In California, spontaneous protests over the passage of Prop 8 continue to swell. Now there's talk of a national protest, though whether this amounts to anything remains to be seen. This is starting to look important.
I share some of Dale Carpenter's reservations about the optics of protesting against churches. But I wonder, hopefully, whether we're seeing a gay political awakening on the gay-marriage front.
For one reason, I'm so very, very tired of hearing from our opponents that gay folks don't really care much about marriage anyway. For another, the civil-rights era in the marriage struggle is ending.
The civil-rights model tried to separate marriage from the political process, because we didn't have nearly enough straight support to win. That left our opponents with the political field to themselves while we busied ourselves in the courts. Not any more. We now have enough straight allies to win, long-term, in the political arena.
To judge from the protests, that's where we'll be going. Goodbye Thurgood Marshall, hello Martin Luther King. Goodbye Lambda Legal, hello ACT-UP. Sure, more love, less anger than in the AIDS days. But the protests, provided they are peaceful and don't turn hateful or anti-religious, point the way forward.
A friend in California writes:
The battle now is purely one in the culture. Against every instinct of our framers, we now have to fight for our rights (or this one, at least) in the political arena itself. That means the protests are the leading edge now, not the courts.
If more gay people in California and elsewhere draw that lesson from Prop 8, our loss won't have been in vain.
60 Comments for “Political Awakening?”
posted by Ashpenaz on
Here’s a thought–why don’t we let those gays who are in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship or who see that as the ideal make the decisions about how we approach the issue? It’s really not helpful to have a bunch of people march in the streets shouting, “Marriage is a hypocritical, patriarchal, oppressive institution filled with adulterers–but please let us have it now!”
I bet that those of use who hold lifelong, sexual exclusivity as an ideal would have a completely different set of tactics than the self-defeating ones the gay community is now using on our behalf. Please stop. Thanks in advance.
posted by Bobby on
“I bet that those of use who hold lifelong, sexual exclusivity as an ideal ”
—Newsflash, plenty of gays that support gay marriage DON’T support sexual exclusivity. They just want the legal and social benefits that come with marriage, they still want to have threesomes and foursomes, and all the gay promiscuous fun with the benefits of hospital visitations, taxes and inheritance.
I’m not saying monogamy doesn’t exist among gays, I’m saying don’t assume that anyone who supports gay marriage supports sexual exclusivity.
Lastly, I think protesting in front of churches makes us look like enemies of religion. ACT UP made a lot of enemies in the 1980s after they disrupted a service in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. We cannot afford to look like sore losers. 46% of Americans are pissed off that Obama won, yet I doubt they’ll be protesting during the inauguration.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
I fail to see how screaming in the streets is going to have a more positive outcome than what has currently been done. In fact, it’ll make things worse, as we’ll be playing right into the hands of those who despise us (fundies, Mormons, the black churches).
I’ll say it again — if you can’t even get supposedly gay-friendly Dems who voted for Obama to support gay marriage, I’d say it’s time to accept the cold reality that we’re going to have to bring the country along slowly, and push for domestic partnerships first. Or, an even more sensible, if unpleasant route would be to abandon the entire gay marriage issue for now and pursue far more popular anti workplace-discrimination laws, instead. As long as we continue to have an “all or nothing” mentality, we’re going to continue to end up with the latter. Nobody’s crazy about it, but how much longer are we going to continue to ignore reality?
posted by tristram on
How many of the people now demonstrating in the streets even bothered to vote? The voter turnout in San Fran was a pathetic 53%.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Could whoever thought it was a good idea to protest in front of Rick Warren’s church please stop? Please, oh please? I like and respect Pastor Warren. Maybe you could shut up with the chanting and let me try this instead: “Pastor Warren, you and I agree on most things. Jesus is my Lord and Savior. I’m a Christian who, like you, is struggling to live out my faith. I have come to the conclusion that the Bible we both agree is inspired doesn’t discuss men born with a homosexual orientation. I do think the Bible sets standards for sexual relationships, though. I believe the standards which God has set for straight marriages apply to same-sex marriages. I realize that many in the gay community don’t support traditional marriage or lifelong sexual exclusivity for straights or gays. That’s why I have chosen not to identify as gay. But I am attracted to men.
“As a Christian man with a homosexual orientation, I have come to the prayerful conclusion that a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship between homosexual men can be blessed by God. We might disagree on this, but I hope you will at least give me the opportunity to see if it works. If all you can support right now is civil unions, then I hope you will vote for that. And I hope you will come to my ceremony at the ELCA Lutheran (or Episcopal or UCC) to see how the Spirit might be working to open to the door to lifelong, sexually exclusive gay relationships.”
