Monday, November 17, 2008
2008 Uh, Wait a Minute Ron...
Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Not to take anything away from the compelling image of straight politicians getting fired up about equal rights for gays and lesbians, but, based on their speeches at Volunteer Park on Saturday, a brief memo to Ron Sims and Greg Nickels:
I got what you guys were trying to say. So did every other person in the crowd. But word choice matters in this debate. Hugely. So, Ron, when you stand up in front of a crowd and say something along the lines of, "Everyone should be able to marry whoever they want!" Well, that's not actually the position of the gay rights movement.
Same for you, Greg, with your official proclamation making Saturday something like "marriage equality day." That's fine and lovely, but when you then go on to say something similar to Ron's "everyone should be able to marry whoever they want!" line... Again, no.
You guys are getting more radical than even the most ardent zoophiles when you say that. Gay marriage is not a slippery slope, as some argue, but you make it one when you start sounding like you're endorsing not only gay marriage but also NAMBLA fantasies and polygamist dreams. "Everyone should be able to marry whoever they want" is not the gay rights position.
What gay couples are asking for is the same access to civil marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy. Nothing more, nothing less. I know it doesn't quite roll off the tongue as easily as "Everyone should be able to marry whoever they want!" But there's a difference, and it's an important one.
Share via
1
Eh. He was the best speaker that day. What the fuck was that singing at the end? That was ridic and totally deflating.
3
I totally agree. That statement threw me off. Just say "two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, no matter what their gender." Not that much more complicated and gets rid of the creepy old man marrying young girls image in my mind.
4
I agree with #2, sound bites lack nuance, but they are far more memorable and repeatable and at this point I think that everyone understands who "everyone" (except maybe you and crazy bigots grasping at straws).
5
Oh no you don't #3! Are you advocating INCEST?
Why not just say, "Two consenting adults, not of immediate blood relation to each other, should be free to marry regardless of gender so long as neither of the two parties are currently under marital contract with a third party."
See? Rolls right off the tongue!
Why not just say, "Two consenting adults, not of immediate blood relation to each other, should be free to marry regardless of gender so long as neither of the two parties are currently under marital contract with a third party."
See? Rolls right off the tongue!
7
If I say "Everyone should be able to vote for whoever they want" it is understood that I'm not advocating voting for farm animals, imaginary spirits and deities, or office furniture. When you say "who" you mean a somebody, not a something.
8
This is a really good point, and one that I hadn't really considered before. It is much more powerful to say, "I believe two men should have the right to marry each other, and I believe two women should have the right to marry each other." To say "I don't care who you marry is quite different." We need specific legislation to grant same-sex couples, consenting adults, the right to marry.
9
eli, your point is well taken in that the antis could use quotes like that against us and they will.
@1 You are right. That song was a bring down. Nothing like a slow hymn in Latin to dampen the ardo of folks getting ready for a march. Why not some thing simple, rousing and non-secular?
@1 You are right. That song was a bring down. Nothing like a slow hymn in Latin to dampen the ardo of folks getting ready for a march. Why not some thing simple, rousing and non-secular?
10
I appreciate Eli's point most of all because he raises the IMPORTANT concept of "civil marriage." This, after all, is what we want. Not religious marriage.
To win this, I believe we need Americans to understand we don't want IN their churches, we want the legal, civil contract of marriage OUT of the churches.
In short, no rite, executed under the roof of any church, should hold civil weight. Separate them.
To win this, I believe we need Americans to understand we don't want IN their churches, we want the legal, civil contract of marriage OUT of the churches.
In short, no rite, executed under the roof of any church, should hold civil weight. Separate them.
11
Eli,
Indeed, the language/rhetoric is problematic. I concur with what you said. I understand what Sims and Nichols meant to say but I also don't think Frank Schubert made a faux pas when he uttered that marriage is between "a man and women". The button has already been pushed regarding alternative forms of marriage including voluntary polygamy between consenting adults 18 years of age or older.
Indeed, the language/rhetoric is problematic. I concur with what you said. I understand what Sims and Nichols meant to say but I also don't think Frank Schubert made a faux pas when he uttered that marriage is between "a man and women". The button has already been pushed regarding alternative forms of marriage including voluntary polygamy between consenting adults 18 years of age or older.
12
Sims' comment gave me pause at the time too, Eli. It's important these statements aren't broad enough to be left up to interpretation, especially when it's a high profile figure doing the talking.
