With Leaders Like This. . . .

The latest group of gay activists to lose their minds:

We seek access to a flexible set of economic benefits and options regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender/gender identity, class, or citizenship status.

We reflect and honor the diverse ways in which people find and practice love, form relationships, create communities and networks of caring and support, establish households, bring families into being, and build innovative structures to support and sustain community.

This document reads like science fiction from the Golden Age: idealistic, hopeful, and completely out of touch.

Wayne Besen, who provided the link, thinks this is a sell-out. I just find it irrelevant.

If the country is having this much trouble dealing with same-sex marriage as a one-on-one committed and legally recognized relationship, what the hell do these people think the reacion is going to be to something that sounds like nothing so much as a gay hippie commune?

This is reflective of something that has caused no end of impatience on my part with the gay movement -- we are overly inclusive. Yes, liberal politics depend on coalition building, but tailoring our movement to fit the needs of others is not the answer.

Talk to me again fifty years after same-sex marriage is legal in this country.

Morons.

Andersen, et al.

I've read Johnson's concurrence in Andersen again, and managed to get a copy of the opinions in Herndandez vs Robles, the New York State case that is, indeed, even a worse example of judicial reasoning than Andersen. Rather than giving a blow-by-blow of either, since both contain dissents that are right on target, I may just make some summary comments -- after I've had a chance to think about them some more (and after I get through a couple more reviews and a letters column -- I'm on deadline).