Tags
While we were in Canada earlier this summer, there was fair degree of press about an upcoming marriage between a Canadian member of parliament and his long time lover. The marriage was notable because it was the first gay marriage involving an MP. The press coverage verged from the simply factual to warmly supportive. If there were Canadians expressing outrage at this mainstream acceptance of homosexuality, they were not making a lot of noise.
Contrast this to attitudes within the United States with a brewing storm in Iowa and then the resignation of Larry Craig. I have little time for Craig myself as a deeply self-repressed man who has fought against the same homosexual marriage rights that exist in Canada and in Iowa for 4 hours! Just another example of a someone without the personal honesty to admit to himself who he really is and who stamps his own conflicted intolerance on others. I tend to believe that most intolerant people are similarly self-loathing, and it's a shame that some of them are sufficiently powerful to repress others.
Still, the flap throughout the Republican party over this homosexual encounter (notably contrasting with that of Senator Vittor and his illegal patronage of female prostitutes) makes me roll my eyes again. Perhaps it because Senator Vittor happens to hail from a state with a Democratic governor who would be tempted to replace him with a Democratic senator, whereas Craig comes from Republican governed Idaho. Hypocrisy rears its head everywhere (Democrats are not immune either, by the way).
Hi, Richard.I agree with you completely. In a political candidate or office holder, character, honesty, and forthrightness are far more important than sexual orientation. Sexual proclivities and religious orientation should never be a part of the evaluation criteria for candidates or used by the opposition as a weapon during a political campaign.
Thanks for your comment, David. It would be a better world if politicians were always judged, and judged alone, by the qualities you list.
As I understand things, Mr Craig is forced to resign because of hypocrisy, not because of homosexuality. Sounds like good reason to me.
I don't know whether to feel saddened or almost angry at these anti- gay-rights Republicans that turn out to be gay.
Ricewood, I wish it was because of hypocrisy, but I think it's because of homosexuality. His state elected a gay bashing conservative and that's what they want. His party doesn't know what to do, because they're pretty much down to just their base as far as approval goes and they chose to appeal to intolerance to build that very base. It's interesting times in the US of A all right.
If you´re right, Pat – and why shouldn´t you be, I know next to nothing about USA – I think that these people are being extremely rude. I mean, sticking their noses into someone´s private life like that.He didn´t do anything illegal, am I right?
The arresting officer claims he did. Of course, if we had the attitude in the USA that it's none of our business what two consenting adults do in private or what someone's sexual orientation did he probably wouldn't have been in a Men's Room soliciting sex. If, indeed he did. I do believe we're coming around. I think it's inevitable, but a group of politicians have changed this country based on playing to fears that…I don't know exactly what the fears are about, to tell you the truth. It's a big country. What someone thinks is important in Idaho is not necessarily even on the radar here in the NY metro area as an issue.
But people´s opinion in Idaho or New York Met Area doesn´t constitute any law.If whatever two grown up people decide to do together not harming anyone else is a criminal offence – I really think that law should be replaced. ASAP.But – none of my business really. My country isn´t perfect either – I´d better mind my own business before I start lecturing others.I rest my case.
No, don't mind your own business. It's very interesting hearing views from elsewhere in the world. Actually, laws about anything like this wouldn't be federal laws. They'd be state and/or local laws. Probably solicitation in public restrooms would be illegal in most places, but private homosexual relations are protected on the federal level due to a Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v Texas that came down just a few years ago. That decision did ignite a lot of controversy and kind of led us to where we are now, which is a painful, but transitional place.The USA is in the midst of what we've been calling "culture wars". On a happier note, recent polls show a declining interest in regulating peoples' sex lives and a growing one in economic issues as well as foreign policy, of course.
I agree with everything that Pat has written, especially about this being much more about prejudice against homosexuality rather than simple, if blatant, hyprocrisy. It's a core issue for certain Republicans, much less so for others of a more libertarian disposition. Unfortunately, this anti-homosexual cadre is still very influential within the party. I think when that influence begins to wane, and a more pragmatic conservatism reasserts itself, the Republican party will gain more popularity. We'll see!
One question:In public places where soliciting is prohibited – would that be prohibited for homosexual contacts only? Or for all sorts of sexual contacts? Or for any contact with money involved??(Turned out to be not one but three questions)
All contact with money involved in most places. I think that prositution is legal in the state of Nevada, or maybe just in certain parts of Nevada, but under very strict laws regarding where and how the transaction is permitted, I'm sure. They have some kind of ranches or something. I'm sure someone better traveled than I could fill you in on that. All contact that involved actual sex acts in a public place, such as a restroom, would be illegal pretty much anywhere. But yes, you can get arrested in most places for soliciting for a heterosexual encounter as well.
I see.My horizon is hereby broadened.Thanx.