Important points on both sides of the issue deserve our attention. Take the discussion here with you to the dinner table, the church gathering, the movie night, and the water cooler. You don't have to be confrontational. You don't even have to voice your disagreement. Raise the subject and then ask people questions about their beliefs and opinions. Don't be sarcastic, don't be ironic. Ask questions you really want to know the answer to. When people see that you're open to understanding them and possibly agreeing with them, they'll reciprocate.
Don't waste time preaching to the choir. Think of someone you disagree with, find common ground and build your foundation on that ground. If things start to get nasty in a discussion, move back. Say things like "We don't have to talk about this," and, "I don't want to upset you." Let anyone who gets upset in a discussion know that you care more about them than about being right. Apologize if you have to.
My personal approach to this issue is based on the idea that our movement won't work if it is all about which side can be louder, more emotional, or more dramatic. Logic and reason linger much longer than the anger and revulsion people feel when they're first confronted with the possibility that they're wrong. Work on keeping calm during a discussion and you'll be more effective.
Don't waste your time hounding someone who doesn't want to talk or listen. My experience is that most people are thoughtful and want to understand. But some people can't be reached. If someone seems too afraid, or if they are hell-bent on being a victim, move on. Some people are more oppressed by their own fears and beliefs than gays are by the government or the church. Let those people go, or you'll find yourself trapped with them in their web of guilt.
Most importantly, LISTEN! Listen to what people are saying and think about it. Always accept that you might be wrong. I love writing down arguments I hear and formulating a reasoned and well-thought response. Think critically about your own positions and consider how new ideas and arguments factor into your stance. If you hear a good argument, write it down and craft a written response (Avoid giving people written responses to their thoughts and beliefs - they tend not to receive this sort of gesture well). Instead, mull over your response and bring it up the next time you find a window. In the mean time, post it here - even if you disagree! Your well-articulated thoughts and responses can help others inject more substance in their daily discussions. Even if we disagree, I hope you'll join me in promoting a more substantive dialogue.
Gay Pride: A Personal View
I have to admit that I have never really been interested in what people call "Gay Pride". I've never understood it. I don't think my personal homosexuality has been a choice. The idea that we should be proud of some characteristic that isn't a choice seems a little inconsistent and hypocritical to me. How can gay pride be legitimate and reasonable when white pride is known to be hate-mongering? If I say I am proud to be gay, where does that leave the non-gay? I have long questioned the rationale behind gay-pride.
But I stumbled upon the well-referenced Wikipedia article about the Stonewall Riots recently. If you have a chance to visit the page, it paints an excellent picture of the events that unfolded in the middle of the past century.
Before reading the article and its references, I had no idea that there was actually a time in America when law enforcement could arrest people simply under suspicion of being gay. Not only were law enforcement empowered to make these arrests, they frequently exercised that power, systematically arresting untold numbers of gays while ignoring the mafia bosses that owned and operated the gay bars they were raiding. The police were accepting money in exchange for turning a blind eye to the organized crime that was exploding in New York City.
The first Gay Pride Parade was a declaration of equality under the law. Gays took to the streets of New York City at the risk of being arrested, simply because they were gay.
This gave the idea of gay pride a completely new meaning to me. I had no idea that there was actually a time in our country when a person could and likely would be arrested for being gay. To this day, nearly half a decade later, we continue to struggle for equality under the law. It frightened me to think how close we are to those days when gay bars were raided like crack houses, and men were by law banned from wearing women's clothing.
There's a great story from the Stonewall Riots about a blockade of police marching toward a group of gays and transvestites. The police are waving their clubs in the air when the crowd before them starts mockingly saluting and marching, and slowly break into a chorus line kicking routine while the police continue waving their clubs in the air.
The imagery provided paints an unforgettable picture of the state enforcing gender roles. It made me think about the modern anti-gay marriage campaigns and the statement they make about the equality of heterosexual gender roles. How, after all, can men and women be equal if they aren't allowed to make the same choices in who they marry? I've long felt the homosexual movement was a gender equality issue, not a sexual orientation issue. The history of the Stonewall Riots helped me better understand the nature of gender conflict in this country. I hope you'll take the time to visit the Wikipedia page and read on to other sources as well.
But I stumbled upon the well-referenced Wikipedia article about the Stonewall Riots recently. If you have a chance to visit the page, it paints an excellent picture of the events that unfolded in the middle of the past century.
