If you happened to read the most recent weekend edition of USA today, you probably noticed a cover story called "The Voices Against Gay Marriage." It's not an opinion piece, so the author doesn't make any attempt to express his own views on gay marriage one way or the other. But the article does make an obvious attempt to cast a sympathetic light on the various people and organizations that are still (what year is it? 2013??) against gay marriage. Which is fine. It's just not very convincing.
Let's start with the tagline:
"Disparaged as bigots, these diverse voices say they're simply defending American society."Whew! That sure is a relief, since "defending American society" has never ever been used as an excuse to justify bigotry and prejudice. Also, I can't help but think it's hilarious that "diversity" is brought up to try to legitimize a movement that is inherently discriminatory, as if denying a certain group of people rights is totally okay if there is a large variety of people doing it. Seriously though, try keeping a mental record of how often this article mentions the "diverse voices" of anti-gay activists. Like, for instance, the very first sentence...
"They are moms and dads, authors and activists, a former police officer and a former single mom. They're black and white and Hispanic. One's a Roman Catholic archbishop, another an evangelical minister."See? Look at all that diversity! Weird you didn't mention any LGBT people. Oh wait...
"Many have large families — including gay members."Oh, well, close enough. Hey, I just remembered I have a mother and a sister - surely that would lend me some credibility should I attempt to revoke the 19th amendment and make it illegal for women to vote.
They are among the leading opponents of gay marriage, or as they prefer to be called, defenders of traditional marriage."Actually, I think they'd prefer to be called Heroic Defenders Of Monogamous Heterosexual Marriage In The Eyes Of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but I'm sure they'd understand if that seems a bit long winded.
At times, it can seem a lonely battle. Outspent and lately out-hustled by highly organized gay rights organizations, opponents have struggled to get their story out. They're portrayed as bigots, likened to the racists and sexists of yesteryear. Some have been compared with hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan."Quick! Get a bag of popcorn and some handkerchiefs, and play a recording Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings. This is sure to be a work of melodrama rife with Oscar-worthy moments.
"For men of the cloth such as Roman Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, nothing could be further from the truth.
'Those who believe what every human society since the beginning of the human race has believed about marriage, and is clearly the case from nature itself, will be regarded, and treated, as the next class of bigots,' he says."Literally everything he just said is incorrect.
First of all, it is not true that "every human society since the beginning of the human race" has had the same definition of marriage that contemporary Americans do. The perception of "marriage" as a declaration of love and commitment between two heterosexual people of opposite genders is, when looking at all of human history, a very recent invention. (If the people who call themselves "defenders of traditional marriage" were true to their word, they'd be much more concerned with legalizing old-testament style polygamy.)
Secondly, homosexuality does occur in "nature" (by which I can only assume he means other species of animals). And, while we're on the subject, isn't it weird how people who use this phrase think that us humans are somehow exempt from "nature," and that, if there is a behavior found in certain humans that isn't found in other species, it is somehow "unnatural"? Isn't it also weird that, even if that were the case (WHICH IS FUCKING ISN'T), this should somehow be an indication of whether that behavior is moral or acceptable?
Also, even if you do believe all of the flatly inaccurate bullshit that is coming out of your mouth, that doesn't mean you are automatically going to be doomed to a life of being treated like a bigot. Just DON'T EXPECT EVERYONE TO BELIEVE THE SAME NONSENSE YOU DO. If you want to quietly be angry at all of those queers who are doing something you don't approve of... well, sorry, that does still make you a bigot, but as long as you're not actively trying to promote your bigotry, you can at least benefit from not being publicly disparaged as one. (By the way, for the duration of this article I'll be sure to call these people "bigots" as often as possible, just because I know it would piss them off.)
Then the archbishop goes on to say this...
"That's untrue, and it's not kind, and it doesn't seem to lead to a 'live and let live' pluralism."I'm not even going to touch the irony of this man lecturing people on "live and let live pluralism." It pretty much speaks for itself.
