|
|
|
 |
| most popular |
|
|
These are the most popular blogs from the time period you selected. (The Past Month) |
 |
|
|
Andrew Sullivan, Posted: 8/16/2010, 10:53 AM
QUICK LOOK:It seems pretty obvious to me that the current Pope is a gay man (just as it was blindingly clear that John Paul II was straight). I am not claiming that Benedict is someone who has explored his sexuality, or has violated his own strictures on the matter. There is absolutely no evidence of that, or of hypocrisy of any sort. But that does not mean that he isn't gay. In fact, Ratzinger's command that gay priests should actively lie about their orientation makes any public statement about this on its face lacking in credibility. But when you look at the Pope's mental architecture (I've read a great deal of his writing over the last two decades) you do see that strong internal repression does make sense of his life and beliefs. At times, it seems to me, his gayness is almost wince-inducing. Toibin notes Ratzinger's extremely close relationship with Georg Ganswein, his personal secretary, referred to by some priests I know as Gay.org. |
|
(283)
(6)
(129) |
|
|
Good As You (G-A-Y), Posted: 8/17/2010, 12:24 PM
QUICK LOOK:"Pro-family" radio host Penna Dexter has blamed a gay 15-year-old for his own shooting death, saying slain teen Larry King "was allowed in a sense to bully heterosexual kids through his orientation," and that killer Brandon McInerney was "never, ever protected from [Larry's] advances on him." Dexter's comments came during a segment with Focus on the Family's Candi Cushman. And honestly, there could not be a better example of just how wrongheaded and dangerous this "true tolerance" message truly is. Because here we have a young man, robbed of his life during his teen years, in an act of premeditated murder. MURDER. Cold blood. The ultimate act of bullying. And yet Penna's mind has the nerve, much less the ability, to suggest that the still-breathing BRANDON was the one in need of more protection?! And to suggest that if Larry had only been encouraged to stifle his orientation and/or gender expression, then we'd all be better off?! How unbelievably offensive! And again: Dreadfully dangerous! These "pro-family" figures who ignore the very real, very tragic problem of anti-LGBT bias in public schooling act as if harassment against a kid because his or her orientation, identity, or expression is equally as worrisome as the orientation, identity, or expression itself. They see an LGBT teen's choice to live openly and honestly as a form of bullying. And in doing so, these anti-LGBT voices both overlook a real world problem that we as a society could come together and actually solve, as well as give a pass to anyone who cites their personal, typically faith-based discomfort with LGBT people as a valid reason for utilizing teases, taunts, punches, or even guns. That is not "true tolerance": It is true negligence. |
|
 |
|
|
Fox News (anti-gay), Posted: 8/10/2010, 2:01 PM
QUICK LOOK:BY MARGARET HOOVER: As a conservative Republican representing the next generation of attitudes towards gays and lesbians, I encouraged the readers of FoxNews.com last January to take a careful look at the arguments and evidence in the Prop 8 trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The case was presented by a constitutional conservative, Ted Olson, who helped found the Federalist Society, successfully argued Bush v. Gore to the Supreme Court (among fifty-five other cases), and was George W. Bush’s Solicitor General. Working with his Democratic legal partner David Boies, Olson sought to prove that marriage equality is a constitutional question, not a partisan issue. The trial assembled a thorough record of evidence that Prop 8 unreasonably discriminates against gays and lesbians, relegating them to second-class citizenship. Their plaintiffs, Kristen Perry and Sandy Steir, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrullo, are the face of the marriage equality movement. They wish to share in the myriad societal, economic and psychological benefits of marriage, which the Supreme Court has ruled is a fundamental right owed to all Americans. By denying them the right to marry because of their sexual orientation and gender, Olson and Boies argued that Prop 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, and is unconstitutional. Among the seventeen witnesses Olson and Boies called to the stand were experts in areas of psychology, political science, economics, socio medical sciences and history. |
|
 |
|
|
The New Republic, Posted: 8/23/2010, 12:31 PM
QUICK LOOK:BY RICHARD JUST: The New Republic has assembled a fascinating timeline of Obama’s statements on gay marriage over the past 14 years, stretching from 1996 to earlier this month, when the White House responded to a judge’s ruling on Prop 8 by reiterating that it opposes same-sex marriage. What the timeline shows is a pattern that can only be described as illogical and cynical. Obama argues that he is against gay marriage while also opposing efforts like Prop 8 that would ban it. He justifies this by saying that state constitutions should not be used to reduce rights. (His exact words: "I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you’re playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about.") Obama appears to be saying that it is fine to prohibit gay people from getting married, as long as the vehicle for doing so is not a constitution. Presumably, then, he supports the numerous states that have banned same-sex marriage through other means, without resorting to a constitutional amendment? If so, he might be the only person in the country to occupy this narrow, and frankly absurd, slice of intellectual terrain. Obama has also said he favors civil unions rather than gay marriage because the question of where and how to apply the label "marriage" is a religious one. This argument makes even less sense than his stance on state constitutions, since marriage, for better or for worse, is very much a government matter. |
|
 |
|
|
New York Times, Posted: 8/10/2010, 2:50 PM
QUICK LOOK:BY ROSS DOUTHAT: Here are some commonplace arguments against gay marriage: Marriage is an ancient institution that has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman, and we meddle with that definition at our peril. Lifelong heterosexual monogamy is natural; gay relationships are not. The nuclear family is the universal, time-tested path to forming families and raising children. These have been losing arguments for decades now, as the cause of gay marriage has moved from an eccentric- seeming notion to an idea that roughly half the country supports. And they were losing arguments again last week, when California’s Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that laws defining marriage as a heterosexual union are unconstitutional, irrational and unjust. These arguments have lost because they’re wrong. What we think of as “traditional marriage” is not universal. The default family arrangement in many cultures, modern as well as ancient, has been polygamy, not monogamy. The default mode of child-rearing is often communal, rather than two parents nurturing their biological children. So what are gay marriage’s opponents really defending, if not some universal, biologically inevitable institution? It’s a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition, that establishes a particular sexual ideal. |
|
Advertisement
 |
|
|
Baltimore Sun, Posted: 8/29/2010, 7:47 PM
QUICK LOOK:By JEAN MARBELLA: In another context, Gloria Steinem had the perfect comeback. Told that she didn't look her age, the glamorous feminist said, "This is what 50 looks like." Well, this is what gay looks like: Ken Mehlman. The former Republican national chairman, who grew up in Pikesville, publically came out last week and instantly set the punditry class abuzz. Not so much over the idea that a single, 43-year-old man who recently moved to New York's Chelsea neighborhood turned out to be gay — welcome to the cabaret, ol' chum! — but for his role in a party that has exploited same-sex marriage as a wedge issue. In fact, Mehlman came out specifically to help the cause that so many in his party have tried to defeat: He has been working with the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the group fighting California's Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage. Questions about his sexuality arose — as they had during his years in the Bush White House and at the helm of the Republican National Committee — and he decided to finally answer them truthfully. Good for him. I can't join the chorus that has emerged in some parts condemning him for his role in a White House and a party that tried to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Yes, he does have some 'splaining to do — even though the Federal Marriage Amendment ultimately failed, some states went on to change their constitutions. And he was also George W. Bush's political director under Karl Rove, who worked to get anti-gay measures on ballots as a way of bringing conservatives to the polls and thus help GOP candidates. |
|
 |
|
|
New York Times, Posted: 9/1/2010, 5:09 PM
QUICK LOOK:As head of the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007, Ken Mehlman was part of the party's leadership that stepped up anti-gay efforts, in part to energize its conservative base for the 2006 elections. Last week, he made an announcement that he is gay and is working to support same-sex marriage. Although the news made less of a splash than it might have in 2004, it did highlight the continuing tensions in the Republican Party between the strong social conservatives and those more focused on fiscal issues. Can these two camps within the G.O.P. be reconciled? Will the tension always persist, or is the party finding new ways to keep both groups in the tent? |
|
