Twitter Files Pt ?

Happy New Year to all! Hopefully in 2023 the Twitter Files will reveal how shadowbanned and blocked I’ve been, and how many TERF/GC accounts are sock puppets operated by the same ADF employees.

Nice collection of my tweets

 We Hunted The Mammoth blog did a nice job collecting my important tweets in 2019. Thanks! Happy New Year to all in 2022!

2020 RNC Speech worries

Trump's speech at the RNC didn't mention transgender issues or marriage, and veered into Transhumanist superlatives near the end.

We’re a nation of pilgrims, pioneers, adventurers, explorers and trailblazers who refuse to be tied down, held back, or in any way reined in.

But we do need to rein in adventurers in male pregnancy and same-sex conception

I want every child in America to know that you are part of the most exciting and incredible adventure in human history.  No matter where your family comes from, no matter your background in America, anyone can rise, with hard work, devotion and drive, you can reach any goal and achieve every ambition..

"Every child" can't reach "every ambition" if the ambition is being pregnant.

SCOTUS in holding pattern

Wow, it's been two years to the day since I last updated this blog. I've been suckered into the ephemeral tides of Twitter @eggandsperm

Things haven't changed much. SCOTUS of course is going to keep on ruling as though same sex couples have a right to procreate together until Congress bans it.

SCOTUS makes same old mistake

Justice Kennedy's opinion today disappointed me because it makes the same mistake that everyone has been making for years, that of treating same-sex couples as if they were infertile married couples, instead of treating them like siblings and other relationships that are prohibited to marry. But since, as I confidently predicted, it did not declare a right to procreate with someone of the same sex, then the path forward is the same as it was before: Congress needs to pass the Natural Marriage and Reproduction Act to prohibit creating a person except by joining a sperm of a man and an egg of a woman, prescribe the effect of marriage as approving and allowing the couple to procreate offspring together, and void all same-sex marriages in the United States.

Transgender Rights and Gay Marriage Starting to Converge

Reality TV star Bruce Jenner is bringing the issue of Transgenderism into the mainstream just at the right time, when the Supreme Court is about to issue a ruling on same-sex marriage that will probably result in same-sex marriage in every state. It's important because the public will be much more primed for understanding and agreeing with the logic behind the Natural Marriage and Reproduction Act that ends same-sex marriage, which is that actually trying to procreate with someone of the same sex would be too expensive and unethical and unnecessary and put the baby at extreme risks and we should just rule it out. 

Bruce Jenner can change his own body all he wants, dress how he wants, be intimate with who he wants, but we should draw the line when other people are put in harms way. We should not let men put a baby into harms way by trying to be a mother to a baby, either with a womb transplant or with stem cells, artificial eggs, etc. It would also strain our hospitals, divert resources from other women's pregnancies and children, and divert research from needed medicine, and there is no right to try it.

The exact same logic applies to same-sex couples trying to create a baby together. When we realize that, we will understand why same-sex couples do not have a right to marry and we have to void all same-sex marriages.

EggAndSperm Turns Ten!

Thanks to Blogger for hosting EggAndSperm blog for 10 years running!

Exposing the Kochtopus astroturf groups agenda

The internet is full of Kochtopus astroturf groups pushing libertarian agendas, but few people realize the Koch Brothers (at least one of which supports gay marriage), are also heavily involved in the marriage debate, dominating the messaging and legal strategy opposing same-sex marriage. Virtually every group on Twitter that opposes same-sex marriage (like @NOMupdate, @AllianceDefends, @PublicDiscourse, @Heritage) are known to be Kochtopus groups (well, NOM won't release the names of its top two donors), and probably many of the individuals who tweet in support of #1m1w (like perhaps @LisaGraas), also are paid to spread a certain message. But with the pay comes legal gag orders to not reveal the funding or talk about reproduction rights or using genetically modified gametes with someone of the same sex.

The media plays along, serving the pre-packaged story, and other pro-SSM groups play along, conspiring to establish the Kochtopus groups as legitimate social conservatives, knowing they are libertarians pretending to be social conservatives, funded by the Kochtopus and gagged by their funding contracts.

It’s easy to catch them in contradictions like how "What Is Marriage?" logically means fathers and daughters should be able to marry because they have the ability to form "bodily union" and procreate, because they are forced to make arguments that further their mission to separate conception rights from marriage, the connection of which is why fathers cannot marry daughters. It's also easy to spot them when they refuse to support any bans on genetic engineering children or making same-sex offspring, or any laws that preserve the conception rights of marriage.

