Jon Rauch provides a typically excellent summary of the year in gay marriage, which I highly recommend. For my own part, I find I am focusing more and more, not on our own arguments in favor of marriage equality, but on the slow collapse of coherence among our opponents.
I am particularly fascinated by how much effort those who oppose marriage equality are putting into hiding themselves and their arguments from public scrutiny. The people in Washington state who signed petitions to get their initiative to ban even domestic partnerships on the ballot are demanding no one know their identities, and the National Organization for Marriage continues its crusade to keep the sources of its funding to itself. These do not look, to me, like people who are taking much pride in their cause.
Now the defenders of Prop. 8 in California are trying to prevent the court from televising the trial over whether Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. Like so many on the anti-gay right these days, they claim that they fear for their lives and livelihoods if they and their arguments are exposed to public scrutiny. Some witnesses say they won't even testify if the trial is televised.
I think it's time for some perspective here. Their melodramatic claims have nothing on the very real history of what lesbians and gay men have faced in order to fight for their rights. When their very existence is made criminal (as ours was), they may deserve a bit more sympathy. When police start harassing them in their daily lives (as they did for decades with gay men in particular), they'll be on to something worth complaining about. And when they can credibly claim they are beaten, maimed and even murdered for their positions (as we are, even today, for simply being homosexual), they might have a respectable position. Until then, there is simply no comparison between the imprisonment, indignity and deaths suffered in the fight for gay equality throughout generations and the few, exaggerated claims made by NOM and their fellow travelers.
People who believe they are right should be willing to own the morality of their cause, even when that means taking very real, sometimes severe risks such as going to jail, or even being killed -- neither of which anyone opposed to gay equality can truthfully claim. That's what lesbians and gay men have had to do to get where we are. Perhaps that's harsh, but I'm having a very hard time seeing how name-calling really counts as a similar sort of abuse, or how risking some loss of government funds equates with actual peril in a way that would justify refusing to air arguments in a public forum like a court of law.
As if our history weren't enough to shame the whining out of our opponents today, try this: The simple act of getting married has resulted in two men facing imprisonment for 14 years, if not more. Their marriage is criminal for violating the laws against "public indecency."
That's in Malawi, of course, but it illustrates an important point. This is how upside-down the debate is. For heterosexuals, marriage provides a level of social and constitutional privacy for their sexual activities. Once married, they are free to conduct their sexual lives as they wish, and it is rude if not illegal to intrude into those actions against their wishes. For same-sex couples, though, the simple act of getting married somehow exposes their sexual conduct in such a way that the ceremony amounts to public indecency -- without any need even to claim there was a sexual act. In Malawi, it seems, we don't even need to have sex to be indecent.
That is the set of mind we are trying to expose, and we need to do that publicly. But our opponents don't want to have a public debate. That leaves me with the distinct impression our opponents are afraid of nothing more than their own illogic. They want and need to hide because their arguments don't hold up. Of course they lack the pride and the drive of our supporters -- they don't have anything to be proud of. The discriminatory laws they are trying to maintain have no real justification; they are supported by nothing more than fear of homosexual couples.
That's a ludicrous thing to be afraid of, so they have to concoct what they think is a more respectable veneer. But, as with other forms of prejudice, in the end they are victims only of their own fevered imaginations.
That doesn't require a court's protective order; it requires some soul searching.
27 Comments for “Television’s Grave Threat to the Right”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Until then, there is simply no comparison between the imprisonment, indignity and deaths suffered in the fight for gay equality throughout generations and the few, exaggerated claims made by NOM and their fellow travelers.
Shorter Link: We don’t care how much people are abused as long as we’re the ones doing the abusing.
I think you underestimate the damage that hypocrites like yourself do, Link. People realize that you scream and whine and cry about being discriminated against at work and in business, but then demand the firing of people who don’t vote or make political contributions in the way that you want them to do so. People recognize that you shriek about “privacy” when the sexual practices that the gay press openly brags about in public are mentioned by others, but then insist that you may air every single ounce of private information about people you oppose.
In short, you’re merely repeating the mistakes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Barack Obama. And here’s hoping that, after a few more failures, people will start to realize that people like you who think their minority status allows them to be completely contradictory are counterproductive to any gay and lesbian cause.
posted by Bobby on
“The people in Washington state who signed petitions to get their initiative to ban even domestic partnerships on the ballot are demanding no one know their identities, and the National Organization for Marriage continues its crusade to keep the sources of its funding to itself.”
