In Praise of Purple

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Found in my wanderings on the 'net, a nice little piece in some obscure local paper, somewhere I've never been:

"Someone posed the relevant question: if we’re going to have a really old president, why couldn’t it have been Betty White?"

This is congruent with my own experience. In 1996 I sold my condo in San Francisco's Mission Dolores neighborhood and moved myself and my infant daughter to the Tampa/St Pete metro area (Florida). My SF and Berkeley friends said, "You'll have to throw away all your tee-shirts," meaning my extensive collection of gay-themed event shirts, like Gay Games 1990, AIDS Bike-a-Thon, the annual Gay Run competitor shirt, and assorted ACT-UP shirts. In short, they imagined I was moving back into 1955, and would have to "pass."

In fact, while I certainly encountered people whose politics were different from mine on a range of issues, I never felt I had to be in the closet. By the time the other moms on the playground got through the standard getting-to-know-you queries (Is she your first/only? Where are you from? Have you found a 'church home" yet?) and got around to, "What does your husband do?" they had already decided they liked me (or, rarely, didn't), and the answer, "I'm a gay single mom" didn't really faze them. In fact, they were more likely to be concerned that I didn't attend and didn't plan to attend church.

HRH's favorite (and quite liberal) teacher was the (long ago) former president of her campus Young Democrats club...and was married to the former president of the campus Young Republicans, an attorney who was still a registered Republican and one of the leading workers' rights attorneys in St Pete. I volunteered with the local bar association's legal aid program for tenants, and the only attorney on the panel who took more cases than I was a young man named Bryan, one of the most decent guys I've ever known, and a card-carrying Republican (much to the consternation of his liberal parents). On the St Pete Times bulletin board, where Frostbit and I met, there was a guy named Mike, an evangelical Christian who worked for the power company. Totally decent person, very conservative by any and all measures...who was very unhappy that I was going to Hell for being gay and an atheist, because he thought I was a really good mom and a good person, but terribly misguided. I truly believe that Mike would've put his own life in danger, if the need arose, to save me from harm, even though he firmly believed that I would not ultimately be "saved."

So, anyway, I sent that link (above) to Nova, Honoria, our cousin in DC, and my elder nephew. I haven't heard a single word from any of them except Nova since. Hmmm......

[Newman]

Is it time to bring a horse into the Senate yet?

[80zephyr]

I am quite sure that if the conservatives would start giving in again, we would have our "purple". How do you come to a meeting of the minds over abortion, men in women's bathrooms, gun control, etc.?

If I for a minute thought that everything would be alright in the end, I might be able to get on board.

But what I see right now is that we are barreling head on into a 1984 existence.

That cannot be allowed to happen.

Mark

[Frostbit]

Quote not working

On the St Pete Times bulletin board, where Frostbit and I met, there was a guy named Mike, an evangelical Christian who worked for the power company. Totally decent person, very conservative by any and all measures...who was very unhappy that I was going to Hell for being gay and an atheist, because he thought I was a really good mom and a good person, but terribly misguided. I truly believe that Mike would've put his own life in danger, if the need arose, to save me from harm, even though he firmly believed that I would not ultimately be "saved."

McKay was definitely concerned with the "one road to heaven" doctrine because he did care about others. Made him a bit irritating because he tried in earnest to save us all.

Who was the atheist that seemed to know everything about religious history that used to disgrace McKay in every debate? BTW, I'm still in touch with "Crimescene" the forensic expert.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I am quite sure that if the conservatives would start giving in again, we would have our "purple". How do you come to a meeting of the minds over abortion, men in women's bathrooms, gun control, etc.?

If I for a minute thought that everything would be alright in the end, I might be able to get on board.

But what I see right now is that we are barreling head on into a 1984 existence.

That cannot be allowed to happen.

We can't come to a meeting of the minds over some things. We need to remember how to disagree like civilized people. I will never agree that abortion is murder. You will never agree that gay people have the same inherent right to marry the person of their choice as straight people. Neither of us are on board with people bearing penises in women's locker rooms, but disagree and probably always will about bathrooms. We actually agree on 2A issues, but most of my friends don't.

So how could we do "purple" in a civilized manner?

We need to agree that people with religious convictions have every right to inveigh against gay marriage, and churches have every right to refuse to officiate them, but the law cannot discriminate.

We need to agree that people on both sides have every right to speak out for or against the choice to have or not have an abortion, but the law may neither prohibit nor compel one, because the legal authority to prohibit inevitably gives the the legal authority to compel; we saw that as recently as the 1960s, when women thought to be unfit (usually young, black, or handicapped in some way) were compelled to have abortions in state hospitals and prisons.

We need to come to some resolution of the legal definition of male and female, which one of us or many other people may not like, but it can't be a matter of your feelings, mine, or anyone's; it must be objective. If it's that only post-op transpeople get to use the locker room/bathroom of their sexual identity, people along the opinion spectrum are still going to be unhappy, but democracy is NOT the "tyranny of the majority" not is it anarchy; it is compromise.

As for guns, our anti-gun folks are going to have to get consistent. If the pro-choice position is, "If you oppose abortion, don't have one," the anti-gun position must be, "If you don't like guns, don't own one."

We know how to do this. We just need to eliminate the emotionalism on both sides and get civilized.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Quote not working



McKay was definitely concerned with the "one road to heaven" doctrine because he did care about others. Made him a bit irritating because he tried in earnest to save us all.

Who was the atheist that seemed to know everything about religious history that used to disgrace McKay in every debate? BTW, I'm still in touch with "Crimescene" the forensic expert.

I don't remember that one. I remember Steve from LEAP used to give him a hard time about his anti-abortion stance, but Steve just pooh-poohed religion, he didn't debate it.

[Frostbit]

I don't remember that one. I remember Steve from LEAP used to give him a hard time about his anti-abortion stance, but Steve just pooh-poohed religion, he didn't debate it.

Wow, different memories here. I remember debates involving Bible passages, etc. because I thought it was hilarious that the Atheist was holding his own debating the scriptures quoter.

On EDIT: You're right. I mixed Steve up with the guy I can't remember the name of. Steve was the stoner ahead of his legal time now that so many States have legalized pot.

[Michele]

We can't come to a meeting of the minds over some things. We need to remember how to disagree like civilized people. I will never agree that abortion is murder. You will never agree that gay people have the same inherent right to marry the person of their choice as straight people. Neither of us are on board with people bearing penises in women's locker rooms, but disagree and probably always will about bathrooms. We actually agree on 2A issues, but most of my friends don't.

So how could we do "purple" in a civilized manner?

We need to agree that people with religious convictions have every right to inveigh against gay marriage, and churches have every right to refuse to officiate them, but the law cannot discriminate.

We need to agree that people on both sides have every right to speak out for or against the choice to have or not have an abortion, but the law may neither prohibit nor compel one, because the legal authority to prohibit inevitably gives the the legal authority to compel; we saw that as recently as the 1960s, when women thought to be unfit (usually young, black, or handicapped in some way) were compelled to have abortions in state hospitals and prisons.

We need to come to some resolution of the legal definition of male and female, which one of us or many other people may not like, but it can't be a matter of your feelings, mine, or anyone's; it must be objective. If it's that only post-op transpeople get to use the locker room/bathroom of their sexual identity, people along the opinion spectrum are still going to be unhappy, but democracy is NOT the "tyranny of the majority" not is it anarchy; it is compromise.

As for guns, our anti-gun folks are going to have to get consistent. If the pro-choice position is, "If you oppose abortion, don't have one," the anti-gun position must be, "If you don't like guns, don't own one."

We know how to do this. We just need to eliminate the emotionalism on both sides and get civilized.

Unity is not possible for a lot of issues right now but civility is. That's where Biden needs to start, imo. I'm not sure who's running his pen-and-phone governing but when the kids at the NYT and Politico think you should pause...maybe you should listen to them.

[Newman]

As for guns, our anti-gun folks are going to have to get consistent. If the pro-choice position is, "If you oppose abortion, don't have one," the anti-gun position must be, "If you don't like guns, don't own one."

We know how to do this. We just need to eliminate the emotionalism on both sides and get civilized.

The response to this would be, "My abortion doesn't hurt you; your gun can kill me."

So in a twist of your rights end where my nose begins, my right to be safe trumps your right to deadly force.

[daveman]

You will never agree that gay people have the same inherent right to marry the person of their choice as straight people.

I'm okay with gay marriage. And, I think, for very conservative reasons:

1. You can't legislate morality. The desire to sin is still, in God's eyes, a sin. Criminalizing the act does not prevent the desire, and therefore prevents no sin.

2. Supporting small government means the government doesn't have any business in the marriage business. I don't think tax breaks should be given to married couples; EVERYONE'S taxes should be lowered. The only thing government needs to know is your address to get your mail to you.

Unrelated: This was my mother's favorite poem; she recited it often and with great glee. And she did indeed wear purple.