I have to agree that when Rosie and other high-profile people call the current legislative push "hateful", they undermine their own positions without meaning to. As I've written elsewhere, people who oppose gay marriage generally aren't hateful, and even those few who are would certainly never admit that they're hateful.

My read on Bush and his family in regards to gay rights is that they think homosexuality is rather distasteful, and that they think gay rights are somewhat silly. The "preserve and protect" rhetoric they and other politicians use is designed to appeal to the public, as I think it's becoming very clear to everyone that while constitutional amendments and DOMA laws keep same-sex couples from getting legal recognition, they do nothing to significantly bolster marriage as an institution.

Two of the major destabilizing factors in marriage are divorce law and economic pressures. Make divorce more difficult (something I oppose) or reform NAFTA and other free trade agreements that favor corporations over American workers (something I support).

Regardless, when some lesbian mother says, "Why do they hate us?" in a newspaper soundbite, it rings as hollow as when Americans ask "Why do they hate us?" in reference to the Middle East. It's a purely emotional venting of frustration that indicates a sad lack of perspective.

We are at War. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, has openly decared War against all homosexual men and woman and against all of us who value them and and ourselves. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, has openly betrayed his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, has openly announced that he is a puppet on a string, a marionette, obediently serving his bosses, the sworn enemies of all freedom, totalitarian subversive rats such as Lon Mabon, Lou Sheldon, Sandy Rios, Anthony Perkins, Gary Bauer, D. James Kennedy, Jerry Fartwell (who called Ellen DeGeneres "Ellen Degenerate"), Pat Robertscum, Robert George, Robert "inkblot" Bork, Senator Rick "dog-fucker" Santorum, and all the rest of that ilk. It makes no difference whether President Bush himself hates homosexuals or is merely obediently carrying out the orders of those who do. In obeying them, he is guilty and damned.

Osama bin Laden once observed: "Show people a strong horse and a weak horse, and, by nature, they will like the strong horse."

On that, he was absolutely right. We are at War. Only the strong will win. Only those who stand up for what they believe in and speak out forcefully will win. In this War, there can ultimately be no compromise. There can be no compromise between those with opposing basic premises.

The choice is not "Left" or "Right", but up or down: up to the heights of individual freedom and the sanctity of marriage, both heterosexual and homosexual, or else down to the ant-heap of totalitarianism. We must choose between the values and the view of existence, of meaning, of the mystery of human life envisioned and embodied by Sappho and by Pim Fortuyn or that advocated by Santorum and Osama bin Laden. It is one or the other. And, yes, it _is_ that black and white. We are at War. And the only alternative to victory is slavery.

Hmm... Steven that seems a bit overblown. Announcing support for FMA isn't the same as forcing people into gas chambers. I mean, if trying to keep one defination of Marriage over another automatically equals "declaring war on homosexuals" then trying to have a civil debate about what and where our country should go on this issue becomes next to impossible.

You and many other people who visit this site are for redefining marriage as something that does not distingush between sex. Okay, I am against that, but if my opposition is declaring war on your position, you really must think we must act like the IRA and the British. In that case, we drag ourselves into a bloody civil war instead of discussing, arguing the merits of the sides of the issue.

I feel a little sorry for Steven, as he is obviously upset beyond belief. Its not comfortable to be that overwrought. However, in his furor, I think he has missed an important point. It was not the President of the United States that declared "war" on homosexuals. Rather, it seems to be the homosexuals (via SanFranciso) that have chosen to launch a war on the rest of us. This is unfortunate. I have no desire to go to war against homosexuals. But, if mainstream America is forced to make a choice I don't think homosexuals will win, and its not because the rest of us hate homosexuals. Its because we were backed into a corner, forced to consider "all or nothing" in a time when most of us simply can not accept the "all" and must by default resort to the "nothing".

SMA, you are being self-indulgent, as are Rosie and Sullivan and many others who are simply giving vent to their overblown emotions. In so doing, you hurt your cause.

