|
For those of you from the Upper West Side, the "homo" in homosexual comes from a Greek root meaning "same." Homo milk in Ontario is homogenized, as in the cream blended into the milk so it won't separate.
Evelyn Waugh had a character's father explaining the point, no doubt using the correct Greek pronuniciation.
Presumably "homo" as in the Latin Homo sapiens sapiens - human or perhaps man (masculine inclusive of the feminine) confuses folks, perhaps because "men who prefer boys" have always gotten more press than lesbians.
Toquam met the Lesbian tour leader of _Cruising the Castro_ - definitely a must see if you go to SF, if only for the book stores and the restored movie palace. She was sure the "homo" meant men only, but was willing to check a dictionary and said thanks for enlightening her.
Andrew Sullivan has a print piece called "Clinton's Cowardice", quoting my Senator Hillary Clinton sputtering on a PBS news show, trying to explain that "marriage" has a meaning and we cannot change it.
"So there you have it. The senator from New York State is opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians."
Now, usually Toquam runs out front when it comes to calling either Clinton a "waffler, prevaricator, and a straddler" - great language, Mr. Andrew!
But here I think he is a couple steps behind the curve.
Of course liberal Democrats do not really believe in "equal rights for gays and lesbians" - the Party platform has included a homosexual equal rights law for 40-odd years, and no matter how large the Democrat majority in Congress, that promise never became a bill, and no bill ever even made it into Committee, let alone out of Committee and to the floor for a vote.
Harvey Fierstein has a point - Senator Kennedy gets pretty uncomfortable if the conversation turns to actual sexual behavior - which may explain the utterly unprincipled but sincerely "championed" policy called "don't ask, don't tell, don't unzip." Yo, Ted - repeat after me, "None of my business..." You'll find it liberating.
Again for you Upper West Siders, Bill Clinton had promised that "a stroke of the pen" would eliminate barriers to homosexuals serving in the military, as soon as he was inaugurated.
So sorta maybe almost a little _keeping_ a promise started that kerfuffle. No wonder he does it so rarely ;-)
Paul Tsongas was openly pushing the tried and true "homosexual rights act" and Clinton wanted the money as well as any votes homosexual rights groups might provide - $7 million by some counts for 1992.
So in a sense, Clinton _might_ have been less dishonest than Tsongas - unless Tsongas thought he might deliver on the promise?
Al Gore may be the one who _believed_ that complete abstinence from sexual behavior, on or off base, could be acceptable to a bunch of folks celebrating _sexual_ liberation, "coming out of the closet" and grappling with their own inner demons. A lot like neo-Thomism - no sin unless and until you act.
But let's go a step further here - is it possible that a good Methodist like Hillary, who got her left-wing politics from a left-wing Methodist youth group even when she was still a "Goldwater girl" libertarian ... just cannot re-define, re-construct or re-invent the word "marriage" to include same-sex copules?
Close call, folks.
Most of the Hillary quote straddles shamelessly - she takes credit for the "Defense of Marriage Act" and also just sort of mentions it, the essense of a Clinton (don't blame me, blame Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh).
But let me try out an analogy?
Religious conservatives in general, and right to lifers in particular, seem to me a lot like the liberated homosexuals.
At least if you look only at their relationship to the Democrat and Republican Parties.
Too much intensity, almost no one else really understands or sympathizes, and whoooiee, do these folks _scare_ lotsa undecided, middle of the road, "don't bother me with facts" voters.
So the party takes the money, volunteers and votes, maybe makes some noises and gestures - and about all the extreme brothers and sisters get ... is "don't ask don't tell" and some limits on funding foreign aid to abortion advocates and providers.
Okay, lately the Republicans are delivering just a little bit more, if you count a "partial birth abortion" ban that on its face addresses less than 5% of the 900,000 to 1,200,000 abortions every year in the US.
Look at Al Gore - for about 10 minutes, he promised a "litmus test" for the Joint Chiefs. They would _have_ to publicly accept whatever "don't ask don't tell" kludge Gore was pushing - easy for a careerist to pretend, and maybe hard to uncover if the careerist were crafty enough to make three-star in the first place. One thinks of Al Haig in Nixon's _Six Crises_, always brown-nosing, err, "That showed great courage, Mr. Vice President!"
Hell, Douglas MacArthur did not figure out that Dwight Eisenhower despised him until _years_ after Ike got top fitness reports as MacArthur's chief of staff.
Was it Al Gore himself or his fellow Democrats who dropped that "litmus test" idea so quickly? One doubts they cared much about mere military competence, and who pretends a president could discern that even if she tried?
So Toquam is appalled - Hillary _and_ Toquam _agree_?
As President Bush said about "will Jews go to Heaven?", Toquam belives God makes those big decisions, has wisely _not_ asked Toquam for input - a Good Thing, Too ;-)
So ontology, the visceral level where we "hear" the Genesis story about Eve coming from Adam's rib, of a similar Greek story about a _male-and-female_ human divided, with the consequent burning desire to "become one flesh" in sexual intercourse, or the St Paul quotes woven into the wedding service for centuries - do not forget the Christ-humanity = husband-wife" metaphor, or you will _really_ get confused - in a life partnership and maybe even in conceiving, bearing and raising kids.
God knows all about that, and Toqaum is darn glad there will not be a quiz on that point when He comes in glory to judge the quick and the dead.
Like any other point about God or God's will, religious groups and individual consciences muddle along, on a good day honestly trying to identify and follow God's will, by the lights God has given to each of us, to all of us, and perhaps especially when two or more gather together in His name, humbly listening as well as speaking.
So the Metropolitan Church, like some number of "liberal" Protestant groups, make a sacrament of a same-sex marriage - or if they are honest and we accept that honesty, they bear witness to the belief that a same-sex marriage is an outward and visible sign of God's love and power.
Toquam is a literal minded galoot - there is little to no Scripture _against_ women priests, and the "Apostles = Jesus" seems absurd - 12 sons of Israel stood for the 12 Tribes, with zero, de nada suggestion that only _Jewish_ males could be ordained priests.
Ontologically - like Hillary? - Toquam sees "same-sex marriage" as a confusion.
Does God's infinite love express itself in a same-sex union?
Darned if I know.
If Toquam heard committed, Bible believing Christians witnessing that God had revealed to them that same-sex unions _should_ be blessed ... that would be a powerful point.
But the "liberal" Christians who speak of same-sex marriage speak almost only of "equal rights," just secular self-righteousness posturing.
The same folks do not believe in revelation - if you think God spoke to you, you are nuts, unless perhaps, wink-nod, you are Norman Mailer pretending to right a "gospel" or a new age liberal psychobabbling both sides of a "dialog" with God.
In that sense, it is just like the myriade "historical Jesus-es" - plural because no two liberals seem report the same results, especially when they use the same "method."
But ol' Toquam has a much narrower calling - to show respect and courtesy for God's children, and on a good day, maybe even "love" as in philios or even agape (eros is limited to the SO ;-)
For all I know, God may well be calling some of us to same-sex unions, and some congregations may sioncerely "hear" such a call.
Of course, a deep and abiding skepticism about government helps.
Governments do so many goofy, embrassing, even shameful things, that Canada or Vermont or the Netherlands declaring same-sex "marriages" of equal dignity as the tradional kinds ... may discredit same-sex unions.
Unless you already belived the "equal rights" argument as applied to homosexuals, none of the briefs let alone the decisions will persuade any one of anything.
So hey, Mr. Andrew - I respect you, and I take your points to heart, and I hope my conduct shows that respect and even courtesy.
But as Clinton waffles go, this one seems pretty piddling.
More to the point, there seem to be a lot of more obvious betrayals of the liberated homosexuals who backed the Clintons - david Mixner comes to mind, and last I heard, Mixner is still a Friend of Bill, if a bit betrayed (he even got himself arrested doing civil disobedience at the White House over "don't unzip").
The "Defense of Marriage Act" comes to mind, and a Clinton media blitz claiming "credit" for it in black communites comes to mind.
But hey - you seem to be a better judge of Clinton lies when they concern you, so I will go read your blog to see what else you say.
|