Tag Archives: lgbt rights

Eugene Delgaudio inokes the courageous sacrifice of veterans to promote bigotry against other veterans

Several months ago, I foolishly filled out a “survey” about same-sex marriage put out by the Public Advocate of the United States.  I say it was foolishly and put the word “survey” in quotes because it seems to me that the real purpose of putting the questionnaire online was to gain email addresses of potential donors.  Since then, I have received frequent emails from founder Eugene Delgaudio telling me about the latest “homosexual menace” or “conservative traitor” along with a request for more money.

These letters are both infuriating and entertaining, as Delgaudio is the sort of professional anti-gay that has to give an incendiary name to every piece of pro-gay legislation that comes out.  It’s entertaining because his outrageous descriptions of anything that might make life better for QUILTBAG people are laughable.  The infuriating part is that apparently, people swallow his outrageous nonsense and send him money to “keep fighting the good fight.”[1]

Friday’s plea for support, however, was not amusing at all.  Since Friday was Veteran’s Day, Delgaudio chose to twist people’s sense of appreciation for the courage and sacrifice of members of our military into something horribly hateful towards QUILTBAG people — including QUILTBAG people who have themselves demonstrated their courage and offered their lives in the very military service Delgaudio speaks so highly of.

The U.S. Military has sacrificed so much for us, and our government repaid them with disgrace.

Now radical homosexuals are not only allowed to serve openly in uniform, but celebrated for their perversion.

What Delgaudio decries of disgraceful and perverse is the radical notion that some QUILTBAG people want to join the ranks of the veterans whose courage and sacrifice he just praised.  What Delgaudio finds disgraceful is that people — including our current presidents — has decided that if QUILTBAG people want to make that kind of courageous sacrifice for their country, we should let them.

Truth be told, Delgaudio doesn’t care about the courage and sacrifice of veterans, at least not nearly as much as he cares about oppressing and demonizing QUILTBAG people.  If he truly cared about our brave veterans, he would care about all of them, even the ones who aren’t straight or cisgendered.

And lest anyone think that Delgaudio is unique in caring more about a military person’s orientation than sir bravery and sacrifice, consider again the following video:

That’s right, some conservatives will thank you for your military service until they find out you’re gay.  Once they find that out, they’ll boo you.

And let me once more express my own gratitude for all our veterans and current members of the military, regardless of their orientation and gender identity.


[1]  Some days, I’m not sure whether I’m more sympathetic that they’re being swindled or more furious that they’re allowing themselves to be motivated by such hateful vitriol.

The “protecting traditional marriage” lie

Last Friday, I explored some of the flaws in some equality opponents’ argument that lowing same-sex marriages will further weaken heterosexual marriages.  I think it’s equally important to understand why it’s important to actually tackle this argument despite the fact that it’s not quite as commonplace as (more overtly) religious arguments against same sex marriage.  It’s importance is best understood in light of some equality opponents’ attempt to rebrand themselves as “defenders of traditional marriage.”

You see, some anti-equality organizations have figured out that being openly identifiable as anti-gay casts them in a bad light.  The National Organization for Marriage explains this with surprising candor on their “Talking Points” page:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

“Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, ?they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

They go on to explain that it’s important to stress that they defend traditional marriage no the grounds that, in their opinion, the best families have a man, a woman, and children.  Their desire is to prove that they are for this rather than against gay people having equal protections and rights.

However, there is a slight problem with this.  You will not find a single press release on NOM’s site that isn’t about stopping, banning, or repealing same sex marriage.  You will not find any press releases about them doing anything to improve the state of marriage, the rights of married couples, or providing support for struggling families.  You will not find Maggie Gallagher or Brian Brown teaching a workshop on how spouses, parents, and children can develop better communication skills, create a safer environment for honest discussion, or deal with troubling issues like peer pressure, substance abuse, or domestic violence.  The only thing NOM wants to do to “protect” marriage is keep QUILTBAG people from enjoying its benefits.  As such, their claims about “protecting marriage” are already flimsy at best.

Challenging the idea that same sex marriages would destroy “traditional marriage” – or that “saving traditional marriage” is the burden of QUILTBAG people in the first place – serves to drive the final nail into that coffin.  When organizations like NOM can no longer fool anyone into thinking that they’re doing anything productive to protect “traditional” families, they will have to admit that yes, they really are just about stopping QUILTBAG people from enjoying the same rights and protections as their favored “in-crowd.”

Or they’ll have to come up with a new lie.

Let’s leave Kim, Britney, and others alone

I’m sure that by now, all of my readers are well aware that Kim Kardashian’s marriage ended this past Monday.[1]  Most of you have also probably seen one of the snarky jokes in support of marriage equality suggesting that it’s not gay people who cheapen marriage.  I’ve even seen photographs edited to add such comments.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity’s failed marriage has been tossed about like this by marriage equality advocates.  A similar flurry occurred when Britney Spears had her marriage to Jason Alexander annulled a mere 55 hours after they tied the knot back in 2004.  And it’s certainly understandable why those of us who want our relationships protected by law would enjoy a certain amount of pleasure in pointing out the hypocrisy of accusing QUILTBAG people of being incapable of taking marriage seriously while heterosexuals — and prominent ones at that — don’t seem to do much better.

But by Wednesday, I was getting tired of all the snark.  To be honest, while I can certainly identify with the sentiment behind it, I’m not convinced that “heterosexuals treat marriage like a joke, so quit blaming us” is a good or effective argument.[2] And it’s certainly not our best argument.

I think we need to get back to talking about how the legal protections of marriage are numerous and impossible to duplicate.  I think we need to continue to point out that SCOTUS has already determined that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental right and challenge the anti-equality crowd’s arguments for denying us that fundamental right.  I think we need to remind people why marriage matters.

And let’s live Kim’s, Britney’s, and any other heterosexual person’s failed marriage alone already.  We don’t need to resort to pointing out that we can “do better” than them.[3]  We’re better than that.

[1]  Seriously, I heard about this already, and I normally don’t find out about these things until someone living under a rock mentions it to me in passing.

[2]  Some might argue that it’s not meant as a real argument but as a joke.  The problem with this argument is that, like most jokes, it’s gotten old through repetition.  So while I might accept the “it’s a joke” stance on the face, I’d still argue it’s time to put this one to bed.

  Seriously, isn’t that what the argument boils down to?  A snarky reply of “well, we can do better than this loser“?  And talk about judgmental!