Defense-less: Or How To Not Make a Valid Point
Jan/100
The proponents of Proposition 8 (@ProtectMarriage) linked an interesting article on Twitter today The article was published on Townhall.com, titled “Proposition 8 Trial: Loving the Sparkliest Person Vs. The Needs of Society” and attempts to make the case against marriage equality.
The first point the article makes is based on a quote from Kristin Perry, one of four plaintiffs named in the case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), is describing how she fell in love with her partner: “I remember thinking that she was the sparkliest person I’d ever met.” Now, I’ll admit to not really understanding what she means by this. How does a person achieve the quality of “sparkly”, but I assume it to be a term of endearment between the couple. The author of this piece, however, chooses this seemingly innocuous passage for her first salvo:
“I do not believe that those who find another to be the sparkliest—or the most wonderful, or the most attractive, or the most brilliant person ever—should necessarily qualify for state sanction in marriage.”
First, who is she to judge why it is that someone falls in love with another person. Second, the plaintiff didn’t say this was the only reason she’d fallen for her, just one.
We’re through two paragraphs and already we’ve determined that the author doesn’t have any truly credible points, but let’s keep going, because this will be fun.
Later, the author cedes a point that you’d think would void her argument: “I do think it’s true that California marriage law discriminates against same-sex couples.” Game. Set. Match. Let the gays marry and move along. No? Oh, there’s more…
“Couples where both partners are the same gender are treated differently from couples where the partners are of opposite sexes. That’s called ‘discrimination based on sex.’ Which for many purposes is perfectly legal, and which advocates of gay marriage do not seek to change.”
There’s a kind of valid argument here, but not in the way the author thinks. She goes on to list one legitimate discrimination case that should be ended (women not required to register for the draft), but then lists two that aren’t viewed as discrimination (segregated bathrooms and prisons). I won’t get into my opinions on the draft (which extends to DADT), but on the later argument I see there being legitimate grounds for this separation, but also a not too hard to make case for ending the segregation. Regardless, both arguments have nothing to do with marriage and the gender discrimination imposed on gay Americans.
The fun really begins in the next paragraph, though, where we trot out the “slippery slope”:
“…[n]one of them are willing to insist on complete freedom, though they may seek it later on. They don’t plead for polygamy or polyandry; they don’t march for incest; they don’t claim that children, or any collection of in-love, committed people should gain state-approval as a ‘marriage.’”
There’s no real argument here, but I’ll go ahead and refute their points.
Incest is prohibited because the children of incestuous relationships are more likely to suffer birth defects. Want proof? European royalty has a history of anemia among other conditions. This is what’s called a legitimate government interest, because healthy citizens are more productive. This argument is only included because of the gross out factor, and it allows them to talk about pedophilia.
Children aren’t allowed to enter into any contract (which is what marriage is), based on their relative immaturity. There is an accepted tradition of growth from childhood into adulthood and when they reach the accepted maturity level. And this is only raised for the same reason as incest.
As for polygamy (and polyandry, which I give the author credit for including), there is no real rational reason to deny this, and not even the argument of “tradition” holds up to this. Throughout all of human history, a surprisingly large number of cultures have practiced this at some point in their development. But I digress…
We now get the best part of the article, wherein the author tells me that I’m fighting for something I already have:
“And as for ‘the freedom to marry.’ well, anyone is free to perform a non-state-recognized wedding.”
She presents examples of nuns being “married to the Church” and hippie communes. This is just nonsense. The point of fighting for marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with dressing up and walking down the aisle to a dais where someone witnesses us make vows of love and fidelity. It’s about the rights, responsibilities and protections that come with a marriage recognized by the state and country of our residence.
“Actually, though marriage laws may assume or specify the genders of participants, neither gender is treated differently, or suffers any discrimination. Any individuals able to legally marry one of the opposite sex. That includes everyone, and excludes or discriminates against no one.” [Emphasis as written.]
Well, gee. Thanks. You’re so generous.
And she wraps it up by laying out the red herring of the entire debate.
“I do think that for many on the left, the underlying aim is to dissolve the institution of marriage altogether.”
