My brother and I love confronting people on the “special rights” business, as married straights. 

We can never get any coherent answer - and that is the total fun of it!  The cognitive dissonance when you ask for actual logic and reasoning behind deep-throated talking points is howlingly stupid even if it is so very sad.

Don’t forget the special rights fetuseses are allowed.  No other person is allowed to co-opt another person’s body for medical purposes…you can’t even get a court order to force somone to be tested to see if they can be a bone marrow donor (settled case in Illinois) muxh less force them to donate the tissue in order to save the life of a family member.

But Fetal Americans have the right to enslave the owner of the womb, co-opt its use for 9 months, and alter the woman’s physical body forever.

If the woman dies due to complications?  Well, she should be honored that she tried, even if she was a failure at The Only Thing A Woman Really Wants To Do.  She certainly shouldn’t terminate the pregnancy to save herself—how selfish!

“Of course, I have to point out the irony of conservatives defending the right to have closed groups that receive federal funding while screeching at the same time about how private individuals shouldn’t be able to run a private listserv using their own resources.”

...well, that’s completely different, because, you see, when the, and the… BECAUSE, SHUT YOUR MOUTH, THAT’S WHY…

“The Founders made it exquisitely clear that their definition of religious freedom was one where the government showed no favor towards religion, and was separate from it.  Giving religions special rights is a form of establishment.  It’s as contrary to the original intent as you get.”

Oh no!  The Founding Fathers put Freedom of Religion into the Constitution, but not Freedom from Religion like you dirty hippie atheists want.  Besides, the Constitution is built on Biblical Law.  I heard Sarah Palin say so…

Oh yes. I love the idea of “special rights for me but not for thee”. Like Ms. Kate, my wife is very good at making their head explode by actually thinking about what they’re saying.

Conservatives are simply against “special rights” for anybody else, because then their own rights would no longer special.  Actually they are against any rights for anyone else, which is what makes conservatives’ right so special in the first place.

Listserv?

“Hey, I want to marry a dude but I can’t, because everyone would totally think I’m gay!  It’s not fair that these gay dudes get to do it!”

I think it’s more like, “All the gay thoughts I have involve dicks in butts!  I don’t want to marry a guy!  What are they talking about?”

Conservatives are simply against “special rights” for anybody else, because then their own rights would no longer special.

Yep.  If everybody has the right to get married/get a job/live where they want, then it’s not special anymore.

The specialness of the “special right” they keep decrying is “Only straight white dudes get to enjoy these rights.  No others need apply.”

Oh, it’s definitely a full-on white hetero guy panic: fear that they’ll no longer automatically be king of the hill simply by showing up pale, male and non-homo.

They’ve already lost so many “rights”: for instance, the right to discriminate openly and harass in all manner possible the female, colored, and faggy (see Mad Men for examples.)

I suspect that the reichwing would love to just do away with all this “rights” stuff and just get right on to privileges and nothing else.  The more unearned, the better!

Amanda - it wasn’t that clubs had to have open admission, but to get money from the school (i.e to be an official, SPONSORED club) they had to comply with the non-discrimination policy. If the Christian Legal Society had said “we don’t want your homo money and we’re going to be a private group,” there would have been no issue. As it was, they pulled the same routine we see with so many righty groups where they imitate a teenager. “Screw you and your fascist rules, Dad! By the way, can I have an advance on my allowance!”

I think there’s a solid number of Republican men who think, “Hey, I want to marry a dude but I can’t, because everyone would totally think I’m gay!  It’s not fair that these gay dudes get to do it!”

Strongly disagree. There’s a solid number of Republican men who don’t see why their God-given privileges as well-off white men should be impacted just because they’re gay (that’s the Log Cabin Republicans); the rest of them don’t want to marry a man, they just want to have the same dynamic that they would have with a female mistress if they were totally heterosexual. Mansex, to them, is something you do anonymously or with aides or otherwise on the side and in the shadows, where it’s (to them) hot and dirty. Plus, you get the bonus of putting one over on the wife.

This group is kidding themselves if they think that gays aren’t already members. Closeted gays sometimes find spaces where people aren’t expected to openly discuss (beyond their struggle with maintaining purity) or engage in sexual activity as convenient and parent-pleasing cover for a lack of interest in sexing the opposite gender. If anything, openly gay members might lead to closeted members tumbling out, which of course will be deemed “contagion.”

The marriage issue is becoming ever more clearly a howling example of the special right argument fail, since it is increasingly boiling down to “if we let gay people marry, it will destroy the institution for everyone else.”

How is that not a TEXTBOOK definition of “special rights?”

Gay marriage would not be a “special” right, since both gay and straight would then have the right to marry someone of the same gender.  It is sort of ridiculous to frame it that way, except that the conservative argument that the right is “special” is that straight marriage is not discriminatory, since both gay and straight have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

myth raises an interesting point… I think we as liberals have made a fundamental error in feeling that the Log Cabin Republicans believe that the privilege of being gay is something that one should secure through money, and that’s the only difference between the progressive movement’s views on gay partnership and their own. But we have to remember, the rest of the party philosophy is one of extreme power dynamics, even in interpersonal relationships. In the Republican party, a partnership, whether it’s heterosexual or homosexual, is not celebrated as a union of equals but rather as one person having ownership of another and the other person having to play from a limited stack of ploys to get the person with power to “keep them.”

So why would a Log Cabin Republican want to throw over the awesome tax breaks and wealthy privilege they have, much less try to level the playing field? In a world where homosexuality is a privilege to be bought and paid for, the person with the buying power is the person with the power in the relationship, period. At least in the Republican hetero playbook, a woman who tricks a man into marrying her at least has the legal marriage giving her certain protections in case he decides he doesn’t want her around anymore, but in the Log Cabin view, if the wealthy sugardaddy tires of his rentboy, there’s pretty much jack squat the rentboy can do about it. He should be thankful he’s just out on his ass and not being prosecuted for sodomy.

So maybe THAT’s the special rights that the gays have that the republicans are so damn resentful of. It just requires and incredibly obnoxious worldview to see it that way.

Perhaps I’m a minority of one, however I think that this issue is more complex than you and the previous responders have referenced.

Example:

1.  “Men’s Clubs” - rightfully have been restricted and in some cases eliminated related to how:

a. Women were not allowed in them,
b. “Business of the Community” or “necessary connections of the Community” - were a significant part of them - e.g. the Power Elites had them and they had the power,

vs.

2.  “Women’s Clubs” - in some situations - such as health clubs where women can exercise without being harassed by men where:

a. There is no privilege as in 1. above and
b. There is a clear reason for the self-segregation protecting in a sense an “oppressed class”.

I see a distinct difference between these two types of “discrimination”.  One can argue in some cases of the “Women’s Club” type of situation whether it further is “classist” - re: White (only) or Het (only) but this doesn’t take away from the basic, relevant issue that I see.

I believe that to say that for example - women who’ve been abused by men need to “not discriminate” in having situations where they have “women’s only” space respected by men is important.

This issue seems tough to me in the sense that one needs to then confront the issue of whether the right-wing Christian group(s) is/are similarly “oppressed groups” or “privileged groups” or neither. 

Frequently I think this is particularly important because we have, for example, extremely wealthy people pushing for the elimination of estate taxes talking of “small businessmen (sic)” when in reality it is easy to make general guidelines that separate the “small businessmen (sic)” from wealthy individuals and families.

We do need to confront the lies and distortions - definitely!  Doing it effectively and in meaningful ways seems important to me.

All the right wing whites who think Affirmative Action is keeping them down, can join the Black Law Students Association for resume fodder.

The thing I don’t get is why would a gay person want to join a Christian group.  I mean, they should have every right to, but I would think it would be kind of awkward.  The Bible calls for gays to be killed, why would a gay person want to be part of that?  It would be like a gay person joining the Republican Party.

The thing I don’t get is why would a gay person want to join a Christian group.

Fundagelical Christians do no represent the majority of Christianity, no matter how much they claim to.  Many Christians and Christian groups are accepting and loving of gay people.

All the right wing whites who think Affirmative Action is keeping them down, can join the Black Law Students Association for resume fodder.

Whatever, everyone knows that association is just letting the white guys in ‘cause they need 2 white people at every function. :D

Geo @17 - you’re not a minority of one, in that lots of people don’t understand the issues about single-sex clubs. Your arguments have nothing to do with what’s going on wrt the Christian legal students.

It is perfectly legal for a group of men to form a private club that does not admit women. This is so whether or not the club members talk about business with each other. Do you think, if you started a guys-only D&D;game that met every Friday night, that you would get an EEOC letter demanding you admit women? Would you be subject to a lawsuit if the guy playing the cleric talked to the GM during a break about a joint venture? (These are rhetorical questions. The answer is “no.”)

