A good continuation of the previous post.

It makes perfect sense that DOMA and VRA would fall together. I've known plenty of white racist homosexuals. John Roberts' cousin may be a lesbian but she's still is still family, and still white. Of course it connects by analogy to the status of Zionism. And once race is no longer an issue we'll still have the poor.

A friend on facebook "liked" Against Equality. It reminds me that the avant-garde is always attracted to fascism, replacing life with art. Labeling one's sexuality special is no better than labeling one's ethnicity special: claims of superiority more than anything are based on insecurity.

repeats 2002

What replaces normalcy? For the majority of whatever political, sexual, religious or philosophical persuasion, the answer's nothing.  Fantasies of permanent revolution, the entrepreneurial spirit, or the fabulous life are all fantasies of a minority. Most people want stability, and stability is boring.

I've gotten used to hearing complaints now that homosexuality has become boring.

More from 2003, and recently.
Also, Laud Humphries

His biographers give a detailed account of the manuscript Humphreys worked on during his final years but never finished. It was to be a book revisiting one of the themes in Tearoom Trade – the idea he called “the breastplate of righteousness.” That phrase was borrowed from an epistle by St. Paul, while the argument owed a lot to the Frankfurt School’s analysis in The Authoritarian Personality. 

Men he had observed having anonymous sex in a public place often turned out to be ardent champions of law and order. Unable to control themselves in that part of their lives, they put on the defensive "breastplate," redoubling their efforts elsewhere: “Motivated largely by his own awareness of the discreditable nature of his secret behavior,” wrote Humphreys in his dissertation, “the covert deviant develops a presentation of self that is respectable to a fault. His whole lifestyle becomes an incarnation of what is proper and orthodox.”

and here

In the unfinished manuscript left at his death, Humphreys described meeting with a prominent Dixiecrat politician and his wife in 1948. When the politician left the room, she started to undo Humphreys’s tie so that they could all have a little party, as was their wont.

The biography of Humphreys explains that “this archconservative longtime segregationist served as U.S. Senator from South Carolina from 1954 until shortly before his death in 2003.” But the at least the authors don’t actually, you know, name him.

It's not a mark against psychology that it can be turned against its practitioners any more than its a mark against law that prosecutors are required to face advocates for the defense. The mark is against the authority of judges, and philosophers all claim to be judges.