Starting here, the article switches back to "Look How Diverse These Bigots Are!" mode as it lists some of the most prominent anti-gay activists and organizations:
"The Family Research Council, headed by Tony Perkins, has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for "defaming gays and lesbians." Perkins, a father of five and radio personality, authored the nation's first "covenant marriage" bill as a Louisiana state legislator in an effort to combat no-fault divorces."That's some commitment right there! Not only does this guy want to make it more difficult for gay people to get married, he also wants to make it more difficult for straight people to get divorced. I'm beginning to understand the kind of utopia this movement is trying to achieve - a world where all straight people over the age of eighteen are married, and where all gay people are doomed to mimic the "forever alone" meme.
"One of the nation's leading female opponents is Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, founded in 1979 by Beverly LaHaye. Fighting gay marriage is the hardest issue for the group because it's so "complicated and deeply personal," she says, but adds, "We believe that we must stand for truth no matter who it offends."And I can respect that. I, too, believe in standing for the truth regardless of who it offends (it's sort of a requirement if you're an atheist). But the "facts" that seem to support the goals of anti-gay activists - you know, "marriage has always been purely heterosexual" and "homosexuality doesn't occur in nature" - are all completely wrong. You're not offending people by fighting for the truth, you're offending people by blindly following a lie. And no, saying "gay people shouldn't marry because it's gross and wrong" does not make it a fact, either - it's just your shitty opinion.
"Leading a group of conservative black pastors is the Rev. William Owens of Memphis, whose eight children range from age 50 to 4 months. For him, opposing same-sex marriage is part of the battle to rebuild African-American families after decades of absentee fathers. 'We already have enough problems,' he says."See, this is another thing I don't get. If opposition to gay marriage is part of a larger mission to lower the number of single-parent families (as if single-parent families never work!), then shouldn't you be in favor of same-sex marriage? If, to conjure a weirdly specific scenario, a child's mother leaves because the father comes out as gay, and you honestly believe that "two" is the magic number of participants required for raising a child, then wouldn't the most beneficial thing for the child be to let the father marry whomever he wants so the kid can once again have two parents?
But no, I guess it's not good enough for a child to have two parents, they must be two parents with different types of genitalia.
Anyway, the article quickly goes back to focusing on Archbishop Cordileone, who brings up some equally compelling arguments:
The modern-day version of that history lesson, Cordileone says, could be seen from his cathedral residence overlooking Lake Merritt when he served as bishop of Oakland.
"It's very beautiful," he recalls. "But across the lake, as the streets go from 1st Avenue to the city limits at 100th Avenue, those 100 blocks consist entirely of inner-city neighborhoods plagued by fatherlessness and all the suffering it produces: youth violence, poverty, drugs, crime, gangs, school dropout and incredibly high murder rates.
"Walk those blocks and you can see with your own eyes: a society that is careless about getting fathers and mothers together to raise their children in one loving family is causing enormous heartache."I can't help but think that the "one loving family" part is much more essential to a child's upbringing than the "fathers and mothers together" part. Furthermore, by this same logic, the best families would be polyamorous units with multiple fathers and mothers - a prospect that I am totally in favor of, by the way, but somehow I doubt that Cordileone shares my enthusiasm for poly-friendly parenting or kinky group sex.
Ask this San Diego native if he has gay friends and the answer is, "Of course!" His views on gay marriage don't cause heartache in those relationships, he says, because his friends know him.
"It's a lot harder to be hateful or prejudiced against a person, or group of people, that one knows personally," he says. "When there is personal knowledge and human interaction, the barriers of prejudice and preconceived ideas come down."It's good to know that you can have good relationships with friends while actively preventing them from having the same rights as you.
And then the article goes on to mention this:
"In some respects, Owens and Díaz defy the common perception that African Americans and Hispanics are overwhelmingly liberal. It's a perception these men dispute.
The 74-year-old Owens, president of the Coalition of African American Pastors, a co-sponsor of next week's march, contends blacks always have been "conservative Christians."and then this:
"Díaz, an ordained minister in the Church of God who chairs the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization, is bringing 25 to 30 buses with gay marriage opponents to Washington for next week's rally. Four years ago, he assembled a crowd of 20,000 to protest New York's burgeoning gay marriage movement.
