Republican Consultant His Marries Same-Sex Partner

Prominent Republican consultant Arthur Finklestein has married his male partner in a civil ceremony in Massachussetts.

Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant who has directed a series of hard-edged political campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel over the last 25 years, said Friday that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts.

Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.

"I believe that visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners," he said.

He's right. But what about the hypocrisy? And what will James Dobson and Jerry Falwell say?

A TalkLeft reader writes in:

Selfish bullies:
  • so-called draft dodgers attack war heroes lilac John Kerry for not being patriotic enough, pass out purple heart Band-Aids to get a laugh, to get republican votes
  • junkies, like rush, want to crucify drug users, blame liberals for drug problem to get republican votes
  • perverts, like bill O'Reilly, herald the impeachment of bill Clinton for getting a blowjob, to get republican votes
  • gay guys, lilac Finkelstein, have a same sex marriage, after a lifetime spent earning big bucks criticizing advocates for gay rights, to get republican votes

    Is it a cult? How did this happen?
< Upsetting Ms. Malkin: Why Death Row Inmates Should Have Blogs | Defrocked Priest to Get New Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    They didn't really get married, they just abandoned themselves to malodorous imposture.

    Ugh whatever that means, B.
    Mr. Finkelstein has regularly described himself as a libertarian who supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights while opposing big government. In an interview with Maariv, an Israeli newspaper, after the American elections last year, he criticized the Republican Party as growing too close to evangelical Christians, warning it could cause long-term damage to the party.
    I think that pretty much describes it right there, and I think it describes the libertarian conservative nature of a great many Republicans, among them Giuliani, Pataki, McCain, D'Amato, and many other Republicans who have chosen not to cozy up to the religious right. And I think other Movement Conservatives are waking up and smelling the coffee as well. I'm hearing more and more dissatisfaction on the right of its wholesale adoption of the agendas of Christian extremists. They used the Christians to energize a historically apathetic voting bloc and it gave them some real short term advantage; but now many are realizing that religious extremism is both incompatible with democracy and incompatible with the true conservative ideal.

    Ditto I'm sure many libertarians in Afganistan said the same after the taliban took charge. I think you missed the point I you were a jew in germany and superted the nazi party then you have a soul mate in Finkelstein. Today the Dems are more libertarian the the RepuTaliban party is.

    Re: Republican Consultant His Marries Same-Sex Par (none / 0) (#4)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:06:44 AM EST
    Ditto- Iím not entirely familiar with the careers of Pataki et al., but I certainly take exception with labeling McCain libertarian anything. McCain/Feingold, hearings on indecency in cable programs, regulation and baseball; he may not be mainstream Republican but libertarian he aint. ED- Parsing the Rep and Dem platform for the more libertarian? I liken it to arguing distances of the Grand Canyon in hand widths. So the republicans have moved their fiscal policy in line with the dems, watch as the dems move their social planks more in line with the reps. Two ugly heads Ö.

    He develops some liberal human rights sensibilities when it benefits him and the people he loves. He should give this some thought. This country is just full of people who don't vote their own self interest. I think the country is hysterical. As in suffering from hysteria, not as in hysterically funny.

    Pigwiggle Good point and I agree with your Grand canyon analogy.

    I thought all was fair in love and war. ;-)

    PPj I think it's fair to say all Bush loves is war! :)

    This country is just full of people who don't vote their own self interest
    Im one of those. Democracy only works if you put the good of the country ahead of self-interest.

    Ed, I think anybody trying to fix corruption in the electoral process is to be lauded, even if the solution they come up with seems to rub their political philosophy the wrong way. The baseball thing made me scratch my head. I don't know anything about the hearings on cable. Is it possible that he attended the hearings as a dissenting voice? On a semi-related note: this weekend there was a great NPR piece about a lesbian live in rural, religious Kentuckiana. Funny thing is that I know this woman. I went out there last fall to figure out why a gay chorus in Louisville was able to raise five times as much money at one event than my chorus could raise in an entire year.

    What good of the country is represented by denying civil rights to same sex coouples who wish to marry. You must think you are Groucho Marx

    me: Im one of those. Democracy only works if you put the good of the country ahead of self-interest.
    you: What good of the country is represented by denying civil rights to same sex coouples who wish to marry
    That was general comment about citizenship in reply to conscious angel. Do not believe I have ever stated my position on gay marriage. I would have to agree that calling yourself married if you are a same sex couple is a civil right (a right to be protected by the government against the will of even a majority of the population) in the United States - I do not believe so. Nor does the majority of the population in any state where it has been put to a general vote; including Oregon which is a pretty liberal state. Recognition and governance of marriage is a state issue - so Massachusetts certainly had the right to decide it was a civil right there. If I could be convinced it was a civil right - I would certainly put my personal moral self-interest aside in the national interest; even against the majority view. As to what the good of the country is - that is a moral/religous discussion TL would not want started here. One thing will be interesting: the primary argument against the national same-sex marriage ban was marriages relagation to the states - when will equal protection be used by those in favor of same-sex marriage because they have more rights in Mass than elsewhere?

    A majority of the population once supported bans against inter racial marriage as well

    Exactly, and that is why we establish civil rights - sometimes at huge political/social cost - because there are things that are right even if a majority does not agree to it. I was in the streets as a white male for civil rights for Blacks because I do not believe racism is right even if it was in my self-interest (narrowly defined); and a majority of the population supported segregation. My moral/ethical foundations led me to that. My moral/ethical foundations tell me abortion is wrong except in the case of self-defense (life of the mother). I do not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade because I do not believe a majority of the country supports that - but doesn't that unborn child have civil rights? At this moment, this country through the Supreme Court has decided those civil rights are secondary to the rights of the parents to be free from children if they wish. I put my moral self-interest on hold. Those same moral/ethical foundations do not tell me that all long-term sexual relationships are created equal - and there are these type of relationships you would not grant civil rights to either.

    Selfish Hedonists!

    the right for same sex couple to marry on a civil right basis is going to carry the day. the constitution fortunately was not established on your moral/ethical standards. You are free to practice them don't impose them on others.

    Perhaps you are right - I think that is very unclear at the moment but I admire your faith. And notice, I never once accused you of trying to impose YOUR moral and ethical values on the majority of the country - which is of course what you would like to do. And if you believe they are right, that is what you should try to do

    Oh, and the constitution was established on my moral and ethical values (well actually a set a little more conservative than mine)

    The constitution -a remarkable document I suggest you read it If it was established on your religious values life would be much different. Unlike you, I respect people's abilities to make their own choices and find it unnecessary to impose my will on anyone.

    Society is a transforming thing. It transforms by a battle of ideas, values, beliefs, etc. Neither of us are in a position to "impose" their beliefs on anyone - but you somehow believe yours are mainstream and mine are on the outside. That is not the evidence I see in this society. If you want to enter that battle of ideas, that is wonderful - but do not accuse anyone who disagrees with you of imposing themselves on you. And if you want your sense of right and wrong to become the mainstream - you may have to do a little missionary work.

    oh, and people make the decision to steal your stuff, murder your neighbors, rape your children, and drive while drunk. You respect those decisions?

    you need to learn the difference between being annoyed and being oppressed As for your ridiculous snark about crime --this is a nation of laws and apparently unlike you I do not take the law into my own hands...nor do I feel I should You need to live your own life and let others live theirs

    What law have I taken into my own hands? We have a nation of laws because we know that while people will make the own decisions and live their own lives - they will often step outside of the boundaries of what society considers right behavior and society must be protected. You believe that the line society has drawn is incorrect - stop prattling about living your own life and change society. The history of human kind is that people left to do their own thing do horrible things often.

    Re: Republican Consultant His Marries Same-Sex Par (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimcee on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    So let's see, two people of the same sex get married, partnered whatever and their Repubs. Besides Tom Delay who cares. That there are those that would care means that there are those that listen to the adversarial talk fest that strive to define the Left and the Right in sexual terms. A note to people on both sides: Stop it, it is none of anyone's business except those involved. If people love one another and are willing to commit to each other then that is a good thing, a positive thing. I tend to sit on the right side of the political spectrum but I can't understand the obsession both sides have for this issue except that it is media driven and that is a sad, commercial fact and will thankfully be the end of the "talking Head" phenomenom that seems to be currently driving political speech today. Places such as TL and others will eventually supplant the "screaming skull" TV and radio formats. The sooner the better IMHO.

    Jimcee, et. al: This is not about sex. I repeat: This is not about sex. Say it again: This is not about sex. Now say that five more times, or until it sinks in. This is about not having my partner's parents, whom he hasn't spoken to in 15 years, come swooping in as "next of kin" and make medical decisions in case he turns into Terry Schiavo. This is about his right to get half of my stuff and vice versa should we ever break up. This is about the 1,137 federal benefits we lose out on because there is an extra Y chromosome in the relationship. This is about the marriage contract that you get for $100 and a quickie wedding at the drive-thru Graceland chapel. We have to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to get about 1/4 of the legal setup, and even then it's just one homophobic judge away from being thrown out. We're being kept down for no reason other than the blacks won and communism was defeated, and the right wing needs some other group it can subjugate in order to feel better about itself. Thank God for Saddam Hussein... if he wasn't there to be the right's whipping boy, it would be us to a much greater extent.

    Micheal I have never thought it was about sex. Understand the ground though - the only political issue in 5 years at my church that my pastor has spoken on from the pulpit is the Oregon Marriage Act. Marriage is the most important institution in the christian faith (more important than the churchs themselves). It is turf we will defend.

    The philistines have landed.