Ken Blackwell has gotten himself into some trouble over some remarks he made about gay people.
Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a leading candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee (RNC), is coming under fire Monday for making remarks this summer that gays and lesbians suffer from a “compulsion” that can be “restrained.”
Can we please get some Republican leadership who don’t talk about gay people like they belong in a leper colony?Â Seriously.Â There are bigger things to worry about than what’s going on in other people’s bedrooms.Â One wonders whether Ken Blackwell considers how he would feel if someone suggested his attraction to his wife was a “compulsion” that must be “restrained”
This whole chairmanship race is turning out to be all the worst problems with the Republican Party on parade.
24 thoughts on “Reconsidering Blackwell”
This is what happens to a political party, or any other institution for that matter, after a long period without any credible and competent leadership.
GWB has been a good president in certain areas, some of which were vital, but history will not honor his failures of leadership.
Bush blew all his political capital on the war. But in addition to that, I think he’s a horrible administrator. Obama will be much smarter, and competent, which should scare us.
Technically true, but then as a hetero one suffers from the same compulsion, just aimed differently. Unless you’re asexual or a priest, in which case you’re either just as deviant in your own special way or will eventually develop a compulsion towards young boys.
The belief that homosexual orientation is “OK” or “not OK” is not the deciding factor on an individual’s treatment of homosexuals or even a determination that they really care what’s happening in the bedroom. Homosexuality is a political issue due to both sides. Homosexual rights groups DEMAND to know where candidates stand on their issues of interest, while anti-homosexual voters DEMAND that they stand somewhere else. If a candidate did not want to let his position on such issues be known, do you really think he could get away with it?
Me? I will state that my view is led by my Christian faith: the Bible clearly states that homosexual activity is a sin. Does that mean I avoid all contact with homosexuals or limit my comments to rebukes for their behavior? Nope. I interact with them the same as anyone else. I’ve hired homosexuals, promoted them over heterosexuals, worked for a homosexual, gone drinking with homosexuals, love and respect many homosexuals. Living in the San Francisco Bay Area gives you an opportunity to see beyond stereotypes. What they do in the bedroom matters as little to me as the activities of my heterosexual friends. Sure, some Christians might obsess about such things, but I can tell you from experience that most that I know don’t.
Don’t fall into the trap of someone thinking that homosexuality is “wrong,” “a sin,” or “unnatural” equates to “let’s round up the gays and kill/imprison/persecute them.” In my mind, I’m far more concerned with the GroupThink of those who want to turn the perceived tables and make my beliefs into a crime than whether Tab A goes into Slot B or not. Many of us who oppose the homosexual agenda oppose it far more due to the “agenda” part than the “homosexual” part. That agenda demands lockstep obedience that seeks to silence critics, remove the right to free association, control what is taught to children, and generally muck about with our rights and liberties.
If this were a case of them crying out, “Leave us alone to live our own lives!’ I’d be right there marching with them. But instead, a vast number of them chant, “We’re here, we’re queer, and you’ll accept us on our terms or we’ll bludgeon you with legislation to force you to!”
Yeah, yeah, I know someone out there is yelling, “Homophobe!” but, whatever.
Oh, and if “someone suggested (my) attraction to (my) wife was a ‘compulsion’ that must be ‘restrained'” I’d laugh and go about my business, because I don’t care what they think. I wish homosexuals would do likewise.
Ken Blackwell is only slightly saner than Allan Keyes.
I don’t think you’re a homophobe JR, and I know and respect many like you. But I do think when it comes to the politics of homosexuality, the extremes on both sides take it too far. Much of what is said in public is a signaling, and I think there are ways to signal that you don’t buy into the more insane parts of the gay rights movement without signaling that you might buy into the idea of using public institutions to shame gays.
For instance, opposition to gay marriage is one thing. I think changing the federal constitution to define marriage (not a federal issue) is taking it too far.
Gay marriage is going to become part of the Constitution one way or the other. Either an amendment will be passed making it M-F only or the courts in so many states will approve M-M & F-F that the SC will be forced to address it due to the reciprocity clause.
Like slavery, there is no way that we can have GM in some states and not in others.
In a way, all sex is a compulsion that must be restrained, lest we be boinking at work, in the supermarket, at the range….
Hahaha… true Rusty.
Actually, the Supreme Court has generally held that full faith and credit doesn’t apply to marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act was quite unnecessary. There’s a public policy exception from it which has held that states don’t have to recognize marriages if it violates, say, a law against polygamy. I don’t think at any point it need become a federal issue. It very well may, but I will continue to believe that the federal government should leave the business of marriages to the states.
