I think the story is that Keyes kicked her out.

Sullivan links to it in the context of 'another one', as in another daughter of a prominent conservative is gay.

I think the story is another shot at trying to sell the idea that this shrieking nutjob who couldn't even pick up half of his state's Republican voters is somehow representative of conservatives as a whole.

Point well taken Karol.

Uh Gib. He didn't get any votes in HIS state. He was not on the ballot in Maryland.

I thought Sully was on vacation.

That picture made me horny, yeah baby YEAH!

As used by me - "His state" = "the state in which he ran for office." Sorry for the confusion.

But the fact that nobody in his home state particularly wanted him to run for anything helps make my point, too.

Whenever the news came out, it is notable how many anti-gay politicians have gay family members. Oh, I forgot, no social conservative is ever anti-gay, ever. They just don't like "activist judges" or something. Sorry for wandering off the reservation there.

Eric, do you seriously believe that anyone who is against activist judges has to be anti-gay?

Karol:

Of course not. My point is that a lot of social/religious conservatives use those sorts of arguments in some forums, but then will turn around in another forum and say that we shouldn't have gay marriage because homosexuality is an abomination and it says so in the Bible etc. etc.

I realize that there are people who have no issue with gay people as such, and really sincerely do oppose gay marriage because of opposition to "activist judges" or "judicial tyranny" or something like that. I just happen to think that those people are completely wrong. (But don't go by me. I'm really dull-witted, and spend most of my time watching Project Runway and Battlestar Galactica while eating Almond Cookies.)

I just don't like how people pretend that all this anti-gay-marriage stuff is led by a bunch of enlightened constitutional scholars who are simply making some arcane point about originalism, as if absolutely none of it is motivated by out and out prejudice. I think both factors are at play, and sometimes they overlap.

Did you see gay-hater Dorian Davis's post a few days ago?

Karol:

Did you read my second comment?

Yes, I did read that post. Again, my point is that some people oppose gay marriage out of sheer prejudice, some sincerely oppose it for the reasons Dorian laid out in that post, and sometimes the categories overlap.

My guess is that Dorian really believes in the argument he put forth there, but I don't know him and can't read his mind. However, the idea that he couldn't possibly be anti-gay simply because he himself is (gasp!) a gay Republican is kind of a tired schtick. (Again, I'm not remotely saying that he is anti-gay. I don't know him.) History is littered with examples of people selling out groups of which they themselves are a member for various reasons. There's a link on Kesher Talk right now about a Jewish PBS Producer calling Conrad Black a "damn dirty Jew" or something like that.

If I'm meant to be bullied into accepting Dorian's views on gay marriage simply because he himself is gay, or to automatically think that he couldn't possibly have issues with gayness himself for the same reason, I don't find that to be a persuasive tactic.

So, it's possible that people are just against judicial activism but when presented with an example you think it's just self-hatred?

Karol:

That's simply not what I said the first time or the second time and (I hope) you know it.

I said every single time, and now for a third time, that I'm sure some people are simply against "judicial activism". IMHO, those people are wrong.

Anyway, what exactly is it that you think Dorian's post and his personal/ideological position proves. Why do you endorse his views on the question and not those of Andrew Sullivan? We could play this game forever.

I never said that Dorian was self-hating. I merely said that the fact that he happened to be gay and was against gay marriage in and of itself proved nothing.

Ok, the thing for me (not a gay-hater) is that I think judicial activism will ultimately backfire. I don't believe people will suddenly change their minds and embrace gay marriage. Since our elected leaders (hopefully) represent our beliefs and wants, they should be the ones trying to make gay marriage a reality.

I hate that I can't say that the rule of the land should represent the will of the people without being called a bigot.

Judicial activism has backfired. Horribly. And I say that as a more or less Republican who supports gay marriage. Gay marriage will happen, eventually. Unfortunately, Gavin Newsom and the Massachussetts Supreme Court ended up making everyone think the issue was going to be settled for us by a select few in the nation's most liberal states, and then imposed on the rest of us. (Most people, whether pro or anti gay marriage believe, I think rightly, that federal courts will ultimately compel states to respect legal marriages performed in other state.) People genuinely opposed to judicial activism and the straight up anti-gay crowd found themselves with a common cause, thanks to Gavin & Co. Net result - a bunch more state constitutional amendments and a bunch more momentum to support them. (Speaking as someone who lives in such a state, let me just say, thanks a lot, guys.)

Also, I don't think it's really notable that many social conservatives have gay relatives. It's just that gay relatives of prominent conservatives apparently have no right to keep their sexuality private, even if they wanted to, since it can be used to attempt to embarrass said conservative.

Hey, did you hear Mary Cheney's a lesbian?

People genuinely opposed to judicial activism and the straight up anti-gay crowd found themselves with a common cause

That's exactly what I'm saying. I would never call someone a bigot simply for their position on this issue, but if you are on that side of the issue you are associating with bigots, by which I mean specifically people like Rick Santorum, Marilyn Musgrave et al. Just as we continually ask liberals to disavow Michael Moore, moonbat protestors etc., I think conservatives who oppose gay marriage need to make it clear exactly what they're saying, and why. Have you ever been on a long, freewheeling comment thread on this topic? The anti-gay-marriage people get pretty ugly pretty quickly (and usually much more quickly than the pro gay marriage people start screaming "bigot") Let me tell you, most of their arguments have very little to do with activist judges, states rights, etc.

But Eric, the fact that you generally don't buy that people can disagree with the judicial imposition of gay marriage is another way of calling us bigots.

Karol:

Okay, here it goes again. For the sake of argument I'm talking about two groups of people: 1. People who don't want gay marriage, or for that matter any gay rights at all because they think gay people make the baby Jesus cry. If these people are unsophisticated they will simply say that in more-or-less as many words. If they are more sophisticated they will cloak it in "judicial activism" type language. There is also the possibility that they actually believe in both arguments. I deplore these people.

2. People who have no personal animus towards gay people but nevertheless are against the judicial imposition of gay marriage. I don't buy their argument, for reasons I've gone on and on about all over the internet, but I do not have any emnity towards them, and I don't think they're bigots.

My original point was a very minor one, that if you are a member of group 2, you shouldn't pretend that a none of your allies are simply part of group 1. I would certainly say that Alan Keyes, who has disowned his daughter for being a lesbian even though she has campaign for him, is a member of group 1. Is that clear?

Your first comment just sounded like you didn't believe there were any people in group 2.

Personally, I think the whole idea of questioning motivation is a boring, never-ending game. People can embrace the right idea with bad intentions, just like they can embrace a wrong idea with the best of intentions (see: the history of Communism). These personal accusations wouldn't really have any bearing even if they were true.

It's not "questioning motivation" when some people, such as Alan Keyes, Rick Santorum, Marilyn Musgrave, James Dobson, Dennis Prager etc. have made it perfectly clear what their motivation is.

I can't believe that merely point out that some opposition to gay marriage comes from bigotry is this controversial. Please tell me no one's arguing that none of it does.

Of course I realize that there are people that just are anti-gay. I don't know if the examples you provide are, but surely I realize such people exist.

Your first comment about 'wandering off the reservation' implied to me that you didn't believe that to be a legitimate position.

I bet if someone could show Jesus was a Big Gay Yid, then the Christians in American would condemn him for being Jewish and say that it doesnt affect Christianity opposing homosexuality. Thats the trouble with dressing up bigotry in religious clothing.

If one US state allows gay marriage and they marry there.. will they be considered as un-married in other US states?

If one US state allows gay marriage and they marry there.. will they be considered as un-married in other US states?

Ideally, they should be considered married in other states in accordance with the Full Faith clause.