“In states where gay marriage is legal, gays are still banned from openly marching in St Patrick’s Day parades in New York and Boston.”
So Michael Tomasky begins his editorial at The Daily Beast, “The Grotesque Ban On Gays In New York’s St Patrick’s Day Parade.”
There seem to be several confusions in Tomasky’s writing. To begin with, I don’t believe any “gays” or lesbians were banned from the parade. Tomasky never shows any evidence that only heterosexual people were permitted to participate. He never really claims it outside of his misleading reference to a “ban” on “gays.” So what is he complaining about?
He seems to be offended that groups promoting homosexuality or promoting people because they are homosexuals were not permitted to have a float or banner or some other group display.
Let’s consider the relevance of alleged same-sex “marriage.” First, since “marriage” doesn’t represent the aspirations or practices of the vast majority of the so-called “LGBT community,” it really shouldn’t mean much. A wedding cake float with same sex couples on top of it would not represent the vast majority of homosexuals or of the Irish.
So let’s move back a step to the fact that homosexual practices are legal.
I assume that both Boston and New York have no-fault divorce laws and that adultery was decriminalized long ago. If someone knows I am wrong about this for one of the cities, please let me know. But even if so this can still work as a hypothetical. So I ask: Does anyone expect special recognition of Irish adulterers on the Saint Patrick’s Day parade?
Why not? Are you a hater?
Does anyone expect Irish porn users to have their own float? What about porn stars of Irish descent?
I am sure the vast majority of Irish males have masturbated at some point in their lives, and done so legally in the jurisdictions of both Boston and New York. Probably a large number of females of Irish descent have done so as well. Why no float for them?
Just how many floats or groups at either parade featured a group known for whom they have sex with?
I’m guessing zero.
Exactly why should homosexuals be singled out as the people whose sexual preferences must constantly be put before the public in all venues?
One of the things I remember all too clearly when I was researching homosexuality in the nineties and had to read a couple of years’ worth of The Advocate–a major homosexual magazine at the time–was that it was simply obsessed with sex. There are, of course, heterosexual versions of such magazines, but the majority of heterosexuals don’t care to read them and even those who do aren’t proud about it. And such magazines aren’t typically associated with a group that is deprived of their civil rights and merely fighting for their recognition as full persons. I’m not sure how pleas for females to be more promiscuous in bath houses and advice on how to seduce a straight guy was supposed to make me feel like fighting for justice on behalf of homosexuals. (Plus, I still can’t afford anything in the ads. Can you imagine a magazine catering to African Americans in the 1950s being filled with full page ads for high-end vodka and whiskey? Yeah, all oppressed minorities should have it so good!)
The bottom line is that, even winning the legal war on homosexual “marriage” (for the moment) doesn’t mean everyone else is going to cater to your sense of entitlement to be in public view. And as someone who thinks the onslaught of recent legal changes were wrong and need to be reversed, I couldn’t be happier that Tomasky and other liberals keep pushing for more.
Their righteous indignation describes the movement better than anything that I could write against them.