Or you can chant outside his door. Which approach do you think will work?
posted by BobN on
Nothing’s stopping you from writing that letter to Pastor Warren…
posted by BobN on
“The voter turnout in San Fran was a pathetic 53%.”
I don’t think that includes early voting and absentee, but, still, it is pathetic.
Our system of allowing the media to announce East Coast results at 5 P.M. Pacific is no friend to democracy. It’s systemic voter suppression.
posted by Richard Parker on
If promiscuity is what you want, then why are you asking for an institution that implies recognized monogamy?
posted by Pat on
Or you can chant outside his door. Which approach do you think will work?
Unfortunately, neither. Because one thing I’ve never heard these pastors say is something like, “Gee, I would whole-heartedly support same sex marriage, and would if gay people were no more anti-religious and no more promiscuous than straight people. In fact, I will marry a gay couple if they can promise fidelity as I would expect from an opposite sex couple.”
Our system of allowing the media to announce East Coast results at 5 P.M. Pacific is no friend to democracy. It’s systemic voter suppression.
I get your point Tristram, and perhaps we shouldn’t announce any results for president until the polls in Alaska and Hawaii close. But since there were other important things to vote on in California, such as Proposition 8, announcing the results for president should not have deterred those from voting. It apparently didn’t deter similar percentage of persons from voting elsewhere in California.
posted by Jorge on
I bet that those of use who hold lifelong, sexual exclusivity as an ideal would have a completely different set of tactics than the self-defeating ones the gay community is now using on our behalf. Please stop. Thanks in advance.
I don’t know the details, but every court challenge requires the cooperation of at least one such couple. But I do think if they were the only participants in the protesting, we’d see something different.
That whole protest against religion thing… the truth is that most of this country’s religions oppose gay marriage. A lot of faiths united in favor of Proposition 8. I do think the protests are singling out only the easiest targets and not going after all of them. It’s hard to have a backlash against such a broad coalition all at once.
The protests can’t be kept up forever. Eventually they are going to die down or the country is going to ignore them. The purpose of the protests has to be identifying all of the people who funded the campaign for Proposition 8, and all the people who voted for it and holding them accountable, but even that can only go so far.
posted by Attmay on
This is not the only time I will say this: If you want to be promiscuous and have orgies, do not get married.
posted by Kevin on
Why I’m not doing anything about Prop 8:
I live in Oklahoma, and we’ve been facing organized religious fundamentalists for years. We have been subjected to legislation that is far more punitive and destructive to our families than Prop 8. We were called “worse than terrorists” by a state legislator (Sally Kern) who was reelected last week. Her comments were actually applauded by the state Republican party, and the GOP has now taken over both the State House and Senate.
All this time, whenever we’ve asked for help from our friends around the country, we’ve been dismissed as “stupid” for living in “Jesusland”, and told we should simply move to a more enlightened place like — well, California. HRC and other groups that want our donations have ignored us. When we had our demonstration against our own State Constitutional amendment, not a single political leader – at the state or national level – could be bothered to attend.
For now, I’m not losing any sleep that California activists didn’t have their act together in time to defeat Prop 8. One thing I do know is that lashing out in a racist fashion or in a bigoted way toward a religious group is counter-productive and ultimately hurts our cause.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’ve already written that letter to my current pastor, here in this mid-Nebraska town. He accepts me and hopes that I will get to know more people in the church, thus slowly breaking down barriers. He would happily officiate at any ceremony which might come up. Here’s the thing–he didn’t always used to feel this way. Was his heart changed by Pride rallies or people chanting outside his door? No–it was through giving pastoral care to men with homosexual orientations who wanted to live our their sexuality with their faith.
posted by Mark on
“Our system of allowing the media to announce East Coast results at 5 P.M. Pacific is no friend to democracy. It’s systemic voter suppression.”
Oh please. We have freedom of speech here, and knowing the results from Indiana does not prevent anyone from voting in California.
posted by BobN on
It doesn’t prevent anyone from voting, but knowing the result of the presidential election — as we often do — discourages participation.
posted by Pat on
I’ve already written that letter to my current pastor, here in this mid-Nebraska town. He accepts me and hopes that I will get to know more people in the church, thus slowly breaking down barriers. He would happily officiate at any ceremony which might come up. Here’s the thing–he didn’t always used to feel this way. Was his heart changed by Pride rallies or people chanting outside his door? No–it was through giving pastoral care to men with homosexual orientations who wanted to live our their sexuality with their faith.
