Gay Marriage is Approved
Posted by
KTK
By me.
Fuck you if you disagree. Your opinion doesn’t count.
As I was reading Charles Bouley’s post on cancerous politics (see below), I came across a passage in which he briefly mentioned his husband’s struggle with AIDS. And immediately, without intention or plan, I found myself thinking “Husband? Is this a woman after all? No, it’s a guy. Is he American? What state is he from? Does he mean it metaphorically? . . .” until I finally caught myself.
He meant his husband. The man he was married to. It shouldn’t be hard to understand.
The fact that there is any confusion about it - that someone who isn’t confused or conflicted about marriage could still fail to understand the simplest reference to it - is the result of letting the vicious bigots of the religious right hijack millions of lives for their political, emotional, and fund-raising needs. That gays still cannot legally marry in most countries or US states is a travesty, but that there is a debate over the matter is merely our acquiescence in the right wing’s pretense that there is anything to be debated.
There isn’t, of course. Their prejudice and retrograde narrowmindedness does not make marriage any more complicated or controversial for gays than it has ever been for anyone else. Their perverse and persistent nay-saying does not make an “issue” out of marriage any more than it does of evolution or global warming. Religion’s stranglehold on America, and the bigoted right’s stranglehold on religion, give them the votes to deny legal rights to married gays, but that doesn’t give them the authority to dictate moral facts or deny the fact of gay marriage.
Of course gays can get married. Of course they have done, and are doing. They are still denied legal recognition of their marriages, and the vast privileges and protections that entails, but the marriages themselves are as real as marriage gets.
Not only have we acquiesced in the right’s bigotry by allowing ourselves to debate the legitimacy of the moral rights of fellow citizens whose only distinction is to be hated by Christians, but we have succumbed to their bizarre Manichean logic and false dichotomies as well. The right claims marriage is more than just a legal institution, and therefore they can stipulate what “defines” it; it is certainly more than a legal institution, but that in no way implies it is subject to the bigots’ veto. Because it is a morally significant, free and voluntary association of individuals, it exists beyond the law and beyond the pinched and twisted imaginations of the haters and
hate-mongers.
Marriage exists where the desire for and commitment to a marriage are manifested. The law does not make a marriage; the law recognizes a marriage when it is made - for some. That it does not yet do so for all does not make those persons unmarried; it makes the bigots’ law the oppressor of their marriages. But marriage abides. All those who have married, are married - some by ceremony, some by commitment and the will to make it last, but in whatever form and by whatever process, there is no legal barrier to marriage, there is only the refusal of legal equality to some who are married.
So we must continue the fight for legal equality for gays, in marriage and all other senses, but we must abandon this silly and reactionary talk about the “gay marriage controversy”. There is no controversy; there is no question. Gays are married, and always have been, and will be so in increasing numbers.
The saddest consequence of the pervasive discrimination the religious right has sown among us is the failure of many gays themselves to recognize this - their hesitance to claim what is theirs by right and cannot be denied to them, by law or otherwise. Any gay partners could and can be married if they choose to be. Those who do so choose, and make the commitment necessary to marriage in whatever way it takes them to do so, are married. The many who want to be married but have not claimed that right are the victims of the religious bigots’ big lie - that they, the bigots, have authority to grant or deny to other people permission to exercise their own rights.
We, their allies, who have failed to assert that truth have left them to find their own way out of a hostile landscape - too regrettably. Most of them have not done so, but let us now make the path clearer to them and to ourselves: marriage is between the married partners, alone; legal recognition of a marriage is a separate and secondary issue; if our legal institutions provide no guidance or framework for marriage, people will have to make their own forms and institutions for it, for marriage is a fact about relationships, not a state conferred by law.
