LA Times Opinion: Liberal Democrat and Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-25-2008, 01:47 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
I agree--but, when those issues are raised in a context of what should be legal (or more precisely, what's worthy of equal legal status) then the chances of getting a reasoned discussion out of it plummets. Similarly, saying "Well as long as you don't have kids" (though I don't really know the rest of the context) conveys judgmentality more than it does sincere if misguided concern, at least to my ear. I'm not saying it should therefore be countered merely with anger, but at the same time I think it's unreasonable for anyone raising the issue in that way to really expect otherwise.
Yeah, I think context is key. It was more "misguided concern" than judgementality in my opinion. Course that only made it SLIGHTLY less hurtful. I guess I've always believed that racism (homophobia) doesn't necessarily equal "hateful" feelings about the other race. It doesn't make the racism any more acceptable though, or any less offensive.

And you're right when the discussion moves to legal rights, yes, the stakes raise considerably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
A bit of a tangent, and not really addressed to you specifically, but I've always been a bit uncomfortable with applying the 'absent fathers' motif in a blanket way to any and every form of female-headed family. I can certainly see where some issues would be shared (importance of ensuring children's access to potential male mentors and role models throughout their upbringing, for instance), but it also seems to me that the issues of, say, a 14-year-old-boy whose father walks out, or a 10-year-old-girl whose father moves out after an extremely bitter divorce, are likely to be quite different than those of a boy or girl who never had a father at home, or who can't remember him if s/he did. I feel like I can see some of this in my own family in that my younger brother and sister, who barely remember my father and certainly don't remember what our family life was like before he died, never seemed to have anything like the bitterness and resentments I did about how drastically our family life changed afterwards, because I was a teenager. Which isn't to say that they didn't also have their own issues about 'growing up fatherless' in ways that I wouldn't. I just think we need to be cautious about making analogies between what might fundamentally be very different kinds of families, merely on the basis of whether a man (or woman for that matter) co-heads it or not; it risks conflating abandonment issues with gender issues.
I don't disagree with you. (Ironically enough, I grew up most of my childhood in an "absent-father" household, and I think I turned out pretty alright. All my "dad" issues stem from when we lived with him, not from when we didn't. I guess I'm just saying. . .carefully, mind you. . .that sometimes the discussion of these issues can get shot down before they even get started.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2008, 01:51 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
there's a (white) woman i work with who was all set to adopt an african-american baby with her (white) partner. they had to move from VA into DC to be able to do so, which is all sorts of fucked up. but they had to take several courses on racial sensitivity and identity, everything from explaining why your child looks so different from you to african-american hairstyles to working celebrations of african culture into your family celebrations in the way that one might celebrate being of irish or swedish or german descent.
See, I'm not so certain all that should be required of people (gay or straight) who want to adopt across racial lines. Like I said I'm not a big proponent of "racial identity" and "knowing who you are" based on your skin color (though interestingly it's usually African-Americans who are more concerned with these issues--and I understand why). People who didn't like my wife and I's marriage would often ask "Well how will your kids know what they are?" I'm not saying that such a question won't come up for my son--in our society, it probably will. I'm just saying it's not that big a deal and the answer to the question is simple. My son is a human being. End of story.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2008, 12:24 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:36 AM
surprising?


Quote:
The truth about that "liberal" against gay marriage

Posing as a "liberal Democrat" in the L.A. Times, David Blankenhorn endorsed a California initiative to ban gay marriage. His right-wing funders must be pleased.

By Jon B. Eisenberg

Oct. 02, 2008 | "I'm a liberal Democrat." So began a widely circulated opinion piece by David Blankenhorn appearing in the Los Angeles Times on Sept. 19 in support of Proposition 8, an initiative on California's November 4 ballot that would eliminate the marriage rights of same-sex couples recently recognized by the California Supreme Court. The piece is entitled "Protecting Marriage to Protect Children." Blankenhorn's theme is: "It's perfectly natural to be a liberal Democrat but against gay marriage, because I am." Thus, he stakes the credibility of his position -- that marriage by same-sex couples is bad for children -- on his purported status as a "liberal Democrat."

Conservatives applauded Blankenhorn vigorously. A press release sent out Sept. 22 from Christian News Wire emphasized, "What is noteworthy is the source: the author of the Op-Ed piece is a Liberal Democrat, which underscores the broad support for Proposition 8 in order to protect marriage for society, our institutions, and for children in California." Gushed one blogger: "Frankly it's astonishing that a liberal could hold the kind of morality, honesty and insight displayed in this article and still call himself a liberal, but okay."

It is odd indeed when a person claims the mantle of a certain political philosophy while espousing an opinion seemingly at odds with that political philosophy. It makes you wonder: Is this person really who he claims to be?

The vehicle Blankenhorn uses for espousing his opinions on marriage and family values is a think tank he calls the Institute for American Values, of which he is president. In accordance with its status as an untaxed entity, IAV must file a Form 990 financial report annually with the IRS. These filings are available to the public, and you can learn a lot from them. Here is what public records tell us about IAV:

During the 15 years preceding 2006, IAV received nearly $4.5 million in funding from a coterie of ultra-conservative Republican foundations, including the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Family Foundation, and the Randolph Foundation. These foundations supply funds for a network of right-wing Republican think tanks that promote a variety of causes such as the elimination of gay marriage, abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research; prayer in public schools; creationism and deregulatory free-market economics.

Fiscal 2006-2007 was a banner year for Blankenhorn's organization. IAV's funding nearly tripled from the previous year -- from $1,366,700 to $3,389,357. (One can only speculate about 2007-2008, for which public records are not yet available.) And IAV has been a lucrative enterprise for Blankenhorn personally. His 2006 salary as the organization's president was $247,500, plus $19,725 in benefits. His wife, Raina Sachs, picked up an additional $50,000 as IAV's part-time Director of Outreach.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Blankenhorn taking millions of dollars for IAV and $317,225 annually for himself and his wife from ultra-conservative Republicans. But it certainly tends to undermine the notion that he's a "liberal Democrat" who also happens to oppose marriage by same-sex couples. What sort of liberal Democrat builds his political forum and his personal fortune on the bedrock of ultra-conservative Republican money?

The appearance of Blankenhorn's op-ed in the peak of campaign season (it also ran in the San Jose Mercury News on Monday) plays into a larger Republican strategy. In recent election cycles, Republicans have used anti-gay marriage ballot measures nationwide as a wedge issue and to rally their conservative base voters to the polls. Eleven states put anti-gay marriage propositions on the ballot during the 2004 presidential election; this year, in addition to California, there are propositions up for a vote in Florida and Arizona. While gay marriage may be less of a wedge issue this campaign season, John McCain arguably needs all the help he can get -- including Blankenhorn's -- to rally a conservative Republican base known to dislike him.

Whatever Blankenhorn's real political stripes are, his core argument -- that parenting by married biological parents of the opposite sex is essential to a child's well-being -- is demonstrably wrong. The world is full of well-adjusted people who were raised outside Blankenhorn's norm for the ideal family. (Not to mention the many maladjusted souls who were raised within that norm.) In order to know that, you don't need to have "spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage," as Blankenhorn claims to have done.

But in this case, dissecting his shaky argument is secondary. By emphasizing his views under the banner of "liberals like me" -- by claiming special credibility as a supposedly unconventional opponent of gay marriage -- he makes his op-ed foremost about his political profile, inviting scrutiny of who he claims to be. (One wonders whether the opinion page editors of the L.A. Times bothered with such scrutiny.) Not only does the money trail start to give a pretty clear picture, but so does the public persona of the chair of the Board of Directors for Blankenhorn's think tank, Jean Bethke Elshtain, an appointee to President Bush's Council on Bioethics whom Slate describes as a "conservative intellectual" author.

How ironic that Blankenhorn calls his think tank the Institute for American Values. One of the values my American family taught me is honesty and forthrightness about who we are. That's an American value Blankenhorn seems to have missed out on.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2008, 12:29 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
surprising?
Not at all...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2008, 03:00 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I just skimmed the article.


And one more thing. When anyone starts any article with
"I am a liberal Democrat against Gay marriage."

you should know they are full of crap.
.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com