Before reading the article and its references, I had no idea that there was actually a time in America when law enforcement could arrest people simply under suspicion of being gay. Not only were law enforcement empowered to make these arrests, they frequently exercised that power, systematically arresting untold numbers of gays while ignoring the mafia bosses that owned and operated the gay bars they were raiding. The police were accepting money in exchange for turning a blind eye to the organized crime that was exploding in New York City.
The first Gay Pride Parade was a declaration of equality under the law. Gays took to the streets of New York City at the risk of being arrested, simply because they were gay.
This gave the idea of gay pride a completely new meaning to me. I had no idea that there was actually a time in our country when a person could and likely would be arrested for being gay. To this day, nearly half a decade later, we continue to struggle for equality under the law. It frightened me to think how close we are to those days when gay bars were raided like crack houses, and men were by law banned from wearing women's clothing.
There's a great story from the Stonewall Riots about a blockade of police marching toward a group of gays and transvestites. The police are waving their clubs in the air when the crowd before them starts mockingly saluting and marching, and slowly break into a chorus line kicking routine while the police continue waving their clubs in the air.
The imagery provided paints an unforgettable picture of the state enforcing gender roles. It made me think about the modern anti-gay marriage campaigns and the statement they make about the equality of heterosexual gender roles. How, after all, can men and women be equal if they aren't allowed to make the same choices in who they marry? I've long felt the homosexual movement was a gender equality issue, not a sexual orientation issue. The history of the Stonewall Riots helped me better understand the nature of gender conflict in this country. I hope you'll take the time to visit the Wikipedia page and read on to other sources as well.
The American Boundary: Where Must We Stop?
The question is not ours alone. Each generation of Americans must grapple with the role of government. Where do the collective purposes and entitlements of government stop? Conversely, where do the individual purposes and entitlements of the citizen begin?
Conservatives and Liberals have long argued over “big” and “small” government. Recently, Barack Obama declared that what Americans needed was not bigger or smaller government, but smarter government. But what is smarter? Are the victimless pleasures (homosexuality, recreational drug use, etc.) of the individual worth less than the tradition-based morality of the community? Does the community have an obligation to be consistent in its distribution and protection of rights?
We protect the right of the alcoholic to feed and perpetuate her addiction, even at the expense of her children’s well-being, but we criminalize even moderate and minimal use of marijuana. We permit heterosexuals to marry and have children though they may be poor, obese, criminals, alcoholics, abusive, handicap, interracial, elderly, etc. Yet we do not extend to homosexuals the rights protected for every other class of American. What is the reasoning? Why is one allowed and the other not?
The only answer is religion. Religious morality has long been the most effective way to dehumanize and subjugate any given group of humans for a shared characteristic. When there is no reason for a distinction between people, religion swoops in and saves the day for those needing to maintain their superiority. This dehumanization and subjugation were felt tremendously by the founding fathers and mothers. They knew exactly what it meant to be denied basic human rights. They formed our government in an effort to make the first place in the world where citizens could pursue happiness free from the shackles of religious dogma, tradition and ideology.
Presently, religious extremists and misguided moderates have molded government into an extension of the church with regard to homosexuality. The government enforces and funds a religious morality that dismisses and marginalizes homosexuals. Our founders recognized this intrusive use of government. They knew the answer to the question "Where must we stop?": Religion. It is the American Boundary.
To maintain this boundary, we must recognize the intrusion of religion and tradition. Preventing that intrusion is the only way to protect the citizen while also protecting the citizenry. Where religious morality restricts the liberty or equality of any unwilling citizen, we have violated the American Boundary. Where the government allows religious morality, even the majority's, to restrict the liberty or equality of any unwilling citizen, especially a minority, the government has failed. The majority has no special claim to religious superiority. Their religious morality is protected from government intrusion in their homes, churches and personal lives. But so is the minority’s. We must not allow legislation to be rooted in scripture and religious tenants. Such a disallowment facilitates the domestic tranquility so important to our prosperity. Protecting domestic tranquility means protecting the American Boundary.
There are those who disagree that legislation should not be guided by scripture or religious tenants. But what are their political opinions more broadly than gay marriage? What are their opinions on interracial marriage, slavery, poverty, etc.? A range of political issues are addressed in the bible. Does the anti-gay Christian or Muslim believe that all the tenants of scripture should be legislated? If not, which ones shouldn’t and why? What method do they use to discern which tenants should be legislated and which should not? What are their reasons for legislating this verse of scripture and not this other? Is there a predictable and consistent system to their legislative biblical interpretation, or is their system unpredictable and inconsistent? I think we will find that for people who advocate the legislating of scriptural verse and tenants, their system must by definition be both unpredictable and inconsistent.