—And what’s wrong with that? Liberals have a tendency to harass those who vote against them, besides, privacy is an important right for everyone. I should be able to sign a petition without getting fired from my job, have my business boycotted, and getting death threats at 3am in the morning.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
NDT, Bobby: I’ve heard a lot CLAIMS made that such things happened, but there was little substantiation that they did to the degree that we’re made to think.
Boycotts are perfectly legal responses to a business that offends or abuses it’s customers.
I’m not saying that some of these incidents didn’t happen, but some perspective is in order.
NONE of it compares to outrages dealt gay folks over the years.
The ban on marriage in CA 6 months after the fact was one of them.
I’m not saying I agree with all the ways that some people reacted after Prop. 8 was passed, but I haven’t heard either of you make any brilliant suggestions as to what YOU would have done BETTER.
Tell me what was the JUSTIFICATION for the ban?!
Why don’t you question who wrote it, and who demanded a popular vote on it, considering the predictable outcome?
Tell you what guys,
Instead of pointing out everyone’s faults.
What would YOU do…and what have you DONE to works towards the same goals?
Just asking.
posted by Jorge on
I strongly disagree. I believe every bit of Sen. Diaz (in NY) and others when they say they are getting death threats for putting themselves out there. Not to mention Robert Traynham (sp?), the staff member under Rick Santorum who was outed by Mike Rogers–who then proceeded to publicize how to contact him. Gay marriage has become for gays what defending segregation was for whites, an excuse to intimidate and get crazy. We are in a climate right now in which the civilized people among us are suing photographers for turning down their weddings. The radicals are posting people’s addresses and phone numbers saying HATE! HATE!, and the wackos come out. It’s unethical, it’s undemocratic, and if we don’t condemn it and do more to ensure that our political opponents feel safe exercising their constitutional rights as fellow members of our American community, then we are only enabling the actions of the worst of us.
And I have news for everyone: that’s why we’re losing so many places. Because Karma has a name.
posted by BobN on
—And what’s wrong with that?
Well, if nothing else, it violates existing law. Petitions are publicly available documents.
I should be able to sign a petition without getting fired from my job, have my business boycotted, and getting death threats at 3am in the morning.
Whether you “should be” is debatable. What is clear is that such protections were not, and are not, available to petitions signers. A lot of people risked a lot more than 3am phone calls to earn the freedoms we have today. For our enemies to claim victimhood on such flimsy grounds is absurd.
posted by Jorge on
Tell you what guys,
Instead of pointing out everyone’s faults.
What would YOU do…and what have you DONE to works towards the same goals?
About shortly after Prop 8, an idea for a national canned food drive came up from one of the national movements. Collect a lot of cans, give to charity, and being that many charities happen to be religious, it would be good publicity. If not dialogue, then at least it would be positive community involvement.
It’s quite simple, really. Gays need to be good people. We need to step away from the ghetto trash and put our best people forward.
NONE of it compares to outrages dealt gay folks over the years.
The ban on marriage in CA 6 months after the fact was one of them.
The ban on marriage in California 6 months after the fact was NOT one of them, much as it deserves to be disdained. No one died, no one’s life was threatened, and no one lost their jobs over it. The comparison is completely out of proportion. Thank you for pointing it out to me in a way I didn’t pick up before.
posted by Lori Heine on
A Major theme, in comment threads here, is always the need for gays and lesbians to be good citizens and generally responsible people, and I wholeheartedly agree.
A lot of us are.
Yes, we can — and definitely should — speak out about the need to do this. This must be in addition to being positive role models.
But at some point, people are also responsible for how they choose to see us.
My mother used to say that what other people thought of me said as much about them as it did about me. And she was right. People generally see what they choose to see, and ignore what they don’t.
Conservatives claim to believe in individual responsibility. Which means that each person is accountable for his or her own behavior, but can reasonably be expected to be held accountable for no one else’s. Ultimately, we are each the captain of our own ship.
They hold us to that standard of judgment — or at least try to — when it comes to how it should be applied to themselves. Whenever someone (misguidedly) tries to tar all straight, white men with the same brush, conservatives scream, “Identity politics!”
But they do it to others all the time.
Women finally had enough of that, and said so.
Blacks eventually also said, “enough.” So did Hispanics. It’s time for gays to do likewise.
There’s only so much I can do to stop people from acting like self-indulgent idiots at Pride parades. I can, and will, continue to be the best role-model I can, and to speak out boldly when I think people need to shape up. But ultimately, they are responsible for themselves.
There will be times when we will simply have to remind our straight, conservative friends that “they are them, and we are us.”
If we are unwilling to do that much for them, we are considered dishonest. If they are unwilling to do that much for us, they are the dishonest ones.
Their principles either hold for everybody, or they ought to shut up about them. There are no two ways about it.
posted by Arthur on
For just a moment, imagine another organization had collected the petition signatures on any issue. Just for fun, say it was MoveOn.org. Can you imagine the outcry? The demands for full accountability? How many new cycles would we hear how we must protect the sanctity of the petition process by releasing the names so the news organization can double check the government, and thereby keeping them honest?
âTodays poll: Do you think public records should be available to the public? Dial 800-555-1212 for yesâ¦â
posted by JP on
“Shorter Link: We don’t care how much people are abused as long as we’re the ones doing the abusing.”-NDT
That’s not what he said at all, but thanks for the spin. Seriously you need some help man. He’s basically calling it a bluff. It’s not a real threat that these people are facing, and you know what, even if it were you should stand up for yourselves and not cower. He’s absolutely NOT advocating abuse, just that in the face of uncertainty don’t go hiding in a corner. Y’all started the fight!!!
You also make broad generalizations that are just stupid too. Your logic always makes me laugh. You really do paint yourself as a self hating gay man. I’m not saying you are, just what it looks like to me. Although you do make for interesting forum banter. Keep up the good work!!
posted by Lymis on
Let’s also get clear on what the article is about.
These are people who say that what they think is so important, so critical to society, and so central to the argument that they need to testify in court that there is supportable reasons to deny fellow citizens a right that they take, not only for granted, but sacred.
Their names are going to be on public record no matter what. Their testimony will be documented (with their names associated with it) in both the court record, and by members of the press in attendance. Those things are not under discussion.
What they don’t want is for the testimony to appear on television. They want to deny their fellow citizens rights that were defined by the US Supreme Court (under other circumstances) as “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”
They claim to have incontestable testimony to show that sexual orientation should not be given the same protection as racial classifications, and that things that are guaranteed by the Constitution, like equality, freedom from established religion, and due process do not apply to gay people because a majority doesn’t think it should.
I agree that it seems really likely that they don’t want to look like idiots, because their testimony is going to (of necessity) include a lot of things like “well, we can’t prove there is any harm to society, but there might be” and “some people’s religions say this is bad” while the people seeking recognition of their equality can show real and immediate harm to themselves and their families.
posted by jpeckjr on
An initiative or referendum is a public process. While ballots are secret, debates over public policy are not secret in this country. Signing a petition or contributing to campaign is a way of participating in the debate. Don’t want people to know what you think — don’t sign, don’t contribute, don’t speak out.
I put my name on my support for marriage equality and full legal equality for GLBT people. I’ve gotten death threats, had friendships end, been the target of vandalism. I’m not that easily intimidated. Sounds like some of the opponents of equality are.
You know, maybe the problem is the rhetoric and tone of the anti-equality folks. They’ve been telling their supporters to be afraid, be very afraid of GLBT people and their allies. So now they’re afraid. What a stupid way to live!
GLBT equality to the extent it has been achieved — any equality for that matter — is achieved by persistence in the face of opposition, no matter how frightening. Maybe the opponents of our equality aren’t all that serious after all.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âLike so many on the anti-gay right these days, they claim that they fear for their lives and livelihoods if they and their arguments are exposed to public scrutiny. Some witnesses say they won’t even testify if the trial is televised.â ~ David Link
So much to hide indeed… If they really believe what they apparently believe, then they shouldn’t be afraid to argue it publicly. Afterall, the decision here certainly will affect the public!
And they should televise these proceedings on C-SPAN, not some dramatized Court-TV. If there is anything to democracy, accountability, and transparency to our system of government, then we must have such proceedings be made public. Why not, just to save some people from having to own up to their prejudiced viewpoints? Nope, not a good enough reason.
And that goes for the healthcare debates, too, and any other important issues as well. Make it public, let the people in on it. Let us know who supports what and why, let us know who is lobbying who, and who is contributing (bribing) which representative. Keep the public informed so we can act accordingly in our powers as citizens.
~âPeople who believe they are right should be willing to own the morality of their cause, even when that means taking very real, sometimes severe risks such as going to jail, or even being killed — neither of which anyone opposed to gay equality can truthfully claim. â ~ David Link
True. But I don’t believe we should be calling for people to be fired, other than government officials in some cases because government officials are representatives of the people and must be held accountable. And death threats are absolutely, positively unacceptable.
Boycotts, however, are legal and perfectly legitimate. Conservative groups use them with abandon. That said, I do believe they are often overused and I tend to disagree with those which are aimed at literally censoring others â efforts against the homophobic rantings of Dr. Laura Schlessinger or racist remarks by Don Imus.
~âFor heterosexuals, marriage provides a level of social and constitutional privacy for their sexual activities. Once married, they are free to conduct their sexual lives as they wish, and it is rude if not illegal to intrude into those actions against their wishes. For same-sex couples, though, the simple act of getting married somehow exposes their sexual conduct in such a way that the ceremony amounts to public indecency — without any need even to claim there was a sexual act.â ~ David Link
Exactly right! Well said! And while some homosexuals may practically televise their sex lives and do us a disservice in the process (just as heterosexuals have been doing for decades), the rest of us are private individuals who keep to ourselves and live our lives as unashamedly as heterosexuals do. We should be left alone, our sex lives should be left out of the debate. What we do in our homes is our business, regardless what some guy somewhere did at Mardis Gras or at some fair in San Francisco.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Excellent post, Lori. I totally agree.
~âIt’s quite simple, really. Gays need to be good people. We need to step away from the ghetto trash and put our best people forward.â ~ Jorge
Here, here! That’s something we all need to see more of, too. The positive experiences that everyday, heterosexual folks have with us does far more to aid our cause than supportive articles and which labels we use. And as members of a much larger community/society, why shouldn’t we want to? It’s just the right thing to do.
Also, while I fully support contacting people that oppose us on certain issues, I agree that we should not do so in a manner of hate & intimidation.
I wrote a letter to Bishop Harry Jackson who has been so outspoken against same-sex marriage, especially in regards to the DC decision. I put the letter on my blog.
I was direct, to the point, I didn’t mince words but I was respectful. I told him just what I thought and urged him to reconsider. I also reminded him about religious organizations like his being bound by law not to get entangled in political elections, which is precisely what he is advocating.
Useless? No doubt. But what effect might tens of thousands of similar letters cause? And at least we can feel better about ourselves knowing that we have right on our side, and that we rely on reason, not thuggery and lies.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s not a real threat that these people are facing, and you know what, even if it were you should stand up for yourselves and not cower.
As soon as you’re willing to state that vandalism, death threats, firings, boycotts, blockading of businesses, attacks on customers, beatings, and other things are perfectly valid means of expressing disapproval of how gay and lesbian people act, vote, petition, and contribute, and do not constitute a “threat”.
It would actually be quite entertaining to watch the gay-sex marriage movement and its supporters of vandalism and violence have that turned back on them, using the logic that Link espouses that you can do anything you want to anyone as long as you can tenuously link it to something someone might have done to someone like you some time ago.
posted by Bobby on
I wonder what some of you would say if you got fired from your jobs for signing pro-gay petitions and making pro-gay donations. Then I’m sure some of you would be suing.
posted by John on
Eh, why not?
Boycotts are perfectly valid means of expressing disapproval of how gay and lesbian people as well as anti-gay/lesbian people act, vote, petition, and contribute, and do not constitute a “threat”.
I reserve the right as guaranteed under the Constitution to boycott any business, for any reason I so choose. If I can persuade others to join me, so much the better. If others want to think I’m nuts or lead a counter-boycott that makes my efforts look like a joke, such is their right.
Next.
posted by Jorge on
I wrote a letter to Bishop Harry Jackson who has been so outspoken against same-sex marriage, especially in regards to the DC decision. I put the letter on my blog….
…Useless? No doubt. But what effect might tens of thousands of similar letters cause? And at least we can feel better about ourselves knowing that we have right on our side, and that we rely on reason, not thuggery and lies.
Personally I think we do see the results of that from time to time. Sometimes I’ve noticed our opponents pulling their punches.
All right, so there is a time and a way for fighting and action. There’s a reason the gay rights movement is mainly a progressive movement.
I’m not happy with the way this country is going at all. The far left seems to be losing a little power now, but the sane people are losing power, too. It’s a rightward turn that’s getting a little… I wouldn’t say extreme, but silly. It seems hopeless at times.
I suppose I can live with the battle over publicity playing itself out on its own. There’s enough hypocrisy that the right should try to prove itself.
posted by JP on
NDT-
What I am trying to say is that the threats are probably few and far between. And let’s face it, there is much hypocrisy on both sides. My Lesbian friends are now separating because one of them can’t handle the death threats that the other is receiving from YOU people because of her activism against prop 8. I know, now you are going to tell me that YOU aren’t making the death threats right but in fact you are by using the same blanket logic you employ so well. Please do not be so self righteous. My friend is now without a partner because of the same antics that you are blaming us for. And guess what, she isn’t backing in a corner because your cause has ruined her life. So stop being such whiny little fear mongers and do the same thing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My Lesbian friends are now separating because one of them can’t handle the death threats that the other is receiving from YOU people because of her activism against prop 8.
So?
You yourself stated that death threats were, quote, “not a real threat”.
Link above stated that death threats and the like did not constitute “actual peril”.
Certainly you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to state that the tactics that both of you endorse and minimize the impact of against others have a huge impact or shouldn’t be used on you.
posted by Bobby on
Boycotts are one thing, but firing people because they signed the wrong petition should be against the law, or at least considered highly unethical.
The tactics some gay activists used today are no different than those of Anita Bryant. It’s really shameful how some gays have tunnel vision when it comes to freedom, they act like nazis while preaching tolerance. It’s not only ridiculous but horrible PR for our movement.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~”Certainly you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to state that the tactics that both of you endorse and minimize the impact of against others have a huge impact or shouldn’t be used on you.” ~ North Dallas Thirty
Oh, look, this “gay-sex marriage” supporter did condemn such tactics:
“I don’t believe we should be calling for people to be fired, other than government officials in some cases because government officials are representatives of the people and must be held accountable. And death threats are absolutely, positively unacceptable.”
“Also, while I fully support contacting people that oppose us on certain issues, I agree that we should not do so in a manner of hate & intimidation.”
“at least we can feel better about ourselves knowing that we have right on our side, and that we rely on reason, not thuggery and lies.” ~ DragonScorpion
But now that you’re likely to demand more, don’t expect to get any more.
posted by John on
Boycotts are one thing, but firing people because they signed the wrong petition should be against the law, or at least considered highly unethical.
I’m not sure how such a law could even be written. What if an employee signed a petition in support of something most people would find objectionable? Say ‘pro-pedophilia’ or “bring back slavery”? I could see unethical, but I’m not sure how one would make this idea into law.
posted by Bobby on
“I’m not sure how such a law could even be written. What if an employee signed a petition in support of something most people would find objectionable? Say ‘pro-pedophilia’ or “bring back slavery”? I could see unethical, but I’m not sure how one would make this idea into law.”
—Signing a petition is no different than writing a letter to the editor, it’s an act of free speech. If I can’t fire an employee for voting for Obama (a horrible evil thing if you ask me) I sure as hell can’t fire him for signing any petition. Besides, if people can vote in private, behind a curtain, why shouldn’t petitions remain private except for verification by trusted parties?
And I’ll say something else, anyone who gets a harassing call from an activist should report that to the police.
posted by BobN on
Of course you can fire someone for signing a petition. There is no protection for political viewpoint discrimination. Countless gay people — and other people fighting for political change — have learned that you can be fired for taking stand.
I’m not saying an employer should fire someone for their political beliefs, just that they can.
posted by JP on
NDT-
I love how you pick out a certain piece of my statement to TRY and support your viewpoint. I never stated that death threats do NOT occur. I think the ultimate point is that antigay supporters were creating hysteria before it even occurred by stating it would happen. It seems clear to me that the only way they would know that is the fact that Gay supporters ARE receiving death threats. And as I stated, while it is ripping apart their relationship, one of them is still not giving up despite death threats, which was the WHOLE point of the matter in the first place.
posted by JP on
NDT-
Another thing I am irritated with you about is how you seem to apply these so called death threats to ALL gay people as if it’s some huge conspiracy. Making blanket statements shows your irrationality. I know that there are select straight people that make death threats to us and I in no way attribute that aspect to the whole straight community. That would be ridiculous. Likewise, I, as a gay man will condemn ANY gay man who ever makes a death threat to any person. It should go without saying. So this clearly makes ME not a hypocrite, but you apparently know us gay people so well that you can guarantee that I am, because you clearly imply that in your multiple messages. If this is not the case please clarify that for me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never stated that death threats do NOT occur.
I repeat:
You yourself stated that death threats were, quote, “not a real threat”.
Link above stated that death threats and the like did not constitute “actual peril”.
Which makes your complaining about this:
It seems clear to me that the only way they would know that is the fact that Gay supporters ARE receiving death threats.
more than a bit ironic. And hypocritical.
Finally:
Likewise, I, as a gay man will condemn ANY gay man who ever makes a death threat to any person.
Fire away.
The ironic thing is that the “No on 8” goons actually thought they were being clever on that last one.