Groups like the National Organization for Marriage and Yes On 8 have nearly perfected the ability to disseminate half-truths and blatant lies about what legalizing same-sex marriage entails. Despite their YouTube videos, marriage equality legislation does not hamper religious freedoms. For example, churches will not lose their tax exempt status for refusing to let a same-sex couple wed under its cross. But in writing the instructions for marriage equality, Vermont has gone the extra step in writing down exactly how legalized gay marriage will impact religious freedoms. Namely: It won’t. And can’t.
And it shouldn’t! Let religious institutions operate under the same First Amendment rights that the rest of us expect. Practice your religion however you want, even if you hate gay people. That’s your right. And while we may write terrible things about your policy of preaching hate, we’ll never insist you lose your right to do so.
Vermont went the extra step to make all this perfectly clear. The state’s “new law says in its ‘Public Accommodations’ section that religious groups ‘shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request . . . is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage.’ It also bars civil lawsuits against religious groups that refuse to provide goods or services to same-sex weddings,” writes David Benkof in the Daily News. “Now, the Vermont Clause certainly could go farther. I would like to see protections for individuals – not just organizations. Still, it’s a vast improvement over the other states that have implemented gay marriage without concern for its repercussions on the traditionally religious.”
Benkof is right. That is, until he’s wrong. A “traditional marriage” supporter, Benkof goes on to list (or rather, repeat from misinformed others) all the terrible things that religious types have faced because of legal same-sex marriage (which is why he’s such an advocate of Vermont spelling everything out explicitly). Among them:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
• A year ago, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered a Christian photographer to pay $6,600 for declining to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.
• Boston’s Catholic Charities in 2006 had to end its long history of facilitating adoptions because Massachusetts law would have required them to place children without any attention to whether the home had both a mother and a father or involved a same-sex couple.
• The California Supreme Court ruled last year that providers of in-vitro fertilization must perform the procedure on women in lesbian relationships even if they believe strongly that children need both mothers and fathers.
He’s incorrect on all accounts, and such sloppy journalism is a disservice to the debate. But you’ve heard enough of our harangue. Allow the excellent and straight-forward Rob Tisinai to explain the difference between legal same-sex marriage laws and anti-discrimination laws. (He addresses some of Benkof’s examples specifically.)
David Benkof
It’s interesting that I don’t say most of the things the video suggests people like me say. I didn’t say gay marriage will force churches to marry gays (I specifically denied that). I also said some of the examples I gave were due to non-discrimination laws, something the video makes a big deal of “debunking.”
I agree that there’s a lot of irresponsible rhetoric on my side. That’s part of why I opposed Proposition 8. But if people read my comments carefully, I think they’ll see that I’m much more careful.
rogue dandelion
@David Benkof: I am puzzled, a traditional marriage supporter having an account with queerty?
David Benkof
@rogue dandelion: Yup, isn’t it refreshing to have more than one opinion represented?
Kevin@BGFH
Ugh, I hate when I’m in a situation where I can’t put on the sound and the punchline is on video.
Alec
@David Benkof:
In other words, completely unrelated to marriage and in fact related to the provision of services to people, or rather the denial thereof, in a commercial context, on the basis of sexual orientation? What you desire, in other words, is a special, statutory exception (a “special right”) to discriminate, yes?
Tell me, were you speaking up and condemning the lies of your peers when those marriage amendmets targeting domestic partnership benefits, marriage and civil unions were passed from 2000 to 2008?
What you call “irresponsible rhetoric” I call a knowing lie. So thanks for stopping by, David, but I’ve heard it all before. I realize that you’ve embraced Jewish Orthodoxy, but please play it straight on the intellectual front, too.
David Benkof
@Alec: It’s not on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s on the basis, for example, of whether there’s both a mother and a father in the family. I know gay families with both a mother and a father. In other situations, its whether the marriage is real (male-female) or counterfeit. I believe people and certainly institutions should be able to choose to provide services only to families with both a mother and a father, and marriages that are male-female.
ChristopherM
Not if they are working in the public sphere, David. And that is what your side simply does not get. If you want to play in the public sphere, you have to follow the law. That means you don’t discriminate against otherwise qualified people based on familial status, sexual orientation, etc. ad nauseum. If you don’t want to follow those rules, I suggest you not try to take advantage of the benefits that come from being a player in the public sphere.
Alec
@David Benkof: The New Mexico Human Rights Commission did rule that it was an act of sexual orientation discrimination in its April 2008 order, which is being appealed (and I am uncertain of the outcome). More lies from you.
And marriages between same-sex couples are not “counterfeit,” David. No amount of screaming that they are is going to make them so, and no amount of legislating against them will prevent those couples from living as husband and husband or wife and wife. Your superstitions notwithstanding, you will lose this one.
John Santos
Uh, David, I thought you gave up fighting for the side of wrong? You made a BIG deal about no longer supporting Yes On 8 because you leanred something unseemly about the Yes On 8 people. Yet here you are once again opposing equality. Why don’t you just go out and finally find that women you’re always blathering about, get married and live your life and leave the rest of us well adjusted adults to seek out our own marriage bliss.
Yup, isn’t it refreshing to have more than one opinion represented?
Too bad you don’t beleive that when it comes to the comments section of your blog, David. Clearly you only support differing opinions, when they agree with your opinion.
Alec
@David Benkof: BTW, David, do you also believe we should be free to deny services to interracial and interreligious marriages? What if my deeply held religious beliefs lead me to consider those marriages “counterfeit”?
If you were at all consistent, you’d oppose efforts to compel me to recognize those marriages by providing services to those couples. Unless this all boils down to anti-gay discrimination….
John K.
David: I don’t know if you remember me, but we exchanged several emails probably about a year ago. You opposed Proposition 8? That doesn’t seem to line up with the arguments you made to me a year ago.
David Benkof
@John Santos: John- I have no idea what you’re talking about. My blog has people on all sides, including Mark Barton, who intelligently defends gay marriage on a regular basis, and sometimes Fannie of Fannie’s Room. I only reject comments for libel, ad hominem attacks, or the refusal to give a valid E-mail address.
Alec-
As a conservative-leaning-libertarian, I don’t think it’s hardly ever the government’s role to tell private businesses what to do. But there is a huge consensus in this country that interracial marriages are no different from same-race marriages, but there’s a majority that thinks there’s a difference between real and counterfeit “same-sex” marriages. I oppose the government shoving a minority viewpoint down the throats of people who have sincere moral beliefs about the sanctity of (real) marriage.
Alec
@David Benkof: 1. You are not a libertarian. You are not using libertarian arguments. If you were, you would be arguing for something that the vast majority of the American public finds unacceptable. Instead, you’re arguing for statutory special rights (and a perverse, incorrect reading of the First Amendment) that would authorize anti-gay discrimination but not discrimination on any other basis.
2. You have failed to address your repeated lies. Here is the appeal of the Elane Photography order: http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ElanePhotoAppeal.pdf
3. I have sincere objections to covenant “marriages” and “marriages” among religious fundamentalists, as I believe they are inherently sexist in nature. Why aren’t my sincerely held beliefs being respected by the law? Why am I not permitted to discriminate? It seems very unjust to me. Particularly when my marriage would be held to a very different standard in your ideal world.
Mark
@All:
My Dad said it best: “You worry about you and they (others) will worry about themselves.”
Just give everybody the options available and they will choose what they want or need.
And, looking at my own extended family I can honestly say that there is nothing “sacred” about “real” marriage.
David Benkof
Christopher M-
You think people working in the public sphere shouldn’t be able to discriminate against male-male etc. marriages. I disagree. You can defend your position in the legislative and judicial arenas, and I’ll defend mine. That’s what your side doesn’t get. It’s not like there’s a wave of civil disobedience. The law is what it is today, but we can change it if we want.
Alec-
Gosh, you think male-male marriages are not counterfeit and I think they are. We all knew that in the first place. What’s your point?
John K-
The people behind Prop. 8 had an antisemitic legal counsel and made some gross homophobic arguments that I just couldn’t support. I still support man-woman marriage and am glad that that’s the law in California. But I wanted that particular initiative to fail.
Alec-
Read again. I didn’t say I was was a libertarian. I said I was a conservative-leaning-libertarian. This isn’t discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’m gay and I plan to marry (real marriage) someday. It’s discrimination based on whether a marriage involves a man and a woman or if it’s something else. You claim I have made “repeated lies,” yet you haven’t delineated even one of them. Please specifically and clearly, with quotes from me, list three of my so-called lies so I can respond.
You are welcome to advocate any policies you want in government as do I. Go ahead and oppose covenant marriages and see how that works out. I’ll go ahead and oppose same-sex marriages and we’ll see how that works out.
Mark-
Finally someone who agrees with me! “Just give everybody the options available and they will choose what they want or need.” Religious people should have the option to accommodate or not accommodate same-sex “marriages” and they can choose what they want or need. Thank you!
Alec
@David Benkof:
1. Let’s start with the Elane Photography case. You have stated:
It’s not on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s on the basis, for example, of whether there’s both a mother and a father in the family.
That is a lie. The determination by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission was that it was sexual orientation discrimination in the Elane Photography case. It had nothing to do with marriage.
2. You are asking for special rights to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation that are unavailable when the issue is interracial marriage, interreligious marriage, “covenant” marriages, etc. The *very* fact that you *only* wish to discriminate against male-male and female-female marriages illustrates that this is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. You’re engaged in an act of sophistry. You refuse to admit that you want a special exemption that is unavailable to any other form of bigot because you realize that your side uses what you call “irresponsible rhetoric.”
3. Your desire to enter into a counterfeit mixed orientation marriage because you are self-loathing is your decision to make. No one is denying that right to you. But your Orthodox quicksand marriage is not something I am interested in supporting if, say, you come to me and ask me to draw up a premarital agreement. Why should I be forced to provide services to couples in counterfeit arrangements like yours? Why shouldn’t I be free to discriminate?
David Benkof
1. Nope. I said that regarding the Boston and California cases. For the New Jersey and New Mexico, it’s whether the couple is male-female or not.
2. We can disagree on that point, which I have already addressed. But how did I “lie”? Do you know what a lie is? It’s a deliberate misrepresentation. Sophistry, if that’s what I did (and I don’t think I did) doesn’t count.
3. I think you should be free to discriminate. But again, how is this a lie? You said “repeated lies,” yet you can’t list even one. Now, it’s you with the credibility problem.
Alec
@David Benkof: So do you now admit that the New Mexico case is one of sexual orientation discrimination? Or don’t you? It’s very hard to tell, you keep shifting the parameters of the debate to suit you. And you refuse to address the fact that you are arguing for a special exemption from antidiscrimination laws.
I gave you a link to the NM appeal; the discrimination was sexual orientation discrimination. Similarly, the CA Supreme Court explicitly determined that there was no “religious exemption” to the state’s laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In both cases, it was sexual orientation discrimination. So, you’re lying, because that was the basis of both cases.
stevenelliot
@David Benkof: Mr Benkof. I just read your short bio on wikipedia and Im a it confused with a couple of things there:
Are you as it says on the page “openly gay”?
Im not sure how one can be openly gay when one does not practise sexual relations with the same sex.
I am also concerned with why you found anti-semitism unacceptable by the “yes on 8” supporters, but their gay discrimination didn’t make a dent with you.
You are by the description on wikipedia both gay and jewish so why is one bigotry felt less by you than the other??
Plenty of gays met their end right by your ancestor’s side in the gass chambers
David Benkof
The New Mexico case is discriminating against the fact they were same-sex, not lesbians. If it was a lesbian marrying a gay man, I”m sure the photographer would have worked the gig. So it’s not sexual orientation discrimination.
I don’t trust the antisemites at the ADF, sorry. If that’s the “experts” you can best come up with, you have a long way to go.
And I’m not lying. I didn’t know about the brief until you mentioned it. Lying is deliberate misrepresentation. If I’m unaware of something and don’t mention it, I’m not lying. Even if I was, you said “repeated lies.” Can you name a few more? Or do you want to admit you were hyperexaggerating?
David Benkof
Steven-
I am openly gay/bisexual but I don’t have sex with anyone. What term would you use for someone attracted to men but not having sex?
I absolutely was appalled by the homophobia coming out at that campaign, and if you google my name and the prop. you can probably find examples of my speaking out.
Gays did not, by and large, die in gas chambers. They were in Poland and the vast majority of anti-gay activity was in Germany.
Alec
@David Benkof: I have repeatedly stated that the New Mexico Human Rights Commission determined it was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. By your logic, a restaurant that refuses to serve a gay couple or a landlord that refuses to rent to a same-sex couple is only engaged in “same-sex couple discriminaion” and not covered by the anti-discrimination statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That’s false and legally incorrect (to say nothing of reprehensible). And since you keep repeating the lie, you have no cause for complaint.
See how it works, everyone? If someone fires you for being gay, they’re engaged in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If someone fires you for having a picture of your same-sex partner on your desk, they’re just discriminating against you because your relationship is counterfeit, not because you’re gay.
TANK
@David Benkof:
That’s right. They were usually worked to death, given the most demanding work schedules and most risky jobs.
stevenelliot
@David Benkof: Maybe you should refer to your sexuality as Morrissey-esque LOL
I stand corrected about where the gays were sent to die in the concentration camps BUT the idea remains the same. Jews and gays are two notoriously disliked groups and there are lots of people that believe we both will burn in hell.
I feel you are giving the same answer that a lot of gay blacks do: “Im African American first, and gay second”
Which is fine. No problem with that Youre religion trumps your sexuality. Youre jewish first and gay second……
David Benkof
Alec-
Your first paragraph is pretty much correct. But I’m stating my opinion about same-sex discrimination, not a legal conclusion. I’m not a lawyer. I’m a commentator. I state my opinion. My opinion is not a lie just because your or the state disagrees with me.
Your second paragraph is off. I have said nothing about sexual orientation discrimination. You’ll see that if you read my NYDN piece and the comments above. My concern is about couple/marriage religious freedom. I actually supported ENDA before I realized it might lead to same-sex marriage (which is what happened in Massachusetts and New York – see my blog for more).
StevenEliot-
Of course my religion trumps my sexuality. My beliefs in eternal Truth are far more important than what gets me aroused. Are you saying it’s the opposite for you? If so, that makes me sad.
Mark
@David Benkof:
And the Law should have the choice to accommodate straight “unions” whether they want to or not.
Whether they last five years or fifty. Fifty in the case of my Grandparents. Grandpa Ken now lives in Florida with his 25 years younger secretary and Grandma Margie…Well. Yeah. She’s “special.”
I say give everyone “marriage,” “union,” and “Common Law” and they can choose what works best for them. For however long it lasts.
Alec
@David Benkof: This is why debating opponents of LGBT equality (you are such an opponent) is extremely frustrating. You acknowledge that you are arguing that private actors should be free to discriminate against gay people on the basis of their sexual orientation in the provsion of services, but you attempt to redefine it as “same-sex couple” discrimination to make it more palatable. Yet you only do this when you are cornered; until then, you argue, very nebulously, that marriage equality will result in infringements on “religious liberty.” You also have a habit of referencing decisions from other jurisdictions that do not have the robust First Amendment protections we enjoy in the US, and you avoid the conclusions with coy diversionary tactics (“your first paragraph is pretty much correct” or “my opinion is not a lie just because your or the state disagrees with me”). In fact, though, you are broadcasting a claim to an audience that is not familiar with the facts of the particular case. Nor are you honest about the incredible loophole your exemptions would create; anyone who discriminated against gay men and lesbians could point to a religious objection to homosexuality, and no anti-gay discrimination would be prohibited.
“Your second paragraph is off. I have said nothing about sexual orientation discrimination.”
But you have. By discriminating against same-sex couples, you are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact, it is when people are idenified as members of a same-sex couple that they are most likely to face discrimination in housing and the provision of goods and services. So you have no problem with the landlord who refuses to rent to the gay couple, or the restaurant owner that refuses to serve them.
Also, I do find it sad that your religion has moved you to a position of self-loathing and hampered your personal growth and potential, but your Orthodox religion is nothing that need concern me, or others. I find a Jewish man arguing for majority control over the lives of others very sad.
David Benkof
Alec-
I have made no argument about landlords or restaurant owners. You are putting words in my mouth. My argument is about caterers, photographers, in vitro specialists, and adoption agencies. It’s about wedding halls. As I have said, I am of two minds about sexual orientation discrimination laws, but presently am against them because they could lead to same-sex marriage, and between the two evils (gays being fired for being gay vs. legal counterfeit marriage) I’m much more afraid of the latter.
As for self-loathing, ad hominem attacks are not becoming of you. Let’s stick to the issues.
JamesR
@David Benkof: Your arguments, as stated above, are NOT libertarian ones. Libertarian views are correctly presented and even advocated for by the video posted by Rob Tisinai.
I note you have avoided addressing those arguments, premises, and conclusions. I don’t think you can. Libertarians do NOT believe in State endorsement of any religion. To start with.
Your example of the legalization of mixed race marriage, your defense of it, NOT Libertarian. It’s the argument Ken Starr was making to the California Supreme Court defending Prop. 8. Following the same reasoning, if the ‘majority’ disapproved of miscegenation and passed a voter initiative to outlaw it, would that be OK? You are saying it would be. You are arguing for the “tyranny of the majority,” and demonstrate ignorance of American history and the intent of the founders.
Of course when you try to redefine HOLOCAUST history, um, your grasp of the concept is revealed. I am not going any further there – that’s futile – but it tells where you are coming from. Thanks for demonstrating your thought process for us. Please do this loudly, publicly, and often. Your unreason helps our cause amazingly.
Alec
@David Benkof:
Your argument is about the provision of services in a commercial context. There is nothing inherently different when we are not discussing a religious activity, like the performance of marriages by clergy. In fact, you are misrepresenting your own words again….or “lying” as we call it on planet Earth:
“Now, the Vermont Clause certainly could go farther. I would like to see protections for individuals – not just organizations.”
You said nothing about limiting it to particular services or industries, like photography, catering and in vitro specialists. Again, you lie within the space of what, hours? The charitable explanation is that you are completely ignorant of the topic.
Nor do you have cause to complain about my reference to your hatred of your own sexual orientation, as you’ve repeatedly referred to gay relationships as “counterfeit” and, additionally, you posted this:
Of course my religion trumps my sexuality. My beliefs in eternal Truth are far more important than what gets me aroused. Are you saying it’s the opposite for you? If so, that makes me sad.
Reducing us, again, to bedroom activity, as though that was the be all end all of our existence and our relationships. So yes, in that context, if you would like to apologize for your offensive statements, I will stop referring to your self-loathing as self-loathing. And please remove your religious choices from this conversation; I have never believed in your tribe’s sky god, and I don’t care for it when the religious majority attempts to impose their beliefs on me; I’ll certainly make no exception for Orthodox Jews.
David Benkof
James R- I never said I was a libertarian. I’m a conservative-leaning libertarian. I support the legalization of marijuana and oppose helmet and seat belt laws, but many of my other positions can fairly be called conservative.
I do not believe in state endorsement of any religion. I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that there are good secular arguments for that (see my blog).
As for the issue of the majority, the fact is if enough Americans wanted to repeal the 13th-15th amendments and make blacks slaves and non-citizens again, they could. It would be horrible, but in our democracy the majority, and especially a supermajority for Constitutional amendments, can literally do anything it wants. Believe me the founders would not have supported counterfeit marriage!
As for redefining Holocaust history sorry but you’re wrong. I happen to have a master’s degree in history from Stanford, with a seminar paper (like a master’s thesis) on gays and the Holocaust. I’m an expert. If you’re sure more than a handful of gays went to gas chambers, please provide simply one legitimate link to a Web site that says that.
Alec-
I’m really sick of your accusations of lying without any concrete examples. I’ll leave it to the readers to decide if I’m lying or not, and I’ll end my dialogue with you for now. If you withdraw your tired accusations of lying, I’d be happy to resume.
JamesR
@David Benkof: You really can’t use the word “Libertarian” if you combine it with philosophy that is not. Like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or are not. Saying you are a “conservative-leaning libertarian” implies you are a more civil rights conservative conservative, the way conservatives and lots of Republicans USED to be. Yet your thought processes are of the new ‘conservatives’ that have MUCH LESS in common with real libertarians, civil libertarians, those who REALLY believe in smaller government. Your defense of the possibility of repealing the 13th amendment is but one example. – I am not going to expand on that here my fingers would cramp up – suffice to say that matter, as with miscegenation, is settled. In the Real World.
Only someone with the wish to live in the rarefied world of his own belief system, rather than the real world with the rest of us argues like that. Your vaunted degrees have done you no good. Knowledge by itself is not wisdom. So you have a collection of knowledge? It does not show. It is not doing it’s job. It is not informing you properly. Bummer.
I am NOT going into Holocaust history. Note I did not say anything about it save for indicating I disagree with your dismissal of Stevenelliot’s point and your implied reasoning for doing so. There is no arguing with Holocaust revisionists. The first thing they invariably do is trot out their degrees and their pedigree. Diminishing, parsing, victimhood is distasteful beyond belief, yet you just did that a few comments back. “We were gassed more than you, nya nya nya” Does this help? Plenty of gays were exterminated in camps. Yet because homosexuality was still a crime when they were freed there was no incentive to admit you were a criminal to get to go to a nice jail eh? For the truly curious, see “Paragraph 175” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0236576/ No debate. Stevenelliot’s point was that you seem to have no sympatico as double object of persecution by Nazis. Guess you don’t. Point made.
The marriage the State recognizes is a CIVIL UNION. My religion says I can get married to a man. [The religion of Thomas Jefferson by the way.] Your religion can do whatever it likes. A non-Catholic can’t marry a Catholic, that’s fine. Yet a Catholic and non-Catholic can get a marriage license at City Hall. That is called religions freedom and civil freedom. Having your religion tell my government to refuse me a right – an equal and civil right – that my religion on the same grounds grants me, is an establishment of religion case. A case your side as argued will loose ultimately in favor of true religious freedom.
Scott
@David Benkof:
“If you’re sure more than a handful of gays went to gas chambers, please provide simply one legitimate link to a Web site that says that.”
1. Can I point out the more than obvious fact that of the 6 Million Jews murdered during the Holocaust, and a lot of them being by put into gas chambers, more than a “handful” were also gay.
2. The majority of gay men persecuted during the Holocaust – for being homosexual – may not have been sent to the gas chambers, but thousands were sent to concentration camps through “Extermination Through Campaign”, not to mention thousands of others who were mutilated through castration.
This is like all your other arguments, based on minutiae (i.e. “it’s not about being gay, it’s about same sex couples” – but you even get wrong on closer inspection – see point 1). So gays weren’t sent to the gas chambers for being gay, but they were persecuted and murdered, that’s the real point. Gays, simply because they choose to live and marry according how and who they love, should not be discriminated against by individuals or business that provide services to the public at large.
David Benkof
James- Twelve hundred times more Jews died in the Holocaust than gays. Not twelve hundred more Jews. Twelve hundred times more Jews. Plenty? I guess so.
If you can provide a source that suggests that Thomas Jefferson supported same-sex marriage, great. Otherwise, I’d ask you to withdraw your horribly offensive comments suggesting one of our country’s greatest leaders supported counterfeit marriage.
If you think this is an establishment case, bring a lawsuit. I’d be happy to have the Supreme Court decide if it’s a violation of the First Amendment to have only man-woman marriage. I’m confident you’d lose, and it’s those nine robed justices who get to decide what the First Amendment means, not you.
David Benkof
Scott-
A lot of the Jews who died in the camps were left-handed. Does that mean left-handed people were persecuted during the Holocaust in huge numbers?
Please.
JamesR
@David Benkof: You are parsing victimhood. Why? That was not the point of the holocaust reference, made by Stevenelliot and pointed out again by me, sympathy was. Not competition for greater or lesser amounts of bodies. You are counting the trees and missing the forest.
Jefferson as Unitarian – yes, debatable – but if one examines the history, his writings, Unitarian is what he was. Unitarians as a thinking body, evolving, yes today would Jefferson be a Unitarian Universalist in favor of Gay Marriage? Dunno. But I did not say that. The denomination moist closely associated with Jefferson for very good reasons is the Unitarians. Since 1996 they have endorsed same sex marriage, and have performed partnership blessings since the 70s. That is what I was referring to. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to be ore specific.
However I do not thank you for deliberately misunderstanding me. Some people argue to argue, or to get a last word. Others argue actually to make their points and leave it at that. After that a valuable discussion only proceeds when each addresses the actual points and actual reasoning of the other. I made my points, they stand, you’ve said what you’ve said, I’m done.
J
Stop bickering for a second.
This man is GAY, but doesn’t support gay marriage.
He wants a REAL marriage someday to a woman he doesn’t love.
I think we should all leave him to that, and maybe feel a bit sorry for him?
stevenelliot
Please Mt Benkof. Judaism is a mut religion anyway. You can thank ahkenaton for your religion. Or ahkenamen before he renamed himself to worship only one God. You know this guy?? He was the heretic king of egypt who made all the common folk worship only one god.
Jews didnt create monotheism they stole it from good king ahkenaton. They also plagarized circumcision, kosher foods and most of the fables of Egyptian mythology.
Ramses threw all the Jews out so they could then go fuck up Palestine.
Religions are like buttholes…everybody’s got one and they all stink. Except those guys who wear Andrew Christian underwear LOL
I brought up jews and gays in Nazi germany to emphasize our incestuous relationship at the hands of bigots. Hilter knew very well how backass and ultra-christian southern germans were and he used it to his advantage. Just like the religious right uses gays now. as a political tool.
The religious right must just love you (and Jona Goldberg).
Ad nauseum…..all of this
David Benkof
Hey everybody I’m going to be offline for 48 hours for the last two days of Passover. But if anyone has any questions or conversation, I’ll check back Thursday night and I’m happy to respond.
Alec
To: Everyone else that can read
Re: Self-loathing “conservative libertarian” homosexual David Benkof’s ridiculous claims
1. You may *not* refer to him as self-loathing or point out the absurdity of his situation, but he *may* refer to your relationships as counterfeit.
2. He claims that he doesn’t believe states should be religious:
I do not believe in state endorsement of any religion. I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that there are good secular arguments for that (see my blog).
Of course, I doubt Benkof applies this logic to his beloved religious apartheid state of Israel. Neither here nor there, except to cast further doubt on his credibility. But you see, secular objections DON’T MATTER TO BECKOF:
Indeed, his fraud has been exposed elsewhere: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/david-benkof-behind-the-mask
So don’t waste your time. He’s part of the extreme anti-gay movement, he’s more accurately described as “ex-gay,” and he’s a twit who has no idea what he’s talking about, to boot (not surprising, given the contradictions inherent in this man’s “life”). And if this seems brutal it is for a reason: He is your enemy, and has established himself as your enemy, and he uses lies, half-truths and distortions to accomplish his goals, like any seasoned anti-gay activist.
Timothy
“I am openly gay/bisexual but I don’t have sex with anyone. What term would you use for someone attracted to men but not having sex?”
Well, let’s see. I would use “a guy with unwanted same-sex attractions who opposes gay equality and uses his gay history to argue against the rights of gay men and women”.
As for being “openly” anything, I’ve found that you’ll call youself just about anything depending on what you think it will get you.
You see, David, that’s your problem. You are fighting a battle, waging a campaign, seeking to win, supporting your ideas, defending your faith. And to the tormented, those actions can justify about anything including lying, twisting words, distorting facts.
But we are just living our lives. We don’t have to convince ourselves of anything. We don’t have to be gay one day and bisexual the next and queer another time and “not gay” when needed and fighting against gay activists one week and pretending to be part of “our community” the next and providing testimony on behalf of ex-gay groups to the CA Supreme Court that you are proof that orientation isn’t fixed at all and eventually I guess you are neither gay nor straight nor bisexual but something you’ve named “delta”.
You know something, David. No one would have any problems with you if you just went away like you said you would last June. Just stop with the lying. Just go try and figure out your own tortured existence and leave us happily gay folk alone.
Alec
@Timothy: Very well said.
Phoenix (Mild Mannered Transcriptionist By Day, Nelly Freedom Warrior By Night)
@ David Benkof,
See a shrink…I, too, have read your wiki-bio and you need some help, son.
As to the Jeebus (and Orthodox Yahweh) freaks, I would like to refer you to Commandment Numero Nine…Exodus 20:16 “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
That is all.
HYHYBT
@J: Better to feel sorry for *her*, whoever she may be.
One thing that’s backwards in this thread: those in *favor* of gay rights are arguing against the possibility of someone being gay (openly or not) without having sex: in other words, that homosexuality is what you do rather than part of who you are. Isn’t that usually the other side’s argument?
Brianna
@HYHYBT:
On the first point – he says he is openly “gay/bisexual”(FYI you can’t be both.) so maybe the marriage will be loving…only if he is actually bisexual and his future wife isn’t a self-hating lesbian.
and I agree with your second point and with Alec who said “Reducing us, again, to bedroom activity, as though that was the be all end all of our existence and our relationships.”
David Benkof
Timothy and Brianna:
I know you’d like me to volunteer *one* sexuality box that I fit into, but I don’t believe that everyone does fit into one of the boxes the gay community has settled on in recent years (and the choices were different in 1969, and 1945, and 1923 – read your gay history). I make no apologies for using the term I think best fits the situation, for none of the terms fits my unique-as-a-fingnerprint sexuality (as is all of ours).
Timothy knows, because we’ve discussed it before, that when I did my interview for the California brief I was unaware it was sponsored by ex-gay groups, and I would have refused had I known. Yet he still brings it up because he’ll throw anything anti-Benkof at the wall and see if it sticks. Not a very impressive debating strategy.
Alec
@David Benkof: Before I rip into you, I hope your passover was pleasant.
Anyway…
1. Your “unique” sexuality aside (everyone’s a little snowflake), everything about it fits the warped sensibilities of the “ex-gay” movement. These “ex” gays typically, even where they have same-sex attractions, deny them out of religious principle. Which is what you do. Moreover, your “gay/bisexual” identity only emerged after you resurfaced as an Orthodox Jew.
2.
a. All we have to go on is your claim that you were “unaware it was sponsored by ex-gay groups,” yet your past support of the “ex-gay” movement strongly suggests otherwise:
b. Moreover, this is what you said about mutability and strict scrutiny in that brief that you so regret:
Poor David the repentant homosexual/bisexual would be stigmatized! (Newsflash, and you’ve made it abundantly clear you’re far from a legal scholar at this point, but mutability isn’t the most important component of the heightened or strict scrutiny analysis, by far; age and mental retardation are immutable characteristics and subject to rational basis review, as well as height, build, etc.).
Again, I invite rational people to read about you here and come to their own conclusions: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/david-benkof-behind-the-mask