To those who wish to be married: do so, and proclaim the fact of your relationship until the law is forced to hear. To we who witness their marriages when the state will not: refuse to deny that fact by debating it, refuse to acknowledge the pretended bigots’ veto, grant the marriages of our fellows too long denied all the welcome and joy they deserve. And to those bigots who pretend to deny the fact of those marriages in service of some delusional simulacrum of a hate-born ideal: get lost. Your blind religious hatreds are no more reality than are your blind religious credulities. Your self-satisfied insistence upon your platitudes about “traditional marriage” is as empty as your Chick tracts and “abstinence-only” pamphlets. Your beliefs about marriage are as enlightening as your beliefs about the age of the earth. Your opinion on the matter is worthless, and your motives are contemptible. Consider the matter settled. It has nothing to do with you, and your input is neither wanted nor valued. You are factually self-deluded and morally deranged. In regard of the question of other people’s rights and freedoms, you simply don’t count.
Hey! I beat you to this one, and more succinctly, to boot.
Comment 3/27/2007
Seriously, though, we both fail to note a critical point:
Historically, wedlock has been not only an act by the persons being wed, but also an official act of the community in which they are wed. All marriage traditions I can think of involve a public contract entered into by those wed, but that contract is made before their social community, and the people of that community have the authority to enforce the contract. (Note the important distinction between ‘persons’ and a ‘people’.)
Of course, modern times have made communities less personal, and the rule of law has passed authority from the body of the people to the machinery of governence, so the oldest character of wedlock was lost centuries ago. Now, what might be termed an individual’s community — his friends, family, and peers — is far-flung and but a minute portion of the populous of a geographic location, and the opprobrium or honor of that community has no weight of law.
The question, then, is how modern communities relate to the marriages of their members, and what rules enforce the bonds of wedlock. I think it’s clear that a community can approve and disapprove of acts as well as it ever has been able to; the sharp tongue of a friend still stings more than any letter from an august jurist. All that remains is how to handle individuals’ breech of their vows. That’s no moral matter, but the perview of the pragmatism of the common law.
Comment 3/27/2007
Amazing how you can write a commentary about how it has been wrong to exclude a group and yet at the same time spread hatred and exclusion of another group at the same time.
I am not a fan of gay marriage. I’m also not a fan of people living together outside of marriage. However, I do not have any hatred for people that choose to take positions in support of those decisions.
You on the other hand seem to have an incredibly strong hatred for all Christians whether you know them or not. So I guess it is okay for you to decide who is okay to hate and who isn’t okay to hate. Congratulations.
Nice to know you hate me. At least now I know where I stand in your books. Would have been nice to be judged for who I am rather than what you’ve decided I am but apparently that doesn’t apply to me since I am a Christian. It sure is eye-opening to see how open-minded and tolerant people on the left are of other views (not).
Guess that’s why they call it the left and the right in the US. Both sides are full of bigotry and intolerance, they just choose different targets.
Comment 3/27/2007
KTK -
Your initial reaction is nothing to be embarrassed about. The term “married” is regarded by most of us, I expect, as a legal as well as an emotional description. When Charles referred to his husband, it would be natural, automatic even, to take that new information and think “what else do I now know about him that I didn’t know before?” Such as, in this case, if he’s from the US, what state could it be? That’s not a politically-conditioned reaction, it’s a natural psychological one.
On the actual point, however, my own wedding ceremony, nearly 33 years ago now, which my wife and I wrote, contained the line “true marriage arises out of the heart, the mind, and the spirit, not out of ceremonies.” Indeed, we had told friends that as far as we were concerned, we were already married - this was just taking care of some legal technicalities. That is, as you, we wanted to make the declaration that marriage in its truest sense is about commitment, not legalities. But this does serve to point up that the equation of marriage with a defined legal status did not arise with right-wing attacks on the idea of same-sex marriage.
Big U -
You assert for yourself the ability to distinguish between the behavior and the person, to, as Gandhi put it, “hate the sin and not the sinner.” Pity you don’t allow KTK the same ability.
As for the rest, it’s a snore that boils down to trying to paint yourself as the real victim” while blustering “how dare you be intolerant of intolerance.” Well, I can’t speak for KTK, but for me, dare away.