Basically, their mission is to drown out my argument, and eventually lose the marriage debate, coming away instead with victory in the form of religious freedom to do whatever transhumanist nutso things they want to do and a weakened federal government that can’t stop them.

We need to ask @RyanT_Anderson and @Joe_LaRue and virtually everyone else on Twitter arguing for traditional marriage if they think marriages should have a right to procreate offspring, and if they think people have a right to attempt to procreate with someone of the same sex. I think it would be surprising to most people, to learn that they agree with gay marriage advocates about procreation rights. They all oppose the two objectives of the Natural Marriage and Reproduction Act I am pushing, the federal law that would actually end same-sex marriage by prohibiting creating a human being using cloning or genetically modifying or from same sex progenitors, and would protect the procreation rights of marriages to have natural children together using their own gametes. It seems to me to be a criminal treasonous conspiracy that needs to be exposed and defeated.

Comments deleted on NationalReview personhood article

Unbelievable! I spent all afternoon commenting on a NationalReview.com story on embryos and contraception, and then someone suddenly swoops in and deletes all my comments!! Well, thanks to the CommentSave plugin, I can at least retrieve my words and copy them here. Too bad they are in reverse order and it's only my comments, but here they are. So screw NationalReview.com, don't bother commenting there, it's just Libertarian astroturfers who censor out conservative arguments.

Right, we should ignore scientists when discussing moral and legal definitions. I mean, we should rely on science to help us make policy choices, like say banning harmful drugs or pollutants, but not for judgements like what is good, or when people acquire rights. July 9 2014 19:32

I think all intentional conception of humans is unethical, especially involving instruments and manipulation of embryos and gametes. I agree with the Catholic church that IVF is gravely immoral, and children should be seen as gifts and responsibilities, not accoutrements to serve the parents. July 9 2014 19:21

Oh, and yes it sounds familiar, it sounds like you and others that pompously claim "science" has anything to do with what is a legal and moral subject. July 9 2014 19:11

People shouldn't be able to "earn an exemption" from any law due to having a belief. If we wanted to allow ceremonial religious use of peyote, just freakin allow it, don't enforce the law, rely on the discretion of the mayor and police. July 9 2014 18:05

It'd be nice to be able to read PhoenixM's comments. Did a moderator delete them? judging by the replies to them, they were substantial serious comments that people took time to respond to. July 9 2014 16:33

I'm against Transhumanism and genetic engineering of designer babies and commodification and trafficking of babies. I don't want people to think that there is an obligation to implant embryos, or that anyone has a right to implant an embryo. July 9 2014 16:16

Once a pregnancy has begun, ending it is an evil act, and contraception is evil, but so is creating embryos on purpose and so is implanting embryos. An IUD doesn't kill babies, Plan B doesn't kill babies, they reduce the chance of pregnancies that might not even happen anyway. It no more ends a life than failing to have sex and get every woman pregnant at every opportunity does, or failing to take extraordinary means to ensure that every pregnancy results in birth. July 9 2014 16:13

Thanks, but teaching is frustratingly hard, and doesn't pay very well. July 9 2014 16:04

Well, Justice Kennedy affirmed in Lawrence that marriage is about the right to have sexual intercourse, and no one has ever claimed there is a right outside of marriage to have sexual intercourse or beget children (no not Eisenstadt, which only said unmarried people have a right to use contraception and to make decisions about whether to bear or beget a child, but they have to get married to have the right to bear or beget a child.) Or are you asking for a source that there is no right to implant an embryo? Well I can't cite a source for something that doesn't exist, no one has ever claimed a right to implant an embryo. How about you cite a source that there is a right to implant an embryo or marry a corporation. July 9 2014 16:03

I disagree with her that an IUD ends a human life that has begun, because life begins at heartbeat and blood. Until then embryos are alive only in the sense that plants are alive, and are not yet alive with spirit and soul or will or consciousness and therefore are not killed and do not die a death when they stop growing. The die like a plant dies, it just stops functioning and dissolves into compost but does not suffer pain or loss. July 9 2014 15:57

More than just that, they are claiming to be exempt from laws that compel them to support destruction of embryos. That's why I am saying that they don't have a right to implant embryos, just because they believe them to be alive with a right to be implanted doesn't mean we have to let them do that. July 9 2014 15:35

