gmginsfo: that is all good to look at, and maybe some guys idea of the ideal, maybe straights would accept that more, but we know it's hardly reality. Most gay guys had to grow up listening to how bad and weak they were. This leads to all the problems of low self esteem, and self destructive behavior, and the reality is that a lot doesnt fit that model image. And models always break. The real thing is what needs to be accepted.

True a lot of straight people might have a tougher time looking at drag queens, etc. but they shouldnt have to hide or tone down because theyre not as easy to look at as some other ideal. The question shouldnt be what is a better PR campaign as it should be what is right and wrong. And prejudice and discrimination are wrong.

If heterosexuals like Britney Spears and Janet Jackson and Pamela Anderson and Julius Erving and Steve Garvey and Shawn Kemp -- who are out there exposing themselves and cheating on spouses and having babies out of wedlock and making sex videos -- don't have to present themselves in a favorable light, why should we? Why the f**k should WE have to beg and plead and cajole and put on a good dog-and-pony show just to be treated as equals?

There have been any number of moderate and conservative (looking and acting) gay images put forth -- but the opposition doesn't care. They're equal-opportunity bigots. The wonderful, loving couples adopting children or trying to (in states such as New Jersey and Florida) are fought tooth-and-nail by these creeps. No matter the PR campaign, they'll continue to hate.

They are public figures and the fact that they are gay but work for anti-gay causes is newsworthy. Keep that in mind, counselor.

One other thing: to wade n atlanta...YOU ROCK!!!!

[ March 01, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

You have a point, but only to a point, i.e. the point at which a motion for summary judgment is filed and the determination whether you will go to trial is made. While a celebrity might be forced to trial on an invasion of privacy suit on public figure grounds, not everyone is a celebrity. So as Clint Eastwood once asked, "are you feeling lucky?" Or more to the point, "are you sure of the facts?"

This is an enlightening bit of information. Baylor University (yes, the largest Baptist university in the world where homosexual conduct is "banned") has endorsed gay marriage based on legal (not religious) argument.

The editorial link

The TV report link

[ March 02, 2004, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Unfortunately, Baylor as a school is showing it's true colors. See this link

Which says, in part:

We are opposed to understanding.

The chickens voted for Col. Sanders...

As Col Sanders was throwing them in the fryer, the chickens said "Wait, how can you do this after all we've done for you?"

Col Sanders replied "I make fried chicken for a living, you knew that when you voted for me."

Also, this is published on the Baylor newspaper's webpage...
When I was the newspaper editor in college (also at a Southern Baptist school), I went in front of the campus' media board twice in one year for publishing "illegal" material in the newspaper. Once, the word "suck" (HORRORS! and this was 1995) and another time a quote for an anonymous source. Both times, our newspaper's faculty advisor stood by me and against the administration because his view was that while the freedom of speech ended at the campus gate (private schools are like that), I was preparing for my furute and had to learn how to handle a fight in the face of opposition.

I just e-mailed a letter to the Baylor Lariat.

This is what I wrote:

As a former student journalist at the University of Maryland and Prince George's Community College, I am outraged by Baylor President Robert B. Sloan, Jr's statement Monday regarding the Baylor Lariat's editorial supporting San Francisco's lawsuit regarding gay marriage.

One of the bedrock principles of a university education is the marketplace of ideas, including allowing a platform for people whose opinions differ from those of the university administration. Encouraging the development of independent thinking is a vital component of this mission that many colleges and universities profess to share. Making a statement about a student newspaper's editorial and criticizing it for violating some rules of law fly in the face of the fostering of a marketplace of ideas.

Even more important, the freedom of the press and the rights to a redress of grievances and dissent are founding principles of our democratic form of government. To even suggest that some form of punishment or retribution will come from the Baylor editorial board's decision to support San Francisco's gay marriage stance is a slap in the face to our Founding Fathers and to the principle of religious freedom, also found in our Constitution.

The suggestion that one reason for releasing the statement was that the views do not represent those of Baylor University and the majority of
its student body is incredibly irresponsible. Let the Baylor student government have the responsibility for representing the majority of the student body. The newspaper's responsibility is to report the news and to provide a forum for expressing opinion. And, yes, newspaper journalists have the right to form their own opinions about the news they cover.

There is no way to predict what future this particular story will have. But the present sure smacks of the kind of tyranny that President George W. Bush supposedly fought in Iraq.

