Print This
Email This
Our heads are on the chopping block. As conservatives struggle for a point of view and a rallying cry for their disheartened soldiers of "faith," hate and isolationism, an easy target has emerged for this group's ire: the gays.
Sure, there's still abortion to worry about and Christmas is right around the corner, so some troops will have to be sent to guard nativity scenes at government buildings, all in an effort to keep Christ in the celebration of a pagan holiday. But social conservatives are an industrious bunch, and where John McCain would fail as a multi-tasker, the "silent majority" is ready to work tirelessly to thwart any sort of social progress.
My friends, I'm scared. Here in my ivory tower overlooking seventh avenue I can see the pitch forks and torches coming towards Chelsea. Crowds on both sides of the debate need to be appeased.
But I'm not sure if protesting in front of the Mormon Church is going to change this. On the one hand, it's horrible that a tax-exempt entity is blatantly funding a partisan agenda that is taking away citizens' rights. But in the end, Proposition 8 was put forth before the people of California to vote on and the people made their choice. How would the Dems feel if a bunch of Republicans started protesting in front of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta when Obama was elected?
If the Mormom Church poured money into Prop 8 so too did the left to preserve marriage for all citizens. Funding is not the problem. The problem is that gays are still the "others" and our access to rights, to all the benefits of citizenship, is still a matter of debate. Again, 50 years we were invisible and the "other" group was African Americans. With growth comes pain and right now we're feeling those pangs of evolution - and while I support vocal condemnation of a social scheme that questions the rights of particular groups, I do not think the church is the place to launch an offensive.
The gays should do what we do best: kill the haters with charm. I'm thinking billboards, acts of civility and community building. Instead of protesting, let's spruce up our city schools, let's create the communities we want to live in and lead by example. That doesn't mean we're going soft, it means we're rising above the fray to effect the change we all want to see.
The truth of the matter is that we're not wanted right now, so we have to lay claim to our place in society. What that steak in the ground looks like is entirely up to us.
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles, subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
The problem is that blacks are still "the others". It pains me to see the racism and intolerance in the gay rights movement.
It angers me that gays are invoking the Civil Rights movement wherein people bled and died. Its just not the same.
If there is any lesson gays can learn from Civil Rights its 1) organizing and 2) reaching out to other communities rather than dismissing everyone as hatemongers.
To your point about "killing the haters with charm" - I've seen in Michigan, based on my own observations, any city that has been populated by gay communities have overwhelming turned into beautiful, thriving places to live and visit. I don't mean just aesthetically, but economically. If there can be such a thing as "gay values" I'm certain beauty and knowledge are part of them. All my gay friends are incredibly intelligent, motivated, and most often, lovers of music, theatre, art - that's how I've met most of them, through artist endeavors.
Still, the rest of the world has a lot of growing up to do. The gay community may have to find solace in the fact they may just be a bit more evolved than most... : )
I still find it sad that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is instantly labeled a "hater." Or intolerant, or bigoted, or homophobic, or close-minded, or whatever pejorative one may choose to use.
By resorting to ad hominem attacks we leave no room for real debate about the actual issues at play. One may disagree with the views of social conservatives, but projecting the idea of "hatred" onto that group does nothing but distract from the topic at hand.
In reality most people who oppose same-sex marriage are completely in favor of full rights and civil unions for homosexuals and their partners - they are simply against redefining the most important social institution in the history of civilization.
These same people are also some of the most loving, compassionate, kind and giving people you will ever meet. Of course there are groups of bigoted and hate-filled people who oppose same-sex marriage (just as there are bigoted and hate-filled people who oppose Christians), but the vast majority of those against same-sex marriage are not like this at all. If we are going to have any rational discussion regarding these matters, we must not resort to demonizing the other side's character before the debate ever begins.
I have chuckle whenever I hear about these kind of 'culture wars'. I mean, everyone can see the direction the world is headed right?
Remember, it was 1969 when the Stonewall Riots took place (if you don't about this, look it up).
Now, 40 years later, we have a openly gay actors, politicians, coworkers. We have at least one state that recognized gay marriages. We even have a president elect who approves of civil unions for gay couples.
Sure, it's not total acceptance. But you can see the way the winds of change are blowing, right? Pretty soon, the majority of older folks who dislike or are creeped out by gays will be dead, and most younger folks that have grown up with gay friends will think it's no big deal.
It doesn't mean we shouldn't stop fighting for gay rights, but it does sort of put it in perspective, doesn't it?
I think the gay population has come a long way to becoming more understandable and accepted by the general population. I say this from a perspective of being a person who is not gay and my observations over my lifetime. I think you espouse the correct approach with "kill the haters with charm". A report last night by the CBS evening news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/13/eveningnews/main4601227.shtml?...), however, does not support your conclusion regarding 'growing up' and 'a bit more evolved'. There are people in the gay community who want their own way right now and want it settled by the courts rather than by the population as a whole. The CBS story above reports the following - "Now the anger is moving to the Internet, where supporters of same-sex marriage are posting blacklists - the names and businesses of those who gave money to help Proposition 8 pass." We're not just talking about the church here - individuals and their employers are being targeted. This kind of behavior gives the gay community a tarnished image for sure in my opinion.
Correction to my comment above -
...does not support your conclusion regarding 'growing up' and 'a bit more evolved'
referred to Milena's comment and not from the body of this post.
I wrote about this a few weeks ago, with Florida having the same amendement on the ballot (which was also passed). I believe the main arguement comes down to people of faith being asked to redefine their own structure for others. If marriage was left to the church, and governments ONLY issued civil unions, the issue would dissolve. Let those people of faith maintain their own structures, while others can move forward.
@Mark W. - if you'll remember, there was the same issue ('outing' those who supported gay marriage) by the anti gay marriage groups in CA as well.
Gay rights will get there eventually. It just takes a really, really long time. Who knows? In 150 years, you may see a gay President.
@Norcross - I do remember and it looks like tit for tat to me which I don't think is the approach the gay community should be taking. I referenced this news article since it was not included in the post. Now I see by going to David's blog that he posted this article yesterday morning which was before this news hit the media outlets. BTW I do agree with your comment on marriage-church and government-civil unions to break this 'deadlock'. However legal and health benefit issues (as well as others) still need to be resolved so it is a quagmire.
I can't believe this Generation Y and how they are so willing to tell a whole demographic to just be patient. I remember how every opponent of civil rights for blacks in the 50's advised the Negro to wait his turn. Such BS! Gays will never get anywhere waiting for society to change naturally. There's a reason why the peaceful Civil Rights movement changed to Black Power before it was over. Too many people got tired of waiting.
It's easy to look at those propositions as a failure for gay Americans. But I think it's important to acknowledge the progress in the fact that they were even up for consideration.
This debate is at least being had at this point. It's an important conversation because people recognize that gay Americans play a unique roll in our culture, for good in many ways, and in other ways they are still misunderstood, not accepted or discriminated against. So it was for African Americans, women...the march goes on.
There will always be someone, some distinct group, asserting themselves for equal rights. Those rights have come through peaceful progress and riotous rebellion. Whether you agree with the tactics, the strategy to secure rights did work in several important cases.
We should all be looking for ways we can positively contribute to our society. Not because we want something from it, but because we have the power to affect our country with our talents. And if we work together to strengthen America, beautify our fifty-nifty United States, chances are that evolution of acceptance will likely happen on its own.
@Norcross: You're exactly right. The government should issue only civil unions. It's an elegant solution to a really ugly problem. The trouble is that the same religious community that doesn't want to be forced to recognize gay marriage (which shouldn't be an issue, but is because there are activists who are just as interested in forcing their lifestyle on the church as they are in social and legal equality, sadly) will insist that changing the legal term from marriage to civil union is in some way taking something away from them.
@Ryan: There are a lot of people who make that mistake of attacking anyone who has a difference of opinion. And plenty of them on both sides of this conflict. That said, looking at the advertising for yes on 8, and language that many churches use in their sermons and literature, the tactics and propaganda used can not (for me) be called anything other than hateful. It insinuates that homosexuals are pedophiles, unhealthy, and are attempting to bring about the downfall of society.
There are lots of people who just don't want it called marriage in a legal sense. In principle I agree with them, and would go farther to agree with Norcross, that legally, it should be civil unions across the board and leave marriage to the churches. I also believe (further than many would take it) that a civil union should not have any sexual or moral requirements or stigma, and that legal unions of consenting legal adults should be able to take any form they want to. two, three, four-way civil unions should be completely acceptable in the eyes of the law.
It really distresses me that the vast majority of these issues result from an extremely petty argument over the word
'marriage.'
@Anonymous: The gay rights movement is an extension of the civil rights movement. No comparison needs to be made, it is the same movement. We are all building on the work and struggle of decades of men and women who have fought to bring equality to this country, and we are continuing that fight.
It is tragic that there is still prejudice in our communities. Prejudice based on Sex, Race, Orientation, Religion, Culture, Disability, and many other factors is still a major issue in our country. It has gotten better in the last few decades, but we still have a long way to go.
We are all part of the same movement, the same tide of freedom. If you don't believe that gay people have been oppressed or abused you haven't been paying attention. To one-up each other or grow angry at me for recognizing our similarities and the underlying cause of our fight is petty and demeans us all. Worse, it diminishes our struggle for equality.
@Mark W. I don't think that gay marriage is an issue that should be decided on the population as a whole. Why is it proper to have your state to tell you if your marriage is valid?
@Ryan Marriage as legally and socially defined between a man and a woman is a relatively new institution. Its original purpose was to solidify property acquisition and ownership. Only recently has marriage adopted the cultural significance of solidifying a romantic bond, often through religious ceremonies.
While I think the discrimination against gays is indisputable, people often forget the discrimination against legal institutions and religious figures who would like to perform gay marriages and can not do so. In a way, banning gay marriage is a violation of church and state.
The moral solution would be to legalize gay marriage. The practical solution will likely be legally defining everything as a civil union and leaving marriage to religious institution.
Wow, David. Way to engage in doublespeak there.
So, you should kill them with kindness, while at the same time calling them "haters" who brandish pitch forks and implying they have your head on the chopping block?
I'm all for government getting out of the marriage business, but maybe you should reconsider how you frame your argument.
Are you going to win the battle by degrading the other side?
@Vanessa, I wholeheartedly agree with your point about the institution of marriage. Opponents of gay marriage speak about the "sanctity of marriage," but what is that, exactly?
Up until about 100 years ago, marriage was a way to: (1) gain real estate, (2) establish ties between powerful families (to make sure they do not screw each other over), (3) a way for women to stay active in society (unmarried women were much more restricted in what they could actually do), (4) a legal permission to have sex.
Throughout history, marriage has not been based on love and husbands and wives sought love outside of the marriage. This definition of marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman is great (also, can someone point me to its source...where did it come from?), but should not be a valid argument against gay marriage. And the government nor the people should have the right to meddle in people's lives like that.
I still can't get my mind around the idea that people oppose gay marriage because marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.
If you are a straight married couple, why would it matter to you if two men or two women get married? Why would that be a threat to your marriage? Why do you feel better if it's called civil union? That's just verbiage.
If you are against gay marriage because of "religious" beliefs, the your religious clery should not perform gay marriages. Why would YOUR religion dictate what happens in 1) a courthouse marriage or 2) a ceremony in another religious organization.
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?