It's sickening.  All of it.

Yet another story about bad family values.  Hopefully, one day the media will give equal time to a community who REALLY values families-----the LGBT community. 

So many scandals, lies, and divorces among str8 Americans!  Clealry, something needs to be done with this institution called marriage.  Seems like it's been broken for a long, long time.

As far as I'm concerned, all of them could do what the H--- they want, just don't run for office. It's the hypocrisy that gets me. It would be refreshing if all our elected officials lived by a higher code of ethics and understood that they are in powerful positions by which they should set a better example for their constituents. Even following a little common sense would be nice. Guess that is why I find the President and Michelle Obama so credulous and inspiring.

He has told the most lies of any politicians caught in an unfaithful act.He lied about where he was going and didn't tell anyone and then finally admits it when he can't lie any longer.I feel sorry for his wife and children although why his wife put up with his cheating for so long is beyond me.

All of these losers redefine hypocrisy. Their public postering has them declaring Christian-supremacy, homophobia, anti-all reproductive freedom, anti-reality-based sex ed, anti-all adult freedom/ sexuality/ entertainment, abstinence-for-everyone else. It's incredible that lives are ruined and freedoms gutted by these same people.

Vitter was not deterred after his scandal. A man exposed to the world for being a cheater and VIP at the late DC Madam's place of business while wearing a diaper (!) continues to have the arrogance to promote homophobia and opposition to women's reproductive healthcare.

Possible solution: If Vitter stops fighting against gay adoption, someone will help him change. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

Yep...The more holy and pious they claim to be...The more immoral they truly are.

You neglected to add: STUPID!  If you're going to Do the Nasty, why would you even consider doing it with a woman who works for you in the same office, along with her husband?  At least Sanford had the (relative) good sense to have his affair on a different continent. 

I don't think it should be about straight or not straight and in one way or another we're all hypocrites (most unwilling to admit).  The point might be more that we should all be free to be hypocrites or not to be hypocrites whenever the chance to be hypocritical presents itself.

It's the hypocrisy of an entire party that helps steer our country that I think should not be tolerated for a moment.  How can Conservatives say they are for less government in people's lives so that they can be free to live life and then turn around and say who can and can't have the freedoms they claim to fight for.  I don't know how they can tell themselves that it's OK.  I don't get it.  I can't grasp it, not even for a tiny second.  It escapes me entirely.

Social conservatism is nonsense which is based on the obstruction of progress, which includes the advancement of LGBT rights. In addition, David Vitter, John Ensign, Larry Craig, Mark Sanford, and others listed in the blog are intolerant people who have an incorrect view of LGBT rights, thus their view of it has no merit. I oppose "family values" because that meaning always almost mean denying the rights of which the LGBT community deserves.

Family values are important to the health of any nation. They need however, to include all types of families. That both Democrats and Republicans fail does not speak of hipocrisy. It speaks of human imperfection. For the lgbt community to attack "family values" as an idea suggests that These values are not important to You. I believe that must certainly be wrong, or You would not be fighting for gay marraige. I am with you 100% on that by the way.

Family values are supremely important -- the loss of these values is taking our nation down.  What is worse?  being unfaithful to your wife or killing an unborn baby?

@Charlie Reed I like your comment.

I think though that the infidelity of these politicians is, while gross, not as hypicritical as Michael and most of these commenters seem to think. You are making the assumption that when right leaning politicians talk about family values, they are talking about conjugal fidelity. For the most part, they are not. The sanctity of heterosexual marriage from the Christian conservative perspective doesn't have a lot to do with hetero patners being more loyal or loving each other more or treating each other better. It is about the way it structures the family with ONE PATRIARCH. The task of maintaining the familie's ideological purity falls on this one patriarch. Families with two daddy's or two mommies don't fit this structure, so they innately throw a wrench in the gears of the perpetual motion machine that reproduces Christian conservatism.

As a devout Christian I'm not fond of Christian conservatism being reproduced by the perpetual motion of family structure, patriarchy, and ideological purity rather than being driven by serious theology or earnest faith experience. I think it's important for the rest of us to understand though that they don't just hate on gay people for grotesque, bull baiting-like fun. Their world view and way of life truly are at stake.

What a coincidence: the local pols jumping on the bandwagon of rightous indignation, calling for his resignation, happen to be those seeking his job.

I'm not gay, but the hypocrisy of the right cannot fail to appear so completely ironic to us all.  Well written article which voices so many of our exact thoughts.  What bothers me too, are the secret abortions that the right have indulged in.  Mean to tell me that none of their "mistresses" have had abortions?  This crowd sickens me.  They are really good at interfering in everyone elses bedrooms, lives and politics, but live hypocrisy daily.   And by the way, to those pro-lifers, a reminder that being pro-life starts at the dinner plate.  Being pro-life means extending life to those without voices as well.  Oh but I keep forgetting, "they" can interpret their bible any way they wish including murder, torture and invading sovereign nations. Go figure. 

I'm wondering if it's an almost inevitable connection between self-righteousness about so called "values" and the self-righteous people's own lack of sensitivity towards value systems other than their own narrowly-defined ones. What you say is so true of so many people in so many countries. 

Gotta admit, it's kind of weird to see a bunch of LGBT people mirroring the het discourse on this so exactly--the unquestioned acceptance of monogamy especially. Are Martin Duberman and I the last old queers who think maybe queerness implies some questioning of het sexual moral taboos and assumptions other than just being homosexual? Or has "mainstreaming" become so universal that all y'all care about is being allowed to get married happily-ever-after and go serve the American corporate empire in the military just like the wonderful straight people who scorned, excluded, bullied, humiliated, arrested, tortured, and murdered us for so long? 

