No Nonsense in November, V (the final one, I promise)
So, it's no surprise the amendment passed. I do have to say I was a bit surprised by the margin of victory (perhaps I've been in a blue state for too long?).
Part of my surprise must stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of why someone would vote FOR this amendment. Though some cast their votes out of pure animus for gays and lesbians, I can't imagine that 75% of Texans hate gays. So why? Could someone please explain? And if you could try to do a better job than Maggie Gallagher (see below post) that would be great.
A few questions:
You believe it is wrong to be gay. Why must that translate into a legal ban? And would you vote to ban, say, adultery, fornication, or sodomy?
You believe that marriage is between one man and one woman because "that's the way it has always been." Why must it stay that way? And why does that argument fail when it comes to other ancient aspects of marriage that we have thrown by the wayside?
You believe that marriage is primarily about procreation. Even if procreation is the primary goal, must it be the exclusive goal? Why does the procreation argument necessarily exclude lesbians and gays from the institution of marriage, since we can adopt, or since many gays and lesbians have their own biological children?
If you oppose gay marriage, mustn't you also (logically speaking) oppose nondiscrimination policies banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Mustn't you also oppose every civil right for gays and lesbians, since the ability to choose whom to love and with whom create a family is among the most fundamental of human rights?
Someone please help me understand.
Part of my surprise must stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of why someone would vote FOR this amendment. Though some cast their votes out of pure animus for gays and lesbians, I can't imagine that 75% of Texans hate gays. So why? Could someone please explain? And if you could try to do a better job than Maggie Gallagher (see below post) that would be great.
A few questions:
You believe it is wrong to be gay. Why must that translate into a legal ban? And would you vote to ban, say, adultery, fornication, or sodomy?
You believe that marriage is between one man and one woman because "that's the way it has always been." Why must it stay that way? And why does that argument fail when it comes to other ancient aspects of marriage that we have thrown by the wayside?
You believe that marriage is primarily about procreation. Even if procreation is the primary goal, must it be the exclusive goal? Why does the procreation argument necessarily exclude lesbians and gays from the institution of marriage, since we can adopt, or since many gays and lesbians have their own biological children?
If you oppose gay marriage, mustn't you also (logically speaking) oppose nondiscrimination policies banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Mustn't you also oppose every civil right for gays and lesbians, since the ability to choose whom to love and with whom create a family is among the most fundamental of human rights?
Someone please help me understand.
posted by GR at 11/08/2005 10:07:00 PM
9 Comments:
You are always welcomed in Houston.
So, this guy you spoke to who doesn't welcome gays in Texas, was it Governor Rick Perry?
'Texans have made a decision about marriage, and if there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas, then maybe that's a better place for them to live.'
Notice that this statement came after Perry signed the proposed amendment this summer. Not that he needed to. Governors don't sign ballot propositions. Unless, of course, they think that a mere constitutional amendment won't be enough to let you know how intolerant they are.
Here's another take on the same story.
On the plus side, Maine voters upheld a law that prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation. So now a gay person doesn't have to worry about being turned down for that loan at the bank...um, are we supposed to have to vote for people to be treated like people?
I'm ashamed that Gov. Perry said that. What a jerk.
So, does the silence mean there is no justification? A pot-stirring thought I had was this: 75% could easily cover the number of people who hate/marginalize/are disgusted by gays as well as the number of people who simply don't think before they vote and do what they've been told is 'moral.' Conservative Christianity seems to have mostly succeeded in making gay people invisible to their constituency. There is nothing to think about or talk about because there is nothing there. For the CoC specifically, homosexuality in America is like an ash heap: you think you see it, but as soon as you try to touch it, it's gone. We should expect no sense of urgency, no need to discuss when the topic has been given no subjective identity.
I have wanted to comment here for a while and I'm finally working up the guts. I guess that as a Christian I'm not sure where I stand on homosexuality anymore. I used to think it was so black and white. My husband and I thought and prayed over which way to vote on Prop 2. We ended up voting against it- not that it mattered that much. My parents would be mortified. Everything seems to be so cut and dry for certain people. We voted against it because even though- at this time- we believe that homosexuality is wrong (it's so easy for us to say that since we've never struggled with it)- we believe that every person should have equal rights. I watched a program once about a dying gay man who wanted his partner to make decisions and be his beneficiary. Because they had no legal bindings as a "couple", the dying man's parents made every decision and made decisions that his partner knew he would not want. This doesn't seem like moral justice to me. It broke my heart and it surprised me how defensive of these gay men I became. So- I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to say. Just know that you're making me think. I'm not sure I agree with you on everything. But I like thinking outside my little suburban stay at home mom world- it's a very small world.
Erin,
Thanks so much for your comment. It seems as though you get it: you don't have to think that gay marriage is moral to believe gays and lesbians should have equal access to marriage under the (secular) law (and you're right; it doesn't seem very moral to deny the wishes of a dying man, does it?). Thanks for stopping in; I hope to hear from you more.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
oops did it again. posted to an old topic...it's late, sorry! whew! Ok...since this is the most current post, here goes.
GR,
This is a bit off topic. I'm a gay Christian, partnered, and former COC'er. I attended ACU, was in ministry in the COC, and have/had many friends in the tradition as laypersons, ministers, professors. I admire and encourage your endeavor here. The CoC is a place where I could not remain for various reasons (personal, professional, and spiritual). I left the COC for the UCC, left the ACU graduate program for Princeton, and I am now an ordained minister in the UCC. I have no regrets about leaving. I have to say, I am slightly encouraged by what I see here in your blog. However, it has not changed my belief that there is little (or no) hope for the COC. Aside from a history of dehumnaization toward minorities (slavery, women, homosexuals, other faith traditions, "liberals", other races and nationalites) while being ironically compassionate toward other groups. In order to be COC one has to hold many things in tension, not just a dialectic, but in irreconcilable tension. Simly put there are too many items that are unresolvable. In your last post you addressed anger, I think of anger as a positive and call it righteous indignation. Certainly MLK Jr. was angry, Harvey Milk was angry, even Andrew Sullivan is angry and should very well be. That anger tempered with sharp wit, civil disobedience, and religious/social justice have allowed this discussion and your blog to exist. I wish you well in your dialogue but can't help but feel that it's a case of "Stockholm Syndrome." SS is a tag word for those who were mistreated and fell in love (literally) with their abusive jailers - an euphamism for WWII. Gay people who remain in the COC and continue to live by it's rules, without challenging, without confronting openly and honestly, who dialogue in fear of being kicked out, at least in my opinion are exhibiting a spiritual stockholm syndrome. I say this not to pass judgement - for I hope either through staying or leaving that you find the liberation and wholeness you seek as a gay Christian, but as I read it sounds like you feel trapped, closted but not closeted, out but not out, challenging but not challenging the status quo from an anonymous voice in a dark corner. Again, paradoxes, irreconcilable realities that contradict one another in the COC system. In response, I have felt a feeling I haven't had in over ten years reading your blog, it's intelligent, but also sad. Arguements change minds, dialogue changes minds, but exegesis and arguements, dialogue and dialectic won't change who you are or decide your identity for you. You are a blessed and loved child of God, called to live with courage, integrity, and honesty. You are loved for who you are, a gay person created by God to live in the fulness of life. The image of God is not dependent upon gender or sexual orientation, God is not male nor female, but God is one who calls us to live out God's love for God and neighbour in loving, mutual self giving relationship with others. May God bless you on your journey. -RCB
Hey, right before I left Abilene I attended the ordination service for Wes Mullins, who is partnered to Jason O'Neil. You can read about the service at Travis Stanely's blog: www.travisstanley.net. Anyways, I cried my eyes out because it was so beautiful and I thought about you and wished you could have been there.
Post a Comment
<< Home