A good bit of wisdom here form the Boston Globe via the Corner.
Barney Frank Is Right [Maggie Gallagher]
If you left the gay-marriage debate up to regular Americans — gay or straight — it would look very different. Americans are remarkably kind in real life, by and large. People try to treat each other well and they work hard to find a way that everyone can be okay, even if they disagree on deeply held moral issues.
But large public movements aren't run by normal Americans (on either side). Jeff Jacoby's column in the Boston Globe, "Wedded to Vitriol, Backers of Gay Marriage Stumble," points out that most public gay-marriage supporters do not even try to understand the people who disagree with them. And in so failing, they make moral monsters out of more than half the American people:
"'Bigotry trumps compassion,' wrote commentator Michael Stone, calling the vote 'a shameful display of ignorance, bigotry, and hate.’ . . . When will it occur to supporters of same-sex marriage that they do their cause no good by characterizing those who disagree with them as haters, bigots, and ignorant homophobes? It may be emotionally satisfying to despise as moral cripples the majorities who oppose gay marriage. But after going 0 for 31 . . .Wouldn’t it make more sense to concede that thoughtful voters can have reasonable concerns about gay marriage, concerns that will not be allayed by describing those voters as contemptible troglodytes? . . .
I don’t regard the redefinition of marriage as a civil rights issue. . . But I recognize that many people - sincere and decent people - do. By my lights they are mistaken, not evil.
Why do so many same-sex marriage advocates find it so hard to see marriage traditionalists in the same light? In a recent paper for the Heritage Foundation, Thomas Messner surveys the “naked animus’’ that was directed against supporters of Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment that voters approved last year. His meticulously footnoted study makes chilling reading, with example after example of the blacklisting, vandalism, intimidation, loss of employment, anti-religious hostility, and even death threats to which backers of Prop. 8 were subjected.
After 31 losses in 31 states, it’s time for same-sex marriage activists to seriously consider a piece of advice Barney Frank offered a few years ago. “There’s something to be said for cultural respect,’’ the nation’s most prominent gay political figure said in 2004. “Showing a bit of respect for cultural values with which you disagree is not a bad thing. Don’t call people bigots and fools just because you disagree with them.’’
If you feel the same way (whether you are pro or con on gay marriage), you can thank Jeff Jacoby for his courage and decency here.
11/13 10:13 AMShare
Friday, November 13, 2009
Calling Gay Marriage Opponents Bigots Is Counterproductive
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am a gay physician, married to my partner of 23 years, living in Iowa, and I agree.
We live in a remarkable the remarkable state of Iowa and when we married in September, 2009, our celebration was attended by about 300 wonderful people. Many of them were straight and conservative.
These friends knew Doug and me as human beings first, men who loved each other and were committed to each other for many years. They came and celebrated that love.
I belong to a church which is open to all, and we were married with the full blessings of our church, many members of which came to celebrate.
I hate biggotry on either side of this issue. Many of the people we know are homo-naive, not homophobic. To pathologize those who oppose us is no more justified than it was for us to be called "psychopathic deviants."
This polarization in our society which exists in many areas of our lives, is very destructive and counter-productive. It discourages meaningful discourse.
I do understand the anger that many LGBT people feel when we are falsely accused of having a "gay agenda" intent on kidnapping children into "our life style." But those stereotypes of us will persist until our opponents know us as real human beings who want the right to openly show our love for each other.
Opponents of same-sex marriage in California were treated... well, exactly the same way that gays and lesbians have been treated for so long. And they are surprised that there was so much animosity?
Opponents of same-sex marriage may or may not be bigoted or homophobes (although, to be perfectly frank, the chances are quite strong that they are), but they ARE acting in a manner befitting a "fascist".
Their use of religion to justify their stance is also unconstitutional. They may believe (religiously) what they wish, but those beliefs should not be used to decide upon the rights and freedoms of any other group in society. THAT is what the separation of state and church is.
When segregation was finally brought to an end, was it put to a vote? No, because equal rights are equal rights. You do not put the rights of a minority up to a vote by the majority.
So WHY on earth are gay and lesbian rights being put to a vote? If a court decides that gays and lesbians deserve equal rights, then the judiciary has done its job and weighed the factors involved, and decided that that particular minority should have equal rights.
That isn't "judicial activism". That is the court doing exactly what the court is mandated to do. The court does not weigh biblical beliefs and religious dogma into the equation. No two denominations agree on all details of interpretation of the Bible, so how can a court use the Bible as the basis for any decision?
That fact alone is demonstration that the Bible and religious belief have no place at all in any discussion of minority rights. Minority rights are a legal matter. The law alone has the obligation to weigh in on it. Regardless of what the Christian Right would have the population believe.
The only way "our opponents" will "know us for who we are" is when gays and lesbians are given what is rightfully and legally theirs: equal rights, in all forms.
And this can only happen when people stop using religion as a tool to oppress others.
This can only happen when the population at large question the motivation of those who would lead them with random bible verses rather than with laws.
Dr Olsen
Thank you for commenting. For the record I am pretty much against gay marraige but am open to to some form of Civil Union that is not based on sexual orientation.
I am going more into sort of reasoning when i respond in another comment to the other comment.
I do agree 100 percent the discussion on this issue has not been helpful. I think my gay friends (some who are for gay marriage and some who are not) understand my reasoning. At least we can have a converstation about it and engage each other.
However on the net and other places it seems that people that have currently problems with gay marriage and just refuse to discuss it because of the fear of being labeled
From a political and indeed social viewpoint I think this has been a critical mistake for the gay marraige advocates as we saw in Maine. A State where I think people thought a pro- gay marraige vote was inevitable. That assumption itself was I guess based on many sterotypes. The problem is when people are afreaid of discussing it then well you don't have a chance to change their minds and thus many might live in a bubble that does not fit the current reality of what people are thinking.
Beyond the gay marraige issue there is a more troubling issue that you touch on. That is a rash destructive polarization on issues from a to z
Anonymous
Let me try to engage what you said.
First I am not sure at all that the way the gay marraige opponents were treated in California is anything like what Gay and lesbians have been treated like in recent memory (post Stonewall especially).
I would say that many of those gay marraage opponents have different varying level of beliefs as to being opposed to gay marriage to supporting some type of civil Unions to opposing many kinds of discrimination againnt gays and lesbians.
The targeting, blacklisting, and in fact publishing the addresses of people that donated a few bucks to oppose gay marraigge is very much violating the social contract. When we are dealing with the integrity of the home we are on a slippery slope. I would think that gay and bisexual people would be very receptive to the privacy and sanctity of the home.
I don't think gay marraige opponents are being fascist. I think a good many people are wondering why gay marraige should be a Fundamental right when not 30 years there was quite a movement in the gay community that saw any move toward gay marriage as forcing them in a hetrosexual box.
As to religion. People have many reasons for being against gay marriage. We note that in many countries where Chrisitanity does not exist there is no gay marriage. Why is that. I suppse what I am saying is there a natural law argument that has to be discussed.
Further how comfortable are you on your version of speration of Church and State. I would strongly disagree with you that your view of it is correct. No where does it say the voter or the citizen cannot be influenced by religious motives.
Many people are opposed to State Execution based on religious grounds. Shall they be excluded from the debate?
THese are People that have pushed this issue for decades.
Many people in the Health care debate and issues dealing with the poor are doing it based on religous grounds. Shall they now be deemed out of the discussion?
What about Civil rights? What about people that have problems with war?
In this view of Sep of Church and State would not a good bit of the populance be excluded. Would you be comfortable with the major issues I dicussed above being solely based grounds of Utility only.
As to the legal question if this is a violation of eq2ual rights that is where the argument is. For the Equal Protection cause to be infringed the parties have to be situated in a similar manner. That is the deabte. Are homosexual couple in a similar situation with what in history has been a contracts between two opposite genders. That concept that is based on large parts on real sexual intercourse. That is REAL SEX in the biological sense
Many people got on to the Bill Clinton when he said "I did not have sex with that womman". Where is a real sense a common biological sense he did not. That is the core of this too as to the argument if the homsexuals and Hetro sexuals are in a similar situation for the Equal Protection Clause to come into effect.
Post a Comment