"The Hispanic community is more conservative than what people think," he says. "Call it whatever you want — it's a conservative religious movement."Okay... putting aside any connotations about the words "conservative" and "christian" being used to describe a race of people ...isn't it a little fucked up to argue that a racial demographic is, and/or should be, aligned with any political or religious "movement"? I get that you can look at polls and election results to determine if a particular demographic tends to vote a certain way. But arguing that the hispanic community is a "conservative religious movement", for instance, is just going to alienate hispanics that don't share your beliefs.
"Despite those efforts, the conservative Democrat says he gets along just fine with his gay brother, nephew and granddaughter.
"We have a very loving family," he says. "I love them. They love me. We help each other. They know that this is the Bible — this is what I preach."This again?? Look, I don't care if every person who is against same-sex marriage has five gay family members and they all watch RuPaul's Drag Race once a week. (For the record, I love RuPaul's Drag Race.) It doesn't change the fact that you are actively campaigning for them to not have the same rights as you.
Now the article goes back to talking about Tony Perkins (don't worry! it's almost over):
As Perkins sees it, "there will be collateral damage to other freedoms" if gay marriage becomes more common. He cites recent cases involving parents who don't want their children to learn about same-sex marriage in school and photographers who don't want to work at same-sex weddings.And now we're officially in bizarro world. How the fuck does "people have to deal with the fact that same-sex marriage exists" equate to "OUR FREEDOMS ARE UNDER ATTACK"? Being completely blind to the parts of the world you don't like isn't a "right", and children don't have the "freedom" to remain ignorant about things you want to hide from them.
Here's a nice quote from Penny Nance:
And like single parents, gay couples offer only one side of the gender equation, [Nance] says.
"If this new union is to be treated in the same way as marriage, ignoring what the social data says, then you must teach it in the same manner in schools," Nance says. "And to say that children do not need a mother and a father is simply a lie."Citation needed?
Despite her beliefs, Nance — like all the other opponents — has gay friends and family. "We feel for them, and we care deeply about their well-being," she says, yet she worries that government acceptance will boost their numbers.
"When the law rewards something through licensing or benefits, there is always increased activity," Nance says. "We see this with marijuana in California, or gambling, prostitution, abortion or any vice that is legalized. Government endorsement lures people who would abstain otherwise."Well, shit. I started a drinking game earlier for every time a gay family member was mentioned, and now I'm in no condition to go to work tonight.
But what's most hilarious about this quote is that she honestly seems to think that legalizing gay marriage will make more people gay. I mean, sure, maybe when our culture reaches that level of acceptance with homosexuality, it will make more gay people feel safer about coming out, but I get the impression that Penny Nance thinks gay people are better off in the closet. Same-sex relationships are apparently a "vice," after all.
The article closes (finally!) with some words from Brian Brown, leader of the National Organization for Marriage:
"He says he's been influenced by preachers of equality such as Martin Luther King Jr. and believes in "the profound worth of every human being." But he's had trouble maintaining past friendships with gays who don't agree with his position on the issue.
"It's definitely put a strain on the relationships," he says. "Those friendships are not the same as they were before."Aww, poor guy. All the other bigots that were described here still seem to have happy and loving relationships with their gay friends. Here's my question for Brian Brown's gay friends: what's with the uppity attitude? Think you're too good for the guy who says you can't marry? Also, I love how he thinks he has been influenced by Martin Luther King. That's like... if the leader of the National Organization for Marriage thought he had been influenced by Martin Luther King. I really can't think of anything more ridiculous.
Anyway, now that we're done reading about Influential Bigots and their Many Gay Friends, I just want to say this:
I don't think any of the people described in this article are bad people.
Really, I don't. Of course, I don't know for sure that they aren't bad people, but I would still give them the benefit of the doubt until I got to know them. If I had the chance, I would probably have a few drinks and start a conversation (though I'm sure we would disagree on a lot of things).
But they are still bigots, and what they are trying to do is still very clearly wrong. And just because they have gay friends, and some of them sometimes get their feelings hurt, doesn't mean I'm going to stop calling them bigots.
Because I believe in telling the truth, no matter who it offends.
I'm sure they'd understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment