I didn’t know she was a lesbian either, but having followed her career for a while it was mostly because she used to talk about her husband in her stand up and stopped talking about it after her divorce.

She used to be Wanda Sykes-Hall.

I think that, as she pretty much says, it kind of highlights how big of a deal it should NOT be. But you do sometimes have to make a stand. It would be much nicer if we didn’t have to be doing any of this.

Good for Wanda!  I am really sad and pissed off to see that Prop H8 passed and even madder at the interventions by the Mormon and Catholic Churches, as well as various fundamentalist whack jobs.  Seems to me that somebody is just begging to have their tax exemption yanked.  I agree completely that everyone should have equal opportunities at happiness.  I fail to see how someone else’s marriage in anyway affects yours.  If my disastrous attempts at marriage did not destroy the institution, I fail to see how gay marriages can possibly inflict even minimal damage.

I fail to see how gay marriages can possibly inflict even minimal damage.

They can’t.  It’s all too obvious that adult opposite-sex married people are not harmed whatsoever.  That’s why the Yes On 8 people decided to start talking about how _principled clergy_ would be prosecuted for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings, and how _impressionable children_ would be taught about same-sex marriage in schools, and that kind of thing, because it provided a way to imagine “innocent” “victims” being “wronged” by same-sex marriage.

As much as it sucks that we lost on Prop 8, I have to say I am really happy and proud of the gay community right now. We are galvanized and asserting ourselves as a community more then I have ever experienced in my lifetime (I’m 30, so I missed Stonewall and was too young to remember ACT UP.)
I have wondered what the fundies thought would happen if they managed to have a major victory against gay people. Did they really think we would all silently return to our closets and disappear? We are showing them now that there is NO going back, only forward.

Just wanted to say I’ve always been a fan of Wanda and I didn’t know she was family either.

And an AMEN to what AdamN said.  The yes vote on 8 may yet be the catalyst for more change than having had it voted down might have created.

Wanda used to be married, but in that regard she is not unusual for many LGBT people. For at least a couple of years she has been known in queer circles as a lesbian, but I think she had slid under the radar more generally because, as you noted, she flouts so many feminine conventions. That said, she certainly wasn’t hiding anything - I went looking for youtube clips of her and found one of her on Ellen back in March talking about snowboarding with her girlfriend, a reference that could have been read as acknowledging her (now) wife or simply referring to a female friend. I think she made a very good call that now was not a good time to let people embrace that ambiguity.

Given the lame fantasies of neo-cons that they can pit the LGBT and African-American communities against each other, I think Wanda’s decision to speak out about the erasure of her marriage will be quite powerful for both communities.

Plus she’s funny as hell and I need some help laughing at this fucked-up situation.

Man, that’s cool. Wanda Sykes has been a favorite of mine since she was Wanda Sykes-Hall, and upon learning that she’s gay, the first thing I thought of was her old “Drink Man” routine concerning the persistent suitor ladies often deal with at bars. It ends with her coming home and catching her husband with “Drink Man” as a twist on the generic straight male lesbian-into-a-threesome fantasy.

Also, in the video posted, the bit about straight couples being jealous ‘cause gay couples’ marriages are better and the husband’s response? First laugh I’ve had all weekend and it was a big ‘un, so thanks.

I guess I’m confused, though, ‘cause I was under the impression that the gay marriages performed in California during the grace period were not going to be affected one way or another by Prop H8. This is not so, I take it. That just bites. Friggin’ bigot assholes.

i had actually heard a while back that she was gay. huh. i was surprised then, myself, because of her act, like you said.

Amanda, how are you surprised by this?  She’s an outspoken feminist and everybody knows that = secret lesbian.

Via Wiki:

“Another pending legal issue is whether approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages already in effect would be retroactively annulled by the constitutional change, or whether they would be preserved. California Attorney General Jerry Brown said that existing same-sex marriages would be unaffected, but other legal experts have said challenges are likely. The 14-word constitutional amendment does not state explicitly that it would nullify same-sex marriages performed before the Nov. 4 election, although proponents say it will.”

The previous paragraph in the article reveals that many county clerk offices aren’t even sure when the ban takes effect.

At least the bigots seem legislatively disorganized?

Wanda Sykes rocks. My kid wanted to watch Evan Almighty, and the whole godbag aspect of the plot (praying? God? Noah’s ark?) was antithetical to me. But Wanda Sykes was in the movie, and she improvised many of her lines—she was hilarious. If you find yourself watching it, fast-forward through every scene she’s not in.

Did y’all read Judith Warner’s latest post at the NYT? She was surprised—surprised!—to learn that all sorts of gay folks weren’t as excited as she was after the election. Obama’s election was great, yes, but why on earth did it take blog commenters to wake her up about Prop 8 and the other three states’ anti-gay ballot measures that passed? I suppose there are a lot of straight allies like her who are pretty damned oblivious unless someone tells them. Not all of us in the “straight allies” category noticed on our own, apparently. (Sigh.)

Long-time lurker, first-time poster, and I’ve gotta say, I feel a lot like Wanda Sykes myself. As a 20-year-old bisexual man, even during this last decade of bigotry I’ve never really felt persecuted, because just like Wanda, I felt it was my own business and as long as no one intruded on me, I didn’t feel the need to fight for gay rights. Prop 8 really did change that as my boyfriend and I were planning to marry when I graduated, and having that taken away really did galvanize me. Suddenly I find myself going to rallies and trying to find a good organization to donate to. I’ve joined http://jointheimpact.com/ but since the commenters at this blog seem a lot better-connected than me, would anyone know other sites, organizations, or groups where my money or time would be better served?

At least the bigots seem legislatively disorganized?

