Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
With protesters downtown marching to their hearts content, members of the Republican National Convention were watching Broadway shows, with plenty of protection from the NYPD. Hours before delegates were to leave a NY Times sponsored screening of The Lion King, demonstrators, police, and busses were outside the New Amsterdam Theater. Republicans all over New York? New Amsterdam indeed.
With our super Gothamist hearing abilities, we found out that the show was letting out at around 6:30, so we wandered the area, careful to not run into tourists and conventioneers who were standing idle on the sidewalks. While on the corner of 42nd and 8th, we witnessed several officers on motorcycles drive by drive by, followed by several black SUVs, and police vehicles. Finally, we saw a super reinforced limo pull by with Dick and Lynne Cheney. Several others took notice of the caravan as well, but nobody seemed to connect it with Dick Cheney being at Ellis Island. If only they knew...
Gothamist talked to a couple of police officers who didn't seem to mind too much that the convention was in town. Simply put, they are making time and a half on their 14 hour shifts, working every day from Saturday through the end of the convention. An area precinct even rented some rooms at local hotels because of the long shifts the officers are pulling. Officers were also equipped with an officer's guide to the convention, which listed several required items and ways to recognize an antagonizing person.
When the delegates finally emerged from The Lion King, they were easy to spot. Besides the way they were dressed, The NY Times was nice enough to give them all tote bags - red tote bags - that made them easy targets. Chants of "GOP go home" were mostly ignored by the delegates, but one yelled back "DNC go home" and several others gave looks of dismay. The crowd was separated from the RNC members by several police officers, some of which had bikes between them and the crowd. Eventually, one side of the crowd was disbursed by threat of mace.
Ironic that so many conservative people watching a musical by a gay man - a gay non-American at that; Elton encourages you to "Ride the Rocket" and join his fan club. Also high on the irony meter: Cops using bikes to keep protesters back. Definitely a change from their actions Friday.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Why is it ironic that conservatives would enjoy a show by a non-American gay man? I don't get the "irony."
Tien - You do realize there are gay people in places other than New York City, right?
One of the reasons so many conservatives are ambivalent on the gay marriage issue is that they are well-acquainted with people who don't neatly fit into a binary-gender/heterosexual conceptual box. They're conflicted between a commitment to principles and a reluctance to keep obstacles in the way of a some people's potential happiness.
Many New Yorkers think they're SO open minded, and yet they don't even bother to learn anything about the people in the rest of the country.
larry, it was something about the relationship between republicans and gays. and then elton john and nj's gov. i don't know. bad attempt at humor?
sterling, you've totally opened my eyes! there are gay people outside of new york? that's news to me! but seriously, the second thing you wrote was insightful.
Are all of you being facetious or deliberately dim? The GOP platform not only states their opposition to gay marriage, it is expected to say that they oppose ANY recognition of gay relationships.
This may be a joke to you, or you may be misled by the fact that they're putting "moderates" (not a word I would use) like Giuliani and Pataki out there a lot.
Also, the woman leading the opening invocation says supports of gay families are the equivalent of people who supported Hitler:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_atrios_archive.html#109381254760837264
Yeah, I got that second part from National Review. Haha - I think Jonah Goldberg articulated it, and I remember thinking, "Oh, well it's not just me."
When the gay marriage issue reared up, a lot of conservatives were just very, very reluctant to oppose it. We don't think it's right - but we don't think it's the worst thing that can happen, either. Just about everyone went to high school or college with people who came out of the closet later but suffered terribly during their younger years, or knows people who struggled with gender or sexual orientation issues later in life. Nobody wants to inflict greater pain on people trying to adjust and find their way in the world.
At the same time, I think there's a concern that a lot of people are "fence-riders" - people who could go either way, gay or straight - and a perception that most "fence-riders" live the straight role, at least most of the time. Conservatives want most fence-riders to continue to self-identify as straight. I think the goal among some of the activists in this space is to shift the stigma away from gays themselves, and onto the gay lifestyle.
As for the policy and social aspects of gay marriage, conservatives think it's better for someone to marry a person of the opposite sex, have kids, join the PTA, play a stable role in the community. It's not clear to conservatives that gay marriage and the gay lifestyle are as stable and carry as many social benefits as straight marriage - that's mainly why we want to take a "go slow" approach with it. And there are the fence-riders to consider, as well. But it's important to conservatives that gays have a role to play, a place to fit in and find meaning in their lives.
No serious-minded conservative is going to trot out Leviticus as a justification for his or her viewpoint on homosexuality. For the most part I would say conservatives perceive gay men (in particular) to be overly focused on carnality or decadent pursuits, to the relative exclusion of more responsible undertakings, and the trappings of adulthood. Conservatives have very few issues with lesbians, because that lifestyle is not perceived to be evasive of responsibility or conducive to the social ills that male homosexuality is associated with.