Good grief, when did "losing it" ever persuade anyone? So you feel strongly about this, good for you. But even folks who agree with whatever underlying point you're trying to make are not likely to be interested in identifying with someone who spews vitriol every time he sits down to the keyboard.

Lucy writes:

"It was not the President of the United States that declared 'war' on homosexuals. Rather, it seems to be the homosexuals (via SanFranciso) that have chosen to launch a war on the rest of us. This is unfortunate. I have no desire to go to war against homosexuals. But, if mainstream America is forced to make a choice I don't think homosexuals will win, and its not because the rest of us hate homosexuals. Its because we were backed into a corner, forced to consider 'all or nothing' in a time when most of us simply can not accept the 'all' and must by default resort to the 'nothing'."

There is an interesting parallel here: Both Lucy and many gay marriage proponents consider the marriage a matter worthy of a war.

It's also interesting that she feels the gay marriage issue is forcing "mainstream America" into a corner. Obviously, this means that marriage means a lot to her. At the same time, she seems unaware that marriage means a lot to gay marriage proponents as well.

I think it's obvious that this is moving too far for the comfort of some people. But these things can't be avoided -- the currents are too large and too strong -- and we must let them play out. However, the mindset on both sides that each is under attack from the other is telling. I don't agree with Rosie O'Donnell, even though she's somewhat in my camp (I consider her a Johnny-come-lately, but her heart's in the right place), but I also don't agree with Lucy. They seem to make too much of the wrong things, and too little of the wrong things.

This idea that the people who want gay marriage are a micro-minority, attempting to tie the hands of the super-majority and force an alien morality upon them, is I think part emotional inflation, part lack of information. Support for our marriages is more widespread than most people think believe.

There are some things that can't be decided by a majority vote. The Lawrence v. Texas ruling was one of them: it upheld that the private sex lives of consenting adults are outside the jurisdiction of any government. However, the deeper I get into the dialogue on gay marriage, the closer I come to agreeing with the sentiment that marriage *is* a consensus issue that society cannot be forced to accept.

To that end, I remain supportive of civil unions. Gay marriage would have been outlawed regardless -- let's not kid ourselves. However, civil unions have a chance, and I'll be working to try and make sure the Federal Marriage Amendment doesn't snuff them out along with marriage.

I stand by every word I wrote. Those who are turned off by warlike language are not warriors and will not fight. I want only warriors on my side, only men and women who will _fight_ for their values. We _are_ at War.

My polytheistic Pledge of Allegiance in that other thread was considered heretical. I am proud to be a heretic. I now think that perhaps it was too idealistic, a pledge to an America that has been, can be again, and should and must be, but only if we will fight for it. I will now pledge a more realistic Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it once stood, now two nations, now divided, now heading toward a second Civil War, with liberty and justice for those who will fight for it.

Today, we fight this War through politics and the courts, through words and propaganda, through philosophy and theology. We may well reach the point where we will have to fight with our guns. Never give up your gun. Never give up your freedom.

Also, Dean -- I read the Outsmart column and I couldn't agree more: Democrats are only rhetorically better for gay and lesbian Americans. When it comes down to brass tacks, their *actions* aren't much different from those of Republicans, though their words are couched in tolerance and freedom.

I think it's important to point out that the Republican party is not, on the whole, supportive of gay and lesbian relationships or of gay and lesbian liberation. The party platform, along with my vocal members, have consistently characterized homosexuality and same-sex relationships as a threatening and destabilizing influence in society.

As a gay man who votes, it's hard to feel good about either side. However, I live in a city where our State Assemblyman and our Congresswoman are gay. They're both Democrats. On a local level, Democrats are more supportive of gay issues than Republicans. On a national level, such distinctions break down rapidly as both parties slide toward a middle that they *perceive* to be anti-gay. I think the reality is far more complicated than that.

