Forgetting the fact that he’s seemingly declared a premature victory for the proponents of same-sex marriage, Krauthammer’s article is academic. It’s hard to argue with his well-stated piece, although Andrew Sullivan did take a moment to respond. However, what he (and Sullivan) nearly leave out is anything but a minor mitigating factor: reality.

Krauthammer briefly bumps up against reality by noting:

“What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful.”

It’s easy to argue – because it’s true – that being gay was once as unacceptable as polygamy is today; to argue that we’ll soon see polygamists join the battle for equality in any meaningful way, however, seems to strike a discordant melody. Why?

The civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s didn’t foster further animosity toward gays; those dots were far from connected – at least at the time. Arguably, it did start a steady – if somber – march toward a day when gay rights could be discussed as openly and productively as race-based civil rights.

Is that why there’s a gay recoil to this subject? Perhaps not.

Like it or not, Krauthammer might be right – but not because he’s a logical academic, or because he has his pulse on the nation. He might be right simply because disaffected groups will use the openings they’re presented with, and it’s very possible that polygamists will use gay marriage to move forward with their own agenda.

It’s also conceivable that gay rights activists are now viewing the polygamists on their coattails in much the same way that many African Americans view gays on theirs: they just don’t think it’s the same.

It’s still a safe bet that HRC shouldn’t worry yet that its upper-floor views might be blocked when the polygamists set up shop next door.

That was then, this is now. Until recently, sexual orientation wasn’t an obstacle to obtaining national security clearance; in today’s society, fear of being outed doesn’t mean what it might have in the past. The Bush Administration, continuing its efforts to drag our society back in time, has reinstated “being gay” as a possible factor in the denial of a national security clearance.

Perhaps it’s appropriate; this Administration is one of the few places left in America where the fear of being outed might be growing, rather than subsiding.

By all accounts, that’s a very rough estimate; it’s never easy to quantify how much equality will cost. Until today.

Meet Mark Jeason and Martin Murdick of Warren, Michigan, partners of nearly 18 years. Recently, they tried to join their local community center as a family and were denied. Apparently, the Warren Community Center only recognizes families who are recognized by the State of Michigan. Sounds like a valid basis for a mini-civil rights battle, eh?

Let’s look a little closer though, and keep in mind that Mark and Martin don’t have kids. Annual membership for a single adult in the center runs $230 a year, while family memberships run $500 a year. Certainly, a good deal for a family of three or more, but not necessarily for Mark & Martin – they’re actually fighting for the right to pay an additional $40 annually.

I’ll give them this: the fight for equality shouldn’t hinge on a good deal, but seriously, guys: shouldn’t you pick a battle that makes a little more sense?

Related Posts:
Congratulations, it’s a… net gain?

The membership alert they issued today simply encourages members to contact the food manufacturer and tell them to stop sponsoring the games, noting:

“The gay games are supported and endorsed by dozens of homosexual activist groups and organizations, including homosexual magazines and television outlets.”

Most of their alerts, while no less anti-gay, are usually better defined. Why is Kraft’s sponsorship of an event that is attended by gays on private property, not televised on public airwaves or even paid attention to by national media is unclear.

As much as they argue the contrary, this isn’t pro-family, it’s simply anti-gay for anti-gay’s sake.

“The governor’s kind of bi about this issue. In one venue he swings for civil unions and in another venue he says he has always been against them.”

The Governor’s flip-flop on this issue certainly provided more than adequate reason for a response from the Massachusetts GLPC, but the one they gave was childish and demeaning to the community they purport to defend. Ms. Isaacson may have thought her quips about the Governor being “bi” or “swinging” this way or that are cute, but if they were uttered by someone on the other side, she (and the folks over at GLAAD would likely find it offensive.

There’s enough mockery and offense directed toward the GLBT community from outside sources, it seems hardly necessary to propagate it from the inside on such a serious political issue.

In South Carolina this past Monday, Romney gave a speech outlining his hard line stance against not only gay marriage but against all psuedoforms of it as well, including civil unions. Now, this wouldn’t be too odd, considering President Bush recently held the same position – at least until his announced support for state-based civil unions a week prior to the election. However, the position of Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to jibe with Governor Mitt Romney.

The Boston Herald reported this week on the Presidential hopeful’s speech to South Carolina conservatives and noted that while in his home state of much-more-liberal Massachusetts, the Governor has actually supported civil unions. So which one of them is running for President?

The Governor’s office is quick to note that the Governor’s support for civil unions was only a last-ditch effort to stop May 17th’s same-sex marriage fiesta from happening, and under less than Defcon 1 circumstances, he’s still opposed.

So, I guess it’s only when he’s against the fence that his staunch values can be subject to compromise. Very Presidential.

Just last year, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts handed down and edict to the Legislature: legalize gay marriage. The legislature did, but not before considering a constitutional amendment to ban it. The measure still requires further legislative action before it can move forward, but gay marriages have moved forward for nearly a year.

Flash forward to the present and once again to gay-friendly New England. In the legislature of the State of Connecticut, two bills were being considered. One would grant same-sex couples the right to marry; the other would grant them the right to a civil union. Only this time, no one said they had to. Voluntary legislative action, it’s a wonderful thing.

Or is it? Gay activists should be hailing this as a milestone. The argument (though I consider it to be disingenuous) from gay marriage opponents has been rooted in the fact that these “activist judges” must be stopped and that gay marriage should not be decided by unelected leaders. (If Connecticut’s leaders decide to allow it, that tune will change.) But for now, voila, here we go.

Of course, it wouldn’t be progress if there weren’t a few hurdles in the way. Hurdle number one to marriage and/or civil unions? Gay activists.

The Connecticut rights group Love Makes a Family decided that they would support marriage, as opposed to civil unions. Fine. That should be the ultimate goal of any gay rights group, right? They’ve taken their preference to the next level, however – and as the Connecticut Legislature’s Judiciary Committee voted out a civil unions bill on an impressive 25-13 vote, Love Makes a Family decried their actions as a “step backward for Connecticut,” according to LMAF President Anne Stanback. Huh?

I certainly see where they’re going – civil unions are separate but equal. But this is a state-level legislative body voting without a mandate to grant marriage rights to gay citizens – and the top gay rights group in the state responds as if it’s an insult.

What a difference five years makes.

Now, I have no problem with sensible arguments against anything. Although I might disagree with them, there are certainly sensible arguments to make against non-discrimination laws – they were made in the 60’s and they’re still rational (albeit wrong) today. Mr. Adams uses none of these.

He writes about the “Tragedy in Illinois,” the passage of a non-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. He blames the Democrats for the law (rightly so, although I think the other side calls it “thanks”) and suggests that if you’ve ever voted for one, you’ve likely been kept up at night by the cries of murdered babies.

Insomnia aside, he gets back on track (I use the term loosely) by noting:

“If company has fifteen or more employees, they will now be compelled by law to hire a representative percentage of gays, just like they must hire a representative percentage of minorities. This includes CHURCH employees. Wicked, truly wicked.”

I can only say that this is completely invalid. Yes, the law applies only to businesses with 15 employees or more. But no where in Illinois law are you required to hire minorities. Granted, you can’t NOT hire someone simply because they are black, handicapped or gay, but you’re not required to seek them out to fill out your stable.

Mr. Adams suggests that the law would include church employees. Another completely invalid claim; the Illinois law exempts churches, although those of the Christian variety should already practice non-discrimination, it’s an important facet of the faith.

Overall, it’s the same law that’s been passed by fourteen other states, and protects gay Illinoians from being fired for a personal trait over which they have no control.

In truth, the only Illinois protected class that exists based on a choice is the only one Mr. Adams would likely fight for: religion.

None of this is surprising. Not in the least. Nor is the parents’ desire to require not only that all students, but all parents follow the strict guidelines of the church. The problem, as with every “the Bible says so” argument, comes in the details. Enacting such a pledge would require the removal of any students whose parents have ever divorced, used contraception, engaged in oral sex… the list goes on.

Now, aside from the divorce issue, the others can’t be as readily proven as the simple fact that a kid has two dads. So basically we end up with a pledge that kicks out a few kids and requires a whole herd of parents to swear they don’t engage in un-Catholic behavior in the bedroom – because what parent really wants to tell their kids that they have to switch schools because daddy wears a rubber?

On Monday, the New York Times reported that during campaign 2004, Republicans targeted their campaign advertising where it impacted most – makes sense, right? Right. Republicans are smart about stuff like that. The report goes on to list the top shows among Republicans. Near the top of the list and especially popular with Republican women – is the NBC sitcom “Will & Grace.”

It’s far too overboard to say something like “they’re good enough to entertain us, just don’t ask for rights,” or “they’re funny to laugh at, just don’t love each other PLEASE.” Far too overboard, right?

Forget I said anything.