Letter to a Prop 8 supporter
It's quite offensive that you assume that there is anything less than
permanent in my marriage than in yours, simply because of the gender of
my beloved. The bigotry of this view may arise from fear, ignorance, or
hatred, or some combination thereof.
But denying my faithful, long term relationship the benefits and responsibilities of civil marriage is simple bigotry. it has nothing to do with religion, yours or mine.
Either way, whether you deprive us of the piece of paper or not, we're married in reality. You can't stop that. You can't eliminate us, or drive us into hiding. Nothing has changed about our presence in our common life--yours and mine. Nothing has changed about what your children will be taught or your exposure to us. We are still here and still the same.
We are your neighbors. We teach your children. We work in your office. We are your doctor, your lawyer, your grocery clerk, your taxi driver. My wife's picture is on my desk, and mine on hers. You and your children see it there when you come in my office.
We are in the PTA. We go to the supermarket and kids' soccer games together. We hold hands. Our children are friends with yours. Your daughter may date my son. We may sit near you at graduation. We may be near you at a restaurant. And some of us even go to church, and stand next to you in the pew.
In the face of all your bigotry and attempt to marginalize us, to make us smaller, we are here, bearing the witness of what marriage is, through better or worse, in sickness or in health, as long as we both shall live.
Oh my, can you imagine the degree of commitment to marriage that endures despite the ignorance and bile of people like you? Despite every effort you make to tear us apart, to disenfranchise and abuse us, to desecrate what we hold sacred, we endure, and still we rise.
It makes you rather small, doesn't it? Bigotry generally does have that effect.
(Edited from a cross post at Friends of Jake)
But denying my faithful, long term relationship the benefits and responsibilities of civil marriage is simple bigotry. it has nothing to do with religion, yours or mine.
Either way, whether you deprive us of the piece of paper or not, we're married in reality. You can't stop that. You can't eliminate us, or drive us into hiding. Nothing has changed about our presence in our common life--yours and mine. Nothing has changed about what your children will be taught or your exposure to us. We are still here and still the same.
We are your neighbors. We teach your children. We work in your office. We are your doctor, your lawyer, your grocery clerk, your taxi driver. My wife's picture is on my desk, and mine on hers. You and your children see it there when you come in my office.
We are in the PTA. We go to the supermarket and kids' soccer games together. We hold hands. Our children are friends with yours. Your daughter may date my son. We may sit near you at graduation. We may be near you at a restaurant. And some of us even go to church, and stand next to you in the pew.
In the face of all your bigotry and attempt to marginalize us, to make us smaller, we are here, bearing the witness of what marriage is, through better or worse, in sickness or in health, as long as we both shall live.
Oh my, can you imagine the degree of commitment to marriage that endures despite the ignorance and bile of people like you? Despite every effort you make to tear us apart, to disenfranchise and abuse us, to desecrate what we hold sacred, we endure, and still we rise.
It makes you rather small, doesn't it? Bigotry generally does have that effect.
(Edited from a cross post at Friends of Jake)
Advertisement
Honestly after spending a ton of hours talking to people about prop 8 your not really helping.
First, calling someone a bigot just makes them offended. You should really stop that, it just makes you feel better. If you just want to feel better, go on a vacation.
Second, your argument hinges on the fact that people understand that it's natural to be homosexual. 90% of the people that voted Yes on prop 8 believe that being Homosexual is a choice. You should spend a little more time fighting this misconception and a little less time calling people names.
November 24, 2008 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to the dictionary, a "bigot" is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group .... with hatred and intolerance.
Ignorance of the fact that homosexuality is a normal human variation, not unlike red hair or left-handedness, meets the definition of obstinate ignorance. Honestly, the science is clear, the medical profession is clear, and it really takes willful disbelief to refuse to acknowledge it.
But for stopping by.
November 24, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Diet's point is not that they're not bigots (they clearly are), but that calling them bigots tends to prevent them from listening to anything else you're going to say.
It's the difference between Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and how they discuss atheism.
November 24, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Neil discuss atheism? I always thought he was afraid of the subject.
November 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it depends on what you mean by "atheism", I suppose. He does talk about the deep spirituality that he finds in astronomy in a way that I find very moving. He's also talked to Dawkins about there being better ways to convince an audience than being insulting, even if what one says is perfectly true.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is my hero. :)
November 25, 2008 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah... I like Neil quite a lot! It's just that there's something between Dawkins' in-your-face way and Tyson's namby-pamby way that I prefer.
November 25, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Ben, I think that's true, some of the time. Dawkins is what I regard as an anti-theist, rather than an atheist, because he has become just of intolerant of that which he criticizes. I find some of his attacks on religion and the religious quite offensive....and I say that as an atheist myself.
At some point, enough is enough, and we have to call it for what it is. Whether it arises from fear, ignorance, or actual hatred, or something else, in this case, it does rise to the level of bigoted behavior. So the onus is to explain what justifies bigoted behavior. And since most intelligent people don't like to think of themselves as bigots (although most of us probably are about something), maybe it forces a consideration of how good intentions can descend to bigotry, and how they can be redeemed.
I don't think most of the anti-gay marriage voters are pathological about it (though some are, to be sure, and the organizers have been simply vicious telling lies). I think many are thoughtless, or afraid, and the biggest weapon in our arsenal is to show them....us. Which was the point of the letter. Passing Prop8 in no way changes our presence in their live and the lives of their children; nor would defeating it have changed it. All that has changed is what it did to US.
Familiarity, I think, I hope, defeats bigotry.
November 24, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 25, 2008 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that's probably the most insulting thing she could have said to him. ;)
(No, not really. I think she does sincerely realize that Dawkins is also searching for the truth, just as us atheists would be wise to remember that the same holds true for many Christians, Muslims, et al.)
November 25, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, I found that article looking for a new study by Gregory S. Paul, which was recently reported having been published by the JRS, and is a follow-up to:
Gregory S. Paul, "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies - A First Look", Journal of Religion and Science, Volume 7 (2005)
If you run across it online, please give me a head's up.
November 25, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there more than one Journal Of Religion and Science? I went to Wiley's page for them, and Volume 7 appears to have been published in 1972, not 2005…
November 25, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cant' help on that; the first time I ever visited the site was day before yesterday, and pulled the citations straight off of the linked pages. This one is associated with Creighton University, if that's any usable data. I'm sort of at a loss presently at the UNLV libraries, because my librarian contact there made a University change last Spring, and I didn't have the foresight to have her put me in touch with another one. Access to their online database accounts could be a bit of a problem right now, and the County Library doesn't have many of the Academic Journals available. I've become acquainted with with the main county library branch's head research librarian, because it's where the Federal Repository is located, and he's the guy who keeps it in order (Congressional Daily Records, yum...). It's all in microfiche though, but on the plus side, they've got Readers hooked to software on windows boxes. The librarian got excited when he discovered I'd brought along a thumb drive. I don't think many of the people he helps come prepared like that the first time. I save pages to TIFs onto the tumb drive, and then take them home for reading/OCR conversions. He's a good guy who gets excited when asked to help clear-up WorldCat conflicts/errors. I think I'll ask him about a UNLV librarian contact the next on the next visit.
November 25, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
On further review: they are completely different Journals, and I'm a fool caught up in mental closure trap. The proper citation is "Journal of Religion and Society". Shows you where my head is at, eh? There are times when my penchant for jumping without looking get me in trouble...
November 25, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I meant to say "thanks for stopping by", Diet.
Also, I wanted to add that having spent the run up to the election being shrieked at and called a "pervert", "sinner", and some things not fit to print on a public website as I worked Pro-prop8, I think "bigot" is a pretty minor term to use against people who are trying to destroy my marriage.
But upon further reflection, I think you do raise a good point, which suggests to me that I should probably do an informational post about the science of it all.
And for that I also thank you.
November 24, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You castigate IT for
I looked in vain for name-calling. I did see her describe the "behavior" as
There's a difference. Name-calling is impolite and unproductive. But injustice must be named for what it is. Whether the injustice is incest or murder or bigotry, dancing around the topic is merely another way of rolling over and playing dead, especially when one is the object of injustice or abuse. Rape needs to be called rape. Robbery needs to be called robbery. And if you have a better term for bigotry, then please supply it.
Homosexuality is not a choice. But bigotry is.
Whenever a fact of one's humanity, be it gender or skin color, left-handedness, eye color, hair color etc. becomes an issue for exclusion, denial of rights, or abuse, then both its victims and all the rest of us suffer indignity.
But for an accident of birth, I was born as I am and where I am. But I might have been born black or gay or left-handed. I might be living in a hut in Africa or be a refugee fleeing with small children after having been raped. We, all of us, need to stop and realize that we might be in the shoes of the "other" - and it behooves us, especially, to care for those in our society, who have been excluded or marginalized or victimized.
If we marginalize people and then blame them for having their own "lifestyle" that is a double burden. For what are people to do, whether black people or gay people, if they have been marginalized, but band together and over time develop social networks apart from the mainstream?
I myself am trying to find ways to reach the ignorant. I invite you to do the same. Rather than the blame the victims.