It makes me want to cry and break the plates, it really does...

from an email I sent to Rachel Maddow yesterday:

Dear Rachel:

I was really disappointed that you chose to devote the bulk of your show yesterday to the Mark Sanford business. Counting the time on previous shows you have awarded this story, I estimate you've spent a good 90 minutes on it so far. And for what? The only useful point you derived is that Sanford is a hypocrite, and that so are leading members of a party that pat these guys on the head for their honesty in fessing up, when they go for Dems who commit similar pecadilloes like a pack of starving dobermans. All that was worth maybe 15 minutes, total. The rest is just wannabe sensationalism and/or sneering schadenfreude--both embarrassing and boring to an audience that looks to you for insightful analysis of important news. [...]

One more thing, as you would say: could your coverage of sexual scandals be a bit more, ummm, you know, twenty-first century? How come you of all people are still referring to the extramarital sex partner of a married man as his "mistress"? Are we going to call the similar figure in the life of a female politician (it's only a matter of time) her "master" as a matter of equity? I mean, it's apparent from Sanford's whole demeanor and from those Harlequin-flavored emails (which I don't think should ever have seen the light of day anyway) that the poor jerk is crazy in love with this woman in Argentina. The real story here is that what sure looks like actual, healthy human love and desire has destroyed a carefully maintained facade of white Christian compulsory monogamy. An enforcer of rules that make countless people miserable has been caught in his own bear-trap.

Because this is the real question: why does this stuff keep happening? Truth is, all these politicians are no different than other Americans, many millions of them, who "cheat"--that is, they commit to monogamy because it's the social norm and then find they can't hack it. Why not talk about that, too?

Oh, how tragic that GLBTQ people want to get married!I honestly don't care what others do, but I am tired of GLBTQs who don't care for "heternormativity" (what my spouse and I have been accused of more than once) and want us all to live their way.

Adam, the PROBLEM is that this jerkwad goes and runs around having a relationship on the side, while fighting against the right of LBTQ people to marry IF they so wish. My spouse and I, for two, will settle for nothing less than full marriage--in fact we did the deed a couple of years ago in Canada.

If you don't, then carry on by all means--people should be free NOT to marry if they feel like it. People should do whatever they wish, so long as another is not harmed, Just don't expect all LGTQ people to walk your path or to want to.

While both republicans and democrats have cheated on their wives, it is the republicans who generally run on a holier than thou platforms and are supposedly so moral.  

Beware of any politician who supposedly promotes morality. They are violating their own bible which tends to criticize those who pass judgement on others.  Phony moralists tend to refer to Romans I as a reason to be against homosexuality but they never mention Romans II which deals with judging others.  

It's interesting to me that it is all male policitians. I guess it shows how much the men take their power for granted. There may be some women politicians who have been caught in "indiscretions" but I imagine the response would be much worse if they did and most know it.

As far as connecting this to family values and abortion, again, it's about men not women. A lot of these issues are about patriarchy. BTW I oppose abortion for many reasons but the complexity of my views would never be understood by the oversimplified conservatives.

I’ve been married and it’s not all its cracked up to be.  It’s just legal convention and has nothing to do with the wishes and whims of a deity.  As for the touting of family values, you either walk the walk, or fall flat on your face.  What galls me is the Republicans hounded Clinton because he lied (but Heinlein said everybody lies about sex) about having sex with Monica Lewinsky, and here Governor Sanford lied through his teeth about going out on the Appalachian trail when he was in fact spending a week in Argentina with his girlfriend.  Could it have been that he failed Geography and confused the two, as they both began with the letter “A”?  If his wife doesn’t have a divorce lawyer drooling over the settlement, she’s a fool.

It has nothing to do with Men taking their power for granted. Just look at that nutcase Pelosi if You want see someone taking their power for granted. I believe Men are more likely to cheat than women. We are wired to procreate genetically and socially. That does not excuse it. Calling family values a tool of patriarchy is nonsense. In this century family has been redefined to mean a variety of things. Conservatives understand that. I thought liberals did too, but apparently some people are still attacking those Who think differently. I guess I'm "oversimplified"

The difference is that there is an admission by the adulterers that adultery is wrong.  Homosexuals are earnestly trying to convince us that homosexuality is okay, and will not admit that it is wrong.  Homosexuality is a sin--just like adultery, stealing, lying, killing is.  That's what the "values" are all about -- recognizing God's standard for behavior, and admitting when you fall short of it, as you certainly will at some point.  I am not obliged to acknowledge or give special privileges to a group who think their sin is "special;" homosexuals are just plain old ordinary sinners who need to repent, just like the adulterers.

The hypcrisy here is unbelievable!  These people were calling for Clinton's  resignation, and impeached him, while they were out doing the same thing! In the case of Rudy Guliani, he did it twice! His second wife found out about him divorcing her on a TV interview! They should let us get married, so we can show them how to be faithful! That's what I call family values.

Yeah, these hypocrites should work on their own marriage and maintaining its sanctity before they start f***ing around with what other people should legally be able to do in their marriages.  If marriage is between one man and one woman then these guys should not be fooling around with a second woman.  Or a third.  Or more.  THAT is a violation of the sanctity of marriage.  A legally recognized couple who love each other and feel that their love will last until death do they part should not be based on gender - that couple should be legally recognized whether they are a hetero- or homosexual couple.  That is what the sanctity of marriage is about.

This incredible people. Both sides are trying to fight intolerance with more intolerance. The lgbt community has every right to practice their lives without judgement from others. People have every right to practice their religion without nasty input from non believers. Both Democrats and republicans commit adultery, it does not nullify the importance of family values. There is no excuse to be calling people names like "oversimplified" You are behaving like some backwater, intolerant, dictatorship!

I consider Mark Sanford's actions more of a concern for South Carolinians than for me, but I join those who note the hypocrisy of those who cheat on their spouses, abandon their spouses when the develop cancer and play homosexual games  in public rest rooms while wailing an empty cry of ,"family values".

That degree of hypocrisy is extraordinary in both its blindness and its deliberate deception.

It is clear to me that there is no legal or moral justification for depriving same-sex couples of the benefits that normally accrue to any other civil union.

