Hey Sars,

Love you and all the sites you have a hand in.

When you ran the recent letter asking what the big
deal was about gay marriage, why did anyone care about
other people’s personal lives, I nodded my head,
wondering if you had the answer to the question I’d
been wondering, too.You went with bigotry, with
which I can’t disagree, but it inspired a bit of a
refinement in my head.

Certain people think some things “just aren’t right”
and will legislate their morality.Why can’t I buy
beer on Sundays in the South?Why can’t I gamble in a
nearby casino?Why can’t I willingly sell sex for
money?Hell, why CAN’T I sleep with my brother if
we’re both consenting adults with no chance of
reproducing?Because it’s wrong.Because it leads to
drunkenness (like a good alcoholic can’t stock up on
Saturday), gambling problems (there’s a lot of
addictions out there; how many can help fund
education?), crime/disease (a well-regulated brothel
doesn’t), or vomiting (my brother, yeech).And if
it’s wrong, if it contributes to the “coarsening of
society,” it should be illegal — for the children.

I’m certainly not comparing gay marriage to any of the
above, except that if enough people think something’s
immoral, it’s illegal. Gay marriage is simply the most
galling recent example of that.To fight people
against gay marriage, we must fight the whole culture
of legislating morality, and that’s a high tower to
topple.A lot of people will always find
homosexuality disgusting, but we have to stop them
from thinking that’s reason enough to ban it.It’s
called secularism, and, yes, it is a slippery slope,
but I’m willing to go down the slide.

Willing to put up with a lot for freedom,
H.C.

Dear H.,

This is, I think, an important point in the larger conversation about the direction in which the current administration is taking the country.Classically speaking, conservatives want smaller/less government.Cutting programs might seem cold-hearted, but to a Reagan conservative, it makes a textbook sense — yeah, the NEA is great, but if you cut it, you can lower taxes.If you lower taxes, individuals have more money to put back into the market, which has (again, in theory) the effect not only of strengthening the retail economy but also of increasing charitable donations to organizations in the private sector.

This is why I could understand Bush voters’ position in 2000 — the “compassionate conservatism” line is not always just a line.Some compassionate conservatives live the theory, and money that gets turned back to them at the top of the tax bracket does go to their churches or local organizations for the disabled or what have you.

But social conservatism is a different story; it’s “conservationism,” really, directed at a set of moral values that aren’t one-size-fits-all.And shouldn’t be.It’s not what this country is supposed to be about.

Further, you saw a number of hard-line fiscal conservatives voting for Kerry (or against Bush) in 2004 because 1) he is not a compassionate conservative, he’s a cronied business-crat, 2) his policies didn’t help the economy (and presidents can’t affect that as much as they’d like you to think, but his father took a bullet for it so what the hell, let’s blame him too), and 3) the simple fact is that legislating morality is an expensive proposition that true conservatives want no part of.If you make something illegal, you then have to patrol its existence all the way up and down the line.You have to fund education initiatives that warn against it.You have to supply law enforcement and prosecutors to bring its practitioners to justice.You have to appoint more judges to handle the caseload.You have to build more prisons.You have to train more probation and parole officers.

This is not conservative.This is, on its face, even if you hate gays and don’t want them to get married, a goddamn waste of time — of everyone’s time, and money.Prohibition has already taught us the lesson that social conservatives just refuse to learn, to wit that as much as you might want to outlaw certain behaviors, it’s not a good use of federal resources to try.If the behavior is harmful to others (i.e. drunk driving), fuck yeah put a strike team on it and make it a zero-tolerance crime.If the behavior is only offensive to you, well, then don’t come over when the Couch Baron and I are drinking pinot at my kitchen table, and when we go to your house, we’ll drink lemonade.

This is what it boils down to, again: the minding of the own business, and the ability to get along with those who do things differently from you.And even if conservatives truly can’t bring themselves to “allow” a group of GROWN-UPS to do what makes them happy as long as it’s not hurting anyone, WHICH IT AIN’T, then at the very least they should admit that it’s bad fiscal policy to try to legislate against it.I mean, take a look around the Treasury.It’s a tumbleweed kingdom in there.You’re going to fight love from a budget-deficit position of trillions of dollars?Good luck with that, Nosy Parker.Won’t happen.Now butt out.

Sars —

Love the site, blah blah blah fawn-on-you-cakes.At any rate, thought I’d add my two cents to the gay marriage debate and respond to “Clever Names” and “Pissed-Off Reader.”

As a gay man who’s personally much more interested in having a second date than picking out my china pattern, for a long time I didn’t give much thought to the particulars of the gay marriage debate, other than to feel it was ridiculous to ignore the reality of gays having stable, committed relationships which were deserving of protection.Like Clever Names, I agreed that the sensible solution was to differentiate between the ideas of “civil marriage” administered by the State and “religious marriage” consecrated by a church.You know, like they do in almost every other Western country.Gah!

The sad fact is that the Left in the U.S. has been slow to pick up on this notion and instead has allowed the argument to be framed by the Conservatives.Unfortunately, in the current political climate, saying “Well, that’s how they do it in France” is not an argument that will play well in Peoria.

So we turn to the Pissed-Off Reader’s argument to just call it civil union and be done with it.For a long time, I, too, was unconcerned by the semantics –- if it allows the same rights, who cares what we call it?Then in February of this year, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued an advisory opinion to the MA Senate, who were arguing the same point in their consideration of how to apply the Goodridge decision.The SJC’s majority opinion reads, in part:

“The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. . . . .The dissimilitude between the terms “civil marriage” and “civil union” is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. . . .[N]o amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain.” —Mass. SJC-09163 (2004)

Reading those words firmly placed the debate in the larger context of the struggle for civil rights in this country in a way that nothing else had -– and I was not apolitical before.But it has caused me to redouble my commitment to working towards the full equality of gays and lesbians, to discuss the issues with my straight friends and family, and to volunteer for and contribute to organizations working to secure my equality.

I hope that it can similarly inspire your readers, gay and straight, to keep the dialogue going, fight the good fight, despite the setbacks of the election, and to keep their “eyes on the prize.”

Sign me,
I’m Here, I’m Queer, We Need A Better Cheer

Dear Might I Suggest Something Involving “Beer”?,

My major argument with the left during this election cycle was that nobody seemed willing to plant a flag on this issue — or any other — and stand next to it.And as much as I miss Big Bilbo nowadays, I had a serious problem with his gays-in-the-military “solution,” too.I mean, “you can be gay, just keep it a secret and don’t get any of your cooties on anyone”?And John Edwards during the debate…argh.Your opponent stood up and APPLAUDED for the marriage ban during Bush’s State of the Union, thereby selling out his own daughter in front of hundreds of millions of people, and you sit there and congratulate him on his “handling” of having a gay child, like she’s toxic waste or something and good for him for compartmentalizing her so he can do his job?This is a family value?How could Edwards not have called him on that?

(Just a quick sidebar here: I know I cracked on him in the GBC, but Ted Kennedy is a hero of mine, actually, because after Cheney stood up and clapped for homophobia, the camera cut away to Kennedy, who busted out a truly impressive eye-roll and shook his head all “fuckin’ idiot.”Good for you, Ted.You can borrow my Schwinn any time.)

It drove me stone crazy, for months, that nobody in that campaign was willing to just come out and say, “Regardless of your comfort level with homosexuality, the fact is that to legislate against gay marriage violates the civil rights of gay/lesbian/bi/transdividuals.Therefore, I cannot and will not sanction such a measure because it is illegal and wrong.”I mean, for the love of little gay apples, take a stand.

Postmortems don’t do us much good now, of course.Now, I guess our best bet is to keep the dialogue going, as you say, and to try to educate the culture from the top down, because kids do not just decide for themselves that gays are weird and bad.Left to their own devices, kids don’t give a shit.That’s the good news.The bad news is that sometimes parents hand ignorance down, and we have to remain alert to that.

In short: Word.

Sars —

Thank you for your site.

Now that the fog of disappointment is lifting, I am beginning to accept that
moving forward through becoming involved is most likely the one way to quiet
the rage.

With that, I am considering, in lieu of holiday gifts this year, sending
care packages/monetary donations to soldiers overseas, in the names of
family and friends. Could this be seen as a “gift” with politically
motivated intentions? I am not a Bush nor a war supporter, but I am a troop
supporter and want to do so actively. Would this “gift” to someone who
doesn’t understand the difference be offensive? Should I care if it is,
since I know it should not be?

Secondly, do people who give tangible gifts expect tangible gifts in return?
Is that a reasonable and fair expectation? If so, should I share my plans so
if they choose to be jerks about it, they can do so openly without selfish
regrets. Or are they, quite simply, my gifts to give, in whatever form I
choose, without apology or notification?

People aren’t really so selfish, right?

An Idealist Living in a Material World

Dear Idealist,

“People aren’t really so selfish, right?”Oh ho ho ho ho.Ah ha ha ha ha ha.Heh.[sigh]

As always, it’s the thought that counts; if you did a nice thing or made a thoughtful donation in someone’s name, as a gift, but that someone got you earrings, well, it is what it is.You can’t really object to a gift on the grounds that you’d rather have gotten something else.

But with that said, the aforementioned thought should be more about the recipient than about you.I think sending care packages to armed forces units overseas is a fabulous idea, but that’s really something you want to do, and I don’t think I’d give that gift to someone who hasn’t also expressed an interest in supporting the troops that way; I’d pick another cause instead, something with more resonance for her.

To put it another way, it’s one thing for me to make a donation to Planned Parenthood in my mom’s name, because I know she’ll appreciate that.But to do it for everyone on my list, without regard for their political affiliations or what their pet causes are, is more rigid than it is thoughtful.

Elissa might also want to bring her site to the attention of Move On, which
is starting its own record of voting irregularities and problems.A number
of members of Congress have asked the GAO to investigate voting problems
nationwide, and documentation like Elissa’s or Move On’s could definitely
help.

http://www.moveon.org/news/investigate.html

Thanks again for the great site and all the great info!

L

Dear L,

Good call.I just got an email from them yesterday asking for help with an online petition.

Word to the wise, though: I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of online petitions.I just don’t think they’re taken very seriously; I don’t take them very seriously.For instance, I got that email about the Hager appointment three different times this week, despite the fact that that appointment, alas, was a done deal back in 2003.You do have to read that kind of forward carefully before signing it — and frankly, it’s a better idea to use phone calls and snail mail.That’s what legislators and administrators take seriously, that you took the time to do that instead of dashing off an email.

Dear Sars,

I have this cat with a nasty issue.I’ve had lots of cats, but I’ve honestly never seen this one before.See, she appears to have allergies.Not simple, runny-nose type allergies.I mean ugly, dozen-sneezes-in-a-row allergies.Which, of course, results in a spectacular mess to clean.Not only is it plain disgusting (I just didn’t think a tiny feline nose could possibly hold that volume of crud!), but it sprays in all directions, and often is accompanied by a bloody nose.

We’ve tried frequent dusting and vacuuming, but she either is allergic to something airborne, or is somehow finding dust that I can’t.We’ve taken her to the vet twice, just to make sure she didn’t have an upper respiratory infection.Both times, they found nothing wrong with her.The second time, they gave me some allergy pills to dose her with.They do work (mostly), and, while she’s on them, neither her eyes nor her nose run, but they knock her completely on her ass.She becomes sluggish, when she’s not actually dead asleep.Her drug-induced naps come with nightmares, and she twitches and whines in her sleep.

This poor animal is barely a year old, Sars.She is otherwise a perfectly healthy, happy cat.I don’t want to condemn her to a life of drugged-out haze, wherein she is haunted by…whatever haunts cat dreams, and unable to play and pounce and do cat things.But neither do I want to condemn her to a life of sinus hell and nosebleeds.Also, the mess is…yeah, and if it happens while nobody’s home, we never know where we’re going to find the “surprise.”Can you think of anything we haven’t?Should I go back to the vet and ask for different pills?Herbal remedies?Should I just accept that this is my cat, and we must love her, boogers and all?Please help!

Confetti’s mom

Dear Con,

First step: go back to the vet and ask for a different dosage or a different drug.If that doesn’t work: go to a different vet.Before you go, collect all her records from your current vet, and try to find some information online by Googling Confetti’s symptoms.Take her off the meds for a day or two and document her symptoms — where in the house she is when the sneeze attacks come on and at what time, whether she’s just eaten and how her appetite is generally, how her nose feels (should be cool and damp), how sharp her hearing seems, napping patterns, litter box usage, everything.You may be able to triangulate what causes her allergies on your own that way.

But don’t take your current vet’s word for it if the drugs aren’t really working.Do your own research and get a second opinion.

[11/12/04]

Share!