Thanks for the inspiration, DR...here is my letter...

Dear Lariat editor,

Oh my gosh! First dancing became allowable at Baylor, now the
editorial board has announced the support for gay marriage! Horrors! What
will be the next thing to come to Baylor? Free speech? Face it, the world
is trying to change, you can be a part of that change or you can get left
behind! As a communications graduate from a sister Southern Baptist
college, I support your editorial board's views and applaud your courage to
see this as more than just a religious issue.

Sincerely,
Bobby French
Austin, Texas
(1997 grad of Carson-Newman College, Jefferson City, TN)
Contact info:

Okay gmginsfo, I see your point, but there are two problems with it. First, Mary Cheney is not just a public person, she is an already out public person (okay, her mother denied she was out during the 2000 campaign, but that's another story). Mary has worked in gay-related causes, and has been relatively public about her relationship, for many years. Attacking her for working with the enemy is not "outing."

Number two, there is no problem reporting the facts. When Rosie and Kelli O'Donnell were traipsing around New York in what was clearly a relationship, the tabloids reported it and could not be sued because they actually reported what they had witnessed. So if Foley of Florida's partner decides to come out about their life together, or if some reporter is able to piece together the truth about someone's life from their actions (say, being caught with your Secretary of State's son in the bedroom, causing your wife to divorce you), that is also reporting the facts.

So Captain Lib, are you saying that you agree with JIP and say that we should have hunt, out who you want if you suspect they are gay?

It was their wedding, in 1997, in Brooklyn. Daniel, on the right, is a former student of mine. We could not have two finer "poster children" for marriage rights.

My neighbor Tucker Carlson (I'm munching some of his "Reduced Fat Lemon Coolers" Girl Scout cookies right now) was taking questions during a show sponsored by the Washington Post earlier today. Here are some Q's and A's of interest:

Election 2004

You're the lawyer, so I suppose you have some piece of information I lack. But I'm not sure what tort could be brought against an outer in this circumstance. If the claim that the person is gay is true, then no libel or slander case can be brought. If not true, the plaintiff would have to prove the outer knew this as we are discussing public figures. However, outing nonhomosexuals as homosexuals would be more damaging in the long run anyway. I don't know of any other statute that could be violated in the process of outing. Of course, if you gained this information by breaking into their house and stealing private papers, you would be exposed to criminal proceedings, but they still wouldn't have a civil case for the outing itself.

[ March 02, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: jqueer ]

Wow, I'd love to munch on some of cutie Tucker's cookies anytime.

RIGHT OF WAY

On the MSNBC.com link to the Newsweek article it says, "Gay Republicans turn on Bush."


Heh heh... ummm, **tip-toeing back out of the P&R forums...**

[ March 02, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

WHAT?!?

bush is turned on by gay republicans?

oh! the hypocricy!

[ March 02, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: thersis ]

That is freakin' hilarious! I guess this will push Laura back to pills and running over lovers.

What scares Americans the most??

This or this??

YIKES! OH MY GOSH! CALL FOR AN EXORCISM!!!

Umm, would that include John Kerry, divorced in 1988 from Julia Thorne and who now, of course, supports amending the Massachusetts State Constitution to prohibit gay marriage?

BTW, according to an article published in Elle magazine last year, heiress Teresa Heinz made him sign a prenup -- suggesting they're well aware of the possibility their marriage may not last "until death do us part."

They didnt mind cozying up to the chimp-in-chief when he was doling out tax cuts, now its like a bunch of rats off a sinking ship.

John Kerry is not in the State Legislature, so, his wishes don't really mean things are going to the way you say he wants them to in the state house. BTW, can you give me a link where he says he wants the Massachusetts state constitution amended? Thanks, in advance.

You have to read this. Ultimately pretty hilarious:

Paul Cameron, who is regulated cited as an authority by anti-gay bigots, sums up his concerns about homosexuality:

"Untrammeled homosexuality can take over and destroy a social system," says Cameron. "If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm."

So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves that gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality. "I'm convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers," says Cameron. "People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical," he adds, sounding evangelical himself. "It's pure sexuality. It's almost like pure heroin. It's such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they'll take enormous risks, do anything."

He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. "Marital sex tends toward the boring end," he points out. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does" So, Cameron believes, within a few generations homosexuality would be come the dominant form of sexual behavior.