What do you find so offensive? We all have impulses- to eat too much, to have sex with every pretty woman, to sleep 9 hours. This is no different.
The implication is that gays should restrain their compulsion, he didn’t say impulses. I took it to mean gays should refrain from having relations. It’s one thing to personally believe that, but he’s running for a high profile spot as head of a political party, which is going to end up alienating itself from much less socially conservative younger voters if it’s not careful.
I think for social issues, the Republicans would be far better served sticking with opposition to gay marriage and abortion, and keep the rest to their own, personal beliefs.
Of course they should restrain from relations. It’s unhealthy and outside of traditional marriage. And straights should also aot have relations outside of marriage. This is hardly a radical point of view.
It is quite impossible to check one’s ethics and principles at the door when entering the public square. But even if you disagree with Ken Blackwell, remember that the RNC Chairman doesn’t shape policy!
It’s not a radical point of view, but it’s not something that is any of the government’s business. But the point that he doesn’t shape policy is a good one, but I’m more concerned about the image he might create for the party.
Yes, the image of returning to the principles that won for Reagan and in 1994…. instead of today’s image of squishy Ford/Dole/McCain Republicanism.
Gee, I thought Reagan won on a smaller government platform, not a gay cooties one…
There are no cooties involved with simply suggesting that sex is only appropriate within a traditional marriage. I think the burden of proof is on you, Tam, to show what such suggestions are not best for society.
I think it’s pretty clear from the wide variety of laws (dating back to the era of the Founding Fathers) that there’s a certain government interest in sexual interactions; there’s a lot of opportunity for bad things, or at least things that require civil if not criminal charges. I don’t mean to compare homosexual sexual activity to anything that should be criminal, but there are quite a few examples of the latter that occur
The nature of civil marriage is that of government; it is literally nothing more and nothing less than a piece of government paper. It’s entirely government interest and nothing more.
There are a lot of good arguments on both sides. Clayton Cramer can demonstrate more than a fair share (literally) of individuals self-identifying as gay and not exactly being gay in what most people would consider a healthy manner (and probably does on his blog right now), and the nature of democracy is that when much of the population is squicked out by a matter not previously marked as special, the matter gets dealt with. If the point of legal marriage is to promote long-term male-female sexual pair bonding, making alternatives might reduce that effectiveness of that promotion.
Or alternatively, long-term male-male and female-female sexual pair bonding could be well worth promoting (I expect even Cramer would prefer that to the orgies he normally links about). Or enough people could be for it to make it a self-evidently good idea. Or it could just be fair.
The “government shouldn’t give a damn” doesn’t hold enough water when you’re on the side of government recognition.
I think the vast majority of the human populace would beg to differ, as would a number of those who have common law marriages. In practice, if the concern is sex outside of marriage, there are much bigger fish to fry.
No, gattsuru. There are no bigger “fish”, as so much is tied to this moral decline. With a growth of the welfare state, the government is taking the place of fathers. Traditional families create a structure that allows family members to depend on each other and succeed without government help. Therefore, it is quite impossible to divorce social issues from the fiscal.
If your concern is moral decline, there are much, much bigger fish to fry. The Milgram Experiments, an EITC that’s paying women to have children out of marriage, a society that goes out of its way to untie success from effort and consequences from actions…
Gay’s maybe a percent or five of the human population. Immoral idiot’s a good deal more.
You’d have to find gay sex to be extremely immoral to make up for the quantity difference, and last time I leafed through the Bible it wasn’t near that — unpleasantness to visitors resulted in entire cities being turned to ash (remember the attempted rape of genderless angels occurred as they were warning Lot to get the hell out), while turning individuals over to their unnatural lusts was a punishment but (imo) not as bad as holy fire.
Why are you defending queers, when they are at the head of the gun control cabal? I’d rather they spend their time and political capital fighting for gay marriage than for a ban on handguns.
KNOW YOUR ENEMY.
Gattsuru: do you honestly believe that homosexuals aren’t largely responsible for the decline in heterosexual morality? It is the homos who pushed the Kinsey report and child sex. When queers are routinely molesting children, mere adultery seems OK by comparison, so it becomes more common. As a result, we have more boys raised by women alone, who become queers and gun control supporters. It’s like the graffiti in NYC: eliminate homosexuality and other sexual deviants will be put on the spot as well.
Comments are closed.