November 24, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why should we care about the weakest among us? Because one day that will be us! We will be old or sick and in need of care. And we surely do not want to be treated as a piece of refuse.
November 24, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I know this comment is well-intentioned, it equates being gay with those that are weak. Social programs for those down-and-out (or old and sick) are quite a different issue than acceptance of genetic material at birth (as you correctly bin homosexuality). The former is a matter of taste/priorities/resources, the latter falls under the self-evident truth about all people being created equal.
One of the biggest issues with Prop 8 is that the right for anyone to get married to anyone else is not a social program or agenda, but falls under a constitutional right.
November 24, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have asked you to stop following me.
November 24, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diet, I'm not sure that we're doing anyone any favors by not calling bigotry out for what it is. Same sex marriage rights are a fundamental civil rights issue. If people need to be shamed into seeing that, then so be it. The Archie Bunkers of 2008 should be lampooned and held up as a negative example the same way the Archie Bunkers of the 1970s were.
November 24, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You aren't on my follow list. I do not follow you. Therefore, your request is based on a counterfactual. Stop personalizing things.
November 24, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate when the "replying to" box unchecks itself!
November 24, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I might throw in my 2 cents here (even though I haven't been asked): I don't know why TheraP thinks you are following her, but for whatever reason she clearly seems bothered when you "reply" to her. I assume you don't understand why (I don't either, but there are a lot of dynamics I don't understand). I experienced something similar when Billy asked me to stop responding to his blog entries (because I was too "boring"). I still don't understand his reasoning, but I respected his wishes because it seemed counter-productive not to. I think the same thing applies here. You don't need to understand why TheraP is bothered by you replying to her. Just understand that she is. (That doesn't mean you won't accidentally forget and every so often reply to her. I know I have with Billy. But as long as you're trying to not reply, she'll probably be OK with that.)
November 24, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your 2 cents, Ben. I made myself clear yesterday in remarks on another thread. (This is just a follow-up to that.) And rather than air things publicly, I explained it all in an email to TPM. In addition I've pointed out my concerns on two threads related to TPM policies and what is considered abuse of our privileges - including harassment and stalking. There has been a pattern for some time. Your advice is wise. And I thank you.
November 24, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
email to TPM? Hmmm... I can see why you're a fan of the report abuse button!
November 24, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... when it's a pattern, you need to explain the pattern. I would have done so, had the button not appeared.
No need to make more of this. Politeness is not difficult.
November 24, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, politeness is not difficult. I've always been polite to you, TheraP. That doesn't mean I will necessarily agree with you.
Of course, you could have addressed the substance of my comment to yours. Instead, your personalized "do not follow" comment triggered a subthread that overwhelmed the original issue.
November 24, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
People come here to opine. One of the social rules is that others may have an opinion of your opinion - and will express it.
To do otherwise is to kill the intent of open discussion.
By the way, for her to make a claim of cyberstalking is quite serious. It's like crying "wolf". I will not allow someone's false accusations to be made about me. She didn't say "don't respond to my posts" perhaps because she knows that it unsocial behavior. So, instead, she made a formal charge made against me. That's dishonest. It's not the same as the situation you described with Billy.
November 24, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not the same situation, but I still think that if you just stop replying to her, she'll stop accusing you of cyberstalking.
I agree that it's a pretty serious claim, albeit a somewhat imprecise one as the various definitions here attest to, and unless you're actually engaging in some of those acts, it's not right of her to use that term.
That said, you've made it clear that you reject her claim that you've been stalking her (and I'll note here that she used the much less insulting word of "following"), and she's made it clear that, regardless of what one calls it, she doesn't want you responding to her. If you choose to continue to do so, that's your prerogative. However, I don't think she's going to change her opinion about wanting your opinion, so as a reply to her, it's probably not furthering the goal of open discussion.
For the record, I'm "following" both of you and have been for a while, so I've seen a lot of the comments that have gone back and forth and have mostly tried to stay out of it. I'll do so again, unless you actually want my further opinion on this.
November 24, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
First: Let's be clear: if we adopt standard US practices here (and that's a reasonable assumption), then her claim is groundless unless offered with proof. I will note this post is on the recommended list. Hardly obscure.
Second: Using laws, rules, and regulations in an attempt to curtail behavior you don't like rather than is illegal is disingenuous at best. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, it's best not to post on the Internet. It simply comes with the turf.
Lastly: I am not replying to "her"... I'm critiquing the view expressed. She made a point which I strongly disagree with. There's nothing harassing about my comment to her personally.
I wish people would address the point of my comment, which I think central to the argument. We've now hijacked a thread that is about a very important issue. I don't wish to continue to do so.
November 24, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: If you've really been following the comments, you would know that TheraP did, in fact, use the actual word "stalk".
November 24, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you've been following, Ben, not much has gone back and forth, as I've tried for a very long time to ignore the negative comments. Only of late have I asked for them to stop. But your words are much appreciated - on my end.
IT, I'm sorry your thread has gotten mixed up in a situation that has nothing to do with your cause - which I strongly support.
November 24, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, Ben, I like your theory for another way to look at this issue. (your blog from Nov 14)
November 24, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, although I will say that it's possible to find a certain cowardice in my proposal from the 14th. Rather than tackling the argument head on, I'm looking for a work-around that ignores the fact that it really is homosexuals that are being deliberately discriminated against.
November 25, 2008 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess this thread has been highjacked.
I'd like to go way back up and say that I believed for years that gay people should not marry, or adopt children. It was not based on religion (or maybe it was based on my early Baptist training, but I would deny that influence to my dying day). I don't like to think of my self as ignorant, but since educating myself is what changed my mind, I guess "ignorance" pretty well describes what my former opinions were based on. If someone had pronounced me "ignorant" the transformation might have taken longer.
I don't know when I changed my way of thinking. I had gay friends who had children together; I had gay cohorts that I worked with; but I still thought -- well, they can have legal standing without marriage. I couldn't give you a date or a time, or an event which changed my mind, but the question that finally decided it for me was "Why not?" If people love each other and want t get married, WHY NOT? If people want to commit to a lifetime together, WHY NOT? Once I reached that question, I realized that to deny the right to marriage was so obviously wrong that I couldn't believe how long I held on to that faux idea.
Maybe it was the huge trauma of my own divorce that personalized it for me. But the point of law is that we should not HAVE TO SEE IT FROM OUR OWN POINT OF VIEW! The point of law is that it applies to everyone regardless of what a particular person thinks at a given moment.
Now, I can hardly believe I ever doubted it. I can hardly believe I ever opposed marriage for any two people who love each other, but I did. I know it is hard to be patient, and even harder to suffer fools gladly, but the fact is, that this concept is relatively new, and as Diet stated above, anger and name-calling, regardless of how justified, get in the way of your goal. People don't want to be ignorant. They have to learn, and empathy begets empathy.
November 24, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, though at some level we DO have to call people on it, CVille. We have to tell them what their behavior is, how it is perceived, and how deeply, deeply hurtful it is. As you correctly point out, no one should be expected to EARN their rights under the law. (Please also see my reply at 7.35pm to Ben, upthread.)
November 24, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the real problem is that the state should never have been involved with marriage in the first place. Your marriage license is a business arrangement -- it has nothing to do with deity or religion.
The biggest laughs I have are when people talk about protecting the "sanctity" of marriage. Most of the time, these people are divorced! In fact, given the divorce rate in this country (about 1 in 2), there should more attention paid to that little fact.
And for the record: the sooner we allow gay marriage, the sooner the divorce laws become more equitable. At present there is too much decided based on gender, rather than rationality. When you remove gender from divorce laws, you will see things become equitable much more rapidly.
November 24, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, if one were designing the structure de novo, it would be sensible to use a European or Japanese design, where CIVIL marriage is basically a civil union (which is really what it is), and MARRIAGE is a religious construct. so you go from the civic office with the CU to the church (if you choose to take that 2nd step). Thus explicitly separating religious from secular concepts.
However, as they are hopelessly conflated in our nation, it is not possible to do so. Please see my commentary to the previous post to discuss why and how "civil unions" in our current society do not match "civil marriage".
In the US civil sphere, separate is not marriage. And civil union is not the same as civil marriage.
November 25, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not advocating civil unions for gays, I'm advocating it for *everyone*.
It's time this country grows up about religion -- or at least start practicing it for real (you know, golden rule, love your neighbor, etc.).
November 25, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"homosexuality is a normal human variation, not unlike red hair or left-handedness"
"the science is clear, the medical profession is clear, and it really takes willful disbelief to refuse to acknowledge it."
So its an innate characteristic and not an acquired trait?
If its innate there's no risk someone without the condition would become gay, nor any chance children who lacked the trait would become homosexual emulating the conduct of adoptive gay parentage.
November 24, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, Plus Ultra. After all, the vast majority of gay folks have straight parents. And I can assure you, our own kids are very, very straight.
But not at all narrow.
November 24, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those interested in reading more, here's an article from The Atlantic on Homosexuality and Biology (1993).
November 25, 2008 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink