Gay Activist Dishes Up a Plateful of Truth

Gay Activist Dishes Up a Plateful of Truth May 8, 2013

Masha Gessen is the author of The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin. She also writes for The New Republic, New Statesman, Slate, Vanity Fair and US News and World Report.

It made sense that she would be asked to participate in the Sydney Writer’s Festival in Sydney, Australia.

Masha Gessen is also a gay activist who has been a member of the board of directors for the Moscow LGBT organization Triangle. So it also made sense that they slotted her for a debate titled “Why Get Married When You Can Be Happy?

Evidently, Ms Gessen is not one to mince words. While other gay activists say things like what she said in that debate in private, they go the other way in public discussion.

The party line is that gay marriage is just this little thing that will have no impact on anything. Ms Gessen departed from the party line and served up a heaping plateful of unvarnished truth.

Here’s what she had to say (emphasis mine):

It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist [cheers from the audience].

That causes my brain some trouble. And part of why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally….

[After my divorce,] I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three…. And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality. And I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

These statements have been all over the internet. The question is, what to they really mean?

If they had come from the mouth of a nutcase with no influence (who probably wouldn’t have been engaged in this debate in the first place) then they wouldn’t mean much of anything. Everybody’s got a mouth and most of us say really stupid things from time to time.

However, this statement didn’t come from a nutcase with no influence. It came from a writer who is entrenched in major media outlets and who writes a great deal about LGBT issues, including, presumably, gay marriage.

What that means is that Ms Gessen is not just a person with an opinion. She’s an opinion shaper. She has a lot to do with what people in the world read and thus, how they think about issues like this.

If this is the agenda she’s following, I think it’s reasonable to think that other people in these same media outlets agree with that agenda and are pushing it also. I’ve written before that I think the media is not just in support of gay marriage, it is hard-selling it to us.

I believe that writers like this one, with agendas like this, are part of that process.

Is the secret motivation behind gay marriage a plot to destroy marriage? I’m not sure that matters.

In the final analysis, it might as well be their agenda, since it will be the result of re-writing marriage laws to pretend that there are no differences between gay couples and a man and a woman. This entire movement is based on this absurd lie.

One question that people who think the way Ms Gessen says that she does don’t even try to answer is whether civilization can survive the destruction of home and family and the complete commodification of women’s bodies and of children.

This is an audio of Ms Gessen, making these statements.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

26 responses to “Gay Activist Dishes Up a Plateful of Truth”

  1. I realize the audio is simply an excerpt from a panel discussion which
    took place last year, so perhaps important information is left out. But
    how can her remarks be construed that she has some kind of agenda concerning marriage?

    It is no secret that many gays and lesbians are not interested in marriage,
    particularly the younger generations. Like many heterosexuals of this
    age, they see it as an outdated and needlessly restrictive institution.

    The panel discussion was titled “Why Get Married When You can be Happy?”
    Gessen clearly falls into the camp as seeing marriage as irrelevant and
    full of legal complications (such as the problem of multiple sets of
    parents, biological or adoptive.)

  2. Dale, you can find the full debate here It’s almost an hour long, which is why I didn’t put it on the post. I didn’t have time to listen to it. Will be interested if you think the quotes hold up with the overall intent of what she said.

  3. She seems to be confirming the fears of those against gay marriage that there will be an impact on traditional marriage. My whole argument for it is based on the assumption that it won’t affect traditional marriage. What exactly is she saying? That the institution of marriage should be abolished? That’s not her call.

  4. Rebecca, yes, the quotes do hold up. She makes those remarks roughly between the six and nine minute timepoints.

    But that wasn’t my concern, which I guess wasn’t explained well. I am wondering why her comments are suddenly getting so much attention? She doesn’t really say anything except that she opposes gay marriage because it doesn’t fit her lifestyle. She claims that it won’t fit other gays or lesbians either, and thus marriage will have to change to make it fit their lives. But she never really says why it won’t fit (other than child custody issues with multiple parents) nor does she say how marriage might change.

    I listened to the whole panel discussion, but am still puzzled. I am not sure what she means, and I am not sure why her comments suddenly are such a big issue.

  5. The point for me was that she said that advocates of gay marriage are being disingenuous (her word by that they were lying) when they say that marriage wouldn’t be changed by changing the definition of marriage so that it is no longer between one man and one woman. Her acknowledgement of what is obvious is telling to me since most advocates of gay marriage are so vociferous in maintaining the fiction that it will change nothing.

    Then her statement that marriage should be done away with, coming on the heels of the first statement seemed telling.

    As for her statements about her lifestyle … no comment right now.

    i do think that the media is pushing gay marriage and that there are a lot of people with her viewpoint in opinion shaping positions within the media who are driving that. I called that an agenda, but I really wasn’t referring to a formal agenda like the agenda for a meeting.

    Does that clarify or confuse?

  6. I have a comment on her lifestyle. Given her face, how did she get any man to perform sexually with her? Were they all blind, or wearing double eyepatches?

    Other than that. This woman is the ultimate insider, a former head of Radio Liberty. Her curriculum is full of posts where you only get if you have friends in high places. What she says ought to be taken with the same seriousness as a pointed and loaded gun.

  7. “I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist…”

    That is what they really are after. Left wing radicals want the demise of institutions and the collaspe of western values. They are anarchists at heart.

    “I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally….”
    Welcome to the brave new world.

  8. Twenty years ago, we would have said, “What, gay marriage? That’s not anyone’s call”, but look where we are now.

    The followers of Gessen’s attitude will eventually scatter because they do not gather, as you see in her very divided family situation.
    The few who choose to stay in the fold of marriage will be small but they will be the survivors of the culture wars.

