Jeff Rosenberg is one of the few bloggers at Minnesota Progressive Project that doesn’t deserve to be under either police surveillance, court-ordered commitment, or both.
But that doesn’t mean he gets how Democrat politics works:
The very first thing they should do, though, is officially legalize same-sex marriage.
The vote against marriage discrimination was historic. It was uplifting. And it came amidst a number of other wonderful victories for the LGBT community and its allies. But if you’ll forgive me for saying so mere hours after this historic victory, it’s not enough. Not discriminating against same-sex couples any more than we already do just doesn’t cut it. It’s time for full equality, and there has never been a better opportunity.
Somewhere out at Alida Messinger’s estate, a DFL organizer – a union guy, maybe, or one of Alida’s hired fixers with ABM – is saying two things to himself right about now:
- “Alida looks a lot like the bass player for “Sweet”, circa 1974″.
- “Jeff! Bubbie! Slow down! Not so fast!”
Like abortion, gay marriage is an issue that serves the Democrats (and parts of the GOP) better unresolved.
The DFL – and Democrats nationwide, as yesterday’s election showed – run, and win, on selling victimization.
If gays – who are a percent or two of the population that votes reliably Democrat – ever stop howling “Why can’t we get married?”, they might start howling “why can’t we find a job” or “why are our taxes so damn high?”
Oh, the courts may settle it for us. But the legislature? Forget about it.
I don’t think so. The juvenile mindset of entitlement will demand immediate restitution for the horrible wrong they had to endure this campaign season. And with 2 soon-to-be compliant bodies of legislators, the persuasion that will commence will be quite difficult to resist.
I agree that if gay marriage is the official position of the Democrat party, they ought to man up and pass it in the Legislature. Here’s why they won’t: the Secretary of State website shows a district-by-district breakdown of where the amendment passed. Some of those (outstate, of course) are represented by Democrats. In districts where Johnnie Schmedlap got elected as a Democrat but his constituents don’t support gay marriage, he will have to break with the party and vote with the Republicans on that issue, if he ever hopes to get re-elected. There aren’t enough legislators whose districts are solidly Democrat AND favor gay marriage, to pass the legislation.
At least, that’s how the math looks to me, at this time. Within my lifetime, homosexuality has gone from a mental illness halfway to acceptance as a valid alternative lifestyle. In another generation, it’ll be there and the legislation will be a no-brainer.
By the time Gov Jim Beam and his troupe of dancing moonbat a are done with you, you’ll believe gay marriage has already passes… ’cause you’re just about to experience the honeymoon part.
Interesting how many of the wedge issues your side used to beat up on Democrats over the years – abortion, immigration, gay rights – have come to bite you in the ass. Kids, ladies, Hispanics rejected Willard in droves. Good luck with that in the future. As the Republican Party gets older and (even) whiter, your demographics will continue to lose you elections. Can’t build a permanent majority entirely from angry Lawrence Welk enthusiasts, you know.
Just to get this straight – you guys had two candidates come out with a position on rape that was something other than “against”?
On a day like today antsycluck still has to lie:
“you guys had two candidates come out with a position on rape that was something other than “against”?”
D’s won all over (more’s the pity) and yet you are still so intellectually and morally bankrupt all you have is lies and ad hominem.
Mitch, please tell me you were joking about this piece of garbage being your friend.
Joe Doakes wrote:
Within my lifetime, homosexuality has gone from a mental illness halfway to acceptance as a valid alternative lifestyle.
And do you know how it went from mental illness to acceptance as normal behavior?
A vote. Conducted by the APA. In 1974.
The APA had not defined homosexuality as a mental illness because the APA was full of bigots. The APA, pre and post 1974, has been run by political progressives. The APA classified homosexuality as a mental illness because it was associated with certain pathologies — drug and alcohol abuse, shorter life span, etc. Sigmund Freud classified homosexuality as a mental illness.
The APA didn’t wave a magic wand in 1974 and make these pathologies go away. Instead the APA determined (by vote) that the pathologies were not linked to homosexuality, but to society’s bigotry against homosexuals.
Mitch Berg wrote:
If gays – who are a percent or two of the population that votes reliably Democrat – ever stop howling “Why can’t we get married?”, they might start howling “why can’t we find a job” or “why are our taxes so damn high?”
Time for Kipling’s “Gods of the Copybook Headings”. The poem is the only real conservative “dog whistle” or coded language, not because it has a secret meaning, but because liberals are unable to understand it. They read it as gibberish.
Haha! Glad to see you don’t go for the ad hominem attacks, kinlaw.
Your bitter weeping is music to Angryclown’s ears. Prepare for four more years under the thumb of your socialist masters, kinlaw!
The definition of pathology is arbitrary. The best test is probably determining to what extent it impairs or negatively effects the individual’s lifestyle. Also, to what extent it effects the survival of the species.
I suppose that when a statistically significant number of expectant parents include homosexuality as a hoped-for trait in their impending child (like some do musical ability, intelectual superiority, sports prowess, etc.), homosexuality will no longer be considered to be detrimental to the individual and deserving of special accomodation.
Mitch, re “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”: “Hear, Hear” and “Bully, Bully!”
“The definition of pathology is arbitrary.”
A departure or deviation from a normal condition is arbitrary?
Tell me again how proud you were to cast your vote for Slow Joe Biden, Mr. Clown, how it makes you sleep easy knowing that he is ready to take a seat in the Big Chair at a moments notice.
I love that story.
I guess the determination of “normal” has yet to be defined universally.
“I guess the determination of “normal” has yet to be defined universally.”
Is accepting or not accepting a standard because it has or has not been defined universally a norm?
Who told you this crap, Joe? Why did you believe them?
Let me explain something to you clown. You called two men “pro-rape”. That is ad hominem.
I called you a piece of garbage for doing that. That is called an accurate description.
Glad we could clear this up.
Terry … we seem to be caught in a loop. My accepting of a term as a standard requires some type of definition accepted by others beyond myself. I may hold a belief, but to consider it to be a standard means that it holds similar meaning to a group, or at least to more people than me.
Then, which group are we talking about? I see two groups here; pro-election results and opposed to the election results. Being in the latter, my “normal” on many issues would not be accepted as such by the other group.
However, for example, those in the other group who are second amendment supporters (by my definition) might hold certain things to be “normal” that I do. The two groups could be broken down into all kinds of sub-groups with all kinds of normalizations that are not election related.
Sorry to ramble. However, a qualitative term like “normal” needs some kind of consensus among a specific group in order to be valid. Even then, it might only apply among members of that group.
I don’t know … I think we both are probably in agreement on the basic issue. But I really have trouble with subjective terms like “normal”, “fair”, “common sense”, etc. which I think can be used emotionally without a solid basis in fact. I’ll be quite now. I’m channeling a scene from “Love and Death”.
Joe-
You might want to read what the APA actually says about sexual orientation here:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Notice that they do not say that homosexuality is congenital, or that homosexuals have no choice but to be homosexual. “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
They are describing behavior, not physics. There is no test that can determine sexual orientation that is not behavior based. Believe me, they have tried. Back in the old days the government spent a lot of time trying to devise a test. They couldn’t. It’s not in the DNA, it can’t be determined from MRI or catscan. It has no basis in the physical world. “Sexual Orientation” is a term of art.
Gay marriage will not be brought up in the legislature. It wil be enacted like most other states, through the court. No legislator wants to vote for it, it is still too hot, the want the cover of the court.
I doubt that gay marriage will come up in the legislature, but if it did, so what?
It is the trend nationwide; three more states have now approved by vote to have gay marriage. Iowa has not been struck by lightning, caught on fire and fallen over to sink into a swamp since they have had it, neither has any other state.
I think it is quite likely that the mostly conservative SCOTUS will determine it is in fact legal, making any such laws a moot point, as occurred with miscegenation laws.
George Takei – yes, the Star Trek guy – noted recently that when he was a kid, it was illegal for an asian man to marry a white woman. Now as an asian gay man, he had married a white man.
We make these changes over time; overturning the tradition of anti-miscegenation laws was comparable. Shame on the right for once again wanting to intrude into people’s private lives, and for being more restrictive of rights for people.
The reason btw Joe that the determination that homosexuality was not a pathology was that there was not sufficient evidence to determine that it was. It is worth noting that at one time masturbation was thought to be an act of mental illness as well, because it was not understood how that fit into normal human sexuality either.
And at one time it was not reported that same sex pair bonding normally occurs in animals either, because it was a fear among scientists that would be a rejected observation. The science got better; homosexuality became better understood.
It is not classed as a pathology because it ISN’T, the vote was only the mechanism by which the better scientific understanding was enacted. You seem to be trying to portray that as a whim – it has continued to be acknowledged by scientists as a positive decision.
What I think we can count on NOT seeing in the state legislature is another voter ID law, probably EVER. Conservatives blew it big time when you had control; that is why you were voted out.
“George Takei – yes, the Star Trek guy – noted recently that when he was a kid, it was illegal for an asian man to marry a white woman. Now as an asian gay man, he had married a white man.”
Oh really? Can you sight a source for this? Not the quote, but the assertion. And what does that have to do with changing the 3500 year old definition of marriage?
I wouldn’t be surprised if our leg now passes gay marriage. Just this election it was passed by the people in Maine, Maryland, and Washington. In ten years it will be universal, and we’ll all be wondering what all the screaming was about. The younger demographic has no problem with it, and the older anti-folks continue to die off. Game over.
“Sanity” paraphrased:
“The kids like it so it must be alright”
Are you trying to say _all_ the stupid things “Sanity”?
In addition, the Republicans have now set a precedent of putting social issues on the ballot in Minnesota. Will the Democrats follow with their own amendments on these issues in 2014? I don’t know, but thanks to the Republican majority legislature last session, the gate is open and the horses are out of the barn.
““The kids like it so it must be alright”
No, I’m saying that the kids will outlive their parents. Dead people can’t vote (at least not in Minnesota 😉
The reason btw Joe that the determination that homosexuality was not a pathology was that there was not sufficient evidence to determine that it was.
Wrong.
Homosexuality was not considered a pathology before 1974, it was considered a disorder because it was associated with pathologies. It is still associated with pathologies. Nothing has changed.
Gay activists began a campaign of intimidation against APA members and leaders in the late 60’s-early 70’s. Gays had decided that their condition was not a disorder but part of their ‘identity’. Back then they said it was a choice as well. Remember the term ‘sexual preference’? It became ‘sexual orientation’ (a made-up word) when leaders in the gay rights movement wanted to people to connect ‘gayness’ with hereditary traits like race.
BTW, the ‘anti-miscegination’ law Dog Gone talks about was passed in the 1920’s. It was a product of modernism, as was the concept of ‘racial hygeine’.
Dog Gone is as wrong on this topic as she is on virtually every other topic.
If the DFL controlled government doesn’t pass gay marriage then the vote No crowd has been played!
Jenga is the game where you remove supporting foundation blocks and pile weight on top until the structure falls down.
Dog Gone is right that having pulled out the “traditional marriage” foundation block from the structure of society, Iowa hasn’t collapsed.
But how many foundation blocks can we remove, and how many additional burdens can we impose, before society does collapse?
Gay marriage? Open borders? Impoverish the productive group to enrich the non-productive? These are soft-hearted goals but also soft-headed policies.
Actually, I think K-Rod is correct. Let’s see if how tolerant that crowd is of being played.
“Actually, I think K-Rod is correct. Let’s see if how tolerant that crowd is of being played.”
Maybe they can play them for the next 30 years. Hey, it works for the Republicans and the pro-life crowd. The pro-lifers are the most used group in politics today.
“The pro-lifers are the most used group in politics today.”
That’s why there are abortion clinics and same-sex marriage chapels in every town in America.
Oh, wait, there aren’t.
Seriously, ‘sanity’, if you believe that the pro-life forces haven’t restricted access to abortion in this country you are in conflict with what every liberal women’s group has been saying since 1972.
The same-sex marriage folks must insist on acting now. “If not now, when?” should be the motto. DFL control of House, Senate, Governor, the only thing stopping same-sex marriage being legal in Minnesota next year is–Democrats. Like Mr. Berg said, it is best for the DFL if the issue is not resolved since their claim to the “gay vote” is never challenged. The same-sex marriage folks deserve an up or down vote with the Governor demanding it as he demanded so many other things the last two years. If we had to have a stadium we certainly have to have civil rights for all Minnesotans.
“it is best for the DFL if the issue is not resolved since their claim to the “gay vote” is never challenged.”
Are you saying that the Republicans want the “gay vote”? After all this discussion about it being a pathology? Using that thinking, are they also going after the bipolar vote and the alcoholics vote too?
What if the Dems put it on the 2014 ballot? “Let the people decide” has been the mantra of the Republicans, so why not go with that?
“After all this discussion about it being a pathology?”
I am confused, ‘Sanity’.
Look back through the comments and see who, if anyone, called homosexuality a pathology.
“Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” (para. seven, from the APA attachment).
As I read the article, the APA says that a non-voluntary cause for sexual orientation (SO) has not been found. That’s a big step away from saying that SO is optional. It may be in some cases – homosexuality is common among “straight” incarcerated people who resume heterosexual behaviors when released. Or, were they, and consequently a large number of the general population, just bi-sexual with a preference for opposite sex relations when given the choice?
I think the APA has concluded that SO is non-voluntary. They just can’t determine the actual cause – of which I believe there are many.
The DSM-IV-TR (fourth edition) makes no mention of homosexuality now, other than pathologies which may arise due to an individuals inability to cope with it. It does address “Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders”. I’d be willing to bet that it disappears, or is drastically changed, in the upcoming DSM-V-TR.
As to the original intent of my post, I believe that some of the terms being used are not as clear cut as we think. Normal is relative. A pathology needs to hurt to be one. Homosexuality is normal under certain circumstances. However, those circumstances are limited when compared to the general population.
Thanks …
Joe-
I agree with most of what you wrote. There may be some physical, biological root to some people’s identification as homosexual, but this sexual identification (I won’t use the word ‘orientation’) can be greatly modified by social context.
I think that this is compatible with the APA’s description of homosexuality.
Pingback: Wedges 101: Let’s Review Some History | Shot in the Dark