Slog
News & ArtsMonday, January 16, 2012
LGBTQITSLFA / Olympia Ed Murray: How to Fight for Marriage Equality In the Spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Posted by State Senator Ed Murray (D-43) on Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Today we celebrate the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the midst of our struggle to achieve equality for lesbian and gay families.
It’s a special opportunity for those of us who want equality to reflect on the strength of Dr. King’s nonviolent methods in achieving social change.
Following the teachings of his own Christian faith and inspired by the work of Mahatma Gandhi, King didn’t simply abstain from physical violence. He and his allies found it in their hearts to love those who disagreed with them.
When hit—whether with clubs, fire hoses, or filthy words—they did more than refuse to hit back. They loved back.
That is the power we must harness in our struggle for marriage equality.
To begin with, it is important to distinguish between those on the extreme right and those who are honestly struggling with the issue of enabling committed lesbian and gay families to marry. It would be a profound mistake to confuse my colleagues who have said they will vote no on the marriage equality bill—or have said they are unsure whether they will vote yes—with hateful extremists.
My colleagues are good people. They treat others with respect and care. They are thinking through their position, not attacking others. And readers of The Stranger know better than anyone that a constructive debate doesn’t have to be boring. It just can’t be hateful.
And to be clear: Some of those who opposed us over the years have attempted to denigrate us and threaten us. In committee hearings, on the streets and in public, they have often used language that is abhorrent. At times they have resorted to character assassination and even violence.
It hurts. It angers. Especially when it violates those closest to our hearts, our families and friends.
Anger is the natural reaction to pain. But anger will not change the hearts and minds of those struggling with their vote to support or oppose marriage equality for our families.
It is important to remember Dr. King often quoted Jesus’s call to “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.”
He admitted it wasn’t easy. King was arrested more than twenty times, personally assaulted four times, and his family home was bombed. Despite being a living force for peace, Gandhi spent years of his life behind prison bars.
Yet those bars could not contain their hearts, or their deepest convictions. They endured for their cause. And as King and Gandhi acted with love toward their enemies, I’m calling for all of us to act out of total, unquestioning respect for the opposition.
In the coming days, if they slander us and we spit back at them, and if they spout lies and we hurl insults—where will justice start? We have to break the cycle of spite, and make room for compassion. I’m not asking anyone to accept intolerance, to whisper their thoughts or bottle their passion, but to take a stand.
King said: “Somewhere somebody must have a little sense, and that’s the strong person. The strong person is the person who can cut off the chain of hate, the chain of evil. … Somebody must have religion enough and morality enough to cut it off and inject within the very structure of the universe that strong and powerful element of love.”
I would ask you in the weeks ahead to keep the examples of King and Gandhi in mind as you engage in discussions with legislators, neighbors, family and friends.
Some of our opponents have called for 10,000 people to show up for the Jan. 23 hearing on marriage equality. So let me make a suggestion to those of you who might not make it Olympia. At dusk on Jan. 22, step outside for five minutes and light a candle for our families and for all families in Washington state.
Join with your family on your front porch, or with neighbors on your block, and light a candle to show that you care most about treating one another with love. It’s a small gesture, but powerful. As King said, darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.
1
Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said Tuesday the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights.
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said.
Source: Reuters, March 31, 1998
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said.
Source: Reuters, March 31, 1998
2
A reasonable and sensible approach, if difficult to practice. Nobody ever said any of this was going to be easy, though.
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/1928/…
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/1928/…
3
How boring. Another false equivalancy between those who chose homosexuality and whatever consequences that choice bears and those born female or black or in some other justly protected category.
Logic isn't your friend, LGBTQRSTUVWXYZABCDEFGetc folks. It could be, but by framing the debate in fake terms, it isn't.
Frankly, you're insulting those who fought real battles with injustice, like MLK and Ghandi and others, by equating your movement with theirs.
Want to sleep with other men, or other women, or people dressed up as Bugs Bunny? Fine with me. Not my business. Think that this personal choice means everyone else needs to change for YOU? Yeah, that one's a bit more difficult.
Grow up folks. You chose homosexuality for good or ill. Now be adults and accept the consequences of your choices.
Logic isn't your friend, LGBTQRSTUVWXYZABCDEFGetc folks. It could be, but by framing the debate in fake terms, it isn't.
Frankly, you're insulting those who fought real battles with injustice, like MLK and Ghandi and others, by equating your movement with theirs.
Want to sleep with other men, or other women, or people dressed up as Bugs Bunny? Fine with me. Not my business. Think that this personal choice means everyone else needs to change for YOU? Yeah, that one's a bit more difficult.
Grow up folks. You chose homosexuality for good or ill. Now be adults and accept the consequences of your choices.
6
Thank you for the article, Mr. Murray. I'm keeping everything double crossed for you, Washingtonians.
8
@3: Ooh look! It's the "HURR TEH GHEY CHOSE TO BE HOMOSCHMEXUAL HURR" meme again!
What evidence do you have that homosexuality is a choice? I couldn't choose to be gay if Neil Patrick Harris was standing right in front of me (he is one good-looking gay man, no homo) because I'm straight. It's just the way my brain got put together.
If I was a good enough person not to respond to aggression with aggression, Seattleblues might actually make multiple posts in these threads.
What evidence do you have that homosexuality is a choice? I couldn't choose to be gay if Neil Patrick Harris was standing right in front of me (he is one good-looking gay man, no homo) because I'm straight. It's just the way my brain got put together.
If I was a good enough person not to respond to aggression with aggression, Seattleblues might actually make multiple posts in these threads.
9
@3 You are making some false assumptions, and these assumptions are leading you to the wrong conclusion.
You assume everyone is the same, poured in the same mold, wired with the same programming, designed for the same purpose. You assume you know God's intentions, His intentions for you, for me, for others.
You do not. You cannot.
For whatever His reasons, God makes us all. And, with all our variations, we are all in His image. As it says in Genesis 1:27
And, God gives us Love and urges us cleave to one another, take care of one another. I, and perhaps you, were created with an affinity to cleave to members of the opposite sex. Some of our brothers and sisters were created otherwise. Theirs is not a choice, but God's will and creation.
He created us, every one, equal in His eyes, and for His own purposes. Every one of us has been touched by Him and carries That of God within us. Do not disrespect your brother and sister if you would not disrespect Him.
Leave it alone, Seattleblues. You give yourself over to a lower master, Satan, in your intolerance, backbiting and sowing of misery.
There is no purpose in tormenting our fellow men and women, nor in denying them the Love and happy lives that God permits those of us lucky enough to find.
You assume everyone is the same, poured in the same mold, wired with the same programming, designed for the same purpose. You assume you know God's intentions, His intentions for you, for me, for others.
You do not. You cannot.
For whatever His reasons, God makes us all. And, with all our variations, we are all in His image. As it says in Genesis 1:27
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.(How can we be male and female and in His image? Think upon this. There is an important truth here.)
And, God gives us Love and urges us cleave to one another, take care of one another. I, and perhaps you, were created with an affinity to cleave to members of the opposite sex. Some of our brothers and sisters were created otherwise. Theirs is not a choice, but God's will and creation.
He created us, every one, equal in His eyes, and for His own purposes. Every one of us has been touched by Him and carries That of God within us. Do not disrespect your brother and sister if you would not disrespect Him.
Leave it alone, Seattleblues. You give yourself over to a lower master, Satan, in your intolerance, backbiting and sowing of misery.
There is no purpose in tormenting our fellow men and women, nor in denying them the Love and happy lives that God permits those of us lucky enough to find.
10
Thank you Senator, well said with one exception. I don't buy the line about them "Struggling". Nah that don't make no darn sense. Discrimination of others is very clear cut. You do or you don't. Yes it is that simple. Not complex in the least. Special rights for those that choose to be Heterosexual (see post #3 for proof of sexual orientation choice) is wrong.
11
Senator Murray, you are a better man than I. I am able to distinguish between simpletons and bigots, but I cannot muster whatever strength it takes to love my enemies, and honestly I would have to see some practical value in that act even to try.
As always, you humble me, and I am thankful that you are in the leadership position, because I don't have what it takes to do what you do.
Thank you so very much.
As always, you humble me, and I am thankful that you are in the leadership position, because I don't have what it takes to do what you do.
Thank you so very much.
12
>> "I’m calling for all of us to act out of total, unquestioning respect for the opposition."
I'm really struggling with this.
We are asking the state for nothing more or less than civil equality for our families. Our detractors will suffer no harm if we prevail. We are not seeking to harm anyone, and most of us would actually care if our "opposition" could demonstrate harm. Even just a little bit. I promise I'd care. But I have standards, see, and the demonstration has to be rational.
On the other side are people who either have a blatant disregard for my family's civil equality at best, and those who would erase my family entirely at worst.
And I am supposed to act with total, unquestioning respect toward them? Is that even possible? I respect their right to exist; is that not enough? I respect their right to believe as they choose; is that not enough? What the hell is this "love your enemy" stuff, and what does it actually accomplish? Is there any historical data to suggest that love is a more effective force for social change than honest struggle?
I'm really struggling with this.
We are asking the state for nothing more or less than civil equality for our families. Our detractors will suffer no harm if we prevail. We are not seeking to harm anyone, and most of us would actually care if our "opposition" could demonstrate harm. Even just a little bit. I promise I'd care. But I have standards, see, and the demonstration has to be rational.
On the other side are people who either have a blatant disregard for my family's civil equality at best, and those who would erase my family entirely at worst.
And I am supposed to act with total, unquestioning respect toward them? Is that even possible? I respect their right to exist; is that not enough? I respect their right to believe as they choose; is that not enough? What the hell is this "love your enemy" stuff, and what does it actually accomplish? Is there any historical data to suggest that love is a more effective force for social change than honest struggle?
13
"It would be a profound mistake to confuse my colleagues who have said they will vote no on the marriage equality bill—or have said they are unsure whether they will vote yes—with hateful extremists."
And I profoundly disagree. At the end of the day, the legislators who will vote 'no', or are on the fence, are no different than the hateful extremists as far as my rights go. If they vote 'no' out of animus, or vote 'no' out of some cold political calculation, it affects me the same way. Lip service to my inherent dignity and basic civil rights is no comfort if they throw me under the bus politically.
There is no logical argument against marriage equality. Only hatred and fear. The 'no' voters and fence-sitters can go with the bigots or be on the right side of history. It's pretty clear cut.
And I profoundly disagree. At the end of the day, the legislators who will vote 'no', or are on the fence, are no different than the hateful extremists as far as my rights go. If they vote 'no' out of animus, or vote 'no' out of some cold political calculation, it affects me the same way. Lip service to my inherent dignity and basic civil rights is no comfort if they throw me under the bus politically.
There is no logical argument against marriage equality. Only hatred and fear. The 'no' voters and fence-sitters can go with the bigots or be on the right side of history. It's pretty clear cut.
14
"It would be a profound mistake to confuse my colleagues who have said they will vote no on the Civil Rights Act—or have said they are unsure whether they will vote yes—with hateful extremists."
"It would be a profound mistake to confuse my colleagues who have said they will vote no on the Women's Suffrage Amendment—or have said they are unsure whether they will vote yes—with hateful extremists."
"It would be a profound mistake to confuse my colleagues who have said they will vote no on the Voting Rights Act—or have said they are unsure whether they will vote yes—with hateful extremists."
See how ridiculous these all sound?
"It would be a profound mistake to confuse my colleagues who have said they will vote no on the Women's Suffrage Amendment—or have said they are unsure whether they will vote yes—with hateful extremists."
"It would be a profound mistake to confuse my colleagues who have said they will vote no on the Voting Rights Act—or have said they are unsure whether they will vote yes—with hateful extremists."
See how ridiculous these all sound?
15
I totally get that if the judicial branch had done its job, we wouldn't have to deal with this "changing hearts and minds" bullshit.
And I totally get that the judicial branch screwed us, so now we have to care about the hearts and minds of people I'd rather just leave to their own simple devices. Their own petty and hateful little devices.
And I totally get that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
But loving the flies? Respecting the flies? Agreeing not to kill the flies should be sufficient. Until they land in the honey. Then they are dead, dead, dead.
No, not really. I'll even pick them out of the honey, clean them up and send them on their hateful little way. "Run along, you little scamp!" I'll say. "Now don't go killin' any fags, you hear?"
And I totally get that the judicial branch screwed us, so now we have to care about the hearts and minds of people I'd rather just leave to their own simple devices. Their own petty and hateful little devices.
And I totally get that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
But loving the flies? Respecting the flies? Agreeing not to kill the flies should be sufficient. Until they land in the honey. Then they are dead, dead, dead.
No, not really. I'll even pick them out of the honey, clean them up and send them on their hateful little way. "Run along, you little scamp!" I'll say. "Now don't go killin' any fags, you hear?"
16
"My colleagues are good people" Good people always do good thing, Bad people always do bad things, but it takes Religion to move good people to do bad things. (Paraphrasing the quote). I suspect those "good" people are discriminating because of their religious life style choice (which is protected life style choice).
17
@14
My wife didn't choose to be black, so the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Womens Sufferage, or her right to vote were valid fights for valid civil rights goals. It is fundamentally unjust to punish or reward people for what they had no choice in. Her civil rights shouldn't be contingent on irrelevant physical traits.
We have 1st Amendment protection for some choices, like the choice to have a faith or not or to speak or write our minds. To encourage free expression we enshrined this protection in our founding document. In this case choice serves so basic a function in our liberty that the framers protect it.
But when we make most behavioral choices, including the one to engage in homosexual behavior, we have an obligation to live with whatever costs they bear. If you think being gay is too costly a choice, make a different one. If you think the costs compensated by your lifestyle rewards, keep making your behavioral choices. Either way it isn't my busines- up to the point where you assume the 3% who made similar choices to yours gets to redefine key social terms for everyone else.
So yes, all your comparisons sound ridiculous. I'm glad you could recognize that any comparison with legitimate civil rights struggles and that of gays or lesbians to obtain priviledged citizen status in which they can redefine society for 97% of the population for their convenience is entirely ridiculous.
My wife didn't choose to be black, so the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Womens Sufferage, or her right to vote were valid fights for valid civil rights goals. It is fundamentally unjust to punish or reward people for what they had no choice in. Her civil rights shouldn't be contingent on irrelevant physical traits.
We have 1st Amendment protection for some choices, like the choice to have a faith or not or to speak or write our minds. To encourage free expression we enshrined this protection in our founding document. In this case choice serves so basic a function in our liberty that the framers protect it.
But when we make most behavioral choices, including the one to engage in homosexual behavior, we have an obligation to live with whatever costs they bear. If you think being gay is too costly a choice, make a different one. If you think the costs compensated by your lifestyle rewards, keep making your behavioral choices. Either way it isn't my busines- up to the point where you assume the 3% who made similar choices to yours gets to redefine key social terms for everyone else.
So yes, all your comparisons sound ridiculous. I'm glad you could recognize that any comparison with legitimate civil rights struggles and that of gays or lesbians to obtain priviledged citizen status in which they can redefine society for 97% of the population for their convenience is entirely ridiculous.
18
YET People that choose to be Heterosexual are rewarded with special rights (civil marriage rights). What "priviledged citizen status" are Gay people seeking that Hetero people don't already enjoy?
19
@17 And even if sexual orientation were a choice, what is the legal reasoning for preventing people from entering into the secular, civil rights and responsibilities of marriage with the partner they choose, and enjoy equal citizen status?
20
How come people aren't "sitting in at the lunch counter" by going to City Halls in non-equality states and demanding to be registered for marriage?
21
"Love your enemies." What does that entail? Simply it means that you treat others like you treat yourself, how you want them to treat you. I don't think it means compliance. Nor does it mean allowing yourself to be a doormat. Love can mean turning your cheek at a minor offense, but it also means refusing to back down. It means refraining from slander and holding your tounge when you have nothing but cruel words to unleash. It means defending the rights of others whose humanity makes them worthy of equality. So for love you stand, you stand for yourself... for those who cannot stand up for themselves.
For Christians it is part of the second command, the first being loving God that Jesus said summed up all the laws. This is a special law of Christianity, and the highest possible test of piety, and thus the most difficult of all duties to be performed. It is a choice. According to John 13: 34-35 ( 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”) it is the mark of an actual follower.
Senator Murray for love do not slander or generate false witness against any colleagues, and do not confuse love with the call to be a doormat. Do not corrupt love by pretending that those who vote "no" on civil equality are being loving. Those who vote "no" see second class citizens, they see their brothers and sisters as deserving to have their civil rights put up to a popularity vote. That is not love.
For Christians it is part of the second command, the first being loving God that Jesus said summed up all the laws. This is a special law of Christianity, and the highest possible test of piety, and thus the most difficult of all duties to be performed. It is a choice. According to John 13: 34-35 ( 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”) it is the mark of an actual follower.
Senator Murray for love do not slander or generate false witness against any colleagues, and do not confuse love with the call to be a doormat. Do not corrupt love by pretending that those who vote "no" on civil equality are being loving. Those who vote "no" see second class citizens, they see their brothers and sisters as deserving to have their civil rights put up to a popularity vote. That is not love.
22
You folks misunderstand.
The burden of proof is on those who want to change millenia of social understanding of what marriage or family are for their convenience, not on those who accept those understandings.
Gay citizens who want gay marriage represent at most 2% or 3% of the population. If you want the remainder of us to alter our social or legal structure it's on you. You must demonstrate that your rights are being violated or that some real problem exists. You must demonstrate why that problem is compelling to the rest of us ethically or legally. You must show why gay marriage is the solution to that problem. You must convince a majority of your fellow citizens of your perception of all these things. Then, if successfull, you must defend in court your right to redefine society for the convenience of a tiny minority.
Those defending marriage and family too get sucked into this debate. The burden rests on you, not on anyone else.
The burden of proof is on those who want to change millenia of social understanding of what marriage or family are for their convenience, not on those who accept those understandings.
Gay citizens who want gay marriage represent at most 2% or 3% of the population. If you want the remainder of us to alter our social or legal structure it's on you. You must demonstrate that your rights are being violated or that some real problem exists. You must demonstrate why that problem is compelling to the rest of us ethically or legally. You must show why gay marriage is the solution to that problem. You must convince a majority of your fellow citizens of your perception of all these things. Then, if successfull, you must defend in court your right to redefine society for the convenience of a tiny minority.
Those defending marriage and family too get sucked into this debate. The burden rests on you, not on anyone else.
23
Perhaps this is a better quote for today.
"Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
24
Slog's resident troll is a fine case study. He's totally committed to his opposition to my family's civil equality, and is unwilling even to entertain reason. He's been presented with it many times, and he simply parrots the same routine ad nauseum. There will be no changing of his heart or mind, and there is no reason to engage in conversation with someone who is the equivalent of a pull-string doll, unless you get some kind of masturbatory pleasure from such things.
There is nothing to respect. Nothing worthy of love. The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. The troll can do whatever he pleases. I care not.
And it's important to differentiate someone who is unmovable like the troll from anyone else who at least tries to interact genuinely with others. This is a simple matter of judgment.
And it seems to me that indifference if every bit as useful as "love" when it comes to breaking the cycle of spite with a pull-string doll. And genuine, respectful engagement is every bit as useful as 'total, unquestioning respect for the opposition' when it comes to building social bridges for better understanding among equal citizens.
Maybe I just don't grok the whole Christian angle. I'm not going to spout off a bunch of insults to any senator on the fence, or to any senator for that matter. I'll make attempts at genuine, respectful engagement up to the point that someone proves to be a pull-string doll, at which point my interest will convert to indifference.
That will have to be enough. As far as I can tell, it amounts to the same damn thing, anyway.
There is nothing to respect. Nothing worthy of love. The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. The troll can do whatever he pleases. I care not.
And it's important to differentiate someone who is unmovable like the troll from anyone else who at least tries to interact genuinely with others. This is a simple matter of judgment.
And it seems to me that indifference if every bit as useful as "love" when it comes to breaking the cycle of spite with a pull-string doll. And genuine, respectful engagement is every bit as useful as 'total, unquestioning respect for the opposition' when it comes to building social bridges for better understanding among equal citizens.
Maybe I just don't grok the whole Christian angle. I'm not going to spout off a bunch of insults to any senator on the fence, or to any senator for that matter. I'll make attempts at genuine, respectful engagement up to the point that someone proves to be a pull-string doll, at which point my interest will convert to indifference.
That will have to be enough. As far as I can tell, it amounts to the same damn thing, anyway.
25
I still want to know what "priviledged citizen status" Gay Americans want that Hetero people don't already enjoy.
26
@25, you have to concede several faulty premises in order to get there, but the line of thought has been presented on Slog many times over. It's really not worth your while.
27
It would appear some of the comments reflect a complete lack of understanding of Dr. King's message. It was about seeing good in those who opprese you. If school children being attacked by dogs and fire hoses can follow his methods of respect and love so can those involved in this struggle.
28
I think of a lot of the undecided legislators and even a lot of the "No" votes as being in the same place that members of my family were many years ago when I came out. They weren't happy about it, but over time they came around. What we need to do is to help bring them around, and that works better by being respectful than disrespectful.
It's like the old Aesop's fable about the sun and the wind who engage in a contest to see who can get a traveler's cloak off. The wind blows harder and harder making the traveler hold onto his cloak tighter and tighter. Finally the wind gives up and tells the sun to give it a shot. The sun shines on the guy warming him up enough so that he takes off his cloak on his own.
It's like the old Aesop's fable about the sun and the wind who engage in a contest to see who can get a traveler's cloak off. The wind blows harder and harder making the traveler hold onto his cloak tighter and tighter. Finally the wind gives up and tells the sun to give it a shot. The sun shines on the guy warming him up enough so that he takes off his cloak on his own.
29
>> "It was about seeing good in those who opprese you."
Right, this is mostly a Christian virtue, and I am not a Christian. It's not that I don't understand Dr. King's message; rather, I question its practical utility in a political struggle.
"Seeing the good" in an opponent isn't a method, so I'm not sure what it would buy me. Religious virtues seem to have about the same track record (or worse) as non-religious virtues in matters of social policy.
Pacifism and non-violence are great, on the other hand. Those are ethical precepts well supported both within and beyond Abrahamic mythologies.
But yeah, I don't get the peril of failing to possess a Christian virtue. Seems to me it doesn't change our chances for success or failure either way. "Be polite" accomplishes exactly the same thing from a practical perspective.
Right, this is mostly a Christian virtue, and I am not a Christian. It's not that I don't understand Dr. King's message; rather, I question its practical utility in a political struggle.
"Seeing the good" in an opponent isn't a method, so I'm not sure what it would buy me. Religious virtues seem to have about the same track record (or worse) as non-religious virtues in matters of social policy.
Pacifism and non-violence are great, on the other hand. Those are ethical precepts well supported both within and beyond Abrahamic mythologies.
But yeah, I don't get the peril of failing to possess a Christian virtue. Seems to me it doesn't change our chances for success or failure either way. "Be polite" accomplishes exactly the same thing from a practical perspective.
30
Seattleblues - The interesting commonality between race and homosexuality is that both are social constructs that claim to reflect, but don't necessarily reflect, objectively measurable traits. If we look closer at homosexuality, whether the traits it reflects are chosen depends on whether we think we're measuring homosexual activity itself (which is, of course, chosen) or attraction to members of one's own sex accompanied by--and this is important--a shortage or absence of attraction to the opposite sex (which is most certainly not chosen).
The person who is attracted to members of his or her own sex, and who lacks attraction to the opposite sex, has a "choice," of sorts. He or she may choose celibacy, for instance, or the sort of "platonic eroticism" whereby one enters a romantically loveless (though potentially "friendly"), erotically inert, but "fruitful" marriage in which one settles down, has a family, and, generally, participates in the innocuous enterprise(s) of the majority. Which is, as I've said, well and good, for those who can live in such a way. But as has pointed out to you before, to no rebuttal on your part, you and I are not obligated to make such a sacrifice in order to marry. Oh, you have, for all sorts of other reasons; perhaps it is what your god wants you to do. But my wife and I had the privilege of marrying for passion, and pursuing shared passions together. Did we do anything to earn this passion? Well, sure. We paid the fee for a marriage license. So whatever came attached to that license, that contract, came to us for a nominal fee.
Now, you keep suggesting that offering this same license, this same contract, for this same nominal fee to, say, the couple with whom we spent Christmas Eve--whose only meaningful distinction from us, in terms of social contribution, is the sex of one of the participants--represents a new "privilege"; indeed, you seem to suggest that it would be a privilege over and above what others have, even though both you and I have this privilege, and I didn't even have to produce any children to receive it (you, to the detriment of humanity, claim to have sired a few). In that sense, you and I are not faces with the same "obligation to live with whatever costs [we] bear."
More...
The person who is attracted to members of his or her own sex, and who lacks attraction to the opposite sex, has a "choice," of sorts. He or she may choose celibacy, for instance, or the sort of "platonic eroticism" whereby one enters a romantically loveless (though potentially "friendly"), erotically inert, but "fruitful" marriage in which one settles down, has a family, and, generally, participates in the innocuous enterprise(s) of the majority. Which is, as I've said, well and good, for those who can live in such a way. But as has pointed out to you before, to no rebuttal on your part, you and I are not obligated to make such a sacrifice in order to marry. Oh, you have, for all sorts of other reasons; perhaps it is what your god wants you to do. But my wife and I had the privilege of marrying for passion, and pursuing shared passions together. Did we do anything to earn this passion? Well, sure. We paid the fee for a marriage license. So whatever came attached to that license, that contract, came to us for a nominal fee.
Now, you keep suggesting that offering this same license, this same contract, for this same nominal fee to, say, the couple with whom we spent Christmas Eve--whose only meaningful distinction from us, in terms of social contribution, is the sex of one of the participants--represents a new "privilege"; indeed, you seem to suggest that it would be a privilege over and above what others have, even though both you and I have this privilege, and I didn't even have to produce any children to receive it (you, to the detriment of humanity, claim to have sired a few). In that sense, you and I are not faces with the same "obligation to live with whatever costs [we] bear."
31
Senator Murray: although I personally believe that one accomplishes more by treating ones with whom with disagree with respect, it would be difficult indeed to view anyone who denies basic civil rights to their fellow citizens with love. Respectfully engaging - sure, I can do that. Understanding fear of change: check. But we have historical precedent of the injustice of discrimination against a minority in our country: it had to be angrily denounced, loudly & legally challenged, before things began to change. & here we are again, on a similar threshold.
**
Seattleblues: your reference to not choosing homosexual actions, as vs. not choosing homosexual orientation: is that, at long last, your admission that homosexuality is not a choice? & how humane is it to dictate who does or does not get to pursue love based on their natural-born orientation?
When did you choose to be straight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHY…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHY…
**
Seattleblues: your reference to not choosing homosexual actions, as vs. not choosing homosexual orientation: is that, at long last, your admission that homosexuality is not a choice? & how humane is it to dictate who does or does not get to pursue love based on their natural-born orientation?
When did you choose to be straight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHY…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHY…
32
@17: You presume that sexual orientation is chosen. You have NEVER supplied one shred of evidence to back that up. I charge you by the power vested in me by myself, to either show us the evidence or GTFO n00b.
@22: The burden of proof is on you to show that homosexuality is chosen. We've presented plenty of evidence that it's innate, and you've presented precisely dick. (As in nothing; nobody here has seen your wiener just yet.)
Also, every argument you make against gay marriage has also been made against interracial marriage. As a white man married to a black woman, you might want to think a little bit before leaping to Conclusions.
@22: The burden of proof is on you to show that homosexuality is chosen. We've presented plenty of evidence that it's innate, and you've presented precisely dick. (As in nothing; nobody here has seen your wiener just yet.)
Also, every argument you make against gay marriage has also been made against interracial marriage. As a white man married to a black woman, you might want to think a little bit before leaping to Conclusions.
33
See, here's the thing, SB. The definition of marriage, which you seem to think has been static for millennia, has in fact dramatically changed through history. At one point, marriage used to be one man having many wives as his property for his sexual gratification, procreation, and status. At another point, marriage used to be the transfer of property from one man (woman's father) to another man (her husband). At yet another point, marriage used to be a strictly religious affair, set into law only in a theocratic sense (i.e. retaining its religious significance, and not a separate civil matter). And now we live in a modern society, where marriage is a civil union between two people whom the law treats as equals, neither one being the property of the other, neither one being subservient to the other, neither one having more power than the other: The stipulation that one of them be male and the other female is utterly arbitrary nowadays. Marriage can be about procreation, or not. Marriage can be about religious significance, or not. Marriage can be about love, or not. Marriage can be about the foundation of society, or not. Marriage can be about tax benefits, or inheritance, or adoption, or hospital visitation rights, or citizenship status, or none of these things at all. You'd have to ask the couples getting married what their marriage is about. It's different for every couple. And guess what, SB? Thousands of couples get married every day in the U.S. without first justifying to you the meaning of their marriage. You don't get to define their marriage for them. The sudden demand that, of all people, gay & lesbian couples have to prove their marriage rights _won't_ unravel society and harm teh children is the height of inequality.
If you're against same-sex marriage, fine. Don't get married to a man. But you don't get to define marriage for the 99.99[repeating]% of people who aren't you. Our effort to "redefine" marriage has no bearing on you. Your effort to define everyone else's marriage has considerable bearing upon us.
More...
If you're against same-sex marriage, fine. Don't get married to a man. But you don't get to define marriage for the 99.99[repeating]% of people who aren't you. Our effort to "redefine" marriage has no bearing on you. Your effort to define everyone else's marriage has considerable bearing upon us.
34
@Sexual orientation innate or chosen
We've been over this ground before. Sexual urges may be innnate or not. So what? I feel all sorts of urges. The fact of a behavior being desired doesn't make it a good thing to engage in the behavior without some external criteria.
You call a consistent urge to have sex with other men or other women an 'orientatation.' Okay. Again, so what? If you want those who suffer from this urge to be treated as special citizens who can redefine marriage and family for their convenience or to score petty political points you'll have to do a bit better than that.
The simple fact is that whatever factors enter into that choice sexual behavior is chosen and in that choice rests the difference between legitimate civil rights battles and adolescent whining.
Not a single civil right is denied a gay man or lesbian in how we define marriage presently. We don't allow bigamists to alter marriage for their preferences. We don't allow first cousins to alter it for theirs. And we shouldn't allow gay citizens to alter it for their convenience.
We've been over this ground before. Sexual urges may be innnate or not. So what? I feel all sorts of urges. The fact of a behavior being desired doesn't make it a good thing to engage in the behavior without some external criteria.
You call a consistent urge to have sex with other men or other women an 'orientatation.' Okay. Again, so what? If you want those who suffer from this urge to be treated as special citizens who can redefine marriage and family for their convenience or to score petty political points you'll have to do a bit better than that.
The simple fact is that whatever factors enter into that choice sexual behavior is chosen and in that choice rests the difference between legitimate civil rights battles and adolescent whining.
Not a single civil right is denied a gay man or lesbian in how we define marriage presently. We don't allow bigamists to alter marriage for their preferences. We don't allow first cousins to alter it for theirs. And we shouldn't allow gay citizens to alter it for their convenience.
35
What, praytell, Seattleblues, makes you think that there's anything in your screed that a) relates to any of our assertions or b) hasn't occurred to us already?
Allowing individuals to marry someone of the same sex doesn't redefine anything, since the definition of marriage already varies from manifestation to manifestation; the law does not, in fact, forbid anyone from having an open marriage, for instance. All it does is allow such individuals to enter into a state-sanctioned contract that allows certain (mostly theoretical) benefits for the cost of a marriage license, rather than the more prohibitive cost of hiring an attorney. Your marriage is still what your marriage is; it will be defined not by the state (which even now recognizes only a civil contract, and is in no way concerned with whatever spiritual or procreative anxieties you personally project upon your union).
Indeed, insofar as ANY marriage is anything other than a contract relating to property rights, medical decisions, power of attorney, and other legal niceties--and EVERY marriage, in my experience, is more than these things--the state's vested interest in it is, or should be, nil. Neither you nor the majority nor the "elite" (however we define such) is qualified, in any way, to manage any of the rest for me; no organism on this teeming rock we call Earth has the capacity to act as my moral arbiter . . . or yours, for that matter.
You should probably know that first cousins can marry in nearly HALF of all states in the U.S.; your example doesn't hold. And personally, I would gladly cede marital rights to consenting "bigamists" (who, if it were legal, would be "polygamists"), as they, too, are consenting adults. It may be that no "civil right" is denied a gay man or lesbian in how we define marriage presently; after all, "rights" do not occur in nature, so we can (and do) define them any way we see fit. Rights can only be yielded; in some cases, we can codify them so that those who exist under the same social contract are obligated to yield them to others under the same contract. But to suggest that homosexuals have what you and I have is ridiculous. I was granted the privilege of entering into a marital contract, for the cost of a license, with someone whom I love deeply. THIS is the "right" (or, if you prefer, privilege) that I enjoy, without having done anything special to have earned it (however much we would love to have raised the children that would make the world safe from your children).
More...
Allowing individuals to marry someone of the same sex doesn't redefine anything, since the definition of marriage already varies from manifestation to manifestation; the law does not, in fact, forbid anyone from having an open marriage, for instance. All it does is allow such individuals to enter into a state-sanctioned contract that allows certain (mostly theoretical) benefits for the cost of a marriage license, rather than the more prohibitive cost of hiring an attorney. Your marriage is still what your marriage is; it will be defined not by the state (which even now recognizes only a civil contract, and is in no way concerned with whatever spiritual or procreative anxieties you personally project upon your union).
Indeed, insofar as ANY marriage is anything other than a contract relating to property rights, medical decisions, power of attorney, and other legal niceties--and EVERY marriage, in my experience, is more than these things--the state's vested interest in it is, or should be, nil. Neither you nor the majority nor the "elite" (however we define such) is qualified, in any way, to manage any of the rest for me; no organism on this teeming rock we call Earth has the capacity to act as my moral arbiter . . . or yours, for that matter.
You should probably know that first cousins can marry in nearly HALF of all states in the U.S.; your example doesn't hold. And personally, I would gladly cede marital rights to consenting "bigamists" (who, if it were legal, would be "polygamists"), as they, too, are consenting adults. It may be that no "civil right" is denied a gay man or lesbian in how we define marriage presently; after all, "rights" do not occur in nature, so we can (and do) define them any way we see fit. Rights can only be yielded; in some cases, we can codify them so that those who exist under the same social contract are obligated to yield them to others under the same contract. But to suggest that homosexuals have what you and I have is ridiculous. I was granted the privilege of entering into a marital contract, for the cost of a license, with someone whom I love deeply. THIS is the "right" (or, if you prefer, privilege) that I enjoy, without having done anything special to have earned it (however much we would love to have raised the children that would make the world safe from your children).
36
I've been meaning to read this post, finally got to it today, and it brightened my morning. Calm intelligent discourse, compassion and patience is the only way. Snark, anger and whining do not build bridges.
37
Cousin marriages are permitted in 20 states and 5 additional states will grant permission to permit it under certain conditions. So 20 + 5 means 25 US states permit first cousin marriage.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/huma…
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/huma…
38
@ 34, "We've been over this ground before. Sexual urges may be innnate or not. So what? I feel all sorts of urges. The fact of a behavior being desired doesn't make it a good thing to engage in the behavior without some external criteria."
The fact of a behavior being desired doesn't make it a bad thing to engage in the behavior without that external criteria, either. That's because ethics isn't rooted in "urges," it's measured in the consequences of actions taken. And gay sex has no consequences that can't also be found in straight sex. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the discussion.
What else you got, SB?
The fact of a behavior being desired doesn't make it a bad thing to engage in the behavior without that external criteria, either. That's because ethics isn't rooted in "urges," it's measured in the consequences of actions taken. And gay sex has no consequences that can't also be found in straight sex. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the discussion.
What else you got, SB?
39
Not only that, @38, but it seems to me that the "desirability" of committed heterosexual cohabitation is suspect. The only benefit (and there certainly are a few) to society that would apply to heterosexual unions but NOT to homosexual unions would be procreation . . . which strikes me as a neutral quantity, at best. Indeed, I've ask Mr. Blues, on several occasions, to specifically enumerate the reasons why progeny should be seen as a net gain for society, at which point he has either disappeared (only to make the same arguments later, as though his assertions were never rebutted) or made some statement or other (not unlike @34) recusing himself from having to answer any questions, essentially insisting we hold his statements of value or utility to be axiomatic.
It seems to me that if he had anything else, he'd have offered it by now. I'd actually be delighted to learn otherwise, if only because it would suggest he's an honest participant in the debate, and not just a troll with a thesaurus and a copy of Strunk & White.
It seems to me that if he had anything else, he'd have offered it by now. I'd actually be delighted to learn otherwise, if only because it would suggest he's an honest participant in the debate, and not just a troll with a thesaurus and a copy of Strunk & White.
40
@34: So you admit that you have no evidence that sexual orientation is NOT innate.
Since sexual orientation is not chosen (based on the evidence I have supplied), we can agree that "[i]t is fundamentally unjust to punish or reward people for" their sexual orientation, as "they had no choice in [it]".
Now on to the issue of the government's stance on gay sex. It is only the place of the government to legislate on a behavior when it impacts others, correct? Homosexual acts do not have any effect on others (barring non-homosexual-specific issues such as public indecency etc.), and so the government has no business making laws for or against people acting on such urges.
I get this feeling like you're about to draw a comparison to pedophiles or zoophiles, so I'll just quash that here. The urges of those suffering from those paraphiliae DO negatively impact others, as the objects of their sexual urges by definition cannot consent to sexual activity. (Mechanophiles, incidentally, should not be punished so long as they only fuck their own inanimate property in private, where nobody is negatively affected. Not all paraphiliae are the same.)
Now that we can agree that the government has no business legislating for or against homosexuality, it's clear that DOMA and suchlike need to be flushed. Same-sex marriage then becomes a gender-equality issue. A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot, and vice versa for marrying dudes. Homosexuals would receive no special treatment, as heterosexuals would also gain the right to marry a willing unrelated adult of the same gender. And if you want to blather on about "redefining marriage", I'd just like to remind you that if marriage had not been redefined in the past century, you and your wife could not have tied the knot.
So, Seattleblues, what arguments do you have left against legalizing same-sex marriage? Does it offend your delicate sensibilities?
More...
Since sexual orientation is not chosen (based on the evidence I have supplied), we can agree that "[i]t is fundamentally unjust to punish or reward people for" their sexual orientation, as "they had no choice in [it]".
Now on to the issue of the government's stance on gay sex. It is only the place of the government to legislate on a behavior when it impacts others, correct? Homosexual acts do not have any effect on others (barring non-homosexual-specific issues such as public indecency etc.), and so the government has no business making laws for or against people acting on such urges.
I get this feeling like you're about to draw a comparison to pedophiles or zoophiles, so I'll just quash that here. The urges of those suffering from those paraphiliae DO negatively impact others, as the objects of their sexual urges by definition cannot consent to sexual activity. (Mechanophiles, incidentally, should not be punished so long as they only fuck their own inanimate property in private, where nobody is negatively affected. Not all paraphiliae are the same.)
Now that we can agree that the government has no business legislating for or against homosexuality, it's clear that DOMA and suchlike need to be flushed. Same-sex marriage then becomes a gender-equality issue. A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot, and vice versa for marrying dudes. Homosexuals would receive no special treatment, as heterosexuals would also gain the right to marry a willing unrelated adult of the same gender. And if you want to blather on about "redefining marriage", I'd just like to remind you that if marriage had not been redefined in the past century, you and your wife could not have tied the knot.
So, Seattleblues, what arguments do you have left against legalizing same-sex marriage? Does it offend your delicate sensibilities?
41
@ 39, don't worry, I'm well aware that he has nothing else. "...[O]nly to make the same arguments later, as though his assertions were never rebutted..." is an artform with SB. That is, if mental masturbation could ever qualify as "art."
42
@34
The distinction you're making between sexual behaviour (rather than orientation) and race is clear. I think it's somewhat trivial, but let's pretend it isn't.
What then, is the difference between gay marriage and interracial marraige again? After all, you wouldn't in theory be taking someone's rights away because of their race, only their intended behaviour, which is to say, marrying someone outside one's race. That is an urge they have a choice to act on or not act on.
The distinction you're making between sexual behaviour (rather than orientation) and race is clear. I think it's somewhat trivial, but let's pretend it isn't.
What then, is the difference between gay marriage and interracial marraige again? After all, you wouldn't in theory be taking someone's rights away because of their race, only their intended behaviour, which is to say, marrying someone outside one's race. That is an urge they have a choice to act on or not act on.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS