US Senator - Framed?

[Inquartata]

Isn't it past your bedtime, child?

[Neinteen]

nahhhh.

You're wonderful motivation to post. A lot of my posts follow yours.

[Inquartata]

Yes, I know. You're stalking me.

You are too young for me. ( You may well be too young for anyone, at least intellectually. ) Be off with you!

[Neinteen]

Old people. Go play with your latin blocks or black and white coloring book...

[dcmdale]

This seems like it should be obvious, but this is about politics. If an openly gay politician were similarly caught, there might be some feedback concerning the circumstances, but it probably wouldn't cost him his job. Why? Because the people who constitute his political base already know about his preferences. A senator who is supported by conservative interests isn't going to fair so well. Republican politicians and the Republican party in general enjoys the support of several constituencies that aren't generally gay friendly. A Republican senator who admits to gay sex raises concern in those constituencies impacting votes, fund raising, volunteers, etc.

I don't see this as a double standard.

If I had information that Obama secretly owned a strip mining company with a long history of environmental violations and dangerous work conditions and was further known for anti-labor practices and union busting, I would expect that it would eliminate him from consideration in the race whereas dirt like that wouldn't even register against many republican candidates, at least in the primaries.

[Inquartata]

If an openly gay politician were similarly caught, there might be some feedback concerning the circumstances, but it probably wouldn't cost him his job. Why? Because the people who constitute his political base already know about his preferences. A senator who is supported by conservative interests isn't going to fair so well. Republican politicians and the Republican party in general enjoys the support of several constituencies that aren't generally gay friendly. A Republican senator who admits to gay sex raises concern in those constituencies impacting votes, fund raising, volunteers, etc.

I think you underestimate the power of incumbency.

Again, both Barney Frank, a Democrat, and Jim Kolbe, a Republican, were elected to Congress before they came out, and both were re-elected after. Neither's constituency "already knew about his preferences". There may have been others of whom I am unaware in addition to those two.

Frank's name was also attached to a scandal involving his preference, yet he still survived. Kolbe's conservative backers might have been expected to be outraged by his preference, yet he still survived. It is very difficult to dislodge an entrenched incumbent, especially one perceived as effective.

Meanwhile, Craig's office is now backtracking and saying that he very well might NOT resign after all. Typical.

[I_luv_saber]

I have thus formed an opinion based purely on US media coverage of this legislation. It has irrefutably been weighted towards its effect on gay marriage and I believe that is illuminating of the nature of the national debate currently happening in the US. If this is not so, and I am obviously less well placed to gage the political climate than most on this forum, then I find the media coverage surprising and confusing.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry...

[pigeonmeister]

You could just relieve me of my ignorance...is the issue not primarily one of gay marriage- instead weighted towards hetrosexual civil unions? It's not like I claim my opinion to be anything other than a belief, I state could be wrong, based on what I have read...

[Inquartata]

You could just relieve me of my ignorance

Er...this tack has not brought the ship safely into harbor on previous occasions.

is the issue not primarily one of gay marriage- instead weighted towards hetrosexual civil unions?

It depends on who you ask. Everyone brings a bias to the table on issues such as this.

Liberals generally will shout loudly that yes, it's just homophobia pure and simple and that all the talk about civil unions and the rest is just a smokescreen. Social conservatives will say that it's about stemming the dilution of the concept of marriage in ALL it's aspects. ( They don't like the idea of gay marriage, but they don't like other things as well---like ANY sex outside marriage. ) Economic conservatives probably don't care either way, unless they give some thought to the cost-benefit side of things.

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE]

Er...this tack has not brought the ship safely into harbor on previous occasions.

They will be holding the winter olympics in the fiery depths of hades before I dock in your port!

Liberals generally will shout loudly that yes, it's just homophobia pure and simple and that all the talk about civil unions and the rest is just a smokescreen

agreed

Social conservatives will say that it's about stemming the dilution of the concept of marriage in ALL it's aspects. ( They don't like the idea of gay marriage, but they don't like other things as well---like ANY sex outside marriage. )

I agree, but I am interested in the priorities of the Christian right and so called 'family value's groups'. From what I can see, there seems to be more vitriol reserved for gay marriage (or even homosexuality) than civil hetro unions or sex outside marriage (which obviously they oppose as well). An unscientific test...

A minute ago I checked out the 'Christian Voice' website. Their misson statement, as you say, goes...

