Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Washington Post Op Ed -Labels of Hate In Gay Marriage Debate Need To Stop

A much need article in the Washington Post today. See In the gay marriage debate, stop playing the hate card


Mark Spears said...

Gay people know hatred because we have lived with it since early childhood. I remember being aware that I was being rejected and treated differently from other children even before I started to school at 5 years old, and that this rejection and discrimination was because I was disliked over personality traits that I now recognize as part of being gay.

The legal legacy of hatred that we are fighting against as we fight for opening the legal status of marriage to us goes all the way back beyond the time when homosexuals were legally stacked up and burned as "faggots". All of the laws against us are based on hatred.

As a person who has been hated, rejected, reviled, despised, harrassed, beaten, assaulted, raped, prosecuted, denied legal status, and denied 14th amendment rights to equal protection under the law for my entire lifetime, you can bet that I will continue to label any denial of full citizenship as hate.

If people don't want their hatred to be pointed out, then they should just stop the hatred, rather than calling upon those that they hate to shut up about it.

James H said...

Ok firs toff we have never had anything similar to gay marriage in like world history.

So the burden is on you (I think) to show why this right should be extended.

You say there is a 14ht amendment right to gay marriage? What is that based on?

I am not buying that if one is against gay marriage it is "based" in hatred. You have not proven that. WHy do you say that?

Andy said...


I think we need to keep a watch on "victimhood." I'm sorry people treated you poorly for whatever reason, but just about every identifiable group has been discriminated against during the history of civilization. After all, it is discrimination against Roman Catholics that Arthur Schlesinger called "the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people." Lest we forget the Philadelphia Nativist Riot, Bloody Monday, or the Orange Riots, all of which killed Catholics for, well, being Catholic. Also the Klan of the 1920s was primarily anti-Catholic as opposed to anti-African American. Catholics have been greatly discriminated against in this country, however, that past discrimination would not automatically entitle a Catholic to have his opinion or demand ratified in a democracy.

As for the equal protection clause, you need to look at the history of the clause and why it was implemented. It was clearly implemented to protect former slaves and African-Americans. It does not mean and, by historical legal precedent has not meant, every identifiable group should have the same rights as every other identifiable group. If that would have been the case, there would have been no need for an amendment for universal female suffrage. It would have been granted in the 1860s, not 1920s. The logic of equating all possible groups would have some bizarre and terrible conclusions when followed to its natural end.

The point of the article is that the issue of marriage should be debated on the issues without resorting to histrionics. If I support higher taxes on the wealthy, do I hate the rich? If I am for gay marriage, do I hate orthodox Christians? If I say those under 18 should not be allowed to vote, do I hate children? I would hope not.

James H said...

Any I totally agree

Mark I guess I would say this. There are people that think marriage should be reserved between a man and a woman. Those same people are open to Civil Unions and other matters sometimes.

I am just saying that the "Hate" charge is dangerous here. I takes open discussion and prevents it. In fact it might cause animosity from "straight" people that are actually struggling with this issue and trying to find the right answer.