I agree people should not be forced to pay for Plan B or Ella or any contraception. (Well, I do think Plan B should be given to victims of rape as part of standard rape treatment. And they shouldn't be given the erroneous propaganda that it would be aborting a baby, it would only be preventing implantation, "shutting the whole thing down" as Akin said women's bodies are able and allowed to do and have a right to do. In fact, a woman shouldn't be given a choice about it, since the soul has a right not to be ensouled in body that is a victim of rape if we can prevent it. We should do everything possible to make sure babies can be cared for by their genetic mother and father. Once pregnancy starts, of course, it is too late, the baby already exists. But an embryo isn't a baby and a woman is not pregnant until implantation. You don't think that implanting an embryo in a woman puts that woman at risk? It most certainly does. It also puts the baby at risk. There would be risk, no death, no loss of life and no suffering or pain to simply let the embryo dissolve without implanting. It's what happens in nature all the time. July 9 2014 15:26

The embryo isn't a person, no one would notice that it did not become a person. People that don't exist do not exist. July 9 2014 14:33

I can accept saying an embryo is alive, but not that it is ensouled or has a right to be implanted. Thousands of embryos do not implant and it is not considered a death or even unhealthy, and no religion has ever said death occurs when no pregnancy happens after sex. Yeah, tell me what happens if I am wrong? What if unimplanted embryos are ensouled, and we don't implant them? Then I guess the soul goes to hell, but God must have wanted that to happen and there was nothing we could have done to thwart God's will. At least it won't have cost us any money and put women and children at risk of harm, which is what implanting embryos does. July 9 2014 14:31

We don't need science to demonstrate soul or consciousness, they are mystical, spiritual and moral concepts. Can science demonstrate concepts like "legal" and "right" and "person" or "good"? Of course not, we don't ask science to tell us right and wrong, legal and illegal. July 9 2014 14:20

Hobby Lobby can think whatever they want to think, they can't claim a right to implant an embryo or create a human being. Only a marriage has that right, and you still can't marry a corporation. July 9 2014 14:18

Things can be alive in the sense a plant is alive, without consciousness or soul or will. Pre-ensouled embryos develop and grow by God's or Nature's design, not their own will which beats their hearts and animates their brains, and therefore there needs to be a heart and brain to beat and animate before a soul can move in. Sleeping people still have beating hearts and animated brains, but dead people do not (but even dead people are to be respected and not experimented on or exploited). July 9 2014 14:17

Pro-life people should stick to religion. Science has no value judgements about what constitutes life, or when something acquires rights. There is no right to implant an embryo. July 9 2014 13:44

It can be alive in the sense that a plant is alive. But it is not ensouled and is not killed when it fails to implant, it just doesn't keep growing and dissolves, like mustard seeds that find no fertile soil to take root. July 9 2014 13:43

The soul is ensouled after the body has implanted and developed a heart, the beating of the heart signifies life, just like the soul departs when the heart stops beating. Embryos that do not implant do not become ensouled. If nature is allowed to take its course on embryos created in a petri dish, the cells will divide a few times and then stop dividing. They need to be implanted, which is not letting nature take its course at all. In nature, no embryos are ever implanted in a body from outside the body. An unimplanted embryo is not alive and is not a person and should be allowed to dissolve and cease to exist. It should not be implanted, there is no right to implant an embryo.

Congress should act immediately to void all same sex marriages to avoid the legal nightmare and waste of money that will happen due to striking down Section 3 of DOMA.

It is time for Congress to enact "The Natural Marriage and Reproduction Rights Act" that will end same-sex marriage everywhere in The United States and preserve natural conception rights and human dignity and prevent genetic engineering of human beings. The law would be two parts. The first part would be an "Egg and Sperm law" that would prohibit attempting to create a human being by any method other than joining a man and a woman's unmodified genes. The second part would affirm the legal effect of marriage in the United States as approving and allowing the couple to reproduce together using their own genes. It would also prohibit Civil Unions for same-sex couples that give the rights of marriage. Congress should act immediately, because if it simply voids all same sex marriages in the United States, then we won't have to pay the millions of dollars in survivor benefits and estate taxes that we are now about to have to pay unless we void these marriages. They were allowed in ignorance of implications, no judge or legislature considered the possibility of same-sex procreation. And just like we do with legal marriages that are discovered to have been entered into in ignorance of incest or some other impediment, we simply say they are null and void, with no divorce or legal action required.

Write in John Howard for Senator to stop SSM and Transgender Madness

The Massachusetts Senate special election presents a great opportunity to preserve marriage as a man and a woman throughout the United States: Write in "John Howard" to send me to Washington! I would do only one thing during the remainder of the term before the next election in 2014: I would introduce a bill that preserves marriage as a man and a woman by 1) setting the legal effect of marriage in the United States as approving and allowing the couple to have children using their own genes, and 2) prohibiting creating a child by any means other than the union of a man and a woman using their own genes. That would do more than just end same-sex marriage, it would also stop the madness in our schools where kids are taught that there is no such thing as fixed sex and that people can be either sex and reproduce with either sex. And it would also prohibit Civil Unions that are marriage in all but name and give the same rights as marriage. A majority of other Congressman would support the bill, because they would probably lose their re-election if they opposed either of the two provisions. It simply recognizes that there is no right to be either sex or reproduce with the same sex. Marriage supporters don't need to sit this election out, we can turn this into the marriage vote that we know we'll win. Spread the word quietly, lie to pollsters, and then on Tuesday, June 25, preserve marriage by writing in John Howard.

SCOTUS suggests the solution

It's getting closer! The oral arguments were today for the Prop 8 standing case. The justices make a big deal about same-sex adoption and family formation, not just on parenting, with Scalia saying the word marriage would require allowing the couple to adopt or use ART, and Olsen retorting that the state of California already allows same-sex adoption. And Ginsberg mentioned that a state might repeal its civil union law, and perhaps replace it with one that doesn't go as far in the area of adoption and 3PR. It's like they are screaming: Enact the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise already! Tomorrow is the DOMA case about federal benefits, so perhaps it's another chance for them to suggest the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise as a way to solve these problems, or at least press Pause. The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise is a set of three federal laws to be enacted together: 1) Stop genetic engineering by limiting conception of children to the union of a man and a woman's sperm and egg. 2) Federally recognize state civil unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights." 3) Affirm in federal law the right of all marriages to conceive children together using their own genes. Together they affirm marriage is only between a man and a woman, give equal benefits to all couples, and preserve equal natural reproductive rights.

Why can't Rod Dreher just address it?

Rod Dreher has a habit of deleting my best comments just when people take notice and seem interested. He is pretty upfront about not wanting to discuss the topic of same-sex conception rights, apparently he doesn't want to resolve the issue just yet. He leaves some comments up, but always seems to delete the best ones, like my response to Nate deep in this thread. In case he deletes these ones, I'll post them here:

John Howard says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 8, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Specifically I say that the question of allowing a type of relationship to marry should be the same and always has been the same as whether we allow that type of couple to reproduce offspring together. If we want to allow same-sex couples to join their genes to make offspring together, we should allow them to marry, and vice versa.
What’s Rod got against my solution? What do you think you gain from suppressing it and not agreeing to it? What am I missing?

John Howard says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 8, 2012 at 11:29 pm
“Apparently, someone needs to tell all these unmarried couples that they don’t have the right to procreate.”
Huh? Every religion already says that, most countries and states already say that, the supreme court says that…what are you talking about?

I support helping Intersexed people (for Dale Carrico)

Transhumanist "critic" Dale Carrico over at his blog Amor Mundi is still trying to get away with pretending he is a critic of Transhumanism and not a fellow traveller. He responded to my question with accusations that I don't support healthcare for intersexed people, and then said he would delete any follow-up comments I leave, so I will leave my comment here in case he deletes it there. (And when he says he's "been around the track" with me, no, Dale has always just gone around the corner, spewing ten thousand words of baseless accusations and diversions, and then when it seems far enough away, he scurries back to his comfy starting line refusing to print my follow up comments. Pretty low, but if you are a deceitful fraud, you have to do stuff like that I guess.)

Intersexed people should certianly be allowed to use medicine to enable them to be fertile and have children, but only as the sex which their doctors believe is their most likely chance of success, without genetic engineering of their gametes to be the other sex. The sex which someone most likely would be able to conceive children using their own gametes is usually abundantly clear, even when there is ambiguous genitalia, and when it isn't, the lab can figure it out very quickly. As for application of the law to intersexed people, we'd go by their public, legal sex for public legal recognition and marriage purposes, and the assumption would be that it matches the most likely to conceive sex so they would have the public approval to conceive offspring together (but not a guarantee, just like every other marriage). So some privately same-sex couples would wind up married. But a lab would notice after some preliminary lab work that they were both more likely to be fertile as the same sex, and thus it would be illegal to help them conceive offspring with each other. Their marriage would remain intact, because publicly they would still be a man and a woman, and the information about their true sexes would never leave the doctor's office. But the law is intended to stop unethical experiments in same-sex reproduction and genetic engineering, so of course it has to apply to the private actual sex, not the public sex. It's health care to help an intersexed person reproduce as the sex most likely able to help them, not the sex they most desire to reproduce as, or as the other sex of the person they want to reproduce with. That is transhumanism.

Time for conservatives to unite as Bio-Conservatives

We can add Rod Dreher and The American Conservative to the list of supposedly conservative bloggers and websites that want to avoid the subject of same-sex conception and transhumanism. This was my most recent attempt to participate in his discussions, this on on his post "Conservatism: What's Next?" which I will copy here, and Tweet a link to it, @roddreher:

John Howard says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

November 8, 2012 at 1:19 pm
{{{I’m trying to sneak my suggestion into this thread about “what’s next” for conservatives without Rod noticing, so shhhh no one respond!}}}

{{{OK here it is: social conservatives and fiscal conservatives should unite as bio-conservatives. “Bio-conservatives” don’t worry as much about abortion and contraception and religion as they do about designer babies and genetic engineering and transhumanism and transgender/postgenderism. We think about the social costs and dangers of biotechnology, in particular reproductive biotechnology.

Social conservatives need to get the focus off of abortion and birth control and put it on something that even liberal women find appalling: genetic engineering of human beings, eugenics and loss of equality and dignity, exploitation of women, harm to babies, commodification of people and materialist manufacturing of people, wasting money and energy and health resources on something totally unnecessary and stupid.

Social conservatives should remember that the Republican party is based not on Libertarianism and states rights and materialist view of of people, but on human dignity and equality and a belief that people are created by God with equal rights and dignity.}}}

It's still here: The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise

It's great to see same-sex marriage is going to be an issue in the 2012 elections. Perhaps it will drive some traffic to this blog, which I don't update much, but still should contain most of my arguments (they haven't changed) and links to useful articles. It looks the same as it did when I created it in 2004. And the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise is still on the table just as it was in 2006: Federal recognition for state Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights" and give all the rights of marriage except the right to conceive genetic offspring together, while preserving marriage's essential right to conceive offspring together, and limiting the right to conceive offspring to a man and a woman. That would achieve the things we can agree on right now, and bring the issue of whether to allow genetic engineering and same-sex conception under the purview of the People, through Congress. If we ever decide to allow same-sex couples to conceive children, then we would allow those Civil Unions to be upgraded to marriages. But we would be better off to rule out the prospect of all-female or all-male reproduction, and being able to reproduce as either sex, to use our resources for more useful things.

Wish I could comment on FamilyScholars

FamilyScholars.org has blocked me from commenting at their site, so I'll respond to Fannie's post here, and email them to ask them to respond. I suspect they will ignore my argument, we'll see.

Anyhow, Fannie makes the same old procreation/infertility argument as if I hadn't debunked it a hundred times:

This past weekend, a relatively of mine got married for the fourth time. She is in her mid-50s and has had a hysterectomy.

There will never be a link between procreation and marriage in her marriage. Just like every same-sex couple.

She gets to legally marry her chosen partner because she and her partner have the “correct” sex composition- male and female- and not because they have the ability or potential to procreate together.

Fannie, she is ALLOWED to reproduce with her chosen partner because they have complementary sex cells (and aren't already married, under 18, or related by a prohibited relationship). They aren't required to procreate, they are ALLOWED to procreate. All marriages should always be allowed to procreate using their own genes. No one should be allowed to procreate with someone of the same sex.

It shouldn't be hard to remember this simple argument, that same-sex couples should not have the equal right to procreate that a married man and woman have.

Stem Cell Sperm Advance Getting Some Attention

DrudgeReport: "Sperm from mice stem cells offers infertility hope..."
Discover: "Worldwide First: Stem Cells Turned Into Sperm Turned Into Living Animals"

It's nice to see the comments on the Discover article immediately ask the question of whether a woman could make sperm or not. Of course it is possible, no one could say with certainty that it is not possible, but it's not a question of that. It's more a question of whether it is a good public policy to spend our extremely limited resources on it, and whether it should be allowed to be attempted at all. To those questions, we can answer definitively: No! It is wrong to make embryos from modified gametes. And making a sperm from a woman certainly modifies her gametes, it creates sperm that do not represent an actual person.

There are better ways to help prevent infertility than to make an industry that manufactures people.

Maggie Wears Sheep's Clothing

NOM's Maggie Gallagher revealed a bit more of her Transhumanist Libertarian loyalties in an email she sent to a nomblog reader, who then posted it in the comments to nomblog's post about Clownfishgate.

