Gay Bashing Amendment
This post is in response to Mister Crunchy’s post about the failure of the gay bashing amendment. (my words not his)
Anyway, he says that he doesn’t understand how gay marriage can hurt the institution of marriage. I am not going to argue with any of his points because I happen to agree with him whole-heartedly that we don’t need to be discriminating against people, who are in love, with our government-granted relationship benefits. Again, I am going to repeat myself: I agree completely and totally.
The thing is that I do understand every bit of someone saying that gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage. It doesn’t change the benefits or reduce a heterosexual’s benefits under the law, but it does put heterosexuals in a less select group. Much like when African American’s were receiving rights in this country there were groups of people who didn’t understand those “uppity blacks who just need everything. Nothing is ever good enough!” People have this perception that equality is really someone trying to take something from them.
I heard this argument a couple weeks ago in a bar where we were discussing this. This guy was taking the route of “Life isn’t always fair. Not everyone is going to be equal ever.” These are hard things to argue with because frankly they are true a lot of the time. Then the person I was talking to stepped in the bear trap. He said, “Well the bottom line is that this is going to end up costing me money and when that is the case, I won’t support it.” Imagine those uppity gay folks costing him money!
Time for dirty debate tricks. It just so happened that this guy across from me was white and the other two gentlemen sitting with us were some friends of mine who are African American.
Craig: “Freeing the slaves cost us a sh*tload of money. Are you saying we shouldn’t have done that?”
Other White Guy: “Come on man, that is different.”
Craig: “Why because you can’t identify gay folks by sight?”
Now my other two friends are on board and it is a three on one basically saying that denying rights is never ok. I don’t think we convinced the guy of anything, but I do believe he has a wider understanding of the situation just from seeing another perspective.
Anyway, back to the point, these people who are against gay marriage and want to “protect the institution of marriage” have a point. I understand it completely. If we allow gays to marry it will harm the institution of marriage because that is the thing that lives in our minds, morals, churches and communities. It has been defined for so long in our lives, on television, in movies, in our courthouses, etc. etc. It does suck to not be in a select group anymore. It is human nature to want to be special… to want to have more rights than your neighbor.
It just so happens that the law can’t be used to protect ideas that exist in your mind, church and morals. So while I disagree with them completely, to say that I don’t understand it is not true. The institution of marriage isn’t in our laws. It is an ideal that exists in many minds that have seen Carol and Mike Brady, Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham, Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore, on down the line. Even Paul Reiser and that shaggy dude from My Two Dads dated chicks.
It’s ok for them to be that way too. There is no law against it. It is a highly personal thing when it comes to our morals and thoughts.
The problem is that you can’t take those morals into the law when they discriminate against groups of people. In this case the law is frequently discriminating against gays. If you don’t like assault weapons and they are opposite your morals you can try to put a federal or state law into place. It will discriminate against high-powered gun owners. Not black high-powered gun owners. Not Gay high-powered gun owners. Just high-powered gun owners. You are discriminating against the actions and not the people.
BUT, when you propose an amendment like this you are discriminating against gay people. That is a characteristic of the person. It isn’t one of their hobbies or habits. It is WHO THEY ARE. You can’t discriminate against someone because of WHO THEY ARE in the law like that.
I do understand it though. People have concepts in their mind that they don’t want ripped away. I understand that completely and totally, but I don’t have to agree.
Comments
Before I get started: it’s okay for a guy in a bar to say that people will never really be equal. It’s not okay for my constitution to be amended to say that. And I don’t think we should stop trying for equality.
Anyway: Even after your explanation, I still don’t understand it. This is in no way a reflection on your ability to make a point, Craig, which I think you did. But I wasn’t raised in a church, so maybe it’s just impossible for me to understand.
The whole “select group” thing sounds a lot to me like a whites-only country club. Why is it important that your group be “select?” Unless you’re an elitist asshole, selectness shouldn’t be important to you.
Since I can’t understand how anyone could be so emotionally or morally attached to marriage any more than I could see them getting worked up about gay driver’s licenses or gay fishing permits, I’m left with one impression: it’s just discrimination for discrimination’s sake. People who oppose gay marriage don’t like gay people and they don’t want to see them happy or equal. We look back at generations of people who opposed civil rights for blacks and opposed the abolition of slavery and we assume there’s at least some racism involved there. Maybe that wasn’t the only factor at work, but it was a dominant one. Why aren’t we acknowledging that a dominant factor in this debate is discrimination? These folks are pointing at the bible the same way racists were.
Proudly not Hulking this argument since 2003
Glad to see you aren’t hulking it.
It definitely is a ton of discrimination because frankly, the idea of gay people disgusts some people. They are different from the norm and it scares people. As a result, letting them do something just like Mike and Carol Brady is terrifying to some people because they haven’t reached the level of understanding and acceptance.
So you are right it is discrimination, but at the same time if we are talking about people who are married, I think many of those who oppose it are internalizing it and hate the idea that they must associate even in a governmentally defined way with gay people.
The bottom line is that defeating this amendment is a step in the right direction even though this thing is going to take a whole lot longer.
Coupla things. First of all, 99% of the people we elect to public office are elitist assholes. That’s the nature of power: self-reinforcement. Look where our politicians come from and look what they do. As a group they are rich, white, male, Christian, and heterosexual. There are exceptions, of course, but they have to live under an artificial ceiling. What are the chances we could elect a poor person, a woman, a black, a gay, or an atheist as president in forseeable future? Like it or not, our democracy strongly prefers choosing people based on their skin color, their gender, their bank account, who they sleep with, or what mythological paradigm they accept. The whole “content of one’s character” thing is not really in play. Not primarily, anyway. This in a country that prides itself above all others for the freedom and equal opportunity its citizens enjoy. I don’t mean this as a condemnation of America. I’m just saying that we still have a lot of work to do before we’re really living up to our stated ideals.
So when I say “I don’t understand,” what I’m really saying is that I don’t see how the group of people that is fundamentally charged with care and maintenance of our body of laws can let their actions be governed primarily by their own personal biases and the political expediency that flows from pandering to the worst biases of the electorate. Yeah, that probably makes me an idealistic sucker.
Anyone remember who began to drag us out of our three century long national love affair with racial discrimination? Activist judges. Ruling against the will of the people, by and large, because it was right. The people were wrong. That’s why the judicial system exists. To remind us when our own venal impulses get seriously out of sync with the truly inspiring standards our founders set out for us. That is one of the things which galls me so much about the current administration. They are trying daily to pit us against our own best national intentions. What are W, Santorum, and Hatch really saying when they tell us we have to have a Constitutional amendment because the Defense of Marriage Act will certainly be ruled unconstitutional? They’re saying that we know better than the founders. We know better than the courts. We just do.
So, yeah, I understand it. But it makes me sick.
99%? 99%???
I am unclear about whether you think the 99% estimate is too high or too low.
I am going to take a guess and assume that Jarataur thinks it is WAYYYY TOOO LOW!!!
Elected officials are elitist assholes, sure. But they’re also hried geeks. If the American people expressed overwhelming support for this, everyone would think it’s a great idea. Trent Lott would be holding hands with a gay black man in the Capitol rotunda.
But there are throngs of people who aren’t rich and powerful who support this. They all differ from gay people only in sexual preference. And stll this shit rages on.
99%… yea, I do think it is too low. I can’t think of a single politician… no I take that back. Former mayor of Missoula, MT, Dan Kemmis, was beloved by all his subjects. I bet that’s not even true. I bet some people hated him. And more importantly, I bet that had shit against him. I don’t mean like they had a grudge, but I mean he was crooked and someone knew it. That person is now “sleeping with the fishes”.
I have a couple issues with politicians… first, I have a problem with someone who wants that job. It is going to be a sucky job and the pay is not that great. Seriously. It’s like teaching. But in teaching there is a 1.38% chance that you will make a difference in someone’s life. In politics that changes to .73%.
Second issue. They lie. They all lie. From “I did not have sex with the girl” to whateve concoctions Mr. Washington himself came up with. Why do they lie? Well, leaders have to lie. There are lots of reasons. Despite the efforts of the church and common morality, they still lie. Hey, I am no better.. I tell lies too. Not to 278 million people, but I still lie.
So, the person I want to have elected would be the person (color, race, gender, planet of origin: all irrelavent) who I would vote for would be the person who said “Well, I am not sure I really want that job… it looks tough. Besides, all that LSD I took about 20 years ago when I was in college is still kinda fucking with my head. Yea, I was young once, what of it? Fuck You. Nevermind, I am not going to take this job sonce you are all going to act like pricks.”
That is my dude, dudette or martian. I don’t know if it is all the ppl who were raised in the 50’s leave-it-to-beaver style shizzel who think life is so nice and perfect or what. Maybe we are just dillussional to think that somehow that existed once… that noone was cold or hungry or f’d up on heroine. In either case the voters seem to somehow be out of touch with themselves. WTF?
And then there is the charisma factor. “Vote for me, I am Bill Clinton.. I have Charisma”. Ppl will vote for someone because it makes them feel good. In fact, I think that might be the predominant voting strategy. And this is no accident. Jefferson wrote that we will all “divinely inspired” to cast our vote (not the blacks or women, just us white guys, mind you). Hamilton argued with him fiercely, but he ultimately lost the debate.
So, yea, 99% is too low. But tell you what… go watch your tele, go buy your manufactured goods, eat too much food and gain a few pounds and, whatever you do, don’t think too much. You need to be in shape for the vote coming up.