Emotionally Satisfying, but Politically Counterproductive Responses to Gay Marriage Opponents
Responding to the Olbermann/Musto segment (linked here) on Carrie Prejean, a relatively new blogger Wesley M. at In My Copious Free Time writes:
We’ve reached the point where those of us on my side of the gay marriage issue, if we want to avoid a backlash of our own making, need a remedial primer on how we lose, and how we lose again. I’ve said most of this before, and so have others, but it obviously needs to be said again. So…
When we let a foul-mouthed caricature like Perez Hilton become the spokesman for our cause, we lose. And when we defend that foul-mouthed caricature for using rhetoric that we would call hate speech if it came from the other side, we lose again.
We lose, he claims, when “we actually start to believe that anyone who doesn’t meet us 100% of the way on this issue really is a ‘hater.’” While seconding my point that we need to rationally, civilly respond to gay marriage opponents, he acknowledges that this response is “just not as satisfying emotionally.”
He’s really onto something there. I think that’s why so many respond as they do. It’s like venting. It makes them feel better. This shouldn’t about their feelings, should instead be about how our government treats gay relationships. And a good number of opponents of gay marriage don’t know much about the reality of these relationships, thus don’t believe they’re worthy of state recognition.
So, understand and respect that their lack of knowledge comes about largely because of ignorance, not hatred. And find a way to correct it without insulting them.
Just read Wesley’s post. And while you’re over at his blog, check out this post as well. Amazing how similar our reactions were to the anti-Mormon ad put out by some “No on 8″ folks. Had I seen that ad before resolving to vote, “No,” on 8, I may well have changed my mind.
55 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Maybe the people who have screeched “hate speech” any time anyone expresses disagreement with them have just begun to notice that that argument is now airborne, on water-skis, over a large shark tank.
Too much to hope, I guess.
Comment by V the K — May 2, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - May 2, 2009
Speaking of screeching queens, Perez Hilton is throwing a hissy-fit because an anti gay marriage group is using his obnoxious tantrum in an on-line ad.
Comment by V the K — May 2, 2009 @ 6:12 pm - May 2, 2009
“And a good number of opponents of gay marriage don’t know much about the reality of these relationships, thus don’t believe they’re worthy of state recognition.”
Either you entirely misunderstand your opposition, or else you totally misunderstand your own terms.
“State recognition” is something that many gay couples already have. There is a difference between “state recognition” of a relationship (for instance, laws requiring that gay couples be able to share health benefits) and same-sex marriage. Marriage is traditionally a union between a man and a woman, a union which, as seen in the sexual union, marriage’s analogue, has two parts: unitive and procreative. No one — or at least most — who opposes same-sex marriage would typically deny the idea that same-sex relationships can be (like heterosexual relationships, however, not always) unitive.
The procreative act is, unfortunately for homosexuals, denied… biologically. And in that denial the entire “union” (the result of which is the child that results – a true flesh and blood union of the parents) becomes nullified.
Other than for those two reasons, marriage is little more than a name and a fancy looking certificate. And if that is this case, then why the fuss? Unless, which is the real reason many people oppose same-sex marriages, the desire to be allowed to marry is an attempt to normalize the homosexual community in the eyes of its opponents.
Comment by Lonewolfe1978 — May 2, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - May 2, 2009
Good luck to patterico and his video. I am so sick and tired of the whiney lefties who smear everyone but can’t take their own words thrown back at them.
Comment by Leah — May 2, 2009 @ 8:48 pm - May 2, 2009
Perez Hilton is the same as Stonewall. Perez Hilton is the same as Stonewall. Perez Hilton is the same as Stonewall.
Everytime I complain that Stonewall was a step backward for homosexual rights, I get excoriated by gays from the right and left. Now, perhaps now, you can see what I mean. People see Stonewall the same way they see Perez Hilton, and their reaction is the same–if that’s what gay is being about, then gays shouldn’t even be allowed to own pets.
Please. Stop idolizing Stonewall, Harvey Milk, and Pride–they are all completely counterproductive. They are Perez Hilton on steroids.
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 2, 2009 @ 9:16 pm - May 2, 2009
I am new to your site, and after reading this post and the “Monogamous Ideal” thread, I thought I’d comment and ask for your reflections.
I am a politically and theologically conservative, straight-as-an-arrow father of two. I also possess strongly Libertarian leadings, which can sometimes conflict with a straight-ahead social conservative agenda.
In the case of gay marriage, the problem I have, and I suspect most opposers have, is that the legislation is merely an attempt to demand some sense of cultural acceptance out of us. We don’t care to be shamed into accepting a new meaning for a word or institution that has been with mankind for millennia.
Having said that, the Libertarian in me sympathizes with DINK gay couples (“dual income no kids”) who get socked with a disproportionately larger tax bill than us procreating heteros pay. AFAIK, you all pay for a seat at the table.
I thought civil unions solved most of these dilemmas. Don’t they grant you every right a married heterosexual couple enjoys with regard to medical decision making, benefits, inheritance, etc? If not, they should be expanded to include them universally. I can’t help but be in favor of all of those rights for your community. The notion of a “civil union” does not have the same coercive nature to it that gay marriage does. Maybe that’s just semantics, but when social conservatives see a complete breakdown in cultural mores and traditional values, these things get lumped in pretty easily, and perhaps unnecessarily.
Ultimately, I fear that all this will amount to is a boon for divorce attorneys. Walaah! A brand new revenue stream. For the gay community, it might eventually become a case of “be careful what you wish for.”
Okay. Let me know how I’m wrong on this. From the postings I’ve read here, I am pretty well assured that your responses will tend to be well reasoned and not vitriolic rants. This place seems relatively PC-police-free.
Thanks.
Comment by RuleOfLaw — May 3, 2009 @ 12:16 am - May 3, 2009
GPW – I think you’re on to something with the whole “thin-skinned leftist” idea.
Not only are too many public, visible leftists thin-skinned about the Tea Parties / Obama’s bad policies, they’re thin-skinned about Carrie Prejean too. And vice versa. Thin-skinned-ness seems to be the common thread or essence of the public Left’s response on any issue.
Is it really paradoxical, then, that the thin-skinnedness would have *increased* with the Left’s recent electoral triumphs? Aside from the whole question of them secretly knowing (perhaps) that their policies are bad, their triumph must and will be ephemeral, etc… if thin-skinned-ness is central to leftism, then isn’t the triumph of leftism, in and of itself, a triumph of thin-skinnedness?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 3, 2009 @ 1:10 am - May 3, 2009
Just to recap–gay leftists don’t want gay marriage because they want to legalize their already lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. They want to use gay marriage as a way of undermining tradition by forcing marriage to include multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy. They also want to play “Gotcha!” with straight couples since the gay left’s assumption is that straight couples are as open and adulterous in exactly equal percentages as gay couples. So, gay marriage both shames and undermines straight society.
Homosexuals who truly want legal recognition for lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships are open to civil unions since sane homosexuals recognize that same-sex couples have a different dynamic than heterosexual couples. We are willing to accept a different terminology as long as we get equal rights.
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 3, 2009 @ 1:58 am - May 3, 2009
Just curious on where on a 0 to 100% meeting halfway, you guys believe Senator Burr (R – NC) is.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — May 3, 2009 @ 3:27 am - May 3, 2009
The only reason our nation is even considering gay marriage in the first place is because of liberal gays feelings!
The vast majority of gay liberals dont give a crap about marriage. They have invested their emotions in the gay marriage issue because they want emotional validation. They are different. They are unable to deal with it, so they demand everyone else tell them they are not different — that they are exactly the same. In other words, they demand that society lie to them.
They will NEVER have an intellectual discussion or debate about the purpose of the institution or the function it serves to society because their ONLY concern is that the institution makes them FEEL bad because it reminds them of the fact that they ARE different.
And so the very function that marriage serves for society must be denied and destroyed so that they dont feel different.
Comment by American Elephant — May 3, 2009 @ 6:20 am - May 3, 2009
That makes sense. Would this be the majority opinion of gay conservatives who post here? Because that is a winning policy that even the most adamant bible-thumper (like me) could accept.
Comment by RuleOfLaw — May 3, 2009 @ 10:03 am - May 3, 2009
#6: RuleOfLaw, it’s was great to read your comment and to see a straight, religious conservative’s assessment of the relevant issues in the same sex marriage debate. Your comment zeros in on the very issue that the gay left REFUSES to consider or discuss in any rational way.
“In the case of gay marriage, the problem I have, and I suspect most opposers have, is that the legislation is merely an attempt to demand some sense of cultural acceptance out of us.”
You’re absolutely correct that the Left is demanding cultural acceptance through government validation, but at least in California, it’s not through “legislation.” The Left’s efforts to democratically legislate same sex marriage in California have failed, so they proceeded to the California Supreme Court to have legislation that was originally enacted in 1850 declared unconstitutional because it doesn’t recognize same sex couples.
“I thought civil unions solved most of these dilemmas.”
They do. In California, the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act (effective 1/1/05) gave same sex couples who register with the Secretary of State virtually all of the same rights as heterosexual spouses under state law: community property rights; custody; dissolution; spousal support; inheritance; control over medical decisions, etc. It did not allow joint filing of state tax returns (since corrected with an amendment to the legislation), and had no effect on federal law, which is still important, but did not render the Act meaningless because virtually all inter-spousal issues are controlled by state law.
“Don’t they grant you every right a married heterosexual couple enjoys with regard to medical decision making, benefits, inheritance, etc? If not, they should be expanded to include them universally.”
You’re right. Gaps in the law, such as immigration and spousal citizenship rights and federal taxation treatment could have been dealt with by efforts to promote sensible, well-drafted legislation at the federal level, but the gay Left wasn’t interested in that because it didn’t have the allure of bitterly fought court battles that might lead to government validation of gay relationships and a delicious slap in the face to religious conservatives who refuse to celebrate and approve of homosexuality. So, during the past couple of years, the gay Lefties have worked tirelessly to cast themselves as unspeakably oppressed victims of bigotry and hate at the hands of religious folks who secretly want to exterminate them and publicly want to deny them “equality.” Of course, they see no contradiction in their arguments that they have been denied the precious, wonderful gift of state-sanctioned marriage, but that it’s an irredeemably decimated institution that heterosexuals have destroyed and therefore have no right to it exclusively. They are also unwilling to condemn or even acknowledge the relevance of the wide-spread social acceptance of “open relationships” in the gay community and label any attempts to show how it might give heterosexual voters reasonable apprehensions as HATE. They also routinely argue that conservative opposition to same sex marriage is the CAUSE of promiscuous, destructive behavior. On this blog. Seriously. All the reckless behavior and disease is the Republicans’ fault because they won’t let gays get married.
“…even the most adamant bible-thumper (like me) could accept.”
At least a substantial majority of religious conservatives have no opposition to state-sanctioned civil unions or domestic partnerships carrying all the rights enjoyed by heterosexual spouses (my right-wing, evangelical Christian parents are an example). The problem is, the gay Left won’t allow this debate to occur. There are some religious conservative groups who oppose any state recognition of gay relationships whatsoever, but instead of cultivating the support of religious conservatives like my parents, the gay Left would rather demonize all opponents of same sex marriage as vicious, evil, ignorant, hateful, slack-jawed rednecks. The very idea that they have a huge group of religious, conservative allies out there conflicts with their oppressed victim (“second-class citizen”) histrionics.
And even with all that, they still have the temerity to say that this is about “rights,” and not validation. If this were about rights, they would at least acknowledge the rights they already have. Instead, they remain absolutely unwilling to entertain a legal framework that would accommodate both the legitimate concerns of religious Americans and provide all of the benefits of marriage with a different name (as a secular government should, provided the people or the legislators elected by the people enact it). And what’s worse, the MSM refuses to call the gay Left on this 8000-pound elephant standing in the middle of the room. In fact, you could read 90% of the press covering Prop. 8 and have NO IDEA that California already has what was a ground-breaking, unprecedented system of domestic partnerships when it was enacted five years ago. All that matters is that those mean, religious “haters” are oppressing the gays.
Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2009 @ 11:14 am - May 3, 2009
So, understand and respect that their lack of knowledge comes about largely because of ignorance, not hatred. And find a way to correct it without insulting them.
This is virtually impossible to do when people hold beliefs based on religious arguments. As much as you’d like to pretend that the gay marriage issue is about state rights and separation of powers, it really comes down to religious conservatives standing in the way of secular human progress, and everyone knows it.
Trying to ‘correct’ religious people about anything their silly religion tells them is true is nothing but a waste of time because they’re playing with a different set of rules. You can go on and on about equal rights or how people don’t choose to be gay or the economic and social benefits of gay marriage, none of that matters when they can just invoke their invisible sky-fairy. For religious people, truth and evidence isn’t the ultimate authority, God is. And that sort of sheepishness makes religious people the most easily duped segment of the population. Then real haters step in, people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and they trick their flocks into thinking that God doesn’t like gays, as if they could know what God thinks.
I happen to agree that most people, even the religious ones, don’t hate gays but oppose gay marriage out of blind, willful ignorance. It’s impossible to correct that. At some point, people can just be too stupid to talk to. And while I wouldn’t characterize them as haters, I would characterize them as assholes that think they’re more important than everyone else – am I allowed that?
I’m sorry, but respecting ‘their lack of knowledge’ is just something that I’ll never be able to do – they’re the ones taking themselves out of the intelligence game.
Comment by Levi — May 3, 2009 @ 12:34 pm - May 3, 2009
RuleofLaw, I am with you. It’s odd that the left… supposedly the champions of “diversity”… can’t acknowledge that gay and heterosexual relationships are different from one another. The reasonable solution… the reasonable compromise… would be to respect and honor the uniqueness of each species of relationship.
Comment by V the K — May 3, 2009 @ 12:42 pm - May 3, 2009
Well, Levi, as one who can cite specific examples, even via comments to this blog, of people whose minds I have changed on gay issues with rational arguments, I do have some experience in this matter.
So, don’t call impossible something I’ve already accomplished.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 3, 2009 @ 12:44 pm - May 3, 2009
Trying to ‘correct’ religious people about anything their silly religion tells them is true is nothing but a waste of time because they’re playing with a different set of rules.
Yeah, silly little rules like monogamy, commitment, and duty to family that served Western Civilization well for thousands of years.
I think what the religious right gets and dumb leftists don’t get is that there is supposed to be a balance between getting the benefits of marriage and in return abiding by the duties and responsibilities of marriage; probably because they have replaced worship of God with worship of self.
Comment by V the K — May 3, 2009 @ 12:46 pm - May 3, 2009
The notion of a “civil union†does not have the same coercive nature to it that gay marriage does. Maybe that’s just semantics,
Yes, RuleOfLaw, it is just semantics. Would gays under your preferred civil unions model still be allowed to propose to each other in the form of ‘Will you marry me?’ Would they be allowed to give each other wedding rings and hold wedding ceremonies? Would they be allowed to introduce their spouses as husbands and wives? Or would we have to find new terms for all of those things as well? Since divorce court is for married couples, would we also need ‘civil separation’ courts?
If your big hang-up is the idea that you’d have to share the word ‘marriage’ with the gays, then shouldn’t you be worried about sharing all the other words describing marriage customs as well? If two gay people entered into a civil union, but walked around telling people that they were married to each other, would that be a big deal to you? Would you correct them? ‘No, no, no, silly gays. You’re not married, you’re civilly unified. Get it right please.’ Maybe we should make it a crime for gays to use the word marriage at all?
Comment by Levi — May 3, 2009 @ 12:56 pm - May 3, 2009
Yeah, silly little rules like monogamy, commitment, and duty to family that served Western Civilization well for thousands of years.
I think what the religious right gets and dumb leftists don’t get is that there is supposed to be a balance between getting the benefits of marriage and in return abiding by the duties and responsibilities of marriage; probably because they have replaced worship of God with worship of self.
And what, you don’t think gays should be able to participate in those things?
And get it right; liberals have replaced worship of God with respect for law. Do you know anything about the country you live in, puritan?
Comment by Levi — May 3, 2009 @ 1:07 pm - May 3, 2009
#18: “And get it right; liberals have replaced worship of God with respect for law.”
Correct, Levi. Liberals replaced something they didn’t believe in with something they believe in even less.
Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2009 @ 1:14 pm - May 3, 2009
Correct, Levi. Liberals replaced something they didn’t believe in with something they believe in even less.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=11276#comment-416674
Comment by Levi — May 3, 2009 @ 1:18 pm - May 3, 2009
If leftists respected the law, they wouldn’t have been out assaulting churchgoers after Prop 8 passed, or vandalizing church property, or trying to spring Mumia from prison, or appointing tax cheats to high government positions, or registering fraudulent illegal voters, or championing the cause of illegal immigration, or having public sex acts on Folsom Street, or insisting that rest stops in Massachusetts not be policed, or letting ACORN illegal squat in and occupy foreclosed houses, or passing out “medicinal” marijuana in violation of Federal statutes, or accepting foreign illegal campaign donations, …
Shall I go on, or is the BS talking point about lefties respecting the law sufficiently devastated?
Comment by V the K — May 3, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - May 3, 2009
Getting back on track here, has anybody bothered to ask Ms. Prejean if she supports civil unions? My humble opinion here is that Ms. Prejean is about to get used. She’s been making commercials on behalf of Maggie Gallagher’s group NOM. NOM doesn’t even support civil unions. Will Ms. Prejean go the way of Anita Bryant & get more judgemental? Yes, she’s carrying about herself well, for now at least.
Comment by Jimbo — May 3, 2009 @ 1:37 pm - May 3, 2009
#17: “Yes, RuleOfLaw, it is just semantics. Would gays under your preferred civil unions model still be allowed to propose to each other in the form of ‘Will you marry me?’ Would they be allowed to give each other wedding rings and hold wedding ceremonies? Would they be allowed to introduce their spouses as husbands and wives? Or would we have to find new terms for all of those things as well? Since divorce court is for married couples, would we also need ‘civil separation’ courts?”
RuleOfLaw, this comment authored by Levi proves my point above that the Left is incapable of having a serious discussion about the benefits of civil unions and domestic partnerships. In the states that already offer these alternatives such as California, Levi’s ignorant battery of red-herring questions are unequivocally answered as: Yes; Yes; Yes; No; and No. He knows this of course, but by throwing out this list of stupid questions and phony concerns he can pretend that his opponents are ridiculous and unreasonable. He’s lying, by the way. It is not an issue of semantics and even if it were, note how his position is that the group that claimed the term “marriage” thousands of years ago historically and over 150 years ago statutorily (in California) are the ones who are required to simply accept a completely new definition of the word “marriage” or be branded evil, ignorant bigots. Levi wants religious people to be slapped down and put in their place, and for the Left to accept legal rights and benefits that are entirely comparable but called something else would just shoot that plan all to hell (and we can’t have that).
Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2009 @ 1:45 pm - May 3, 2009
Oh man, I can’t believe that. People ‘claimed’ the word marriage thousands of years ago, so the gays can’t use it? You’re saying that that isn’t ridiculous and unreasonable? Haha, yeah right. Any argument that invokes anything before the Constitution was ratified is by definition ridiculous and unreasonable.
As for my red herrings, I’ve got more. If Adam wanted to propose to Steve at a baseball game on the Jumbotron with the message, ‘Steve, will you marry me? – Adam’ – would that be permissible? Would newspapers be allowed to include gay unions in their marriage announcement sections? If the word ‘marriage’ was claimed for you by long-dead ancestors, and you’re the sole arbiters of when it can and can’t be used, I think these questions deserve answers. You’re the one that wants to play word police, so where are the boundaries?
If you can say ‘I support civil unions, but don’t mind gays referring to themselves as married,’ I’d like to hear you that.
Comment by Levi — May 3, 2009 @ 2:14 pm - May 3, 2009
Trying to ‘correct’ religious people about anything their silly religion tells them is true is nothing but a waste of time because they’re playing with a different set of rules. You can go on and on about equal rights or how people don’t choose to be gay or the economic and social benefits of gay marriage, none of that matters when they can just invoke their invisible sky-fairy. For religious people, truth and evidence isn’t the ultimate authority, God is.
And of course, nobody ever changes their religious views over time. Or leaves one religion for another. Or leaves one religion by becoming an agnostic or an atheist. Or becomes a religious believer after being an atheist or an agnostic.
Sure, some religious people aren’t willing to reconsider their views, but in my experience, those people are in the minority.
I’m sorry, but respecting ‘their lack of knowledge’ is just something that I’ll never be able to do – they’re the ones taking themselves out of the intelligence game.
It’s not about respecting their “lack of knowedge.” It’s about respecting their ability to change, given enough time and persuasion.
Comment by Wesley M. — May 3, 2009 @ 2:28 pm - May 3, 2009
And of course, nobody ever changes their religious views over time. Or leaves one religion for another. Or leaves one religion by becoming an agnostic or an atheist. Or becomes a religious believer after being an atheist or an agnostic.
Sure, some religious people aren’t willing to reconsider their views, but in my experience, those people are in the minority.
I’m fully aware of the capacity for religious people to change – humankind has been trending towards sweet, sweet godlessness for thousands of years. But it’s pretty clear that gay marriage opponents are an example of the holdouts, the stubborn conservatives standing against the tide. These guys probably are in the minority, but it’s a very vocal and powerful one.
It’s not about respecting their “lack of knowedge.†It’s about respecting their ability to change, given enough time and persuasion.
How about I start respecting their ability to change when, you know, they demonstrate that they have an ability to change? They can take that step whenever they want.
Comment by Levi — May 3, 2009 @ 2:35 pm - May 3, 2009
#24: “If you can say ‘I support civil unions, but don’t mind gays referring to themselves as married,’ I’d like to hear you that.”
I support civil unions, but don’t mind gays referring to themselves as married. TA-DA!!!
In fact, I support civil unions, and I don’t give a flying fuck if gays refer to their unions as “eggplant parmesan.”
Give it up, Levi. This is not about being the “word police” (liberals have earned that title fair and square). It’s about how words and expressions are defined (and interpreted) UNDER THE LAW.
Now, please do me the courtesy of confirming your agreement with the following statement: I categorically reject any proposal that confers the exact same rights and benefits on same sex couples as heterosexual spouses under the law because anything less than an enforceable court judgment or legislative enactment that proclaims homosexual marriage is indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage is insufficient to validate my worth in American society and alleviate my chronic feelings of inferiority and self-loathing.
Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2009 @ 2:54 pm - May 3, 2009
Interesting that the most rational comments on here came from “politically and theologically conservative, straight-as-an-arrow father of two.” Thank you sir it was refreshing. Not I would expect a man who describes himself that way to be frothing at the mouth it just such a contrast some of the ones that followed. It is nice that they are completely free of the bile, judgment and broad stereotypes that are demonstrated by some of the “gay” conservatives on here. I keep reading how “the gay left” is incapable of civilized discussion but most of the spittle and drool flying around on this thread is from the right. I guess it just goes to show that your name doesn’t have to be Perez Hilton to mindlessly attack someone you disagree with. You go kids, berate the “bad fags” so you look like good ones. Bet there were Christians that pushed others in the lion’s path just to save there own skin also.
Comment by a different Dave — May 3, 2009 @ 2:58 pm - May 3, 2009
oh dear.
Comment by a different Dave — May 3, 2009 @ 2:58 pm - May 3, 2009
“It’s not about respecting their “lack of knowedge.†It’s about respecting their ability to change, given enough time and persuasion.”–Wesley M.
“How about I start respecting their ability to change when, you know, they demonstrate that they have an ability to change? They can take that step whenever they want.”–Levi
Wow. If religious conservatives aren’t moved by Levi and Wesley reaching out to them this way, then I just don’t know what they will respond to. When they find out that to win the respect of these two (and presumably other like-minded liberals), all they have to do is demonstrate their willingness to completely abandon their beliefs and principles and just admit that they have been wrong all along (and perhaps beg for forgiveness for impertinently clinging to the existence of that silly “invisible sky-fairy”), well, that SHOULD resolve everything. If they don’t do the right thing here and abandon their presumptively illegitimate beliefs and agree with Levi and Wesley, then they have no right to complain when liberals call them hateful, ignorant bigots who want to exterminate all gays. It’s only fair.
Comment by Sean A — May 3, 2009 @ 3:47 pm - May 3, 2009
You have perfectly defined the position Christian conservatives have been placed in by the Gay Left on this. If you ever wonder why Evangelical Christians don’t even take the time to contemplate some of the libertarian elements I spoke of in my first post, there’s your answer.
Unfortunately, it is far easier for us to stick with the “it’s all a sinful and evil enterprise” dismissiveness than to try to understand and empathize to some degree in efforts to maintain some sort of fairness and privacy rights in civil affairs. When we entertain the idea and vocalize it publicly, we are told how backwards we are (sexist, bigoted, slavery/polygamy-endorsing homophobes) and how if we only let those core beliefs go, everything would be fine.
No. Those beliefs are sincerely held, and I would, if given the opportunity, gladly and earnestly try to dissuade a gay person from practicing homosexuality. But I would make my appeal on the grounds of faith and conscience, not by legal coercion.
When it comes to the laws of society, however, I have to recognize that I get incredible tax breaks that DINK gays and lesbians do not enjoy (filing jointly, exemptions for two children, writing off childcare expenses, etc). Heck, for 2007 with a combined income of about $70k, our family effective federal tax was $0. Hard for me to say “no rights for you” when YOU are paying a disproportionately higher part of the bill.
Finishing the work of making civil unions fully equitable seems to be the common sense middle ground here. Nose-wringing and arm-twisting fundamentalists to buy into “gay marriage” is an ill-conceived, 180º counterproductive strategy.
FWIW, the decorum here on this blog is very civil, all things considered. I appreciate your willingness to consider my perspective, even though theologically it would be an adversarial one. You exhibit the “tolerance” the Left claims to esteem but can never get around to actually applying to their own speech or conduct.
Then again, I occasionally read the Coulter blog, so my overall tolerance for shrill postings is quite high!
Comment by RuleOfLaw — May 3, 2009 @ 5:38 pm - May 3, 2009
all they have to do is demonstrate their willingness to completely abandon their beliefs and principles and just admit that they have been wrong all along
Yes, that would be a good start.
Comment by Levi — May 3, 2009 @ 6:36 pm - May 3, 2009
No. Those beliefs are sincerely held, and I would, if given the opportunity, gladly and earnestly try to dissuade a gay person from practicing homosexuality. But I would make my appeal on the grounds of faith and conscience, not by legal coercion.
Man, you were sounding like you could have been a smart person up until this point.
Comment by Levi — May 3, 2009 @ 6:38 pm - May 3, 2009
Instead of taking issue with my position you decide to poke fun at my intelligence? Did one comment somehow undo all of my previous ones? Did I not clearly explain my world view? There have been thousands of intellectual giants over the last 20 centuries, people possessing absolute genius, who held conservative Christian views. There have been bright atheists as well.
I made that comment to suggest that even the most stridently conservative fundamentalist could potentially understand the difference between matters of civics and matters of spirituality and faith. Even people who, by religious conviction, stand completely at odds with homosexuality in any form, could still be reasoned with on the basis of basic common courtesy and civil liberty regarding civil unions.
But if you prefer a fight rather than achieve all of your pragmatic goals, then fine. All the rights heterosexual couples have could easily be yours, without significant opposition, if you were to merely maintain enough basic dignity for your political opponents not to co-opt the “marriage” word they hold so dear.
How much public outcry occurred during the passing of civil union legislation compared to “gay marriage” court battles of today? No comparison, really. Is the US more conservative now than then? Hardly, if the last election cycle was any sort of indicator. Jamming “civic endorsement” for a lifestyle choice down the throats of conservative Christians is absolutely counterproductive. Nothing will cause folks to dig in their heels or set your real-world pragmatic goals backwards faster than that.
But what do I know? I am just a proselytizing dolt, right?
Comment by RuleOfLaw — May 3, 2009 @ 9:11 pm - May 3, 2009
“No. Those beliefs are sincerely held, and I would, if given the opportunity, gladly and earnestly try to dissuade a gay person from practicing homosexuality. But I would make my appeal on the grounds of faith and conscience, not by legal coercion.”
I fully understand that your beliefs are sincerely held and I think that those who attack people of faith simply because they are people of faith and try to belittle/insult their religious beliefs are idiots. comments 32 and 33 are a good example.
Most of those I consider friends these days are conservative, born-again Christians who, like you, would gladly (or have) earnestly tried to dissuade me from “practicing” homosexuality. One problem with that is that I’m not “practicing” anything but that’s a debate for a different time. After 10 years in and around ex-gay groups I completely respect those who have made the changes in their lives that they feel they need to in order to conform to God’s will. The only thing I have ever asked in return is that my decisions on the same issue be respected. Some can deal with that some I’m sad to say have cut off communication. Anyway, though it took me a bit to get to the point, there are many who are not like you and not like my friends. These are people who will never accept any form of governmental acknowledgment of gay relationships or any form of legal protections (not exactly the word I’m looking for) for them. And some (a small group) are willing to go to any extreme, so far short of violence, to stop such “fake marriages” from happening. Legal coercion is the goal for them, there is no room for compromise. Unfortunately, they are the loudest and in many people’s minds become the face of conservative Christianity. Just as it is unfair to judge Christianity by these folks it is unfair to judge the “gay left” by folks like Perez Hilton, or Prop 8 protesters etc. An honest look at either group will show that there are those who welcome communication and attempts to bridge the gap. It’s popular on here to claim that only “conservatives” are open and/or able to do that but it’s just biased BS.
Comment by a different Dave — May 3, 2009 @ 9:51 pm - May 3, 2009
Instead of taking issue with my position you decide to poke fun at my intelligence?
What can I say? Believing that you can talk someone down from ‘the gay’ is as stupid as believing that you can talk someone down from being straight – though I’m willing to believe you bet that’s possible, too.
But if you prefer a fight rather than achieve all of your pragmatic goals, then fine. All the rights heterosexual couples have could easily be yours, without significant opposition, if you were to merely maintain enough basic dignity for your political opponents not to co-opt the “marriage†word they hold so dear.
How about both? I’ll take the fight and achieving all of my pragmatic goals, please. We are winning the fight, after all. It’s more and more entertaining to watch you guys stamp your feet about a word, and I can be patient. Also, this is another one of those great times to point out that the word you ‘hold so dear’ ends up in divorce half the time.
How much public outcry occurred during the passing of civil union legislation compared to “gay marriage†court battles of today? No comparison, really. Is the US more conservative now than then? Hardly, if the last election cycle was any sort of indicator. Jamming “civic endorsement†for a lifestyle choice down the throats of conservative Christians is absolutely counterproductive. Nothing will cause folks to dig in their heels or set your real-world pragmatic goals backwards faster than that.
Dig in, please. Pout all day, for all I care. Gay marriage is coming. We all know it, and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do about it. Why should I care about treating you with dignity? I’m not on the side that’s insisting that people be denied rights. I respect people that make sense and argue according to rules of rationality. By the way, you can start doing that time.
Also, I’m not gay.
Comment by Levi — May 3, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - May 3, 2009
A few points of clarification are in order:
When I use the phrase “practicing homosexuality”, I do not, as some do, mean to imply that the same sex sexual impulse is always a choice or a result of environment. It seems pretty obvious to me and should to just about anyone that some people are born with that desire as a predisposition. What one does with that, however, is a choice. We are not animals, utter slaves to our natural desires. We have rationality and can make informed choices.
Yes, to answer your question, I believe a straight person could be convinced to homosexuality, and vise versa. Either could be convinced to celibacy as well, if that were necessary or desirable. Innate sexual desire is an extremely strong impulse, but not an invincible one.
I am certainly not intending to post to a openly gay political blog with the intention to condemn the lifestyle choices many of you have made. But you all strike me as reasonable people who are fully willing to take full responsibility for your choices, the same way I take responsibility for my choices as a heterosexual male. You seem to want most of the same things I want, legally and politically. I suppose it is my hope that you can sympathize with the conservative Christian position on this issue, and that a feasible middle-of-the-road solution could be adopted that respects your civil rights while protecting our religious freedom and heritage.
Is this not reasonable?
Comment by RuleOfLaw — May 3, 2009 @ 11:49 pm - May 3, 2009
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Liberals respecting the law…OMFG that’s rich! *wipes tears from eyes* Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Lets see, Liberals wont enforce drug laws, wont enforce immigration law, are assaulting virtually every clause of the constitution…indeed! the only parts of the constitution that liberals actually DO enforce are the parts that dont exist, like the right to an abortion, and the right to gay marriage!
Liberals LOATHE the law.
Comment by American Elephant — May 4, 2009 @ 4:12 am - May 4, 2009
#37: “I suppose it is my hope that you can sympathize with the conservative Christian position on this issue, and that a feasible middle-of-the-road solution could be adopted that respects your civil rights while protecting our religious freedom and heritage. Is this not reasonable?”
Yes, RuleOfLaw, it is reasonable. However, the gay left and intolerant, anti-religious bigots like Levi are not. As you know, your sincere effort to engage Levi in a respectful discussion was met with contemptible attacks on your intellect and your beliefs. As you may have figured out by now, Levi couldn’t care less about the issue of gay marriage–what’s he’s really interested in is tearing down traditional institutions because he hates religious people.
You might be interested in reading a column that Tammy Bruce wrote a few years ago that proposed the novel idea of seeking a solution to the same sex marriage debate that would accommodate the rights of gay people while honoring and preserving traditional institutions that are vital to our culture’s health and survival:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/bruce/2004/bruce022504.htm
Unfortunately, since the article was written, it has become clear that the left has no interest in such a debate because their acute narcissism has rendered them incapable of acknowledging the legitimacy of opinions and beliefs that differ from their own. But for what it’s worth, I appreciated your efforts to rationally explain your views on the matter that so many committed evangelicals share (and that people like Levi are committed to silencing).
