thomascwaters.com

RuPaul: You Better Work!

The other day, I wrote a blog entry about Pennsylvania’s Senator Leach who wants to introduce a Marriage Equality Bill in the PA Senate, which is heavily republican. This suggests it hasn’t much chance of passage although you never know/ PA currently has a law against same-sex marriage, so we are not starting at a neutral place, and there is already a bill that has been introduced that would move PA towards a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Senator Leach wrote a reply to my post, explaining at least a part of his rationale, and I appreciate the Senator, both for caring about moving LGBT Rights forward in the state, and for writing to my blog. He has agreed for me to interview him further, and I’ll be posting that as an audio podcast. I don’t anticipate getting to that for about 2 weeks with Pride happening next week.

Yet, the  linked article is a good example of what can happen when the rights of all GLBTQ folks are not sought before the rights of a smaller subset of the gay and lesbian community. I am all for marriage equality, but of what value is gay marriage to two women living in Holidaysburg PA, when each could be fired for being gay?

I agree fully with Senator Leach that now is a right time to be in dialogue about all of these things. Yet, as we move ahead, we must be clear to consider what laws we pass and how they impact everyone .

Daily Kos: State of the Nation.

Photo credit: timlovesbrian

In recent weeks, we have seen some in the Republican Party begin to soften on Gay Marriage and suggest the GOP is a welcoming place for the GLBTQ community. This can be understood in a few ways:

1. The GOP, since Reagan, was supposedly a “big tent” party with room for diverse opinions. However, the growth of the radical religious right has over time, forced many from the big tent. As the GOP attempts to redefine itself and regroup, some are calling for a return to the big tent, while those in power call for a cleansing of the party.
2. For some, it isn’t so much about “the big tent” as it is the recognition that the radical religious right has harmed the party irreparably, and this is an attempt to capture the reigns of the party. For them, its about power, not diversity. It isn’t hard to see that while the Democratic Party has claimed to be backing of change to support gay rights, Obama has shown us (so far) that it was all empty rhetoric. We got used to help get him elected, and we are again slipping into invisibility. Some in the GOP see this as an opportunity to exploit, and get GLBTQ people to jump ship and be a strong enough base to give them power over the radical religious right.
3. For some, it is simply a matter of believing that a more progressive stance on Gay Rights is needed. They recognize that the culture has changed and if the party is going to stay relevant, it must be at the fore front of the change. The GOP has always claimed to stand for a strict adherence to the Constitution and personal liberties, yet, we see in the Gay rights issue government encroaching upon the rights of people. It isn’t too hard of a stretch philosophically, to see the Gay Rights movement fitting well within a GOP framework, except that the party is so full of the radical religious, I think a snow ball has a better chance in hell, that Gays have in the GOP.

But this may be one of the first times, we are starting to see such major shifts within a religious denomination, especially one as strict as the Catholic Church. Of course, Kmiec, really isn’t inside the Church leadership. He is merely a member of the flock.

His suggestion to remove the government from marriage, and return it completely to the Church, is not so new.  Kmiec’s perspective is one of “religious liberty. In his editorial, he writes:

Some faiths accept same-sex relationships and others profoundly object. As a matter of religious freedom, both must be accommodated, but how? Separate state and church.

How to accomplish this? The state would grant civil licenses to all couples same-sex or opposite sex. Then churches may perform marriages as each sees fit. If a faith accepts gay marriage it can marry a gay couple, but if a faith does not, it can marry only straight couples. A number of folks have suggested the same, but usually from the other side of the issue. All couples have the same legal rights this way.

Princeton University law professor Robert George, denounced his idea, telling CNN:

“Family is built on marriage, and government – the state – has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake,”

Truly, one of the main reasons to push for Marriage Equality is to protect gay families, and if marriage is removed as a civil institution, it is unclear how this would impact laws and protections that are all about the family. Dissolving Marriage as a civil institution could make it harder for same-sex families in areas of adoption, second parent adoption.

My views on this are changing dramatically. At one time, I would have totally agreed with getting the government out of the marriage business and grant everyone a civil license, but as the debate continues, I am more inclined personally to believe that the better distinction to be drawn is between Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. All couples get married, but only religious marriages have the blessing of the church (and presumably God). I recognize for someone wishing to elevate the importance of Religion, this may seem inadequate. That is something writing more about.

So, I started this saying that there were several reasons why the GOP’s stance of Gays seems to be in flux. Are there potentially different reasons why the Church, or the religious (or some intersection of these) may be calling for a different stance? I’d say, yes, and while I think I have become to articulate some of that, it would be a good base for another blog post.

Both the linked article, and the linked editorial is a good read. Check them out, and then comment here in my blog about what you think.

Pro-Obama “Catholic” Jurist Douglas Kmiec Now Abandons Church Teaching on Homosexual Unions.

Kmiec’s Editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle

Got this from a friend’s Facebook status:

John & Kate plus 8 ….. Another high profile deeply christian couple throwing away marriage? Mel Gibson? The Palin Family.. Just so weird to see all the Christian leaders Bashing Gay Marriage while not addressing the state of the straight marriages.

I don’t know who John and Kate is, but from the chatter on Twitter, I’m guessing it is a reality TV couple. but has me thinking, if conservatives didn’t have same-sex marriage to demonize and blame as the enemy that will destroy marriage, would they have to admit that heterosexuals are doing a pretty good job of ripping the institution to shreds al on their own! Especially by such ardent and vocal proponents of traditional family values, like Mel Gibson! Here is a guy, highly religious (or so he was always advertised as being) who, on TV recently described how it was “love at first site” when he met his current girlfriend, who is now pregnant while he is still married and in a divorce.

I think same-sex marriage can only help the institution of marriage, when couples who have been together for 5 years.. 1o years (like my partner and I).. 15 years.. or longer are still together, not because of the marriage license or their religious doctrine, but because they want to be together and be a family! No matter if we are talking about Religious Marriage or Civil Marriage the high profile couples  listed above demonstrate that marriage is a serious commitment, but that being religious, in and of itself, doesn’t make a marriage work.

There is no shortage of news and comment about today’s decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold Prop 8.  I’ve written a very little about it today, replying to the change.org blog by Michael Jones. I generally like what he writes, and if you don’t currently frequent his stuff, I think you should. But most of what has been written today is too negative, angry or whining for me. Maybe I’m in deep denial and just don’t want to cope with the reality of the news, but I don’t think so. I think it was almost assured since the day of verbal arguments before the Supreme Court, that this was what was going to happen, so we have had months to prepare for the news. FWIW, I don’t find Michael’s post whining or angry- but for me the news wasn’t “the ultimate buzz kill” either.

And then maybe, this is exactly what is supposed to happen after such an event. Galvinize the supporters with angry rhetoric and calls for action. Use it to raise funds to keep the struggle for equality moving forward. I just think that we give our opponents more power if we feel hurt and taken advantage of. And if we really want full equal rights, we are going to need to get off our asses, and get to work big time.

A friend commented to my boyfriend today, that I had “called it right” since I had said that the decision would come down as it did. But I was far from the only one. I put much faith behind what I read on the Law Dork 2.0 site. And his comments had much to do with how I formulated my own opinions. Chris’s blog is another “must read” in my book. Another blog entry today really nailed it in many ways, and if you want to cut through all the crap, I’d say start with William Bradley’s writing on the Huffington Post. And the last thing, I want to mention that colors my opinion, has been listening to Left, Right, and Center from KCRW. From last week’s show- they were talking about California’s budget problems and the way that CA’s initiative process has made California “ungovernable.” But they have been commenting on California for some time.

There were 2 issues before the California Supreme Court, but neither one was really about same-se marriage directly. The first was questioning how Prop 8 did what it did. Opponents to Prop 8 claimed that it wasn’t really an amendment to the CA constitution, but rather a revision of it. That would change everything- for a revision requires a much higher bar for approval than a simple majority. The second issue was about if Prop 8 was proactive or retroactive. If it had been retroactive, the 18,000 marriages would have been invalidated. Fortunately, the folks who crafted the initiative were too vague in that regard. If they had done a better job crafting the initiative wording, there would probably be 36,000 more single people in CA tonight!

Both of these kinda astound me! The proponents for Yes on 8, must have figured that since the San Francisco weddings were retroactively wiped out that the 18,000 would have been, or they were just so hellbent on making sure the voters had the last (haha) word, that they didn’t think it all through. As for the first question, I think the No on 8 people were just too full of their own kool aide. While most of us can agree that everyone deserves equal rights, merely stating that is far from enough to get it through the court. Or maybe since the Supreme Court had, not too many months earlier opened the door for gay marriage, they thought it would be an easy ride. But I remember listening to the court proceedings, and I didn’t think “our side” did a very strong job or arguing for Prop 8 to be struck down. So, the Yes on Pop 89 folks did everything by the ules and California places a huge emphasis on the voters actions on initiatives, so the vote was upheld. The Judges do not believe in taking rights away from people once they have them, so the 18,000 couples remain married.

And here is the good news from my point of view. Well, the first point of good news, at least. There are now 3 groups of people in California. Straight people who can get married, gay people who can not get married, and gay people who are married. What stops 2 men (or 2 women) from being part of the last group? The date by which they want to get married? The stage is being set for the unfair nature of this to be set right. That these marriages stand is the best “gift” the Supreme Court could have granted. They really couldn’t wipe away Prop 8. The initiative had been done completely by the rules and the voters had spoken. Democracy can onlty exist when the voters believe that they are truly heard, and the majority, as slim as it was, ruled. but by leaving these 18,000 marries intact, the court has validated the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples! This has now been validated by the courts and by legislators. The conservative right has argued that redefining marriage should not happen, but gues what- it has already happened. While they will most likely still trot out that argument, it really has no merit any longer.

The second piece of good news, at least in my opinion, was that the case was pretty simple. The initiative had done it all correctly, and the voters had spoken. This makes it much easier for another ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8. As long as they do it right, and get the needed votes, it will be just as easy to overturn Prop 8. Unfortunately, in California, this back and forth process and go on and on and on. But my guess is, that after one or two more rounds, it will be all over, and the people of California will say enough!

Prop 8 was not upheld because it was the moral thing. It wasn’t upheld because traditional marriage should be the norm. It was uphelp only because the Yes on 8 people dotted their “i’s” and crossed their “t’s.” That and the fact that they organized a highly successful campaign that used fear tactics and a lack of facts that was highly persuasive, while the No on 8 People ran a poor and ineffective campaign.

The other “good” thing is that most states are not California! While initiatives can be placed on all ballots, in the cases of the other states that currently allow gay marriage, the process is far more daunting. It has almost no chance in Iowa, but some chance in Maine.

The last thing I want to say, is that Marriage Equality, isn’t and shouldn’t be the only issue that people get focused on! Here in Pennsylvania, GLBTQ people can lose their jobs, vbe refused housing or public accommodations for being wh they are. Hate crimes against GLBTQ people happen at an alarming rate without adequate recourse. and marriage isn’t the only “institution” where straight people have special rights. DODT continues to destroy the careers of many men and women who passionately have fought for and protected our country, yet are denied their right to serve. Yes! Let’s keep working for marriage equality. But if people can be fired for being gay, how will they ever have the courage to be civily married and place themselves at that risk? all of these civil rights and protections are needed, and if we only focus on marriage, we will not win overall, nor will we get to full equality as quickly.

Note: I started writing this last week, and then let it sit, as I wasn’t sure how I wanted to finish it.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to attend my nephew’s wedding, and it was a real gift. I want to preface everything written here by saying I thought the wedding was awesome and perfect, and I wouldn’t have changed a thing! It did however, give me a chance to consider the notion of Marriage Equality from a different perspective. While I don’t agree with the determination to keep marriage as heterosexual-only, I better understand some of the argument made against same-sex marriage. I don’t agree with it, but I at least “get” it- it makes more sense to me how/why people can feel that way. I think a big step towards finding a win/win situation is getting to the place where those on the other side do not seem like totally crazy folks.

It is easy to think that opposition to same-sex marriage is the work of crazy folks. Look at the National Organization for Marriage as an example, and their “a storm is coming…” crazy rhetoric. Or the American Family Association which vehemently attacks GLBTQ rights while at the same time employing a pedophile to do the voice-overs for bible passages. But maybe the average conservative christian are not like these extreme examples. Maybe many are just good people whose world-views are as they are.

So, my nephew’s wedding serves as a point from which to write, but I have nothing critical or negative to say about it specifically. It was awesome. To put this a bit into perspective, I’ve had very little interaction with my sister’s family since my mother died. From my perspective, this wasn’t so much a conscious effort, but rather, neither she nor I really made much effort to be in contact. I was a bit hurt when she came to Pittsburgh for my grandmother’s memorial service but wouldn’t stop by to see my new house, but I did realize she had a long drive back to Columbus, so it wasn’t that big of a deal. Still the lack of communication for many years, had me a bit apprehensive. However, my experience of the wedding from the beginning was very positive.

My niece started it, finding me on Facebook, and messaging me to make sure they had the correct address to send me an invitation. I replied with Brad and my name, and our address, and then friended her. It has been great to watch her status updates. My sister and her husband have clearly raised 2 great kids. The invitation arrived, and when I hadn’t RSVP’ed like I was supposed to, I received a message via Facebook from the bride’s mother. She expressed her hope that Brad and I would attend, and I explained some of the things going on that for both of us that made it hard to just say yes. I did alter my plans to go with my father. I knew it was very important to him to go, and important to go with me, so after much thought, we decided the best way to accomplish the most was from Brad to stay here and for me to go with my dad.

As I sat through the wedding, I thought it was all perfect, but it was also clear to me that there was no place in it for me, a gay man. As the uncle there alone without my partner- sure. But the basic wedding itself- no place for anyone other than the traditional man/husband and woman/wife. Some churches are fighting marriage equality so hard because from their standpoint there is no place for Gay. On the surface, this is really fine. Marriage Equality isn’t about taking over the religious wedding. It is only about allowing same–sex couples the same civil rights, privileges and protections as opposite sex couples. but as I sat there in this church it seemed to me that these civil issues are the last thing on anyone’s mind! I doubt the fact that there are over 1000 rights and protections that this new couple has, was even on the radar of anyone there. So, is it any wonder that conservatives have no grasp on why these cvivil protections are what lesbian and gay couples want so much? Brad and I have been together for 10 years! We do not need to have a wedding to “bond as one” but we need (and I believe deserve) the right to those civil rights and protections that support our partnership.  For example, if one of us was critically injured in an accident, the other could be denied access to visit in the hospital, or access to the others pension or any number of other things that are the farthest thing from anyone’s mind as everyone sits in the church and each person says, “I do.”

I have, for some time, wondered why the Family Values people are so up in arms about gay rights. If they really care about Families, they ought to be focusing their attention on the real factors that hurt families, like divorce, domestic violence, and poverty. Want to help children in families? Work on those three big issues! But no! Groups like the AFA spend millions spewing lies about GLBTQ people.

In this wedding however, the focus was on all the right stuff! The pastor encouraged both the bride and groom to consider this not something to do lightly, and that marriage was meant to be until death! He instructed them to work hard to listen and hear and support each other.  And he drew a strong distinction between the fact that they came into this as two distinct people who were forming something new- being a new “one-flesh” couple. This was all so beautiful and meaningful. I know enough gay or lesbian supportive pastors, and have been to a few same-sex marriages to know that these same ideas can be expressed to same-sex couples. Yet, the scriptures chosen and their discussion in this wedding would allow no possibility for same-sex use. Was this intentional, or would this be the common ideas expressed by this pastor always? It was a more conservative church.

Another video from 13lovestories.com. Get to know a REAL gay couple. Get to know real GLBTQ people.

YouTube – 13LoveStories.com – Travis & Greg.

At the end of the video is a call to action. Make a 30 second video response- post it as a comment to the video.

YouTube – Offense Taken.

How Marriage Equality and Non-discrimination Connected

Preface: I began to write this a week ago. Then, at the end of the week, I along with some constituents, met with PA Representative, Joe Petrarca. One of his concerns about PA HB 300 was that it was just a stepping stone for gay marriage. It was clear that while he could possibly vote for a nondiscrimination bill, he is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage. I intended to write about each of his concerns, and decided that this started-but unpublished post was a good place to write about the issue of PA HB 300 and Marriage Equality.

Over the weekend, I began to think that I needed to re-prioritize my time and focus. Actually, I’ve been thinking that for a while, but have decided I need to take action towards that goal. So, I thought I’d stop writing about Marriage Equality. It is an easy topic to blog about as so much is happening in that arena, but in terms of importance, it is not at the top of my list. By all means, those who are pushing for it, go right ahead and push. But for me, I’d like to re-focus my energy on the battle for other, and what I’d call even more basic civil rights. This would be to write more exclusively on the issues of anti-discrimination legislation and hate-crimes legislation. OK, that is pretty easy to say, but how about operationalizing it? Maybe not as simple. Because for the opposition, these struggles are one in the same, or at least two heads of the same monster. So, on either front, an understanding of the other is important, if not critical to success.

If you read back through my blog, somewhere, way back in the Fall I voiced by basic position on same-sex marriage. I am definitely not against it, but it isn’t the direction I think we ought to be fighting. I think we would get further if the struggle was for same-sex unions that carry 100% of the civil rights that marriage allows heterosexual couples. Now, I get the whole separate but equal is not equal argument, and I actually agree with it. but I think the word Marriage is a black hole of a problem that gets in the way of the real issue which is protecting the rights of families of all types. By focusing on Civil Unions (which is probably a big enough battle as it is) with all the same civil protections, we can avoid some of the whole religious opposition to marriage /destroying the santicty of marriage  battle. There will still be religious opposition, but the arena for the real issue will be civil rights as it should be. But, no one put me in charge, so that is just my opinion- not the direction of the battle itself.

The link below is to a Catholic web site article about same-sex marriage, yet the major evidence they lay out to show how religious liberties are threatened by Marriage Equality, are all cases that have everything to do with discrimination situations. These are becoming, or will become so familiar to any activist, but they are at the foundation of the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) recent attack campaign. So, today, I’d like to respond some to this Catholic.net article, and then over time, I’d like to see if I can shed some light on how/why these issues become so entangled,  and what if anything, we can do about it as we work for anti-discrimination legislation in a number of states.

I think this is really important.

I had dinner with my dad last night who is a fairly religious protestant (Methodist) and a conservative republican. While we did not talk about Marriage Equality that explicitly, there is no doubt that he is against it, and sees marriage in the traditional sense of between a man and a woman. But, he told me he also believes that all individuals deserve to be treated fairly, and he can support anti-discrimination legislation to protect against discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. So, understanding how to untangle these two issues will be important to help move anti-discrimination forward.

Although the opposition doesn’t want that to happen. They want these things all entwined because gay marriage is scary to so many. The move towards marriage really fuels the fire and anti-discrimination legislation is one of the targets. Joe Petrarca brought this up. It seemed to me that the possibility that HB 300 would set the stage for same-sex marriage would be enough for him to vote against it.

I have for a while, maintained that nondiscrimination legislation is not a steping stone for Marriage Equality. Not in the sense expressed by those who oppose gay rights. They characterize nondiscrtimination as if it were just a ploy to get the proverbial foot in the door. The reality is however, that these protections are extremely important on their own merit, and are sought out for that alone- the protections they provide. Nothing more and nothing less.

But from a different perspective, nondiscrimination legislation can be seen as foundational for Marriage Equality. What value is the right to be civilly married if you can lose your job solely for being gay or lesbian? hate crimes legislation and nondiscrimination legislation are stepping stones in the sense that they are foundational. Without them existing first for Lesbian and Gay people, Marriage Equality isn’t very useful.

From a different and important perspective however, they are not stepping stones to gay marriage in that both hate crimes and nondiscrimination cover people not affected by same-sex marriage per se. Bisexuals and transgendered people are not as clearly impacted by Marriage Equality, yet are critical recipients of hate crimes and nondiscrimination. We use the phrase “gay rights” loosely, and yet need to remember that is stands for a wide and diverse set of communities and issues that are all related, but not exactly alike. Maybe for the opposition, it is all the same thing. Everything we are talking about in terms of Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer (GLBTQ) is not heterosexuality with Barbie femininity and Ken masculinity.

Over history the rights of some have always been oppressed so that the dominant viewpoint may not be threatened. It is a form of control. For example, well after the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks were still being denied the right to vote out of the belief that if they had that right and executed it- all hell would break out? The belief of some, that these other people were less than equal fueled the desire to maintain control. It was a long time between the declaration of freedom 1862/1863 and the true freedom and right to vote in 1965. Even earlier in the history of slavery, the dominant attempted to control their black slaves by forcing upon them Religion yet, in many parts of the Americas, slaves were kept illiterate. While the tactics used were different, it is not that dissimilar to the ways the modern evangelical and Catholic church wishes to push its doctrine on everyone today. For the slaves, the result was the growth and proliferation of religious practices that continue today on the fringes of Christianity. Santaria is the best example where the catholic indoctrination was fused with ancient African belief systems to form a new religious expression. The religious indoctrination wasn’t really successful. The slaves did not become simply “good christians,” rather the religion evolved and became imbued with meaning and life as the people needed it to be. The desire to force one’s own beliefs on others has never truly been successful anywhere.

At the base of both nondiscrimination and marriage equality is a cornerstone of real equality.  Do GLBTQ people deserve to be treated as equal human beings? If yes, then the next question is how should that equality be actualized. Nondiscrimination and hate crimes legislation look at these questions from the perspective of the individual. Do I as a gay man, and an individual, deserve the right to work, find housing, etc, or is it acceptable to discriminate against me solely on the basis of my sexual orientation? Marriage Equality has nothing to do with that- with individual rights. This is the point where these two subjects have nothing to do with each other , even though both have a cornerstone of equality.

The insistence of the radical right to link nondiscrimination with marriage equality is an example of fear mongering since the term marriage carries such an emotional charge. The slope is a not-so slippery slope. To try to stop same-sex marriage by stopping nondiscrimination laws is like using a hammer to install a screw.

The last way that these two issues are not really connected, is that same-sex marriage legislation is about Civil Marriage as opposed to Religious Marriage. Most if not all of the uproar about it comes from the conservative religious community expressing fear that marriage as they define and know it as a religious covenant will be harmed. The religious institution of marriage is not really on the radar for activist. The goal there is civil protections. Legal nondiscrimination is as far away from the issue of religious marriage as it can be.

Catholic.net – .

Saw this on Facebook, posted there by the Patrick of the GCRM Media Center.

YouTube – “We the People” stand together for marriage equality and religious freedom.

WEBCommentary(tm) – Miss USA And The Ugly Counterculture

Okay, I’m really tired of the Miss California-I-was-so-mistreated garbage. I don’t have any expectations that my post, added to all the verbiage out there is going to make it stop, but at least I’ll feel better after getting it off my chest. The final straw for me was the linked commentary below. Now, Christians are the victims? Good grief. But the part that really made my blood boil was this:

She returned an equally direct and honest answer that was well thought out and expressed,

THAT’s when I said, OK, I’m tired of being quiet- I am going to write about this.

First, here is my opinion on what happened. Then, some ranting about all that has transpired since.

Hilton posed a reasonable and excellent question to the constestent. It was far from an easy question. The topic is truly controversial. A good answer would have to be thoughtful, honest, and respectful of both sides of the issue. The constestent may have got the honest part right, but failed big time on thoughtful or respectful. The vote fell as it did. I don’t see any problem with that. Then Hilton added insult to injury by being his normal controversial self calling her names. He was a total ass, and single-handedly presented to the National Organization for Marriage their only hope for gaining any popularity.

I have no problems with the fact that she expressed her personal viewpoint against same-sex marriage. But that wasn’t the question. No one asked her what was her personal feelings about the subject. She didn’t really answer the question posed to her. Not only that, but in voicing her personal opinion, she did so in a highly offensive way, while saying some things that are either untrue or just confusing. I can’t find much of anything that Hilton did after the answer that was acceptable, except how he scored her. Past that, he was a total fail! So she failed in her answer, and he failed in his response to the answer.

Now, it is no surprise that Perez Hilton acted without class, respect, or common decency. He is Perez Hilton, and to expect him to rise to any reasonable level of respectful discourse would be expecting too much. He’s a gossip queen who knows how to stir the pot so the speak. But that is no excuse for his actions either. Miss CA’s answer however was totally surprising. Her inability to walk the fine line between sharing one’s personal viewpoints but doing it in a way that is respectful of all, is alarming, and shows her to be inadequate to be the winner. That’s why I believe she deserved a poor score.

So, let’s look at both the question and the answer:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?

Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage …. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.

That she didn’t realize that her answer would come across as offensive is no surprise. She goes to a Christian school where there is little diversity of opinions or people. She is very used to environments where there isn’t two very different and highly emotional viewpoints to things. And I truly feel bad for her in that regard. When you live sheltered away, you lack the experiences to enable you to act more compassionately towards everyone.

So, what does her answer mean? Mr. Adamo feels it was well thought out, direct and honest. When you cut through everything, she basically said, “No, every state should not follow because I think marriage is between a man and a woman. The entire country should go one way, because she thinks so? Because she thinks so? I can see that this would be a sufficient reason why she might do something, but Hilton’s question asked her what she thought the rest of the country should do, and personal opinion just isn’t enough to go on. it may have beren an honest portrayal of her feelings, but lousy reasoning. Now, if she had said, she believed that most Americans were not ready to accept same-sex marriage and tradition hold marriage to be between a man and a woman. That may still have pissed off some people, but it would have been a reasonable argument to support her position. and if she had said something along the lines of ” I think we as a country need to find a way that the rights of all can be protected while at the same time protecting the traditiuonal definition of marriage,” she would have started to display some well-thought out respectful dialogue that both is true to her personal beliefs and aknowledges that not everyone holds the same views.

Come on, Mr Adamo! Well, thought out? Direct? What does it mean to say, “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other?” First, this is inaccurate. Only people in three states can choose one or the other (although one or the other what is a reasonable follow-up).  but here is her first step away from a winning answer.  Here she is trying to find something to say that will reflect the diverse opinions on this issue. She wants to come across as pro- freedom to choose. I think she genuinely doesn’t want to force others to see things only her way. That’s fine, but she just didn’t find the right words. Yes, thinking on your feet is hard. winners can do it more successfully than she did.

But here’s the part where she failed big time. “And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe…” Her country? Her family? By speaking in the possessive of “my,” she alienates all those who feel differently than she does. They must not belong in “her country?”  But wait, that is a direct contradiction to her first statement that Americans can choose one or the other. So which is it? My Country! My Way? Or Americans can choose?

Mr Adamo, if respecting both sides of a highly emotionally charged issue is being politically correct, then we need more of that all around, not only with this subject. but I don’t think the lack of a “politically correct” answer is what caused her loss. It was the lack of a well expressed comment that allowed her to be true to her personal feelings, but spoke to the issue in such a way that both respected differing viewpoints and was a valid argument for the question of “why or why not.”

I can’t disagree with Mr Adamo that Hilton’s behavior post the episode was atrocious at best. I don’t however think Hilton speaks for me or the thousands of GLBTQ people who are demanding equal rights. The GLBTQ communities are no more monolithic than the straight community.

What’s unfortunate is how Miss CA has been treated through all of this including how she is being used by Mr Adamo to advance his own cause. She said, “No offense to anybody out there.” It was not her intent to cause a controversy with her answer. In that sense, she isn’t dumb as Hilton labeled her, but naive. So now she is being exploited by all sides in this battle over marriage.

The other thing that has happened is that the real issue- why same-sex couples do or do not deserve equal rights is again lost in craziness. I tend to think that’s how they like it. There are no valid emotional-less valid reasons why loving committed same-sex couples do not deserve equal rights under the law. When a straight couple is married there are about 1000 civil rights and civil privileges that become theirs immediately. Same-sex couples who have a civil union- about one quarter as many of those, and for couples like myself and my partner who have been together 10 years… nothing.

WEBCommentary(tm) – Miss USA And The Ugly Counterculture.