at least, interesting once more.

Republicans and Gay Marriage -lots of surprises and more to come

Who supports gay marriage? I think you can’t always tell these days.   I mean, Grover Norquist, Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, Megan McCain, Steve Schmidt and various “conservative” pundits and polemicists support gay marriage, and many other conservatives support the same rights without the “M” word — in other words “civil unions”.    Which makes those latter individuals on the same page as Barack Obama who issued a statement, after the Prop 8 court ruling, indicating that while he congratulates gay couples on their victory in California, he does not actually support ah, “gay marriage”, he does support “civil unions” however.

Additionally, one of the two attorneys who fought so very well for the ruling supporting the rights of gays and lesbians to marry in California is Ted Olson, George Bush’s Solicitor General – of all people. He has built a conservative case for gay marriage.

And, of course, marriage is always a “conservative” choice. There are, after all, radical “queer” identified LGBT people who only grudgingly support gay marriage or who feel that gay marriage is NOT the correct goal.

Here, Dean Spade, a prominent Queer (Trans) activist and law professor states along with Crag Willse: “Let’s remember the politics of marriage itself. The simplistic formula that claims “you’re either pro-marriage or against equality” makes us forget that all forms of marriage perpetuate gender, racial and economic inequality. It mistakenly assumes that support for marriage is the only good measure of support for LGBT communities. This political moment calls for anti-homophobic politics that centralize anti-racism and anti-poverty. Marriage is a coercive state structure that perpetuates racism and sexism through forced gender and family norms. Right wing pro-marriage rhetoric has targeted families of color and poor families, supported a violent welfare and child protection system, vilified single parents and women, and marginalized queer families of all kinds. Expanding marriage to include a narrow band of same-sex couples only strengthens that system of marginalization and supports the idea that the state should pick which types of families to reward and recognize and which to punish and endanger. We still demand a queer political agenda that centralizes the experiences of prisoners, poor people, immigrants, trans people, and people with disabilities. We reject a gay agenda that pours millions of dollars into campaigns for access to oppressive institutions for a few that stand to benefit.” That statement is from this: http://makezine.enoughenough.org/prop8.html “No to state regulation of families!”

So, the gay marriage agenda has never been fully embraced by queer activists. In fact, here Spade equates the support of gay marriage with “the right wing”. The non-LGBT right often appears to completely overlook this, believing instead that gay marriage is part of a larger “communist” agenda to attack the nuclear and traditional family. Well, there is a “communist” or hard and far left agenda that is doing just that, the right is not being paranoid, and this agenda is articulated quite well by Dean Spade and others on the fringes. While they do not always call themselves “communist” anymore, the agenda is clearly very nearly the same. And, in the LGBT “community” or world, these fringes are relatively vocal and large enough to impact politics, although they have not been strong enough to stem the enthusiasm of the tide pushing toward full marriage equality. They are kind of spoil sports or party poopers you might say, but nonetheless they make their noise consistently and with great moral heft.

So, the movement to gay marriage is in some sense, as Spade points out, a conservative if not traditional movement, and conservatives who are heterosexual and even Republican are beginning to support it or at least, not deign to stand in its way. This is interesting for what it bodes for historical realignments of power and politics, and the future of the Democrats, who while they are always assumed to be pro-gay marriage, are not always entirely on the bandwagon.

Here, a quote from a recent Huffington Post article by Jason Linkins: “Oh, that’s right! Steve Schmidt, one of the top campaign guys in the game, supports gay marriage. And there’s distant signs of thaw between the GOP and the gay community everywhere. There’s Laura Bush’s open support. There’s Megan McCain’s tireless advocacy. There’s Grover Norquist, a conservative movement big-timer, joining up with GOProud — the “national organization of gay conservatives” that served as a CPAC sponsor. You might recall, also, that when a conservative activist took to the CPAC stage to decry the alliance between CPAC and GOProud, he was booed off the stage by attendees. It still seems unlikely that marriage equality will become the law of the land through the advocacy and support of the Republican party. But it’s getting less and less implausible.”  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/prop-8-ruling-exposes-dem_n_671900.html

What? It’s “getting less and less implausible” that the Republican Party will become the party pushing gay marriage through the gates? Well, Ted Olson is fighting the good fight, the big battle before the courts, that is true. Along with a Democrat, David Boies, his former opponent in arguments before the Supreme Court regarding those famous “hanging chads” of Bush/Gore yesteryear. So, in a sense, this odd idea is already beginning to become historically accurate.

And, finally, I leave you with a very interesting and cogent article from Roger L. Simon, a Hollywood screenwriter who made the shift from left to right relatively late in life and started Pajamas Media, a conservative/libertarian media hub. Simon, is in support of gay marriage, and here writes about Laura Bush, Cheney and others who have expressed similar views, while – oddly, Obama has not. Of course, Obama is still in office and wishes to be re-elected. However, since his base is skewed to the left, this may not be the best strategy. But, I digress, the point is, the world, as always is changing and shifting.

Here, from Roger L. Simon’s article: “Everything is in flux. These days those who identify themselves as “liberals” are on the run because the lynchpin of their ideology – increased government spending – is bankrupting the world economy. I certainly agree with this analysis as do, according to the polls, most voters. But will this always be so? Not necessarily. At some point, governments may stop spending money and come out of bankruptcy or near bankruptcy. This will probably take a while, but then where will we be? Our infrastructures will likely be in sore need of repair. At that point many of us may feel it’s time for governments to start spending money again. How inconsistent of us. But that’s life. Things change. Which brings me back to gay marriage. The world has changed on this issue and is continuing to change. As Laura Bush points out in her interview (with Larry King), it’s a generational thing. Younger people in our culture don’t consider homosexuality such a big deal. Same-sex marriage is also no big deal to them. Indeed, it has already come to pass. Our cities are filled with gay couples who are de facto married. Almost all of us know some of them. Many of us have them in our families. No social calamities have occurred that I know of, at least not from gay people living together.

We have real problems. That is not one of them, not even faintly. In world where financial markets are in free fall and Islamic terrorists threaten to blow up airplanes, indeed when Islam is beginning to take over the culture of Europe and even starting to make inroads into ours, worrying whether gay people who are in love should be married or not seems an absurd waste of time and energy.” From this article:  http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/05/13/gay-marriage-laura-bush-dick-cheney-and-barack-obama/

And, finally, this just in.. Ann Coulter is going to headline at the first convention of the gay conservative organization “Homocon”! Here, from the Huffington Post by Nick Wing:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/ann-coulter-to-headline-a_n_673313.html

Nick Wing states:  “The gay left has done their best to take all the fun out of politics, with their endless list of boycotts and protests. Homocon is going to be our annual effort to counter the ‘no fun police’ on the left,” said Christopher Barron, Chairman of the Board of GOProud, in a statement. “I can’t think of any conservative more fun to headline our inaugural party then the self-professed ‘right-wing Judy Garland’ – Ann Coulter.”

Indeed, the political landscape is  changing . A good friend who knows me said when I began to turn rightward, “you are usually on the tip of new trends, this doesn’t look good for the left.” I know I am only a small person in this large world, but maybe she was onto something. I sniffed the wind, and I can tell you this- things are going to look very differently politically in a few years. My prediction: the LGBT right grows as gay marriage becomes legalized in more states and other issues take precedence. Also, a very sharp distinction, a chasm grows between queer left LGBT politics and more moderate or libertarian, or conservative LGBT politics as LGBT people begin to enter more decisively the “normal” fabric of American life.