For All My Friends
Aug. 8th, 2010 03:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsittingstillRight out in public, on CNN.com, we see this cruel nonsense.
The unedifying but all-too-common spectacle of a religious leader advocating bigotry. In this case it is particularly appalling because one would think he would be better able to identify with the victims of bigotry than he manifestly is.
I'm going to fisk it, piece by piece behind the cut.
"The institution of marriage is unique. It is the one institution that binds women and men together to form a family, and this serves broad societal purposes."
Kind of close. It binds *people* together to form a family. Not just adults but children as well, with all the jostling that may entail--and not just 2 adults but their families as well become in-laws to each other. This is not always smooth or comfortable, but it's a fact. And let's face it--there are as many different ways to do it as there are different families.
"In California, a U.S. District Court Judge last week overturned Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act. It was passed in November 2008 by California voters to recognize "only marriage between a man and a woman.""
I think this is the only paragraph he got right.
"The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of the state's black voters, have just had their core civil right -- the right to vote -- stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his views on the state's people."
Oh, bless your heart. You didn't have your right to vote stripped from you--just your right to vote on other people's marriages. Since other people don't get to vote on your marriage this is perfectly fair. To anyone who isn't a hypocrite, anyway. And if you don't believe a gay judge can be fair, why should I--or anyone--believe a straight judge could be fair? Obviously we should have gotten a bisexual judge to rule on this. What a pity we didn't think of it in time.
"The implicit comparison Judge Vaughn Walker made between racism and opposition to same-sex marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all who remember the reality of Jim Crow."
It ought to be offensive. It is a well-deserved rebuke to you and everyone like who who ought to be able to sympathize with the oppressed, but can't, when the oppressed is not you. That offense you feel is your conscience, trying to get your attention.
"It is not bigotry, it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples"
There was a time when people said this about blacks like you. They were wrong then. You are wrong now.
"A marriage requires a husband and a wife, because these unions are necessary to make new life and connect children to their mother and father."
Oh bless your heart. I'm not sure how you managed to miss this, especially given how common it is among conservative communities these days--it's not actually necessary to be married to have a baby, honey. It happens to unmarried people all the time. And plenty of married straight couples don't have children and don't want to, while plenty of gay couples do have children. This business of connecting male-female marriage with children is both unrealistic and hurtful.
"Judge Walker's decision will not stand the test of time and history."
If we continue to make strides in human rights--which I grant you is not a given, with people trying all the time to drag us back into the Dark Ages--Judge Walker's decision will be lauded as an important stepping stone on that path.
" Congress and the Supreme Court must act to protect all Americans' right to vote for marriage."
You mean it must protect your right to vote against other people's marriages. There, once we actually say what you mean, it is revealed for the over-controlling hurtful absurdity it is. I bet you're offended. That's your conscience again. Going to return its calls?
"Advocates of making same-sex marriage a legally recognized right claim that this will have no impact on traditional marriage -- that it can peacefully coexist alongside traditional marriage. On the contrary, it will have profound impacts. It will create a conflict for people of faith (and nonreligious people as well) who fervently believe in traditional man-woman marriage and the law."
Well, bless your heart again. I just don't see the conflict, honey. Can you explain? How will it hurt traditional marriage, exactly? All I can see is that it will make bigots a little uncomfortable every once in a while--but that doesn't hurt marriage. And it just doesn't seem very....profound, either, you understand.
"The Bible is so clear in its support of heterosexual marriage there is little need for us to go through an exhaustive definition of biblical marriage versus the types of unions allowed by law today. The Scriptures say in Genesis 2:24 that a man is to leave his family and cleave to his wife."
The Bible was written a long time ago. When you try to use it to guide you through the modern world you need to remember that a lot of the specifics in it just don't apply anymore. For example the bible is quite clear on the subject of eating shrimp. Or wearing clothes made of more than one kind of fiber. Or emptying one's bowels (you need to go outside the city and dig a hole with a wooden paddle.) But normal people long ago came to terms with the idea that there are only two things that really matter. (Hint--they both have to do with love, and the one you're falling down on here is loving your neighbor.)
"We can teach our kids that there are important spiritual and societal reasons to believe in traditional marriage and oppose same-sex marriage. But if same-sex marriage becomes legally recognized across the country, our kids will be told that gay marriage is a civil rights issue and that those who oppose it are akin to the racists of history who opposed interracial marriage and supported slavery.
We can teach our children at home that marriage is between a man and a woman, but our children's public schools will teach them that marriage includes same-sex couples. Both would be "equal marriages" under the law."