This, like the fires in Southern California, is an irregular but continuing problem with initiatives in CA.

Any fool who can persuade enough Californians to get a proposition on the ballot doesn’t have to worry about how it is carried out after it becomes legal.  Some sort of pre-ballot review besides the analysis that comes in the voters booklet/roach-killer would be helpful

A system that would allow only a Prop 1 that could be carried out, and spelling out how Prop 1 would be carried out, would be preferable to a system that originally devised to keep the Democrats out of the governors’ mansion.

There was a real question as how the Briggs initiative would’ve been enforced if it did pass:

Singer and Florida Citrus Commission spokesperson Anita Bryant got national news coverage for her successful efforts to repeal a Dade County, Florida ordinance preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. This sparked both additional efforts for repeal gay rights legislation around the country. Much of this legislation was the repeal of anti-discrimination language that added sexual orientation or preference as a protected group.

In a step beyond repeal of anti-discrimination measures, Oklahoma and Arkansas banned gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools.

The initiative stated that any teacher who was found to be “advocating, imposing, encouraging or promoting” homosexual activity could be fired. It was the first attempt to restrict gay and lesbian rights through a ballot measure.
Campaigns for and against the Initiative

Hurting from recent losses, the gay and lesbian community got organized. A huge coalition of predominantly progressive grassroots activists, led by out gay San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, teacher (later Supervisor of SF Board of Supervisors) Tom Ammiano, activist Hank Wilson, and many others, under the slogan “come out! come out! wherever you are!”, mobilized to defeat the Initiative. In what became the “No on 6” campaign, gay men and lesbians went door to door in their cities and towns across the state to talk about the harm the initiative would cause.

Gay men and lesbians came out to their families and their neighbors and their co-workers, spoke in their churches and community centers, sent letters to their local editors, and otherwise revealed to the general population that gay people really were “everywhere” and included people they already knew and cared about. For a time the ballot measure was ahead in public-opinion polls, with about 61% of voters supporting it while 31% opposed it – a week before the election. The movement against it succeeded little in shifting public opinion, even though major organizations and ecclesiastical groups opposed it. The former-governor Ronald Reagan issued an informal letter of opposition to the initiative, answered reporter’s questions about the initiative by saying he was against, and, a week before the election, wrote an editorial in the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner opposing it . [1] The anticipated landslide for the initiative became a landslide against the initiative, losing even in Orange County, in the largest shift of public opinion ever recorded within such a short time frame.

At least the bigots seem legislatively disorganized?

It’s going to be really interesting how that plays out.  On the one hand, they likely avoided specificity within the Proposition itself because they knew it would turn off a chunk of people who could not explicitly vote to annul someone else’s marriage.  But OTOH this means some tremendous legal battles that set the groundwork for overturning Prop H8.  If the state decides to protect existing same-sex marriages then new same-sex couples can petition for equal protection, opening one more way to pursue the issue of constitutional protections vs. initiative process. 

I seem to be more sanguine than most that Prop 8 will get overturned, maybe even hastily.  There are just too many holes in it, too many constitutional issues at stake.  There’s been an awful lot of discussion about the best way to win back these rights, whether it should be through the initiative process, the courts, or simply trust in the long arc of history bending towards justice.  There’s a kernel of truth in the notion that it would be best to have the voters themselves overturn 8.  But it is exhausting to think of this battle dragging on with ballot initiative vs. ballot initiative for the next decade.  Our system in CA is really fucked.  I’m going to be perfectly satisfied when (okay, if) it gets overturned in court, since that is what courts exist for in our fine democracy.

Part 2:

Some gay Republicans also became organized against the initiative on a grassroots level. The most prominent of these, the Log Cabin Republicans, was founded in 1977 in California, as a rallying point for Republicans opposed to the Briggs Initiative. The Log Cabin Club lobbied Republican officials to oppose the measure, and shortly before the election, after the polls had changed in the opponents’ favor due to the mobilization of thousands of activists across the political spectrum, even former Governor Ronald Reagan, later President, was finally moved to publicly oppose the measure. The Initiative was defeated by more than one million votes.

Reagan opposed the ballot initiative sponsored by religious conservatives that would have barred homosexuals from teaching in the public schools. The timing is significant because he was then preparing to run for president, a race in which he would need the support of conservatives and moderates very uncomfortable with homosexual teachers. As Lou Cannon (Reagan biographer) puts it, Reagan was “well aware that there were those who wanted him to duck the issue” but nevertheless “chose to state his convictions.” Reagan’s opposition was on record as extensive excerpts from his informal statement that were reprinted in the San Francisco Chronicle of September 24, 1978. Reagan’s November 1st editorial stated, in part, “Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.” [1]

Outcome

The initiative went down to resounding defeat, and even lost in Briggs’ own Orange County, at that time a stronghold of conservatism in the state.

The more things change…......

The 14-word constitutional amendment does not state explicitly that it would nullify same-sex marriages performed before the Nov. 4 election, although proponents say it will.

Of course the proponents say that, because the proponents are fools.  It’s not in the state’s power to invalidate contracts retroactively.  A marriage license is a contract.

Seems to me that somebody is just begging to have their tax exemption yanked.

No, tax-exempt organizations are allowed to advocate any position they want to, they just aren’t allowed to advocate for candidates.

My husband and I, residents of Illinois, flew to California and got married in September. As a result, we have a legally contracted marriage that is not “valid or recognized” where we live, but if we go to Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Canada, etc, it is.

I’ve assumed that what Prop 8 does is put all married same-sex California couples into the same place. Their legal marriage is still in place, and will not be annulled or invalidated, but it will not be recognized for any legal reason in California. I cannot see why Massachusetts, for example, would not recognize it.

There is the fantasy that same-sex marriage is an either/or, and that Prop 8 made their legally contracted marriages vanish. All it did was make them meaningless in California. What will get messy is when (inevitably), one of these couples has a messy breakup and needs a divorce. More than a few states have interpreted their law or amendment against gay marriage as a reason not to allow a divorce.

“Given the lame fantasies of neo-cons that they can pit the LGBT and African-American communities against each other, I think Wanda’s decision to speak out about the erasure of her marriage will be quite powerful for both communities.” Paris

I think the only “lame Fantasies” that some of us have is that qweers would go back into the closet.
I also think that a “lame Fantasie” that the left has is that the ” fundies”  would all silently go to our closets and disappear.

Allso keep telling yourselves “At least the bigots seem legislatively disorganized”  We will show you now that there is NO going back, only forward.

Wait wait wait.

Wait.

Wait.

“lame Fantasie”

I think we all need to stop for a just a moment and collectively acknowledge how unbelievably fantastic that was.

Given the lame fantasies of neo-cons that they can pit the LGBT and African-American communities against each other,

For all the reasons to hate Neocons this isn’t really their thing.  Neoconism is mostly a foreign policy disease, with a certain obsession with free markets mixed in.  Neocons were well served by divisive social issues under Bush/Rove, but it is not their passion.  It is quite compatible to be socially liberal and Neocon on foreign policy, since Neoconims is mostly about using US military power to reshape foreign governments as we see fit.  It’s a deadly combination of idealism and brute force.  The social conservatives, like the Mormons and Catholics that really drove 8, have a broad range of feelings about neocons, ranging from suspicion to embrace.  There’s a streak of dislike for foreign intervention with Xtian conservatives (like Pat Buchanon), but there’s also a hate of Muslims and end-times theology about Israel.

No, tax-exempt organizations are allowed to advocate any position they want to, they just aren’t allowed to advocate for candidates.

Yeah, you are right and that is the problem.  Every issue that is brought out in public is turned into a binary issue, so if you support one side of an issue it is obvious (but implicit) who you support as a candidate.

Two years ago (I think) I got a flyer in the mail from a person running to be the state treasurer.  They found it important to mention only two or three endorsements, and one of them was from a focus on the family type group.  for treasurer.

Weird, I totally thought Wanda Sykes was already out. 

Maybe I’m thinking of someone else?

Glad I made you laugh.  Let me just take this time to admit I am a poor speller and can’t use a keyboard that well.

For all the reasons to hate Neocons this isn’t really their thing.  Neoconism is mostly a foreign policy disease, with a certain obsession with free markets mixed in.  Neocons were well served by divisive social issues under Bush/Rove, but it is not their passion.  It is quite compatible to be socially liberal and Neocon on foreign policy, since Neoconims is mostly about using US military power to reshape foreign governments as we see fit.

Interesting point Loneoak. The Neoconservatives have certainly used the religious right, and the religious right certainly has loved the neoconservatives. It seems to me, however, that there is some daylight between the two groups, an important fact.

For some examples, see the socially liberal Christopher Hitchens’s wholehearted conversion to neoconservatism, and for an example of a “religous conservative” leader who is now against the neoconservatives, check out this essay by Frank Shaeffer that Ms. Marcotte linked to a couple of months ago.

No, Amanda, I mean I always thought that everybody always knew that Wanda Sykes is a lesbian.  That she was up there with Ellen and such in terms of totally and officially always out lesbians in the media.

Clearly I was either confused, psychic, or I just have really amazing gaydar.

Slightly OT, but can someone explain why the group of hateful anti-gay protesters includes one woman with a “vote no on Prop 8” sign?  I thought they homophobes wanted you to vote “yes” on prop 8…color me confused.

What does it say about me that I always assumed Wanda was a lesbian?  But like Amanda suggests, I think the general mill only started going after Prop 8—her name came up elsewhere, last week, in a list of celebs affected by this decision.

As disgusting as this whole thing is, at least in the case of Sykes we can feel better recalling great Wanda moments.  “Klan dog!,” everyone.

McGreevey Michael, there’s something I’m curious about.  Close your eyes, and imagine the Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of gay marriage.  Their statement boils down to something like this: “We the Court find bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional.  From now on, all gay marriages will carry the same legal weight as hetero marriages.  The Court recognizes there are some faiths and denominations that object to gay marriages on religious grounds.  This is a matter between those faiths/denominations and their adherents.  The government has no business interfering in such issues.”  You now live in a country where gays can legally marry, but no religious institution will be penalized by the government for not performing gay marriages.  How does this harm you?

That’s why I use SeaMonkey, which has a Spellchecker built-in, and runs quicker than it’s cousin Firefox.

keshmeshi:

Of course the proponents say that, because the proponents are fools.  It’s not in the state’s power to invalidate contracts retroactively.  A marriage license is a contract.

Oh, good point. Dartmouth v. Wodoward. *is dumb*

McGreasy:

We will show you now that there is NO going back, only forward.

Except that you’re the ones that want to go back to a time when homosexuality was illegal and marriage was a financial transaction.

Betsy - I think she’s protesting the demonstrators. (The sign next to her is for marriage equality, too.) Though it is a trifle confusing.

Amanda - Nope, he’s one of the worse trolls, IMO.

Mike, McGreevy is on our side, I do believe.  And I hear you, McGreevy.  I can’t spell for shit, either.  Which is why I installed a spellchecker on Firefox.

Amanda Marcotte

That is very kind of you to say Amanda.  In truth however allmost all of your fans would find me gravely wrong on this and some other topics.

Funny word bigot; a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.  To be honest Mike we are all bigoted in one way or another. I like you have no stomach for the KKK , pedopophiles and neo nazis.  Thay would say we were “utterly intolerant” of what thay believe. Thay would be right.

I like you have no stomach for the KKK , pedopophiles and neo nazis.  Thay would say we were “utterly intolerant” of what thay believe. Thay would be right.

Congratulations! You’re intolerant of intolerance. Good way to be, which is why we’re utterly intolerant of your intolerance.

Amanda - Nope, he’s one of the worse trolls, IMO.
Rebecca

Gee thanks Rebecca. Not shure how I deserve to be one of the worse trolls but thanks.

That said, she certainly wasn’t hiding anything

Yeah, I think we’re beginning to see people living in a post-closet way, if they’re in liberal communities anyway.  Like you don’t have to come out because you were never in sort of thing.

My college operates like that to a certain extent. ^^ You’ll be chatting with someone and they’ll say, “oh, yeah, so-and-so and her girlfriend told me about how—” or “hey, my girlfriend’s coming down for the weekend, and—” and nobody bats an eye, even if they haven’t been officially introduced to the person’s sexuality. If they haven’t just “come out” in the process of *actively hitting on you* or something it’s just not a big deal. And even that would be about as surprising as having a straight guy “come out” as straight to hit on you… so, not at all.

That’s how I try to do the mental illness thing, too. I’ll casually drop “oh, hey, I need to take my meds now” or “yeah, when I was really depressed in high school” into the conversation, regardless of whether people are around who hadn’t known about it beforehand. ‘Cause nothing de-stigmatizes a thing like treating it as normal-to-the-point-of-boring. (Which is exactly what most relationships should look like to people not in the relationship—normal to the point of boring.)

My college operates like that to a certain extent. ^^

Sorry to derail (I seem to be doing that a lot lately) but if you don’t mind me asking, where do you go, Bagelsan? It sounds like a great place to go to school.

In re Mr. McGreevy, who is boring me to tears, isn’t there something on this site about a stick rule?

Rebecca, I was actually about to chime in that it sounds a lot like my alma mater.  Honestly it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that this was pretty much the scene on the ground at most colleges that aren’t completely reactionary and ruled by frats.  Because this is the way that the world works in my safe little liberal enclave of NYC creative types. 

In fact, my main confusion about the closet is not so much “should I be out or not” but how to be out when single, especially seeing as I’m bi and people tend to get the wrong idea unless I’m currently in the process of shoving my tongue down a woman’s throat.  Which is a rare situation in the workplace (for instance).  I often feel like I’m not “really out” unless I announce it or something.  Which can then really backfire if I talk a big game about being a dyke and then bring a male date to the office Christmas party.  I think a lot of queer folks of my generation channel their sexuality through their fashion sense and personal style, but doing that makes me feel like I’m wearing a costume.  So in general I still feel this internal battle between being openly queer and being myself, except totally in the opposite direction from the classic scenario.

I think she’s protesting the demonstrators. (The sign next to her is for marriage equality, too.) Though it is a trifle confusing. Ah, ok, thanks Rebecca.  There was something about the picture or the description of it or the combination of the two that made me think that was a separate section for the counter-protesters.  The cops’ presence and the fact that they’re all facing the same way, or something.  Clearly, that was not the case!

Atheist, for Hitch to have ever been “socially liberal” by my lights, he would have had to be not only tolerant of homosexuals but pro-choice and anti-misogyny, neither of which he’s ever been.  I think the category in this country that best describes the sides Hitchens has taken is New Left:  his (pre-9/11) values have something in common with Gitlin, Mailer, McReynolds, some of the more patriarchal SDS types.

I also think that a “lame Fantasie” that the left has is that the “ fundies” would all silently go to our closets and disappear.

What, like back when they followed the bible and stayed the fuck out of politics?

I have to think that a Lame Fantasie involves sparkly metallic fabric and a Renaissance faire.

I also think that a “lame Fantasie” that the left has is that the “ fundies” would all silently go to our closets and disappear.

Because if you’re not allowed to enforce your religious beliefs on the rest of us by law, you’re being oppressed.  We’re so sorry.

there is NO going back, only forward.

Very true.  Too bad that you’re the one who wants to go back.

I like you have no stomach for the KKK , pedopophiles and neo nazis.

Note something that all of these groups have in common: a desire to harm others or deprive them of their rights.  Seems to me that homosexuals don’t want to do that, but the “fundies” you self-identify with do.  Interesting.

Josh:

I thought that Hitchens was generally tolerant of Homosexuality. Do you have a link to Hitchens being anti-homosexuality? I’m genuinely curious.

I must admit, though, that trying to figure out Hitchens is an exercise in diminishing returns. The more you read, the less sense he makes. It might be that his underlying ‘principles’ have to do with his desire to be part of an exciting and romantic vanguard group, of any kind, rather than a desire to advance a specific ideology.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-538711154857793474

OK, it’s Hitchens talking about gay marriage in 2003 on Maher’s show. Seems vaguely positive about gay marriage, but he says nothing that can’t be easily taken back.

Maybe I’m wrong, but the three prominent anti-gay signs in the middle there look Photoshopped.  There’s no bend to any of the signs, not even the “Shame!” one that’s held up by one hand.

The three signs on the left are clearly not and they don’t seem to be anti-gay at all.  As someone noted upthread, the one on the very left is clearly a “No on Prop 8” sign.

Loneoak, did you live through the 90’s? Neo-cons absolutely do not limit themselves to foreign policy. Neo-cons are marked by a cynical manipulation of conservative religious ideology as a tool to further their political goals. What distinguishes them most consistently from plain old conservatives is that the latter are generally sincere and therefore more nuanced in their positions on social issues. One may disagree with a conservative position, but at least it is grounded in a set of principles other than whatever works for the moment.