Comment 3/27/2007
Larry E> KTK state that gays are hated by Christians. Period. How is that showing a willingness to distinguish. He then went on to describe his idea of any and all people who disagree with gay marriage as bigoted and hate-filled. Doesn’t wound too willing to distinguish there either.
I don’t know where you got the impression I was saying it was bad to be intolerant of intolerance or how you think I was claiming to be a victim. I was simply stating what his comments communicated to me. Interesting how you view his intolerance of any and all Christians as acceptable.
Comment 3/27/2007
BU, quite simply, you’re projecting.
KTK mentions Christians exactly once, and that clearly within the context of the “religious right”, which here in the US, is made up mostly of *drum roll* Christians. Now, KTK does indulge in “taking the insult train to angry town”, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard him in his wildest screeds equate the religious right with all Christians. You clearly haven’t been listening.
KTK claims entirely correctly that there are Christians who hate gays, and claim to do so exactly because of their Christianity. He further claims entirely correctly that the religious right, Christian and otherwise, make claim on the authority to say what should and should not be marriage. Telling them to fuck off is a far cry from denouncting Christianity. Hell, the problem is that they’re exceptionally bad at being Christian.
You clearly are calling for tolerance of those that KTK is decrying. It’s blatantly clear that KTK is decrying their intolerance. You do the math.
Comment 3/28/2007
Big U -
KTK state that gays are hated by Christians. Period.
Exactly. He called them haters. He did not say he hated them and did not say all Christians are haters. You said that. If the post was about misogyny and included a line about women being hated by men would you assume the author meant every man is a misogynist? I doubt it. So it’s interesting, to use your phrase, how readily in this case you put yourself in the haters’ camp.
I don’t know where you got the impression I was saying it was bad to be intolerant of intolerance
Quoting you: “It sure is eye-opening to see how open-minded and tolerant people on the left are of other views (not).” Since the “other views” being referenced were bigotry and hatred, it’s hard to read that comment any other way. What’s actually “eye-opening” here is to see homophobia being treated as just “another view.”
or how you think I was claiming to be a victim.
Again quoting: “Nice to know you hate me. At least now I know where I stand in your books. Would have been nice to be judged for who I am….” Members of the LGBT community would like the same consideration. And responding to a post about hatred by claiming that you are the target of hate is indeed claiming to be a victim.
Interesting how you view his intolerance of any and all Christians as acceptable.
I, of course, never said any such thing. Thanks for proving my point.
Comment 3/28/2007
I guess I just really do not understand the left or the right in the States. Both sides label the other side and then claim the moral high ground. Labeling is wrong regardless who does it. Bigotry, racism, sexism, anti-religious group rants, etc. are wrong regardless of what side does it.
Larry E>
*to see homophobia being treated as just “another view.”*
See, this is where labelling comes in. Disagreeing with gay marriage does not mean someone is afraid of gays which is exactly what homophobia means. That is a label used to promote a point of view and to demonize any opponent of what you want.
In regards to your victim concept. In KTK’s last paragraph, he lays it out quite clearly what his opinion is regarding ANYONE who is not in favor of gay marriage. If that phrasing were used in almost any other context, it would be viewed as hate-speech and the author would be seen as hating the group he is targeting. Since I am not in favor of gay marriage, it was a reasonable assumption on my part to assume he hates me based solely on what he wrote. I do not feel like a victim in any way, shape or form. Just amazed that he can spout what he does and then be defended when someone is offended.
Comment 3/28/2007
Big U:
Disagreeing with gay marriage does not mean someone is afraid of gays which is exactly what homophobia means.
Guess again:
Italics mine.
Frankly, if anyone has put forth a rational argument against same-sex marriage (as opposed to an emotional argument against or a purely religious/faith-based argument against), I have yet to see it. Boiled down to their essence, the arguments against same-sex marriage invariably come down into either or both of two camps: the “God hates fags” camp, and the “Gays are icky” camp. Neither camp is worthy of serious consideration, in my estimation, and I share KTK’s contempt for those who fall into those camps.