We’ve been found out. All along, the gay rights movement has been pushing marriage equality so we can destroy it from within. That’s also why we want to serve openly in the US Military, and not have to worry about being fired from our jobs just for being gay. The entire gay agenda is focused on destroying the very fabric of America from the inside.
Wow. What a load.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell’s “Reflections on Marriage”
Oct/090
Over at The Nation, the always fabulous Melissa Harris-Lacewell provides her thoughts on the marriage equality debate (and marriage in general). Just ignore the comments, because as per usual, the trolls have ventured out from under their bridges to claim–erroneously–that marriage is a “very specific social contract, between a man and a woman, with roots as a religious rite”. It’s a social contract all right, but has little to do with religion at it’s root, let alone in modern law.
Dear Sen. Brownback: Please Don’t Insult Me
Sep/090
A couple weeks ago my other half, Ben, sent a letter to our representatives in Congress via HRC’s Repeal DOMA Now website. Today, we got a response from Senator Sam Brownback, one of Kansas’ two Republican Senators. (The other, Pat Roberts, is no friend of mine either. Take his defending insurance companies stance, for example.) I did not expect our letter asking for Sen. Brownback’s support in repealing DOMA (should the Senate take up such legislation before his retirement next year) to change his mind. I also did not expect his reply to be as detailed as it was, nor did I expect him to directly insult our relationship. (Which I should have, this being Kansas. Our history on LGBT rights is less than stellar.)
A central priority for me is to work to rebuild our families in America. In the United States today, marriage is in a real crisis. Over the last 50 years in the United States, the marriage rate has gone down considerably while the divorce rate has gone up. In 1960, the out of wedlock birth rate was 5%; now, it is 26%. Put simply, we have fewer kids being raised by a mom and dad bonded in marriage. While you can valiantly raise a good child in another setting, which we ought to celebrate when it happens, the best place to raise a child is in a family with a mom and dad bonded together for life.
I’ll accept the Senator’s argument that marriage is in a crisis. I don’t think many people are okay with such a high divorce rate. Some marriages will dissolve over time for whatever reasons, but how many of these marriages were a rash decision? The marriage and divorce rate argument is not applicable to same-sex marriage as it has nothing to do with granting marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.
The out of wedlock birth rate (to some extent) reflects the changing societal norms. No longer is it taboo to have a child before marriage (or without being married at all), nor do I think it should be. A capable parent is not dependent on being married. There are single moms and dads that are raising happy, healthy children. (For the record, I was raised by a single mother who was also going through graduate school towards her Doctorate. I don’t consider my childhood hindered in any way; I wouldn’t have it any other way. To this day I’m immensely proud of my mother for all that she did for me and my brother.) The Senator would like to celebrate raising children in “another setting”, yet he’s against gay marriage and gay adoption and gay parents. How many children are without a stable, loving home in this country? How many children go from one foster home to another? You would deny these children the potential parents out here who would love them and raise them and provide them a family? And all because of your narrow-minded view that gays and lesbians aren’t suitable parents? What’s worse: two dads (or moms) or no parents at all?
Another fundamental principle is the equal dignity of all human persons. Equal dignity and respect does not mean, however, that all relationships are the same. Marriage, as it has always been defined, involves the complementarity of spouses and the inherent openness to life. I think before we redefine a fundamental institution we ought to consider the current context. Given the current crisis of marriage, the question for many is whether redefining marriage to include unions of those of the same sex helps or hinders the fundamental institution. For this reason, I oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions.
Equal dignity of all human persons, but with an asterisk at the end. Who is the Senator (or another human being, for that matter) to decide what is worthy of equal rights? African-Americans were denied civil rights for decades because they were “inferior”. The same holds true of women’s rights, be they reproductive, voting, or equal-work-equal-pay. Marriage “involves the complementarity of spouses and the inherent openness to life”. What in that sentence would prohibit two men or two women from that classification? If the Senator is using that to allude to marriage being historically defined as “one man, one woman”, then he is wrong again. Back in December of 2008, when Rick Warren was slated to be part of President Obama’s inauguration, there was uproar in the LGBT community over Rev. Warren’s anti-gay-marriage rhetoric. Warren brought up the same historical definition of marriage argument, and I offered my argument as to why that argument was incorrect:
It’s a large assumption to make that for [five-thousand years] every culture andevery religion has defined marriage in the same way. The very institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, and the methods of the ceremony and the very concept itself has changed over the many thousands of years of recorded history. For most of European history, marriage was little more than a business arrangement with marriages between families a common way of strengthening power and improving social class. … [W]hile it is true religious traditions throughout the world hold the word marriage to heterosexual unions, there are a growing number of exceptions, including Unitarian Universalist, Metropolitan Community Church, Quaker, United Church of Canada, and Reform Judaism congregations. — Rick Warren and Why This is a Big Deal, Greetings from Flyover Country, December 2008
Regardless of the historical definitions (as loose as they are), using history as a roadblock of progress is counter-intuitive. Humanity and society would not have come to this point had our predecessors looked at history and said why bother changing the status quo? The Iowa Supreme Court said it best in their ruling that led to legal same-sex marriage in that state:
Initially, the court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.”
Senator Brownback says that the question for many is “whether redefining marriage to include unions of those of the same sex helps or hinders” marriage as an institution, and that “for this reason”, he opposes both same sex marriage and civil unions. He is in opposition because of a question that he gives no answer to? Obviously, from his position, he feels “redefining marriage” would hinder marriage as an institution despite opening it up to more couples. His opposition to civil unions, however, has nothing to do with marriage as an “institution” and everything to do with his views that some relationships are less important than others. All of his reasons are for why gay marriage should not be legal, not why gay and lesbian relationships themselves are a bad thing. I would imagine his personal and religious beliefs would come in to play at this point. However, what myself and other gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships are seeking is not approval from their Senators or Congressmen. They’re not looking for acceptance. They’re seeking the equal rights and protections of their government the same as their married (heterosexual) friends, neighbors, family members, and fellow citizens.
The central question for me is how we can get more kids raised by a mom and a dad bonded together for life. Redefining marriage does not strike me as a step in the right direction. Eliminating the marriage penalty, creating a more family-friendly tax code, and supporting programs that enhance marriage and make marriages stronger seem a better start. Rest assured, I will keep your comments in mind should legislation in this area come before the Senate for a vote.
The “marriage penalty” is that some couples, each making the same amount of income, pay higher taxes than if they were filing as single (not “married filing separately”). (I can’t imagine they don’t pay drastically higher taxes. The US tax rate is already ridiculously low compared to other modern industrialized nations.) A more “family-friendly tax code”? What exactly does this mean? There are already child tax credits. And spousal benefits are deducted pre-tax while domestic partner benefits are post-tax. I’d also make at least $200 more each month if I were able to select married on my W-2. Republicans like paying less in taxes, but only if you’re straight. Gay couples are at a tax disadvantage and the GOP doesn’t seem to give a damn.
I appreciate that the Senator shared his views. I also appreciate all the good that he does to for Kansas and that he believes he is doing what he believes in, even if I disagree with him on many issues. What I do not appreciate is Senator Brownback thanking me for contacting him, while in the same breath insulting my relationship as being less than his marriage. He ends the letter with “you are the reason that I am here”. I, personally, am not. I wasn’t able to vote in the 2004 election (nor was I a resident of Kansas), and if I was I would not have voted for him. And I won’t be voting for him in his upcoming gubernatorial bid.
I am not seeking his acceptance of my relationship. I don’t want his acceptance. He is entitled to his beliefs. But I don’t want him telling me that I’m somehow less of a person because of who I am. That I don’t deserve the same federal (and state) benefits afforded to me if, tomorrow, I go down to the courthouse with some woman I met on the street and get a marriage license signed. (No religion involved, either. This is strictly a civil matter.) People say that there is too much going on to take on the issue of same-sex marriage, that it isn’t as important as health care reform or getting the economy back on track. But gay marriage affects health care of the countless couples where their employer(s) don’t extend domestic partner benefits but will happily extend those same benefits to spouses. Gay marriage effects the economy (for the better), as Keith Olbermann pointed out back in May. I’m fine taking a weekend trip to Iowa to get married so long as the federal government says my marriage is valid and affords me the rights and privileges thereof. (And, under Full Faith and Credit, Kansas should recognize the marriage as valid. I don’t care if they issue them, but they should treat it he same as any other legally valid out-of-state marriage.)
The repeal of the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) would be simple. In fact, HR 3567 as introduced by Rep. Nadler of New York is very short. I commend the Representative and the numerous co-sponsors for introducing this important bill, and I urge everyone to contact their representatives in Congress and tell them to support marriage equality in spite of Senator Brownback’s refusal to be a voice for all of his constituents.
My Senator Doesn’t Speak for Me
Sep/090
From Think Progress‘ YouTube account comes this video of Sen. Pat Roberts (R, Kansas) defending insurance giant Humana.
Humana and I don’t get along anyway. What got me was this comment:
Really this guy just reflects the people of Kansas. They don’t like evolution, and they don’t like progress. Why they deserve as many senators as New York or California is beyond me. How about a constitutional amendment where the top twenty five states in population get two? senators and the rest get one. — cat00012000
Well, aside from his idea for an amendment subverting the intent of a bicameral legislature, I take offense to this comment. First of all, please don’t put all Kansans into the same category. Plenty of us do like evolution and progress. (And please note that is once again part of the curriculum enacted by the State Board of Education after their 2007 6-4 rejection of the controversial 2005 amendments.) Secondly, the author isn’t from one of those liberal bastions on the coast. Oh no, he’s from rural Missouri. Now this is not a jab at Missouri. I lived there once, have family that still do, and have some good friends that live there as well. I’m just saying that there’s a certain Missouri-Kansas feud that dates back to when pro-slavery types from Missouri tried to subvert the abolitionist (anti-slavery) movement in the Kansas Territory (this whole event, called Bleeding Kansas, is really quite interesting). Long story short, on May 21, 1856 some Border Ruffians burned buildings and looted homes in Lawrence.
My point is, Sen. Roberts is not representative of all Kansans. Just as the above-mentioned YouTube user isn’t representative of every Missourian. Sen. Roberts was last re-elected in the 2008 General Election by 60% of the votes, and as of the end of August his approval rating is 58%. It’s a majority, but it’s not an overwhelming one.
Communism, anyone?
Sep/090
This is just disturbing. Respect for the Office of the President of the United States is one thing. But this sounds like some over-zealous teacher who thought it’d be a real kick to teach these kids a song that sounds like a (bad) propaganda piece. It is (or shouldn’t be) no surprise that I’m pro-Obama. Voted for him, support him, support the DNC. And I find this appalling and inappropriate.
Of course, any viral video is going to have lots of comments from people spouting nonsense and their own idealogical beliefs. Like that somehow POTUS himself is behind this, or “I seem to recall that school children (das Kinder) sang songs praising their leader in Germany during the mid-late 1930’s.?” Here’s a comment that is so rooted in reason and education that it’s worth sharing with you all:
And to think, these kids aren’t allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance or pray to whatever they worship in that school.
Communism, anyone?
Yeah, sorry. Go back to high school civics and try again. They’re allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance. They just can’t be mandated to say it (or the words “under God” in it) by the school if they choose not to. And they may pray to and worship whatever and whomever they so choose so long as it is not school-sponsored and, again, mandatory. What ytaccount83 is suggesting is that they would much rather have a government where everyone is forced to say “under God” in the Pledge as well as have mandatory school/state-sponsored prayer. Well, unfortunately for them we do not live in a theocracy or a nation with a State religion, as much as it pains them because in their twisted mind Christians are still persecuted and the word of God must be forced upon everyone.
Social conservatism, “family values”, and the right-wing association with them is nothing new. It got Republicans lots of electoral victories in 2004, including President George W. Bush. But the lunatic fringe is becoming increasingly louder and increasingly “popular” among the party mainstays. (Not to mention the violence, racism, and anti-semitism that was so predominate with Glenn Beck, the tea parties and “9/12 Project” even in Washington, D.C. “We came unarmed… this time”? An armed revolt against the legitimately-elected government? Is that what they’re seriously threatening?) Polling indicates that the GOP is just a “party of the South”, considering that’s the only region where their favorability is higher than their unfavorability and even then by a comparatively thin margin. The GOP lost big in the 2008 election and are trying to find their footing. I don’t object to many ideas the fiscal conservatives have. And I think healthy debate is good for government. But I don’t think a major political party should play to a minority constituency that demonizes education, civil rights, and religious freedoms as hard and fast as the GOP has in recent years by using lies and distortions that harken back to the “red scare” of the mid 20th century.
