The Problems that Human Beings Get Ourselves Into
Jonathan Rowe on Oct 4th 2008
I hesitated to blog about this, because I don’t want my blogs to be tabloid like places and I’d never purposefully reveal information like this were it secret. But it’s not; the cat is already out of the bag. It’s about Christopher Buckley’s illegitimate child. Buckley, notably is the son of the late William F. Buckley.
This topic illustrates why I don’t get bloggers like Clayton Cramer who seem so obsessed with problems in gay culture (yes there are problems) that he acts like that fact alone can be used to condemn homosexuality (but we know the condemners invariably have preexisting religious convictions against homosexuality that they are trying to justify). The Clayton Cramers of the world might have a point if heterosexuals like Christopher Buckley weren’t also always getting themselves into trouble. It’s that intractable thing called human nature, especially sexual nature (see also of recent note John Edwards and Bristol Palin).
And indeed, in the grand scheme of things these heterosexual problems seem so much graver than the homosexual problems, that you have to wonder why so much attention is paid by religious conservatives to homosexuality. David Boaz wrote a classic article in 1994 that still seems relevant on the disproportionate attention religious conservatives pay to homosexual as opposed to more pressing heterosexual problems.
The consequences of irresponsible homosexual sex have been grave; AIDS, not the only STD to worry about, has shortened the lives of too many great people. However it was the individuals who practiced promiscuous sex who chiefly paid the price. Irresponsible heterosexual sex, mainly because it is procreative, has a far greater “externality” effect. You’ll have either a fetus that gets aborted (I suppose not a moral problem for some folks, but a BIG problem if one believes abortion takes an innocent life, as religious conservatives do), a family that can get destroyed or gravely harmed by a divorce resulting from adultery, or a child born into a non-intact family without two parents. Among urban, young, unwed mothers, this is a great cause of poverty and is associated with many other social ills.
And so it is that Christopher Buckley (probably) destroyed his family with an affair that led to an out of wedlock birth. He’s still married to his wife, the mother of two of his children, but rumor has it that they are separated and he is dating another woman. If they did divorce more than seven years after the incident, it would time well with the recent deaths of traditional Roman Catholic parents. From the first article to which I linked:
As William F. Buckley Jr.’s only child, satirist and former White House aide Christopher Buckley is poised to inherit a fortune worth tens of millions of dollars.
But as Buckley waits for the estate of his late father to go through probate court in Stamford, a former Random House publicist is fighting in a Miami courtroom to increase the $3,000 a month in child support he pays for the special-needs son he fathered with her.
Irina Woelfle’s lawsuit blames 7-year-old Jonathan’s learning problems, in part, on Christopher Buckley’s refusal to have anything to do with the boy.
“The father is notably absent from the minor child’s life,” her lawsuit states.
[...]
It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the Buckley family’s efforts to keep Jonathan at arm’s length don’t end with Christopher Buckley. In his will, William F. Buckley Jr. leaves the contents of his estate to Christopher and the two children he fathered with his wife — and leaves no doubt that Jonathan will get none of the money.
“I intentionally make no provision herein for said Jonathan, who for all purposes … shall be deemed to have predeceased me,” wrote William Buckley, who died in February.
Ouch. That’s gotta hurt Jonathan Buckley’s developmental well being. This is the face of irresponsible heterosexual sex, something to which irresponsible homosexual sex usually cannot hold a candle. The only time it gets close is when homosexually oriented folks enter heterosexual marriages, bear children and later “come out.” And that’s almost always because they do what traditional society tells them they ought to do.
Filed in The Boudoir
I, for one, think you handled this well, and that you ask a compelling question. It’d be great if someone tried to answer you. But I’m guessing they don’t understand the question.
That is an interesting take on such a disturbing case. So often people are irresponsible in their sexual affairs and as is popular America custom these days, no one wants to take on the burden their actions create. However, from a legal standpoint, the thinking that the because what Buckley did was harsh means that the court should award this mother additional support is dangerous. People should not be able to circumvent estate planning measures like the mother in this case is trying to do and like Anna Nicole Smith tried to do for over a decade. It’s ok to condemn Buckley for these despicable actions, but the court should not be able to dictate its moral agenda when the proper legal instruments were drafted.
