You see? One minute you allow gay civil unions, and the next thing you know, the whole institution of marriage is going to the dogs:

Hehe.

Andrew Sullivan responds to the heterosexism of a reader, who wrote, “Heterosexuality is normal and it’s about life. Homosexuality is about sex.”:

99 percent of a gay relationship is about life when sex isn’t happening. It’s about waking up together, getting to know each others’ friends and family, getting into a fight on vacation, or complaining about the weak coffee your boyfriend just made. That’s what I think of when I mention the boyfriend. I wouldn’t dream of talking about our sex life, which is as private as any heterosexual’s. And part of the trap gay people are in is that we don’t even have a vocabulary to describe our lives. Imagine trying to describe your relationship with your wife or husband without being able to ue the terms ‘wife’ or ‘husband.’ Would ‘girlfriend’ do? Or ‘partner’? Or some other either infantilizing or euphemized term? Without the right to marry and the vocabulary of marriage, gay people will be permanently, rhetorically and culturally marginalized, shunted to the side of families into which they are born, uniquely unable to participate in the rituals that bind families together and keep them intact. That’s why marriage is so important an issue.

Parental advisory: explicit lyrics! This post, although purely political in nature, nevertheless might offend some people who are squeemish about sexual issues. It is therefore not intended for readers under the age of 18!

In the context of a conversation about Rick Santorum and the potential ramifications of the Supreme Court sodomy case, I wrote the following in an e-mail to Andrew:

I would rather live in an America without laws against bestiality and incest than in an America with laws against consensual sex between two gay people.

Now, there’s a thought experiment I never expected to be engaging in.

(more…)

I neglected to link to Becky’s DT column yesterday about Rick Santorum’s horrible anti-gay remarks.

Personally, I would love to see some mainstream Republicans (by which I mean pretty much anyone other than the Northeastern Republicans, or as they call them in Texas, “Democrats”) condemn Santorum’s comments, just as so many did — to their great credit — after Trent Lott’s remarks implying he liked segregation.

Only time will tell if this will happen, I suppose. But it isn’t looking good, judging by yesterday’s White House press conference:

QUESTION: Does the President know more about what Senator Santorum said? Does he have any feelings about his comments? Do they think they were inappropriate or appropriate?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I’ve expressed it as we see it.

Well, that speaks volumes, doesn’t it?

Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine (one of those Northeastern Republicans I mentioned) said, “Discrimination and bigotry have no place in our society, and I believe Senator Santorum’s unfortunate remarks undermine Republican principles of inclusion and opportunity.” Well said, well said — but you gotta wonder, if Republicans believe so strongly in those principles of inclusion and opportunity, why is Sen. Snowe practically the only one sticking up for them now?

Of course, I understand that it would be incredibly unpopular with an enormously huge bloc of conservative voters, especially in the “red states,” to shout Santorum down for something like this… but I don’t care. This is a matter of principle, one of those situations where inaction is a form of action — if you fail to act against bigotry, you perpetuate it.

Just as with race relations a few decades ago, society will never change — the “red states,” in particular, will never change — until the Bill Frists and Mitch McConnells of the world have the courage to stand on a mountaintop and denounce anti-gay bigotry. Why them, why now? Because the battle for the hearts and minds of the American Street has to begin somewhere. It’s going to have to be courageous conservatives who lead it, and now seems as good a time as any.

As far as I’m concerned, anyone who stays purposefully silent on Santorum’s statements for political reasons is complicit in his bigotry, and deserves to be called out on it. And any Republican who condemns Santorum on principle, especially if they do so despite likely political fallout, is a hero, just as heroic as the Supreme Court that decided Brown vs. Board of Education, and deserves to be treated as such.

It probably won’t happen. But if it does, Andrew, I might just become a Republican after all.

Jay Leno, for his part, has a couple of good comments:

“Sen. Rick Santorum is causing a lot of controversy this week with remarks he made about gays. He said, ‘I have no problem with homosexuals, I have a problem with homosexual acts.’ Well, maybe he’s doing it wrong.”

“Gay rights groups are calling for Santorum’s resignation because he compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, adultery and incest. It’s not just the gay groups who are insulted. The Mormons are insulted because he included polygamy, Congress was insulted because he included adultery, and Arkansas was insulted because he included incest.”

Heh heh.

On a totally unrelated note, Leno also had a great comment on those wacky Shiites:

“Did you see those Iraqis making that pilgrimage, slashing their foreheads with knives and whipping their backs with chains? See, when Saddam Hussein was around, they weren’t allowed to make that pilgrimage. If they tried that with Saddam Hussein, he would have slashed their foreheads with knives and whipped their backs with chains.”

More funny jokes here…

UPDATE: More on sodomy laws here.

My dad and my friend Andrew are having an interesting discussion about my ideology over on, oddly enough, Toby’s blog. This stems from a previous discussion on this blog.

Andrew asserts that I am now a “certifiable neo-conservative” who is only held back from openly declaring himself a Republican by two, or possibly three, things: my belief in gay rights, my support of a strong church-and-state barrier, and, perhaps, my support for gun control. My dad, in response, wonders if I’ve really converted to conservative doctrine on economic issues.

Here’s my two cents…

(more…)

In discussing the U.K. royal scandal, why does CNN feel the need to use the phrase “gay rape” over and over, instead of just calling it a “rape”? I don’t object to the need to report the basic facts of what supposedly happened — a man allegedly raped another man — but why should the crime be consistently, repeatedly called a “gay rape”? When a man rapes a woman, is it called a “straight rape”?

Are we to assume that “gay rapes” are inherently worse than other rapes? Or that gay people are more likely to be rapists? Are we going back to the 1950s here? In this day and age, does anyone outside of the Vatican really believe that homosexuality is tantamount to pedophilia and sexual criminality? Does CNN believe this? What is the message here?

Students, faculty and staff celebrate the unveiling of the Rainbow Floor mural on April 26. The Rainbow Floor — USC’s new special-interest housing floor for gay, lesbian, bisexual and trangendered students, and their straight allies — has been Becky’s home all year, and my unofficial home. I sleep here about 99 percent of the time. :)

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), reputedly the wittiest man in Congress and most certainly its only openly gay member, stop to pose for a picture with me after his lecture at USC on April 22. Frank is one of my favorite politicians; I’ve often said I hope he’ll be the first gay and Jewish president. (This picture would really be worth something then!)