The GMA
I don't usually weigh in on political matters, although God knows my brow darkens when I read the news. I like to keep DJ relegated generally to matters that involve music, poetry, fiction, media / cultural studies, post-postmodernism, how to make a sandwich, and my lost brother Jon.
*
But I have GOT to weigh in on gay marriage before our President Chimpy McSmirkster weighs in. The GMA refers not to Good Morning America, but to the proposed gay marriage amendment. Word from CNN is that a statement is to come down the pike sometime on Monday night, in which Bush is to finally offer an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage. This idea has been batted around quite a bit, but the matter seems about to escalate.
*
I for one am feeling the burning white hot indignation of a thousand suns.
*
I understand that opinions on this matter run deep. I understand that personal issues of faith and tradition seem to demand a conservative approach.
*
However. All day I've been continually returning this comment, made this morning on MetaFilter's comment boards. Sure, MetaFilter runs toward the blue side of the spectrum. Listen:
Amberglow: "Our country's history is [a history] of the continual expansion of rights, and not [of] votes on whether certain people should have rights or not."
I submit to you that Amberglow's right. Try and think of an example of this country's proud history of *rolling back* rights. I'm being serious. Do we want to live in a country that will one day have reason to look back on its history and say, "Ah yes, remember when we disenfranchised the Xs or marginalized the Ys? Weren't those good times"? One of this country's core values - I don't use that word lightly - is the extension of rights to others. The very nature of the Constitution is the safeguarding of rights, not the selection of rights as applicable for a special few. It has taken decades, centuries even, to make demonstrable progress in extending full-on, no-shit rights to women, African-Americans, the disabled... so on and so on. And even after the rights are extended, society's slow to catch up. The thought that this country's leadership, and its base, would consider the deliberate discrimination of its own people appalls me. It submit to you that you, too, should be appalled. No matter what your own personalbeliefs may be. Because personal beliefs are precisely what's under threat of Constitutional ban. It is precisely the individual's right to think and act according to one's own inclination that's in peril.
*
I realize that this site's (modest) readership might come from various parts of the political spectrum; I realize further that religious stances are going to similarly vary. But I submit to you that THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE. IT IS A POLITICAL ISSUE. I ask you to divorce your personal and/or religious views from your consideration of this matter. I ask that you remember that this country is built on, is built from, a tradition of tolerance and understanding. A tradition of listening to the drunk nut at the corner of the bar, letting him say his piece, paying up, saying "Hey buddy you've got some nutty ideas! Take care though!", and going on your way.
*
I ask the opponents of gay marriage, in all seriousness, if you think that the marriage of a homosexual couple is going to impact your life in any way.
*
I ask why in heaven's name these Americans, who want nothing more than to be allowed to live committed monogamous lives, should not have that right.
*
These are serious questions, and I invite responses. I don't want DJ to merely preach to my own assorted choirs.
*
Against my pretty basic argument of "live and let live" / "as long as you're not hurting anybody, knock yourself out" is this: someone might argue that gay marriage actualy does exact harmful effects on individuals and families. You might hear someone raise the point that "the family is in danger" and even that "the forces of hell itself" are evidenced in the pro-gay marriage movement. I say to you now that this is not true. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Families are not in danger. No matter what acronym comes after your name, you cannot make blanket statements about "the American Family" and blame its decline on "those gays." I'm sorry, but fuck that noise; it's an impossible correlation to make. The burden of proof is too high. Like Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11, this is a fact. In other words, even if you don't believe that gay marriage has nothing to do with "the integrity of the American Family", you cannot prove that it does. Because there is no one generic "family," people; like homes, families are what you've got. Families may not look like your own. Your mileage may vary. THIS IS A GOOD THING. Have we really forgotten to affirm and celebrate this country's essential diversity?
*
"Our country's history is [a history] of the continual expansion of rights." This country cannot allow itself to abandon its tradition of tolerance and essential freedom. That seven-letter word has meant less and less these past six years. I'm tired of seeing it erode and erode. I ask, whatever your political or religious stripes may be, that you consider the meaning of that word in a nation that restricts its applicability to those who meet a certain norm.
*
No Chicken Little, I must admit that the odds are low that Bush's agenda will go anywhere; the Senate is having a hard time mustering even fifty votes. This is a good thing. But I urge you to say something. This issue may sound tired and old-hat; it isn't. Its moment is very much right now.
*
Write your representative.
Write your senator.
*
But I have GOT to weigh in on gay marriage before our President Chimpy McSmirkster weighs in. The GMA refers not to Good Morning America, but to the proposed gay marriage amendment. Word from CNN is that a statement is to come down the pike sometime on Monday night, in which Bush is to finally offer an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage. This idea has been batted around quite a bit, but the matter seems about to escalate.
*
I for one am feeling the burning white hot indignation of a thousand suns.
*
I understand that opinions on this matter run deep. I understand that personal issues of faith and tradition seem to demand a conservative approach.
*
However. All day I've been continually returning this comment, made this morning on MetaFilter's comment boards. Sure, MetaFilter runs toward the blue side of the spectrum. Listen:
Amberglow: "Our country's history is [a history] of the continual expansion of rights, and not [of] votes on whether certain people should have rights or not."
I submit to you that Amberglow's right. Try and think of an example of this country's proud history of *rolling back* rights. I'm being serious. Do we want to live in a country that will one day have reason to look back on its history and say, "Ah yes, remember when we disenfranchised the Xs or marginalized the Ys? Weren't those good times"? One of this country's core values - I don't use that word lightly - is the extension of rights to others. The very nature of the Constitution is the safeguarding of rights, not the selection of rights as applicable for a special few. It has taken decades, centuries even, to make demonstrable progress in extending full-on, no-shit rights to women, African-Americans, the disabled... so on and so on. And even after the rights are extended, society's slow to catch up. The thought that this country's leadership, and its base, would consider the deliberate discrimination of its own people appalls me. It submit to you that you, too, should be appalled. No matter what your own personalbeliefs may be. Because personal beliefs are precisely what's under threat of Constitutional ban. It is precisely the individual's right to think and act according to one's own inclination that's in peril.
*
I realize that this site's (modest) readership might come from various parts of the political spectrum; I realize further that religious stances are going to similarly vary. But I submit to you that THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE. IT IS A POLITICAL ISSUE. I ask you to divorce your personal and/or religious views from your consideration of this matter. I ask that you remember that this country is built on, is built from, a tradition of tolerance and understanding. A tradition of listening to the drunk nut at the corner of the bar, letting him say his piece, paying up, saying "Hey buddy you've got some nutty ideas! Take care though!", and going on your way.
*
I ask the opponents of gay marriage, in all seriousness, if you think that the marriage of a homosexual couple is going to impact your life in any way.
*
I ask why in heaven's name these Americans, who want nothing more than to be allowed to live committed monogamous lives, should not have that right.
*
These are serious questions, and I invite responses. I don't want DJ to merely preach to my own assorted choirs.
*
Against my pretty basic argument of "live and let live" / "as long as you're not hurting anybody, knock yourself out" is this: someone might argue that gay marriage actualy does exact harmful effects on individuals and families. You might hear someone raise the point that "the family is in danger" and even that "the forces of hell itself" are evidenced in the pro-gay marriage movement. I say to you now that this is not true. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Families are not in danger. No matter what acronym comes after your name, you cannot make blanket statements about "the American Family" and blame its decline on "those gays." I'm sorry, but fuck that noise; it's an impossible correlation to make. The burden of proof is too high. Like Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11, this is a fact. In other words, even if you don't believe that gay marriage has nothing to do with "the integrity of the American Family", you cannot prove that it does. Because there is no one generic "family," people; like homes, families are what you've got. Families may not look like your own. Your mileage may vary. THIS IS A GOOD THING. Have we really forgotten to affirm and celebrate this country's essential diversity?
*
"Our country's history is [a history] of the continual expansion of rights." This country cannot allow itself to abandon its tradition of tolerance and essential freedom. That seven-letter word has meant less and less these past six years. I'm tired of seeing it erode and erode. I ask, whatever your political or religious stripes may be, that you consider the meaning of that word in a nation that restricts its applicability to those who meet a certain norm.
*
No Chicken Little, I must admit that the odds are low that Bush's agenda will go anywhere; the Senate is having a hard time mustering even fifty votes. This is a good thing. But I urge you to say something. This issue may sound tired and old-hat; it isn't. Its moment is very much right now.
*
Write your representative.
Write your senator.
posted by Wil at
6:16 PM
5 Comments:
Thanks much for those links. For serious.
By
Anonymous, at 10:39 AM
At one time, my inter-racial marriage was illegal. According to the book "The Chinese in America" by Iris Chang, Chinese-Anglo marriages were not necessarily legal but were tolerated in some communities. Now of course they are legal and mostly accepted in America.
The theory that marriage should produce children does not hold water. Think of divorced adults who already have their own children and who re-marry with no intention of creating children between them. Or widows and widowers who marry in their twilight years for companionship. Then there are infertile couples, who receive IVF treatments or adopt. None of these 3 types of marriages produce children or produce children naturally, but they are approved by society.
Despite all of the above, however, something deep inside me resists approving gay marriage. Yes, I've had gay friends and co-workers.
Most of them were wonderful people. But I think gay marriage shakes the very fundamental and universal foundation of society, which is a union (sexual or non) of a man and a woman. It's like suddenly saying the sky is green and the sun rises in the west.
By
junebee, at 6:22 PM
Junebee -
I am having a hard time reconciling the fairly logical argument you presented in the second paragraph of your post with the largely groundless asssertions you make in your third.
Firstly, your assertion that there is a "fundamental and universal foundation" to "society" disregards diversity in its entirety. In so far as you may be referring to certain unaliable rights, these are, as defined by our constitution, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. A person retains these rights in so far as she does not impinge on the rights of others in pursuing or obtaining them. In no logically justifiable way does gay marriage impinge on any straight person's pursuit of happiness, life, liberty, etc. In fact, the case seems to be quite the opposite. Countless numbers of gay people are locked into unhappy straight marriages for fear of being fundamentally and universally rejected by their society.
Now, certainly it can be argued that witnessing gay marriage makes you personally uncomfortable, but I hardly think that those are grounds for arguing that gay marriage is impinging on your unaliable rights. While we're at it, let's constitutionally ban thongs and President Bush. They make me, personally, pretty uncomfortable.
You see where I'm going with that last argument. Banning gay marriage would itself shake our political foundations, so perhaps you believe we would be fortifying a moral/religious one? I must refer you to the fact that this country was founded by refugees of a religious monarchy with the audacity to assume it held the Holy Grail of moral absolutism. Freely plagiarizing:
"The suffering caused by these European conflicts, as well as the intellectual advances of the 18th-century Enlightenment, led the founders of the United States to make freedom to worship the law of the land in the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" [in other words, there would be no state-supported church, as in Britain], while the document's Article VI barred "religious tests" for public office. And although the majority of Americans—then and now—profess Christianity, the new nation confirmed separation of church and state in a 1797 treaty with the Muslim state of Tripoli in North Africa, which stated, "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
I realize I may be making two broad assumptions here:
1. that your homophobia is a product of a Christian affiliation.
2. that you are either of the opinion that gay marriage should be banned, or at least that if it were it wouldn't be a severe and terrifying breach of the freedoms upon which this country was founded.
Correct me if I'm wrong. But please do a better job of explaing yourself that arguing that the entirety of this post can be summed up with the statement, "The sky is green."
It amazes me that the same someone who freely acknowledges that the unenlighted viewpoints of others may at some other time and place have prevented her own marriage, would refuse to critically and emiprically examine her own bias toward other marginalized unions. It's simply bold-faced hypocrisy.
Hoping to reach an understanding on this. I didn't mean it as a personal attack in any way, shape, or form, but rather a call to critical dialogue.
- Kristin
By
Anonymous, at 8:01 PM
Moments after publishing I realized that the "bold-faced" adjective linked to my analysis of the hypocrisy in your argument is indeed a personal attack. You clearly don't intend to be hypocritical. It's more of an accidental incongruence. If I really mean to call you into dialogue, I must keep my own emotions on this matter in check.
I offer my sincere apologies for that very unfair and untrue adjective.
- K
By
Anonymous, at 8:05 PM
Thanks for your thoughts, you too. One thing to point out is that Junebee's comment about a personal "resistance" falls short of fully supporting a Constitutional ban. After all, it's A-OK to have a personal distaste for something / anything, be it gay marriage, Pres. Bush, or certain flavors of ice cream. Personal opinions are unassailable. When those opinions and those personal distaste threaten to become law, however - that's when Annie should go get her gun. That's when strenuous objection becomes necessary. It's fine if you don't dig on gay marriage - it is your right to disapprove. But that disapproval should never become - must not become - the law of this land.
A late-night conversation last night made me recontextualize the debate a bit - despite Bush's radio address and impending comments Monday night, it's unlikely that this issue will move beyond the Senate. This conversation also addressed the efficacy of action at this late stage. So I'll say that whatever actions you do or do not take on this, at least take the time to consider the issue in light of your own beliefs as well as the light of this country's heritage. Take the time to bring this issue up, and do not shy from it. Discuss it. I think that the more discussion happens, the more likely it is that we'll collectively take the right course.
By
Wil, at 10:17 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home