Comment by Sean A — May 4, 2009 @ 11:12 am - May 4, 2009
I suppose it is my hope that you can sympathize with the conservative Christian position on this issue, and that a feasible middle-of-the-road solution could be adopted that respects your civil rights while protecting our religious freedom and heritage.
Is this not reasonable?
That is absolutely not reasonable. If you think that your ‘religious freedom and heritage’ is so fundamentally important that it means limiting the freedom of others, you don’t deserve any sympathy. Religion is not the law of this land. Legal precedent and basic human decency demand legalization of gay marriage. And regardless of all that, gay marriage doesn’t even do a single thing to infringe upon your religious freedoms – how does it? Since gay marriage has been legalized in a handful of states, has your life religious life changed in any way, shape, or form?
It bugs me to no end when religious people try to use their beliefs as a political battering ram. As if you’re some special class that requires special considerations from the rest of us, all because you believe in something that no one can even remotely confirm is true. (I’m saying this as nicely as I can, by the way.) Tradition, heritage, what the Bible says, you guys think those are some sort of trump card, but none of that matters in this country when we’re talking about laws, government, and equality. People don’t own words in this country.
Comment by Levi — May 4, 2009 @ 12:54 pm - May 4, 2009
This is gonna open up a whole new can of worms… but oh well.
Liberals have no ground, Ms. Levi, to complain about people using “beliefs” as battering rams, primarily because the left is founded entirely… and here’s the good part… on an act of faith.
To wit, skepticism is the only truly rational non-religious ideal. Logically, it is impossible to prove a negative. The left, and not only the left but in fact no one, can disprove a religious tenet, of any faith. There are proofs for the existence of God that many find skeptical, but the only RATIONAL response to those proofs is the following: “I don’t find enough evidence to support such a case.”
The materialist, utilitarian, ideological positions that are the bedrock of the liberal mindset are, at best, theories for which there is neither logical nor empirical PROOF.
As such, they are held as positions of faith and are merely masqueraded as rational principles by which to run a society.
Comment by Lonewolfe1978 — May 4, 2009 @ 4:46 pm - May 4, 2009
The materialist, utilitarian, ideological positions that are the bedrock of the liberal mindset are, at best, theories for which there is neither logical nor empirical PROOF.
What in the sh*t are you talking about?
Comment by Levi — May 4, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - May 4, 2009
I just read the Tammy Bruce article. Thanks.
Good to hear that the gay community does not operate under a cooperative “Vulcan mind meld.” Neither does the black community, but both suffer from high-profile ultra-left self-appointed leaders who claim to speak for a monolithic political force.
Don’t be too sure. If a left-leaning state like California can’t convince its population to support it, gay marriage may not be the fait accompli you think it is. Of course, most liberals will try to use the courts to circumvent the democratic will of the people to advance the leftist causes they perennially fail at championing at the ballot box.
Any why should you care about treating a political adversary with dignity?
Civility. Or perhaps that’s another traditional value and heritage you struggle with.
Comment by RuleOfLaw — May 4, 2009 @ 6:02 pm - May 4, 2009
and also…
if you don’t allow that “tradition and heritage” are the result of a thousand years of people trying to grapple with a human nature that has a positive existence (and the result of your so allowing would be to shut down the idea of homosexual marriage), then your own “legal precedent and basic human decency” have the same non-existent status as the religious right’s “tradition, heritage and the Bible.”
Or, another way, perhaps in terms you’re more likely to understand…
Our famous “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — those three little words which are the basis of America’s constant appeal to “legal precedent and human decency”… in fact, that piece of paper and the words on it are THE legal precedent for all American law — was intellectually grounded in the appeal to “nature and nature’s God” (yes, that’s right, the founders used the G-word). If laws today are not grounded in “nature and nature’s law,” then what are they grounded in? The will of the people? If so, then the judicial decrees about same-sex marriage are all not only unjust, they’re illegal.
In other words… your great cry: “legal precedent and human decency”; has its roots in what tangible reality? your choices are limited: science; will of the people; tradition and heritage; subjective experience. The second and the fourth end up in the overturning of the judicial decrees and the outlawing of same-sex marriage; the first is, in regards to homosexuality, becoming more and more ambivalent and so losing its place as an authority; and the third… well, the people who founded the nation that gave you the freedom to utter nonsensicals like “legal precedent and human decency” were smart enough to realize that “nature and nature’s God” are the best you’re going to get if you want a free society.
Comment by Lonewolfe1978 — May 4, 2009 @ 6:17 pm - May 4, 2009
Don’t be too sure. If a left-leaning state like California can’t convince its population to support it, gay marriage may not be the fait accompli you think it is. Of course, most liberals will try to use the courts to circumvent the democratic will of the people to advance the leftist causes they perennially fail at championing at the ballot box.
You guys barely won that vote. And voting isn’t the only way to change things. The courts were designed specifically to address these sorts of injustices, and a bunch of fundamentalists screaming about activist judges isn’t going to dissuade smart people that know their rights from using the judicial system.
Any why should you care about treating a political adversary with dignity?
Civility. Or perhaps that’s another traditional value and heritage you struggle with.
This is great. A group that would deny gays’ rights that they deserve for absolutely no reason turns around and demands to be treated with civility. ‘Hey man, I’m just treating you like a second class citizen, no reason to be uncivil.’
Comment by Levi — May 4, 2009 @ 6:57 pm - May 4, 2009
In other words… your great cry: “legal precedent and human decencyâ€; has its roots in what tangible reality?
I’d think it’d be obvious where legal precedent has its roots… in the law. What is your point, exactly? That this is a Christian nation created by Christians for Christians because you can pull the word ‘God’ out of a few of our founding documents?
