The Truth About 9/11: Cookies Are Delicious
New Mural at Mission and Chavez: Lipstick on a Pig?
SFist Out and About
SFist Tonight
Video: Zog's Dogs' "The Greatest Hot Dog Story...Ever Told"
Ever-vigilant SFist reader Robert Haaland tipped us off today to KGO talker Pete Wilson (not to be confused with the former governor, or the Canadian pro wrestler) pointing some love-related criticism at local gaydad Bevan Dufty and lesbimom Rebecca Goldfader. According to Pete (the radio guy, not the former Treasurer of the Kensington and Chelsea Conservative Association), Bevan and Rebecca have done their new son [UPDATE: and by "son," of course," what we really mean is "daughter"] a disservice by not being properly in love (they are apparantly "cavalier" and "careless" parents). The two are very close long-time friends, and they intend to raise young Sidney together, while living in the same house, and while taking close care of each other, but without actually marrying each other.
So, to review: they have a kid. They're both gay. One or both may invite their own husband or wife into the family someday. They live together and care for each other and love each other. But according to Pete (the one on the radio, not the Scottish curler), they don't have husband-and-wife feelings for each other, which means that as parents, they're incorrectly in love. So, Pete, what exactly is the proper kind of husband-and-wife love that parents ought to have? And how, in your rigorous study of childhood development and family structure, did you determine that Sidney will be suffering?
And, Pete. As long as we're asking questions. Exactly how does one go about determining which kind of love is the Healthy-for-a-Kid kind, and which is the Unhealthy-for-a-Kid kind? What was it, in your close scrutiny of Bevan and Rebecca's relationship, that led you to conclude that they weren't loving each other properly? And where on your patented Healthy-Love-for-a-Kid Scale does the Dufty-Goldfader family fall compared to, say, single parents who don't love each other and live apart? Or parents who stay married despite falling out of love? Or singles who choose to parent all by themselves? Are Bevan and Rebeccas simply not in love enough? What's the threshhold of sufficient love?
What we're really asking, here, is this: why single out Bevan and Rebecca?
And also, what was it like being inducted into the National Soccer Hall of Fame?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
And, where can I get that "Baby Daddy" t-shirt I saw the other night at Drunk 'n Horny?
Sidney is a girl.
Oh damn, I thought I'd gone through and fixed the references to genders. Der. Sorry, yes, despite what the name might lead us to believe, Sidney is in fact a girl.
Wow... Pete Wilson...
What
An
ASS
To think I used to have respect for him.
kgo/abc should get rid of ths guy. abc/kgo is becoming more and more politcally right. first abc airs that crazy "clinton is at fault for 9/11" docudrama. dan noyes attacks gavin newsom everyday and now the anchor of their newscast says a bunch of anti gay things. what is going on over there...
MattyMatt left out one factoid from the last paragraph of the LeftInSF article -- Pete Wilson actually supports same sex marriage.
So what everyone appears to be up in arms about here is that two people decided to sperminate (the publicity makes a big point this was done artificially; no old fashioned "insert tab a into slot b" goodness for them!) and share custody of a child without the protection of a legal commitment to each other.
This wouldn't be any deal in some random California commune or maybe, um, Bolinas; but Pete Wilson points out Duffy's big venture because 1) Duffy is a supervisor, somebody who is supposed to be a role model (in the same group with Mr. Civility, Chris Daly) and 2) Pete Wilson is paid to spew opinions. Kind of reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons, "you know what really grinds my gears?"
I am not a history major, but my impression is that the definition of "family" (mom + dad + kids = family) had been pretty much static for at least a few hundred years if not a couple thousand, only up until the past 20-30 years. Why is there such a huge rush to stamp a seal of approval on behavior that smacks of "if it feels good, do it"? Are we more enlightened today or something?
correction on my last post... "Grinds my gears" is actually a Family Guy reference. :-)
I don't think it matters whether Pete supports gay marriages (although it is terribly gracious of him not to object to them), since this could just as easily be about two heterosexual parents. Rather, he's saying that these folks have done something unethical by raising a child without getting married. I'm not an expert on families and history, but I do believe that kids have been known to be raised in families other than married biological heterosexual parents for a long, long time.
Sure, Pete might have a feeling that that isn't good for kids. But does he know that for sure? Or is it just a hunch? If it was me getting paid for my opinions, I'd make extra sure I wasn't wrong before I started criticising individual families in public.
This thing sort of reminds me of the whole foie gras/anti-fur thing, where activists go after the easiest target (or one they feel they can easily intimidate) rather than going after feed lots and people who wear leather.
Mark Leno, Tom Ammiano, the Alice Be UncleTomlas Club, and the so-called "activists" say nothing while over at KSFO there are rabid homo-haters spewing their filth and garbage to hundreds of thousands of listeners every single day.
When Pete Wilson, a Liberal by anyone's standards (and in this case, a sitting target), says something stupid, all of a sudden they have to have a press conference to FORCE an apology.
**How lame is that?**
He DOESN'T NEED to apologize for anything. He said something that a few people didn't like and found offensive. That's ALLOWED here. It's especially allowed when he's critiquing a public figure like Dufty - whose cavalier attitude towards parenthood and breeding evens disturbs some of us queers.
Stop acting like fundamentalist Muslims offended by a stupid Dutch cartoon, people. You'd be better off channeling your energy into something that accomplishes positive gains, instead of giving the homo-haters more ammunition to rightfully call us intolerant of free speech.
Of course, no one wants to do the real hard work, do they?
See you at the press conference.
I agree with Kevin -- Pete did say something stupid. But calling a press conference probably isn't the most practical use of anyone's efforts, since who's going to notice aside from the people who called it?
Still, it would be nice if Pete admitted that he was wrong to suggest that he has evidence Sidney's family is doing him harm.
There's an audio excerpt of his show on the Bay Area Reporter's website.
http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1238
Oh dear. I'm starting to regret writing this post. People seem to be getting awfully worked up about a radio guy talking out of his ass, as if that's never happened before, and I think that might be diverting attention from more important issues. Not that this isn't important. But, y'know, I can think of better reasons to hold a press conference.
Hello. FYI, we’ve blogged about the Pete Wilson “controversy” on RightLinx and mentioned this blog in the process. Your comments are welcome even though we may not agree.
Intolerance in San Francisco