Reasons for Firing Carrie Prejean
Jun/090
Carrie Prejean reads from a bible during services at the Rock Church in San Diego Sunday, April, 26, 2009. Prejean has drawn attention for her comments against gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant, where she was first runner-up last weekend. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)
In the “karma is a bitch” department, Carrie Prejean, runner-up in the Miss USA pageant from California, has lost her crown (and title) of Miss California for breach of contract. And considering she’s been running around doing everything but (I don’t think the National Organization for Marriage is part of the Miss California USA pageant tour), I’m not surprised. The reason behind her termination was not her gay marriage comments from the Miss USA pageant in April. But should it have been?
Blogger Emma Ruby-Sachs at the 365Gay.com news site (run by LGBT-oriented cable network Logo) seems to think so. (For the sake of keeping this on-topic, I won’t go into my love/hate relationship with “gay news/gay media”.)
Yesterday, Carrie Prejean, poster child for the National Organization for Marriage and the newly conservative California, was fired.
When told of her firing by the celebrity radio host Billy Bush, Prejean insisted it was because of her answer to Perez Hilton’s gay marriage question during the pageant: “”It’s just because of my answer, I think. None of this would be happening right now if I just said, ‘Yeah, gays should get married. You’re right Perez Hilton.’”
If only that were true.
The press release issues by the Miss California and Miss Universe organizations states that the firing is, “based solely on contract violations including Ms. Prejean’s unwillingness to make appearances on behalf of the Miss California USA Organization.” Since Prejean maintained her crown after the nude pictures surfaced and after Shanna Moakler resigned in protest, it is unlikely that her answer in the original pageant is the root of this dismissal.
And that’s the problem. [Emphasis added.]
“And that’s the problem”? I’m not quite sure the situation is being looked at objectively. Instead I get the impression that Ms. Ruby-Sachs wanted some comfort knowing that Ms. Prejean was punished for what she said rather than her behavior and actions required in her contract (as happened). “[H]aving someone who holds bigoted and discriminatory views as a figure head for a state is unacceptable,” Ms. Ruby-Sachs writes, as if Miss California USA is the California equivalent of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As much as people would like to imagine a beauty pageant winner holds some sort of celebrity outside of the beauty pageant circuit, they really don’t. Yes, there might be some little girls in princess costumes who dream of being a beauty queen, but by-and-large Miss California would have never been taken seriously if it were not for this controversy. Out of the Miss America and Miss USA winners of the last twenty years, I recognized three of them (Ali Landry, Gretchen Carlson, and Shanna Moakler).
Sure, at the end of the day, the right girl is now Miss California. But the decision was made too late and for the wrong reasons. In the same way that racism is not tolerated in world of celebrity and politics (when it is recognized, mind you), homophobia should not be appropriate for those appointed to “represent” a state or community.
Ms. Prejean’s original comments (reproduced below from Huffington Post) were not homophobic. She stated her beliefs and her values. Was her answer poorly worded and in parts incoherent? No doubt about it. Her association with the truly homophobic National Organization for Marriage after this all transpired is worthy of critique, but her stating an opinion doesn’t make her a bad person.
I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. – Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA
Ms. Prejean’s right to free speech means that she should not have been fired for her words as Ms. Ruby-Sachs would have liked. I can understand not agreeing with Ms. Prejean’s response, and clearly Ms. Prejean is no friend to the LGBT marriage equality movement. But to state that Ms. Prejean should have been fired for having the courage to speak her convictions on a very divisive issue is ignoring that had her answer been in favor of gay marriage, we’d be seeing equal response from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. There are compromises to be reached, and the issues are not black and white. Zeal from both sides will get the struggle for marriage equality no where unless we respect differing views.
Flickr