We Believe that the forces of moral decay -- sexual promiscuity and perversion, pornography, homosexuality, the disparaging of marriage, family and the role of motherhood and fatherhood. are rampant in our schools, our culture, government and even in many churches. It seems the only "popular" values left are tolerance of any lifestyle, no matter how deviant it may be, and intolerance of Christian values in the public arena.

Yet, you look at 'latest news' and you see that homosexuality seems their biggest threat.First piece...anger for a judge who issued same-sex marriage licences. Second, anger that 'hate crimes' legislation will stop preachers from teaching homosexuality is evil. 3rd about war in Iraq. 4th- Canadian evidence suggests only 1.4% of adults are gay. 5th-religious groups treated like 2nd class citizens. 6th, anger that catholic uni 'promotes' anti-abortion and same sex marriage. 7th- gay rights activists are convinced, after democratic victory of Congress, they can win key legislative victories and possibly win the White House in 2008.

5/7 of these reports are anti-gay (one being about the war in Iraq so hard to get gay bashing in). None mention hetrosexual civil unions.

I then looked at 'Focus on the Family' http://www.citizenlink.org/fnif/

1st item in 'recent headlines' on 'civil unions'...first para: "It’s only been six months since civil unions were legalized in New Jersey. The homosexual community says that’s not enough, and they’re using a poll to make their case." no mention of hetro cu's. Other gems include "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America eases stance homosexuality", "Democratic presidential candidates vow support for the gay cause", "Gay Endorsement Hinders Presidential Candidates". several more..until we get to an article purely on civil union: "No Federal Funds for Domestic Partnerships in Capital"- and what is the one quote selected from Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia?

“I don’t think the United States taxpayer wants to go down the road of supporting non-traditional marriage. Most states and the federal government recognize that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

A traditional marriage advocate, Goode says the House should not use tax dollars to promote any other definition of marriage than between one man and one woman...

Family focus spokesperson does state- "We shouldn’t be paying for federal benefits for unmarried couples and treating them like married couples.” But the main thrust is still on the gay 'agenda'.

Economic conservatives probably don't care either way, unless they give some thought to the cost-benefit side of things.

I gues that would be your bracket then? So are single sex or unmarried couples a worse economic model?

[Inquartata]

[QUOTE=pigeonmeister;605787]

I am interested in the priorities of the Christian right and so called 'family value's groups'.

Those are the 'social conservatives' I mentioned. Well, at least those are the organized face of social conservatism.

Yet, you look at 'latest news' and you see that homosexuality seems their biggest threat.

And if the circumstances were different, it would be abortion monopolizing the news...or gun control...or pornography...or...

The mixture swirls, depending on the spoon stirring it at the moment.

I gues that would be your bracket then? So are single sex or unmarried couples a worse economic model?

About the same. In either case the state is dispensing a lot of privileges and benefits, most of which have costs which must be paid by someone. The more such perquisites are provided, the greater the aggregate costs.

Actually, a social conservative would probably say hetero sex outside marriage was worse, inasmuch as it could lead to abortions, too, as gay unions would not...

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Inquartata;605803]

And if the circumstances were different, it would be abortion monopolizing the news...or gun control...or pornography...or...

But its the circumstances, or political environment, I'm talking about. Surely if all the articles on civil unions are weighted towards gay marriage then this is indicative of their morale pecking order? Gun crime, porno etc...are a seperate issue. I picked the articles surrounding civil partnership- and their coverage (including a quote from rep Goode) are weighted towards the issue of homosexuality. Are you saying that another time I could look at the same sites and see the significant anti-gay slant replaced by equal fear and disgust of hetro civil partnerships? There would be 5/7 articles on this issue? Not convinced, but I will try (if i remember or can be bothered)

Actually, a social conservative would probably say hetero sex outside marriage was worse, inasmuch as it could lead to abortions, too, as gay unions would not

Perhaps- But gay marriage raises the spectre of (horror of horrors!!) GAY ADOPTION....

[Inquartata]

Are you saying that another time I could look at the same sites and see the significant anti-gay slant replaced by equal fear and disgust of hetro civil partnerships? There would be 5/7 articles on this issue? Not convinced, but I will try (if i remember or can be bothered)

In a word, yes. The same-sex marriage issue has percolated to the top of the political potboil because it is being pushed hard right now. In previous decades it was not, and abortion was the single-minded focus of the Christian right social conservative groups. Gay marriage is merely the threat-du-jour for the reactive "family values" lobby.

Meanwhile, gays can already adopt children...

[pigeonmeister]

In a word, yes. The same-sex marriage issue has percolated to the top of the political potboil because it is being pushed hard right now. In previous decades it was not, and abortion was the single-minded focus of the Christian right social conservative groups. Gay marriage is merely the threat-du-jour for the reactive "family values" lobby.

Isn't that because the spectre of gay marriage, nor indeed hetro civil union, was not looming large on the 'social conservative right' radar until very recently? Though Baker vs Nelson was during the 70's there was no realistic threat of gay marriage happening. The realistic adoption of hetro civil unions, and gay civil unions, has arrived at the same time, but the gay aspect is the one emphasised by family values lobby. What makes you think that in a few years time the pendulum of outrage will swing towards hetro civil unions?

Don't family values lobby oppose gay marriage partly because it would make gay adoption easier?

"Debate over parenting by gays has been an important element in the broader dispute over whether to permit same-sex marriage"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in580665.shtml

The two issues have obvious links..see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...640411,00.html

[Inquartata]

Isn't that because the spectre of gay marriage, nor indeed hetro civil union, was not looming large on the 'social conservative right' radar until very recently?

Yes. The right is fairly reactive. It responds to trends which it perceives to be threats to the traditional way of life, whatever that is. That is what conservatism is: opposition to change. Hence its focus tends to depend upon whatever social change threatens at the moment...

What makes you think that in a few years time the pendulum of outrage will swing towards hetro civil unions?

When did I say any such thing?

I said that it has always been about "sin", sexually speaking. Social conservatives don't like that, and both homosexuality and hetero sex outside of marriage fall withing that broad category. They don't really rank-order the sins, they just respond to the ones which are currently most in the limelight and thus most threaten their understanding of "morality". I can almost guarantee you that if gay marriage as a cultural and political phenomenon were to disappear tomorrow the religious right would turn its attention back to those wicked straight couples who are out there corrupting the moral fibre of America by having illicit sex without benefit of liturgical sanction. If it didn't snap back to abortion and stem-cell research, that is.

Don't family values lobby oppose gay marriage partly because it would make gay adoption easier?

I don't think so, but I could be wrong. I don't waste much attention on the details of their philosophy.

It might simply be that this is a point which helps the liberals in the media understand those inexplicable religious fanatics a little better. It's the sort of rationalization which might tempt a logical examiner trying to puzzle out the motives of a group which is at base not logical but rather emotional...

[jeff]

Yes. The right is fairly reactive

The sine qua non of reactionariies is to be reactive, no?

That brings up William F. Buckley's famous quote when founding National Review "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop". The only comparable social issue of the time was racial integration, which perhaps illustrates more about reactionary attitudes than would be comfortably accepted.

[Bryn Ralph]

As it was in the days of the Roman senate, the corollary exists for Senator Craig:

"Nemo me impune lacessit."

The adage still prevails even into the 21st century.

[Inquartata]

The only comparable social issue of the time was racial integration.

Meh, I don't buy that. They have found Egyptian papyrii with complaints about the decadence of society, how low morals have fallen and how much more disrespectful young people were than in their own day. I suspect that most of the things upon which conservatives look sourly today they looked sourly upon then, too...only the forces promoting those things are stronger now.

[jeff]

I've seen similar complaints from Greek philosophers about how stroppy and ill-mannered the youth of his day were, and how it was all going to hell in a handbasket. But that's totally besides the point.

WFB was of course aware of those examples, but was talking about halting the motion of history at a time (1955, the year after Brown vs. Board of Ed) when the dominant social movement of importance was civil rights and integration; the "radical social experimentation" hinted at in the same article providing his quote.

Integration was a policy favored by the Eisenhower Republicans that WFB thought too liberal (and hence founded NR to oppose). Certainly there were other things that WFB and NR opposed but consider that founding co-editor of NR, Frank Meyer, called Brown vs. Board of Ed “rape of the Constitution”, and that WFB traded mailing lists with segregationist James Jackson Kilpatrick, and wrote to him in 1958 that "Our position on states’ rights is the same as your own". Previously WFB had editorialized that whites were “the advanced race” so its “claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.”

Just what kind of position do you think self-described reactionaries held on civil rights in the mid-1950s?