Absolutely. One of the proper and intended functions of a good public education is the chance for kids to learn that there is an entire world beyond their parents narrow-minded horizons, that people who are different from their insular communities are not monsters or pariahs but human beings like themselves and just as deserving of consideration and respect. One of the most wonderful and hopeful things about children is that they can become better human beings than their parents. A bigoted parent does not need to raise a bigoted child.
"What might this look like? In Massachusetts, where a ruling legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, kids in public schools are reading books depicting same-sex families. At a California charter school in 2008, kindergartners' parents objected when a school newsletter alerted them to "National Coming Out Day;" a parent told a local ABC-TV affiliate that a teacher at the school screened a film to kindergartners the previous year showing gay families."
This sounds very nice. I don't understand the problem.
"These kinds of ill-advised social experiments may produce a host of unexpected consequences. If gay marriage is allowed, the nation will soon begin to experience an increased degradation of the nuclear family -- resulting in fewer kids being raised by both a mom and a dad."
That's quite a jump. Explain again why you think allowing gay marriage will reduce the number of kids being raised in marriage--or even the number of kids being raised in straight marriage. I must have missed it when you explained the first time.
"Beyond that, those of us who believe in traditional marriage and are in a regulated profession -- such as counselor, physician, attorney or accountant -- and act in concert with our beliefs, may be vulnerable to losing our professional license and our livelihood."
Well, there are, of course, professional situations where you have to treat everyone equally, and are not allowed to discriminate. A doctor who refused to treat black people, for example, can and should have some problems as a result. Never mind whether he imagines his religion has anything to do with it. An accountant who refused to work for Christians, ditto. A counselor who refused to work with Southerners, ditto. And of course these protections can and should be extended to gay people. Same sex marriage is a subset of that, rather than a controlling factor.
""What will the landscape of America look like if same-sex marriage is legalized across our nation? "
Well, to start with, there will be a more egalitarian division of child care and other in-home labor. (Hint--that's a good thing.)
"Social scientists report what most Americans have always known: Both boys and girls are deeply affected in biological and psychological ways by the presence of their fathers."
Purest 100% bullshit. Children probably do better with two caregivers, for obvious reasons. I know of no studies suggesting that one of each gender is a necessity or even demonstrably better.
If the American family loses the presence of the birth dad in the home, there will be huge consequences to the growth and stability of the next generation of children in that family.
Oh bless your heart. Honey, why would you think a man in a straight marriage would abandon his children if gay marriage became available? Trust me--you may have gay urges that you're constantly fighting against, but most of us are in our marriages because we want to be. Changing the range of marriage available to us isn't going to change that.
Suppose you're correct about a father's presence preventing early onset puperty (it sounds unlikley to me, but suppose). So what? Gay marriage wouldn't make a father more likely to abandon his daughter--for obvious reasons. 1) most fathers are straight and not interested in gay marriage 2) fathers who are gay could still end up with custody.
Fathers who leave their children leave because they are unhappy in their marriage--and that's a result of that particular relationship, between those particular people, and not a result of what the alternatives are..
"In addition to fighting the marriage redefinition, leaders from all sectors of our culture, including our churches, must work hard at improving heterosexual marriages. Counseling, modeling, and interventions are needed to help ailing marriages. Both battles must be fought if our families, which are the incubators of future societal greatness, are to be protected."
I think it is a wonderful idea to try to improve people's happiness in marriage. I do hope, however, that your counseling efforts will be less bigoted, more in touch with reality, and more flexible to different people's situations and needs than this essay leads me to believe.
Best of luck with that.
The unedifying but all-too-common spectacle of a religious leader advocating bigotry. In this case it is particularly appalling because one would think he would be better able to identify with the victims of bigotry than he manifestly is.
I'm going to fisk it, piece by piece behind the cut.
"The institution of marriage is unique. It is the one institution that binds women and men together to form a family, and this serves broad societal purposes."
Kind of close. It binds *people* together to form a family. Not just adults but children as well, with all the jostling that may entail--and not just 2 adults but their families as well become in-laws to each other. This is not always smooth or comfortable, but it's a fact. And let's face it--there are as many different ways to do it as there are different families.
"In California, a U.S. District Court Judge last week overturned Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act. It was passed in November 2008 by California voters to recognize "only marriage between a man and a woman.""
I think this is the only paragraph he got right.
"The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of the state's black voters, have just had their core civil right -- the right to vote -- stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his views on the state's people."
