Equality Loudoun Archive, 2003-2015

Conservatives refusing to be radicals

Posted on June 25, 2006 by David

I’m Not Emeril has posted a fine article making the conservative case for opposing the Marshall-Newman amendment.

I’ve never been too fond of jumping blindly into a muddy stream. I won’t do it this time either. I’ll vote no. There are too many ways this amendment could be interpreted in the future.

In addition to laying out the expected consequences of the amendment’s second paragraph with clarity, he nicely distinguishes between two very different versions of conservatism by way of a preamble dealing with “biblical” objections to gay relationships.

This ostensibly is an exploration of his own views on “morality” and “sin,” but it also functions to name what is really motivating some of the amendment’s institutional proponents – in spite of their denials.

Many, if not most, Christians believe they were freed from the “curse of the Law” when the Temple veil was rent in two at the time of the crucifixion. Put simply, that’s when Surf and Turf and cheeseburgers and violations of Moses’ building codes and homosexuality became “legal”. Shellfish consumption and the combining of meat and dairy in one dish is no longer looked upon as an abomination by most Christian denominations. But homosexuality still is.

The unasked question is still hanging there: How is it possible for anyone to justify enshrining in our constitution a view of gay relationships that is based on biblical law (let alone arbitrary biblical law)?

Also, this morning Vince at Too Conservative weighed in as still undecided. He dislikes the name-calling on both sides of the issue. I agree. There are people who are emotionally attached to the idea of “marriage” for cultural reasons, but really don’t want to do harm to anyone. When they realize what the amendment says, they have to reconcile those two impulses. Calling them bigots doesn’t help them to do that.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged Animus, Christianism, Conservatism, Doing the right thing, Marshall-Newman Amendment, Religious authoritarianism | 2 Comments

Blogging the amendment

Posted on June 24, 2006 by David

The Commonwealth Coalition has a new blog up – check it out.

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged Marshall-Newman Amendment | Comments Off

The heart of liberty

Posted on June 23, 2006 by David

There has been a reasonably principled discussion of the underpinnings of support for/opposition to the Marshall-Newman amendment over at NoVA Townhall, with Joe expressing a willingness to examine whether the harm the amendment would do to families outweighs the perceived benefits. We certainly welcome these honest reappraisals.

Meanwhile, I’m delighted that one of their bloggers, Sophrosyne, has raised the question of what, exactly, we mean when we talk about “liberty.” S/he has done so by ridiculing part of this passage from Lawrence v Texas:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. [emphasis added]

I am curious to know, if this does not describe “the heart of liberty,” what does? Can anyone help me out here?

Posted in Commentary | Tagged Civil rights, Constitution, Law, Marshall-Newman Amendment | 9 Comments

Today’s conservative reason to vote NO

Posted on June 20, 2006 by Jonathan

I’d really like to thank Joe Budzinski for the relatively civil tone of the recent discussion over at Nova Town Hall (this astonishing statement aside) and for tonight’s town hall meeting where Ann Hull provided him and other conservatives with all the reason they need to make the right decision and vote NO on the marriage prohibition amendment this November.

Ann Hull said:

A contract between two individuals is only limited by your creativity!

Well, that may be the case, but what if you’re not very creative? What if you are an unmarried individual with a significant other who finds marriage to be a pretty good model. If together you create a “legal status”¦that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage”, you’re put into a position where the more closely your contract approximates covenant marriage, the more that contract runs afoul of the amendment language which prohibits recognition of that status.

“Leave me alone” conservatives should understand. If two adult individuals certify that they will be faithful to each other, share property, care for each other, and be a couple until death do they part, why on earth would anybody with a heart want to say no, or worse yet, require the state to intervene in their most highly valued personal contract?

So Joe, that’s the answer to your challenge.

I have also said I’m willing to drop my support for it if the harm the Amendment would cause to those opposing it is shown to be more significant than the positive things I believe the Amendment would accomplish.

You do see the harm that the amendment causes, and the terribly Kafkesque precedent it sets? Don’t you?

Posted in Commentary | Tagged Conservatism, Doing the right thing, Marshall-Newman Amendment | 5 Comments

Un. Freaking. Believable.

Posted on June 20, 2006 by David

Charles, over at NoVA Townhall, just made the following astonishing statement:

[I]f society has a right to group people to avoid groups where there is sexual attraction, how would you EVER put together a group with ANY gay or lesbian people in it without destroying the right of society to prevent it?

Gee, Charles, I guess you wouldn’t. Apparently you would have to exterminate us in order to secure your “right” to never have a group with any gay or lesbian people in it.

He then goes on (and on, and on) explaining that he’s “not homophobic.”

Posted in Commentary | Tagged Animus, Marshall-Newman Amendment | 2 Comments

Outed: (anti-) Family Scholar

Posted on June 20, 2006 by David

Brad Wilcox is an assistant professor of sociology at University of Virginia and a regular contributor to the Family Scholars Blog (a project of the Institute for American Values think tank). We’ll get back to Brad in a moment.

The Institute describes its mission as “contributing intellectually to strengthening families and civil society,” and that through its programs to “bring together many of the nation’s most distinguished scholars and analysts from across the human sciences and from across the political spectrum, the Institute seeks to bridge the gap between scholarship and policymaking, bringing new information and analyses to the attention of policy makers in government, opinion makers in the media, and decision makers in the private sector and in civil society.”

That certainly sounds like a good thing. By all means, let’s base public policy on empirical evidence. The problem is that, in practice, the Institute is mighty selective in terms of what it considers to be legitimate “new information and analyses.”

Continue reading →

Posted in Commentary, Reports | Tagged Anti-gay industry, Religious authoritarianism | 5 Comments

If only they could hear themselves

Posted on June 16, 2006 by David

Two items today, both of which illustrate the self-centeredness and complete absence of personal responsibility that is epidemic among the anti-gay crowd.

David Parker is the Massachusetts parent who had a fit because the book “King & King” was read in his son’s kindergarten class last year. (The full text of his lawsuit against the town and school system is available here.) He is now claiming that his son was beaten up by his first grader classmates in a “planned and premeditated” attack, specifically on the anniversary of marriage equality in Massachusetts. Parker and his allies allege in a press release that the children were incited by their parents, school officials and “homosexual activists” to beat up his son during recess.

As evidence, his group cites “angry anti-David Parker websites” such as Lexington Cares, which states the following “angry and hateful” ideas:

All children must be able to discuss their families in our public school classrooms without the removal of other students from the class.

All children deserve to see themselves and their families reflected in school materials and conversations so they feel safe, welcome and are able to learn.

and the fact that “entire families” were present at demonstrations in support of such inclusive curriculum. Can you imagine? Entire families standing up for their right to be included in our public schools? The nerve.