Trump World Grab-Bag--A Collection

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Not the Least, and Not the Last

Yesterday marked some new changes in the battle of LGBT equality, with AZ Gov.Jan Brewer vetoing Senate bill 1062, finding that there was no evidence that people of faith were being unduly burdened and that allowing this bill to become law would have unintended consequences, and with a federal judge ruling the Texas gay marriage ban unconstitutional. 

It's not unalloyed good news, because although I am optimistic (just see my last blog entry) I was not found in a cabbage patch nor was I raised on sunshine and good vibes. The response of some social conservatives definitely reminds me that nothing is over--if anything, the desire of a handful of retrograde culture warriors to wrap themselves in the mantle of faith and claim special privilege as a marginalized group seems to have grown. It's what you might call a smaller, but more motivated group. Look at it this way, if it's right that the SCOTUS Windsor ruling has literally made all further argument on gay marriage moot, what the hell is Brian Brown gonna do now? Get a real job? Even Fox News might stop inviting Tony Perkins on, and everyone knows Bryan Fischer is worried  that if folks are freely getting gay-married...well, he's on his own thing and I think he's more scared of turning into a vulva than turning gay, but my point is, that rear-guard money is catch as catch can and they gotta hustle now. So they will hustle.

The thing with prejudice is, the people with it like to feel justified. Of course they are fine upstanding better people. They wouldn't even have the prejudices they do if they weren't! This "religious freedom" gambit seemed like a nice way to co-opt the language of the persecuted to sound like maybe they were the ones all victimized and wronged by liberal fascism. Which is the very worst kind of fascism because of the PBS programming and organic produce, not to mention the whole meaningful chats about "tone". But the problem is political correctness, don't you know.

Conservatism won at least one argument with me. I hate political correctness. I will call these professional victims and family values pimps what they are. And for what it's worth, if they want to talk about respecting religion, I have some reservations about your garden-variety haters deciding it's totally okay to rip out pages of Leviticus and use them as a fig leaf to cover up their rage-boners over any class of people...being treated totally the same as anyone else.

But here is something to ponder that I don't think conservatives are taking into account:

This kissing of theocratic ass is costing them--let's talk about CPAC.

I love CPAC. I pretend I'm appalled because I'm a proper liberal with all the right credentials but as theater? I was a choir geek in high school--I love theater! And who doesn't like to watch a hot mess of theater sometimes? But anyway, CPAC has engendered drama because they could never let GOProud in the fold. They were out, and never in. The sucking up around the edges to try and pacify the theocrat powers that be apparently cheesed Chris Barron off enough to quit them, hard enough. Is he not a conservative and a brother?

Nope. Moving on, CPAC isn't having any with atheists either.  Wow. If "none of the above" is a big religious choice of the millennial generation, aren't they making a big mistake right here? Especially given that 1/3 of millennial left religion specifically over how gay people are treated by their faith?

This wedge issue that used to be good for the GOP circa 2004, is not a great issue about now.  But if they think they look spiffy in albatross, who am I to try and stop them? You go, GOP-ers! Wrap yourself in the flag and the Bible and take all of your guns at once and....

I dunno. Write a very serious letter to editor of the Washington Times. If they have one. I guess.

(X-posted at Rumproast.)


Anonymous said...

hi Vixen,
well you're right. It does seem like something of a potential setback for us breeders.

However, there may be more to this. The other day on the radio I heard that something like 76% of people in Texas disagreed with same sex marriage.

This would considerably go beyond some crusty old social conservative culture warriors. And it would also go considerably beyond people who disagree with same sex marriage for strictly religious reasons.

Some people still believe marriage exists primarily for the protection and well-being of children. And that, of course, primarily directs itself at breeder marriages. Others think that 3 or 4 thousand years of marriage pretty well defines what marriage should be. Some people grew up in happy homes with happy marriages and want future generations to have the same benefits they had. The reasons go on and are not limited to a religious perspective.

In any event, in the Texas situation the appeal will be made to the New Orleans appellate court, and this court has asserted that states have a right to define marriage for themselves. So that suggests that there is not quite a fait accompli.

I think that proponents of same sex marriage need to avoid angering moderates like me. I'm a conservative, and I believe that marriage is a sacred bond between opposite sexes. However, I am willing to concede the point in states where the majority of citizens have called for same sex marriage through the democratic process. So conservatives of my ilk are not on board with something we cannot endorse, but we are not against it if it is subject to majority rule.

I think that gay marriage proponents are a little bit like people who are accused of winning a war, but not winning the peace. You have convinced a lot of fellow travelers that it is the right thing, but you have not persuaded those of us who look at things from a different perspective.

--Formerly Amherst

Vixen Strangely said...

I just recoil at the idea that a stranger is in the place of determining whether the union of any two grown consenting people has a quality of sacredness or not, especially when I know of same-sex couples whose marriages have been around longer than I've been alive. When I consider the deep insult to their actual lives and families, I find that the idea some one can actually be angered by the existence of a family that is in no way hurting them, just...odd. Rights aren't a zero-sum game, and the recognition of rights of same-sex couples takes nothing away from "breeders".

As to the historical argument, for thousands of years and in many cultures, women were seen as chattel. Same-sex marriages would never have dominated in any particular culture, but they've been found to have existed. Times change.