If you read my blog regularly, you will see that I have quite a bit to say about irresponsible and depraved heterosexuals, too: premature sexualization of children; failures to adequately protect themselves and others from STDs; ACLU officials buying little girl rape videos; careless and callous promiscuity; parents who decide that their own satisfaction is more important than keeping a family together; fathers who can’t be bothered with child support payments.
You are also one of the few homosexuals to actually admit that there is something wrong with events like “Up Our Alley” (assuming that you are admitting this). If Buckley and other heterosexuals behaving badly were excused by social conservatives, you might have a point about homosexuals being treated unfairly. But social conservatives have NOT treated homosexuality as “special.” They have been complaining about the degradation of our society (in highly heterosexual ways) for decades. We just aren’t prepared to give homosexuals a special pass that we won’t give to heterosexuals.
Clayton,
I don’t think I meant to suggest that you, the FRC, CWFA, Lou Sheldon think it’s just fine to fornicate, have affairs, have children out of wedlock. Rather, that you folks pay way disproportionate attention to homosexuality and scant attention to more pressing heterosexual problems. Did you read the David Boaz article where he engages in some statistical counting to prove the point? Even though the article was written in ‘94, it still seems relevant.
For example, just the other day I watched Coral Ridge, still running after DJ Kennedy’s death. They had 3-4 guests on to talk about cultural issues and and they were all folks with a specific antigay focus - Matt Barber, Robert Knight, and some woman raised by a homosexual father but who later converted to Christian fundamentalism and wrote a book dishing dirt about her father’s “lifestyle.” When they talk about “hate crimes laws” of course it’s all about sexual orientation and not about the other protected categories. They, and other likeminded outlets, haven’t devoted nearly this much energy to fornication, out of wedlock births, divorce and whatnot. The only two explanations I have are at best this is the issue that brings the money in, at worst, animus towards gays.
You are also one of the few homosexuals to actually admit that there is something wrong with events like “Up Our Alley”
As an out homosexual for basically my entire adult life, I’ve never heard of this, whatever it is. I’m guessing I don’t even want to google it.
I’m also guessing that my surprisingly conservative sex life is going to be dismissed as an outlier. I’ve been legally married for five years, and I understand that am considerably less promiscuous than either gays or straights in my age cohort.
A lot of it depends on your perceptions, I guess. But is there room in your vision of society, Clayton, for people like me? Or do gays who have boring sex lives get punished for those who are promiscuous?
“They had 3-4 guests on to talk about cultural issues and and they were all folks with a specific antigay focus”
Which by itself tells you that this is a carefully selected panel!
“When they talk about “hate crimes laws” of course it’s all about sexual orientation and not about the other protected categories. They, and other likeminded outlets, haven’t devoted nearly this much energy to fornication, out of wedlock births, divorce and whatnot.”
Fornicators, divorced persons and “whatnot” have hate crimes laws that protect them? Since when?
“But is there room in your vision of society, Clayton, for people like me? Or do gays who have boring sex lives get punished for those who are promiscuous?”
I’m no liberal. What you do in private is none of the government’s business. (And for that reason, I see no reason to have the government recognize your relationship. Children are the primary reason the government has a legitimate reason to be concerned about heterosexual marriages.) I just wish liberals were prepared to grant me that much freedom.
I can understand your position on same-sex marriage, although I don’t share it. Since you seem up for answering our questions, I hope you’ll allow a follow-up.
I’m in the process of adopting a child with my partner. This isn’t a hypothetical. It’s a real situation. We’ve done all our paperwork, and we’re waiting for the phone call.
Since protecting children is so important, can we be married?
I imagine you’ll say no. I just find it funny that you’d show up, mention something indecent, gesture toward children, and act as though it had won the argument for your side. If I mentioned Girls Gone Wild, I doubt it would have much currency with you. But if you want to talk about the seamier side of life, heterosexuals are hardly immune.
Clayton, I just saw the post at your own site where you claim
And, frankly, this is absurd. As someone who apparently spends far more time obsessing over gay culture than I do, I am amazed that you haven’t seen any similar admissions anywhere else.
Ever heard of Larry Kramer? He’s one of the most important gay intellectuals around. Controversial, to be sure, but he has absolutely made the kind of criticism you claim doesn’t exist, loudly, repeatedly, and for years. For example:
Given Kramer’s enormous importance as an activist and a leader of the gay community, I just can’t believe you’ve never heard of his many condemnations of gay irresponsibility.
Clayton Cramer is not a human being, but a right-wing robot. Verbal gay-bashing is the only thing in his programing.