Sunday, November 16, 2008

no apology

"If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nailbiters." Anita Bryant

while it's snowing in chicago let me share why i was rude to commenter bridget, down below.

(no one may be asking, but i'll tell you anyway because - one, i'm sure i'm going to be rude a few more times as i keep writing about gay rights and, two, i don't want to keep explaining myself.)

i have no patience for the apologists of bigotry, no matter how harmless they try to make themselves seem.
i have no interest in engaging in some bullshit, trollish 'conversation,' or 'dialogue,' about 'both sides' of the issue because there are no two sides of denying american citizens basic equal rights because you don't like who they sleep with.

if you don't believe basic humanity and decency, as well as the foundation of our Constitution, dictates that the same liberty that you and i experience should be extended to everyone, as part of their national birthright, then you have nothing to say to me.

that's it. those are the parameters, the guidelines of the issue with which i'm willing to engage - not about religion and not about morality because our rights as citizens have nothing to do with either religion or morality.

it's pathetic that the shite spewed by anita bryant back in the 70s still has currency today. i guess that's the laziness of bigotry for you.

13 comments:

Orange said...

Oh, you weren't rude to Bridget. You were fierce and righteous. Definite difference.

A Republican friend of mine points out that 20 years ago, nobody was even thinking about same-sex marriage. (At least, the vast majority of straight people weren't. I'll bet there were gay and lesbian couples deeply in love who wanted the commitment coupled with the financial and legal protections straight folks take for granted.) So maybe it will take a while for the homophobic bigots to wrap their heads around the concept and discover that hey, it's pro-marriage and it isn't the slightest bit threatening to them. Hell, it's much less threatening than feminism is to the patriarchy, isn't it?

Wanda Sykes has a YouTube clip talking about same-sex marriage. I found it at Pandagon, but I'm sure you could find it pretty quickly at YouTube. (She rocks.)

liza said...

Dude. I don't read comments for what, a day? look what I missed. I'm all about not talking to bigots, and not giving them the space to air their ignorance and hate. All positions/opinions/beliefs aren't equal--punto final. Well-behaved women never got anywhere anyway.

Oh and also: I heart high dudgeons.

Songbird said...

What they said.
Also, how seriously can you take a commenter unable to spell? Yes, I am a spelling bigot.

ding said...

The thing about discussions like that is that the burden of argument always seems to fall on me, yet when I ask for them to clarify their position, they just say the same things over again.

it's like talking to someone who's been knocked in the head.

exhausting and frustrating.

Anonymous said...

Bridget was not wrong she was just stating the facts-
'Summary Prepared by the State Attorney General:


Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

SongBird- low blow and you call your self a minister- shame on yu- correct that and I will role over in my bed and snore, and fart! I hope the rest of this spelling is correct I would hate to read the "law of love" to a person who should know better, shrug

If gays want civil rights to protect their rights, like Bridget said, the law was written wrong - Think, it is the word "marriage" that is causing this stir of anger and emotions(women!)Calling someone a troll whatever your name is (screed) is a low way of losing. If you are so intelligent than act like it!

Christopher(call me Chris)

ding said...

marriage is a civil concept as well as a religious concept.

if we acknowledge that we live in a religiously pluralistic society (which we do) then it is more in keeping with the ideologies of fairness and civil equality if we acknowledge the civil concept of marriage - which would allow gays and lesbians the opportunity to pledge their troth to one another as well as access the legal privileges that come with being legally wed.

by saying that marriage can only be defined through a religious understanding (which is where you're coming from) then your religious ideas are informing civil rights of others rather than the idea that 'all men are created equal' in this country and that if society works one way for one group of people, then it should work the same way for everyone else, regardless of sexual orientation.

there. that's my argument.

do me the courtesy and lay out an argument against civil rights that's just as reasoned and rational and maybe i won't delete you.

Atalanta said...

I'm always baffled by the Biblical basis for this whole 'marriage equals one man and one woman' idea anyway.
But then I'm a big believer in the state only being involved in civil unions, and marriage being left entirely up to the church. It just seems simple and clean - only an adult can be involved in a civil union, and any adult can only be a participant in one civil union at a time. Ta da - the state is done. You want to be married *and* have a civil union? Fine, find a church. You want to be married but not bother with a civil union? Fine (retaining, of course, laws against rape, statutory rape, etc.). You want just to get the tax benefits? Fine. It is all this 'peanut butter on my chocolate' crap that is getting us into trouble in this area - and, I would argue others, but that is a different story for a different day.

ding said...

Yes. Like the wedding I went to in Paris.

The couple registered with the local magistrate to be wed, the guy in the robe did the thing, as witness I signed some papers, and bam - married.

Not a church involved anywhere.

I was gonna write something else about the married v. civil union language thing but I have to think a bit.

Anonymous said...

Let me sum this up for you nicely,

It was a state issue, and the people using their state rights to vote in California, voted not to have gay marriages. If you are gay and may want to marry, do not move to California, although California is a very liberal state who voted for Obama, they do not want gay marriages.

ding said...

it was a state CONSTITUTION issue.
by your (il)logic, every day people in California can just vote to interfere with the state's constitution just like that.

nice use of brainpower there.

what's wrong with marriage equality for gays? what's it to you? why do complete strangers care about whether or not gays and lesbians marry each other?

still haven't heard anything interesting or different from you pro-8 folks.

if you're not careful, you'll bore me.

ding said...

and again, watch the condescension. second warning.

wade said...

As a gay man standing on the sidelines of this discussion I’m appalled at the ignorance of the Yes on 8 argument people.

Let me tell you what is has been like to grow up as a gay person in this “free country”.

As a small boy I realized very quickly that I was different from everyone else. I spent years crying myself to sleep every night begging the so-called-God to “fix” me, wondering what I had done to cause this. Many many times I would decide to change myself and be straight. Sorry, wasn’t going to happen. Wasn’t my choice. What sort of masochist at the age of 5 chooses to be gay? Seriously!?!? I chose to be gay in a small town in the redneck backwoods? Really? Two suicide attempts that nobody ever knew about and years of substance abuse can attest to the pain of growing up in this environment.

Choice argument – wrong

I kept it quiet. I hid that I was gay. There is nothing more soul-crushing that hiding your true self from every person in your life. Feeling ashamed about who you are and what makes you happy. Stealing small moments of happiness by pretending that you’re actually in love with someone while they have no idea. Shame is such a wonderful feeling; all you straight people should try it for 20 years. Get back to me after you do and we can compare notes.

I grow up. I fight my inner demons. While you straight people get to practice having relationships, dating and awkward sex in high school, I stood by and watched wondering when or if I would ever get a chance to have some sort of true intimacy. Finally, through my 20’s and 30’s I get my chance at being in relationships and I begin to wonder… “What is the point of all this?” “Where can this lead?” “It’s not like I can get married and have a legitimate union”. Nothing seems permanent. It is too easy to end it when something better comes along, something easier something fresh and new and exciting. There is no legality to saying “I’m done”. No reason to stop and think… this is a big step and I should give it one more try. And so… I stop entertaining the dream of longevity.

And then… to top it all off… I’m judged harshly for not having stable relationships. I’m judged to be promiscuous. Well what other choice has been made available?

ding said...

Thank you, Wade.
I don't know what to say other than that. Thank you.