My note to American Spectator about public nudity in San Francisco
This morning I read a very good article on how liberals go bonkers for ever more strange government rules and regulations. Here is is:
And I can agree with most of it, I really can. Especially the part about the very strange idea that one can walk around in San Francisco completely naked. To me it’s just strange; even disgusting. I would think it impractical too; where does one keep the wallet and the keys? I think it’s dangerous to walk around naked, but I live in Louisiana where the mosquitoes would have a buffet of unimaginable proportions. Not to mention one hell of a sun burn. Still, certain things are just uncouth, public nudity is way up high on the list.
But R. Emmett Tyrrell, the publisher of the magazine and author of the piece still is a bit puzzled over the gay thing, which he somehow tries to tie in marriage with this nudity thing. Oh, years ago he was a lot worse, he’s come a long way, baby. I hope he comes a little further down the pike, I do. He uses the phrase “goes too far” as his riff, or motif, and I point out to him that there are many on the Right who go way too far in their unholy unChristian and unAmerican campaign to rid the nation of her gay citizens. Here, I try to help him, by posting this there to him:
Though, but first, a little visual imagery of the “gay problem” in this nation, and how we’re all trying to figure it out:
Yes, that’s one of my maze paintings, complex eh? Like life itself, indeed. OK, the article >>
Well, Mr. Tyrrell, one reason I’ve been reading this magazine for 3 decades is that you are very correct on many things. But as usual, you are a bit perplexed about us gay folks. I don’t know what liberals want or think any more than you do; I’m appalled at the public nudity in SF. But I don’t live there, I live in Louisiana, where the mosquitoes would eat you alive if you tried nudity outside, I assure you. So, first, don’t lump us all together. Yes, we got Frank and San Fran, and well, you heteros, you got Pelosi, and well, San Fran. I can’t vote there, I can’t get them out of office, anymore than you can.
But on whom wants what — it is we gays who have always requested some decency, and yes, marriage. From the very beginning, in the 1950s, not the Stonewall Riot, no. And we had to beg the liberal heteros just as much as we keep begging you conservatives; and many of them still don’t get it.
Alas, some of you still “go too far” — I dare say for Tony Perkins of the FRC and Bryan Fischer of the AFA to repeatedly call for my arrest for merely smooching whom I wish to smooch is way too far. It’s nuts. To arrest us all, and incarcerate us together, for being together, well, that’s just weird logic. But he’s trying, maybe you should tell him to shush for “going too far.”
As for marriage; well, I understand the problem you have with the word, I do. Years ago I proposed “twainage” — I have also said that if hetero family law is say, Title 2, and we don’t fit it, or you don’t want us in it, then give us Title 2.5 already, and be done with it.
We keep telling you we’re born this way; many of you still are basically calling us liars by saying “choose” — we don’t know why. What can I say, folks are just wrong on this; put us on the autism spectrum and stop the “evil” stuff.
But then too, I know two couples here in my city, Richard & Guy, and James & Kyle. Each couple has been together for over 32 years. Each owns one of the gay bars in town, and their own homes, and both bars have been going for more than 30 years. And if that’s not small business Main Street American married couple tax paying decent citizens I don’t know what is. Ironically, one of those bars is literally on Main Street!
Now these two couples have had to go through legal gyrations of many kinds to effect what they need to do — and in a way the state already recognizes the “partnership” for we partners do it through commercial law. And so your mission is to figure out how to move all these gay couples, and more to come (us older gays never got much relationship practice, so it won’t be us; but younger couples abound — like the one redecorating the house down the block from me. I don’t know them, they seem happy though,) away from the hodgepodge of commercial law to the conformity of family law, even if by a special section for us.
And along the way stop the arrant nonsense that gay people are “Attacking” anything. I can’t help it if some liberal gays are ninnies, but us conservative gays try to talk them out of it. But I can’t do much with guys like Rick Santorum simply going way too far in calling for my criminalization once again to save my my family. And you know, I address these many things on my blog, which links through my name; perhaps you might go and learn a thing or two of my family values and what I want. Thanks.
And well, I think that’s enough for today. I shall now go tend the 89 year old I tend, and help him through his day in his own home – because as Maggie Gallagher of the bizarrely named “national organization for marriage” says I’m unfit for human company. Bizarrely named, yes, for its sole purpose is to debase, destroy, prevent, and harass any marriage or unions or even a simple smooch between us gay folks – she’s not “for” anything, except slander and libel against me, oh, but I digress – this woman says I’m pretty much a worthless human being with no values and no decency who is out to wreck her world by not wanting hers in mine. She wants to “help” me find myself or something. Why doesn’t she haul her tuckus down here and help me out? I need a break from my labors. I need to go paint a flower painting:
I doubt I could get an NEH or NEA grant, however. My art is too happy; not controversial enough.
- Posted in: Uncategorized