But, as we have loved to proclaim, this is America; and a legal system that uses unpredictable and inconsistent interpretations of religion to distribute and protect the rights of its citizens is exactly what the founders were trying to escape. It’s exactly what they were protecting us from when they built our government. The boundaries they established so long ago were rooted in the human needs for religious and social freedom to pursue and define our own humanity under a government that sees and treats us each equally. The growing inequality in state and federal legislation across this country shelters those who would carry religious hatred and zealotry across the American Boundary and into the private lives of an unwilling minority. We must legalize gay marriage to restore the justice and equality that protect our citizens from those who don't know or don't care where to stop.
Conservatives and Liberals have long argued over “big” and “small” government. Recently, Barack Obama declared that what Americans needed was not bigger or smaller government, but smarter government. But what is smarter? Are the victimless pleasures (homosexuality, recreational drug use, etc.) of the individual worth less than the tradition-based morality of the community? Does the community have an obligation to be consistent in its distribution and protection of rights?
We protect the right of the alcoholic to feed and perpetuate her addiction, even at the expense of her children’s well-being, but we criminalize even moderate and minimal use of marijuana. We permit heterosexuals to marry and have children though they may be poor, obese, criminals, alcoholics, abusive, handicap, interracial, elderly, etc. Yet we do not extend to homosexuals the rights protected for every other class of American. What is the reasoning? Why is one allowed and the other not?
The only answer is religion. Religious morality has long been the most effective way to dehumanize and subjugate any given group of humans for a shared characteristic. When there is no reason for a distinction between people, religion swoops in and saves the day for those needing to maintain their superiority. This dehumanization and subjugation were felt tremendously by the founding fathers and mothers. They knew exactly what it meant to be denied basic human rights. They formed our government in an effort to make the first place in the world where citizens could pursue happiness free from the shackles of religious dogma, tradition and ideology.
Presently, religious extremists and misguided moderates have molded government into an extension of the church with regard to homosexuality. The government enforces and funds a religious morality that dismisses and marginalizes homosexuals. Our founders recognized this intrusive use of government. They knew the answer to the question "Where must we stop?": Religion. It is the American Boundary.
To maintain this boundary, we must recognize the intrusion of religion and tradition. Preventing that intrusion is the only way to protect the citizen while also protecting the citizenry. Where religious morality restricts the liberty or equality of any unwilling citizen, we have violated the American Boundary. Where the government allows religious morality, even the majority's, to restrict the liberty or equality of any unwilling citizen, especially a minority, the government has failed. The majority has no special claim to religious superiority. Their religious morality is protected from government intrusion in their homes, churches and personal lives. But so is the minority’s. We must not allow legislation to be rooted in scripture and religious tenants. Such a disallowment facilitates the domestic tranquility so important to our prosperity. Protecting domestic tranquility means protecting the American Boundary.
There are those who disagree that legislation should not be guided by scripture or religious tenants. But what are their political opinions more broadly than gay marriage? What are their opinions on interracial marriage, slavery, poverty, etc.? A range of political issues are addressed in the bible. Does the anti-gay Christian or Muslim believe that all the tenants of scripture should be legislated? If not, which ones shouldn’t and why? What method do they use to discern which tenants should be legislated and which should not? What are their reasons for legislating this verse of scripture and not this other? Is there a predictable and consistent system to their legislative biblical interpretation, or is their system unpredictable and inconsistent? I think we will find that for people who advocate the legislating of scriptural verse and tenants, their system must by definition be both unpredictable and inconsistent.
But, as we have loved to proclaim, this is America; and a legal system that uses unpredictable and inconsistent interpretations of religion to distribute and protect the rights of its citizens is exactly what the founders were trying to escape. It’s exactly what they were protecting us from when they built our government. The boundaries they established so long ago were rooted in the human needs for religious and social freedom to pursue and define our own humanity under a government that sees and treats us each equally. The growing inequality in state and federal legislation across this country shelters those who would carry religious hatred and zealotry across the American Boundary and into the private lives of an unwilling minority. We must legalize gay marriage to restore the justice and equality that protect our citizens from those who don't know or don't care where to stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