Anyway, I'm sure to catch hell for these comments.
Barry - Just read the Sherry Dew comments. It seems pretty clear that the Hitler stuff is aimed at conservatives like me, who aren't taking a stand on something we believe to be wrong. (Just like opponents of fascism who refused to vocally oppose Hitler's rise to power.) So shouldn't you be thrilled that a conservative is comparing other conservatives to Nazis? Lefties do that all the time!
And Barry - if conservatives were seriously opposed to gay marriage it would have been shot down months ago. Bush has been avoiding the issue as much as he can.
Barry, there's no mention of same-sex marriage in the official Republican platform either way. Where did you get your information?
Do you have a link for the platform? It's not on the convention site.
Here is a Reuters story that states it is in the draft:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6071259
I was looking at the Republican "agenda," not the "platform." The Family and Community chapter of the draft platform on same-sex marriage:
"We support the traditional definition of 'marriage' as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law."
It's not radical--pretty classical conservativism couched in toothless language. It's a States' Rights position, it doesn't advocate for a Constitutional amendment, and it does not oppose other legal forms of recognizing gay relationships.
The whole draft platform:
http://www.rnc.org/About/PartyPlatform/Default.aspx
Sterling, the "fence-rider" concern is oblivious to reality. There are lots of people who struggle with their sexuality, and a few who don't seem to have a fixed sexuality -- acknowledging this is very different from asserting that people can end up simply not being gay, or taking the further jump that it should be a matter of public policy to encourage heterosexuality where possible.
But then, your attitude shows a more general detachment from reality. Do you wonder whether gay couples can play a stable role in society? Well, here's a radical idea: give us the tools to stabilize our relationships. Or if you aren't ready for that: how about seriously looking at gay couples? Conservatives trot out the "it's too soon to tell" nonsense all the time, hoping no one will notice that they aren't bothering to pay attention to the substantial evidence available that gay couples often lead perfectly ordinary, humdrum, pillars-of-the-community lives. And if we aren't allowed to let that evidence speak for us, how can we ever be expected to win rights that we don't already have? If we're right, we're being denied rights we deserve -- wouldn't it at least be fair to give us a timetable and a set of criteria to be met before we're deemed worthy? No, because conservatism is not concerned with whether we're deserving of marriage or would treat the institution responsibly, just its knee-jerk insistence that we should not have it.
Three paragraphs is a little much for a Gothamist comment, but your comment about Sherry Dew is so full of it that it can't go unanswered: she is clearly addressing a particular bloc of conservatives, but she is comparing supporters of gay marriage to Hitler. If you want to debate how inexcusable that is, go right ahead -- but don't give us such a ridiculous line.
Mike - I don't think the fence-rider notion is oblivious to reality at all. You seem to act as if the roles people play and the sexual yearnings that people feel are the same thing. I doubt very much whether there is a single adult human being on earth whose sexual role is 100% consistent with his or her sexual leaning or attitude. People choose their roles, within the constraints of the roles they are able to play. I'm simply saying that for those people who are capable of playing either a heterosexual or homosexual role, the heterosexual is preferable. If they can manage it.
As for marriage having a transformative effect on the American gay male - don't insult my intelligence. Lots of gay men are perfectly stable already, and in stable relationships where they own property together. But many gay men, just like many straight men, need a restraining influence in their lives. That's part of the reason for marriage, but it's marriage to a woman. Wild MEN - gay or straight - living together isn't a responsible marriage. It's a frat house. Promiscuity, frivolity, irresponsibility - these aren't gay traits. They're common MALE traits.
Marriage is intended to restrain men who need it by tyng them to a woman, and produce society's next generation. So on the base merits, there's no justification for gay marriage. Nonetheless, conservatives are sensitive to the point that gays feel excluded. There was hardly any reaction at all when it was adopted in Vermont and Hawaii - "it's an experiment, let them try it" was what a lot of conservatives said. But now, just a few years later, gays are trying to enact it nationally - through the courts rather than the legislatures! Aside from not being honest or right or democratic, it's strategically foolish. You're going to piss people off and cause a backlash - that's what this amendment talk is, and it's just going to get louder the harder gays push.
Gays aren't going to win people's hearts and minds by getting judges to force gay marriage down their throats.
As for the Hitler thing, I get compared to Hitler about every fourth time I post something on a left-leaning blog or message board. I've seen enough "Bush = Hitler" signs in the last 18 months to wallpaper the old Hindenburg zeppelin hanger at Lakehurst. Please don't expect me to get worked up when ONE crotchety old Mormon lady throws it back in the other direction.
Sterling, I'm usually proud to think of you as my ally in Comment-land, but I think you're a bit off-base in your last post. You think that same-sex households look like frat houses? I wish! Gay families are as diverse as straight families. If it's possible to make any generalizations about the "effects" of marriage, they can't rely on a specious argument about the civilizing influence of women. My office is a warren of slightly threatening, polyamorous lesbians--when you've seen an all-dyke oil-wrestling party, those gender stereotypes will be shaken.
The only viable Conservative position on same-sex marriage must be a political one, that doesn't rely on pop sociology or religion. That position begins with the principles of self-determination and government by consent. It must also include an appeal to human rights, which include the rule of law, defense of minority rights in the face of majority rule, and the checks represented by independent courts.
The "activist court" argument, especially regarding Massachusetts, is weak. The court interpreted the law within the framework of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, without depriving the people of their right to amend that constitution, or requiring other states to interpret their own laws differently. It's really very equitable.
I swear I am a Conservative, and don't like the courts creating law, but the principle of "majority rule," so often invoked when unpopular minority rights are protected, is not democratic. Rule of Law is democratic, and the courts stand for institutional justice in the face of mass action. I get into this argument a lot, and I'm thinking of starting up a Plato reading group to get everybody up to speed on the difference between demos and poloi. Anybody care to join?
Larry - I'm not saying all gay households are frat houses. In fact I went out of my to make it clear that I didn't think that. What I'm saying is that the marriage will be no cure for the perceived excesses of that portion of gay men who embody or typify those excesses.
I disagree with you on the courts issue. I do not believe this is a civil rights issue because I do not believe that gays are being denied any rights that others have - anyone in this country can marry someone of the opposite gender, whether they are gay or not.
Your argument denies that marriage is - as it has been defined for thousands of years - a bond between a man and a woman. Changing that definition is not something courts should do - it has to be consensual by society. It should be subject to the legislature or popular referendum.
Sterling:
What I'm saying is that the marriage will be no cure for the perceived excesses of that portion of gay men who embody or typify those excesses.
One, who said it would be?
Two, what about the gay men who don't embody or typify these things?
Three, if social conservatives really believed this, they'd have no problem with lesbian marriage.
Tin Man - please go back and read the earlier posts, which deal with all the points you raise. But 1) MIKE suggested that gay marriage would have beneficial effects in that direction. 2) I point out that not all gay men behave in the stereotypical fashion. I don't even think most behave that way. But self-restrained gay men don't need marriage to be civilized any more than self-restrained straight men do. So it's a moot point. And 3) I already raised the point that I don't think most conservatives have any real problems with the social impact of lesbians. If we were just talking about lesbians gay marriage would probably be a done deal, but if you opened up same-sex marriage for one gender and not the other, that WOULD be discrimination. Men are more likely than women to engage in reckless and irresponsible behavior - this is not exactly a secret.
Look, all I really want to talk about is how conservatives respond to the gay marriage issue. I don't care to discuss gay stereotypes, and only went into it because it was relevant to the objections raised. As far as I can see, gay marriage is a bad idea because it needlessly trifles with a valuable institution for no good purpose. However, the impact and cost would likely be small, so I'm not going to expend any energy trying to prevent it from happening. To me, the one real issue is the matter of settling it in the courts rather than in the legislatures. I think a more patient, democratic approach could deliver a majority of states within 15 or 20 years, and then a federal law finishing the deal would logically follow.
Tin Man, at the risk of ruining my "Liberal" labeling: I don't beleive in "Gay Marriage" and would like to point out Not everyone of a "Liberal" bent does...
Having said that, I don't think there should be a Constitutional Ammendment or Federal Law "Banning" it either Especially Since Marriage is the purview of the 50 States (or a state law for that matter). It's too close to making Homosexuals illegal. (It's rather Bizzare to me that the same Politicians who want to "Stay out of your Bedroom" Will jump in *IF* you're Gay with another Consenting Adult....)
- This Opinion has nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage, other than MY Personal belief that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman
- I think I can safely assure people, I'm not Homophobic
- I'm certainly not a Republican and Not what anyone would call a "Conservative"
Just my thoughts...Back On Topic:
While coming back from Upstate NY yesterday, I heard on CBS Radio that a survey indicated that most of the Delegates are Far to the "Right" (Still Not sure what that means exactly...) and "Pro-Family". I think it is Ironic that these people attend a show with Music by an openly Gay Man. Feels weird, Sort of like when Pat Buchanan used "We are the Champions" by Queen... (I wonder if Fredie Mercury was spining in his grave??)