I believe marriage is a more complicated question. Marriages are generally in churches and often considered a sacrament.

As such, I believe they should have constitutional guarantees of non-interference from the civil authorities. Churches that accept same-sex marriages should not be subject to civil control. Nor should those who do not.

Jan, I could not agree more. Government has no business getting involved in religion, so it has no role in deciding Who can get married.

Michael, I disagree with Your title re: failure of family values. This has not been a failure of family values. This has been a failure of an individual to live up to his standards. I still deeply in the importance of the family unit. I am driving 300 miles in the morning to deliver 3 grandchildren to My ex wifes' house so They can visit for a month. I don't want to. I am doing it because I know family is important. We have one of the weirdest assembled families around, but We are still family. The fact that I am conservative does not mean I insist on a "leave it to beaver" family. Liberals Who think conservatives think that way are being left behind, get with it.

Sorry, "still deeply (believe) in the importance of family.

Those who say that God hates Homosexuals (Gays, Lesbians, Fags, Queers, and any other vile name they come up with), should return to the SCRIPTURES and see what they say.

In the Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew (except for the Book of Amos which was written in Aramaic), the word "homosexual" does not appear.  In the New Testament, which was written in Greek, the word "Homosexual" does not appear.

Further, I suggest looking at the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Chapter 7, Verse 1, which reads: JUDGE NOT, OR YOU WILL BE JUDGED.

In the Gospel according to St. John, Chapter 3, Verse 16 it is written: FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD (ALL OF HIS CREATION), THAT HE GAVE HIS ONE AND ONLY SON, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM, WILL NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.  And please note that there are no markings to look at the footnotes for the "EXCEPT FORS". 

God came into the world to save the world, not condemn it (JOHN 3:17-18).

Therefore, I highly recommend that the HOLIER THAN THOU'S should also read ROMANS 3:21-26, about ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.

God is the Judge, not man.  And as I read the scriptures, which is my authority, and I therefore believe that ALL PEOPLE, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, WHO BELIEVE AND RECEIVE CHRIST JESUS, ARE SAVED.  And no amount of MAN'S Bigotry and hatred will change that.

Amen

Charlie, recognizing that your family is one of the "weirdest assembled families around" and being Conservative, can't you see that same sex couples should have the same rights to have a weirdly assembled family or a normal one for that matter.  Anyone in a family knows that their own family is different and crazy and great and horrible and sane all at the same time.  Why is it your family is afforded these freedoms and can change the judgements you choose to pass on others based on your own experiences but you are unable to empathize with others long enough to recognize that they deserve the same?

Also, since marriage grants government privelages unallowed without marriage for partners, the government should grant equal privelages to all individuals in society.

Conservative Republican "FAMILY VALUES" HYPOCRITES are beneath contempt, and so are the "LAW & ORDER" HYPOCRITES from the same political party.  The self-righteous, sanctimonious whores should shut their lying mouths.  The white, bigotted morons who wrap themselves in the flag and Jesus Christ have done some serious damage to this country by electing such MORALLY-INFERIOR, HATEMONGERING, MEAN-SPIRITTED WHITE BIGOT TRASH to public office for the last few decades.  The one-issue and straight-party-stupid voters are a threat to this country, and Bush/Cheney is irrefutable proof!!

Michele, I think You have not read My comments. I do believe in all sorts of families including lgbt. every conservative I know does. That all conservatives believe otherwise is liberal ignorance.

So much hate in these post. I am amased that none of you are seeing the truth. Sanford was not caught. He confessed to his wife before he disappeared. That to me is better than Clinton who lied about it when he was caught or Kennedy who just covered it up.(JFK not Ted)

Now lets look at the real issue that has hampered "marriage" This would be a society where the cost of living is so high that it takes both parents( or husband and wife) to bring in enough money to pay the bills. This is what drives marriages apart. Couples grow so distant trying to maintain a household that they seek affection elsewhere. This usually found with someone at work because that is what we desire. Someone to spend our lives with.

Jeffrey, most christians are not looking to discriminate against gays. The lgbt battle for rights have nothing to with race. You just threw that in there to make yourself sound like a good liberal. Christianity has nothing to with hate. read a book. mean spirited people reside on both sides, as I have seen here today.

Michele please understand that I am not using "ignorance" in it's newer mean spirited way. I am using in it it's classic definition. "lacking in a specific point of knowledge" I do mean to offend i have seen enough hate on both sides of this issue today

I do "not" mean to offend sorry.

The biggest problem I have with "gay marriage" are them wanting to raise children. Their sex lives do not promote procreation so it will be the straight community who provide these children. Don't come back with "adoption" because those children are born from heterosexual unions. I would very much like to know why homosexuals think they should be entitled to raise children. From my perspective Children are not a right, they are the direct result of Heterosexual unions.

I don't see how the personal lives of the politicians is relevant to the debate. Even if the extra-marital affairs of these politicians were with someone of the same sex, it doesn't reflect whether the behavior is right or wrong/good or bad. 

Ask many smokers how they feel about their habit, and they'll lament their blackened lungs.

A cry of hypocrisy is mere mud-slinging. If you want to debate the topic of gay marriage, attack the topic itself rather than the other people.

A doctrine of tolerance ought to include those who slip up.

If the source is hypocritical, then the offering should be questioned whether religious, family related or etc. But then again, we seem to revolve around hypocricy and derangement and have no problem adopting it. It's not Gods world.

But it WILL be.

Since people, whether gay or hetero should not be having sex in sight of children, I do not see why it would matter. Who They would be having it with? Children need good parents. Their sexual orientation should be irrelevant.

Charlie, a person sexual oreintation is important. It is what decides who can and cannot have children. I have studied this topic extensively. In doing so I discovered that the precentage of any species of animal that display homosexuality is directly proportional to the size of that population. In other words when a species is overpoulated in an area the precentage of homosexuality in that species is at it's highest and at it lowest when the poulation is at lowest. This would indicate that homosexuality is a mechanism in our species to control poulation. So therefore using technology to help homosexuals to have children would counter act this mechanism.

I will not argue the bio of it at this time, although I am a bit of a bio buff Myself. I do believe it is not relevant to the raising of children though. People raise children with love and their highly advanced cerebral cortex, in that order. Genitalia and how they are used is just not relevant.

I'm sorry, can you please explain how the use of a persons sex organs is not relevant. Is it not these sex organs that produce children? Thank you for not being hateful to my inquiry. I'm only curious as to why you believe the way you do.

James, of course They are relevant to child production. It is the raising of the children they had better not be relevant to.

I'm sorry but that is not logical. If one does not use their sex organs for reproduction then they have no entitlement to raise children. Where are they to acquire these children. There is not enough children to be adopted, so that is not the answer. Are you implying that heterosexuals should in fact bring children in to the world for homosexuals to raise? How would this equate to equality?

James, of course I am not suggesting heteros have children just so gays can raise them. (except when They want to). Some gays already have children.(people find out they are gay at different times of their life) Some adopt (there are a lot of children Who need someone) There are plenty of stories. What I am saying is there is no reason gay people can not provide a loving nurturing home.

Hmmm...Tu Quoque.

Google it.

This still negates the issue of population. The world is not able to feed the population as it is, so should we not except the responsibility of are lot in life?

Yvonne, please state your case rather than be obscure with latin terms. I however do not need to google it, I am well aware of it's meaning. However it does not seem to apply to this topic. If you feel it does then state your case.

I live in South Carolina and have had to put up with the pompous, arrogant and holier than thou Mr. Sanford for long enough.  Infidelity happens all the time.  But when it's someone who acts like he's the be-all and end-all of purity and perfection; when it's someone who supposes to define marriage and the "sanctity" of it, yes, then it's a big deal.  Enough of these morons already.

I am sorry, but I have no position outside of scientific data and logic. I have just finished reading the responses and see no reason to further this discussion if those who have chosen to partake cannot set aside their personal views and provide any research on this subject. I will however check back and if there is one among you who can provide some insight to your position and why you feel it has merit based on a scientific level I will gladly entertain this debate further.

James, you asked me to explain how you actually argued in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Again, I'm using YOUR argument of biology here. One of the fundamental arguement against marriage for same-sex couples is that it defies "natural law." By the standard applied by the AMA, and the APA, homosexuality is indeed biological and not a "disorder" as some like to believe, then there is no legal nor rational reason to deny same-sex couples the legal right to marriage. I would argue against a religious "rite" to marriage due to the Establishment Clause.

Even though you see us, the LGBT community, as having "undesireable" traits, we still allow other individuals with different "undesireable" traits to marry like Down Syndrome.I would never attempt to limit the rights of someone with DS, but the fact remains that their traits are "undesireable" as they are at higher risk of producing problematic offspring, if they are able to conceive at all.

Hell, we even allow convicted criminals to get married while serving - even if they are on death row or serving a life sentence for extremly violent crimes. Why? Because they are "straight."

When you say that WE, the LGBT community, as LAW-ABIDING, tax paying citizens, we are even LESS worthy than even the most violent of criminals.

Just a little story about Giuliani. A few years ago, I spent the Winter working in a restaurant in Ft Lauderdale (actually Wilton Manor). One night Rudy came in with a small group of men. Apparently, he was there several times before. The comments from my co-workers were that Mr Giuliani was gay. I, of course, refused to believe them. With his addiction to marriage, I figured "straight all the way".

In an effort to convince me otherwise, they got Mario (busboy, extraordinarily handsome 30ish y.o. Columbian) to saunter past his table. I got the impression this was a regular practice For them. They told me to just wait and watch. Well, sure enough, when Mario walked by, I thought that Rudy's head was going to snap off.

So, I guess it is ok to check men out, just not buy them diamond rings. since then I am convinced that most politicians will say anything to acquire votes, even if it means living two totally different lives!

The only liars are you and your ilk. Homosexuality IS a trait--that is being proven by science. If anyone is intellectually-challenged it is YOU, Dean.

It isn't possible to have a rational conversation with homophobes--no matter what science says, homophobes are not going to accept it. Why let facts stand in the way of bigotry.

@All rational discussants: I propose that we simply put this Dean guy in coventry (shun him). He thinks half a century of sexology studies are "invented"--it must be a giant social-science conspiracy against "normal people." He also thinks that gay men (apparently the only kind of non-straight person he is interested in) "don't know where a penis goes." Penises go a lot of places that feel good, but he wouldn't know about that, poor frightened sweetie. He's never had a blowjob, or a handjob, or whacked off with something slippery or just a sock. Come to think of it, I doubt he's put it in a pussy either. He wouldn't listen to a man who is not "gay," just bisexual, tell him him about four decades of having a wonderful time putting his penis in all those places and more--and loving several truly wonderful people of both sexes very deeply. This is because fear--and I can guess of what--has frozen his rational faculties. Say goodbye to the poor dear and let him shrivel in his emotional vinegar bath. 

Feh. "Sanctity" of marriage...Shut the Front Door. Jesus was single, God never proposed to Mary, nobody married Adam and Eve (God just 'brought her to the man'). Solomon had 600 wives and concubines, as did multiple Biblical characters all blessed by God. 

Marriage was invented as a method to consolidate property and wealth. (Only now, it's a method for women to consolidate property and wealth).  Married people receive governmental benefits and lower taxes than single people do, for no good reason whatsoever. If you believe in Marriage, have a religious ceremony with your own vows, but you shouldn't get any benefits singles don't have. Since cohabitation has effectively replaced marriage, SSM's are fairly moot. Give each other power of attorney; blam, done. If SSMs are legal, polygamy and/or polygyny should be, too. You should have as many partners as you can provide for.

And about the politicians...here's an idea: anyone elected to public office has to separate from their spouse for the duration of their term. The spouse gets alimony, the politician gets all the sex they can handle. When their term's up they can reunite or stay separate. That'll end these 'cheating scandals' once and for all.

--K.K.

before anyone condemns homosexuality as a sin, get right with God yourself, stop casting those stones! homosexuals hurt no one, whether who they are is a choice or biological, this is their life and they only want to love and be loved. scientific data has no place in this discussion, James, it is heartfelt, get of out the lab and actually live life!

action against gay rights sounds like nothing more than a witch hunt, it has been going on for far too long. is this how people justify their own guilty hearts, is this how a person has to make themselves feel good about who they are? I don't remember reading where Jesus led a protest march against gays.

adultery is another matter entirely, it does hurt others, the spouse, children, and the horror of finding out your 'loved' one has infected you with a disabling, often deadly, disease.

maybe the witch hunters should clean out their own closets, if they can find the time between their affairs, hah!

It would be easy to join the majority who find the hypocrisy of the above right wingers disgusting. But, as we castigate them for not practicing what they preach, I have to ask myself if I should be casting stones.

I recall a situation where I made a bigoted sounding statement in response to bigotry and was condemned for this, but the persons who condemned me for my statement ended up making bigoted statements of their own. In the end there was finger pointing, but little learned. So, I'd like to move beyond the finger pointing and laughing at those who were caught (literally) with their pants down and seek a constructive dialog.

As almost all of have been hypocrites at some time, I instead ask the people who oppose gay marriage to leave religion out of the discussion and tell me how prohibiting gay marriage would benefit anyone? If there already is a stable relationship between two people of the same sex and they wish to marry, how would it harm society if they can legally do so?

My arguments in favor of same sex marriage would be that it would encourage stable relationships, afford equal rights to the individuals involved, and be a sign of inclusion from society. I feel that whenever possible, we want to encourage inclusion, as there is far too much intolerance, fighting and war in the world without finding reasons for more.

As far as government (us, the people) goes, we need total disclosure about everything our elected officials are doing. This includes what measures are passed in congress (especially all the rider stuff that gets added onto other important bills and laws), exactly how much money or gifts our elected officials receive from outside groups, and where and how every penny of our tax dollars are spent. Please, no more "classified because it'll jeopardize national security" or similar excuses. I would like to know that my congress people are working for me, not some large corporation.

We can handle all this information. One can't watch it all, but if the facts are all made public (after all this is about us, the people) there are plenty of watchdog groups that can monitor the minutia. In this information age, there is no excuse not to do so.

I'm thinking that if we can at least follow all our money and where it goes, it will be much harder for our government officials to stray from their jobs.

If I were to ask those on this board their definition of “family values,” there would probably be overlap of many different perspectives, as the term itself epitomizes vagueness and ambiguity.

The down side is, I'll never be allowed to hike the Appalatian Trail now.

Many of the comments appear to have run pretty far afield of the original subject, but some do tie into the thread of this blog. Regarding "state secrets,"add ons to bills, vagueness of "family values" and unreported campaign contributions, who do our "representatives" work for and do they believe everything they preach?

It is to the financial benefit of some in the corporate sector to sow social discord, intolerance and hatred by scapegoating such groups as "terrorists," illegal immigrants, drug users and the LGBT community and invoking such clear sounding, but vague ideas as family values, security and "patriotism." By distracting we "working stiffs" by doing this, the companies that financially benefit off the war economy gain public support for their military products. We are distracted from noticing that the rich are getting richer as we grow poorer and our nation turns into a third world country. And, we are so busy hating the scapegoated groups that we don't notice how we're being manipulated.

This is why I encourage everyone to move beyond such vague code words as "family values" and "God's plan for us" and demand reasons for doing things that make logical sense. I also feel that it's important to know where our "representatives" get each and every dollar and have a better idea of what the sources are where the mass media get their "information." I also believe that we should choose tolerance and inclusion over exclusion whenever possible.

And, I believe that it's in the long term interests of the puppeteers with the deep pockets to realize that the intolerance and hatred they're sowing and wars they're supporting in their pursuit of short term economic gain or power is turning this once green planet into a war torn toilet where even they will eventually have a hard time finding a good place to live, unless we become more tolerant, inclusive and loving, including loving of Mother Earth.

ty Adam, I do understand your argument for the data, but we don't bother rationalizing heterosexuality with scientific data, or am I mistaken?

 unfortunately, I think the data comes from trying to explain and excuse, if you will, why someone is gay. can't we just leave it at the desire of the human heart to love and have that love returned?

I appreciate reading most of these comments, even manythat  I don't agree with, both you and James make sense, but I still believe we should leave this to the heart.

:)

I agree with you Sheila and am unconcerned about whether being gay is primarily biological or sociological. We can analyze this stuff to death and in the long run all that really matters is that two people of the same sex who love each other want to get married and have all the rights and recognition (except from the organzied religions who are free to do what they want) that heterosexual couples enjoy.

This is supposed to be a free country with free speech and freedom of expression. Most of us like to believe that we're not prejudiced and are accepting of others of different races, religions and cultures. So, what logical reason is there to not welcome LGBT couples into the mainstream by recognizing marriage among same sex or transgender couples?

"Because it's perverse" is hardly a logical answer Dean von Germeten. But, you may get your wish, as I'm sure that you'll get the ire of some for comparing gay sex to beastiality and murder. I find hatred to be an unprofitable and illogical emotion.

Contrary to your assertion, I'm actually quite into science, but don't feel that Kinsey or the behavior of animals is relevant to whether LGBT people who are partners should or should not have the same legal rights that marriage affords straight folks.

As a non-believer, who has studied various religious texts and has read both the New and Old Testaments, I, like many non-believers, feel that such texts are the work of Man and not of any God. And, even among Biblical scholars there is dispute regarding which is the correct version or whether what was attributed to an individual actually occurred or was said or done by that individual. Furthermore, there are many contradictory statements as "God" is described as all merciful, but also jealous and wrathful. The bottom line is that most serious scholars of the Bible do not take it literally and try to follow the spirit, rather than the specific teachings and parables in the Bible.

So, based on this, and that such things as slavery and what we'd now call cruel and inhuman punishment (such as crucifying someone) are not comdemned, I feel that people can quote pretty much whatever they want out of the Bible as gospel, and this is why I asked for logic, rather than quoting scripture.

The reality is that many LGBT couples are longtime partners, that this legal and that some of these couples wish to have the same recognition and legal protections that straight couples enjoy under matrimony. Are you or anyone else able to present a logical argument why this should not be so?

It is clearly impossible to argue the case for LGBTQ rights with people who have a dogmatic rather then evidenced-based view of the issue, so I'm going to take a step back and make what I take to be a fundamental (no pun intended) argument.

1. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States contains the Establishment Clause, which bars the making of laws that favor any one religion over another.

2. All the objections to the equal rights of LGBTQ people made on this forum, with the exception of some bizarre pseudoscience, have been religious in nature: God says it's wrong. Other religious people are arguing (based on differing interpretations of the same sacred texts) that gay people do no harm by being what they are and should have equal rights. From my standpoint, that's obviously much saner, but it also misses key facts about United States law, as follows:

3. Those who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong according to their religion are constitutionally entitled to that belief. But equally, the Constitution forbids them from enforcing this belief legally on others who don't share it.

4. What's more, the denial of equal rights to LGBTQ people, given the terms of the Establishment clause, also violates the Equal Protection clause, which states that all persons shall receive equal protection under the law. 

5. That said, it has taken 200 years for these clauses to be honored to the extent that they are: that is, for black people, Catholics, Jews, Asians, Latinos, and women to receive something close to equal rights--though in practice women and people of color still do not have them completely, given the heritages of racism and sexism and continuing discrimination in many areas of society, especially employment. 

6. The struggle of LGBTQ people for the same constitutional rights and protections as are afforded other citizens is quite evidently gathering momentum nationally, as the struggle to realize full equal rights for women and people of color continues. 

7. My suggestion to those morally opposed to homosexuality is therefore as follows: you have, under that same wonderful First Amendment that contains the Establishment clause, every right to try to convince the rest of us of your views--or for that matter to argue that women or people of color shouldn't have equal rights either, or that the United States is a "Christian nation," or that your God created the universe in seven days and that evolution is false, or whatever other counterfactual notion you like. Go for it, by all means--though naturally I wish you wouldn't. But what you *cannot* do is attempt to enforce your religion-based beliefs as law. It violates the Constitution. 

"Family values" is one of the most hypocritical lines used by the Republicans.  It's basically a way to say if you don't look like me and my family, then you're not a family and I don't have to value you or protect you.  In all fairness, what they've really done in many cases is devalue any family that is outside what they see as a family.  Gay and lesbian families, families of color, single parent families, poor families, families unitied by untraditional ties like cohabitation or common law marriage, etc.  Meanwhile, such politicians who spout their endless spew about the need to "protect family values" often fail to value THEIR OWN FAMILIES, as evidenced by the list in Michael's post.  If you have "family values" then you value your family - that means that no matter what type of relationship it is, you don't go out having secret affairs or get caught trolling for prostitutes or affairs of ANY type.

Also, if these "family values" politicians truly "valued families" they wouldn't seek to destroy families.  What's served by denying familihood to all types of families?  It doesn't "lessen" any other type of family to give full rights to all types of families.  Another thing that "family values" politicians wouldn't do is constantly enact assistance rules that actively encourage divorce just because that's often the ONLY way to get adequate help - if you "valued families" wouldn't you want to set things up to help families AS families?

Gack. The hypocrisy is disgusting.  So is the unconstitutional attempt to enact a theocracy.  It's one thing to believe a religion's teachings and to do evangelism, etc.  It's quite another to believe in that religion and try to force others to join you in its practices by enacting the religion's laws as a theocracy despite the Constitution and it gets particularly disgustingly hypocritical when you're picking which of the laws you want to follow and you want the others of the nation to follow.  Funny how they all don't seem to care about adultery or taking care of the poor - which are also rules of the religion.

I like your Constitutional arguments, Adam. The only group you left out are people with disabilities, who are still in a civil rights struggle of their own.

People who want social progress continue to encounter resistance on many fronts. I often find it easier to understand the logic of people with autism than the "logic" of people who use quotes from religious texts, such as the Bible, as their reason for discriminating against those who are different.

I love the diversity of this country and planet. What a bleak place it would be if we were all the same!

Dean, Dean, Dean! You are certainly hung up on the whole idea of the penis and where it should/should not go. Your aruments are based on a book which can and has been used to justify nearly everything under the sun. Fortunately society has evolved and many of those concets have been disproven by science.

I for one don't give a man what you CHOOSE to believe, but I had and have NO choice in my orientation--well, except the "alernative" to remain celibate and lonely. Remember where "God" says, "It is not good for man to be alone"? Well, it's not. My life was cold and lonely and dark before meeting my spouse and I'll be damned if I will return to a life of loneliness just because you and others of your ilk would feel more comfortable and affirmed in your prejudice if I did.

Gay people marrying or not has no real impact on your life--if you don't like gay marriage then don't participate in it. This is a country of many faiths--and no faith at all--and you do NOT have a right to tell me how to live and whether or not I should have married my spouse. Keep your nose out of GLBTQ's business. Go and "work out your salvation in fear and trembling" and "judge not lest ye be judged"--if you are so Christian you must be familiar with those verses.

I love it when people make blanket statements like Dean did with his short answer:  A: Because it's perverse.  According to who?  The animal kingdom?  no as it is practiced there.  

Is this simplistic answer not passing judgement?  Dean should really read Romans 2 besides Romans 1.  

Christians are not a unified group.  I believe you have good christians and then you have bad christians.  The good christians will try to follow the lessons of Jesus while the bad christians will use Jesus' name to kill others.  

Many christians do help the poor but many other "christians" just pretend to help the poor and then screw them.  

I guess all Christians are forced to pick and choose which part of the bible to follow.  I for example will follow the Golden rule as much as I can.  However I will eat pork, provided it is well cooked.  lol

There has been quite a bit of nastiness in this conversation, including some individuals calling others of differing viewpoints sick and perverted, etc. Meanwhile, there are others quoting obscure passages out of the Bible or barely relevant bits of science or psuedoscience (depending on one's perspective) to make points that seem rather far astray of what this thread was initially about.

It appears that this discussion will go on and on ad nauseum with many unpleasant comments, but without the participants coming any closer to a consensus. I have other things to attend to in my life. Therefore, I withdraw from this discussion.

There are those who live in evidence-based reality, and then there are those who live in "faith"(read, "prejudice")-based reality. 

Evidence:

--A recent poll shows that 69% of Americans support gays being allowed to serve openly in the military. That includes 58% of Republicans. 

--Five states, including almost the whole of New England and Iowa, have legalized gay marriage.

And once and for all, to all you bigots: we queers don't think we're anything new, let alone better. We've always been part of the human population in every society on earth--sometimes accepted, sometimes not. We're not asking for special treatment. I'm going to say this in capital letters so there's no misunderstanding:

ALL LGBTQ PEOPLE WANT IS EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS AS HETEROSEXUALS. NO MORE, NO LESS.

Got that? 

I'm done now. Rave on, you pigheaded pseudo-Christians. You're losing. We're going to get equality. Get the fuck over it.

It seems that people have forgotten about John Ensign. If we are to condem the good governer for leaving on an "exotic" trip to Argentina, we should equally blame Sen. Ensign for the demoralization of american family values as well.

This is slightly off topic, but I learned today that one of my recent heroes, Ezra Nawi, an Israeli Jew who has repeatedly risked his life (and is now risking a long prison term) for nonviolently protesting the actions of illegal ultra-Zionist settlers against Palestinian farmers in the West Bank, is gay. Read about him here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/world/middleeast/28westbank.html?_r=1&hpw

Yes, we have heroes. To be queer and conscious is to understand, as I have for a long time, that oppression is oppression, and must be resisted, no matter who is being oppressed. That's what Gay Liberation stood for 40 years ago, when it helped to free me, that's what it still means to me today, and that's what it means to Ezra Nawi.

Write the Israeli government in support of Ezra. He needs all the help he can get. 

Adam,

I'm not upset, but question your technique and I was referring to the whole last paragraph: "I'm done now. Rave on, you pigheaded pseudo-Christians. You're losing. We're going to get equality. Get the fuck over it."

If we're seeking a rational discussion and eventually consensus, we don't want anyone to "rave on" and by responding in this angry tone, you heat up the discussion, rather than encouraging rationality.

And, by gloating "You're losing. We're going to get equality." you encourage your opponents to dig in. The tide of history may appear to be on your side, but you haven't "won" yet and the long term goal I feel should be to not only get the laws you seek passed, but to gain as close as universal acceptance for your cause as possible. There is nothing to be gained by embittering people by gloating other than short term satisfaction that doesn't help your long term cause.

Lastly, I would encourage you to get out of the habit of using the Q word, which I feel is disrespectful to the LGBT community in the same way that the N word disrespects people of color.

I feel that in striving for the goal of complete equality and acceptance that we both favor that we should embrace the non-violent (both verbal and physical) techniques of people like Gandhi as much as possible and that while we shouldn't forget the past, we should strive to eventually leave the bitterness of the past behind us as we move toward a bright future where we all celebrate the bright colors and flavors that is the diversity of this country and planet.

It's true, Andrew, I lost my temper. I don't know whether you're gay or not, but in case you're not, I will tell you that every so often, for a lot of us, the repetition of homophobic talking points and the having our sexuality linked to incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and so forth just gets to be too much. You're right, though, to say I shouldn't be triumphalist about our victory--though it will come eventually, of that I am certain. 

As to using the word "queer"--to me it's not like using the n-word. It's more like the word "black" as it was reappropriated by young African-Americans in the 1960s. Lots of young homosexual, bisexual, and trans people use the word as both a militant statement and an internal self-definition today--it's commonplace for them to refer to themselves as queer. This process began in the early 1990s with Queer Nation, a nonviolent civil disobedience network that staged events like same-sex kiss-ins at shopping malls. I had several students who were part of QN and I really admired (and tried to emulate) their gutsiness. Their slogan was "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." You can clearly hear the echo of that in what I said in the post you criticized.

The other thing I like about "queer" as an umbrella identity is that it's far less cumbersome than LGBTI.. W(hatever) and implies *all* the (consensual) sexual and gender identities that are not part of the heterosexual, bi-gendered, vanilla norm. A large subset of these are people who identify as gay men or lesbian women, period. But as the patriarchal system of gender identity and orientation continues to break down, more and more bisexuals and "gender-queer" people are coming out: butch het women, androgynous bisexual "bois," fem het males, transgender people of all types. To me, queerness is finally about breaking down all the legacies of patriarchy and allowing people to be themselves, period. In other words, queerness as the new generation is beginning to understand and define it is not a "sexual orientation" but an orientation toward sexuality and gender both. 

Adam, 

The only thing I found disturbing in your first post was referring to someone as pig headed.  Probably is an insult to the pig.  

Point taken Adam on the use of the work, Queer, though I hope that one day we move beyond describing people in terms of their sexual preferences and instead use people first language.

It's not my preference currently, but I have had my share of Gay sex and could take offense at some of the comments, but choose not to. I feel that it would be counterproductive in my quest to change the opinions of people who disagree with my belief that the LGBT community should be treated equally in all respects to allow myself to get angry and even more counterproductive to express any anger.

I also have had many Gay friends and a Gay brother (who died at 34) affected by the A.I.D.S. pandemic and have worked as a counselor in that field, so have been touched in that way as well. As someone who still works in the counseling field, I feel that there are many dedicated people in the field that do their best with an inexact human science and others who let their personal biases intervene, or just do slipshod casework. Like every other profession, we're a mixed bag and subject to the same prejudices as everyone else, though one would hope that we're "professional" enough to do our best to avoid prejudices. In the case of people like Kinsey many "professionals" were often reflected the common prejudices of their time, which the most enlightened advocates of our time may be viewed as doing 100 years from now.

I liked your post regarding Ezra Nawi.

This being said, I have two questions that I've thought of as I read the entries in this blog:

1) Why are blacks, who should be sensitive to discrimination issues, significantly more likely to oppose legalizing Gay marriage than whites?

2) Why is there so little research on treatment of pedophilia? Pedophiles are pariahs among virtually every group in society, including people in prison for pretty heinous crimes. But, as a social services professional, I feel that we need to do research on improving counseling and therapy techinques for every population needing it.

Andrew, sweetie, I didn't need you to show me your gay credentials! It's quite obvious from your post that you're a strong supporter of LGBT rights. And it's not so much "the past" I was referencing as my own past. But not nearly enough has changed. I assure you, lots of queer kids (especially trans ones) are having at least as bad a time as I did in middle and high schools all across the US. Suicide is the leading cause of death among LGBT teenagers. We can thank the attitudes of some of the people who have expressed their views here for that. And then think about how it is for their equivalents in Iran or Saudi Arabia, where it's the same mean patriarchal God with the same harsh intolerant attitudes and some slightly different theology. Ugly.

On the issue of why black people are significantly more likely to oppose legalizing gay marriage: it's more about class and education than race per se, in my opinion. As one of the ongoing legacies of institutionalized discrimination, a much higher percentage of black people is poor and uneducated as compared to white people (see Jonathan Kozol, *Savage Inequalities*, on the education part, and any competent study of sentencing bias for the criminal justice part). If you take the population that has a high-school diploma or less, the attitudes toward LGBT rights are pretty much the same right across the ethnic/racial board. That said, much of the Black church has been very backward on LGBT issues--in major denial about HIV-AIDS too, right up into this century, labeling it as a "homosexual disease" and a punishment from God while infection rates among het Black women soared.

You can tell that by and large I have a "Code Napoleon" attitude toward organized religion--guilty until proven innocent. You might call it the Sanford Syndrome--hypocrisy and doublethink writ murderously large. The religion of "love" teaches hate, the religion of "peace" teaches war, the religion that gave us "Thou shalt not kill" sanctifies the slaughter. The priests and pastors and imams and rabbis line up behind the generals and the dictators and tell their flocks that God is on their side and justifies every murder and atrocity their governments have them commit. And then they have the nerve to tell us that without religion, there would be no morality...

Yeah, yeah, I know, the Quakers and the Unitarians and the Sufis and the brave Jews like Ezra Nawi. But face it, Andrew, they're the exception, not the rule.

Adam,

I have no problem talking about my sexuality, but prefer that the focus on anyone is on what kind of life they lead, rather than their sexual orientation. Yes, suicide is a biggie among LGBT teens, as this is when we come to terms with such things as our sexual orientation, religious choice and what we wish to pursue as a career. Traditional religion can lead to the guilt factor and suicide for a Gay person coming to terms with his or her sexuality. Fortunately, in my case it just added to the naughtiness factor and made it more fun!

I have a somewhat different take on religion: I am a non-believer, who couldn't bring himself to believe, despite trying, and as enticing as such fantasies as eternal life, heaven, nirvana and paradise are. I also could never understand why any god would want blind faith. But, there are many who believe in God, with doubt and questions and don't take the religious texts literally, but rather in the spirit of love and compassion that many of the "prophets" intended them to be taken in. And, many spiritual people don't believe in organized religion.

But, there is also the side of religion that seeks to prop up the powers that be and defend the status quo (Divine right of kings) and benefits by working in a symbiotic relationship with kings and generals and who is part of oppressing the common person and justifying this as the will of "God." This type of religion asks people to not believe in their own common sense, but instead follow the dictates of some religious leader and/or text that is the word of God. I'm one of those people who likes things to make sense and doesn't worship at the altar of power, religion or money.

Sometimes the wino or the homeless person makes more sense than the Pope or the President. Each of is capable of greatness, but each is also capable of incompetence and vile deeds.

I knew about the theories that you spoke about regarding why a greater percentage of blacks are opposed to Gay marriage than whites, but would like the black community, who regard themselves as not being bigoted and being liberal, to think about this. Along the same line is the question of why so many Israeli Jews, who should have a good education regarding the holocaust, are so insensitive to the Palestinian situation?

I feel that it's important to keep asking ourselves questions regarding whether we're doing the right thing. We should ask questions regarding any war our country engages in and any group that is demonized. I sometimes ask myself when I'm doing my job as a counselor whether I'm actually helping the people that I'm paid to help. We should never be too sure regarding our religion, sexuality, or any other sub group of humanity that we belond to. Because, ultimately we are all of the same species and have to live on this planet together, so we need to find ways to love and accept people who are different, rather than finding rationales to discriminate, persecute and wage war.

In a documentary called "War Made Easy," it was amazing how every American president since LBJ spoke about how war was the last resort, only to go to war with the drum beating of the media and many in the clergy. And, we are approaching July 4, which is the height of flag and "patriotism" season, which lasts from Memorial Day to Labor Day for many and all year for some. When is a word said about the patriotic peacemakers? We need to work for a world where the Ezra Nawis, Mahatma Gandhis and Martin Luther Kings are common, instead of the exception and we can only do this by embracing their methodology in our daily lives. For to change others, we must start with ourselves.

Nobody ever said that peace, love and building were easy. It's war, hatred and destruction that are easy...

The Credo of the Fallen Angel

The Negative