The Democratic party is run by neo-Marxist "fuzzy liberals" who think that the most important issues are economic, "who gets the goodies?", and that the country is divided into a multitude of squabbling "special interest" groups, of which homosexuals are but one, begging for favors and handouts from the government.

The Republican party (once but no longer the Grand Old Party of Lincoln and Goldwater) has now been taken over by a cabal of extremely clever totalitarian ideologues, Masters of Deceit, who know that the real issues are the spiritual issues, issues of fundamental values, but who have deliberately taken the wrong side in the War in order to destroy all values and all freedoms in order to subjugate all of America to the rule of Big Brother.

This is no "backlash" but is instead a brilliantly engineered "frontlash" which has been in the works for many years. I do not underestimate the Enemy. They know exactly what they are doing. Today it is homosexuals whom they target. You're next on the list.

In short, the Democratic nominee, whoever he may be, cannot be trusted to take a firm stand on anything of importance. President Bush, and those who control him, _can_ be trusted -- to lie continually about everything of importance. They are indeed the Masters of Deceit.

from Dale Carpenter's OutSmart article:
"Why the double standard? One possibility is that our leaders are willing to sacrifice gay equality on liberalism’s altar for the sake of other issues they care about. But that’s too cynical.

"I suspect it’s more like the battered wife syndrome: We keep coming back because we think they won’t abuse us again and, after all, they love us."

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. I always look forward to seeing Carpenter's byline; he's very sharp. But I do think that something else is happening here, too: the Democratic party is very good at taking a certain kind of gay people who crave club membership, having spent their growing-up years feeling excluded, and making them feel like insiders. When the party does something pro-gay, they can believe that our power helped it happen; when the party does something anti-gay, well, politics is rough, and with our super-cool understanding of the way the world works, we recognize why it had to be that way this time around [nodding solemnly].

And actually, I'd have a lot more respect for gay activists were I able to believe that they were striking a balance among a range of issues that they feel important, as opposed to constantly cooing at us about how they're looking out for our welfare even when they manifestly aren't.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the lesbian-eating pho-loving æsthete-worshipping gun:
"Those who are turned off by warlike language are not warriors and will not fight. I want only warriors on my side, only men and women who will _fight_ for their values. We _are_ at War."

I protest the implication that anyone who doesn't have a flip-spaz at every provocation is a craven little pansy. I'm willing to fight for my values, I have no trouble with warlike language (especially all that suggestive stuff about incursion and capture), and there's a place in every movement for outspoken Katharine Hepburn/Camille Paglia/Harvey Fierstein types, who sweep through discussions saying what they think and damn the consequences. They can be invigorating and motivational for the existing troops, as you personally often are. But if you're going to do that you have to be willing to damn the consequences, and no fair wondering why some people conclude you're a lunatic and tune you out.

Sean Kinsell who describes me so perfectly:

You analyzed my style very well, and defended your own very ably. A "flip-spaz" indeed, ha! ha! That is true, no doubt.

I might say something, however, about the President's own apparent "flip-spaz" over the Mayor of San Francisco giving marriage licenses to homosexual couples, whereupon the Prez decided that he needed a Constitutional amendment to stamp out homosexual weddings in every corner of America. I think, however, that _that_ "flip-spaz" was calculated well in advance by his bosses and all they needed was a pretext at the right time.

I agree with you that I must be willing to damn the consequences and be considered a lunatic, a crackpot, a kook, off the wall, over the top. Perhaps I am the Anti-Fred Phelps. For just as Rev. Phelps helps Bush and his bosses look moderate by contrast, so it is that I am helping you and John Kusch look sane by contrast. Which you are, of course, sane that is. But I can't help noticing that, for quite some time and until quite recently, John Kusch was considered too bitter, angry, and unreasonable by Dean and others, but now he is seen more and more as the reasonable, reasoning man that he actually always was, while it is I who am the angry, shrill, strident, intolerant, hate-filled dogmatist. You're right. I'm going to have to be willing to be the "shit magnet", as Jim Goad called himself. That has always been the role of the extremist.