Good job, Ashpenaz! Now get going. Let others have their pride parades or whatever, do what you want to do, and associate with whom you want to associate with. Freedom’s a great thing.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Freedom might be a great thing, but using your freedom to do self-defeating, counterproductive things which prevent other people from gaining the rights they deserve is not a good thing. Holding marches, chanting in front of churches, throwing rallies are tactics used by gays who mostly don’t want marriage–and these tactics prevent gays who do want marriage from getting the right to marry.
I am sure that Rick Warren would be much more impressed with men in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships or men with that ideal who sought him out for pastoral counseling. He’d also be impressed with gays who share his love of God-inspired Scripture who can intelligently discuss what Paul was really talking about. He might not agree to marriage rights, but I’d bet he’d be willing to compromise on civil unions. I also bet he’d welcome gays in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships into his church. I know there are such couples in mine. Plus, I’m there, and my pastor, who is a lot like Rick Warren, supports me.
Please stop the rallies, the shouting, and the marches. Please go home. Let those of us who actually want marriage do what we need to do to gain the rights we desire.
posted by Bobby on
Rick Warren is an evangelical, he believes homosexuality is a sin. He may “love the sinner” but that doesn’t mean he wants the “sinner” to get married to the same sex.
What this means is that it doesn’t matter if gay couples are monogamous, polygamous, or wear boring GAP clothes. So to the protesters, you’re wasting your time.
Ashpenaz, Rick Warren doesn’t care if you share his love for Jesus. That doesn’t mean anything for him. In fact, most evangelicals would question that claim, since according to them, nobody who really loves Jesus can be gay. God would have “cured them” already.
It is simply a waste of time to argue with those people. And forget about arguing with scripture, for every pro-gay theologian they have hundreds of anti-gay theologians.
What really surprises me is that no one is blaming the black churches. 70% of blacks voted against us. Yet no one says anything.
Everyone is afraid of sounding “racist.”
I think this is a great turning point for the gay community. It is my hope that gay liberals will reevaluate their stands on affirmative-action. Gays have no problem going to war against homophobic Jamaican reggae singers. The war has to be brought to others as well.
posted by Jorge on
I blame the African American community, but if I were at work I’d be a lot more careful about what I’d say. I mean okay so there is a lot of blame to go around. Blaming black “churches”… maybe I don’t have all the facts but I think that’s too generous, letting them off with religion as an excuse. Aren’t Hispanics/Latinos just as religious as African Americans?
The result should be that gays become less willing to work with African American groups and some of their allies. Not out of malice, but out of an increased awareness that we’re a little far apart. Of course, we should always act to right any injustice or wrong, but maybe we shouldn’t be helping them to hurt us.
posted by Pat on
Freedom might be a great thing, but using your freedom to do self-defeating, counterproductive things which prevent other people from gaining the rights they deserve is not a good thing. Holding marches, chanting in front of churches, throwing rallies are tactics used by gays who mostly don’t want marriage–and these tactics prevent gays who do want marriage from getting the right to marry.
Sorry, Aspenaz, freedom means that sometimes people will do things you would not prefer. As long as it doesn’t turn into violence, or hinders others’ freedom, people may use their First Amendment rights. You’ve stated you are doing things that will help you get married, and you know others that have agreed with you and done so. Not get to it. At some point, you have to stop blaming others. Besides, not everyone wants to get married.
What really surprises me is that no one is blaming the black churches. 70% of blacks voted against us. Yet no one says anything.
Everyone is afraid of sounding “racist.”
Bobby, elsewhere, I addressed the high percentage of Blacks that voted for Prop. 8. And I have expressed my dislike of that situation. I also stated my disappointment in the even higher percentage of Republicans and conservatives that voted for Prop. 8. I didn’t address their churches though. I suspect in each of these groups, their churches have influenced their vote with anti-gay bigotry and/or rhetoric. Maybe I’m still a small minority, but I ignore nonsense from churches, including if, at a service, a clergyperson uses hate or bigotry and suggests who should the congregation be voting for. And I’ve seen how most people can think independently when pastors start getting political, but yet can be influenced when it regards homosexuality. I guess it’s easy for straight people to buy into the condemnation of homosexuality since that is a behavior they won’t engage in, though. That’s especially too bad, because it seems like people should start working on their own problems, before they start worrying about others’ sexualities.
I have also criticized churches that donated a lot of money, especially if from out of state, to strip rights/privileges from persons. But it’s the voters who voted. They should have seen through the hate and bigotry, but too many apparently didn’t.
posted by Kevin Ivers on
Geez, from down here in South America, you guys up there couldn’t appear more Peronist and Third World in your approach to this whole Prop 8 thing. First, you achieve something phenomenally important (gay marriage), then you draw a ballot challenge, then the gay community all but ignores putting up a fight in lieu of slavish idolatry towards Obama. You promptly lose the Prop 8 fight. And instead of looking coldly and squarely at why YOU lost the fight, why YOU’RE to blame for your own failure (as well as the total lack of support by your so-called friends in the Democratic Party hierarchy, who didn’t lift a finger to help you), you root around looking for enemies to blame instead. And this pleases your political beneficiaries to no end.
So go ahead, guys. March against churches. Stomp on crosses. Blame African Americans or Latinos or anyone else. They’re loving it at the top of the pyramid, because it means you’ll remain a marginalized force in politics, i.e. totally dependent on their good graces and with nowhere else to turn. And you’ll never direct your ire where it belongs — at your so-called champions who don’t care jack shit about your agenda or your empowerment and are SELLING you hope, not giving you any for real. And you’re still all too willing to keep paying the price for it.
I counsel thinking gay and lesbian Americans to give up on the gay movement and find something more productive to do with your lives (and your money). It’s an abusive, self-absorbed, manipulative and hopeless boyfriend you should kick to the curb once and for all.
posted by Bobby on
Kevin, don’t compare South America with the states. I lived in Venezuela for 20 years, it was hell. Everyone says “marico” all the time. There are no gay characters on TV shows, unless you’re talking about flamboyant nelly queens. Gays are pretty closeted over there. Only Colombia seems to be open minded about gays.
Gays in America are doing great! There are no more bar raids, there are openly gay characters on TV, a gay cable station, plenty of vacation spots, and we have less gay bashers here than we do in countries like Brazil.
posted by Tonio on
Kevin from OK:
All this time, whenever we’ve asked for help from our friends around the country, we’ve been dismissed as “stupid” for living in “Jesusland”, and told we should simply move to a more enlightened place like — well, California.
Yes, reality bites.
I live in Virginia, the state with the most homophobic laws in the nation. From a purely tactical point of view, it’s foolish to expend scarce resources on states like Oklahoma, Virginia and Alabama at the current time. We’ve got to win this one state at a time, starting with states where we are likely to win particularly the more populous ones.
Sure, I’ve got personal reasons for continuing to live in Jesusland, but I’m realistic enough to realize that I’m not going to see any change here for a very long time.
posted by Tonio on
I challenge Kevin from somewhere “down here in South America” to explain to us the legal de facto rights he has in his country, and how those protections are better than the protections we have in the US. Specifically, is sodomy legal there (either by act of legislature or court decision)?
Also challenge Kevin to describe his education and experience in politics and government, with special attention to his actual, successful real-world experience as a politician (organizer, lobbyist, etc). Ie, tell us why we should follow your advice.
posted by Kevin Ivers on
LOL disqualify and discredit the messenger instead of understanding what he has to say (especially if he’s a foreigner). Another textbook Peronist response.
I’m even gladder I gave up this movement than I was before.
Enjoy, boys. I’m finished. Won’t be bothering you any longer.
posted by Paco from Massachusetts on
So Kevin ‘from South America’, how exactly does challenging the Democratic party structure or American electoral politics achieve the goal of securing gay marriage? I don’t really understand what you are proposing — joining the Republicans? Armed revolution? (I am indeed amused by your calling us Peronistas…though you’ve given up gay activism, perhaps if you give up the smugness and victim mentality as well your comments would be better received).
posted by Bobby on
Hey Kevin, you know what they do in Mexico to foreigners that criticize their government? They deport them! So you go ahead and bitch about the good ol’ USA, the fact is that in this country you have way more freedoms than in the rest of the world.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Quote of the day in reference to the defeat of Prop 8. Can you guess the speaker?
“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”
Was it Jorge? Was it Pat? Was it me? NO!!!!
It was Elton John. Can you feel the love tonight?
posted by Jorge on
Elton John is from a different generation than most of us, and he carries himself as someone who has achieved a lot of success in his personal life. He’s seen things get better. He doesn’t need the hope of legalized marriage to sustain him. It’s a rare thing.
I think Kevin from South America said a lot of things that are true (Gays are too Peronist? Yes, we are much too obsessed with that over the hill Material Girl.) But relax, it’s not going to last forever. We’re not lost yet. If it was our complacency that led to Proposition 8 passing, maybe we need to do less of that.
posted by Marty on
Hmmm – I think many people are missing the significance about Prop 8.
People are angry because this is the first time that the right to marry has been taken away. 180,000 couples have been divorced by a popular vote. And in a state that’s known to be a champion of civil rights.
Yes, Arkansas, Florida had amendments too. That’s pretty insulting no matter where you live. 2004 was depressing also. But couple Proposition 8 with the myth of California and Obama’s win, and you can see why people would be more than the usual amount of pissed off.
If this leads to a popular uprising and movement, well, we need everyone we can get to participate – gay, straight, married, single, young, old. If we had this kind of passion behind us to begin with, Prop 8 might have lost. Even if we lose in the courts, we have a chance to fight again in 2010. If we can harness this movement into real action this time, in 2010 the outcome will be different.
Yes…we…can.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Here’s some rules for that uprising you want:
1. Stop using the word “gay” as a self-identifier. It carries too much baggage with it. I tell people who need to know that I’m attracted to men.
2. Realize that there are a lot of people who don’t need to know and who don’t want to know. Don’t come out to people who aren’t asking.
3. No more parades and rallies. No more rainbows, equal signs, or pink triangles. Never mention Stonewall again.
4. Instead of chanting in front of churches, go to church. Be such a good example that people will see how men who are attracted to men can form solid, traditional relationships.
5. Make lifelong sexual exclusivity your ideal. If this isn’t your ideal, then, please, stop fighting for marriage.
6. Realize that civil unions might actually be the solution. Men’s lifelong relationships with other men are different in many ways from straight couples.
7. Stop beating up on old women and stamping on crosses.
Let’s start with this, shall we? Then we’ll see real progress instead of people running to the polls to take away what’s left of our rights.
posted by Deirdre Saoirse Moen on
As a straight married person, I want to apologize for my complacence. I donated money (late, and not much), I put up a sign (but very late and not where many could see), and I talked mostly with people I agreed with.
It never occurred to me that it didn’t matter to gay couples, of course it would.
What didn’t occur to me was that so many people would vote yes. I only realized how close it would be within two weeks of the election.
I personally have no problem with protesting against homophobic churches. I haven’t done it yet (and I might), but I feel like my own marriage means less because it is less about love and more about bigotry than it was before the election, and that makes me hella mad.
posted by Jorge on
I’m no liberal activist, but I really have to object to some of that, Ashpenaz. We’re only change hostility toward gays by making it personal. Personally knowing a gay person close to you can be transformative.
Also, while I agree that in these times one has to be careful about what words to use when one’s actually coming out, identifying as gay helps to break the stereotypes and associations with that word.
Are those really the most important things?
posted by Bobby on
“1. Stop using the word “gay” as a self-identifier. It carries too much baggage with it. I tell people who need to know that I’m attracted to men.”
—So if I want to know if someone is gay or not, what am I supposed to ask? Ask them “Do you like pussy or do you like dick”? Come on, dude! Even straights like the word gay, they’re useful words, like male or female, black and white, mexican and american, blond and brunette.
“2. Realize that there are a lot of people who don’t need to know and who don’t want to know. Don’t come out to people who aren’t asking.”
—Sure, like straight people don’t display photos of their children or wear wedding rings or hide their sexuality.
“7. Stop beating up on old women and stamping on crosses.”
—That one I agree with. Gays are horrible at PR, true. But you have to understand the resentment and anger people feel right now, as soon as I saw the video on youtube, I saw comments like “filthy sodomites, goddamm cowards, blah blah blah.” There’s hatred on both sides. In fact, if gays had been protesting in front of black churches, they would have gotten more than an old woman holding a cross.
It’s a culture war, Ash, things will get ugly.
posted by Throbert McGee on
So if I want to know if someone is gay or not, what am I supposed to ask?
How about, “Do you date women, or men?” Or, “Are you hetero or homo?”
(Of course, if you personally don’t agree that the word gay has accumulated some problematic “baggage,” then by all means continue to use it.)
posted by Tonio on
I’m puzzled why people continue to reply to Ashpenaz. Although it’s impossible to determine what his true motivations are, his posts are repetitive and contribute nothing to the debate at hand.
His basic premise is that gay people return to the closet and humbly beg straight society for civil rights. Ain’t gonna happen because as many of you have already pointed out (repeatefdly) we do not march in lockstep like conservatives.
Also, the name “Ashpenaz” is a curious handle for a gay person. Ashpenaz is a character from the Bible who was the master of eunuchs for King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1:3). WTF?
posted by Bobby on
“How about, “Do you date women, or men?” Or, “Are you hetero or homo?””
—The first one seems a little too personal. What if the person isn’t dating anyone? What if he’s married?
The second one sounds clinical.
Gay or straight are friendly words. Seriously, we make such a big deal of this. We have no problem asking someone if he’s a catholic, protestant, democrat, yet the word “gay” seems to bother some.
We have to lead by example. If we can’t be comfortable with the word gay, how the hell are people gonna be comfortable with us? Even the President of the United States is comfortable with the word gay. (both Bush and Obama)
posted by Jim DLH on
Jonathan,
“The civil-rights model tried to separate marriage from the political process…”
I’m astounded by this statement. The California marriage equality movement has always been about public education, coalition building, religious and ethnic outreach, and legislative progress in addition to court challenges.
Did you know that Marriage Equality California, PFLAG, Marriage Equality USA, and other groups have been doing public education since the 1990’s? Do you know of Equality California Institute’s “Let Freedom Ring” campaign, which put out that commercial about the bride being prevented from getting married?
Did you not see that the California NAACP and the United Farm Workers came out in support of marriage equality before the California Supreme Court decision?
Have you seen the list of Proposition 8 opponents at http://www.noonprop8.com/about/who-opposes-prop-8 ? That list was built over years of coalition-building and outreach.
Do you remember the legislative buildup towards marriage equality, starting with basic domestic partnerships, then comprehensive domestic partnerships (AB 205), then the legislature passing marriage equality bills *twice*? Did you notice Equality California working through every election cycle to elect equality-supporting legislators, and defend our allies for re-election?
In the California marriage equality movement for the last 15 years, just as in the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s, the political process, the legislative process, and court cases are all part of mix.
Where on earth did you get this idea that “The civil-rights model tried to separate marriage from the political process…”?
posted by Ashpenaz on
Anything less than swinging a dildo from a penis float is considered “in the closet” by the gay community. No, I am not suggesting that. I give honest answers to honest questions. But there’s no benefit from forcing people into a coming out drama when they don’t care and don’t want to know.
I am suggesting that men establishing lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships with other men is going to win the hearts and minds of voters more than angry rallies. This seems so self-evident that I can’t believe anyone disagrees. But I would bet the people who disagree don’t want lifelong monogamy either as a reality or an ideal.
As for “Ashpenaz”: There is nothing in the Bible which says eunuchs were either castrated or celibate. I believe that the word “eunuch” is a word which means all those who were not born for traditional marriage. I believe Jesus welcomed all those with homosexual orientations into the Kingdom when He welcomed the eunuchs.
Ashpenaz had a “warm, womblike love” for Daniel. He is, for me, one of many positive portraits of same-sex love in Scripture–one I would bring up with Rick Warren, along with David and Jonathan, the Centurion and his “beloved slave,” Isaiah and his beloved friend, the Ethiopian eunuch, etc. None of these Biblical men wore a rainbow flag. Nor were they oppressed for their same-sex love–Jesus welcomed the Centurion. Paul doesn’t discuss men with an inborn homosexual orientation in lifelong, monogamous relationships–he’s talking about men, straight or gay, who throw away all morality and toss condoms from a penis float while wearing a dildo and an Amy Winehouse wig.
posted by Greg on
In the URL option I put in a blog post from Nate Silver, where he explains a little about prop 8.
Kevin the mistake isn’t with gays so called worship of Obama, it’s with the No on 8 campaign. From what I understand it just reminded people that discrimination is wrong and hoped people would do the right thing, as well as only stayed in the gay comfort zone and didn’t even try to reach out. This is a mistake that must not be made again.
When it comes to Elton John may I say that not only does he come from a different generation, but from a different country, which may not have the history separate but equal being a complete and utter failure.
This new energy within the gay rights movement may be the best thing that can happen to it if used correctly, however I don’t believe hating on religions and minorities is the way to go. We have the energy now all we need is the proper channel.
posted by Bobby on
“There is nothing in the Bible which says eunuchs were either castrated or celibate”
—Come on, the bible is never THAT specific. Eunuchs existed in many cultures, mainly to take care of the harems and protect the women. They where castrated precisely to keep them from having sex with the women.
Besides, gays have always had their enemies. In ancient rome homosexuality was not approved by the lower classes, only the upper classes had no problems with it. Then St. Augustine wrote his confessions and the Catholic Church became very homophobic. During the spanish Inquisition and in the rest of europe, gays and witches where burned. In Mexico, the spanish conquistadores killed Indians who where gay among others. Even in America, every state used to have sodomy laws, Walt Whitman himself was run out of town after rumors of an affair with one os his students.
You seem to have a very positive outlook about gays in the past. You forget about the sham marriages of Cole Porter, the lies of Rock Hudson, the lawsuit Liberace made against someone that claimed he was gay. The fact that you’re allowed to type at this website is the result of gay rights. In most muslim countries, creating websites like this and posting in them is a crime.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Umm–the reason they were the harem guards was because they weren’t interested in women. They didn’t have to be castrated. Eunuch is not synonymous with castrati, though it includes that as it does all forms of sexual otherness. When Jesus welcomed eunuchs into the Kingdom, He included all the sexually other who were not inclined to traditional marriage for whatever reason, including homosexual orientation.
I don’t remember reading about homosexuality in Augustine. I think he was a breeder, if I’m not correct, and an active one at that. If you look at the lives of St. Serge and St. Bacchus, St. Aelred, and the various unions described by Boswell, you’ll find that at least part of the church recognized the holiness of same-sex love. As we speak, the Anglican Church in Canada is working out same-sex rites. Why not celebrate that instead of blaming the church?
Tennyson openly dedicated In Memoriam to another man. Whitman wrote openly of same-sex love in Calamus. D. H. Lawrence wrote freely in Women In Love and The Prussian Officer. T. E. Lawrence wrote about his homosexuality in The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Melville–Billy Budd. Dickens–David Copperfield and Strether. No, I don’t see the kind of oppression you describe. To call the Nazis or the Conquistadors homophobic is like saying the Plague was homophobic because some of the people who died were homosexual.
Anyway, I think we’d be further ahead with religious groups if we tried to calmly explain to them about Jesus and the eunuchs than to chant outside their door.
posted by Jorge on
Well anyway I figured out there’s going to be one of those national protest things in my city and I figured out where to go.
I think the antidote both to the ugly anti-religious and anti-black scenes and to the vicious homophobia we are seeing right now is for us (gays) to affirm our patriotism and our pride as Americans. That it is because we think marriage rights (and so on) are good for this country, and that our cause is just, that we are rallying. I think that is the one thing that would get through to people regardless of whether they’re for or against us. We have to invoke that higher, unifying power.
I picked up an American flag the other day at the Veteran’s Day parade and I plan to bring it with me. There is nothing more American than exercising the right to demonstrate. You may remember after the backlash against the pro-illegal immigrant rallies where they had all these Mexican flags, they learned their lesson and started carrying the red, white, and blue.
posted by Bobby on
Ashpenaz, tell you what. The next time you see a gay story in freerepublic, argue with them. Join a conservative mailing list and argue your viewpoints every time gay stories come out. Test your theories, see if they work.
posted by Ashpenaz on
“We share an approach, but we disagree on many particulars. We include libertarians, limited-government conservatives, moderates, and classical liberals. We hold differing views on the role of government, personal morality, religious faith, and personal relationships. We share these disagreements openly: we hope that readers will find them interesting and thought-provoking.”
Just so you know, Bobby.
posted by Bobby on
Where is that quote from?
posted by BobN on
“a penis float”
Finally! A reasonable suggestion from Ashpenaz. Now, where did I put the root beer…
posted by Tonio on
Uh, Bobby, you’re feeding the troll.
Ashpenaz is like the Tar-Baby(*) from Br’er Rabbit — every time you engage him you only get drawn-in deeper.
Tieing one’s opponents up in frivolous and dilatory debate is a tried-and-true technique for reducing the effectiveness or your opponents. Although it’s impossible to divine Ashpenaz’s true motives, the content of his posts are indistinguishable those of a fundie troll.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’m not exactly sure why it’s so hard to believe that I simply believe what I say I believe–since that’s the truth. But if you want to think of me as a disruptive troll, that’s fine–as long as you find that sort of thing attractive.
OK, tell me again–why does anyone think a nationwide protest is going to help? Isn’t such a protest going to create a backlash, as has every other protest since Stonewall? Is the gay community’s goal to create enough backlash so that gays are denied every right in every state?
Anyone who participates in the upcoming nationwide protest is officially working against homosexual men like me, who would actually use the right to form a legal union. This protest is intentionally counterproductive.
posted by Jorge on
To be honest, I think a nationwise protest carries greater risks than rewards:
*Negative publicity due to bad behavior or ineffective message
*May fall flat or have low attendance
These are very likely because of poor organization and communication within the gay community. The benefits are that it may be a catalyst for more concrete actions, it will be a clear display of power, and it is a way not to be helpless.
The risk of not doing the protest is missing out on an opportunity for to unite on a political cause, and giving the impression that we can be taken advantage of.
The foundations for a strong grass-roots effort aren’t really there.
posted by gary on
Sorry guys..I just can’t get my undies in a knot over gay “marriage”. Most of my friends are left of center Democrats and NOT OF THEM have trouble sleeping with another man’s wife or someones else boyfriend. But my G_d mention you don’t give a rip about gay marriage and they look at you like you are a Nazi….go figure. Sick of their whining, but mostly of their hypocrisy.
posted by Bobby on
“OK, tell me again–why does anyone think a nationwide protest is going to help?”
—It worked for the blacks. Why wouldn’t it work for the gays?
“To be honest, I think a nationwise protest carries greater risks than rewards:”
—What is there to lose now? Sure, some might accuse gays of being “sore losers,” but at this point does it really matter?
posted by tourist on
Hi!
Sorry to interrupt your blog, but I’m quite desperat to get some information about the coming protests. I’m at hollyday in SF for a while, and want to participate, to support the NO on ban!
Could someone please tell me where the protests will take place?
Thanks!
posted by Jim DLH on
@tourist:
The San Francisco “Join the Impact” rally is Sat Nov 15, 10:30 AM – 12:30 PM PST, at San Francisco City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place. See http://protest8sf.wordpress.com/ and http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/San+Francisco for information.
See http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/ for links to protests in every one of the 50 United States, and 10 other countries.
Make some noise, everyone!
posted by Jorge on
—What is there to lose now? Sure, some might accuse gays of being “sore losers,” but at this point does it really matter?
I was thinking mainly of that ugly scene of people ripping out a cross from an old lady’s hands and stomping on it. I’m very frightened about that. The blacks had (and still have) a lot more discipline.
So it’s either miss out on the best opportunity to make our voices heard, or make a fool of ourselves because we are not yet ready to protest responsibly.
However this is pretty important and I am not going to take responsibility for the actions of those other idiots. We really can’t leave this only to the radicals, and from reading that JoinTheImpact site, they’re progressive (progressives do get a lot of things done) but they sound responsible and definitely not like radicals.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Blacks had Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. We have Lance Bass and Rosie O’Donnell. Blacks had the churches marching with them. We stand outside churches and stamp on crosses. Are you starting to see why our protests aren’t working? This nationwide protest will just reinforce negative stereotypes. People will be more likely to vote against us. If you you choose to participate, tourist, you are working against those like me who want marriage. I ask you to make a positive stand and stay home. Thanks in advance.
posted by Jorge on
Wow. I get called a tourist in my own city. I just feel so honored and specialed by the occassion.
posted by Bobby on
“I was thinking mainly of that ugly scene of people ripping out a cross from an old lady’s hands and stomping on it. I’m very frightened about that. The blacks had (and still have) a lot more discipline.”
—Well, don’t forget that after MLK died, the blacks pretty much went crazy. Riots in all the major cities, black panthers, Malcom-X, Jeremiah Wrigt, etc. And inspite of the craziness, people today don’t say the n-word in front of a black person.
“So it’s either miss out on the best opportunity to make our voices heard, or make a fool of ourselves because we are not yet ready to protest responsibly.”
—I think it will be a learning experience. Sometimes you can’t afford to wait. What better way to show America that we give a damn about gay marriage by protesting the people who voted against gay marriage?
posted by Ashpenaz on
Setting up a protest about gay marriage and then using it as a means to hookup with that night’s partner while stomping on a cross doesn’t really say that the gay community is serious about marriage. There is nothing in these protests which suggest that gays are ready for the responsibility and maturity which comes from a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship.
posted by Pat on
Setting up a protest about gay marriage and then using it as a means to hookup with that night’s partner while stomping on a cross doesn’t really say that the gay community is serious about marriage.
Ashpenaz, I personally do not think it’s a good idea for people to just hook up with strangers, gay or straight. And I certainly condemn those who stomp on someone’s cross, or any other personal article. I would agree that THOSE persons are not ready for marriage.
I went to a hockey game last night, and a couple of guys blurted out “homo” several times throughout the game, apparently also not caring whether children around them heard them. Oh, and all the straight people nearby refused to condemn these person’s behavior. So, according to your logic, all straights are not yet ready for marriage, and most certainly not ready for having children. By the way, this happens at most sporting events I attend. And opposite sex marriage is still legal. Go figure.