NOH8
There has been some rejoicing on the side of equality (and some pursed-lipped tsk-tsking on the anti-equality side) since Cindy McCain came out in support of marriage equality and joined the "NOH8" campaign.
I suppose it's gratifying to have a prominent Republican do the right thing, but how many gold stars must one dispense to someone who finally–finally!–does the right thing? It feels more like it did when one was expected to congratulate an official of the Bush Administration if he managed not to do something really, really stupid for a change.
But here's the tsk-tsking part (hands on hips please): "I don't think Cindy McCain has a right to call us 'haters'. Just because we believe marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't mean we hate homosexuals."
Well, I find it ever harder to lend any credence whatsoever to this claim. The sole argument in its favor has a very scholastic ring to it, going something like this: "Oh, I don't hate homosexuals; I love my God, and He hates homosexuals."*
There's really no other way around it so far as I can tell. Virtually all opposition to marriage equality is traced by the anti-equality crowd to their book of stories. It begins with the observation that "God made them man and woman", apparently using an Adam-and-Eve model to invent the notion that marriage is somehow exclusively man-and-woman; and ends with nohing from Leviticus that homosexuality is "anathema", which is construed in the present day by the anti-equality mob to be something really, really awful–yea, perhaps even hateful. With that belief as their foundation, I find the claim of "hating the sin but loving the sinner" a little hard to swallow.
There are two very useful side-effects to the courtroom process of Perry v. Schwarzenegger : facts are being established under oath (i.e., courtroom rules rather than broadcast television rules), and those who are being forced to disavow their specious arguments, fabricated "facts", and hateful rhetoric are suffering embarrassment. This is extremely useful to the cause of equality.
While we're here and vaguely on the subject of religiously fueled hatred, I wanted to point out a very interesting article at Good As You (G-A-Y), "Those who can't remember the past...", where Jeremy has dug up a few facsimile newspaper clippings to share with us and to establish that those religious bigots who wish to claim that religion was never used to enforce ideas of prejudice against black people, have no basis in historic fact.
The clippings, mere examples of newspaper "reporting" of the time, have these headlines:
- "Florida Baptists Oppose Integration" (1954)
- "Missionary Baptists Oppose Integration" (1957)
- "Tarboro Free Will Baptists Oppose Racial Integration" (1955)
To be honest, there's nothing terribly startling about these facts, but it gives them a sense of heightened contrast against the specious arguments and fabricated claims, keeping reality feeling a little more steady.
———-
* I know I've mentioned before the shocking oddity from an interview I read years ago with then-president Reagan, in which he was quoted as saying, in answer to a question about his recent cancer surgery: "Oh no, I didn't have cancer. I had something inside of me that had cancer and it was removed." Chilling.
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity, Reflections
5 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 Sunday, 24 January 2010 at 22.16
Permalink
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say I think you're mistaken that all of those opposed to same-sex marriage are motivated by hate. I think some are motivated by devotion to tradition and the familiar, and spooked by the prospect of change. Some of them probably fall back on religious "justification" rather than reveal themselves as being so hidebound.
Tactically, tarring all opponents as haters might also serve to harden some people in their opposition who, in time, might come around, as San Diego's mayor did.
Having said all that, I'm sure some who oppose same-sex marriage do so out of raw prejudice and even hatred. I just have learned over time it's usually a mistake to say of people of some kind or another that they're all alike.
on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 at 11.24
Permalink
It sounds plausible, SW, and I used to go with the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think I do anymore, although "hate" may conflate with "fear" in this instance. Some people, perhaps, who are vaguely opposed to, say, marriage equality or other civil rights for gay people may feel that it's just not the way it's done, and they're coming from tradition, inertia, and lack of giving it some thought.
Of those who have strong feelings against equality for gays and lesbians, I don't think I've ever heard of one who, sooner or later (usually sooner) doesn't use the christian bible (NB, the old testament part) to justify themselves, and the god of the old testament is certainly not a nice one, but keen on fear, hate, and retribution. This approach solves two conflicts for said type of people: it provides what they think is a rational basis for their irrational emotion and it absolves them of responsibility for denying my humanity and civil rights if they think their god is telling them to do it. Given the latter, it's ironic, isn't it, that it's their bible with the parable of Herod washing his hands.
Regardless, their "fear" or "hate" — I'll use a more precise word if we can identify it — is irrational emotion that can't be appeased despite decades of attempts. I'm tired of smiling politely while people explain that I'm not fit to be an American with equal rights.
on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 at 23.51
Permalink
"I'm tired of smiling politely while people explain that I'm not fit to be an American with equal rights."
I hope you know I would never expect you or any gay or lesbian person to do that, and don't want for you or anyone else to be put in a position where someone tells you such a thing. Also, in expressing thoughts about this, I'm respectfully mindful that I have never been the target of unjust, unwarranted and irrational discrimination.
on Thursday, 28 January 2010 at 00.08
Permalink
And I hope you know, SW, that my generalizing comments about homophobes and their mischief are not directed at you, a valued friend an alley on these matters.
It's the quandary: indeed, you don't know what it's like to be gay and, I imagine, never will. But that's what empathy is all about, imagining something you can't experience, and it works surprisingly well (except among conservatives who claim not to believe in it).An empathetic ear is much to be hoped for and is probably the best we can do, but it's good enough, too. Isn't that how we work towards a just society?
In thinking thoughts like this, I'm always mindful of the lines by Pat Parker (ref) in her poem "For The White Person Who Wants to Know How To Be My Friend":
Yes, it's a poetic paradox, but it captures something essential, and it applies to many situations. I find it useful.
on Thursday, 28 January 2010 at 15.02
Permalink
It's empathy, but it's something more as well. Unjust, unwarranted and irrational discrimination offends a decent, thinking person's sense of justice and fair play. It certainly should offend a Christian person's sense of the golden rule.