Irish, Gays, Clash at St. Patty's Parade


road.jpg New York's St. Patrick's Day parade chairman John Dunleavy compares gays to Nazis and the KKK: "If an Israeli group wants to march in New York, do you allow Neo-Nazis into their parade? If African Americans are marching in Harlem, do they have to let the Ku Klux Klan into their parade?"

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Without getting into the legal issues -- which the Supremes have already settled -- there's a big difference between Dunleavy's idiotic examples and allowing Irish gays and lesbians to march. Besides the fact that gays and lesbians aren't hate groups, that is. The difference is, Neo-Nazis and the KKK would be espousing a message -- in fact, their very presence would be a message -- directly antithetical to the point of the hypothetical parades he's talking about. The real analogy would be an anti-Irish group wanting to march today. But that's clearly not what Christine Quinn and the others are -- they're proud of their Irish heritage, they just want to be proud of being gay and lesbian too. So, unless Dunleavy's point is that to be Irish is inherently to be anti-gay, his comments are completely off-base. Of course, the organizers of the parade here have proven time and time again that they ARE homophobic assholes, so I guess you could make the argument that the parade is about declaring the Irish to be Proud Homophobes. If that's the case, though, it should be shunned by all decent persons.

    And huge props to Christine Quinn for not marching. She tried to give them a reasonable compromise, and they told her to go fuck herself.

    Posted by: Glenn | Mar 17, 2006 12:50:55 PM

  2. Of course, the good Irish Catholic papal knight says this with the full complicity of Cardinal Egan - just the most recent occupant of the Powerhouse in the mold of Frannie Spellman.

    The initial spin has been that all the paedophilia and all the adult consentual homosexual behaviours rested with the deacons and priests.

    Then, it became clear that certain gay or paedo priests were bishops and archbishops.
    The College of Cardinals was protecting its own, however. There have been rumours about most cardinal-archbishops of major Catholic dioceses worldwide as well as those in the Vatican Curia.

    The usual spin is that the "misbehaving" popes were in office a half to a millennia or more ago, if they admit it at all. However, the rumours about Ratzinger, Albino, Montini, Roncalli and Pacelli bring us back all the way to 1939. That is when the current pope was a boy in the Hitler Jugend.

    The Ancient Order of Hibernians can live their hypocrisy. It is their parade. They can exclude whom they wish. However, private groups who discriminate should not get special monetary considerations from the city.

    There is a cost to homophobia and any form of bigotry and hatred and they should pay it.

    Posted by: Raymond | Mar 17, 2006 12:58:14 PM

  3. Here, here, Raymond! Fine, let the bastards do as they please, only charge them for police escorts, the clean-up and the hassle their little green parade does to traffic. Let them send every New Yorker a check for $100.

    See, it's what I've always maintained: the problem isn't Muslims. It's the Catholics. Next they'll take away purses, drag and wearing slippers in public...oops, those are called vestments and that's what bishops wear. Sorry.

    Posted by: JT | Mar 17, 2006 1:11:20 PM

  4. Well, that's about the silliest thing I ever heard. The gays who want to march aren't "anti-Irish" or "anti-Catholic," they are Irish Catholic gays. Duh. There's no such thing as a neo-Nazi Israeli or a Black Klansman. I guess Dunleavy was absent the day they taught analogies.

    Posted by: Andy | Mar 17, 2006 2:08:01 PM

  5. Don't forget that Mr. Dumbleavy also suggested that if they allow Irish gays and lesbians then they'll have to allow Irish prostitutes!

    Posted by: JT | Mar 17, 2006 2:34:27 PM

  6. John Dunleavy can pog mo thoin.

    Posted by: mike3k | Mar 17, 2006 2:35:45 PM

  7. while the analogy is obviously offensive and completely over-the-top, the broader question Dunleavy raises is whether an organization that defines itself according to a particular religion - the AOH is a Catholic organization - can say that certain groups espouse values and beliefs that are so contrary to what the organizers believe that they can reasonably be excluded. Catholicism and "gay" do not go together, period.

    Sure, it's wrong for them to exclude a gay group. But freedom of association and freedom of speech require that we recognize their right to do the wrong thing, in this case.

    Posted by: alan | Mar 17, 2006 2:38:07 PM

  8. The parade is controlled by right wing knuckle dragging troglodytes from New Jersey, Queens, etc. These are people who have about as much investment in Ireland and the Irish as they do in seeing Hillary win the White House in 2008.

    They only visit Manhattan once a year and when they do it's only to wave at Cardinals and to discriminate against Irish gays and Irish immigration rights groups (both have been booted off the parade once again in 2006).

    It's long since time that this shower of gombeen men were replaced by actual adults. I think they've endured so long because no sane person would want to take their mantle from them, especially now that it's been so thoroughly disgraced.

    Posted by: FASTLAD | Mar 17, 2006 3:20:43 PM

  9. Dunleavy was obviously DRUNK when he made those comments. Someone should throw him in a PADDY WAGON until he sobers up!

    I can't say I'm surprised though. Look at all the gays that support the racist 'war on terror' which is just as much about the victims becoming the victimizers as these comments are.

    Posted by: Justin | Mar 17, 2006 3:39:51 PM

  10. Of course, the organizers of the parade here have proven time and time again that they ARE homophobic assholes, so I guess you could make the argument that the parade is about declaring the Irish to be Proud Homophobes.

    That's exactly the argument that the organizers of the parade in Boston made to the US Supreme Court to establish their right to exclude gay groups.

    If that's the case, though, it should be shunned by all decent persons.

    You can always count on Hillary, can't you? She's as principled as John Kerry.

    Posted by: Sportin' Life | Mar 17, 2006 4:14:15 PM

  11. We should all go out and fuck an Irish Catholic tonight.

    Posted by: Ozzie | Mar 17, 2006 6:53:50 PM

  12. Stay home... Its not about your sexual preference they are honoring a Saint... jeez Not every parade needs a gay float people.

    Posted by: M | Mar 17, 2006 11:20:40 PM

  13. Greetings from Dublin, Andy

    The wider issue is about hegemonic power over queer and other bodies. Dunleavy might be thought of a foolish or drunk, but he is part of a dangerous right wing elemennt in the irish body politic that would like to exclude or eliminate that which does not fit with his view of Irishness, i.e. the waste of the nation.

    The NY issue has sadly gone on for a number of years. It continues to advance the idea that Irish queers are second class citizens but it is part of a wider global problem of discrimination against women and gays.

    In recent times there's been a court case in Ireland where two lesbians were through out of Malone's pub in Blarney because one had given her girlfriend a kiss on the cheek. The media report (hope link works) is:


    The judge argued that Blarney (a town north of Cork city known for the Blarney Stone) wasn't Dublin or Amsterdam, i.e. this is a heterosexual country. The women won their discrimination case but the judge (also a leading member of a Catholic body) awarded no compensation to the women.

    Happy Paddy's Day to you all!

    Posted by: Sean R | Mar 18, 2006 8:17:17 AM

  14. Yes, Sean, and happy St. Patrick's Day to you from the Canadian Church to the Anglican Church of Ireland- as well as all Roman Catholics in and out of Ulster or Eire.

    Yes, isn't it ironic, or is it so, that the Province of Northern Ireland allows the new legality for same-sex couples, and the Irish Republican right wing opposes it fiercely?

    Posted by: Raymond | Mar 18, 2006 8:57:14 AM

  15. JT -

    Everybody wears some vestment or another....since the days they needed a raincoat in the catacombs. (grin). It is all that scarlet from head cover to toe, that amethyst ring and that pectoral accessory that makes all the difference.

    As Tallulah Bankhead, an Episcopalian, once told Frannie Spellman , " I love your wardrobe dahhhhhhhhhling, but your purse is on fire....."

    Posted by: Raymond | Mar 18, 2006 9:00:51 AM

  16. You guys are applying way more logic into the chairmans comments that he did. There is no logic to his comments, they're just emblematic of the disdain homophobes are allowed to verbalize for gays. If any other minority group were excluded demeaned in an equally disgusting display prior to any other parade, the parade would become a national symbol of a country headed in the wrong direction and it would be shut down or the chairman at least dismissed.

    Posted by: Chad Hanging | Mar 18, 2006 1:20:50 PM

  17. Tradition maintains that in AD 432, St. Patrick arrived on the island and, in the years that followed, worked to convert the Irish to Christianity. By 1536, the Catholics and Protestants were already at each other's throats over control of the island. It's nearly 500 years later, and they are still squabbling.

    If their history is any indication, this "Parade War" between Irish heterosexuals and Irish homosexuals could last a while.

    Posted by: Jay Croce | Mar 19, 2006 7:04:29 AM

  18. In all fairness, the problem has always been the Scots who immigrated from Scotland to the Ulster Counties some three and a half centuries ago. They brought dissent and the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) with them as well.

    The (Anglican) Church of Ireland has always been sympathetic to the republican aims in Eire. This small Georgian rite church has maintained cordial relations with the Irish Roman Catholic majority.

    The Church of England in Northern Ireland (Anglican) is also both loyal to the Crown but is sympathetic to the Roman Catholic minority, and has always opposed, also a smaller minority, the Presbyterian support for the status quo ante.

    Sometimes, we paint facts with too broad a brush as to distort the truth. Moreover, the description of some as "Catholics" is equally disturbing as painting all "Prots" as anti-Catholic antagonists (especially if you are Tractarian).

    The Irish question, is after all, economic and political as well, and most prominently the former and latter.

    The AOH parade is, after all, bigotry covering guilt and shame over the fact that the hierarchy and control of the Catholics in this hemisphere was predominantly Irish Catholic. The paedophilic scandals were both committed and covered up predominantly by Irish-descended Catholics. Shanley (sic) and Law come to mind.

    It never surprises me when Poland and Ireland seem to lead the European effort for the Vatican...

    Posted by: Raymond | Mar 19, 2006 7:20:06 AM

  19. Ah, yes. Yet another valiant voice out to protect the sanctity of the St Patty's Day Parade. I support it. In this turbulent world, can't we let the dignity and meaning behind puddles of green vomit be?

    Posted by: Jacko | Mar 20, 2006 6:33:07 AM

  20. There is a difference between the NY parade and the Parade here in Dublin, which obviously includes a lot less folks who need to try 'prove' just how Irish they are by walking and waving.

    The Parade here is now made up primarily of marching bands and theatre groups with themed costumes etc.. The emphasis should not be on any one particular group. However, that said, the NY parade is different, and gay Irish Americans should be allowed to march along with any other Irish American group that marches. Common sense should prevail though, the parade is to celebrate the patron saint of Ireland and being Irish.

    As for the little factoids from Raymond...sorry but the issue in Northern Ireland is not about Catholics and Protestants, it's about republicans and unionists. While they may be one and the same thing to you, they most certainly are not to those that live there.

    Posted by: graham | Mar 21, 2006 8:23:00 AM

Post a comment


« «« «