  9. As necessary as her bragging of the number of her lovers. To me, at least, that was bragging.

  10. Perhaps she was, as you put it, bragging about her lovers, but I still think the comment on her looks was unnecessary. Just my opinion. The amount of lovers has nothing to do with her looks, anymore than it would if she was a heterosexual.

  11. She is following the logic of the arguments being made. If marriage is only the legal recognition of committed love and not about biology, and children, then why should it receive any more special protection than any other relationship of the same kind.

    It’s makes a case against the uniqueness of marriage itself.

  12. If you indulge in bad taste in public, I feel entitled to mock. My dearest friend, who died last year, was quite a ladies’ man in his time. HE NEVER TOLD – not once. He always treated his female friends with respect, and I got to know quite a few of them, but I only ever even got to suspect any contact between them by pure chance here and there. He lived by the old-fashioned notion that a gentleman does not brag of his “bonnes fortunes”. This may not be a Christian virtue, but it is decent gentlemanly behaviour, and I feel certain that its opposite is a vice. And so, if you feel the need to tell us what a hot piece of something or other you are, I certainly feel entitled to treat you as an object of laughter. If you want to act like a man, act like a gentleman.

  13. You’ve both had your say. Let’s just go on to other discussions before this gets angry.

  14. Rebecca, I was not even close to angry, just wondered as to a possible reason to bring looks into it. 🙂

  15. I know — and I agree — but I didn’t want this to go off into the weeds. That’s all. I enjoy your participation on this blog pagansister.

  16. Thank you, Rebecca. If I didn’t find your blog interesting, I wouldn’t be here. You keep me informed on many issues. Thanks for that. 🙂 Hope your day is proceeding well.

  17. Happy mother’s day. I think that in most of our lives, the first example not just of love, but of self-sacrifice, discipline to the point of heroism, and all things that make an individual better, come from the mother. What you get from your father may be just as deep, but you will realize it later, and it will have a different meaning. But even little children know that Mummy is the one who will take the bad part of the chicken, who will clean up after you and get up in the night when your tummy aches, who will think of you before she thinks of herself. There is one sweet Italian children’s song, where a child sings a lullaby to his mother, with this verse: “The houses are sleeping/ The town is asleep/ Only the wall clock/ moves and goes tick-tock./ Even the very ants/ Go and take their rest/ But you are the Mummy,/ And you never sleep.” I find that line so touching, because it is so true to what most of us have experienced. My mother taught me to cycle – even though she did not know how herself! Can you believe that of anyone but a mother?

  18. I think, rather, that it is to the point to say that Ms.Gessen’s argument would not have changed much if she had avoided mentioning her own sex life. It would look much the same, but it would leave a bit less of a sidelight into the demons that really drive her. But that, in turn, is not vastly important, because I feel certain that many of the people who drive this nonsense have fairly ordinary sex lives. What would remain central is the fact that this insider of insiders – that is the part of her biography that is really relevant – this creature of Radio Liberty and of influential foundations, tells us clearly that the ultimate goal of the “gay marriage” ramp is to embody sexual lawlessness in the laws.

  19. Fabio, Thank you so much for your Mother’s Day wishes! Thank you also for your beautiful sentiments—-I was fortunate to have the most wonderful Mother a child could possibly wish for. From your post you also had the best mother in the world. What can I say about the children’s song? Perfect and so true! 🙂

  20. Let’s see if this works. This is the original performance – the artist was 3 1/2 at the time!:

    This is the text:

    And my translation:

    Stanza 1
    Lullaby,Mummy – keep me with you
    in your big bed, just a little bit.
    I will sing a lullaby for you
    And if you go to sleep, I will sleep too.

    Lullaby, Mummy,
    There is no salad here;
    There are seven bowls on the King’s table.
    Lullaby, Mummy,
    There is one for you as well,
    What is there in it?
    Just a little coffee bean.

    Stanza 2

    The houses are sleeping,
    The town is asleep,
    Only the wall clock
    Moves and goes tick-tock.
    Even the very ants
    Go and take their rest,
    But you are the Mummy,
    And you never sleep

    Lullaby, Mummy…

    Stanza 3
    When I am grown up
    I shall buy for you
    So many pretty things,
    Like you do for me.
    Shut your eyes and dream
    The things you don’t have yet,
    And when you have dreamed them,
    You’ll tell them to me.

    There is no salad here;
    There are seven dishes of gold on the King’s table.
    Lullaby, Mummy,
    There is one for you as well,:
    And we’ll put on it
    Everything you ever want,
    And we’ll put on it
    Everything you ever want.

  21. Unfortunately Fabio, I couldn’t open the site,but I appreciate your effort. Thanks for translating—I read all the verses and they are very sweet. It was kind of you to send this. 🙂

  22. Successful opening and super listening! It was worth waiting to see and hear. Looked like she was on a children’s program. Wonder where she is now?

  23. Defiantly from the left to destroy our Society into being that Godless ,centrally planned imprisonment of theirs. The Communists tried flooding the west with all sorts of media ,promoting immorality before.
    With all this debate , a creation of emotional outcry is generated. This is when all reason , logical ,responsible and relevant thinking are suppressed.
    This whole controversy has created a situation where Gays and the Marriage institution , have been disrespected , degraded by certain biased, self righteous extremists on both sides. Its also allowed certain groups exploit all concerned. In my opinion, marriage is a very deep Theological Ecclesiastical,and Philosophical.issue concerning society`s development. For this reason its much more than a simple human/civil right issue. But this controversy is causing a divide that could lead to non Theological etc. rights violations. Political manipulation etc could lead to this. The gun control controversy , playing on emotions to destroy a right, without any Theological etc involvement. Could a civil union partnership not suffice. I think the word “Marraige” is the obstacle her