Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Homo What He Said 2
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:58 AM
After Maine, where the Catholic church actually organized a second collection to raise money to prevent gay people from having civil rights, the situation shifts again. Using a tax-exempt church to raise money to defeat the civil rights of fellow citizens is not too shocking in the age of Benedict. It is shocking if one believes in a separation of politics and religion, and if one believes that the church of Jesus should stand in solidarity with the marginalized, rather than seeking to marginalize and demonize them still further.It is time to acknowledge that the Catholic church hierarchy can no longer pretend that it isn't the active enemy of gay people and our families. That this church hierarchy—especially in its more conservative wing—is disproportionately gay itself and waging war against their fellow gays through the cowardly veil of the closet, is not new. But it is, as we flinch with the sting of defeat, harder to take than ever.
It is time to demand that gay priests who are actively fighting against the dignity of gay people own their enmeshment in injustice, stigmatization and cruelty. It is time to reveal them in this respect as the enemies of the Gospels, not the champions.
Time to reveal them, Andrew? It almost sounds like you're calling for an outing campaign that targets closeted Roman Catholic priests. Which sounds good to me; I support outing closet cases when it's appropriate. Outing, as I've said before, is a brutal tactic that should be reserved for brutes. And it seems to me that, after Maine, closeted Catholic priests have to be regarded as either taking an active role in the brutalization and political persecution of gays and lesbians or complicit in the brutalization and political persecution of gays and lesbians. So let's out the bastards, I say, let's out 'em all.
Share via
1
It is time to acknowledge that the Catholic church hierarchy can no longer pretend that it isn't the active enemy of gay people and our families.
Wait, people actually think its not?
That being said there is nothing unbiblical about hating on the gays. Its the bible that is wrong, not their interpretation of it.
Wait, people actually think its not?
That being said there is nothing unbiblical about hating on the gays. Its the bible that is wrong, not their interpretation of it.
2
Only a relentless apologist with his head in the sand could for a second believe that this represents new information. It's like being shocked to discover that the sky is blue.
It is time to acknowledge that the Catholic church hierarchy can no longer pretend that it isn't the active enemy of gay people and our families.
Only a relentless apologist with his head in the sand could for a second believe that this represents new information. It's like being shocked to discover that the sky is blue.
4
Please rethink. Maine is maddening, but getting gays kicked out of the Catholic church only helps Benedict in the long run.
5
This seems a bit of a sweeping statement, Dan. I agree that if there are priests out there spewing hatred from the pulpit AND it can be proved that they are gay, fine. Out them.
However, I personally know a gay priest, who is one of the most godly people I have ever known. He does wonderful work in through his church, and if he were outed, he would lose that job. If anything, we should be trying to make it easier for gays to stay in the priesthood, not make it easier for them to be purged from the ranks.
If all the gays are kicked out of the priesthood, even the ones who work around the Church's idiocy as best they can (preaching acceptance, love and compassion for everyone) for the good of the community, then you have a Church composed of people who agree with kicking out gay priests. I don't think that's what any of us wants.
However, I personally know a gay priest, who is one of the most godly people I have ever known. He does wonderful work in through his church, and if he were outed, he would lose that job. If anything, we should be trying to make it easier for gays to stay in the priesthood, not make it easier for them to be purged from the ranks.
If all the gays are kicked out of the priesthood, even the ones who work around the Church's idiocy as best they can (preaching acceptance, love and compassion for everyone) for the good of the community, then you have a Church composed of people who agree with kicking out gay priests. I don't think that's what any of us wants.
8
This is a great idea, Dan.
Make each and every Catholic with any loyalty at all to the Institution an enemy to the gays.
Perhaps they'll even become Republicans while they're at it...
Maybe this will even drive them and the Mormons closer together that Prop 8 did?
You have quite a nose for sniffing out disastrous electoral strategies.
Perhaps you have some santorum in your sinus cavity throwing off your sense of smell.
Make each and every Catholic with any loyalty at all to the Institution an enemy to the gays.
Perhaps they'll even become Republicans while they're at it...
Maybe this will even drive them and the Mormons closer together that Prop 8 did?
You have quite a nose for sniffing out disastrous electoral strategies.
Perhaps you have some santorum in your sinus cavity throwing off your sense of smell.
9
I'm imagining a big Wheel of Villainy that gets spun every time the gay rights movement suffers a setback.
There was that one time it landed on black people. Remember that? Some say that was a mistake and don't want to talk about it anymore.
Then there was that series of times it landed on Mormons. Mormons are just SO easy to make fun of and hate.
And now (to everybody's shock), it landed on... (duh Duh DUH)... TEH CATHOLICS!!!
Wheel of Villainy, turn turn turn, tell us the villain that we must burn.
Identifying villains never gets old. It's always good to have someone to blame.
There was that one time it landed on black people. Remember that? Some say that was a mistake and don't want to talk about it anymore.
Then there was that series of times it landed on Mormons. Mormons are just SO easy to make fun of and hate.
And now (to everybody's shock), it landed on... (duh Duh DUH)... TEH CATHOLICS!!!
Wheel of Villainy, turn turn turn, tell us the villain that we must burn.
Identifying villains never gets old. It's always good to have someone to blame.
10
@9, black people are not an organized group so it is not fair to impune them all (though some black churches and groups certainly deserve blame), but the Mormon church and the Catholic Church are institutions with leaders and positions and are in fact the enemy.
Sorry but it is perfectly ok to hold people responsible for their beliefs and to criticize them for holding them.
Sorry but it is perfectly ok to hold people responsible for their beliefs and to criticize them for holding them.
11
Sorry but it is perfectly ok to hold people responsible for their behaviors and to criticize them for holding them.
13
Imagine if this were a concerted, planned and timed event: Where ALL gay priests who were accepting of the lifestyle (i.e. NOT repressed, closeted, fear-mongering cowardly fuck-tards) picked a Sunday and came out to there congregations around the country (or world, even better).
Would that be a great "I AM SPARTACUS" moment, or what?
Would that be a great "I AM SPARTACUS" moment, or what?
14
Dan:
Address your own anti-religious bigotry before condemning the anti-gay bigotry of Papa Ratzi and guys in purple hats.
At a time when more than 100 men and women from Washington's faith community signed a statement endorsing R-71, you managed as usual to ignore those churches and synagogues that preach and practice inclusiveness.
Instead, we get your demonizing and stigmatizing in "Youth Pastor Watch." Dan, you are a Sister of Perpetual Self-Indulgence.
Suggest you put away the broad brush for a bit, and sing praises for the Catholic laypeople in Maine who went against the hierarchy and spoke out for same-sex marriage.
One, who wrote a newspaper op-ed piece, her right to serve as a eucharistic minister revoked. She intends to be back in church this Sunday, fighting for social justice as it is defined in the gospels.
And you might go over to the Washington Association of Churches website, copy and print the statement from bishops (Episcopal and Lutheran), ministers, rabbis and lay activists who endorsed and contributed to the apparent victory of R-71.
Address your own anti-religious bigotry before condemning the anti-gay bigotry of Papa Ratzi and guys in purple hats.
At a time when more than 100 men and women from Washington's faith community signed a statement endorsing R-71, you managed as usual to ignore those churches and synagogues that preach and practice inclusiveness.
Instead, we get your demonizing and stigmatizing in "Youth Pastor Watch." Dan, you are a Sister of Perpetual Self-Indulgence.
Suggest you put away the broad brush for a bit, and sing praises for the Catholic laypeople in Maine who went against the hierarchy and spoke out for same-sex marriage.
One, who wrote a newspaper op-ed piece, her right to serve as a eucharistic minister revoked. She intends to be back in church this Sunday, fighting for social justice as it is defined in the gospels.
And you might go over to the Washington Association of Churches website, copy and print the statement from bishops (Episcopal and Lutheran), ministers, rabbis and lay activists who endorsed and contributed to the apparent victory of R-71.
16
One more reason to hate how over-zealous Christianity invades everyone else's lives via politics:
Heath insurance companies are a top contributor to Catholic, Evangelist, and Baptist "social interest" lobbyists. Why? Because it is in private health insurance companies' interest to 1) Keep gay couples from marrying so they don't necessarily have to cover an insured person's spouse and children (& gay people make up about 10% of the population which is a considerable profit margin), 2) to encourage women with all that ghastly complicated internal anatomy which is so damn expensive where having abortions or using birth control are concerned (in favor abstinence) -- thus controlling a basic sexual medical concern of 50% of the population, especially since prescription-only birth control methods are popular and abortion is the most common surgery in the U.S. is another big profit margin.
So it's profitable to discourage people's sexual practices, specifically gay and straight female sexual practices, and fire and brimstone in a culture with a long history of Christian culture has been a good deterrent. This "culture war of religion" is little more than strings pulled by health insurance companies seeking top profit via a minority that is clearly good at scaring moderates with visions of hell, apocalyptic societal collapse, etc...And clearly this a beneficial arrangement if many a health insurance company is willing to drop donations to zealous religious groups because they'll save more in the long run if gays can't marry and women can't control their reproductive destiny (or have to jump a lot of hurtles in the process).
Oh yeah, that health insurance debate in Congress, what's all that about? The above is reason enough for me to cheer on a public option (it's not only about preventing coverage for the sick, it's about social control too).
More...
Heath insurance companies are a top contributor to Catholic, Evangelist, and Baptist "social interest" lobbyists. Why? Because it is in private health insurance companies' interest to 1) Keep gay couples from marrying so they don't necessarily have to cover an insured person's spouse and children (& gay people make up about 10% of the population which is a considerable profit margin), 2) to encourage women with all that ghastly complicated internal anatomy which is so damn expensive where having abortions or using birth control are concerned (in favor abstinence) -- thus controlling a basic sexual medical concern of 50% of the population, especially since prescription-only birth control methods are popular and abortion is the most common surgery in the U.S. is another big profit margin.
So it's profitable to discourage people's sexual practices, specifically gay and straight female sexual practices, and fire and brimstone in a culture with a long history of Christian culture has been a good deterrent. This "culture war of religion" is little more than strings pulled by health insurance companies seeking top profit via a minority that is clearly good at scaring moderates with visions of hell, apocalyptic societal collapse, etc...And clearly this a beneficial arrangement if many a health insurance company is willing to drop donations to zealous religious groups because they'll save more in the long run if gays can't marry and women can't control their reproductive destiny (or have to jump a lot of hurtles in the process).
Oh yeah, that health insurance debate in Congress, what's all that about? The above is reason enough for me to cheer on a public option (it's not only about preventing coverage for the sick, it's about social control too).
18
Who in the hell "believes in a separation of politics and religion"? People's beliefs about right and wrong shouldn't inform their politics? As far as I can tell, this statement is some kind of code for "your beliefs shouldn't inform your politics; my beliefs should inform your politics." Unsurprisingly, no one is going to be swayed by this principal.
That said, on this particular issue, the catholic church's position is consistent with the principal. The Church believes that marriage is an eccliastical matter in which secular institutions should play no role. In short, government shouldn't be marrying anyone, gay or straight.
That said, on this particular issue, the catholic church's position is consistent with the principal. The Church believes that marriage is an eccliastical matter in which secular institutions should play no role. In short, government shouldn't be marrying anyone, gay or straight.
19
Outing someone for something you disagree with them about is evil and wrong. I disagree with many people. If I were to out their sex proclivities, should I learn them, I would be wrong.
You call yourself sex-positive, but you use sexuality as a weapon when it suits you. You gleefully descend to the level of those that persecute you.
You do not follow, nor carry the mantle of, Dr. King, or Ghandi. You are a vicious man, and a small man, vaingloriously declaring yourself above others. If someone destroys something personal to you, something private, you will have deserved it, Mr. Savage.
You call yourself sex-positive, but you use sexuality as a weapon when it suits you. You gleefully descend to the level of those that persecute you.
You do not follow, nor carry the mantle of, Dr. King, or Ghandi. You are a vicious man, and a small man, vaingloriously declaring yourself above others. If someone destroys something personal to you, something private, you will have deserved it, Mr. Savage.
20
@13, I think that's a fantastic idea. It makes you wonder what exactly would happen. I mean, there's a priest shortage, right? If there were enough priests coming out all at once it's unlikely they'd be able to fire and replace them all without doing some serious rearranging, which would please no one.
It might also solve the problem that some have been talking about in relation to Maine, that just not enough people have actual positive interactions with real gays and lesbians, so they think of stereotypes and not, say, Jeff and Dave from the PTA. If all the gay priests in America came out, it might provide some people with the first real gay person they've ever known, and help them form positive attitudes through interaction.
It might also solve the problem that some have been talking about in relation to Maine, that just not enough people have actual positive interactions with real gays and lesbians, so they think of stereotypes and not, say, Jeff and Dave from the PTA. If all the gay priests in America came out, it might provide some people with the first real gay person they've ever known, and help them form positive attitudes through interaction.
21
Yes, here we're blaming religion again. It's true for a certain percentage of the vote, but not for all. Not for the majority who vote against gay marriage, even.
You're missing the whole segment of the population who is down with gay relationships, but just thinks that the idea of gay marriage is just weird in a Chuck n Larry sorta way. They don't get what all this "civil rights" business is all about because they believe you *have* your freedom already. You are free to enter the institution of marriage whenever you want - it's this union society has set up that's between a man and a woman. You're not down with it? That's fine. You're free to have a gay relationship with someone and the law should protect you from being discriminated over it. They totally *support* this and they support your freedom to have any relationship that you want. So they don't feel like bigots at all, which is why they're shocked and pissed off that you call them that.
You guys really have difficulties understanding where the other side is coming from which is why your strategies are so bad and keep you losing state-to-state.
You're missing the whole segment of the population who is down with gay relationships, but just thinks that the idea of gay marriage is just weird in a Chuck n Larry sorta way. They don't get what all this "civil rights" business is all about because they believe you *have* your freedom already. You are free to enter the institution of marriage whenever you want - it's this union society has set up that's between a man and a woman. You're not down with it? That's fine. You're free to have a gay relationship with someone and the law should protect you from being discriminated over it. They totally *support* this and they support your freedom to have any relationship that you want. So they don't feel like bigots at all, which is why they're shocked and pissed off that you call them that.
You guys really have difficulties understanding where the other side is coming from which is why your strategies are so bad and keep you losing state-to-state.
22
I'm with you on this one, Dan. Out the bastards. Out them and their hypocrisy now -- and ask the hard question: "Whom would Jesus hate?"
23
I swear it was posted on slog just yesterday that the majority of Catholic churches SUPPORT gay marriage in Maine. So I know that this is upsetting, but I don't think these bishops represent the majority of Catholics.
24
@18 - You are conflating religion with morality. You don't only learn right and wrong from religion. When religious institutions gives money/influences politics, yes, I have a problem with that, even it's a "save the kittens" lobby.
@21 - Ummm - so it's not bigoted to disallow the perks of marriage partnership to committed couples? To disallow hospital visits, rewrite wills, disallow tax breaks, etc.? That's "freedom to have any relationship you want"? How about I let you ride in the bus, but you've got to stay in the back 'cause your different. Is that freedom? You're allowed on the bus aren't you? Here, the more apt analogy would be "allowed to hang on to the outside door handle for dear life while the bus does 80 mph around hairpin turns".
@21 - Ummm - so it's not bigoted to disallow the perks of marriage partnership to committed couples? To disallow hospital visits, rewrite wills, disallow tax breaks, etc.? That's "freedom to have any relationship you want"? How about I let you ride in the bus, but you've got to stay in the back 'cause your different. Is that freedom? You're allowed on the bus aren't you? Here, the more apt analogy would be "allowed to hang on to the outside door handle for dear life while the bus does 80 mph around hairpin turns".
25
What should we do tonight, Brain?
Same thing we do every night, try to overturn DOMA, DADT and blame our own failures on the President instead of looking within, Pinky.
Same thing we do every night, try to overturn DOMA, DADT and blame our own failures on the President instead of looking within, Pinky.
26
@1) Actually, there's quite a lot. It's more clear if you include the Christian, New Testament part but don't believe what people tell you is in there.
27
In my opinion, outing is wrong, it seeks to hurt the innocent. This is not to say that we shouldn't hold the guilty accountable, meaning the Catholic Church.
I read your words as full of hurt, anger, and frustration, Dan. Your feelings are valid, so I'm going to believe this is more about blowing off steam, then it is about outing individuals. If I had the power to change what happened in Maine, I would. I'm so, so sorry. This sucks, but we will win.
I read your words as full of hurt, anger, and frustration, Dan. Your feelings are valid, so I'm going to believe this is more about blowing off steam, then it is about outing individuals. If I had the power to change what happened in Maine, I would. I'm so, so sorry. This sucks, but we will win.
28
@25 and others, I've heard a lot of people today saying about looking within. I'm confused as to what the fuck that's supposed to mean?
Last time I looked my insides hated bigoted thinking just as much as my outsides do. No amount of navel gazing is going to change the fact that some people are pigs, and political parties pander to them by giving them misguided talking points.
Last time I looked my insides hated bigoted thinking just as much as my outsides do. No amount of navel gazing is going to change the fact that some people are pigs, and political parties pander to them by giving them misguided talking points.
29
And Andrew's saying this whilst STILL on the Republican side?
I can't take him that seriously. If he won't stand up and do the rational, smart thing, then who is he to tell others to do so?
I can't take him that seriously. If he won't stand up and do the rational, smart thing, then who is he to tell others to do so?
30
@26 What part of the New Testament is pro-gay. Paul was very conservative on sexuality and Jesus was clear on the validity of old testament laws. Yeah you can take some modern translations, taken out of context, and make the hippy jesus argument, but I don't buy it.
34
@2, my thoughts exactly when reading this. Why Sullivan continues to identify as a Catholic baffles me.
36
Dan,
@14 & @21 have points. I believe you and Andrew miss the point. Declaring war (outing priests) on the Catholic Church (or Mormon Temple or Evangelical Christian Church or Orthodox synagogue or mosque, hey, wait a minute why are mosques never mentioned? Did any Washington state mosque endorse Referendum 71? Funny how they are never asked) is a bad idea. Yes, passing a donation plate at mass to help defeat gay marriage in Maine isn't good either. But, that is their call. One doesn't have to donate. I'm sure during the civil rights era and before many a preacher invoked support of civil rights for African Americans by soliciting donations that would benefit the cause. Church and politics often mix. Not much we can do about that.
And provocation might backfire. @21's point is people don't want to be called bigots (do you ever want to be called racist?). By outing priests et al, you might not get the cooperation (vote) of people that "support your freedom to have any relationship that you want. So they don't feel like bigots at all, which is why they're shocked and pissed off that you call them that."
For the record, I voted to approve Referendum 71. But, I don't think outing priests and calling people against gay marriage bigots is going to gain gay marriage anytime soon.
@14 & @21 have points. I believe you and Andrew miss the point. Declaring war (outing priests) on the Catholic Church (or Mormon Temple or Evangelical Christian Church or Orthodox synagogue or mosque, hey, wait a minute why are mosques never mentioned? Did any Washington state mosque endorse Referendum 71? Funny how they are never asked) is a bad idea. Yes, passing a donation plate at mass to help defeat gay marriage in Maine isn't good either. But, that is their call. One doesn't have to donate. I'm sure during the civil rights era and before many a preacher invoked support of civil rights for African Americans by soliciting donations that would benefit the cause. Church and politics often mix. Not much we can do about that.
And provocation might backfire. @21's point is people don't want to be called bigots (do you ever want to be called racist?). By outing priests et al, you might not get the cooperation (vote) of people that "support your freedom to have any relationship that you want. So they don't feel like bigots at all, which is why they're shocked and pissed off that you call them that."
For the record, I voted to approve Referendum 71. But, I don't think outing priests and calling people against gay marriage bigots is going to gain gay marriage anytime soon.
37
@36 Its not just being against gay marriage it is putting the full weight of the organization behind campaigns to fight it. The mormons did it, and the Catholics did it. I have not heard, at least here, that the muslims did.
By the way Dan certainly does not shy away from criticizing Islam. But in this country at least the couple million rather unorganized Muslims are not a major political force.
By the way Dan certainly does not shy away from criticizing Islam. But in this country at least the couple million rather unorganized Muslims are not a major political force.
38
@21:
1. Gay-marriage advocates are only going after religion cause they're going after this issue. If Arby's took up a collection against civil rights, we'd protest Arby's (and that "meat" is worthy of protest already!).
2. They may only be a certain percentage of the church that is against these civil rights, but that certain percentage seems to keep up this bullshit, so see #1 above.
3. The term "relationship" is not a legally binding contract that is recognized at the hospital bedside, in the courtroom, or at the HR department or lawyers office. But the term "marriage" is -- it carries with it rights established BY OUR GOVERNMENT, no matter what the religion of the "married."
4. We don't need to "understand" how the other side feels, we just have to keep pounding away at this, losing state-to-state as you say, until enough people get wise and demand nationwide change on this, only the latest in a series of civil rights revolutions that have been here as long as this country has.
1. Gay-marriage advocates are only going after religion cause they're going after this issue. If Arby's took up a collection against civil rights, we'd protest Arby's (and that "meat" is worthy of protest already!).
2. They may only be a certain percentage of the church that is against these civil rights, but that certain percentage seems to keep up this bullshit, so see #1 above.
3. The term "relationship" is not a legally binding contract that is recognized at the hospital bedside, in the courtroom, or at the HR department or lawyers office. But the term "marriage" is -- it carries with it rights established BY OUR GOVERNMENT, no matter what the religion of the "married."
4. We don't need to "understand" how the other side feels, we just have to keep pounding away at this, losing state-to-state as you say, until enough people get wise and demand nationwide change on this, only the latest in a series of civil rights revolutions that have been here as long as this country has.
39
33
btw kim have you switched back to your old avatar picture-
We must confess when we first came to the slog we had to battle impure thoughts about the thoughtful redhead fingering the guitar strings...
btw kim have you switched back to your old avatar picture-
We must confess when we first came to the slog we had to battle impure thoughts about the thoughtful redhead fingering the guitar strings...
40
James @ 39,
Yes, this is my old (first) avatar. It's my Stratocaster, the other was my Martin. Thanks for the compliment.
Yes, this is my old (first) avatar. It's my Stratocaster, the other was my Martin. Thanks for the compliment.
41
@24: Religious people conflate religion and morality. When you say to them "your religion shouldn't influence your politics," you are saying "your morality shouldn't influence your politics." If you got them to accept the principal, you would effectively have got them to accept that it's okay for your (non-religious) morality to influence your poiltics, but not okay for their (religious) morality to influence their politics. That would of course be nice for you, but you can hardly expect them to accept that, nor would it really be a fair principal. Basically, the principal is code for "religious people: shut up".
44
Fletch @5: closeted priests (and ANY priests for that matter) doing good works under the mantle of the Catholic church are providing legitimacy to perveyors of hate like Benedict.
Benedict and the church political machine hide their evil behind and within the saintly mantle of those doing good. And they let them. Your friend is afraid of losing his job as PR man for Benedict and Ratzinger? Yeh, not a good time to be unemployed i guess.
Benedict and the church political machine hide their evil behind and within the saintly mantle of those doing good. And they let them. Your friend is afraid of losing his job as PR man for Benedict and Ratzinger? Yeh, not a good time to be unemployed i guess.
45
@38
I'm afraid you *are* gonna have to "understand" how the other side feels if you're going to win. Because those people are in the majority. If you keep hammering away at them and calling them bigots, you will continue to lose popular support at the voting booths (notice a trend?). When you understand the "enemy," you have a better shot at defeating them. Wise up.
I'm afraid you *are* gonna have to "understand" how the other side feels if you're going to win. Because those people are in the majority. If you keep hammering away at them and calling them bigots, you will continue to lose popular support at the voting booths (notice a trend?). When you understand the "enemy," you have a better shot at defeating them. Wise up.
46
@45: You speak wisely. I know a lot of people my age (50ish) who support gay rights all the way...right up to just short of marriage. I don't agree, but I did at one time (raised Catholic...) and took a while to come around.
But people don't come around to your point of view when you call them bigots and idiots and haters. (Of course there are plenty of bigots and haters, but you're not going to convince them anyway.) Focus on the caring, the compassionate -- yes, many of them are churchgoers -- and be inclusive. Don't demonize everyone who isn't on board yet. As you can see, it isn't helping the cause.
But people don't come around to your point of view when you call them bigots and idiots and haters. (Of course there are plenty of bigots and haters, but you're not going to convince them anyway.) Focus on the caring, the compassionate -- yes, many of them are churchgoers -- and be inclusive. Don't demonize everyone who isn't on board yet. As you can see, it isn't helping the cause.
47
150 years ago, there were Abolitionists in America who vehemently decried slavery. This did not absolve all Americans from the guilt of slavery, nor correct the problem. People from other countries were still able to say, "America is a slave-holding nation!", and they would be correct.
Only when the entire system was changed, through law and much bloodshed, could America say, "We are a nation of free people!" and be correct. The Abolitionists were the driving force behind that change, and were successful because of their vocal opposition. The act of opposition wasn't the success - the eradication of slavery was the success.
While there may be catholic priests who quietly support gay equality, their support is meaningless if the greater organization is repressive. Equality will only happen when the organizations that so ardently fight against it are defeated. Those organizations cannot be defeated if the key members of the opposition are silent.
So, we can say "Catholics hate gays!", even if there are priests out there who don't. Why can we say that? Because those priests are too chicken-shit to either stand up or get out. Either leave the church, change it, or accept the duly earned criticism.
Only when the entire system was changed, through law and much bloodshed, could America say, "We are a nation of free people!" and be correct. The Abolitionists were the driving force behind that change, and were successful because of their vocal opposition. The act of opposition wasn't the success - the eradication of slavery was the success.
While there may be catholic priests who quietly support gay equality, their support is meaningless if the greater organization is repressive. Equality will only happen when the organizations that so ardently fight against it are defeated. Those organizations cannot be defeated if the key members of the opposition are silent.
So, we can say "Catholics hate gays!", even if there are priests out there who don't. Why can we say that? Because those priests are too chicken-shit to either stand up or get out. Either leave the church, change it, or accept the duly earned criticism.
48
@46: Just to clarify: When I wrote "I don't agree" I meant I don't agree with the opponents of gay marriage. I fully support marriage rights for all.
49
@44,
I think the priest I know (like myself, like Andrew Sullivan, like many others) is somehow hoping against hope that if enough non-bigoted, open-minded, altogether decent human beings stay in the Catholic Church, we can change it from the inside once all the old people die off. Is this naive? Possibly. No, wait, probably. But, as I remember Dan himself writing of his mother, it's just as much our church as anyone else's, and we have to protect it as much as we can from becoming nothing more than a haven for assholes.
Obviously, between No on 1 and the whole "Anglicans can join us but only if they're men who hate gays" thing, this plan isn't looking so good.
I think the priest I know (like myself, like Andrew Sullivan, like many others) is somehow hoping against hope that if enough non-bigoted, open-minded, altogether decent human beings stay in the Catholic Church, we can change it from the inside once all the old people die off. Is this naive? Possibly. No, wait, probably. But, as I remember Dan himself writing of his mother, it's just as much our church as anyone else's, and we have to protect it as much as we can from becoming nothing more than a haven for assholes.
Obviously, between No on 1 and the whole "Anglicans can join us but only if they're men who hate gays" thing, this plan isn't looking so good.
50
Remember Maine: Full Federal Equality Now!
By SHERRY WOLF
IN STARK contrast to the surge of pro-LGBT activism, and legislative and legal progress in recent months, Maine voters overturned equal marriage rights on Election Day by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent.
Voter turnout of nearly 50 percent, local efforts by 8,000 volunteers—many of them straight—and a national blitz of phone banking to try to sway Mainers to uphold equal marriage was not sufficient to retain same-sex marriage in that state. Maine’s Question 1—similar to California’s Proposition 8 that reversed same-sex marriage rights in that state exactly a year ago—once again placed civil rights on the ballot, this time in an off-year election.
In Washington state, a new law that greatly expands the rights of LGBT couples—though doesn’t grant marriage itself—was approved by voters, but by an unexpectedly narrow margin of 51 percent to 49 percent.
The failure of the same-sex marriage forces in Maine’s No on 1 campaign to retain marriage equality passed earlier this year by the legislature highlights four central problems: 1) Civil rights activists are weakest outside of urban areas where the financial and institutional resources of the right can dominate rural politics; 2) President Obama and the Democrats have failed to deliver on their promise of “fierce advocacy” of LGBT civil rights; 3) LGBT rights must be enacted into law by the federal government; and 4) Civil rights should not be reduced to election fodder to be manipulated by well-financed bigots.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NATIONWIDE, LGBT activists scrambled in a monumental effort to try to stop right-wingers in Maine from succeeding in what was often termed a “mini-Prop 8” effort that relied on money from the Catholic Church and blitzed the media with lies about how gay marriage would be taught in the schools and imposed on religious institutions.
Local groups will assess the No on 1 organizing efforts in coming weeks, but suffice it to say that despite what appears to have been an energetic and collaborative campaign, equal marriage has lost in every state it has been put to a popular vote—31 in all. Despite the fact that the No on 1 campaign, Protect Maine Equality, raised $4 million and the anti-same-sex marriage forces raised only $2.5 million, the strategy of statewide ballot initiatives plays to activists’ weaknesses, especially in non-urban areas.
In addition to the purposely confusing language used by the right in these initiatives—voting “yes” denied equality, voting “no” would have retained it—larger population centers create opportunities for activists to reach people in groups, as in Portland, Maine, where the vote was an overwhelming 73 percent against Question 1. At University of Maine’s Orono campus, 81 percent of students voted against taking away equal marriage rights, also showing the generation gap that persists on this question.
Similarly, in Washington state, it was urban King County that voted overwhelmingly for the “everything but marriage” referendum, while the less populated eastern part of the state voted against it.
Just three weeks after the massively successful LGBT National Equality March that drew more than 200,000 people demanding full federal equality now, conservatives are punching back. Right-wing bigots like Pat Robertson have attacked recently enacted federal hate crimes legislation, saying, “The noose has tightened around the necks of Christians to keep them from speaking out on certain moral issues.”
In the face of this hostility and legal challenges, the Democrats have been passive at best and hostile at worst. The White House and Congress have failed to deliver so far on promises to reverse decades of legal discrimination in federal and state laws.
When Attorney General Eric Holder was asked about Maine’s Question 1, he said that he and President Obama “are of the view it is for states to make these decisions.” Holder later said to one blogger, “I don’t really know enough about the referendum over there to comment.” As National Equality March organizer Cleve Jones said on MSNBC of President Obama’s silence on Question 1, “This is a far cry from the fierce advocacy he promised us in his campaign.”
Even more outrageous, not only did the Democratic National Committee (DNC) refuse to help finance the No on 1 campaign, but it expressed crass indifference to LGBT rights when the DNC’s organization “Organizing for America” (formerly known as “Obama for America”) e-mailed Maine voters the day before the election about getting involved…in the gubernatorial contest in New Jersey (which lost)!
The failure of the Democrats to hold onto huge gains made in the 2008 election in New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races—and the flaccid response from Obama’s base in this off-year election—reveals that the inability of the Democrats in power to deliver on their promises is alienating progressives.
“President Obama and his team were zero help in this critical battle, and in the last week might actually have hurt us,” said David Mixner, long-time Democratic Party activist and initiator of the call for the National Equality March.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MAINE’S REVERSAL on marriage equality proves once again the bankruptcy of the state-by-state, issue-by-issue strategy upheld by many establishment LGBT forces. This approach concedes that civil rights must remain on the precarious turf of the states, in a country where one Constitution is supposed to guarantee equal protection under the law.
Activists can no longer accept that LGBT civil rights can be attained outside the federal government. Even if Maine voters had rejected Question 1, most marriage rights like Social Security are only gained through the federal government and married LGBT people in Maine, as in the equal marriage states, would have remained second-class citizens under the law.
The right’s strategy of placing LGBT civil rights on state ballots for a vote places the battle for human equality on an unstable and hostile terrain. Why should anyone have to battle in each locality for equal treatment in a country where the Fourteenth Amendment—passed after the Civil War!—guarantees equal protection to all U.S. citizens? Why should LGBT people have to repeatedly reassert that we are equal human beings in every state and municipality 45 years after the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination?
Civil rights cannot wait for the approval of reactionaries. According to that logic, Blacks, too, should have waited for public opinion to catch up with their demands. But in 1968, one year after the Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional, Gallup polls showed that only 20 percent of Americans approved of marriages between Blacks and whites.
The failure of Maine’s No on 1 campaign highlights why the National Equality March demand for full equality in all matters of civil law in all 50 states must continue to be the rallying cry of grassroots activists across the country.
This is the Week of Initiative called by Equality Across America, the national network attempting to gather these groupings to map out a national strategy to continue this fight. In cities and towns across the country this week, activists will be marching and protesting this defeat in Maine—and celebrating victories in Washington state and Kalamazoo, Michigan, where pro-LGBT referenda passed.
Remember Maine. Get out and organize for full federal equality now!
SHERRY WOLF is the author of Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation (Haymarket Books, 2009) and was on the steering committee of the National Equality March.
More...
By SHERRY WOLF
IN STARK contrast to the surge of pro-LGBT activism, and legislative and legal progress in recent months, Maine voters overturned equal marriage rights on Election Day by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent.
Voter turnout of nearly 50 percent, local efforts by 8,000 volunteers—many of them straight—and a national blitz of phone banking to try to sway Mainers to uphold equal marriage was not sufficient to retain same-sex marriage in that state. Maine’s Question 1—similar to California’s Proposition 8 that reversed same-sex marriage rights in that state exactly a year ago—once again placed civil rights on the ballot, this time in an off-year election.
In Washington state, a new law that greatly expands the rights of LGBT couples—though doesn’t grant marriage itself—was approved by voters, but by an unexpectedly narrow margin of 51 percent to 49 percent.
The failure of the same-sex marriage forces in Maine’s No on 1 campaign to retain marriage equality passed earlier this year by the legislature highlights four central problems: 1) Civil rights activists are weakest outside of urban areas where the financial and institutional resources of the right can dominate rural politics; 2) President Obama and the Democrats have failed to deliver on their promise of “fierce advocacy” of LGBT civil rights; 3) LGBT rights must be enacted into law by the federal government; and 4) Civil rights should not be reduced to election fodder to be manipulated by well-financed bigots.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NATIONWIDE, LGBT activists scrambled in a monumental effort to try to stop right-wingers in Maine from succeeding in what was often termed a “mini-Prop 8” effort that relied on money from the Catholic Church and blitzed the media with lies about how gay marriage would be taught in the schools and imposed on religious institutions.
Local groups will assess the No on 1 organizing efforts in coming weeks, but suffice it to say that despite what appears to have been an energetic and collaborative campaign, equal marriage has lost in every state it has been put to a popular vote—31 in all. Despite the fact that the No on 1 campaign, Protect Maine Equality, raised $4 million and the anti-same-sex marriage forces raised only $2.5 million, the strategy of statewide ballot initiatives plays to activists’ weaknesses, especially in non-urban areas.
In addition to the purposely confusing language used by the right in these initiatives—voting “yes” denied equality, voting “no” would have retained it—larger population centers create opportunities for activists to reach people in groups, as in Portland, Maine, where the vote was an overwhelming 73 percent against Question 1. At University of Maine’s Orono campus, 81 percent of students voted against taking away equal marriage rights, also showing the generation gap that persists on this question.
Similarly, in Washington state, it was urban King County that voted overwhelmingly for the “everything but marriage” referendum, while the less populated eastern part of the state voted against it.
Just three weeks after the massively successful LGBT National Equality March that drew more than 200,000 people demanding full federal equality now, conservatives are punching back. Right-wing bigots like Pat Robertson have attacked recently enacted federal hate crimes legislation, saying, “The noose has tightened around the necks of Christians to keep them from speaking out on certain moral issues.”
In the face of this hostility and legal challenges, the Democrats have been passive at best and hostile at worst. The White House and Congress have failed to deliver so far on promises to reverse decades of legal discrimination in federal and state laws.
When Attorney General Eric Holder was asked about Maine’s Question 1, he said that he and President Obama “are of the view it is for states to make these decisions.” Holder later said to one blogger, “I don’t really know enough about the referendum over there to comment.” As National Equality March organizer Cleve Jones said on MSNBC of President Obama’s silence on Question 1, “This is a far cry from the fierce advocacy he promised us in his campaign.”
Even more outrageous, not only did the Democratic National Committee (DNC) refuse to help finance the No on 1 campaign, but it expressed crass indifference to LGBT rights when the DNC’s organization “Organizing for America” (formerly known as “Obama for America”) e-mailed Maine voters the day before the election about getting involved…in the gubernatorial contest in New Jersey (which lost)!
The failure of the Democrats to hold onto huge gains made in the 2008 election in New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races—and the flaccid response from Obama’s base in this off-year election—reveals that the inability of the Democrats in power to deliver on their promises is alienating progressives.
“President Obama and his team were zero help in this critical battle, and in the last week might actually have hurt us,” said David Mixner, long-time Democratic Party activist and initiator of the call for the National Equality March.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MAINE’S REVERSAL on marriage equality proves once again the bankruptcy of the state-by-state, issue-by-issue strategy upheld by many establishment LGBT forces. This approach concedes that civil rights must remain on the precarious turf of the states, in a country where one Constitution is supposed to guarantee equal protection under the law.
Activists can no longer accept that LGBT civil rights can be attained outside the federal government. Even if Maine voters had rejected Question 1, most marriage rights like Social Security are only gained through the federal government and married LGBT people in Maine, as in the equal marriage states, would have remained second-class citizens under the law.
The right’s strategy of placing LGBT civil rights on state ballots for a vote places the battle for human equality on an unstable and hostile terrain. Why should anyone have to battle in each locality for equal treatment in a country where the Fourteenth Amendment—passed after the Civil War!—guarantees equal protection to all U.S. citizens? Why should LGBT people have to repeatedly reassert that we are equal human beings in every state and municipality 45 years after the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination?
Civil rights cannot wait for the approval of reactionaries. According to that logic, Blacks, too, should have waited for public opinion to catch up with their demands. But in 1968, one year after the Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional, Gallup polls showed that only 20 percent of Americans approved of marriages between Blacks and whites.
The failure of Maine’s No on 1 campaign highlights why the National Equality March demand for full equality in all matters of civil law in all 50 states must continue to be the rallying cry of grassroots activists across the country.
This is the Week of Initiative called by Equality Across America, the national network attempting to gather these groupings to map out a national strategy to continue this fight. In cities and towns across the country this week, activists will be marching and protesting this defeat in Maine—and celebrating victories in Washington state and Kalamazoo, Michigan, where pro-LGBT referenda passed.
Remember Maine. Get out and organize for full federal equality now!
SHERRY WOLF is the author of Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation (Haymarket Books, 2009) and was on the steering committee of the National Equality March.
51
Confluence: bullshit. I understand the bigots plenty. Understanding why they are bigots is different from caring why they are bigots, just as understanding that my civil rights should never be subjected to a popular vote is different from understanding that they will be subjected to the popular vote anyway, and that they will be denied because they will lose the popular vote.
The failures of the general population are different from my own failures. It is the failures of the general population that deny me my civil rights. Your attempt to saddle me (or "the gays" or whatever) with the moral failures of the general population is ridiculous.
We did not lose Maine because we are unwise. We lost Maine because we are outnumbered by bigots, and because the American judiciary has failed us.
The failures of the general population are different from my own failures. It is the failures of the general population that deny me my civil rights. Your attempt to saddle me (or "the gays" or whatever) with the moral failures of the general population is ridiculous.
We did not lose Maine because we are unwise. We lost Maine because we are outnumbered by bigots, and because the American judiciary has failed us.
52
Gay Priests are hypocrites. They preach intolerance and bigotry by day and troll gay clubs and bars and websites by night for sex. They denigrate committed LGBT couples as sinful and obscene while they hook up with rent-boys in the park. OUT THEM!!! They deserve it as much as any Republican politician with a diaper fetish or a mistress in South America. They are cut from the same cloth and deserve no more protection or consideration. Sunshine is the best disinfectant for poisonous lies. Show the people the little, corrupt man behind the curtain as the con artist he truly is! OUT THEM ALL!!! Pope Rat-Nazi too!
56
Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.
When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.
When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.
57
Dear 56:
Boy your cut-and-paste skills are amazing:
October 26:
http://www.edgeunitedstates.com/index.ph…
June 23:
http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments…
May 22:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethic…
Plus, those sources started out with the bias against homosexuality and went from there. They are not credible longitudinal scientific studies, but have been trotted out by churches over and over again to justify their stance.
So, here's a tip: when you have an original thought rattle around in that howling empty void that you call your head, contribute. Otherwise, please don't simply plagiarize the thoughts of a religious text (who in turn plagiarized this passage) and pass it off as something that this community should be concerned about. Thanks.
Boy your cut-and-paste skills are amazing:
October 26:
http://www.edgeunitedstates.com/index.ph…
June 23:
http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments…
May 22:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethic…
Plus, those sources started out with the bias against homosexuality and went from there. They are not credible longitudinal scientific studies, but have been trotted out by churches over and over again to justify their stance.
So, here's a tip: when you have an original thought rattle around in that howling empty void that you call your head, contribute. Otherwise, please don't simply plagiarize the thoughts of a religious text (who in turn plagiarized this passage) and pass it off as something that this community should be concerned about. Thanks.
58
They absolutely should be outed--*especially* if they are good priests who do a lot of good in their community. Those priests are sitting idly by as the organization they belong to spreads evil, hatred, and sickness through the world.
It's time for good priests to do the honourable thing and resign from the Catholic Church. What happens to an organization when all the good people resign? It sends a clear message.
It's time for good priests to do the honourable thing and resign from the Catholic Church. What happens to an organization when all the good people resign? It sends a clear message.
59
@ 21 -
What's hard to understand is why all these 'non-bigoted' people wouldn't simply introspect a little bit. Why did THEY get married? Why didn't they just live together? What's the big deal, anyway?
If people can answer that obvious question for themselves, they can certainly see why gay people might like to get married as well. That is, unless at a very profound level they don't think gay people have the same feelings they do.
Is that bigotry? Or prejudice? Or is there another answer?
What's hard to understand is why all these 'non-bigoted' people wouldn't simply introspect a little bit. Why did THEY get married? Why didn't they just live together? What's the big deal, anyway?
If people can answer that obvious question for themselves, they can certainly see why gay people might like to get married as well. That is, unless at a very profound level they don't think gay people have the same feelings they do.
Is that bigotry? Or prejudice? Or is there another answer?
60
@59
It is surprising that they don't introspect a bit more, I agree. But look, if they're on the fence because this gay marriage idea seems new and kinda weird to them (since they've never had same sex feelings), and one side tells them: "Do you *really* think it's necessary to redefine an age-old institution? Because this is what it's all really about" and the other side tells them, "Agree with us or we'll out you as a BIGOT," which would you choose? The gay activist approach is to try and bully everyone into agreeing with them. The other side is more positive and appeals to people's sense of family, "Hey - this isn't about hate - we accept their relationships - it's about preserving history and tradition." Gay activists have a *lousy* strategy and I don't see it getting any better any time soon. The more they lose, the more they shout, "Bigot!"
I think these people on the fence are prejudiced, yes. But of course they are though! Nature *itself* prejudices them. Men + women make babies and create families. It is like this on every single corner of the planet in nearly every society in the world! These people are not bigots and (no surprise) they resent being called that. If they're bigots, that means that 90% + of the planet are bigots and that sounds pretty nutso.
I think the answer is for gay activists to *completely* change their approach and turn it into a positive one. They're gonna have to drop the "bigotry" shit or no one else is coming over to their side. But it's gonna be hard for gays to do that since all that anger stems from years of discrimination and hurt they've experienced. But it's necessary if they ever want to win new support.
It is surprising that they don't introspect a bit more, I agree. But look, if they're on the fence because this gay marriage idea seems new and kinda weird to them (since they've never had same sex feelings), and one side tells them: "Do you *really* think it's necessary to redefine an age-old institution? Because this is what it's all really about" and the other side tells them, "Agree with us or we'll out you as a BIGOT," which would you choose? The gay activist approach is to try and bully everyone into agreeing with them. The other side is more positive and appeals to people's sense of family, "Hey - this isn't about hate - we accept their relationships - it's about preserving history and tradition." Gay activists have a *lousy* strategy and I don't see it getting any better any time soon. The more they lose, the more they shout, "Bigot!"
I think these people on the fence are prejudiced, yes. But of course they are though! Nature *itself* prejudices them. Men + women make babies and create families. It is like this on every single corner of the planet in nearly every society in the world! These people are not bigots and (no surprise) they resent being called that. If they're bigots, that means that 90% + of the planet are bigots and that sounds pretty nutso.
I think the answer is for gay activists to *completely* change their approach and turn it into a positive one. They're gonna have to drop the "bigotry" shit or no one else is coming over to their side. But it's gonna be hard for gays to do that since all that anger stems from years of discrimination and hurt they've experienced. But it's necessary if they ever want to win new support.
61
@ 21
My rights are not yours to endow.
Unalienable ... remember?
Pursuit of happiness ... remember?
Domestic tranquility ... remember?
My rights are not yours to endow.
Unalienable ... remember?
Pursuit of happiness ... remember?
Domestic tranquility ... remember?
62
There are out gay priests.... in the Episcopal church. If the married Anglicans are being courted by the Catholics, why not encourage the Episcopalians to court the closeted Catholics? Set up a swap program or something.
The catechism is similar, the liturgy is similar, Anglican church music kicks the crap out of Catholic, really all that's in the way is the Petrine doctrine.
The catechism is similar, the liturgy is similar, Anglican church music kicks the crap out of Catholic, really all that's in the way is the Petrine doctrine.
63
CatholicsSuck.com shows the hate the church has for gays. I don't understand homosexuality, but the Catholic church should not be damning gays with their track record of late. Clean up your own house Catholic Church!
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (63) RSS