gay bashing

If the Initiative Can Legally Taketh Away Marriage, the Initiative Can Also Giveth Away Contact Info

Fri, 2009-01-30 08:27

Tony Infanti of Feminist Law Professors (now with a new URL, ) says

In a blow to hypocrisy, a federal judge has rejected the attempt by Prop. 8 supporters to shield the names of those who donated in support of the measure from release to the public. I refer to this as a hypocritical position on the part of the Prop. 8 supporters because the law that makes the identities of those who contribute $100 or more to initiative campaigns a matter of public record was itself enacted through the initiative process by California voters in 1974. In defending Prop. 8 after its passage, supporters of the measure have argued that the courts should defer to the will of the people; however, it seems that the will of the people means little to them–and, in their view, should mean little to the courts–when the will of the people affects Prop. 8 supporters (rather than the LGBT community) adversely.

Read the quote in context here.

To be honest I am a little creeped out not by reporting requirements but by how close to invasion of privacy it gets. But it’s a compromise I’m willing to swallow in a political landscape so easily overrun by Astroturf.

Still, any lawyer compassless enough to make that specific argument — that initiative-passed law should be disregarded for the benefit of proponents of initiative-passed laws — probably ought to be disbarred.

Furthermore it’s hard to sympathize about the privacy rights of those who’s initiative was exclusively about interfering with other people’s to make private decisions.

Channelling Miss Manners on closeted Republican cruisers in public restrooms

Tue, 2007-08-28 11:13

Ok, so news reports to the contrary, not every male member of the Republican Senatorial and Congressional caucus is covertly homosexual. But as Susie Bright says sometimes it seems that way. I’ll have a bit more to say about the consequences of closeted people attempting to regulate other people’s sexual behavior in a later post but for now I’ve got a little advice for other straight men.

Back in 1982 Judith Martin published Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, Freshly Updated, mainly a collection of her syndicated column that dated back to around 1979. Martin was the real deal back then, the legitimate successor to ettiquette experts Amy Vanderbilt and Emily Post.

So it was a big deal when she was asked

DEAR MISS MANNERS:
What am I supposed to say when I am introduced to a homosexual “couple?”

And Martin replied

GENTLE READER:
“How do you do?” “How do you do?”

When you unpack that completely revolutionarily brief, not to mention revolutionary-for-a-mainstream-columnist, advice it expands into “homosexuals are people deserving no more or less courtesy than any other people.” Pretty brilliant as far as I was concerned.

As far as I know, though, she never addressed another issue that I and literally countless other straight men have felt a little awkward about: fielding a proposition from a gay man. So without further ado here’s how I think she would have answered:

DEAR MISS MANNERS:
If I’m not interested what am I supposed to say when I am propositioned by a homosexual?

GENTLE READER:
“No thank you.”

I’ve got to say that over the last 35 years or so that’s worked every time.

I say this not least because I think the police in progressive cities like Minneapolis, let alone in more, um, “sheltered” cities like Titusville, Florida feel obliged to setup anti-cruising sting operations in public men’s restrooms is that most straight men, fueled perhaps by our own sense of heterosexual entitlement towards women, don’t realize that in the gay community not only does “no mean no,” no also means “no hard feelings.” And since there’s none of that frustrated/outraged sense of outrage between gay men the way there seems to be between straight men and women, all you really have to say when proposition, really, really, is “no thank you.”

User login