Sunday, April 26, 2015

Bruce Jenner

Bruce Jenner is in fact a poster child. Emblematic of all of those who have been closeted, made to feel different in an ugly and cruel way, and yet despite the attacks to the very core of their being have come out. As Republican.

What is it about so many that allows them to align with a party that would not invite them to a party? Why would a gay couple host a fundraiser for Ted Cruz? And why would someone like Jenner, who will undoubtedly spend the remainder of her life advocating for one cause, look for  comfort, solace and protection from the group that has spawned the likes of Bobby Jindal?

Jenner has the opportunity afforded to a precious few in a beleaguered community to have a voice. And the next time she speaks, I would hope what we hear is the voice of reason, passion and determination. Of a Democrat.


Anonymous said...

He was my hero in the Olympics way back when, and she's my hero still for having the courage to live by her convictions. Jenner, in the Friday night interview, appeared surprised that political affiliation had any rightful place in the conversation.That aside, to be fair, the intolerance cuts both ways. Even as America has become more tolerant of the GLBT community, radical secular left liberals have become ever more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views. That intolerance is rooted in the identity politics that dominates today's Democratic Party. Which explains the born-again opportunism of Hillary Clinton who recently tweeted: "Sad this new Indiana law (RFRA) can happen in America today. We shouldn't discriminate against ppl bc of who they love." By that standard Hillary, and many prominent Democrats, including Obama (opposed gay marriage until 2012), discriminated against gays because she opposed gay marriage until March 2013. Now she wants to be seen as leading the new culture war against the intolerant right whose views she recently held. The same reversal of tolerance applies to religious liberty. When RFRA passed in 1993, the ACLU were joined at the hip with the Christian Coalition. Now the ACLU denounces RFRA because it wants even the most devoutly held religious values to bow to its cultural agenda on gay marriage and abortion rights. Liberals used to understand that RFRA, with its balancing test, was a good-faith effort to help society compromise on contentious moral disputes. Today's liberals, who believe they have a monopoly on morals and ethics, renouncing it 20 years after celebrating it says more about their new intolerance than about anyone in Louisiana, Indiana, or America.

Anonymous said...

With regard to this debate a reading in today's NY Times Sunday Review p.5 by William Eskridge titled "It's not gay marriage vs. church anymore" may be enlightening. It would also be helpful when discussing intolerance that Bruce Jenner would be stoned to death in many other nations in the world.

Robert said...

The RFRA grew out of a response to a Supreme Court case that failed to protect religious minorities from unnecessary persecution (the underlying case involved the use of peyote by an Indian tribe and a denial of the right to treat this an exception to an underlying law prohibiting possession of this drug). It has been applied to other situations where religious minorities (like Muslims growing beards in prison)had their rights (which were not imposed on others, but only dealt with their own actions)threatened. IT DID NOT involve an attempt,as in Indiana and Arkansas, for a NON-PERSCUTED religion to use the law as a WEAPON instead of a shield, and to have a law with intended DIRECT IMPACT on others.

As to the change in position of some Democrats, no one should be proud of past prejudices but we should gravitate towards those who have listened, understood and responded accordingly. Only one party falls in that category.

Lastly, I would not hold as a badge of honor that we do not stone to death those who are not heterosexual (although, over the course of time, there are some in our society who have acted with disregard for the value of a life that they don't understand or agree with).

Anonymous said...

Anyone, nine years of age or older, with half a brain, is capable of connecting the dots: A change of position by key powerful Democrats has everything to do with political expediency, i.e. garnering votes, and absolutely nothing to do with high moral principles. That's the only gravitation that has any meaning, and BOTH parties understand and employ that basic principle. Anything else is distorted, delusional, and naive. Another principle, from quantum physics, holds that everything not forbidden is compulsory, and social engineering liberals are intent on importing it into politics. They may well come to regret this choice. The movement for state recognition of same sex marriages has succeeded in changing public opinion by appealing to people's sympathy and values like love and acceptance. They will lose this good will if they adopt the illiberal standard that "equality" MUST mean stomping on religious liberty. Talk about sore winners!!!!