Comments on: Heroes don’t need whitewashing

By: Jay Jonson

Jay Jonson — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:09:20 +0000

I think you are misunderstanding both Lithwick and Cathcart. It is Litwick who implies that the Lawrence decision is something of a sham because Lawrence and Garner were not poster models for gay relationships. She implicitly criticizes Lambda and other organizations for not pushing the plaintiffs to the forefront of the case. But the case was not about them. It was about the law. It is the law that was evil and needed to be at the forefront of the case. Lamdba did not whitwash Lawrence and Garner. They simply avoided the rather louche circumstances of their relationships and histories. The fact that the police lied about whether they were having sex or not just makes the injustice done them even worse. Sodomy laws were used to punish people regardless of whether they had sex or not.

By: Mudduck

Mudduck — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:21:41 +0000

A casual reading of the New Yorker review might leave the impression that Lawrence v Texas was misconceived — Lawrence could have justifiably pleaded Not Guilty and avoided all the fuss. Kevin Cathcart of Lambda Legal wrote to emphasize that the arrest of Lawrence and Garner was based on the exercise of an unjust law. The actual innocence of the parties only makes the injustice more apparent. That point needs to be understood, and I didn’t think his making it was “huffy.”

Juries decide on the basis of arguments and evidence presented to them. These seldom reflect the whole truth. Lawrence v Texas was a legitimate attack on an unjust law. The story behind the case shouldn’t be confused with the principles at stake.

The controversy reminds me of the case of Barry Winchell, the soldier murdered because he was perceived to be gay. The incident was pursued as a case of gay-bashing, which it was. In fact, however, Winchell was not gay — he had fallen in love with a woman who happened to be transgender. The woman, Calpernia Addams, allowed the gay angle to be dominant until Winchell’s killers were convicted — it made a simpler story at the time.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:18:35 +0000

EOJ I think that we are in agreement, though perhaps the way I wrote the commentary led you to believe otherwise. If it helps, think of it this way: The law is for the powerful and influential. [they have the ability to convince legislators and sway voters] But the Constitution and it’s protections are for [those who society considers] losers. And drunks. And the unpopular. And [the people that are called] deviates and perverts and faggots and c*cksuckers and sodomites like John Lawrence and Tyrone Garner. And for [those who are called] radical homosexual activists like Lambda Legal who have to scrap and fight and work with what they have.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:14:30 +0000

David W, thank you.

By: jpeckjr

jpeckjr — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 18:00:27 +0000

This assessment of Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner and their relationship is interesting in a number of ways. It prompts me to ask this question, though.

Does this information put Lawrence v Texas at risk of being reversed? No. I do not think it does.

“We weren’t doing anything except being gay,” means they were arrested simply for being gay, and that is what sodomy laws allowed to happen. That is what Lawrence ended in this country.

By: EOJinDC

EOJinDC — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 15:35:13 +0000

@Lucrece, would you please provide a link or two to back up your specious assertions about Dr. King? Rustin was one of King’s closest and most trusted advisors. There were others who pushed King to leave Rustin in the shadows, but Rustin was his own man. If there were times he remained in the shadows, it was because he realized it was the 1960s and was able to see the larger picture. The Civil Right Movement had enemies who perpetuated the same misinformation you are repeating here. In fact, Rustin and Dr. King’s relationship was so close that efforts were made to try to paint Dr. King as a homosexual. What you’re saying is wrong, but if you can provide some links that aren’t from a website run by hate groups or based on surveillance docs from Hoover’s FBI, I’d be happy to read them.

This statement is insane:
The law is for the powerful and influential. But the Constitution and it’s protections are for losers. And drunks. And the unpopular. And deviates and perverts and faggots and c*cksuckers and sodomites like John Lawrence and Tyrone Garner. And for radical homosexual activists like Lambda Legal who have to scrap and fight and work with what they have.

The law is for one group and the Constitution is for “losers”? I thought the words etched on the US Supreme Court were, “Equal Justice Under Law.” Then, there are all these pesky ideals like, “All men are created equal” and “E Pluribus Unum.” We should be working to eliminate the imbalances in the law not embrace them.

We’re not “[deviants],” “perverts,” “faggots,” “c*cksuckers,” and “sodomites” and neither were Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner. They were gay, adult men and Americans. In fact, SCOTUS agreed and found their rights had been violated. The law and the Constitution are what protect us from our fellow ignorant, bigoted, hate-filled Americans. They are what says that, no matter what others think of us, we are are fully entitled to all the rights and protections guaranteed therein. Obviously, recognition of those rights and privileges isn’t always synched with their timely enforcement, but that’s when we fight.

I hope you would reconsider framing your view in such divisive terms. By the way, if you think the Constitution is for the dregs of humanity, does that include big corporations? SCOTUS recognizes them as people and gives them more right and protections than it affords LGBT people. You can think of yourself as a deviant or a pervert if you want, but please don’t paint the rest of us with your big, wide single color brush. Thanks.

By: Lucrece

Lucrece — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 05:57:15 +0000

MLK was abominably sexist and known to badger his wife into abandoning her professional aspirations to play the housewife traditional role. He kept Bayard Rustin in a glass closet, using him begrudgingly.

I don’t get this point about transforming leaders into deities. It happens with Obama as well and his star struck supporters. It happens with the other side as well.

The people I trust the least are those who go under a prim and proper visage. If you don’t know someone’s true depths and the ugliness that resides within, you don’t know them at all.

By: David Waite

David Waite — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:52:41 +0000

You call yourself a conservative. I call myself a liberal. Labels are things that divide us even as they never truly define the real us: The map is not the territory.

All the things you’ve written here about heros, and everything you wrote in the column titled “Who Speaks For Jesus?” are things I’ve been saying all my life about both subjects. I can’t really say ‘kudos’ to you because it would feel like patting myself on the back.

The next time one of my progressive acquaintainces precedes a smear with the phrase “all conservatives” I’m going to link to these two columns and say a semi-polite version of “shut up.”

By: GBM

GBM — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:58:54 +0000

“Being familiar with Carpenter’s writing for some time, I know that he is thoughtful and nuanced and, while at times controversial, not inclined to statements that lack support.”

This. This 10x.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:16:58 +0000

Hear hear!

I absolutely couldn’t agree more. And I’m looking forward to reading Dale Carpenter’s book.

And I’m very dismayed that Cathcart seems to have become confused about what the issue before the court really was all about.