At this time, in this frame of reference, a product of choices made in the recent past, the culmination of years of dormancy;

Comments and language that directly addresses the dissonance (the inconsistency between the beliefs one holds or between one's actions and one's beliefs) that abounds in everyday life can be hard to make coherently.

It is easy to dismiss the message. It is difficult (due to our frame of reference) to critque a system of thought when, in the main, this system has been the agent by which the speaker, and the listener, has formulated their opinion. Most often these difficulties are not overcome. Many times the act of attempting to re-phrase and de-color can distract to the point of lost focus and the message may be lost.

Kudos to those who have the courage to express their perception of dissonance.

Humanity is lead by example. We can talk and write until we are blue in the face while what we DO will be what really communicates our beliefs.

People watch. People see. Ever heard monkey-see, monkey-do? If we offer up, publicize, rally around, lend power to, generally support those who act in opposition of what we know to be "wrong", if these people achieve positions of power and influence, if people had an alternative to select, debate might not be such a minefield of "flip-spaz" comments.

As it is I only see those who have elided the true virtues 'rising' to these positions. It is hard to make a constuctive argument without examples. Heck, this is an example of what I mean. I can't point at anything and say "see? that's what I'm talking about". This doesn't change how I feel.

In summary; it is easy to dismiss. Much more difficult to accept that every person is 'right' in their own mind. It is hard to search for meaning in another persons' words.

Keep up the good fight Steven, LWGLSA. I won't attempt to detail my view but I do agree. This is war. Pick a side.

Anybody who thinks that Bush did a "flip-spaz" in his statement about supporting an amendment is, frankly, nuts.

The words Bush used, and his manner and demeanor when saying them, were quite calm and dispassionate.

Regardless of one's position on the issue of SSM, anybody who read Steve's diatribe and them watched a clip of the Bush statement would know beyond a shadow of doubt which one has flipped out, and which one is the utter kook. For some reason, Steve and Andrew and a bunch of others read into Bush's words something he has not said. He *never* said that gays should be stoned or are evil. What he *has* said is that activist judges and rogue mayors don't get to dictate fundamental changes in our society by fiat.

Fred; we tend to agree.

As I said in my own place some months back regarding Canada's move in the same direction, and repeated recently:

...there are issues of rights involved, and nobody has the right to legislate the *behavior* per se'. (At least, based on our current understanding of it)

There's a major difference, however, between allowing the behavior, and justifying it, mainstreaming it, by means of law. Must we alter our traditions, beliefs and social structures and mores, thus destroying our existing culture, to be seen as non-judgmental... as if that was supposed to be a GOOD thing? I have said it for years in this column, that those who tolerate everything making no judgments about anything,, stand for nothing. Our cultures stand for something. When the culture is gone, what remains of western society? Canada's government has in their attempt to get us to be more tolerant, asked us... no.. demanded of us, under threat of law, to take one more step towards cultural oblivion.

You'll forgive me, please, if I refuse to march in their parade.

Brett Fife:

Thank you!

I seemed somewhat too self-deprecatory in my last comment here before I went to bed.

In response to Bithead, if you read my comments here you will surely conclude that I am _not_ tolerant, I am intolerant, that I do indeed judge and judge harshly. I hold absolute values. I love the good, including homosexuality, and I hate the bad, all that which negates the good. That's all I want to say for right now.

"The words Bush used, and his manner and demeanor when saying them, were quite calm and dispassionate."

That's precisely my point. You're easily conned.

Okay, everyone's picked up on Rosie saying that the President said "vile" and "hateful" things. Her manner is offputting. She's prone to hyperbole and histrionics. Take the low road and make fun of her for being fat and ugly, if you like.

How many people are paying attention to the part where she said that she was inspired to take up the cause because she was denied spousal privilege during her trial and all her correspondence with her partner was entered into the record?

I think it's funny (and not funny-ha-ha) that the uproar over this is just as loud as that over Britney Spears' atrocious behavior.