So? He's been open about the divorce. If there was infidelity involved, certainly that would be relevant, and relatively undamaging to Kerry in the overall discussion and election.

here ya go.

Wow, Paul Cameron sure knows knows a lot about the gay orgasm!

Thanks for the link. What John Kerry is asking for in the State House is nothing like what the Repugs and the Punk Ass Chimp are asking to be placed into the Constitution, though -- that Amendment would not even allow Civil Unions, the Massachusetts amendment would. Civil Unions are a first step for us. Sometimes, it takes baby steps to reach a goal.

Bobby, here you are, from none other than the Human Rights Campaign, quoting the Boston Globe .

I agree with you, Kerry's not in the state legislature, but despite that he just couldn't resist taking a public stance in support of amending the Mass. State Constitution to ban gay marriage. Just like Bush, who has no direct role in amending the Federal Constitution, felt he had to issue his little statement last week.

I wish neither candidate had made either of these statements -- but at least, let's not have a double-standard.

Thanks for the link...please see my preceding post for a reply.

This guy sure knows a lot about homosex, don't he?

Gotta admit, he's right!

Me thinks he's been watching too many Joe Eszterhas movies...

YIKES! A legitimate argument against same-sex marriage. Let's hope it doesn't catch on. wink

In Bush's statement last week, he specifically said, "The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."

That may not be what Marilyn Musgrave wanted to hear, but I think it pretty clearly says the amendment Bush is prepared to support will not foreclose civil unions.

No, Pittfan (oops, I'm sorry) Phillyfan - my point is that \"outing\" very rarely involves reporting private information. When I was closeted, I was DEEPLY closeted, and would not even be seen with another man in public. There was no way someone was going to find out about me.

On the other hand, Foley has been relatively public about his relationship, but the gay people who know about it keep silent - there is no reason why they should, were he to come out for the amendment. His \"private\" life ceases to be private when he parades it about in public. In the same way, if the rumors about the governor of Texas are true, AND it is part of the divorce filing - reporting that information is not akin to revealing anything private.


On the other hand, I just love this response from Cheney on the whole issue, from an interview with MSNBC today (I think).

Lester Holt Interview with Cheney

Great way to duck the question - and a complete lie. They were fine with trotting out both daughters in 2000 - Mary especially made the ticket look "compassionate." And Lynn Cheney goes on and on about her grandchildren (always highlighting the "normal" daughter, that Lynn Cheney) when she is interviewed on a local morning radio program. They use their daughters' private lives when it is convenient; it is cowardly to duck the question now.

Actually I think Holt should have stated it better - "Mr. Cheney, you have one daughter whose marriage is recognized by the state and one whose marriage is not. Mr. Bush believes your gay daughter's relationship damages marriage - what damage has your straight daughter experienced in her relationship because of your dyke daughter?"

[ March 02, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]

Cheney Backtracks

"It also invades their privacy and, in most states, subjects the "outer" to tort liability which could include punitive damages, court costs and attorney's fees." (gmginsfo)

Correct me if I am wrong gmg, but isn't TRUTH an affirmative defense?


...

Albany Takes It Slow

Jim @ outsprots, looks like Cameron knows first hand of what he is talking about with reguard to climax. Mkae me want to say...

"Though dost protest too much..."

The Dallas Morning News, a publication that hardly met a Republican they couldn't endorse had a thoughtful (as in very well thought out) editorial on this issue today. Nail, head.


Gay Marriage: Tough call, but amendment not necessary

12:09 AM CST on Tuesday, March 2, 2004

As the national debate intensifies over gay marriage – spurred most recently by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's in-your-face challenge of California law and President Bush's declared support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage – we find ourselves struggling to balance two principles we hold dear.

First, we are innately reluctant to recommend amending the Constitution. There is a reason our Constitution has stood strong for more than two centuries. It was crafted as an expansive rather than restrictive document, one that 215 years later has been amended only 27 times. It's not an accident that from this minimalist foundation sprang a rapidly growing and ever-changing country that quickly became the world's most prosperous nation.

Similarly, we have an instinctive preference for matters of controversy to be resolved in an electoral setting rather than by judicial fiat. Abraham Lincoln's description of a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is as powerful today as it was nearly 150 years ago.

So how to balance these competing principles in the midst of a swirling debate over gay marriage? If you've witnessed our own internal machinations over this matter via the editorial board's online blog (go to DallasNews.com/s/dws/blogs/opinion/), you know that we're as flummoxed by the competing arguments and values at stake as much of America seems to be.

In some ways, the editorial board is uneasy about the concept of gay marriage. We prefer, as we've explained in earlier editorials, that the rights gays legitimately seek be achieved via civil unions. This would preserve the term "marriage" for the more traditional union of a man and a woman. (Indeed, a key point lost in the latest surge of controversy is the implicit acceptance of civil unions – a matter of considerable division as recently as last year. Now, nearly all the major parties at the debate table recognize civil unions, the only holdouts being a small group of conservatives led by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and virtues author William Bennett.)

We view the term "marriage" as inherently religious, and we recognize that the prospect of government-sanctioned gay marriage feels intrusive to many Americans. Despite our reticence about the term, however, we don't believe that gay marriage threatens the core of our culture or our system of government. As we've explained in our previous support for civil unions, we don't believe the uniting of two people of the same gender will destroy our country or undermine what makes it great. So in the final analysis, we don't believe that gay marriage is something the government must stop at all costs.

It is this sensibility that leads us to oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. We don't come to this conclusion easily. We are indeed empathetic with those who feel violated by judicial heavy-handedness and seek a greater electoral role in the controversy.

With that empathy in mind, we were tempted to embrace one version of the proposed amendment. This version bans gay marriage but is essentially agnostic on civil unions. It gives state legislatures the right to create civil unions and explicitly grants protection to states that don't want to recognize other states' same-sex unions. At first blush, the let-each-state-do-its-own-thing approach – similar to what Vice President Dick Cheney has called for in the past – makes it seem an appealing option.

But the problem with this approach is that Americans today live their lives in ways that make state boundaries largely meaningless. What happens if a couple married in one state, for example, has a car accident in another state where their relationship isn't recognized? What legal and medical authority does one partner have over the other in a life-and-death situation? (David Frum at NationalReview.com cites a number of other examples where a state-by-state approach to same-sex marriage logistically wouldn't work. Indeed, Mr. Frum, who favors a more nationalist amendment, predicts the state approach "would evolve into a demand to allow the most liberal states to impose their social values on others." If he's right, and we suspect he is, what's the advantage of achieving that end via a constitutional amendment instead of by simply opposing the amendment?)

When you strip away all the what-if and how-to technicalities, this controversy centers on whether one believes that the prospect of two people of the same gender entering into marriage – as personally discomforting as many Americans view it to be – threatens the soul of our culture or the governing system of our country. Our collective sense is that it does not, and therefore, with respect to those who disagree, we recommend against pursuit of a federal marriage amendment.


[Link format modified for page alignment. - Outsports moderator]

[ March 02, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Re: the separate and not-that-closely-related torts of defamation and invasion of privacy, truth is a defense only to the former, whether it be written (libel) or spoken (slander). While celebrities and public figures can suffer an invasion of their privacy, just as they may be defamed, the standard of proof is different and higher than that for "just plain folks." It's the latter whom I addressed in my post contesting JIP's belief that "anyone who is gay and working for the campaign of an anti-gay politician of any party, even if it's her father, forfeits the right to hide their sexuality," since not all who are politically active are celebrities or public figures as well.

I agree we should bring in the Tammy Wynette theme of D-I-V-O-R-C-E. Instead of the (D) and ® placed next to each politician's name vetting this issue, we need the following information instead:

(M) = Married
(D) = Divorced
(MTD) = Married to a Divorcee

It's a very relevant point in this debate.

[ March 02, 2004, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

Sorry, I'm just catching up on posts here... we are certainly in agreement, gmg. The very ordinariness of the couples waiting in line in SF was (even in the year 2004) a revelation to some in Middle America. The fundies were praying that Wedding Day = Pride Day; they expected guys in gowns marrying men dressed as nuns. What they got were lesbian soccer moms and accountants in suits. I’m not saying we should all look like that. But by its very nature marriage appeals to the more tradition-minded among us, so that is who waited in line. Whether Gavin Newsom and his advisors knew this instinctively going in, I can’t say. But it sure looked swell on CNN.