(You’re perfectly free to go on thinking gays are icky, if that’s what floats your boat… just don’t go making public policy based on that revulsion.)
Comment 3/28/2007
There you go again with the labels.
I have yet to see anyone put forth a “rational” argument in favor of changing the definition of marriage (as opposed to an emotional argument for or a purely anti-faith ideals argument for). Boiled down to their essence, the arguments for same-sex marriage come down into either or both camps “I have the right to do whatever I want and the laws need to be rewritten to accomodate me” or “anyone who disagrees with sanctioning gay marriage is a homophobe who is also bigoted and filled with hatred for gays”. I have pity for people in those camps because they willingly label anyone opposed to them without ever being willing to accept that people have different opinions.
You can think whatever you want to think of me but my gay relatives and gay friends don’t seem to have the same opinion of me as you do and I have shared my opinion of this with them. They and I have agreed to have differing opinions on the matter but have not let it move into the slagging that has occurred on this board. Maybe I should point them to this board to show them just how incredibly “icky” I must feel they are.
And the key word in your definition is irrational. I will accept that the definition is different that any other phobia word with the phrase discrimination added in. Based on everything I have seen, phobias are generally fears. Guess this is a situation where a word is changed based on cultural attitudes. While I was wrong about the specific definition of homophobia, even with the definition you provided, being opposed to same-sex marriage still does not fall under the perview of homophobia.
Comment 3/28/2007
Big U:
Really? You’ve never heard a rational argument in favor of allowing gay marriage? That seems unlikely. But I’ll try:
Discrimination is morally wrong, especially when said discrimination lacks any rational basis or any compelling justification. In the absence of a compelling reason to discriminate against homosexuals with respect to marriage, there’s simply no reason to do so, and therefore any such discrimination must end.
Nothing “emotional” or “anti-faith” about that reasoning. It is logically coherent, as its conclusions follow from its premises; and its premises are entirely non-controversial.
And I can’t help but note that you still haven’t put forth a rational argument against same-sex marriage. You have yet to articulate why your opposition to same-sex marriage isn’t irrational. Although you have pointed out a third camp among those opposed: the “tradition reigns supreme” camp. Although you could make the argument that there’s a lot of overlap with the other two camps.
As for changing the definition of marriage, it’s not as if the definition has never changed before. It’s not some set-in-stone concept, ever-constant. Marriage started not as a social contract, but as a transfer of property. Marriages were often not traditionally monogamous, they were often arranged without the consent of those being married, and they were often restricted to people of the same race (with “race” often being a purely arbitrary distinction). Marriage has changed in all these ways, and yet legally recognizing the participation of same-sex couples will somehow undermine the whole institution? This simply doesn’t make sense.
As I’ve said many times before, the many weddings of Henry VIII and Elizabeth Taylor, and the ultra-short Britney Spears nuptials — all of which were heterosexual in nature — are a far greater “threat” to the “sanctity” of marriage than Adam & Steve could ever dream of being.
Comment 3/28/2007
Tgirsch > your argument fails on the grounds of discrimination. Marriage is a contract that is entered into that carries with it rights and responsibilities. However, non-married opposite sex couples already have all the rights that married couples do (at least in Canada they do) but not all of the same responsibilities. They are not seen as being discriminated against because of their marital status. It makes no logical sense, then, to indicate that same-sex couples are discriminated against in any maningful way when they have the exact same status as non-married opposite sex couples have.
If you want to say that it is discrimination that they do not have the opportunity to have their relationship referred to as a marriage by the State then it becomes an emotional argument (straight people can get married so why can’t we?), because all other rights are already present.
Comment 3/28/2007
Big U, if what you say is true vis-a-vis rights for gay couples, then Canadia (sorry, it’s a joke at the office to refer to Canada and Canadia) is certainly different from the US. In the US, gay couples most certainly do not have the same rights as those afforded to legally married couples.
