Inspiration, Courage, & Democracy
Ever since the fight last year in California over Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that took away marriage equality, the christian supremacists have been nervous. They seem to remember only the good old days when homophiles cowered in darkened stairways on disreputable streets, rather than the new, improved post-Stonewall generation of gays and lesbians and transgendered and others who are just tired of all their shit and don't want to put up with it anymore.
Thus, to their surprise, there was a gay backlash against the hate and homophobia. People on the side of equality have protested, accused, and boycotted, and the boycotts have been unexpectedly successful. Some of us will even admit to a bit of schadenfreude at the shocked and hurt alacrity with which the Mormon Church, proud funders of anti-gay initiatives across the US, pulled back into its shell, trying to avoid the glare of attention and accountability.
And now I read* that the anti-gay crowd in Washington State, the ones who have rushed to create a ballot initiative to keep that state's new domestic partnership law from going into effect (lest more people find happiness), are petitioning "the state's Public Disclosure Commission to keep the names of their donors secret because they say the supporters have received threats."
"Threats", in this instance, typically means such as "threats of economic boycott", but always said in a vague and dark way to imply as much menace and violent imagery as they can muster. It's more bluster and a threat to democracy.
We have, in America, a strong tradition of openness in our legal and government processes, even when secrecy is much desired. Except in the rarest of cases, the accused are guaranteed the right to face their accuser in court. Those who fund political campaigns are required, as much as they try to get around it, to have their names known so that all of us can know who's trying to buy influence.
And, in public initiatives like this, who supports the initiative, whether by contributions or by signing petitions, is a matter of public record. Or should be.
I am surprised by the number of people who want to take away my civil rights who feel they should suffer no opposition, no disapprobation, no criticism whatsoever. I have nothing good to say about such people so this paragraph ends here.
Neither do I have any sympathy whatsoever for those who want to restrict my rights and freedoms as an American citizen but refuse to do it openly and publicly lest they be taken to task for their sanctimonious attitudes. Their whiny complaints of persecution find my ears stone deaf.
Forty years ago, in this country, within my lifetime, homosexuality was both a mental illness and a crime. That has changed slowly through the intervening decades–at least in law if not entirely in attitude–because of the courage and sacrifices of untold numbers of gays and lesbians and other sexual outlaws, people whose persecution was violent, bloody, often fatal. Too much of it still continues to this day. Vague talk of "threats", indeed.
Just a few days ago, another slap from another group of christian supremacists; the details you can find in the posting at Pam's House Blend ("Concerned Women for America waving a pistol at ENDA. Literally", 12 August 2009). This time they were riled up over the proposed legislation known as ENDA ("The Employment Non-Descrimination Act"), which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual identity.
First we were asked to make some sense of this deranged logic
Societies that lose respect for marriage eventually lose creative energy derived from the delayed gratification that strengthens families. Instead, people strive for immediate, sensory pleasure, and societies become less dynamic and fertile. Government grows bigger to pick up the pieces and create grounds for even greater hegemony.
Perhaps it was supposed to distill to this: "To put it more simply, a statute that directly contradicts God's moral law is illegitimate."
What was more shocking to some of us, but increasingly commonplace in our current, radical-conservative mode of discourse, the referenced article was accompanied by an image of a hand gun.
A "treat" perhaps? Or an actual threat. Later the image was removed; I feel certain that in the usual way it would be dismissed as a "joke" gone awry.
This past week the President honored, among other role-model Americans, Harvey Milk with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. (A nice essay at Law Dork.) This dismayed many, of course, but I felt immensely proud for it. Milk was the first openly gay man elected to a government office in the country.
Milk faced threats but he worked for what he believed in openly and courageously. He is an inspiration to a great many of us; he should be an inspiration to all Americans.
———-
* Rachel LaCorte, "Wash. gay partnership foes want donor names secret", The Seattle Times, undated but c. 12 August 2009.]
3 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 01.08
Permalink
I can't believe those clods will be able to keep names on petitions secret once this goes to court. Petitions are matters of public record. What's more, they should be. People not prepared to stand behind their backing of laws and public-policy measures don't deserve to have their preferences count. Because only when their names attach to whatever it is they want or don't want is there any hope of people advocating responsibly in the first place, and demonstrating their willingness to be held publicly accountable for what happens (or doesn't happen) should they get their way.
Alas, your characterization, "Christian supremacists" is right on the mark for these bigots. It fortunately does not apply to all Christians. For starters, ones willing to heed the golden rule.
on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 01.22
Permalink
I'm bothered by this "Societies that lose respect for marriage . . ." prattle. In my understanding, marriage is supposed to be a union entered into through the mutual desires of two people. When marriage becomes an obligation for one or both parties (think shotgun wedding), loss of respect for marriage, and worse, is virtually assured. Same goes for those who game the system by using marriage as cover for serial affairs.
Yet, both forms of abuse of the concept of mutuality and sincerity have long been accepted and de-facto endorsed by many of the same people now so bent out of shape by the prospect of gay marriage. IMO, hypocrisy and hollow morality aren't strong selling points for the institution of marriage or for people who would prescribe attitudes and behavior for the rest of society.
Strangely, we hear little or nothing from these folks about marriage-as-serial-affairsm shotgun weddings or those entered into for largely economic or social purposes.
on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 11.06
Permalink
Oh, SW, I'm quite sure that shotgun weddings can easily be seen as upholding traditional marriage because … well, because it reinforces the idea that marriage is the only "legitimate" arrangement for having sex and becoming pregnant.
Of course most of us recognize these as excuses rather than anything approaching reasonable reasons, but handy excuses can be very beguiling, apparently