Maggie's response on trans issues to an e-mail

"I do not have any developed views on this question--except I do not believe individuals have a right to expect they can change genders on a whim, or on a daily basis, and expect others to take it seriously. I'm much less concerned about transgenderism that requires permanent and substantive change (including surgery or hormonal treatment and petitioning the court). I may or may not agree with it--I have no clear developed views--but it will not affect the main question.

If it is possible to change gender, then it is possible--in which case it's an opposite sex union.

If it's not really possible, then it should not be possible. I do not have clear views on this"

Wow, so she seems to think that people should be allowed to change sex, that it is just a matter of whatever is possible. I don't think she is talking about mere cosmetic surgery when she says she's not concerned about transgenderism, I think I've alerted her to the possibility of "female sperm" and "male eggs" and she knows that's the real issue. I bet her "I do not have clear views on this" is her way of alluding to her contract with her Libertarian benefactors who have told her never to write about transhumanism or artificial gametes and to keep procreation rights out of the marriage debate. Her high-paying job is to make the public think that marriage is being defended and is still relevant after procreation rights are stripped from it.

It shouldn't be so hard for her to say that she thinks people only have a right to procreate as the sex they are born most likely to procreate as, with someone of the other sex. But she's never been able to come out and say that, I suspect because of a clause in her contract, which I bet Wesley Smith also has.

(I posted a diary about Clownfishgate on RedMassGroup We Are Not Clownfish.)

Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise Turns Five

It is hard to believe that May 9th will mark five years since I proposed The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.

For five years now, I have been promoting the Compromise by sending emails, visiting legislator's offices, calling staffers, handing our leaflets, blogging and commenting on every blog I could find where people are discussing same-sex marriage, explaining how same-sex couples that are currently denied equal protections could quickly get federal recognition and legal protections in almost every state in exchange for giving up the right to have labs create offspring for same-sex couples.

The Compromise is the same set of three laws as it was five years ago:
1) An Egg and Sperm law that prohibits conceiving a person by any means other than joining a man and a woman's unmodified gametes.
2) A law that would recognize state Civil Unions as if they were legal marriages for federal purposes, provided the state has defined them as "marriage minus conception rights."
3) A law that unifies the effect of state marriages as protecting the right of the couple to conceive offspring using their own genes.

It's been amazing to see people twist and squirm and refuse to compromise, choosing to stick with the status quo, even as they claim not to care about same-sex conception (on the pro-SSM side) or claim to care about preserving marriage (on the anti-SSM side). That's five years of same-sex couples suffering without recognition, five years of divisive legal battles and meaningless debates, five years that we could have been addressing urgent problems facing the country, but people have thrown us all under the bus because they are addicted to insulting each other.

It's time to grow up, everyone. Come together. Larry Kramer, the most effective activist for gay people, is getting old now, and he is frustrated with the current strategy.:

There are these issues now. It's just that you don't think of them as galvanizing, mainly because they're not so life and death. I cite marriage, although I'm sort of fed up with how long it's taken and I think we've gone about it the wrong way. I'm 76, and my partner is 64. I'll obviously die before he does, and the way the laws are written it's very hard to leave him anything of substance compared to what I have to leave. It all goes to taxes because we're not legally federally married and that's not fair, that's just not fair. You don't care about it at your age, but I care about it at mine, and there are a lot of older gays who should care about it as well. That should be a galvanizing issue. Anything that keeps us from being unequal should be galvanizing. I want what they have. I do. And everybody should. But again, people don't think that way.What has frustrated you about the move toward gay marriage in the country?

Just that it's taken forever. I don't think we should have taken the state by state approach because it just makes it go on, and then you have to re-sue and defend. Things need to go to the Supreme Court as fast as possible. There were ways it could have gone to the Supreme Court a lot earlier. If we lose at the Supreme Court, which everyone was afraid of, you just come back again. These [state] marriage we have don't amount to anything. They're feel-good marriages. They make relationships stronger and all that, but they don't amount to a hill of beans in terms of anything legal or financial. You still need to pay federal taxes and you don't get any of these benefits the government pays you if you're heterosexually married.

Can any young gay activist really tell Larry Kramer that it is more important to insist on having a right to try to procreate offspring with someone of the same sex than it is for him and his partner to be secure and be able to share each other's property? It's time to try a new approach, one that actually puts people first, rather than winning an unwinnable argument.