Join 3,553 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


February 25, 2000
3:03 PM   Subscribe

Oh my, this is one of the most surprising bits of info I've seen in a while. I've had disagreements with my dad before, but it wasn't like he went out and started a proposition against me. We talked about prop 22 a couple weeks ago, but what I didn't know until today is that the guy behind it, Republican state senator Pete Knight has a gay son that he doesn't speak with, and his son feels the proposition is rooted their private family conflict. [news link poached from Jason's wonderful running tally]
posted by mathowie (13 comments total)

 
Not only that but he had a gay brother who died of AIDS complications a few years back. He only refers to him as his "peculiar brother."
posted by Awol at 3:33 PM on February 25, 2000


Oh, that's right, I had forgotten about Knight's brother also being gay. Wouldn't it be weird if the rest of Knight's family were accepting of homosexuality, and it was just Pete? (Is it Pete? The article said his nickname was Pete, but that his first name was William. I don't know if I can call him Pete. Maybe Peter. Maybe Dick.) All of them keep telling Pete to get over himself, so to spite them he comes up with Prop 22. Talk about a persecution complex.

Matt, do me a favor and vote against this thing for me, since I'm not a Californian. (Not that I see you ever voting for something like this, ever.)
posted by jason at 4:31 PM on February 25, 2000


Bloody hell. The ads for "Vote Yes on 22" made me ill, if only for the reason that at least one of those kids in those commercials is going to realize they're gay or bi as they get older, and they're going to have to carry the fact that they were in such a commercial (probably without knowing what it was for as they were shooting it) with them.
posted by jason at 5:07 PM on February 25, 2000


Speaking of which, I've filed this in the "It would be funny if it were in the Onion but since it's from my hometown newspaper it's only mildly amusing and mostly disturbing" department.
posted by luke at 5:43 PM on February 25, 2000


hmm...strange thing. Someone from the No on 22 campaign called me tonight for some survey stats. They asked me my position and what I thought of 5 or 6 statements I suppose they were using in advertising. None of them were very good, and I was surprised to hear the caller say in one ad "Al Gore and Bill Bradley do not support gay marriage" so I guess even if this is defeated, it won't mean that much, if all four major candidates oppose gay marriage.
posted by mathowie at 7:25 PM on February 25, 2000


One of the reasons my brother and his fiance put off marriage for so long (and, in fact, are still putting it off) was/is their reluctance to endorse an institution that prohibits any of their gay friends from joining. How 'bout that! A straight marriage "threatened" by the homophobes!
posted by luke at 7:38 PM on February 25, 2000


No offence to your brother and his fiancee luke, but that is plain silly. If they want to get married, that's great, and they shouldn't let 22 or their gay friends sensibilities stand in the way - sounds to me like some very over the top political correctness.

BTW, in Ireland 22 would not even be *raised*. Divorce was legalised in certain circumstances in 1995, after the couple has been seperated for 5 years, and contraception was only legalised about 20 years ago.
The fact that California can vote on the issue of gay marriage at all is a testament to the openess of society there.
posted by tomcosgrave at 8:22 PM on February 25, 2000


I guess it's the principle of not patronizing restaurants that don't allow black customers.
posted by luke at 8:34 PM on February 25, 2000


re: luke's brother -- one time i was listening to car talk and this woman called in w/ a question & she refered to her "partner's car" and so the car talk guys asked her if she said that because "girlfriend" sounds so silly among adults and she replied that no, her partner is her husband, but they prefer the term partner because it's the only inclusive term & the whole discussion was just really interesting. i didn't find it to be annoyingly PC or anything, just a case of breeders participating in quiet resistance of hetero-centrism. i thought it was pretty cool of these people to refer to each other as their partner. even without the straight/gay connotation it's a nice word.
re: prop22 commercials -- this woman wrote a funny blow-by-blow deconstruction of one. these commercials (and the whole issue) are just another reason why i'm glad i live in NY and not CA. i dont know how i'd feel if i were innocently watching tv and got assaulted by this brand of blatant homophobia. yuck.
posted by palegirl at 10:46 PM on February 25, 2000


I am so sickened by proposition 22 and the campaign that surrounds it that I had to do something. Hence, like any good, responsible citizen, I wrote a letter to the Protection of Marriage Committee. Besides being theraputic, as I got to get my frustration out, it also turned out to be a rather entertaining task. Of course, as I am not only an out-of-stater, but also a Canuck, I doubt that my 2 cents are worth even that.

As an aside, if homosexual marriage tars the sanctity of the supreme holy union between a man and woman, then what, prey tell, does a show like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" do to it? In my country, the exchange of money between a man and woman for services performed on a "romantic" vacation is called something other than marriage. I wonder why the Protection of Marriage Committee didn't jump up and down on that one? After all, hundreds of thousands of people saw that show and its representation of marriage. And there's more episodes to come......

posted by Ms Snit at 2:23 AM on February 26, 2000


well i'm queer and if it's the *sanctity* of marriage that is to be protected you'd give me no right to it ... i'd be rolling in the aisle ... never could resist a good satire.
posted by de at 8:00 AM on February 26, 2000


Luke - about patronizing black customers - a restaurant, as an entity doing that, would be actively discriminating against something, without argument. Marriage is not an entity per se - the people who are against gay marriage are not going to single-handedly decide the argument.
posted by tomcosgrave at 9:52 AM on February 26, 2000


"Speaking of which, I've filed this in the "It would be funny if it were in the Onion but since it's from my hometown newspaper it's only mildly amusing and mostly disturbing" department." - Luke

Why is that, exactly? It seemed completely appropriate to me, and in line with the first amendment's right to freedom of speech. I don't agree with his decision to support, but I certainly don't agree with her resort to stealing instead of opposing his decision legally. Why—if she's obviously sensible enough to oppose the proposition—is she breaking the law instead of speaking out support for putting down the proposition? The ninth amendment of the constitution states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This right is important, and it's necessary to realize no matter how much you oppose something, if your actions interfere with others freedoms, you should consider exactly how important this issue is to you. Is it important enough to risk losing your own rights? For your sake, I hope not.

Why not put up your own sign, make your own commercial, or launch your own web site?
posted by gleemax at 7:29 PM on February 27, 2000


« Older Important News Bulletin: The HighFive, Projectcool...  |  If you were to draw one stick ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments