I haven't posted here in over a month because, well, nothing's changing. We got some interesting data, most significantly that knowing GLB people didn't affect how people voted that much. I'd say this is really significant, but once the first surprise sank in I realized that it made sense.
We accept that people may not think they have "anything against" us while still expressing raging bigotry. Anyone who's participated in any debate involving a minority knows the old classic, "some of my best friends are [insert group here] but...." The thing is, generally when interacting with our friends we see them as, well, our friends, not as "a black person/Latino/Hindu/Libertarian." There are exceptions -- for instance, I get my hair cut by a black woman I could never possibly fail to see as a black woman, because she's an activist and a half -- and subconsciously we may be affected, but as a general rule an individual person is first and foremost a person. When thinking about the group they belong to, we probably don't think of them first. We think of the stereotype.
I read an article the other day about the Swiss government's movement to restrict nude hiking in anticipation of a huge number of German tourists hiking naked later this year. Between that, a similar issue in Italy a while back, the infamous nude skydiving video I'm too lazy to dig up, and the airline for nudists, I've become very attached to the stereotype of "naked in public = German" and vice versa. And actually some of my best friends are German and to the best of my knowledge aren't in the habit of hiking naked, and I never associate any of them with nudity. And yet, say "German" to me and I think, not of them, but of the skydiving guys. I daresay even if/when I go to Germany this summer and discover that most if not all of the people I meet are fully clothed, I will continue to have this association. My point is, beliefs about groups of people, once formed, are fairly resistant to the influence of individuals in those groups.
"Well, then," I can hear you saying, "if knowing people doesn't change anything, what can we do? Being out obviously isn't enough." Ah, she responds arrogantly to the imagined masses, this returns to the idea of being actively out. It's not enough for us to say "I'm gay" once and have that be an end to it. It's probably not enough to bring a partner to every gathering. You have to, like my hairdresser, be an activist. Discuss the issues. Make people see you and the group together, not apart.
The difficulty of this is that it is freaking exhausting. I am so damn' sick of having to introduce the terminology and underlying concepts, dispel the common myths, and then debate my basic rights with people, I wish I never had to do it again. I'm tired of putting myself out there, hearing the same old tired responses, failing to change anything. And I'm only 20, and I've only been talking about this for maybe four years, so I can only imagine that the older activists must be on their fifth or sixth wind at least. And I'll be there, given time.
Right now I'm burnt out because there is no news. There is no justice, but more importantly my faith in humanity's still off somewhere. I was at a concert earlier this month, and the time had come to sing "Step By Step" together and I realized that I couldn't do it because, while I believe it intellectually, my heart is not so sure. That's the long-term thing here -- I don't trust that the right will prevail any more. Only months ago I was a proud idealist, convinced that if only we worked hard enough all would be well, and now I'm fighting just to get that back. And it doesn't stop hurting, and it won't no matter what the court rules, because I don't have faith in the system to protect me, or in the people, or in God. I hope like hell this will pass, because if it doesn't I think I'll end up nonfunctional, addicted to something and hating the world, driven to do something beyond anyone's power and make the world right.
Wow, that was a downer. Sorry, folks.
2009-01-31
2008-12-23
diverting from our main discussion to Rick Warren
Link first: "It's not Obama I'm mad at; it's way too many of you."
There're a lot of people, including some quite close to me, who don't get why this Rick Warren thing is a big deal. Or they argue that it's about bringing together diverse views, or reaching out to the right, and that it's somehow admirable for this. Here're my two cents:
Bull-fucking-shit. Hem. This isn't just one isolated event; it's yet another in a long line of occasions where the Democratic Party has reached out to the right at the expense of the GLBT community, thrown us under the bus in the name of unity. This isn't about diversity; this is validation of hate speech, a signal that it is somehow acceptable to, as Warren has, compare gay marriage to incest. This isn't outreach; we're not communicating anything to the guy or his supporters except that Obama & co. care about them. And if he'd spoken of another minority -- say, Jews, or Asian-Americans, or African-Americans -- as hatefully as he has of gay people, nobody would consider it an acceptable form of outreach or diversifying.