Comment by Levi — May 4, 2009 @ 7:14 pm - May 4, 2009
It’s not about activist judges… its about legislative judges. The judicial system was designed to be distinct from the legislative, and the “activist” judges are
infringingforcing themselves upon the people in a way they were never meant to do. They are not and never were intended to decide on the constitutionality of issues… interpretation is not a power they were given… they decide legal/illegal… it is the people, through congress and by means of the constitution (which is itself steeped in tradition and natural law — oops, there is it again) that decide law.Comment by Lonewolfe1978 — May 4, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - May 4, 2009
Actually…. yeah, that is the point.
and… ms. smarty-pants… where does law have its roots?
Comment by Lonewolfe1978 — May 4, 2009 @ 7:17 pm - May 4, 2009
“gay marriage doesn’t even do a single thing to infringe upon your religious freedoms”
In itself I don’t believe it infringes any anyone’s religious freedom or threatens traditional marriage even slightly. But there are people who will try and use it that way. Folks like those who disrupted a church service clearly think it’s ok. You think they won’t be willing to take it into the courts. How does one ask for respect for their lives/beliefs while being unwilling to give the same to others? You can’t defend separation of church and state if you then turn around try to break that separation for some perceived benefit for you. I fully believe that churches/religious institutions have no business trying to influence law, but the individuals can and should argue their case and vote based on their conscience. I have known plenty who will ask their pastors how to vote and it makes me sick, more so because God never said believers should give up their brains and become robots.
It’s hard to argue too much that we should respect religious space when many are quite willing to disrupt our gatherings and then cry “victim”. But shouldn’t we do what’s right and not be intrusive just because they are?
Comment by a different Dave — May 4, 2009 @ 7:50 pm - May 4, 2009
“That this is a Christian nation created by Christians for Christians because you can pull the word ‘God’ out of a few of our founding documents?”
Since there are, I believe, a few practicing Jews on here I hardly think that the above argument has been made very often.
Comment by a different Dave — May 4, 2009 @ 7:53 pm - May 4, 2009
No one ever said that other faiths weren’t allowed. Only claiming that the founding principles of our democratic republic are an odd… but effective… mixture of enlightenment rationalism, natural law, and Christianity. While the character of our current state is not, the character of both the Declaration and the Constitution is a character that rests on all three of the above.
Comment by Lonewolfe1978 — May 4, 2009 @ 8:01 pm - May 4, 2009
The judicial system was designed to be distinct from the legislative, and the “activist†judges are infringing forcing themselves upon the people in a way they were never meant to do.
You’re full of it. Judges don’t force themselves into anything – they respond to complainants in courts. And upon whom would they be forcing themselves on the issue of gay marriage? Do you mean to tell me that Christians merely knowing that there are married gay people out there beyond the church walls is some sort of undue burden that all of society should be required to prevent? Please – you make it sound like they’re raping people.
They are not and never were intended to decide on the constitutionality of issues… interpretation is not a power they were given… they decide legal/illegal… it is the people, through congress and by means of the constitution (which is itself steeped in tradition and natural law — oops, there is it again) that decide law.
How are they supposed to decide legal/illegal if they were never given the power to interpret? Look up ‘the judicial branch’ on Wikipedia. This is like seventh-grade civics man – the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. Three, separate but co-equal branches. You are laughably off the mark with this gibberish.
Comment by Levi — May 4, 2009 @ 8:55 pm - May 4, 2009
Actually…. yeah, that is the point.
and… ms. smarty-pants… where does law have its roots?
Going back and selectively picking out quotes from the Revolutionary era to prove that the Framers were Bible-thumping evangelicals has been done before. It’s also been thoroughly debunked. This idea that Christianity is responsible for all of western civilization is a joke. The ‘natural laws’ you’re so excitedly claiming for God existed long before Christianity. They were co-opted by popes and kings to make obedient peasants think that things like popes and kings were necessary.
Comment by Levi — May 4, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - May 4, 2009
Debunked?
In the 1776 Delaware state constitution, ALL office holders in state government had to swear the following oath:
This type of oath was not unusual in Colonial America. Heck, there are probably several thousand seminary students on this country today who could not agree with that statement.
I bring this up not to suggest such a litmus test would be advisable today, but to demonstrate that the framers of the Constitution intended no “separation of church and state,” but merely to prohibit the establishment of a state church.
Sure, some Framers were deists. But all realized that Christianity had a civilizing effect on a nation and a direct relationship to civil liberty. One can only have freedom and liberty if people voluntarily and spontaneously honor and obey laws in good conscience. Faith helps provide that intrinsic motivation. Without it, man tends to behave very badly, and no amount of law passing or expansion of law enforcement powers can keep up with a society that is made up of self-interested, amoral people who have no sense of honor or fear of eternal ramifications for their misdeeds.
If there is one incontrovertible fact of human history, it is the utter depravity of man–his capacity for bloodshed, enslavement, and pitiless cruelty towards his fellow man. Limiting that tendency via check and balances with the aid of a faith-based civic culture was the crowning achievement of the Founding Fathers.
Even those who didn’t share those religious values benefitted from living in a nation where most did. Deists, Jews, Catholics, and even atheists could enjoy the freedoms that a largely Protestant majority afforded them. Was there intolerance and bigotry? Sure. But compared to most other places on the planet they were slight, and you got to keep what you earned.
Ms. Levi, it seems that you have a very difficult time practicing the “tolerance” of other viewpoints that the Left so often claims to embrace. Tolerance, it seems, is to be offered only to those who don’t believe in a monotheistic worldview.
Comment by RuleOfLaw — May 4, 2009 @ 11:03 pm - May 4, 2009
RuleOfLaw… Bravo.
Ms. Levi… you still haven’t answered my question… on what, in your world, is law founded on?
Comment by Lonewolfe1978 — May 5, 2009 @ 11:36 am - May 5, 2009