As for KTK’s post, I remain unconvinced that petulance is an effective blogging style. As I read the post, I couldn’t help but picture KTK holding his breath and stamping his foot.
Comment 3/28/2007
I will have to keep in mind the significant differences between our countries when posting from now on. I tend to think in Canadian terms when discussing these issues and sometimes forget that individual states have significant autonomy on several issues resulting in significantly different laws. My apologies for not making my point of reference clearer at the beginning.
Comment 3/28/2007
*Canadia (sorry, it’s a joke at the office to refer to Canada and Canadia)*
hehehe. At least it’s better than Canuckistan which is what I often hear.
Comment 3/28/2007
DanM:
Hey! I beat you to this one, and more succinctly, to boot.
Hmmm . . . yes, and so did Kevin. (The “more succinctly” part goes without saying.) Maybe I should read this blog more often.
Historically, wedlock has been not only an act by the persons being wed, but also an official act of the community in which they are wed.
Yes, but it’s also been clear that there are two distinct components to the process - the marriage itself and legal recognition of it. (Note the common practice in Catholic countries of having two marriages - a “religious ceremony” and a “civil ceremony”. Both the Catholic church and the state regard their own procedure as the “real” marriage, but the participants are free to view it however they like: religious believers generally emphasize the religious ceremony, and may not even get around to the civil ceremony until the next day, while the non-religious skip the religious ceremony entirely.) And there have been marriages that were not recognized by the state, but were nonetheless real. American slaves often “jumped the broom” (literally) as a form of marriage ceremony, even though their marriages were not recognized by the state and brought them no legal rights, and even though they were subject to breakup at the slaveholder’s whim. The fact that their marriages were not recognized is a moral travesty, but it’s simply false to say they were not married. Similarly, the common practice of two lesbian women living together as “roommates” was long known as a “Boston marriage”; there was no ceremony involved, but many of those couples were surely as much married as anyone else. And, just the same as with the slaves, the fact that their relationships were not recognized is a moral travesty, but they were no less real for that. (See the funeral scene in Four Weddings and a Funeral for a contemporary illustration.)
I want to emphasize the associational character of marriage over its role as a form of legal status. Though state recognition is tied to marriage, marriages are real whether or not the state recognizes them. In the backlash against gay marriages, the question is often raised whether marriage is a religious institution or “merely” a state function that can be changed by political process. The wingers often go to lengths to claim that the state cannot “redefine” marriage, and then assert by dysfunctional syllogism that it must therefore be a religious insitution (arising from their version of their religion, naturally), and they have the right to determine who is allowed to participate. But there are many more alternatives than they are capable of grasping, and the fact that marriage is not, or not only, a state function does not mean it must be a religious one. Anyone can get married, and no one needs permission from the worst people in our society to do so; their refusing to grant permission does not affect the outcome.
BigU:
Amazing how you can write a commentary about how it has been wrong to exclude a group and yet at the same time spread hatred and exclusion of another group at the same time.
You seem to overlook the difference between “hatred” and “exclusion” - as well as to read a great deal into my post that isn’t there.
I certainly am contemptuous of that depressingly large part of our society that has devoted itself to reactionism, misogyny, homophobia, more-than-crypto-racism, anti-intellectualism, and general falsehood and backwardness. I don’t think that feeling rises to the level of hatred; I can’t be bothered to care enough about them. I do hate their meddling in my and other people’s lives out of idiosyncratic animosity and religiously-inspired aggression, and that the more strongly in proportion to the damage they do, which is considerable. But as individuals, they mostly just strike me as tedious, insecure, and weird.
“Exclusion”, however, is not hatred or very closely related to it. I certainly haven’t excluded anybody from anything - I’m not in a position to do so. I don’t claim my God has ordered its followers to donate millions of dollars to reactionary religious candidates. I don’t threaten politicians with excommunication if they vote in favor of moral rights for people I dislike. I don’t take to hundreds of pulpits on Sundays and preach religious justification for partisan political ends. I don’t bar the doors of other people’s lives with my fears and desperately clung-to myths. And, if you’ll read for comprehension, you’ll note I haven’t advocated for the exclusion of anybody from anything. I have pointed out that some people’s opinions are not worthwhile, and that the terms of debate over the breadth of rights held by our fellow-citizens cannot be defined by prejudice, or arbitrarily limited - but that is no more than fact.
Nice to know you hate me. At least now I know where I stand in your books. Would have been nice to be judged for who I am rather than what you’ve decided I am
I don’t hate you; I don’t even know you. You’re welcome to as much contempt as you earn, but that’s up to you.
Since you’ve declared yourself one of them, you stand where anyone stands who claims that their religous prejudice must take legal precedence over the moral rights of every other citizen, who believes everyone else’s marriage is defined by - and in fact exists only in correspondence to - your religion’s view of the matter, who would not only dictate to, but constrain, judge, jail, and stigmatize others for loving without your permission. Understandably, you don’t stand very high in my estimation for those reasons, but again that’s your choice to make.
Like everyone, you are judged by what you say and do. I think that is the only evidence of “who you are”. You have shown us who you are, and it’s hard not to come to a certain judgment of that, but you can always try to change.
KTK’s last paragraph, he lays it out quite clearly what his opinion is regarding ANYONE who is not in favor of gay marriage. If that phrasing were used in almost any other context, it would be viewed as hate-speech and the author would be seen as hating the group he is targeting.
Read it again.
I laid out (I thought clearly) my perspective on the beliefs and arguments of the religious anti-rights contingent, not the people themselves. I named them as credulous bigots, but that’s self-evident. What the last part of that paragraph is actually about is the nonsense they spout in their attacks on other people’s lives.
There are some opinions that are simply not worth entertaining, claims that don’t need to be debated. The anti-rights stance is one of them. That’s not just a morally wrong position - it’s a morally impossible position, and obviously so. We allow marriage for everyone else, including people who patently shouldn’t get married, and with no more than the slightest qualification standards. Denial of the right of free association, and the right of equal treatment under the law, is a matter of highest significance. But we have an entire segment of our culture committed to - in fact, incensed about and mobilized on - the project of denying those rights, in the matter of a social practice that raises no controversy whatsoever in practically any other case, on no other basis than that they dislike how some people have sex. That’s asinine. That’s an obvious non-starter; it simply isn’t anything we need to take seriously - more, than that, it’s the kind of empty bigotry we are morally wrong to take seriously.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, but not all opinions have a right to be taken seriously.
If you believe in a flat Earth, a young Earth, or an Earth on which biological evolution does not take place, you’re a moron. You have no business teaching science, and no claim to be taken seriously or even paid attention to when you talk about the subject. Plenty of otherwise-normal people hold such opinions. Their opinions are negligible, at least in relation to that subject. They have a gaping hole in their knowledge and in their capacity to think rationally about certain subjects that are touched on by their religious beliefs. We don’t “hate” them or “exclude” them from anything, but we ignore them when they open their stupid yaps about science. We don’t pay attention to the von Danikeners, to UFOers, or to faith healers - they’re wrong, and in ways so crazy there’s no point in holding a rational conversation about it. The same is true of creationists. You want to talk creationism? Talk to someone else. You’re wasting normal people’s time.
Confederate flag-wavers are a waste of time, too. There’s no defense of slavery - just none. Nothing positive you might say about it matters at all; none of it is worth hearing. It’s another non-starter, again obviously so. You think there’s a category of obviously normal, mentally developed human beings who have no moral rights at all? You’re more than a moron; you’re a Nazi moron.* There’s no way to make that argument, and no decent person would try. Plenty of seemingly decent people have done so. Their opinions are negligible. They have placed their personal inclinations above a moral principle so fundamental that we must be suspicious what motivation they could have for doing so. You think the Civil War wasn’t about slavery? You’re only kidding yourself. You say you’re all wound up about the “heritage” and “nobility” of your great-grandparents’ slave economy? Talk to someone else. You’re wasting decent people’s time.
Opposing marriage rights for just that group of people whose sex lives you disapprove of is another non-starter. It’s not rational, and it’s not decent. All those idiotically strained arguments about “the destruction of the institution of marriage” are essentially sociological creationism - made-up nonsense that exists only because it conveniently complements the religious beliefs of morons. And using the phrases “traditional definition of marriage” or “defending the sanctity of marriage” is like waving a Confederate flag - it just marks you out as a jerk. We have no more time or patience for that kind of nonsense than we do for moronic falsehoods like creationism, or for bigoted revisionism like Confederate nostalgia. It’s just not part of any reasonable conversation about issues that matter. (It’s not that such positions can’t be debated - they are wrong for a reason, and the reasons can be given. But who wants to? Normal people have more important things to do.)
The time for jerks is past. People’s freedom is on the line, and we’ve been indulging the worst elements of our society for too long in their assault on our fellow-citizens. In granting equal respect to ideas that are not just reprehensible but don’t even make sense, we have allowed the morons and bigots to deny equal liberty to part of our society. We’ve made a mistake, there, one that some of us pay for with the loss of their most basic rights. It’s time to set liberty for all above deference to morons and bigots. Some ideas have no useful place in this debate, any more than creationism is a useful part of science or the Confederacy is a useful model for politics. Anyone who holds those ideas should just run along. The adults have work to do, cleaning up the mess we’ve allowed them to make for far too long. The last thing we need is to have them around still making it.
* Yes, OK - odds are good that you’re not a Nazi moron, you’re just one of my students. But I’m working on that.
Comment 3/28/2007
Big U/Ted:
Personally, I show my age here, but I’m still partial to “The Great White North.”
Comment 3/28/2007
[…] KTK says that gay marriage is approved. By him. And screw you if you don’t agree: As I was reading Charles Bouley’s post on cancerous politics (see below), I came across a passage in which he briefly mentioned his husband’s struggle with AIDS. And immediately, without intention or plan, I found myself thinking “Husband? Is this a woman after all? No, it’s a guy. Is he American? What state is he from? Does he mean it metaphorically? . . .” until I finally caught myself. […]
Pingback 3/28/2007
Big U,
I’d like to clarify something, given the misunderstanding about the differences between Canada (”Cannuckistan”?) and the US.
Here in the US, “the gay marriage debate” consists of arguing about whether it should be possible for homosexual couples to enter into a legal condition that grants the same benefits as heterosexual marriage, and whether laws pertaining to such should be federal or per-state.
From what you’ve said, it sounds like “the gay marriage debate” in Canada consists of arguing whether the legal status that homosexual couples can enter into, civil unions, should be required to be called a ‘marriage’ as is the state of a heterosexual couple being civilly united.
If my understanding is correct, than Canada has already finished the US’s gay marriage debate on the side that KTK is advocating, and what you oppose (again, if I’m understanding you) is the application of the name “marriage” to homosexual civil unions. Despite this thread, I think you’ll find that no one here finds that a contemptible or bigotted stance. (Lots of us will still think it’s wrong, but that’s quite another matter.)
Am I understanding your right? Could you be very specific and tell us what you mean when you say that you’re “not a fan of gay marriage”?
Comment 3/28/2007
I love Big U’s comment #10, especially the favorite of all those on the defensive about whether their bias constitutes racism: the old “but I can’t be homophobic–I have a gay friend (who is tired of arguing with me and for his or her own sanity has decided not to have that same argument again and again).” You may also have heard this variation: “My black friend doesn’t think I’m a racist.”
The U.S. government should regulate as little of its citizens’ private lives as possible. If two adults want to get married, want the picket fence and kids, want the legal benefits of marriage (e.g., spousal immunity), then that couple should be allowed to marry. Period. It’s not about accommodation. It’s about the same thing as it is for heterosexual couples: marrying the one you love.
Comment 3/28/2007
Erratum: That should be “bias constitutes homophobia.”