The thing is, quite simply, that GLBT issues are not abstract. I've said it before; I'll keep saying it. GLBT issues are not abstract. People die because of anti-GLBT discrimination. People are brutally attacked because homophobia is still accepted -- nay, encouraged -- in our society. I could go on -- that's just this last week -- but I shouldn't have to. It should be bleeding obvious that GLBT people need protection and active support and that no, we can't wait. We have waited too long. We can't go on taking scraps from the table of justice, watching as hate speech is accepted and affirmed while we are told to sit down and shut up until the mainstream is "ready" for us, following along like good little sheep after leaders who openly oppose full equality and justify it with religious beliefs that aren't even validated by the holy texts they draw from. As the famous quote/paraphrase whose origins appear to be lost in the mists of time says, "justice too long delayed is justice denied" and we cannot allow ourselves to be denied justice. Neither can any supposed ally allow us to, without admitting that they don't really care about us.
We can't let ourselves be thrown under the bus by the Democratic Party or anyone else. We can't let ourselves be put at the bottom of the priority list, to wait until America is ready for us. We need justice today, and if America is not ready then it must be dragged kicking and screaming into a place of justice, as it has been so many times before in the history of our nation, because the majority's opinion is so wildly unimportant in comparison to the needs of the minority that it should never even register.
Enough is enough is enough, already.
There're a lot of people, including some quite close to me, who don't get why this Rick Warren thing is a big deal. Or they argue that it's about bringing together diverse views, or reaching out to the right, and that it's somehow admirable for this. Here're my two cents:
Bull-fucking-shit. Hem. This isn't just one isolated event; it's yet another in a long line of occasions where the Democratic Party has reached out to the right at the expense of the GLBT community, thrown us under the bus in the name of unity. This isn't about diversity; this is validation of hate speech, a signal that it is somehow acceptable to, as Warren has, compare gay marriage to incest. This isn't outreach; we're not communicating anything to the guy or his supporters except that Obama & co. care about them. And if he'd spoken of another minority -- say, Jews, or Asian-Americans, or African-Americans -- as hatefully as he has of gay people, nobody would consider it an acceptable form of outreach or diversifying.
The thing is, quite simply, that GLBT issues are not abstract. I've said it before; I'll keep saying it. GLBT issues are not abstract. People die because of anti-GLBT discrimination. People are brutally attacked because homophobia is still accepted -- nay, encouraged -- in our society. I could go on -- that's just this last week -- but I shouldn't have to. It should be bleeding obvious that GLBT people need protection and active support and that no, we can't wait. We have waited too long. We can't go on taking scraps from the table of justice, watching as hate speech is accepted and affirmed while we are told to sit down and shut up until the mainstream is "ready" for us, following along like good little sheep after leaders who openly oppose full equality and justify it with religious beliefs that aren't even validated by the holy texts they draw from. As the famous quote/paraphrase whose origins appear to be lost in the mists of time says, "justice too long delayed is justice denied" and we cannot allow ourselves to be denied justice. Neither can any supposed ally allow us to, without admitting that they don't really care about us.
We can't let ourselves be thrown under the bus by the Democratic Party or anyone else. We can't let ourselves be put at the bottom of the priority list, to wait until America is ready for us. We need justice today, and if America is not ready then it must be dragged kicking and screaming into a place of justice, as it has been so many times before in the history of our nation, because the majority's opinion is so wildly unimportant in comparison to the needs of the minority that it should never even register.
Enough is enough is enough, already.
2008-12-20
18000 marriages need to end to protect marriage
Yes On 8 wants to annul all the same-sex marriages performed in the state to date. I am completely unsurprised.
I just don't get it, friends. I don't understand how other people living their lives can be so offensive to anyone that they're willing to put their time and money into tearing us down. The nearest I can figure is that there's some severe difference in word definitions between us and them.
My hypothesis is that it comes down to the definition of homosexuality. From the point of view of a GLBA person, homosexuality is the state of being attracted to/falling in love exclusively or almost exclusively with people of the same sex/gender as oneself. It's innate, it's immutable -- who chooses who they love? -- and it's a part of who you are regardless of what you do.
The thing about this understanding of sexual orientation -- supported by science and backed by the APA -- is that it makes "homosexuality is a sin" gibberish. It's a trait. Redheadedness isn't a sin, or autism, or being black, or being left-handed. And therefore we don't push redheads to dye their hair, mandate drugging of autistic people, force black people to bleach their skin and straighten their hair, or prohibit the use of the left hand for writing. In the present, I mean. So it's illogical to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, just as laws against left-handedness would be illogical.
Therefore, I don't think that our opponents can possibly define homosexuality this way. The party line for a lot of conservatives is that it's a "lifestyle choice," right? So what I eventually realized is that homosexuality to them means gay sex. A gay person is someone who has sex with people of the same sex -- bisexuals I think must be seen as incredibly promiscuous, because otherwise there would be no way of giving meaning to the term -- and therefore, logically, if they stop having sex with people of the same sex, they are no longer gay.
Now, there are a few flaws with this, and the first is that it's completely and demonstrably false. Well, that can be dodged by simply not believing the overwhelming scientific evidence or any individual gay person who has relevant personal experience. The second is that only a total idiot with a persecution complex would ever choose to be a member of an unpopular minority group. The counter to this that I've seen is the suggestion that gay sex is addictive, sort of like tobacco I suppose, and to try it once is to risk getting hooked for life. Alternately, there's the Freudian idea that gay people have some childhood trauma that makes us afraid of relationships with people of the opposite sex, so that same-sex relationships seem better somehow even with every disadvantage that goes with them.
So assuming that the addiction view is accepted, the logic runs the opposite way. You want to make it harder for people to become addicted to harmful things, so you pass laws to discourage use and encourage rehabilitation. Therefore, banning same-sex marriage (and ideally civil unions) is a way of discouraging gay people from committing to relationships, making stable commitment harder and forcing us to see opposite-sex relationships as preferable alternatives. Similarly, with the Freudian model, the idea is that making same-sex relationships less appealing will lead people back to heterosexuality.
The problem, of course, is that they're so completely wrong about every aspect of this that it's absurd. And here we get to the part I don't understand, and will never be able to understand: why don't they figure this out? Why is it so hard to realize that the sex-addiction model of homosexuality completely fails to account for monogamous same-sex couples, gay virgins/happily single gay people like yours truly, heterosexually monogamous bisexual-identified people, and indeed most of the gay/bi community because most people aren't awfully promiscuous actually? Or that the Freudian model, besides being rejected by the psychiatric community, fails to explain any variety of bisexual? It doesn't compute, for me.
I just don't get it, friends. I don't understand how other people living their lives can be so offensive to anyone that they're willing to put their time and money into tearing us down. The nearest I can figure is that there's some severe difference in word definitions between us and them.
My hypothesis is that it comes down to the definition of homosexuality. From the point of view of a GLBA person, homosexuality is the state of being attracted to/falling in love exclusively or almost exclusively with people of the same sex/gender as oneself. It's innate, it's immutable -- who chooses who they love? -- and it's a part of who you are regardless of what you do.
The thing about this understanding of sexual orientation -- supported by science and backed by the APA -- is that it makes "homosexuality is a sin" gibberish. It's a trait. Redheadedness isn't a sin, or autism, or being black, or being left-handed. And therefore we don't push redheads to dye their hair, mandate drugging of autistic people, force black people to bleach their skin and straighten their hair, or prohibit the use of the left hand for writing. In the present, I mean. So it's illogical to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, just as laws against left-handedness would be illogical.
Therefore, I don't think that our opponents can possibly define homosexuality this way. The party line for a lot of conservatives is that it's a "lifestyle choice," right? So what I eventually realized is that homosexuality to them means gay sex. A gay person is someone who has sex with people of the same sex -- bisexuals I think must be seen as incredibly promiscuous, because otherwise there would be no way of giving meaning to the term -- and therefore, logically, if they stop having sex with people of the same sex, they are no longer gay.
Now, there are a few flaws with this, and the first is that it's completely and demonstrably false. Well, that can be dodged by simply not believing the overwhelming scientific evidence or any individual gay person who has relevant personal experience. The second is that only a total idiot with a persecution complex would ever choose to be a member of an unpopular minority group. The counter to this that I've seen is the suggestion that gay sex is addictive, sort of like tobacco I suppose, and to try it once is to risk getting hooked for life. Alternately, there's the Freudian idea that gay people have some childhood trauma that makes us afraid of relationships with people of the opposite sex, so that same-sex relationships seem better somehow even with every disadvantage that goes with them.
So assuming that the addiction view is accepted, the logic runs the opposite way. You want to make it harder for people to become addicted to harmful things, so you pass laws to discourage use and encourage rehabilitation. Therefore, banning same-sex marriage (and ideally civil unions) is a way of discouraging gay people from committing to relationships, making stable commitment harder and forcing us to see opposite-sex relationships as preferable alternatives. Similarly, with the Freudian model, the idea is that making same-sex relationships less appealing will lead people back to heterosexuality.
The problem, of course, is that they're so completely wrong about every aspect of this that it's absurd. And here we get to the part I don't understand, and will never be able to understand: why don't they figure this out? Why is it so hard to realize that the sex-addiction model of homosexuality completely fails to account for monogamous same-sex couples, gay virgins/happily single gay people like yours truly, heterosexually monogamous bisexual-identified people, and indeed most of the gay/bi community because most people aren't awfully promiscuous actually? Or that the Freudian model, besides being rejected by the psychiatric community, fails to explain any variety of bisexual? It doesn't compute, for me.
2008-12-07
so sick of this all
We've got a long haul until March. Let's have analysis to fill it up!
Someone was talking about the importance of communication and understanding and how the other side had their reasons today, and that got me thinking. It's hard for me, because on the one hand, I hate having to do this. We shouldn't have to fight this one. We have a society that, by and large, recognizes the importance of equality. Legally, at any rate, we recognize that racial inequality is wrong, that people with disabilities need accommodations, that men and women deserve equal respect. (Socially, we often don't recognize areas where these ideals are not applied, but they are embedded in our laws now.) And it took so long, and so much heartbreak and struggle, that it is unthinkable to me that we could now ignore that legacy. How can a society full of people who have lived through the civil rights movement and the women's movement, or been taught about them in their history classes, fail to recognize the same story with a simple search-and-replace? How can I possibly have to fight this battle as though it were new? It's completely unfair.
On the other hand, as my dad always used to tell me when I complained about some unjust family rule, life isn't fair. Whether we like it or not, we have to fight this, and we have to give it our all, and we have to be better than the best people if we want to stand a chance of winning. So I suppose I recognize that feeling how unfair it is doesn't really help, at all.
I do find myself increasingly frustrated by the call for dialog, though. I think we've got a cultural fallacy, brought about by "fair" press coverage of everything, that says that if there are two different views on a subject, they must be afforded equal respect. This is bullshit. The two sides of the "debate" on global warming are not equally valid -- one is supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, and the other by a small fringe group. The two sides of the "debate" on whether same-sex couples make good parents are not equal -- scientific evidence firmly supports the affirmative position. Ditto, well, most gay stuff. It is biologically caused, neither a mental illness nor a cause of mental illness, and immutable. These are what we call facts and they are supported by scientific evidence, so they're not at all equal to the beliefs supported by people's personal beliefs and discredited studies conducted by wingnuts like this guy. And these and other facts clearly show that being gay is, yes, a status equally worthy of the law's protection as race, gender, national origin, disability, etc.
The Yes side deceived the people, used low-down tricks, and is now hiding behind faith and so-called democracy all to justify subverting the American system to attack a vulnerable minority. They do not deserve equal respect to the people they hurt, and their opinions do not deserve to be heard in "civilized discourse" as though they were legitimate, because while they may be valid opinions for individuals to hold, they aren't legitimate parts of any political or even philosophical debate. There is a wrong and a right here, and they're in the wrong.
I'll probably still end up debating them and trying to listen to them, because as I said before, we have to do things that we shouldn't even have to consider doing if we're going to win this. Which is why, today, I hate the world.
P. S. Oh, here, have a link: antigay campaigns cause depression in LGBT people. Gosh, really? I only came the closest I've ever been to suicidal in November, so I am of course totally shocked by this.
Someone was talking about the importance of communication and understanding and how the other side had their reasons today, and that got me thinking. It's hard for me, because on the one hand, I hate having to do this. We shouldn't have to fight this one. We have a society that, by and large, recognizes the importance of equality. Legally, at any rate, we recognize that racial inequality is wrong, that people with disabilities need accommodations, that men and women deserve equal respect. (Socially, we often don't recognize areas where these ideals are not applied, but they are embedded in our laws now.) And it took so long, and so much heartbreak and struggle, that it is unthinkable to me that we could now ignore that legacy. How can a society full of people who have lived through the civil rights movement and the women's movement, or been taught about them in their history classes, fail to recognize the same story with a simple search-and-replace? How can I possibly have to fight this battle as though it were new? It's completely unfair.
On the other hand, as my dad always used to tell me when I complained about some unjust family rule, life isn't fair. Whether we like it or not, we have to fight this, and we have to give it our all, and we have to be better than the best people if we want to stand a chance of winning. So I suppose I recognize that feeling how unfair it is doesn't really help, at all.
I do find myself increasingly frustrated by the call for dialog, though. I think we've got a cultural fallacy, brought about by "fair" press coverage of everything, that says that if there are two different views on a subject, they must be afforded equal respect. This is bullshit. The two sides of the "debate" on global warming are not equally valid -- one is supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, and the other by a small fringe group. The two sides of the "debate" on whether same-sex couples make good parents are not equal -- scientific evidence firmly supports the affirmative position. Ditto, well, most gay stuff. It is biologically caused, neither a mental illness nor a cause of mental illness, and immutable. These are what we call facts and they are supported by scientific evidence, so they're not at all equal to the beliefs supported by people's personal beliefs and discredited studies conducted by wingnuts like this guy. And these and other facts clearly show that being gay is, yes, a status equally worthy of the law's protection as race, gender, national origin, disability, etc.
The Yes side deceived the people, used low-down tricks, and is now hiding behind faith and so-called democracy all to justify subverting the American system to attack a vulnerable minority. They do not deserve equal respect to the people they hurt, and their opinions do not deserve to be heard in "civilized discourse" as though they were legitimate, because while they may be valid opinions for individuals to hold, they aren't legitimate parts of any political or even philosophical debate. There is a wrong and a right here, and they're in the wrong.
I'll probably still end up debating them and trying to listen to them, because as I said before, we have to do things that we shouldn't even have to consider doing if we're going to win this. Which is why, today, I hate the world.
P. S. Oh, here, have a link: antigay campaigns cause depression in LGBT people. Gosh, really? I only came the closest I've ever been to suicidal in November, so I am of course totally shocked by this.
2008-11-20
the latest and a moment for other people
An interesting look at how various hypothetical votes from the African-American community would have affected Prop. 8.
You've probably heard by now that the Supreme Court is going to review the challenges to Prop. 8, but won't be staying it. We probably won't know the outcome until at least March, so while we're waiting I suggest we continue to fight where we can.
The latest I've been seeing is people saying we shouldn't be protesting churches, or we shouldn't be protesting at all. The idea is that we've got to show everyone how nice we are so they'll get around to giving us our rights. The trouble with this idea is that a) GLBT people are an "invisible" minority, meaning unless we consciously put ourselves out there nobody knows it's us being nice, and b) everybody else is too busy taking care of their own needs to worry about minorities (or other minorities.) We need to be loud to get dialog going. If I may quote Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter From Birmingham Jail here, he makes my point:
In short, you have to start the conversation first.
Today is the 10th annual International Transgender Day of Remembrance, so I'd like to take a moment to address someone else's fight here. Because transpeople get treated like shit by the general population, even gay/bi people who really ought to know better, and far too often people brutally murder them in cold blood and get away with it, and it's wrong. So take a moment -- read this year's names and think about what you can do to stop the hate, because we all should do something.
You've probably heard by now that the Supreme Court is going to review the challenges to Prop. 8, but won't be staying it. We probably won't know the outcome until at least March, so while we're waiting I suggest we continue to fight where we can.
The latest I've been seeing is people saying we shouldn't be protesting churches, or we shouldn't be protesting at all. The idea is that we've got to show everyone how nice we are so they'll get around to giving us our rights. The trouble with this idea is that a) GLBT people are an "invisible" minority, meaning unless we consciously put ourselves out there nobody knows it's us being nice, and b) everybody else is too busy taking care of their own needs to worry about minorities (or other minorities.) We need to be loud to get dialog going. If I may quote Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter From Birmingham Jail here, he makes my point:
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.
In short, you have to start the conversation first.
Today is the 10th annual International Transgender Day of Remembrance, so I'd like to take a moment to address someone else's fight here. Because transpeople get treated like shit by the general population, even gay/bi people who really ought to know better, and far too often people brutally murder them in cold blood and get away with it, and it's wrong. So take a moment -- read this year's names and think about what you can do to stop the hate, because we all should do something.
2008-11-14
don't forget:
Tomorrow, 10:30 AM PST.
Join The Impact is, not surprisingly, planning more actions. Check out their ideas.
This is pretty awesome. I have to say I love those Mormons, whether they're acting for themselves or for their friends or just because they know it's right.
An interesting side-note about that latter link: during the campaign, my father got a call from someone claiming to be doing a poll about Prop. 8, wanting to know how he felt about, and I quote, "the fact that gay marriage will be taught in schools." My father, annoyed at the biased way the question was formed, questioned the neutrality of the poll, but the pollster denied supporting one side or the other. The organization he said was conducting the poll? "Lawrence Research." Now we're hearing about the son of "Gary Lawrence, 67, who is the 'State LDS Grassroots Director' for the state of California. [...] the President of Lawrence Research." I'm going to go ahead and say it: the Yes On 8 side lied. In other news, the Pope is still believed to be Catholic.
I can't help wondering. Shouldn't having to lie to advocate your cause be a pretty good indicator that you're on the wrong side?
Join The Impact is, not surprisingly, planning more actions. Check out their ideas.
This is pretty awesome. I have to say I love those Mormons, whether they're acting for themselves or for their friends or just because they know it's right.
An interesting side-note about that latter link: during the campaign, my father got a call from someone claiming to be doing a poll about Prop. 8, wanting to know how he felt about, and I quote, "the fact that gay marriage will be taught in schools." My father, annoyed at the biased way the question was formed, questioned the neutrality of the poll, but the pollster denied supporting one side or the other. The organization he said was conducting the poll? "Lawrence Research." Now we're hearing about the son of "Gary Lawrence, 67, who is the 'State LDS Grassroots Director' for the state of California. [...] the President of Lawrence Research." I'm going to go ahead and say it: the Yes On 8 side lied. In other news, the Pope is still believed to be Catholic.
I can't help wondering. Shouldn't having to lie to advocate your cause be a pretty good indicator that you're on the wrong side?
2008-11-13
links, and tolerating intolerance
(This unobligingly posted with only part of the subject line written. Crossing my fingers that it doesn't do so again.)
This article talks about the abstraction of the No campaign, and of course the fallout in terms of blame.
Here's an awesome analysis of the term "traditional marriage" and how it's misleading.
We can expect a ruling on Prop. 8's legality any day now, according to the Sacramento Bee.
I've been reading a lot more articles about the gay vs. Mormon clashes than I've been posting, and I've been seeing a theme in them. The Mormons interviewed complain that we're being unreasonable, intolerant, and unChristlike. I would like to address those things, not because I think any Mormons are reading this but because I need to talk about this:
1) Unreasonable. Calls for "civility" and complaints that we're, in effect, overreacting. I'm going to have to go pure Californian here and say: dude, your actions regulated how I can live my life. Your actions made me a second-class citizen, a special exemption to the constitutional guarantee of equality. There is no such thing as an overreaction to something like this. There are imprudent reactions, like hateful words and violence, but they're understandable, and arise from the perfectly logical state of being really fucking hurt and angry.
2) Intolerant. A common claim is that nobody who claims to value "tolerance" can actually complain about other people's lack thereof, because that would be intolerant of their intolerance. Quite apart from the odiousness of the word "tolerance," which implies that we should be damn' grateful we're not being lynched, that's a load of poppycock. I do not have to put up with having my rights trampled on, being insulted or attacked, or otherwise being hurt just because I don't want those things to happen. That would make no sense whatsoever. Look, you live your life however you want to, say and do what you want in private, work for your interests, no problem. But your right to swing your fist stops at my nose, and if you don't recognize that and decide to hit me I can complain or take action against you without, in any way, challenging your right to swing your fist in general. Accepting our differences is quite different from accepting other people's attempts to crush them out of us.
3) UnChristlike. Let's review: Jesus sat with the prostitutes and the tax collectors, cured the Roman centurion's servant (or, probably, lover,) told people not to judge each other, and specifically said that you go to heaven by being kind and helping people, not by being faithful necessarily. The question, then, is: would Christ a) condemn gays and go out of His way to make our lives harder, b) condemn gays but "tolerate" us, or c) sit down with us and show His love and acceptance as He did with the prostitutes? Two other texts to consider: John 8:7 and especially Matthew 23:13. And on that latter:
Force does not produce faith. You save no souls by hatred, condemnation, judgment, and oppression. Nobody wants to join you because you tell them, "you're a bad person and doomed to hellfire." Rather, that condemnation drives people away. It has taken me years to accept that Christianity does not mean hate, because when I look at the way self-labeled Christians behave I see too often arrogance, judgment, and lack of compassion. It took me years, with a church full of people who really were loving and non-judgmental supporting me, to hear the word "God" without a stab of fear. You're damaging your church, and making it poorer, with this lawmaking attempt, and it's not going to make people more moral by any standard. Morality cannot be imposed; it must come from the individual's choice, or it is not morality, just meaningless obedience.
This article talks about the abstraction of the No campaign, and of course the fallout in terms of blame.
Here's an awesome analysis of the term "traditional marriage" and how it's misleading.
We can expect a ruling on Prop. 8's legality any day now, according to the Sacramento Bee.
I've been reading a lot more articles about the gay vs. Mormon clashes than I've been posting, and I've been seeing a theme in them. The Mormons interviewed complain that we're being unreasonable, intolerant, and unChristlike. I would like to address those things, not because I think any Mormons are reading this but because I need to talk about this:
1) Unreasonable. Calls for "civility" and complaints that we're, in effect, overreacting. I'm going to have to go pure Californian here and say: dude, your actions regulated how I can live my life. Your actions made me a second-class citizen, a special exemption to the constitutional guarantee of equality. There is no such thing as an overreaction to something like this. There are imprudent reactions, like hateful words and violence, but they're understandable, and arise from the perfectly logical state of being really fucking hurt and angry.
2) Intolerant. A common claim is that nobody who claims to value "tolerance" can actually complain about other people's lack thereof, because that would be intolerant of their intolerance. Quite apart from the odiousness of the word "tolerance," which implies that we should be damn' grateful we're not being lynched, that's a load of poppycock. I do not have to put up with having my rights trampled on, being insulted or attacked, or otherwise being hurt just because I don't want those things to happen. That would make no sense whatsoever. Look, you live your life however you want to, say and do what you want in private, work for your interests, no problem. But your right to swing your fist stops at my nose, and if you don't recognize that and decide to hit me I can complain or take action against you without, in any way, challenging your right to swing your fist in general. Accepting our differences is quite different from accepting other people's attempts to crush them out of us.
3) UnChristlike. Let's review: Jesus sat with the prostitutes and the tax collectors, cured the Roman centurion's servant (or, probably, lover,) told people not to judge each other, and specifically said that you go to heaven by being kind and helping people, not by being faithful necessarily. The question, then, is: would Christ a) condemn gays and go out of His way to make our lives harder, b) condemn gays but "tolerate" us, or c) sit down with us and show His love and acceptance as He did with the prostitutes? Two other texts to consider: John 8:7 and especially Matthew 23:13. And on that latter:
Force does not produce faith. You save no souls by hatred, condemnation, judgment, and oppression. Nobody wants to join you because you tell them, "you're a bad person and doomed to hellfire." Rather, that condemnation drives people away. It has taken me years to accept that Christianity does not mean hate, because when I look at the way self-labeled Christians behave I see too often arrogance, judgment, and lack of compassion. It took me years, with a church full of people who really were loving and non-judgmental supporting me, to hear the word "God" without a stab of fear. You're damaging your church, and making it poorer, with this lawmaking attempt, and it's not going to make people more moral by any standard. Morality cannot be imposed; it must come from the individual's choice, or it is not morality, just meaningless obedience.
2008-11-12
just a quickie
I know I do go on dreadfully about the importance of not being racist, but here, have an analysis of why Obama's getting out the black vote didn't pass Prop. 8.
And, you guys, I have to say, I'm less and less thrilled with the Mormons all the time. I love the ones who are sticking their necks out, though, in the face of excommunication threats and goodness only knows what else. Thank you, supportive Mormons.
And, you guys, I have to say, I'm less and less thrilled with the Mormons all the time. I love the ones who are sticking their necks out, though, in the face of excommunication threats and goodness only knows what else. Thank you, supportive Mormons.
2008-11-11
link roundup
It's always the same -- no sooner do I post a round of links than I find new ones to add. Here we go:
Coverage on Pam's House Blend and The Advocate of how 43 California Legislators have filed a friend-of-court brief in the case to overturn Prop. 8 on constitutional grounds. They're in favor of constitutional changes of this magnitude going through them, not just directly to the people.
Shame On LDS is a site from "ex-Mormons, Reform Mormons, members of the LDS Church itself, and non-Mormons" who are opposed to Prop. 8 and want to apologize to California's GLB community for the LDS Church's behavior in this. Thank you, friends.
News story about vandalism of Mormon churches. While I do not support the destruction of others' property, as it is both legally and morally wrong and makes us look bad, I got a certain level of twisted amusement out of the quote from a Mormon about her church being vandalized:
"Seeing my church where I come every Sunday... it kind of just hurt in a way. I feel badly for those people that have such anger within them that they would do something like this... I just hope that people’s hearts will be softened, that they will realize the Gospel... teaches us to love one another and not do things like this."
Hey, Pot? Meet Kettle. I think you two have something in common.
Finally, a couple from Orange County is skipping the state level and going to the federal court system to challenge Prop. 8. (WARNING: do not read the comments, you will hurt yourself.) I am very wary of taking gay rights to the current US Supreme Court, so I don't think it's a good idea, but we'll have to see.
I'd like to remind you all that Join The Impact (now on a faster, better server!) is still organizing, around the country, protests for this Saturday, November 15th.
Coverage on Pam's House Blend and The Advocate of how 43 California Legislators have filed a friend-of-court brief in the case to overturn Prop. 8 on constitutional grounds. They're in favor of constitutional changes of this magnitude going through them, not just directly to the people.
Shame On LDS is a site from "ex-Mormons, Reform Mormons, members of the LDS Church itself, and non-Mormons" who are opposed to Prop. 8 and want to apologize to California's GLB community for the LDS Church's behavior in this. Thank you, friends.
News story about vandalism of Mormon churches. While I do not support the destruction of others' property, as it is both legally and morally wrong and makes us look bad, I got a certain level of twisted amusement out of the quote from a Mormon about her church being vandalized:
"Seeing my church where I come every Sunday... it kind of just hurt in a way. I feel badly for those people that have such anger within them that they would do something like this... I just hope that people’s hearts will be softened, that they will realize the Gospel... teaches us to love one another and not do things like this."
Hey, Pot? Meet Kettle. I think you two have something in common.
Finally, a couple from Orange County is skipping the state level and going to the federal court system to challenge Prop. 8. (WARNING: do not read the comments, you will hurt yourself.) I am very wary of taking gay rights to the current US Supreme Court, so I don't think it's a good idea, but we'll have to see.
I'd like to remind you all that Join The Impact (now on a faster, better server!) is still organizing, around the country, protests for this Saturday, November 15th.
2008-11-10
link, don't be racist idiots
Arnold Schwarzenegger has had an up-and-down relationship with the gay community. He's officially opposed marriage equality, favoring civil unions; he has vetoed two bills to legalize same-sex marriage, claiming that the courts should settle the constitutionality first; he has spoken out against Prop. 8 and for maintaining the right to marry; and he is now telling us not to give up. Basically, he's always been on the side of the status quo. But it's nice to have him publicly with us, this time, especially because I wrote to him the other day asking for just that -- the Governor of California is not, evidently, blind to his people's pain.
Here's an interesting look at the race statistics that are being bandied around, and why they might be completely misleading. It addresses the "blame the blacks" strategy, so I'd like to say something about the blame for the Latin@ and Asian communities.
I don't remember when the first Yes On 8 ad came out in Spanish, but it was a month or two before the election. The first Spanish-language No ad came out... a week before the election. Basically, Latin@s had lies pouring in, unchallenged, for weeks there, and probably by the time we got around to remembering their existence they'd mostly made up their minds. So isn't it an amazingly good sign that they were, by the available data, pretty evenly split on the issue?
Then there's the Asian community. I see people tossing in "Asians" with Latin@s and African-Americans in their discussion, which I think shows where they really come from because the Asian community, according to polls conducted before the election, overwhelmingly opposed Prop. 8. And I trust those polls a little more.
And the moral of this blog post, ladies and gentlemen and others, is "don't be racist -- it's stupid."
Here's an interesting look at the race statistics that are being bandied around, and why they might be completely misleading. It addresses the "blame the blacks" strategy, so I'd like to say something about the blame for the Latin@ and Asian communities.
I don't remember when the first Yes On 8 ad came out in Spanish, but it was a month or two before the election. The first Spanish-language No ad came out... a week before the election. Basically, Latin@s had lies pouring in, unchallenged, for weeks there, and probably by the time we got around to remembering their existence they'd mostly made up their minds. So isn't it an amazingly good sign that they were, by the available data, pretty evenly split on the issue?
Then there's the Asian community. I see people tossing in "Asians" with Latin@s and African-Americans in their discussion, which I think shows where they really come from because the Asian community, according to polls conducted before the election, overwhelmingly opposed Prop. 8. And I trust those polls a little more.
And the moral of this blog post, ladies and gentlemen and others, is "don't be racist -- it's stupid."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