Oh, bless your heart. You didn't have your right to vote stripped from you--just your right to vote on other people's marriages. Since other people don't get to vote on your marriage this is perfectly fair. To anyone who isn't a hypocrite, anyway. And if you don't believe a gay judge can be fair, why should I--or anyone--believe a straight judge could be fair? Obviously we should have gotten a bisexual judge to rule on this. What a pity we didn't think of it in time.
"The implicit comparison Judge Vaughn Walker made between racism and opposition to same-sex marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all who remember the reality of Jim Crow."
It ought to be offensive. It is a well-deserved rebuke to you and everyone like who who ought to be able to sympathize with the oppressed, but can't, when the oppressed is not you. That offense you feel is your conscience, trying to get your attention.
"It is not bigotry, it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples"
There was a time when people said this about blacks like you. They were wrong then. You are wrong now.
"A marriage requires a husband and a wife, because these unions are necessary to make new life and connect children to their mother and father."
Oh bless your heart. I'm not sure how you managed to miss this, especially given how common it is among conservative communities these days--it's not actually necessary to be married to have a baby, honey. It happens to unmarried people all the time. And plenty of married straight couples don't have children and don't want to, while plenty of gay couples do have children. This business of connecting male-female marriage with children is both unrealistic and hurtful.
"Judge Walker's decision will not stand the test of time and history."
If we continue to make strides in human rights--which I grant you is not a given, with people trying all the time to drag us back into the Dark Ages--Judge Walker's decision will be lauded as an important stepping stone on that path.
" Congress and the Supreme Court must act to protect all Americans' right to vote for marriage."
You mean it must protect your right to vote against other people's marriages. There, once we actually say what you mean, it is revealed for the over-controlling hurtful absurdity it is. I bet you're offended. That's your conscience again. Going to return its calls?
"Advocates of making same-sex marriage a legally recognized right claim that this will have no impact on traditional marriage -- that it can peacefully coexist alongside traditional marriage. On the contrary, it will have profound impacts. It will create a conflict for people of faith (and nonreligious people as well) who fervently believe in traditional man-woman marriage and the law."
Well, bless your heart again. I just don't see the conflict, honey. Can you explain? How will it hurt traditional marriage, exactly? All I can see is that it will make bigots a little uncomfortable every once in a while--but that doesn't hurt marriage. And it just doesn't seem very....profound, either, you understand.
"The Bible is so clear in its support of heterosexual marriage there is little need for us to go through an exhaustive definition of biblical marriage versus the types of unions allowed by law today. The Scriptures say in Genesis 2:24 that a man is to leave his family and cleave to his wife."
The Bible was written a long time ago. When you try to use it to guide you through the modern world you need to remember that a lot of the specifics in it just don't apply anymore. For example the bible is quite clear on the subject of eating shrimp. Or wearing clothes made of more than one kind of fiber. Or emptying one's bowels (you need to go outside the city and dig a hole with a wooden paddle.) But normal people long ago came to terms with the idea that there are only two things that really matter. (Hint--they both have to do with love, and the one you're falling down on here is loving your neighbor.)
"We can teach our kids that there are important spiritual and societal reasons to believe in traditional marriage and oppose same-sex marriage. But if same-sex marriage becomes legally recognized across the country, our kids will be told that gay marriage is a civil rights issue and that those who oppose it are akin to the racists of history who opposed interracial marriage and supported slavery.
We can teach our children at home that marriage is between a man and a woman, but our children's public schools will teach them that marriage includes same-sex couples. Both would be "equal marriages" under the law."
Absolutely. One of the proper and intended functions of a good public education is the chance for kids to learn that there is an entire world beyond their parents narrow-minded horizons, that people who are different from their insular communities are not monsters or pariahs but human beings like themselves and just as deserving of consideration and respect. One of the most wonderful and hopeful things about children is that they can become better human beings than their parents. A bigoted parent does not need to raise a bigoted child.
"What might this look like? In Massachusetts, where a ruling legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, kids in public schools are reading books depicting same-sex families. At a California charter school in 2008, kindergartners' parents objected when a school newsletter alerted them to "National Coming Out Day;" a parent told a local ABC-TV affiliate that a teacher at the school screened a film to kindergartners the previous year showing gay families."
This sounds very nice. I don't understand the problem.
"These kinds of ill-advised social experiments may produce a host of unexpected consequences. If gay marriage is allowed, the nation will soon begin to experience an increased degradation of the nuclear family -- resulting in fewer kids being raised by both a mom and a dad."
That's quite a jump. Explain again why you think allowing gay marriage will reduce the number of kids being raised in marriage--or even the number of kids being raised in straight marriage. I must have missed it when you explained the first time.
"Beyond that, those of us who believe in traditional marriage and are in a regulated profession -- such as counselor, physician, attorney or accountant -- and act in concert with our beliefs, may be vulnerable to losing our professional license and our livelihood."
Well, there are, of course, professional situations where you have to treat everyone equally, and are not allowed to discriminate. A doctor who refused to treat black people, for example, can and should have some problems as a result. Never mind whether he imagines his religion has anything to do with it. An accountant who refused to work for Christians, ditto. A counselor who refused to work with Southerners, ditto. And of course these protections can and should be extended to gay people. Same sex marriage is a subset of that, rather than a controlling factor.
""What will the landscape of America look like if same-sex marriage is legalized across our nation? "
Well, to start with, there will be a more egalitarian division of child care and other in-home labor. (Hint--that's a good thing.)
"Social scientists report what most Americans have always known: Both boys and girls are deeply affected in biological and psychological ways by the presence of their fathers."
Purest 100% bullshit. Children probably do better with two caregivers, for obvious reasons. I know of no studies suggesting that one of each gender is a necessity or even demonstrably better.
If the American family loses the presence of the birth dad in the home, there will be huge consequences to the growth and stability of the next generation of children in that family.
Oh bless your heart. Honey, why would you think a man in a straight marriage would abandon his children if gay marriage became available? Trust me--you may have gay urges that you're constantly fighting against, but most of us are in our marriages because we want to be. Changing the range of marriage available to us isn't going to change that.
Suppose you're correct about a father's presence preventing early onset puperty (it sounds unlikley to me, but suppose). So what? Gay marriage wouldn't make a father more likely to abandon his daughter--for obvious reasons. 1) most fathers are straight and not interested in gay marriage 2) fathers who are gay could still end up with custody.
Fathers who leave their children leave because they are unhappy in their marriage--and that's a result of that particular relationship, between those particular people, and not a result of what the alternatives are..
"In addition to fighting the marriage redefinition, leaders from all sectors of our culture, including our churches, must work hard at improving heterosexual marriages. Counseling, modeling, and interventions are needed to help ailing marriages. Both battles must be fought if our families, which are the incubators of future societal greatness, are to be protected."
I think it is a wonderful idea to try to improve people's happiness in marriage. I do hope, however, that your counseling efforts will be less bigoted, more in touch with reality, and more flexible to different people's situations and needs than this essay leads me to believe.
Best of luck with that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-08 08:42 pm (UTC)Well said.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-08 09:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-08 09:37 pm (UTC)I'd love to see the gay rights movement start a campaign to put ballot measures in every possible state asking people to vote on whether opposite-sex couples should be allowed to get married in that state. It'd never get onto any ballot, but it'd make a good point loudly.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-08 09:59 pm (UTC)Another member of the choir sings with you, sistah!
no subject
Date: 2010-08-08 11:33 pm (UTC)This guy was all over the news here when the fight to legalize gay marriage in DC was going on. He's a self-promoting publicity seeker first and foremost. The papers kept quoting him as a DC church leader until someone pointed out that Beltsville is actually in MD and he had no political stake in regulating DC, so why was he meeting with the Mayor again? He lost here and this is the first time I've seen his name in a while. Hopefully he'll soon be reduced to the pathetic footnote to history that is all the notice his ranting deserves. I wish I could be there when he does come face to face with the God he's so willing to mold in his image. "And you did WHAT in my name?"
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 12:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 01:56 am (UTC)It's not about marriage; it's about gays. They can't articulate a coherent reason why gay marriage would harm heterosexual marriage or families because there is none. But it seems to be somewhat socially acceptable to say that there is, while they apparently feel that they can't openly say what they really mean, that they want those damn queers back in the closet where they belong.
They believe that legalizing gay marriage is a step toward making homosexuality fully acceptable in society in general, and that's why they're against it. Personally, I believe the same thing, and that's why I'm in favor of it.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 02:57 am (UTC)Kinda reminds one of how another group, some time back, sought to gain social acceptance by, among other things, changing the definition of "person".
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 03:17 am (UTC)Considering Jesus's pronouncements upon the sinfulness of fragging, they have to dance around the issue carefully in order to justify themselves. And simultaneously practice "1984"-style DoubleThink.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 12:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 12:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 05:02 pm (UTC)