Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Personal Cruelty

Timothy Kincaid

April 10th, 2008

donnelly.jpgAnti-gays often portray their attacks as being directed against a nebulous “homosexual agenda” or perhaps “the sin of homosexuality”. This is often packaged with a claim that they love individuals, or “the sinner”.

But sometimes their anti-gay activism reveals itself to be an obvious hateful attack on individuals.

For example, Tammy Baldwin has served as the representative for Wisconsin’s 2nd congressional district since 1999. And since that time Lauren Azar, her other half, has been accorded travel privileges on par with the spouses of other Congressmen. Although the House rules specify that spouses are given travel accomodations, the former House Speaker, Dennis Hastert (R-Ill), had waived the rules for Azar.

However, when Azar prepared to accompany Baldwin on a fact finding mission this year, the Pentagon blocked her from traveling on a military plane. The situation was resolved when current House Peaker Nancy Pelosi informed Defense Secretary Robert Gates that she was waiving the House rules to allow Azar to travel.

From the AP

The Pentagon still has in place its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bars gays from serving openly in the military. But that had nothing to do with this case, said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

“This is strictly about following our statutory guidelines and the House rules,” he said.

Morrell said that Pelosi asked Gates to honor her decision to waive House rules to allow Azar to travel and that Gates asked her to put that request in writing.

“She did so, and he — in this one case only — agreed to it,” Morrell said. “This is not a precedent by any means. This does not open the doors for life partners to travel on congressional delegations.” But Gates has agreed to review future requests on a case-by-case basis, Morrell said.

Now most living breathing people see this as a simple act of decency. Most folks would think it odd to insist that Baldwin be the sole Congressman to travel alone.

However, Elaine Donnelly and the AFA spin it differently

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness calls this situation “a slippery slope.” “This sets a disturbing precedent because it tends to suggest that marriage doesn’t matter, [and that] marriage of people of same-sex or any such association should be treated as the equivalent of marriage,” she contends.

Donnelly believes this gives ammunition to those who want to change the military’s policy of not allowing homosexuals in the military. “This is an incremental step forward for the gay rights agenda,” she continues. “These things are all interconnected. This radical social change doesn’t always happen overnight with a court ruling. Sometimes it comes creeping along incrementally.”

This is a single instance of a consideration granted to an associate in Congress. Donnelly’s concerns about a “slippery slope” ring hollow when compared to the assurances of the Pentagon.

So why, then, does Donnelly find Azur’s travel so objectionable? Why would she complain that Azur should not be granted passage?

Simply, because Baldwin and Azur are gay.

By her attack on the travel of a specific individual, Elaine Donnelly discredits any presumption of principled objection and reveals her agenda and herself to be petty, spiteful, and cruel.



April 10th, 2008 | LINK

The AFA and their abnormally intense interest in the sexual lives of others is extremely disturbing. If you look around on their website, you won’t find much about family, but you’ll find PLENTY about gays and the so-called “gay agenda”.

April 10th, 2008 | LINK

But Elaine Donnelly is right: it IS a slippery slope, because it implies that other considerations may actually be more important than, and so may be allowed to take precedence over, homophobia. And where is that going to lead us? Once people start thinking like that, it could even lead to an end to the shameful waste of resources and of taxpayers’ money involved in discharging perfectly competent and well-qualified personnel from the military just because they happen to be gay/lesbian. Heavens above!

Jason D
April 10th, 2008 | LINK

Anti gay Person 1: Geeze we’ve got to stop this, it just isn’t right!

Anti gay Person 2: I know, pretty soon they’ll be equal to us! Then how else will I make myself feel special??

April 10th, 2008 | LINK

Comparatively this is nothing.
When they go to court to take kids away from LGBT parents, or deny them visitation, now that’s being personally cruel.

April 10th, 2008 | LINK

If the gov’t wasn’t in the social business at all i.e. “legal” marriage this wouldn’t even be an issue. The whole argument for or against is stupid. I wish the gov’t would leave me totally alone I can handle my personal and legal relationships just fine on my own as can any normal human being.

April 10th, 2008 | LINK

I wish the gov’t would leave me totally alone I can handle my personal and legal relationships just fine on my own

Alex, you can handle your personal relationships on your own, but where legal relationship are concerned the government is of necessity involved.

zoe kentucky
April 13th, 2008 | LINK

Wonderful circular logic they have working there– they claim that this sets a precedent that somehow disrespects marriage while they simultaneously support forbidding people who would LIKE to marry to do so because it would undermine marriage.

Meanwhile what do they believe gay people should do ultimately? They often say that we have the right to marry– just not each other. Carrying that to its logical conclusion is that gay men and lesbians should marry each other! Because that would add great strength to the institution of marriage and wouldn’t undermine its purpose or meaning at all.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.