“Men’s clubs” ran into trouble for the same reasons as the CLA - money. A club that runs a restaurant, operates under certain tax rules, and has its members deducting their dues as business expenses has gone far beyond a “private” club that is exempt from the reach of anti-discrimination laws.

Similarly, the CLA was demanding that Hastings, which is a law school subset of the University of California (a public university paid for with public funds) give money to a group that did not conform to the school’s anti-discrimination policy. There was no suggestion that Hastings made an exemption for “oppressed” groups and gave them money anyway if they did not have an open membership.

Listserv?
Comment #6: Eric_RoM on 06/30 at 07:15 PM

If you’re asking what is a listserv, it’s an application that allows people to email each other about stuff by sending it to one, common email address rather than cc in everyone and his nephew.

If you’re asking which listserv, he’s talking about JournoList.

If you’re asking why call it “listserv” when that’s like calling the internet “AOL,” I don’t have an answer for you, especially since the people who use it seem reasonably technically savvy in other regards.  “Listserv” has apparently become the “Kleenex” of email list server applications, even though it’s probably much less commonly used than Lyrix or Mailman.

“All the right wing whites who think Affirmative Action is keeping them down, can join the Black Law Students Association for resume fodder.”

This is what I’ve never understood. If AA is a firmly entrenched system of discrimination that disadvantages white people in a way that’s not tempered by the advantages of whiteness, where’s the “passing”? The definition of black in our society is amorphous enough for a dark haired white person to claim blackness to receive AA without extensive questioning. Additionally, the “one drop rule” could be applied to native American heritage, and voila, like 75% of white Americans are minorities and therefore eligible.

That being said, they *could*, in sufficient numbers, hijack, sabotage and eventually vote minority organizations that they dislike or see as obsolete out of existence or somehow imperil the charter or funding.

Selena777 says: Additionally, the “one drop rule” could be applied to native American heritage, and voila, like 75% of white Americans are minorities and therefore eligible.

A lot of tribes have become extremely restrictive on who can claim heritage.  Mostly because of white folks wanting to get some of that casino money…

“Fundagelical Christians do no represent the majority of Christianity, no matter how much they claim to.  Many Christians and Christian groups are accepting and loving of gay people.”

Then why in a majority-Christian nation do gays have such a hard time getting rights?  They obviously represent the power and money structure in this country.  I also feel that the tolerant Christians are tolerant despite their faith, not because of it.

Then why in a majority-Christian nation do gays have such a hard time getting rights?  They obviously represent the power and money structure in this country.  I also feel that the tolerant Christians are tolerant despite their faith, not because of it.

Name any country that is gay-friendly in Europe.  They’re either Protestant or Catholic.  Western civilization is “majority-christian” and there are gay-friendly countries.  The United States has had a long history of being naturally repressive of others.  For decades in the 20th century the majority was alright with limiting rights in the name of finding communists and being able to fire people if they had an association with a radical organization like CORE or the NAACP.  It’s not a religious issue so much as a cultural one and one tied into power.  I don’t particularly feel like trying to explain the anti-gay mind but I can assure you the majority may be using religion or tradition to cover up a much larger phobia and misunderstanding of the homosexual component in society. 

Special rights = Civil Rights.  Why do we let them change the name on them?  Extending Civil Rights to black and all minorities in 1964 was the opening of the flood gates to equality.  The 14th amendment technically creates a standard for giving homosexuals the rights to marry (as marriage stands as a privilege that shouldn’t be abridged.)  The ever changing identity of the US has allowed the ebb and flow of rights but this argument is the last hurrah of a dying ideal.

“That being said, they *could*, in sufficient numbers, hijack, sabotage and eventually vote minority organizations that they dislike or see as obsolete out of existence or somehow imperil the charter or funding.”

Yes, they can. And it supposes that (in this specific case) law students have nothing better to do in their free time than attend club meetings for the express purpose of destroying the club. In other discussions, it was pointed out that it would be perfectly simple (and just as facially equal) for a club to set a minimum amount of participation or attendance before a member is allowed to vote, especially on something like disbanding the group or rewriting the bylaws. It certainly makes no sense to have a situation where someone with a grudge can walk in to a meeting with a bunch of friends and destroy the club in their first visit.

So, the students would have to make a concerted effort to do something like this, in their free time. It could certainly be done, but not without a lot of publicity, both on campus, and depending on the focus of the club, nationally.

Someone also pointed out that, especially at high-visibility schools like law schools, BS like that can seriously affect post-grad employment opportunities.

Sure, it will happen somewhere. And then the club will have to pick up the pieces and regroup, and that will suck, but it is highly unlikely to be a trend that sweeps the country.

Of course, someone else will be bright enough to put up banners in strategic places for the “Gay Student Lawyers Club welcomes its new members” with a list of the assholes trying to do the takeover.

Why don’t liberals take over the NRA?  Same thing.

The Founders made it exquisitely clear that their definition of religious freedom was one where the government showed no favor towards religion, and was separate from it.

Certainly not to disagree with you about the scope of constitutional religious freedom, but . . .

The 1st Amendment drafted by the Founders applied only to the federal government.  Several states had formally established churches until the early 19th Century.  It’s the post-Civil War 14th Amendment that prohibits state governments from establishing churches.

to cparis@ #25 - and some have not - like Todd and Sarah Palin’ s grandson, who receives IHS medical care even thought the kid is something 1/32nd I’upik?

The funny thing is that two straight guys could probably get married too… they most likely wouldn’t want to, but they could. It’s a right for everyone. I wonder if that would make a homophobe’s head explode.

<quoteblock> A lot of tribes have become extremely restrictive on who can claim heritage.  Mostly because of white folks wanting to get some of that casino money…</quoteblock>

Oh, I don’t mean for NA “benefits” specifically, I mean for more general identification purposes. If you’re applying for a government contract based on your minority status, I don’t think they check the Dawes rolls.

The funny thing is that two straight guys could probably get married too… they most likely wouldn’t want to, but they could. It’s a right for everyone. I wonder if that would make a homophobe’s head explode.

Oh, it does, all the time, and they never see it coming. I cannot tell you how many times I took part in the following conversation during the Prop 8 campaign here in California:

HOMOPHOBE: “Gays have the same rights as normal people—-the right to marry a member of the opposite sex! They shouldn’t get special rights!”

ME: “You do realize that during the brief period when same-sex marriage was legal in this state, you had the same right as a gay person—-the right to marry a member of the same sex.”

HOMOPHOBE: “THAT’S DISGUSTING!!! I don’t want to marry another guy/woman!!! I’m not that way! I want to marry someone I’m in love with!!!”

ME: “Yeah, see how that works?”

I find that “special rights” to a bigot generally means “rights that represent 1) choices I find icky/weird/different and/or 2) freedoms I already take for granted as perks of my God-given awesomeness.”

#27

I’m still not buying the argument.  Most of Europe has secularized and those “Christians” either don’t care too much for their faith or are closeted atheists.  Like I say, they are more tolerant towards gays because they have turned their backs on Christianity.  Religion and homophobia go together like peas in a pod.  This is why atheists and gays need to join forces and form an alliance.

Albert, you’re completely right.  It’s despite, not because of.  While it is very very true that not all congregations are anti-gay, the ones that aren’t are NEVER deeply religious, deeply xtian, etc.  They only use the pretty parts of the bible, talk about god as a spirit, etc.  They’re not closely adhering to the religion at all. (IME)

Albert @35, of course you’re not buying the argument, because you have a preordained conclusion that gays and atheists are natural allies. Europe is ‘secularized’ in the sense that many countries have official, state religions so of course people don’t get worked up about it; you don’t have to argue for a Christian government if you already have one.

Setting aside the conflation of “religion” and “Christianity”, certain specific religions drive sectors of the population toward homophobia - the Mormon church’s support of Prop 8 is a textbook example - but for all that they self-identify as Christians, most Americans are not especially devout and their opposition to same sex marriage is tautological, not faith-based. Anti-gay activists like David Blankenhorn don’t couch their opposition in terms of religion, but in terms of social science and evolution and the Greater Good.

What goes together like peas in a pod are sexism and homophobia; it’s no accident that the religious entities that want to “protect marriage” have a very specific, male-dominated version of marriage in mind. 

And, from a coldly practical view, “Oh yeah, and we think the whole God thing is stupid” is probably not the most effective political strategy for securing LGBT rights.

And, from a coldly practical view, “Oh yeah, and we think the whole God thing is stupid” is probably not the most effective political strategy for securing LGBT rights.

Oh sure, it’s never effective trying to argue with delusional people about the invisible people who talk to them. :p

And cosign the tolerant-despite-Christianity idea. Religions like that are very much about keeping people in their place and making them adhere to strict and mostly arbitrary rules. That’s not the kind of environment where love and compassion bloom, no matter what kind of lipservice those two things get every Sunday. Sure, there are many loving and compassionate Christians, but nothing will ever convince me that they would not be just as wonderful (if not more so) without being Christian.

Blankenhorn may not be honest enough to come out and say it, but his rhetoric seems torn right out of the MRA/biblical patriarch playbook.  I mean, “pioneer of the fatherhood movement” is nothing short of a red flag.

Europe is secularized in the sense that they aren’t, by and large, religious.  And are better off for it

A state religion is like the British Monarchy - an archaic institution held onto for no logical reason. Simply having a state religion does not mean that the citizens of that country actually follow it.

__

“but nothing will ever convince me that they would not be just as wonderful (if not more so) without being Christian. “

prezactly.

“of course you’re not buying the argument, because you have a preordained conclusion that gays and atheists are natural allies.”

Of course they are.  Many atheists like gays are “in the closet” before they come out and when they come out share similar hatred from Christians.  So obviously, there’s a natural alliance.

“What goes together like peas in a pod are sexism and homophobia; it’s no accident that the religious entities that want to “protect marriage” have a very specific, male-dominated version of marriage in mind.”

And where do you think sexism comes from?  It goes back to the Adam and Eve fable.  Homophobia is based around the Christian (or insert religion) idea that God created humans a certain way and that any alteration is a sin despite the fact that people are born gay.

“And, from a coldly practical view, “Oh yeah, and we think the whole God thing is stupid” is probably not the most effective political strategy for securing LGBT rights.”

From my argument’s standpoint, that makes little sense.  Since gays can’t change the Christian cultural mentality (at least very fast), it would be best to align with people who can.

And where do you think sexism comes from?  It goes back to the Adam and Eve fable.  Homophobia is based around the Christian (or insert religion) idea that God created humans a certain way and that any alteration is a sin despite the fact that people are born gay.

I don’t know if I would pick that cause and effect—I might reverse the two, actually. Sexism and homophobia are certainly not restricted to Christians, but I think religions like Christianity are a very useful tool for promoting and enforcing the beliefs of homophobes and misogynists. The Adam and Eve fable is a sexist “just so” story but the sexism came first, imho.

Homophobia, for example, both causes and is simultaneously justified by the homophobic church doctrine—it’s a nice little positive feedback loop, where we know god hates gays because we said he does in a book we wrote and we hate gays because god hates them and he told us to hate them in a book we wrote where it says god hates gays… It’s just a useless game of “‘cause I said so!” but the religious bullshit gives it weight because the assholes can easily sub in “god” for “I” and pretend it’s now an untouchable argument.

Whatever came first is irrelevant, what it all comes down to is that Christianity is homophobic even if not all the practicers are homophobes themselves.

But don’t forget they also love their “arguments from nature;”

Ah man, true story. Just like the religious arguments, all the pseudoscience bullshit demands that both they and their audience be ignorant in the extreme. They can’t coherently explain how their “god” is supposed to work, they can’t coherently explain how their “science” is supposed to work, but damned if that will stop them from mindlessly worshiping either of the two.

Albert Cirrus, are you seriously trying to tell us that atheists can’t be homophobic and sexist?  If sexism and homophobia come from religion (which as noted above by someone else you are treating as equal, which they are not), then how could that possibly happen?  Logic fail there, dude.

Albert Cirrus@19:

The thing I don’t get is why would a gay person want to join a Christian group.

If you think that the biblical text is the problem here, you might as well ask why a rich or middle class person would want to join a Christian group.  As Fred Clarke has pointed out, there’s a lot more biblical passages dealing with wealth, possessions, and the poor than there are dealing with sex, let alone homosexuality, and most of those passages, if taken literally, are incompatible with the lives many Americans lead.  (It’s a good rant; I highly recommend it, along with part 1 and part 3.)  Given that most Hastings students presumably aspire to professional careers of wealth and privilege, one might think that these passages should be a much bigger problem for the group if they are going to start using isolated Bible verses as a basis for keeping people out.

More to the point, as catgirl pointed out, the Religious Right does not constitute all of Christianity, and they don’t have a monopoly on defining who gets to be a Christian, much as they might like you to believe that they do.  Many of the GLBT Christians I have known are also among the most deeply and passionately committed religious people I have known. In part, I think, that is because they haven’t been able to take that religious identity for granted the way others born into the faith have been able to.  Instead, they’ve had to struggle most of their lives to claim that identity for their own, and fight for their rightful place at the table.  I wouldn’t wish that struggle on anyone, but I think such struggles do tend to encourage one to appreciate and value the thing struggled for more than those who simply received it as a given.