Hence neo-cons would hope for the LGBT and African-American communities to be at each others throats simply because it would prevent a co-ordinated effort against a neo-con agenda, not because of fundamental homophobia or racism.

Thankfully, even Newt Gingrich thinks such a posture is played-out.

Neo-cons are marked by a cynical manipulation of conservative religious ideology as a tool to further their political goals.

That’s not what I’ve understood “neoconservative” to mean.  That sounds a lot more like “movement conservative,” like Ralph Reed.  They _do_ overlap on their vocal support for Israel.  Terminologically, I’m with Loneoak here.

You know, a lot of us still feel that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was more political than scientific, especially since much of the research used to justify it was based on Kinsey’s work.  Unfortunately, much like Margaret Mead’s work, there are a lot of questions about the validity of his techniques.  Frankly, just from my own observations over the years, I remain convinced that homosexual behavior is clearly dysfunctional, from both a behavioral and evolutionary viewpoint.  If that makes me a bigot, so be it.

Of course. based on what I have seen, I just can’t buy in to the “civil rights” claim.  No redefining marriage for me.

Frankly, just from my own observations over the years, I remain convinced that homosexual behavior is clearly dysfunctional, from both a behavioral and evolutionary viewpoint.  If that makes me a bigot, so be it.</blockquoote>

Don’t worry, it does.  You’re just as much of a maverick rebel against the liberal PC hegemony as you think.  Congratulations.

However, if you want to discuss this further, there’s something you need to keep in mind: something we remind ourselves of regularly around here is that “the plural of anecdote is not data”.  Even if all of the homosexuals you’ve met are dysfunctional, that doesn’t necessarily say anything about homosexuals as a group, still less about homosexuality itself.  That said, I’m interested in what observations you’ve made that make homosexuality so “clearly” dysfunctional.  Please elaborate. 

<blockquote>No redefining marriage for me.

Fair enough.  Since marriage has been redefined many times over the course of western civilization - heck, over the course of this country’s history - which particular older definition do you want to go back to?

Yes, Tom, it does make you a bigot.

Just thought I’d clear that up. You can also find good company with others that from their “own observations”, that there is an entire class of people that are dysfunctional.

I’m sure the local Klan chapter must be hard up for recruits those days. They would welcome your support.

Ahem.  Let’s try that again.  See if I can make it easier to read:

Frankly, just from my own observations over the years, I remain convinced that homosexual behavior is clearly dysfunctional, from both a behavioral and evolutionary viewpoint.  If that makes me a bigot, so be it.

Don’t worry, it does.  You’re just as much of a maverick rebel against the liberal PC hegemony as you think.  Congratulations.

However, if you want to discuss this further, there’s something you need to keep in mind: something we remind ourselves of regularly around here is that “the plural of anecdote is not data”.  Even if all of the homosexuals you’ve met are dysfunctional, that doesn’t necessarily say anything about homosexuals as a group, still less about homosexuality itself.  That said, I’m interested in what observations you’ve made that make homosexuality so “clearly” dysfunctional.  Please elaborate. 

No redefining marriage for me.

Fair enough.  Since marriage has been redefined many times over the course of western civilization - heck, over the course of this country’s history - which particular older definition do you want to go back to?

I think it’s pretty telling that Mr. McBigot lifted from my orginal post to spew his intolerant nonsense. Clearly I struck a nerve.
We aren’t going back in the closet, Michael Asshat. We are human beings who deserve our dignity and equal rights under the law. You are just going to have to keep your intolerance and bigotry to yourself, because there is no doubt about: you are on the wrong side of history and you are LOSING.

You know, a lot of us still feel that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was more political than scientific, especially since much of the research used to justify it was based on Kinsey’s work.

Fuck You, dude.

You know, a lot of us still feel that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was more political than scientific, especially since much of the research used to justify it was based on Kinsey’s work.

This is an interesting thing to me to bring up, as I’m about 3/4 way through Whipping Girl, where she also talks about transexuality being defined in the DSM, terming it a disorder, rather than a part of the human condition. The reasons for this are complex, but mostly centered around the othering of non-standard individuals, and the pervasiveness of patriarchy. “Why would any man want to become a woman? Clearly they are insane.” A significantly more evolved viewpoint might be to acknowledge that human sexuality is not binary, but rather a continuum. That idea is deeply disturbing to people, like yourself, who are not comfortable with their own sexuality. Stop projecting your own stupidity on society at large.

First off, I love Wanda Sykes.  She rocks harder than just about anyone. 

Secondly, re: neocons.  As a group, neocons are Straussians.  Straussians are all about cynically and purposely using other peoples’ religiosity to attain their own (the Straussians’) goals:

[I]n Strauss’s view, only philosophers can handle the truth: that nature is indifferent to human values and needs.

So where did Strauss really stand? “He was an atheist,” says Stanley Rosen flatly. “They [Straussians] all are. They are epicureans and atheists.”

While some Straussians dispute the idea that the master was a godless cynic, it does seem that Strauss wanted a regime where the elite lived by a code of stoic fortitude while governing over a population that subscribes to superstitious religious beliefs. “He agreed with Marx that religion was the opium of the masses,” says Shadia Drury. “But he believed that the masses need their opium.” Sociologically, Strauss’s approach would seem to work well for the Republican Party, which has a grass-roots base of born-again Christians and a much more secular elite leadership-at least in its foreign-policy wing.

 
So basically, unlike atheists like Amanda (and I’m willing to bet, quite a few other Pandagonians including myself), Straussians are happy to pay lip service to religion/religiosity to keep the masses happy, while privately believing the absolute opposite and snickering down their sleeves at the stupidity of the religious rubes.  If that’s not utter cynicism, I really don’t know what is. 

In addition, Straussians basically believe that lying is not just a necessity for “philosopher kings,” it’s actually a virtue, because once again, it keeps the rubes happy and protects them from THE TRUTH (i.e., that God doesn’t exist and that nobody in heaven or on earth really gives a shit about the rubes’ existence, moral state, or earthly happiness.)  According to the Straussians, being informed of this would send the rubes into a nihilistic frenzy, resulting in mass lunacy, riots, and the interruption of the Philosopher Kings’ ability to rule, not to mention their serene contemplation of their own superiority.  Or something.

Read more about the neocon/Strauss links here and here.

My older brother honestly believes in “protecting traditional marriage.”  He has nothing against gay people, he thinks that they should have all the same rights as anyone else, but for some reason, he just thinks that there should be a different word used for gay unions as opposed to straight ones.

Hey, I don’t get it either, but he’s certainly not one of those wackos in that picture.

Wanda Sykes, as an in-your-face and funny-as-hell comedien, shows far more quite dignity that “serious political pundit” Chris Hitchens ever will. His only consistent political position can be described as showboating extremism.

Rumblelizard hits on the real definition of neoConservatism above. In America over the past 20 years, they’ve been divided into two main factions: the Oil Bitches (think James Baker or Bush the Elder) and the PNAC Fantasists (think Douglas Feith or Paul Wolfowitz), with the most prominent combining elements of both (Bush the Lesser and Cheney). Working together and via henchmen like Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist, both groups have played Xtian fantasist Know-Nothings and extreme free marketeers for suckers, even though most neoCons are really crony capitalists who have as much regard for the Invisible Bearded Sky Man™ as most of us liberals do.

And may I say, I love it when guys like McGreevy have a few on Sunday afternoon, hop on the computer during halftime and start spouting off. The alcohol melts away all the protestations of “Christian salvation,” all the bogus legal arguments and all the vague references to junk science, leaving only the raw and frightened irrational bigotry of someone like tomonthebay (who’s at least honest about his baseless hatred).

My older brother honestly believes in “protecting traditional marriage.” He has nothing against gay people, he thinks that they should have all the same rights as anyone else, but for some reason,he just thinks that there should be a different word used for gay unions as opposed to straight ones.

The problem is, if he supports the Prop 8 constitutional amendment, for all intents and purposes he doesn’t think gay people should have all the same rights as anyone else. It’s like supporting the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, but saying Jews should have all the same rights as anyone else.

Ask him if he’d settle for a different word in the state constitution used for state-recognised unions (i.e. those that confer a package of legal rights to any citizen—no “separate but equal”) as opposed to one recognised by various churches. If he agrees, you have a way to bridge your disagreement and start separating him from the wackos in the picture.

Betsy and Dusty,

That picture was taken at the Oakland rally, which I attended, and therefore got to see that photo in real life.  The protesters (and that shot is all of the protesters there, at least when I saw them) are across the street from the rally, with two cops standing between them and the much larger group of pro-marriage people on the other side, who were weaving flags and signs, especially at the people who drove in between and honked.  There really were those three people holding pro-marriage signs right there, not moving, not doing anything to actively incite the anti folks.  I was wondering if the antis even knew that they were there.  So no, no Photoshop, no weirdness.  Just some non-violent speech.

“Funny word bigot; a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.  To be honest Mike we are all bigoted in one way or another. I like you have no stomach for the KKK , pedopophiles and neo nazis.”

Would you mind for a bit just getting serious? You do realize that you are playing childish games, right? Playing particularly lame rounds of “gotcha” with people who are serious about their own rights and the actual harm others are doing to us is playground bullying at best.

First, no matter what dictionaries may say, that isn’t a definition of bigot that anyone actually operates from, so it is stupid to try to use it for your strawman attack. A bigot is not someone who is intolerant of a differing belief, particularly if intolerance is defined as simply as refusing to agree with someone you really do disagree with, thereby hurting their feelings of privilege and superiority.

Bigotry is making negative evaluations about someone based on your perception of a characteristic that they have, and is usually, if not universally, associated with making that negative evaluation about something that has no direct relationship to that characteristic. The wider the divergence between the perceived characteristic and the issue being judged, the bigger the bigotry.

Making the leap that membership in the KKK somehow indicates racial intolerance and choosing to judge someone negatively for that without verifying it is by definition a form of bigotry, yes. Absolutely.
But making the leap that being a lesbian means someone is out to destroy the marriages of straight people, tear apart the fundamental structure of society, eliminate churches, and recruit straight children into a life of debauchery is certainly a much more extreme sort of bigotry.

So not all bigotry is created equal. If the end result of someone’s judgement is “so therefore I choose not to spend time getting to know you better,” so be it. With 4 billion people on the planet, we have to have some screening mechanisms, since there isn’t time to have lunch with everyone. But when the end result is “based on my judgement, without regard to the actual truth of the situation, I choose to actively hurt you, whether physically, financially, or through the restriction of your rights to things I still reserve for myself, and no amount of truth is going to change my mind” it just isn’t the same thing at all.

Reducing that to trite phrases like “intolerance of intolerance” or “yeah, well you’re prejudiced against bigots” as though that actually means anything useful, is childish.

The grownup response to a genuine concern about gay rights impacting religious exercise isn’t “treating you equally might in some nebulous and unforeseen (and legally unlikely) way inconvenience religious people used to the status quo so we must amend the Constitution to prevent you ever being treated equally.” The grownup response is to say “While absolutely committed to the idea that everyone is equal, let’s discuss seriously how to address the areas of potential conflict.”

And please, do us the favor of stopping the pretense that civil unions, as they currently exist “provide all the same rights as marriage.” They don’t. They can’t. The word marriage is, in fact important to use, yes, but that isn’t the only thing involved.

I long for the day when someone’s sexual orientation, marital status, etc. is regarded like their eye color—-interesting, but not a big deal unless you personally have a sexual interest in them.

Despite disheartening (but temporary) setbacks like Prop 8, I believe we’re going to get there faster than many people think. Practically nobody my daughter’s age (16) seems to give a rat’s ass about other people’s sexual orientation, and that includes kids from Republican families (I live in a fairly conservative area of northeast Ohio).

Re Technocracygirl on 11/17 at 08:08 AM

I’ll have to take your word for it, but the photo still looks phony.

That’s why the Yes On 8 people decided to start talking about how _principled clergy_ would be prosecuted for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings, ...

That’s the part I don’t get.  Clergy can already refuse to marry a couple who aren’t following church rules.  I knew someone who was told she had to stop living with her fiancee before she could get married in the Catholic Church.  I don’t hear of clergy being prosecuted for not performing these kinds of marriages. 

How would this be any different?

Well put, Lymis. Neither disagreement nor even intolerance are the same as bigotry.

How would this be any different?

Susa on 11/17

This way they get to extend the power of their religion through means of the laws. Which brings them closer to the tight integration between religion and government that they ultimately desire.

The correct response to “protecting traditional marriage” is “protecting it from what precisely?”  The response is the “tell” about who you are dealing with.

If I were not already happily married, I’d find the “news” (which several of you have pointed out is not news at all) to be terribly disappointing: I have to confess I’ve long had a bit of a crush on the lovely and talented (and dare I say it here, absolutely hot) Ms. Sykes.

Mazal Tov to Wanda and her new bride.  May they have many years of happiness and be considered married in the eyes of the state!

BTW—the claim a moral wrong cannot be a civil right is a very odd one.  And you’d think so-called pro-business Republicans would be very concerned about that kind of rhetoric.  Is charging interest—to the poor at least (a moral wrong—read the Bible)—not a civil right?  Can the State decide to ban interest and require remission of loans every 7 years?  What about the Jubilee?  It’s on our liberty bell, so it’s part of America isn’t it?

Why isn’t the religious right complaining about our decline of “American values” when we don’t honor the Jubilee year?

I saw an anti-homophobia PSA that she starred in a couple of weeks ago and I thought it was pretty cool. I wasn’t really thinking of her in terms of “is she a straight ally” or “is she gay” but there’s very little I’ve seen of her that I don’t like and those two videos in the OP are an extra dollop of awesomesauce on top of a personality that I really wouldn’t mind seeing more of.

That’s the part I don’t get.  Clergy can already refuse to marry a couple who aren’t following church rules…I don’t hear of clergy being prosecuted for not performing these kinds of marriages. 

How would this be any different?

It wouldn’t.  “They’ll come after teh clergy!” is either a shameless lie used to manipulate people who are uncomfortable with gays but can’t come up with a rational reason they should be denied their rights (in other words, people who might be wavering on the issue), or a bit of projection based on their own tendency to use each “compromise” as a stepping stone toward total domination (ex. all the states where civil unions were outlawed, and that was used as grounds for lawsuits against institutions that provided any domestic partner benefits to gay couples).

Dana, you’re pretty hung up on this one.  Which is it?

In any case, it’s part and parcel of their overall message that Gay Rights Is A Direct Attack!  On Your!  Personal!  Religious! Freedom!

My older brother honestly believes in “protecting traditional marriage.” He has nothing against gay people, he thinks that they should have all the same rights as anyone else, but for some reason, he just thinks that there should be a different word used for gay unions as opposed to straight ones.

“Separate but equal” never is.  Your brother is either lying to you or himself about thinking that gays “should have all the same rights as anyone else”. 

Hey, I don’t get it either, but he’s certainly not one of those wackos in that picture.

In a way, he’s worse.  The hardcore haters would have no power if it weren’t for the quiet, nice ones who 1) Don’t think through to the fact that voting against gay marriage based on “there should be a different word” strips real people of real rights or 2) Don’t care.

“Frankly, just from my own observations over the years, I remain convinced that homosexual behavior is clearly dysfunctional, from both a behavioral and evolutionary viewpoint.”

You must not know a lot of straight people, then. A lot of them are pretty fucked up.

Idiot.

who had her marriage dissolved against her and her wife’s will.

I don’t see that Prop. 8 has any retroactive effect. That’s why the proponents wanted so bad for the Cal Supreme Court to stay their decision pending the outcome of the election. If you were married during the time it was legal, your marriage should continue to be valid.

My older brother honestly believes in “protecting traditional marriage.” He has nothing against gay people, he thinks that they should have all the same rights as anyone else, but for some reason, he just thinks that there should be a different word used for gay unions as opposed to straight ones.

At some level, both sides are fighting over the meaning of a word. But I think people’s minds can be changed once you acknowledge where they’re coming from. Anti-SSM attitudes are already changing, as the difference in voting between Prop 22 (60%) and Prop 8 (52%) shows. Same-sex marriage is different if your focus is on gender, but it is identical to traditional marriage if you focus on the relationship between the spouses: Loving couples, raising children, taking care of each other’s elderly parents, building lives and homes together. Proponents should focus on the similarities, in my opinion.

the claim a moral wrong cannot be a civil right is a very odd one.

Without Lawrence v. Texas, same-sex marriages might have to be sexless. The Supreme Court has yet to apply heightened scrutiny to laws implicating sexual orientation.

I don’t see that Prop. 8 has any retroactive effect.

That’s an interesting thought—if gay couples who have been married in the last few months can demonstrate that they have had their marriages revoked (for example, unable to file as married on their taxes, unable to exercise enduring power or attorney/next of kin rights, unable to have automatic adoption, etc), can that be seen as the state passing an ex post facto law, which is prohibited by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

I’m not a constitutional scholar by any stretch, but it seems to me that a state’s constitution cannot be in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. (I’m just a simple hyper-chicken from a backwoods asteroid, but it seems to me that y’all should move to acquit.)

We all know that the married gay couples of CA are going to experience people declaring that their marriages are now null and void as a result of the ruling. Hell, gay couples all over the country who have gotten civil unions are discovering that a civil union is separate but not equal.

And in the unlikely event that gay couples do NOT experience an actual removal of their rights, doesn’t that violate Equal Protection Under the Law clause of the the 14th Amendment? If gay couple A is allowed to be married because they squeaked in under the passing of Prop 8, and gay couple B cannot because they met each other a month too late, how can that be anything but a flagrant violation of Equal Protection?

If gay couple A is allowed to be married because they squeaked in under the passing of Prop 8, and gay couple B cannot because they met each other a month too late, how can that be anything but a flagrant violation of Equal Protection?

Excellent point. Similarly situated people should be treated the same. I pray that it wouldn’t be resolved as no rights for anybody.

Hector B: But that’s just it, I suspect there’s no way this law can survive a federal constitutional challenge. If you take away rights, then you’ve passed an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional. If you “grandfather in” already married gay couples, then you’re violating equal protection under the law.

In addition to “Curb Your Enthusiasm”, Wanda also appears on the sitcom “The New Adventures of Old Christine”, playing the best friend of the title character (Julia Louis-Drefuss).
In the current season, her character, Barb, and Christine got married so Barb could stay in the U.S.
It remains to be seen whether the passaghe of Prop * will become part of this storyline.

““He was an atheist,” says Stanley Rosen flatly. “They [Straussians] all are. They are epicureans and atheists.” “

Which is Stan Rosen’s interpretation and that means it’s something to consider carefully. But that debate has been on-going for more than 50 years.  It’s certainly not obvious whether Strauss was an atheist or not.

“According to the Straussians, being informed of this would send the rubes into a nihilistic frenzy, resulting in mass lunacy, riots, and the interruption of the Philosopher Kings’ ability to rule”

Strauss argues that the correct interpretation of The Republic is that philosophers will NEVER rule (or if they do ever rule, it’s so extremely rare that it’s irrelevant).  There are no philosopher kings, except in Socrates’ imaginary city.

“As a group, neocons are Straussians.”

No, the two groups are distinct.  There are certainly some Straussians who effectively are neoconservatives. but the two groups started distinctly differently - neoconservatives at Commentary, and Straussians, obviously, as students of Strauss.  There are considerable portions of Strauss - his seeming doubt of capitalism in his Xenophon’s Socratic Dialogue or his criticism of what he calls the Universal Homogenous State (i.e. universal capitalism, certainly an aspect of neoconservatism) that are in strong opposition to neoconservatism.

Strauss argues that the correct interpretation of The Republic is that philosophers will NEVER rule (or if they do ever rule, it’s so extremely rare that it’s irrelevant).  There are no philosopher kings, except in Socrates’ imaginary city.

Um, wasn’t Strauss a huge devotee of Machiavelli? Machiavelli is all about ruling, and in the most ruthless way possible. From what I’ve read, Strauss was exactly the same.

Newt Gingrich is the archetypal neo-con. I think he’s a great example of neo-cons on domestic issues:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2008/11/newt-gingrich-loves-all-three-of-his.html

I don’t study this stuff - call it Straussian, call it what you will, but I do follow the news and the public figures who make it.

Machiavelli was arguably a bigger fan of republics than of despotism, despite _Il Principe_. (If that book isn’t just a humanist rhetorical exercise designed to ingratiate himself to the Medici court, than it’s a desperate cry to save Italy from destruction by the northern monarchies, who decided to use Northern Italy as a battleground for dynastic wars in the century after 1494.)

Read M.‘s book defending republics and advising on their maintenance, _Discourses on Livy_. Much better stuff.

“Um, wasn’t Strauss a huge devotee of Machiavelli? Machiavelli is all about ruling, and in the most ruthless way possible. From what I’ve read, Strauss was exactly the same. “

Roughly none of the above is correct.

1.  Strauss calls Machiavelli a “teacher of evil”.  If there’s anything we can say about Strauss, he most certainly wasn’t a devotee of Machiavelli.

2. Machiavelli isn’t about ruling in the most ruthless way possible.  He recommends the prince be adept as both lion and fox (lion - conventional courage and honor, fox - secrecy and conspiracy) and know when to use the lion and when to use the fox.

3.  Machiavelli himself was, for the majority of his life, an official of a republic - the Florentine republic.  Admittedly, the Florentine republic wasn’t very democratic by today’s standards, but Machiavelli did many things which made it more democratic (he organized a civilian militia, for example).

4.  Machiavelli’s Discoursi, Florentine Histories and On War indicate that he spent a great deal of time thinking about republics, and was certainly not very wedded to monarchies.

Why is no one bringing up the fact that at least 450 species so far have been discovered to have homosexual members? This was a major article in the front page section of the LA Times a few years ago, yet nobody seems inclined to use this to show THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS PART OF NATURE! Therefore, excluding homosexuals from marriage because it’s unnatural is no longer valid.

As for the idiot upthread with his evolutionary “observations”, you clearly haven’t been paying attention.