Comment 3/28/2007
Dan M., you are 100% right in your analysis. I was unaware things were that significantly different in the US because the people in Canada advocating for a change in the meaning of the word “marriage” trumpeted the same arguments I see used on this board. I can see where it would be seen as bigoted in the situation you are indicating but here in Canada we were finished with that debate years ago.
At the time of the push for gays to get the same rights as hetero couples, a large number of the gay leadership spoke out and said they had no interest in the term marriage. They only wanted the same legal rights. Then over the past few years, those same people said having everything but the word marriage meant they did not have all the rights. That is what the argument has been about in Canada. I can understand how someone not knowing this would see me as bigoted, mysogynistic, etc.
K > I knew someone would attack my comment in #10. People may have an issue with my stance on things but no one can look at my posts and honestly state that I am dishonest. I was being labelled as being something I am not and felt it was necessary to state some facts. I guess that was the wrong decision as I was apparently viewed as a liar by yourself and perhaps others.
Comment 3/28/2007
Big U: I’m not suggesting that you are a liar. I’m suggesting that you are mistaken. You seem to believe honestly that because your family and friends love you as a whole person–faults, virtues, and all in between–that their love and high regard strengthen your sociopolitical stance. It’s just a little more complex than that. The whole “but my gay friends love me” bit is a canard because your gay loved ones are not representatives for gay people everywhere. Do you love the gay people you know despite their orientation? Because they may love you despite your beliefs.
My point is that I don’t know. And because I don’t know the nature of the love you share with your gay friends and relatives, it can’t really figure into this discussion, rhetorically speaking. It’s an unknown. So, I wasn’t calling you a liar. I was suggesting that your logic is flawed.
Comment 3/29/2007
K > I understand what you are saying but you are also somewhat mistaken in your perspective. If I was as bigoted and mysoginistic as has been suggested, I would not be willing to associate with any gay people at all. There are family members whom I do not associate with because of personal differences and there are people I am not willing to be around. Now, I did not mention anything about “my gay friends love me”, that was your phrase used in a derogatory note to cast down on my claim. There are many reasons I do not associate with people but their sexual orientation is not one of them.
Therefore my point is relevant from the perspective of defining my own attitudes towards gays in spite of the assumptions that I feel “gays are icky” as was suggested or that I think that “God hates fags” which was the only other option given in post #9.
Comment 3/29/2007
Big U,
Now that we’ve established the difference between US and Canadian “gay marriage”, I think you can conclude that you’re not one of the people KTK was referring to: you don’t oppose gay marriage in the sense he was talking about.
Comment 3/29/2007
Big U: Let me take a deep breath and a step back. It was self-indulgent to allow sarcasm into my last post. I believe your sincerity, and perhaps a person can have your views and still support gays. It’s possible.
Nevertheless, your response addresses precisely the problem: “If I was as bigoted and mysogenistic as has been suggested, I would not be willing to associate with any gay people at all.” It’s the rule of exceptionalism. I can love my wife but dislike women generally because she’s different. I can believe that women who walk around in short skirts or with big breasts deserve whatever’s coming to them, but if a man lays a hand on my girl for any reason, I will beat him to a bloody mess. These are just examples that come to mind, but I’m sure you can think of more examples. (Please note that I am not accusing you of thinking or believing these examples.)
Your care for your gay friends and relatives does not, ipso facto, prove that you don’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Your relationship with them is rhetorically null.
Comment 3/29/2007
Good point K. I will have to rethink how I can make myself clear outside of those parameters. Never thought of it that way as discrimination of people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc. is not something I’ve tended to do.
Comment 3/29/2007
KTK, I hope you are enjoying your special day today (April 1). Psalms 14:1
Comment 4/1/2007
Hey, Fred, can I turn all my writings into holy scripture by adding “And if you don’t believe me, you’re evil.” at the end?
Comment 4/1/2007
“Hey, Fred, can I turn all my writings into holy scripture by adding “And if you don’t believe me, you’re evil.” at the end?”
Go for it.
Comment 4/1/2007