It occurred to me this week that two of the biggest gay issues of the last decade – marriage and serving in the military – were both originally dismissed out-of-hand as being hopelessly "assimilationist" by the sort of in-your-face activists who often represent us on the 6 o’clock news. “Why would we want to be just like straight people?” “What self-respecting queen would join the Army anyway?” And so on. They could not even imagine that the kind of gay person who wants to serve his/her country, or marry and raise kids in the suburbs, even exists – much less exists in large numbers. And I’m happy to say they were as wrong as the fundies.

George Bush's contribution to our most sacred political document - scribbled in crayon in the margin with a little arrow - "Insert Hate Here."

RGMike hit on something I'm sensing here among the fundies in Oklahomo as well. Further, those wedding pictures are often accompanied by captions saying the couple has already been together for 15, 20, 30 years or more. That reality slaps them in the face, destroying their notion that all gay relationships are transient.

Letters to the Editor in today's NY Times (one of them is written by a friend...and I actually think I know *another* one of the authors, too!):

To the Editor:

Re "How the Judges Forced the President's Hand," by Lisa Schiffren (Op-Ed, Feb. 29):

My partner and I have health insurance, and our tax status of "single" is better for us than if we filed jointly.

We want to have our long-term relationship recognized as a marriage because our relationship is based on the same tenets as my mother's and father's marriage of 34 years.

Benefits are not the crux of the issue; the crux of the issue is equality.

SARAH CARDWELL
Bronxville, N.Y., Feb. 29, 2004

•

To the Editor:

I agree with Lisa Schiffren's conclusion (Op-Ed, Feb. 29) that a constitutional amendment is the only way to negate the overreaching of the four Massachusetts judges who decided that the commonwealth must begin performing same-sex marriages.

But the proposed amendment would in turn set the bar too high in the event that societal values change to accept gay marriage.

A way around this would be an amendment that defines federal law as controlling the gender of marriage partners, thus validating the Defense of Marriage Act.

Although this would prevent gay marriage for now, it would not erect a constitutional barrier against such unions.

Rather, it would allow the definition of this central institution to be determined by the will of the people through our democratic legislative process.

AL RODBELL
Carlsbad, Calif., March 1, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Lisa Schiffren ("How the Judges Forced the President's Hand," Op-Ed, Feb. 29) seems to assume that the courts exist to rubber-stamp whatever the majority of Americans happen to believe at any given moment in history.

If this were true, interracial marriage would still be illegal, and segregation the rule of the South.

No, the courts exist to ensure that the rights afforded to individuals by federal and state constitutions are preserved for those individuals, even if the majority disagrees.

Our founding fathers understood this and created the judiciary to protect the individual.

RICH FURMAN
St. Paul, Feb. 29, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "How the Judges Forced the President's Hand," by Lisa Schiffren (Op-Ed, Feb. 29):

In the debate over gay marriage, I remain perplexed over how the institution of marriage would be degraded if gays could wed. How can increasing the number of stable families be bad for society?

On the flip side, it's easy to imagine that banning gay marriage could do harm to conventional marriages.

In the absence of gay marriage, civil union laws will spring up across the country. They will quickly expand to include heterosexual couples looking for a smaller first step toward commitment than full marriage, leading to an increase in families not united by marriage. A similar trend has been seen in some European countries.

Consequently, social conservatives should be the first in line to introduce legislation authorizing gay marriages!

MARK SOLOMON
Hamden, Conn., Feb. 29, 2004

•

To the Editor:

The gay marriage controversy ("The Culture Wars, Part II," Week in Review, Feb. 29) could indeed be solved by a marriage protection amendment to the United States Constitution with text as follows:

"The right of couples within the jurisdiction of the United States to enjoy the rights and benefits of marriage shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of race, color, national origin, gender or sexual orientation."

JULIAN H. BREEN
Pennington, N.J., Feb. 29, 2004

...the magazine also known as gmg's favorite porn rag...

wink

[ March 03, 2004, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: GatorJamie ]

So i'm watching CNN last night, yes CNN. Seems that good ole AZ is a swing state kids. If that is true my vote might mean something.

Then they showed Kerry's speech. All he said was, i'm opposed to the ammendment. No more, no less. He will avoid this issue in the coming months kids. Why? Because he doesnt support it,

Neither get my vote.

Oh, hold your nose and vote for him already. Or else just vote for Bush. Either you hate the pandering to the religious right at the expense of gays enough to vote for Bush's rival or you don't. Enough with the hankerchief waving and the fussing. Kerry will never be all you want him to be. It's a vote against Bush that's all.