The Marriage Equality Day didn't bother me since it's long been a generic short-hand / bumper-sticker way of identifying the movement.
Aside from that, Sims was great at infusing the crowd with some life and authoritatively drawing comparisons with the african-american civil rights movement.
The Marriage Equality Day didn't bother me since it's long been a generic short-hand / bumper-sticker way of identifying the movement.
Aside from that, Sims was great at infusing the crowd with some life and authoritatively drawing comparisons with the african-american civil rights movement.
13
Ron's been getting detailed pre- and post-event correctives like this for twenty-five years about how the cap-m Movement needs him to phrase x or y exactly right. He doesn't ignore these little missives, and keeps showing up to support us when we ask him to, and give speeches when we ask him to. But every single time he gives a speech on gay rights he gets emotional and rhetorical and forgets the Movement talking points.
Maybe we could quit pretending we don't know that he'll always do this when we ask him to speak?
Maybe we could quit pretending we don't know that he'll always do this when we ask him to speak?
15
Point the First: This post is silly. I don't think any rational adult would understand "marry whoever they want" to include animals, under-the-age-of-consent humans, blood relatives, or inanimate objects.
Point the Second: Then again, I don't consider opponents of marriage equality "rational adults".
Point the Third: Shouldn't it have been "whomever"? If we're going to split hairs, let's insist that our elected representatives act as role models for proper usage of the Queen's English!
Point the Second: Then again, I don't consider opponents of marriage equality "rational adults".
Point the Third: Shouldn't it have been "whomever"? If we're going to split hairs, let's insist that our elected representatives act as role models for proper usage of the Queen's English!
16
Ron Sims was by far the most rousing speaker there, bar none. Ed Murray, bless his heart, may get every nuance of politically correct speech right, but I barely remember a thing he said. He's a good legislator, but a terribly boring public speaker.
Despite an occasional flaw in his language, it is straight charismatic leaders like Ron Sims who will do more to persuade a reluctant public to support our rights than any other speaker on stage Saturday.
Despite an occasional flaw in his language, it is straight charismatic leaders like Ron Sims who will do more to persuade a reluctant public to support our rights than any other speaker on stage Saturday.
17
Eli,
What the hell?
Yes, perhaps Sims coulda said "everyone should be able to marry who they love"...
It would've been nicer, sure.
But here's a politician on our side. He has framed his argument in the winning "equal rights" message. Complaining about him shows exactly why this gay-rights movement is a fundamental disaster!
(Knock. Knock.)
What the hell?
Yes, perhaps Sims coulda said "everyone should be able to marry who they love"...
It would've been nicer, sure.
But here's a politician on our side. He has framed his argument in the winning "equal rights" message. Complaining about him shows exactly why this gay-rights movement is a fundamental disaster!
(Knock. Knock.)
18
Well, I don't know about you, Eli, but I think everyone should be able to marry whomever they want. And yes, "who" does imply humans. If people want to take that and say that I'm for 70-year-olds marrying 5-year-olds, then they're idiots. Let's not nitpick about what was obviously an excellent speech.
19
I disagree, Eli. Civil rights, and equal rights for all in our Constitution does not mean equal rights for animals. And, so, a person can't marry an animal just because they want to if gay people get married because there are two HUMAN BEINGS involved in one scenario, who both deserve equal rights, as opposed to an animal, who doesn't have those rights, in another situation.
This seems so simple to me.
I understand, however, Eli, that you're saying this because it helps make the case for gay marriage a lot easier. So I get it.
But I think people who start talking about man on dog marriage should be verbally slapped and it should be pointed out to them how the law actually works.
This seems so simple to me.
I understand, however, Eli, that you're saying this because it helps make the case for gay marriage a lot easier. So I get it.
But I think people who start talking about man on dog marriage should be verbally slapped and it should be pointed out to them how the law actually works.
20
P.S. ~ I also find it so utterly Seattle for people to bitch when a well-connected politician backs your cause. That just figures, and it disappoints me. Why not just thank them for being supportive? Because that's what they were being. Too bad they didn't use the words you wanted them to. I guess?
21
So, basically, the notion is remove the gender restriction on marriage while keeping the numerical requirements. Doesn't it make sense to say than any number of consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal commitment to each other if they so choose? Isn't it hypocritical to say "our love should be equal, but some loves (2 people) are more equal than others (not 2 people)?" Seems like Sims is right on...
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
-
Real Salt Lake vs. Galaxy Open Thread by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Levi Johnston's Butt by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (23) RSS