Conservatives Try to Monopolize Values

So, Trump spoke at the definitely-not-deplorable Values Voter Summit this weekend, where he and various speakers like that definitely-not-deplorable Duck Dynasty guy and Kirk Cameron spoke for about a hundred-odd minutes ("and I do mean odd") about definitely-not-deplorable "bedrock" conservative values.

You know, real intellectual firepower. Ker-pow!

Mostly what I want to say today is that the phrase "values voter" has long chapped my hide. It suggests that those who share the values of this summit hold values. Which, sure. They do. But, the implication is that those who do not hold these same values do not hold values at all.  After all, they are "values voters." Everyone else votes for.... other reasons.

When, no. We hold values. They just happen to be different ones.

In conversations with some conservatives, I've found that they often genuinely don't get that - which seems remarkably self-centered. It's as though, if a person doesn't believe the way the conservative believes, then that person can't possibly believe in anything at all! 

Anyway. The summit. Not many female-chattel speakers in the lineup, I noticed.

Like I always say. Where there's regular, good old-fashioned male-supremacist values, we'll also find some homophobia, transphobia, Christian supremacy, and thinly-veiled white supremacy, all brought to you by millionaires masquerading as aww shucks gee whiz folksy folk ordinary people.

Anti-Equality Spokesman Warns of Civil War, Because of Course

Welp, the Family Research Council is publishing reliably reasonable statements about the recent marriage equality victories in the US.  Via the agency's blog, authored by Rob Schwarzwalder:

"I’m haunted by the memory of William Seward’s comment, immediately before the Civil War, that strife between North and South over slavery constituted 'an irrepressible conflict.'

Millions of Americans simmer with resentment at the coerced redefinition of marriage the courts are imposing on them, despite referenda in dozens of states where they have affirmed the traditional definition of marriage quite explicitly. 

The Dred Scott decision did not decide the issue of human bondage. The Roe v. Wade decision has not decided the issue of abortion on demand. And the continued federal court confusion over same-sex unions only postpones a day of legal reckoning that could create a measure of civic sundering unwitnessed in our nation for decades.

Even if the Supreme Court has valid reasons for postponing their decision on this issue, postponement is not resolution. I fear that whatever decision the Supremes finally reach will not resolve it, either."

Three observations.

One, from the blogs of the conservative advocacy groups that I read, the "simmering resentment" primarily seems to be that of the dozen or so well-off white Christian heterosexual anti-LGBT men who lead these agencies and who are therefore big-time pissed off that they are publicly losing on the marriage equality front in the US and might have to come up with new strategies to maintain their relevancy and livelihoods.

Two, it's neat how white Christian heterosexual anti-LGBT men so often co-opt historical slavery, which so many of them insist, in other contexts, has had no lingering impact on African-Americans today. If this man were a person of color threatening war and civil uprising, especially a non-Christian, he'd be widely lambasted as an un-American terrorist.

Three, I'm somewhat intrigued by the rightwing "bunker survivalist" mentality.  Like, I watch those shows on Netflix of people who stockpile food rations and, oh yes, guns. Lots of guns and ammo and traps and such. And, it seems like they're almost always featuring white hetero families with a strong patriarchal figure leading the charge, at least when all the guns and militaristic planning is involved.

I don't doubt that some of what many of these people do is genuine concern about civil unrest and survival.  I mean, I have a plan - do you?  If you see something, say something!

But,  and perhaps it's due to that way they talk about their armaments, I always get this inkling that, like, maybe some of these people want the civil unrest to happen? I don't know because maybe they're unhappy with the current societal structure and set of rules, but if something BIG happened, they would finally get to be like, BA-BAM and shoot shit up without consequence. Like, all the planning, all the warning maybe is a bit of a hopeful fantasy for some people?

Anyway, my point is that of all the harms to society that bigots tell us will result from same-sex marriage, the suggestion that it will cause civil war is just so fucking absurd that I start questioning what else is going on behind such a suggestion.

Another One for the History Books

I saw this quote highlighted over at G-A-Y.

It was uttered by Matt Barber, Associate Dean at Liberty University School of Law and former Policy Director of the Concerned Women for America (ha, of course, get back in the kitchen, wimmenz!):

"Those of us who wish to remain obedient to God will not – indeed, cannot – accommodate you and play along with your sin-centric 'gay marriage' delusion.

Ain’t gonna happen.

Ever.

Look, you have every right to dress up in two wedding gowns or two tuxedos, get pretend 'married' and play house to your hearts’ content. You do not have the right, however, to force others to abandon their sincerely held religious beliefs, thousands of years of history and the immutable reality of human biology to engage your little fantasy. No amount of hand-wringing, gnashing of teeth, suing Christians or filing charges against those of us who live in marriage reality will make us recognize your silly so-called 'marriage equality.'”

This quote can go in the chapter I hope is called, "Yep, pretty sure anti-gay bigotry really was a real thing that really motivated laws against same-sex marriage!"

Or maybe that's too wordy.

In any event, again, as a non-Christian, I find it somewhat entertaining in a "wow, dude's massively projecting" kind of way, to be accused of engaging in make-believe by an avowed Christian who Just Knows Things from his definitely-not-made-up religion.

Not sorry but when "god" starts to look just like Matt Barber, that's probably not a great PR campaign for Christianity.

Another Conservative Applauds Russian Anti-Gay Law

This time, it's Patrick Buchanan, over at The American Conservative, where he wistfully longs for the days of ye olde, when "homosexual sodomy" was outlawed and same-sex marriage was "an absurdity."

No, really, in addition to saying the regular uninspired shit about "homosexual propaganda" and blah blah blah, he says:

"Only yesterday, homosexual sodomy, which Thomas Jefferson said should be treated like rape, was outlawed in many states and same-sex marriage was regarded as an absurdity. 

Was that America we grew up in really like Nazi Germany?"

LOL.

Okay, totally awkward sentence construction, but is a decade ago, when Lawrence v. Texas declared sodomy laws unconstitutional, really only "yesterday"? Or is "yesterday" Thomas Jefferson's super special homo-hatin' days? And is Pat privy to a DeLorean and flux capacitor and running a secret operation to ship True Patriots to the future where he can write about them in the first person? (And this is what he uses time travel on? Bemoaning the homosexual agenda? This is why we can't have nice things.)

Later on down, he says:

"We can no longer even agree on what is good and evil."

"No longer"? Because you see, historically, there's been mass agreement about what constitutes good and evil in the world. Definitely no disagreements there until very recently!  Political correctness run amok and whatnot.

I mean, what? This guy.

First and foremost, Buchanan's, um, interesting post reminds me that in addition to being Accomplished Grade-A Gaslighters, many American conservatives are myth-makers who mix up (myxth?) their utopian fantasies with stuff that actually happened in the past.

And, contrary to popular "we're not bigots" mythology, the way some conservatives speak so approvingly of Russia's laws, it seems to be unspoken common knowledge that many opponents of LGBT equality in the US actually would have no problem with both "homosexual sodomy" and pro-gay speech being criminalized here. These "culture wars" are about far more than anti-LGBT Christians supposedly "protecting" their own religious liberties.

And just as a final note, it really strikes me as mostly sad when conservatives get down with their bad selves by still invoking President Obama's middle name, as Buchanan does as the grand finale to his ridiculous piece. That dog whistle is so 2008.


Related:
Today In Definitely-Not-Bigotry

Some Minnesotans Have a Sad About Marriage Equality

“I can’t say we’re bitter. We’re disappointed. It’s people saying, ‘If it’s good for me, I don’t care about anyone else.’ There’s nothing that’s intrinsically evil anymore.”  

This quote's from an article entitled "Some Minnesotans are more sad than bitter over gay marriage," posted in the StarTribune, that has gathered and centered the perspectives of some people who are sad about marriage equality.

Womp wooooooooooooomp.

In addition to the state no longer symbolically saying that homosexuality is "intrinsically evil" (quite an admission there, isn't it?) to some of these citizens this law signals a "deteriorating society," a "disintegrating" "moral compass," and a devaluation of the word "love." One opponent noted that she has "homosexual friends" and that she'll just have to keep on waiting for them to appear willing to listen, to just really listen with an "open heart," to her beliefs about homosexuality being immoral and eventually..... magically not be gay anymore?

Another opponent claimed that with all the texting that happens nowadays:

“There’s no deep thinking anymore. No way to sit down and fully think through an issue.”

I was unaware that the entire campaign in Minnesota, as well as the related DOMA and Prop 8 Supreme Court cases, were conducted entirely by text message.

And, what is it that gives some equality opponents the biggest sad of all? From the article:

"What hurts them most about seeing society change around them? Being called bigots, they said. Feeling forced to accept something they believe is wrong."

Of course.

I like to call this the argumentum ad "I will call you and your lifestyle a symbol of the apocalypse and you must like me for it! 'cuz if you don't, you're SO mean!"

It's silly, really.  Being an actual gay person, I can understand why same-sex couples and queer people would be sad if a marriage equality measure did not pass in their state - you know, given that the denial actually impacts their actual lives.  But, what does it mean to be So Sad that one has "lost" a "right" to deny other people marriage?

To me, it seems as though some equality opponents are sad about marriage equality measures passing because it means they've kind of symbolically flipped positions with gay people in the eyes of the state and, perhaps, the majority of Americans in terms of morality.

Some opponents of equality (and many LGBT people and allies) view a state's failure to recognize same-sex marriage as the state suggesting that homosexuality is immoral (or, say, "intrinsically evil"), a state's recognition of marriage equality might suggest that to oppose homosexuality is, at the least, immoral and no longer socially condoned. Opposing marriage equality, and uttering the opinion that homosexuality is "evil" or "immoral," becomes less and less a thing that is said in polite company.

What some opponents of equality are really sad about, it seems, is that - the marginalization of their homobigoted views. They are free to express their opinions, of course, despite the false cries of "censorship" and so forth. However, they can no longer express their opinion about homosexuality and same-sex marriage whilst still receiving widespread assurance that the state, the legal system, and most people agree with them and think their position is nice, commonsensical, and true.

In more exciting news, lots of other people were happy about marriage equality in Minnesota. (And you can always count on lesbians to show up to a wedding in tie-dye!)

For Religious Reasons

I've seen a few opponents of same-sex marriage quote an article by Richard Garnett, warning of the purported threats to religious freedom that the recent DOMA decision poses. From the article, I highlight this portion:

"At the end of the day, Section 3 of DOMA was struck down not so much because it intruded upon the policymaking prerogatives of the sovereign states but because—in Kennedy’s words—it 'humiliates,' 'demeans,' 'disapprov[es],' and  'seeks to injure.' It reflects, he charged, a 'bare congressional desire to harm' and 'writes inequality into the entire United States Code.' It is unconstitutional, really, not because it imposes a 'one size fits all' definition and thereby hamstrings state-level experimentation, but because the Court majority thinks it reflects unsound, unreasonable, unenlightened, and unattractive opinions about marriage and family.."

Putting aside Garnett's interpretation of Kennedy's reasoning, his second sentence does not follow from the first sentence of "Kennedy's words."

The first sentence, you notice, pertains to Justice Kennedy referencing the harm experienced by same-sex couples and gays and lesbians, and the harm intended, which was also clearly illustrated in DOMA's legislative history wherein the House Committee on the Judiciary clearly stated in 1996 that the law's purpose was to enshrine the disapproval and moral inferiority of homosexuality into law.

Garnett's second sentence, though, includes adjectives that do not reference acknowledge that harm.

Instead of using the descriptor "injurious" he uses "unsound." "Unreasonable." "Unenlightened." "Unattractive."  He does so even though DOMA, whether "marriage defenders" admit, acknowledge, or intended it or not, inflicted real injuries on real people - a fact which was demonstrated by the circumstances of the actual plaintiff in Windsor.

As explicit bigotry is less of a winning argument now than it was in 1996, it is interesting to note the shift in strategy in how "marriage defenders" talk about their opposition ¹ to same-sex marriage. Legal arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are caricatured and simplified. Rarely, especially in pop conversations by advocates, are pro-equality opinions analyzed for legal substance that evidences an understanding of the ways the legal system has historically marginalized and denigrated gays and lesbians. The pro-equality rationales supporting same-sex marriage are instead cheaply, dog-whistle-y likened to a fashionable garment that, maybe, a swishy trendy man might wear. Justice Kennedy is accused of practically doing nothing but crafting an opinion that utters the word "bigot" over and over and over again.

And yes, of all that's within Justice Kennedy's opinion in Windsor, it is the suggestion that "marriage defenders" enacted it to harm and disapprove of same-sex couples and gays and lesbians that most seems to rankle those who continue to oppose same-sex marriage.

Yet, doesn't the quest and fear-mongering to grant religious opponents of same-sex marriage special exemptions from having to recognize legal same-sex unions even outside the context of having them performed in their religious places of worship give away the game?

We see Christian employers, "for religious reasons," refusing to provide benefits to same-sex couples in violation of state law or public contracts.

We see a Catholic adoption agency, "for religious reasons," refusing to place children in homes of same-sex couples.

We see some county clerks, "for religious reasons," refusing to do their jobs and issue state marriage licenses to same-sex couples in states where such marriages are legal.

If one believes that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is a thing that can and should only exist between one man and one woman, it is most definitely not a stretch for us to imagine that such a person would want to use special religious exemption laws as a means to express their moral disapproval of same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Their very argument for these exemptions, in fact, is that that they don't want to be "forced" to recognize that which they disapprove of - "for religious reasons."

I can tolerate having to have an argument about whether special laws granting religious folks special exemptions from complying with laws like everyone else has to should exist.

What I refuse to tolerate is the gaslighting insistence that we all pretend that such laws are not about their expressions of moral disapproval of homosexuality, same-sex couples, and same-sex marriage. I refuse to pretend that homobigotry is over when it's not, just because it happens to be some people's firmly-held religious belief that they believe is good and true.

---

1 I have no idea what Garnett's position is on same-sex marriage, I've just seen multiple opponents of same-sex marriage quote this piece approvingly, citing the purported harms to "religious freedom" due to state recognition of marriage equality.

Not a Christian, But (Part Two)

 [Content note: Anti-gay bigotry and violence]

Last year, I wrote this post on how Christianity's anti-gay teachings and reputation were among the top reasons that young people are turning away from the religion.

I can't imagine that actions like these will help that image, actions in which a Christian teaching that gay people deserve to die is cited in a Salvation Army training manual and then, in an interview, that belief is actually confirmed as legit by an organization spokesman.

Truth Wins Out actually published the above-linked story about a year ago as well, but I guess I missed it back then. I think it's worth highlighting again on Internet, for the historical record.

See, it's pretty popular among some prominent folks who oppose marriage equality today to claim that American society is too pro-gay and that Christians are too oppressed in the United States. But, no equivalent "opposite" pro-gay organization in the US exists, in the real world, that deems it acceptable to teach that Christians should be put to death, or that claim that "god" says Christians should be put to death.

I think sometimes that many of us, LGBT people and allies, get inured to rhetoric like this, because it's actually not all that unusual to come across someone hiding behind their religion as cover for their hatred and, specifically, citing religious beliefs that claim that gay people should die.

Oh har har, it's just someone being a bigoted ass on Internet.

But no, these beliefs are real. And, they are put in the mouth of "god," and repeated by followers of the most powerful and prominent religion in the US.

And, holy shit, when I think about it enough, it's like wow, these people actually think gay people should die.

They. actually. think. gay people. should. die.

I should die. Because I'm gay. You, perhaps, should die. If you're gay too. And what's-his-face from the Salvation Army wants to sit and parse the precise language and issue a non-apology apology about it and people in the comments want to bicker over whether or not being gay is a choice or genetic while completely losing sight of the fact that they. think. gay. people. should. die.

That is a big deal. A really big fucking deal.

So, back to my point about Christians leaving the religion because of its well-deserved reputation of being anti-gay. What are Christian opponents of LGBT rights who disagree with these beliefs doing to disassociate themselves from, and marginalize, these other Christian beliefs?

Your silence, your passivity, and your belief that your religion automatically makes you a good person, does not protect you.

And, it is not uncharitable to say that.

Indeed, given that the elimination of gay people seems to be an explicit or implicit Christian doctrine for many Christians, it is a profound act of self-defense to Not Just Assume that All True Christians disagree with the Salvation Army's text.

[Spoiler Alert: I won't be donating to Salvation Army anytime soon.]

SCOTUS Takes Up DOMA and Prop 8

It has been, of course, a big week at the US Supreme Court with respect to same-sex marriage.

I've been mostly following the arguments and recaps at SCOTUSblog. There are many good roundups at the site, two interesting pieces of which include commentator Lyle Denniston saying "DOMA is in trouble" and Amy Howe breaking down the Prop 8 arguments "in Plan English."

In her post, Howe suggests that the Justices may not reach the merits of the Prop 8 case at all, since Prop 8 is being defended not by the State but by the proponents of the ballot initiative. What that means is that the proponents of Prop 8 may lack "standing" to bring the case.

Back to DOMA, though, Denniston recounts how Justice Kennedy "seemed troubled" by the way that DOMA prohibits same-sex couples who are legally married in a state from receiving federal benefits of marriage and by the way that DOMA interferes with the "traditional authority" of the states to regulate marriage.

Feel free to discuss these cases, the briefs, the articles, and/or specific arguments in the comments.

I would like to end with one observation. At this blog, in the context of civility, we sometimes discuss the difference between intent and effect, and concede that an action or statement may be harmful even if that was not the intent of the person making it.

That mixed-sex relationships oftentimes result in procreation is often put forth as a civil, non-religious reason for limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Yet, my primary issue with a legal system that affords separate and unequal rights to same-sex couples and mixed-sex couples is that, pragmatically, DOMA and Prop 8 only test the gender composition of a couple, not the couple's actual procreative ability. That some states, like my own, grant the exact same state-level rights of marriage while calling the legal status by a different name, like "civil union" which is supposedly definitely not marriage, appears similarly irrational.

I realize that to those who have been involved in this conversation for years, I'm not making a new argument or saying anything that hasn't been said a million times already.  And yes, I realize that some, including the legislators who were in support of DOMA, believe that it would be "offensive" to inquire, prior to marriage, into whether a mixed-sex couple were capable of procreation. Apparently, it matters a lot when heterosexuals might be offended, as opposed to when same-sex couples might be offended!

But to me, and to many others (judging by the traction this argument gets), the overbroad nature of letting mixed-couples marry who cannot procreate together while excluding all same-sex couples from marriage for precisely that reason has an effect of suggesting that the same-sex couple sub-category of couples who cannot procreate together cannot marry because they are tainted by the purported moral inferiority of homosexuality.

At the same time, I think we would be remiss in not acknowledging the actual intent behind DOMA, as it was not as entirely benign as is sometimes claimed.

In 1996, one of the reasons that the House Committee on the Judiciary put forth for supporting DOMA was, actually, to enshrine the moral inferiority of homosexuality into law. This Committee wrote (PDF):

"Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality."

In the current context in which it is often fashionable for some opponents of same-sex marriage to be more offended when one's views are called anti-gay than to be offended about holding anti-gay beliefs, I think the incredibly problematic aspects of the legislative history of DOMA sometimes get a little bit overlooked and erased.

If one of the purported goals of DOMA was to reflect and honor a collective moral disapproval of homosexuality, that seems to be an admission that the law actually does reflect and honor a collective moral disapproval of homosexuality. Knowing that context and background, I think it's incredibly difficult for supporters of DOMA to claim, in good faith, that their support of DOMA is not, likewise, expressing a similar disapproval.

[Cross-posted: Family Scholars Blog]

Christian Men on Marginal Females

So I got into a Facebook convo with a fresh-from-undergrad 20-something-year-old Christian guy who has Big Ideas about how to stop abortion. Namely, he thinks "we" should tell people not to have sex if they don't want to get pregnant, and abortions will mostly stop.

I wish that were a straw version of his argument, but that's really it.

This font of unparalleled wisdom likewise suggested this public health strategy to two very intelligent women at least a decade older than him who also devote pretty much every day of their lives to gender issues and social justice, as though he had lots to teach these women about the abortion debate.

So, as you can imagine, this dude quickly became my favorite!

During this conversation, he continually referred to men as men and to women as "females," as though females, rather than "women," were the proper equivalent to the word "men."

Now, you may notice that I made note of this guy's religion- Christianity. He is a friend of a friend, but his Facebook profile suggested that this guy is Evangelical. His profile picture is of himself and his wife. In the photo, he is centered and she is standing behind him, a bit to the... margin.

I didn't delve into this analysis on Facebook in my conversation with him. For, in my experience, even suggesting that a non-feminist Christian man's worldview of himself possessing intellectual and objective superiority over women might be a bit biased by his male-centric religion, and that this worldview is likewise reflected in his, say, photos and language usage mostly brings about reflexive, projecty "yeah well you're the real sexist" accusations.

As we all know, pointing out how some men are male supremacist and sexist is actually worse than them being male supremacist and sexist.

So, naturally, I turn to the wonderful denizens of Internet Feminism to engage my analysis.

It's indicative, right, of seriously problematic (dare I say? yep!) patriarchal views when a man calls men "men" while calling women "females," especially in a debate in which he is opposing women's right to control their own bodies?

Indeed, I contend that this guy's clinical labeling of women suggests a worldview in which men are autonomous, uniquely-enlightened, and central beings with Sooper Dooper Big Ideas under which "females," in our zoo-animal-like non-autonomous-consent-lacking state, must submit.

It's Okay, He Was Just Quoting the Bible

Does it ever get awkward when, like, anti-equality groups feel the need to defend other anti-equality folks who say really abhorrent things?

Last week, Rev. Robert Anderson, a Baptist preacher, was on a panel discussing Maryland's same-sex marriage law. While on this panel he said that people who engage in same-sex sex are "worthy of death" and that:“If we don’t vote against [the same-sex marriage law], than we are approving these things that are worthy of death."

He was, apparently, quoting the Bible.

Which, to that I'd say, if your Bible suggests that two people engaging in same-sex sexual behavior is a capital offense, maybe it's time to re-think your interpretation, alleged "god's word," and/or entire religion.

I don't expect that to happen, of course.

What I do think is interesting is how Derek McCoy of the anti-equality group Maryland Marriage Alliance frames the convo:

“Any attempt to imply that Dr. Anderson’s reading of scripture was a call to harm gays and lesbians is false and serves as a distraction from the real issues of this campaign. The Maryland Marriage Alliance No on Question 6 campaign has been and remains focused on explaining to voters the good that marriage does for society, and the consequences that have occurred when marriage has been redefined elsewhere. From the beginning, we have been deeply committed to civility and honor the value of everyone’s human rights. Scripture tells us that all God’s children are made in his image and likeness, and we are called to speak truth through love. We continue to deplore violence or bullying against any person and or group of people on either side of this issue. [Emphasis Added]”

Just wondering, at what point does it become acceptable, in the minds of anti-equality advocates, to call speech bigoted, uncivil, and hateful?  Does such bigotry, incivility, and hatred ever exist against LGBT people, in their eyes?

When, if ever, will anti-equality advocates stop suggesting that our legitimate fear, pain, and suffering brought about by such cruel words is a mere political ploy enacted to distract people from so-called "real issues"?

I suggest that maybe, just maybe, the purported real issues of this campaign are inextricably linked to this purported side issue.  When anti-equality advocates understand that, they will have more credibility with respect to their claim that they're just Deeply Concerned About the Consequences of Redefining Marriage.

Family Matters

Wahoo, Personal Anecdote Time!

I have mentioned before that a close relative of my girlfriend's is very religious and is a member of the clergy in a Christian sect that discriminates against women (in ordination) and same-sex couples (in marriage). Shortly after my girlfriend and I attended, celebrated, and helped organize, this man's heterosexual wedding, he sent a mass communication to his friends and congregation urging them to sign the anti-gay Manhattan Declaration.

Now, I support the right for religious organizations to not recognize same-sex marriage. I have no interest in being a part of a religious sect that believes my basic humanity and relationship to my girlfriend is inferior to heterosexual lives and relationships. I tolerate, say, the Catholic Church's refusal to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, even if I do not agree with it.

Yet, I also believe that if the government is going to recognize marriage, it must recognize same-sex marriage in addition to heterosexual marriage. And, likewise, religious organizations should tolerate the state's recognition of same-sex marriage, even if they do not agree with it. Religious organizations do not own the institution of marriage.

Unfortunately, the Manhattan Declaration fails this basic test of tolerance, declaring that it is incumbent upon Brave and Awesome Christians to deny same-sex couples state-issued marriage licenses. In this way is Christian "tolerance" a one-way street. Non-Christians and same-sex couples can and do tolerate Christian intolerance of concepts like Treating People Equally within religious ceremonies and leadership, but Christians frame it as a violation of their own religious freedom when they are expected to tolerate the government treating people equally.

I find being around this double-standard to be psychologically harmful. Just as many batterers view themselves as victims rather than perpetrators of abuse, powerful religious groups use their moral capital to declare Others immoral, sinful, and inferior while simultaneously framing these relatively powerless groups as Incredibly Powerful And Dangerous. And thus, when, say, a gay person is in their midst, they give themselves Big-Time Props for not, like, stoning us on their altars.

As a child, I could not escape homophobic situations. As an adult, I can and do consciously limit my interactions with homophobia. So, while I will attend funerals at discriminatory religious institutions, and have attended the occasional wedding at such venues, I do not attend other religious services or ceremonies at un-affirming institutions.

So, back to the religious relative. In the near future, a religious ceremony is going to take place that, apparently, is a Big Deal that many people in the family are attending. Attending this ceremony, for me, would mean taking vacation time, buying a plane ticket, and then ultimately observing a ceremony, the purpose of which is to celebrate this family's choice to raise their child in an institution that tells hir that other members of their family (and more than half of the world's population) are inferior to heterosexual men.

Okay. That's their choice. I can tolerate that from afar. As happy as I am for them about the impending birth of their child and as excited as I am to meet the child, is it unreasonable to choose not to attend this religious ceremony?

On the one hand, as the Lesbian Partner (as opposed to the lawfully-wedded wife), I am already somewhat of an outsider to this family. By not attending such events, I further alienate myself and reinforce the notion that I'm not a "real" part of the family.

But on the other, as a lesbian and a feminist, I find it challenging to reconcile (a) wanting to be recognized as part of the family with (b) wanting to celebrate Important Family Events, with (c) not wanting to implicitly support a religion that is oppressive toward women and LGBT people.

And, once I'm brutally honest with myself, I find that I begin to question how much it is worth to earn acceptance from those who not only tolerate intolerance, but expect one to be complicit in it in order for that person to viewed as a Real Family Member.

I think, the older I have gotten, the more I have come to value the family, friends, and community that I have consciously created, joined, and become a part of by choice. As I gradually began to let go of the idea that unhealthy family interactions had to be endured because of shared bloodlines, I began to heal.

I'm not saying that works for everyone, just that it is what works for me.

So my question to you is, if you are a feminist, woman, LGBT person, and/or atheist, how do you negotiate going to Important Family Events that are religiously-based, sexist, and/or homophobic?

Not Helping Religion's Image

Now this is always a fun reversal. In response to an article at Family Scholars Blog that noted how young people are increasingly not identifying with organized religion in large part because of being repulsed by homophobia within religion, commenter RK opines:

"...[I]f true, [this analysis] could be seen as bolstering the argument that the gay movement, or perhaps more specifically the SSM [same-sex marriage] movement, is effectively destroying or at least dangerously weakening the nation’s religious infrastructure, a claim which many SSM advocates are trying desperately to assure the public is not true."

Here, note that from the perspective of those opposed to equality, it is gay people and our demand for equality via civil, legal marriage that is tearing apart our "nation's religious infrastructure," rather than, say, religion's intolerance, homobigotry, and obsessive fixation on homosexuality that is tearing apart that infrastructure.

And, well, about that. Notice the subtext. Look at what apparently constitutes our "nation's religious infrastructure."

Hint: It's not Jesus. Not God, either. (It's certainly not Allah or G-d because we all know what America's One True Religion is). It's also not compassion, love, or tolerance. Not the Golden Rule. Not vows of poverty. Or celibacy, equality, peace, or heck, even just being kind to one another.

Nope.

If the SSM movement is, as RK claims, what is imagined to be the destroyer of our "nation's religious infrastructure," then it must logically hold true that opposition to same-sex marriage is the very foundation of that religious infrastructure. And, if that foundation is taken away, religion will crumble into a heap of meaninglessness, causing Christians to solidify their extreme anti-gay bitterness.

As RK concernedly purports:

"While I imagine you would prefer to interpret this as a call to conservative religious groups to modify their stands on gay issues, it is as likely, if not more likely, that it will only reinforce those stands."

What a sad state of religion if this is indeed accurate.

Here I would argue that as it becomes more evident that so many American religious folks define themselves spiritually almost entirely by their Courageous Stands against the homosexual agenda, RK's prophecy will become a self-fulfilling one, which will, in turn, only repulse more people from such a "religion." Then, in an unfortunate cascade, perhaps RK would say that other religious people would only become more entrenched in their homobigotry and opposition to SSM.

It's a succession of stubbornness.

Religion is at its worst when the devout cling to dogma in order to justify bigotry and domination rather than to transcend these human failings.

It is said that Jesus told Peter "upon this rock I will build my church." If Christianity is worth salvaging at all, that foundational phrase must must mean something other than "upon the backs of your LGBT sisters and brothers, people who claim me as their savior should build my church."

It's good that at least some Christians aren't losing sight of that. Perhaps they've caught on that moving closer to god sometimes means leaving religion behind.

More Definitely-Not-Bigotry

Writing a somewhat dull op-ed piece in The Washington Times, conservative commentator Rebecca Hagelin opines:

"A recent survey suggests that Americans are more accepting than ever of homosexual 'families.' Although only about one-third of Americans consider homosexual couples with no children to be a family, 68 percent say homosexual couples with children do indeed make a 'family.'
Does growing acceptance make it right?...

Our children must distinguish between what's right, on the one hand, and what's familiar, but dysfunctional, on the other.

Ground them in the truth: Marriage is between one man and one woman, and children do best when raised by their married mother and father. This biblical truth is proven by social science data and by history, and must be protected if America is to survive as a civil society. The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy has a treasure trove of research and information on the subject that you can access for free at www.MarriageDebate.com."

Here, Hagelin first uses scare quotes to indicate that gay families are not authentic families, proceeds to claim that our families are dysfunctional, and then concludes that heterosexually-headed families are superior to gay ones. She posits that all of these statements are biblical, moral, and scientific fact.

These statements in the public record do not bode well for the claim that same-sex marriage bans aren't about anti-gay animus or about asserting the moral superiority of heterosexual families. I wonder how all of the self-proclaimed Nice Guys and Gals, including the 7 million voters who voted for California's discriminatory same-sex marriage ban who Definitely Don't Have Anti-Gay Animus Or Anything, will respond to Hagelin's piece.

But wait. Hagelin isn't finished. She has to wipe her hands clean of bigotry and stigmatization by claiming... well, just read:

"Finally, make certain your children know that it is important to show kindness to everyone. It's also critical to teach our kids that just as past generations were wrong to stigmatize the innocent child born to unmarried parents, it is wrong to stigmatize a child being raised by homosexuals."

Insight. Apparently, it's not a family value.

The Totally-Not-At-All-Prejudicially-Worded "Are You A Pro-Gay Bigot" Quiz, Part II

This post is a continuation of yesterday's post, where I take on the "Are You a Pro-Gay Bigot?" quiz. The quiz questions are in bold.

10. Do you believe that only churches that accept homosexuality have interpreted the Bible in the ‘correct’ way?

No, although I do wish Christians would take a course in textual criticism before they begin quoting scripture. Nonetheless, I think it is likely that many of the men who wrote, copied, and subsequently altered the bible were opposed to male homosexual behavior, and thus anti-gay Christians are correct to read anti-gay animus into whatever version of this ancient text they happen to be referring to. That being said, I question many anti-gay interpretations of biblical text, because they often seem to ignore historical context and other messages within these verses. For instance, in Genesis 19, Lot unsuccessfully offers up his virgin daughters to placate the mob of men intent on raping the male strangers. It is telling and sad that many anti-gay Christians fixate on the alleged anti-homosexuality message of this story rather than, say, condemning the idea that the rape of women is an acceptable negotiating strategy and that female virginity is a commodity that men can use to maintain peace among each other.

Do you feel it isn’t necessary to read the relevant Bible passages yourself, all of which are straightforward in condemning homosexual acts?

I would be curious which bible verses the author of this question deems to be "straightforward" in their condemnation of homosexual acts, but yes I have read various interpretations of "relevant" biblical passages myself. Regardless, there is much in this mythical text aside from its anti-homosexuality that makes it irredeemable, especially its treatment of women.

Do you believe it’s impossible to be “kind” and oppose homosexuality?

A person can be "kind" and oppose homosexuality. Kind to heterosexuals, that is. (Just kidding).

11. Are you quick to say “Judge not, lest you be judged” ( Matthew 7:1) and similar passages, without understanding the Christian theology behind it, and all the while being very judgmental yourself?

I don't generally quote bible verses.

12. Do you sincerely believe Jesus would have accepted homosexual sex acts?

This question is irrelevant to a debate about homosexuality. Not all Americans accept the assumption that Jesus is divine or even that he was a real historical figure. Social policy should be made after weighing relevant pros and cons rather than after speculating about whether a man who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago would have accepted this policy.

Do you believe Jesus is cool with whatever anyone wants to do?

See above.

Do you believe there’s such a thing as ‘sin’ and if so, how is it defined?

If we define sin as a violation of a moral rule, than yes, I think there is sin in the world. Generally, I think we sin when we violate the golden rule.

Are you the one who defines sin for yourself?

I don't know from where or what authority the golden rule emanates, but it is a commonality between all major religious and ethical systems. I'm okay with that uncertainty.

Do you have no need of a savior and if not, wasn’t Christ’s death and resurrection pretty pointless?

I was born okay the first time.

Despite all these contradictory and self-constructed beliefs, do you consider yourself a “Christian”?

I am not a Christian. Or a "Christian."

13. Do you believe sweeping stereotypes, like that all ‘gay’ people are innocent victims or that all conservatives must be mean and stupid?

No. Real life usually happens in shades of gray.

14. Do you close your ears and figure it’s a conservative plot if you hear that at least 2/3 of all the HIV transmission in the United States still involves males having anal sex with each other?

No, but I do want to see and analyze all evidence.

15. Do you believe anyone who objects to homosexuality is automatically “hateful,” while you seethe with hate yourself?

No. (Okay, this questionaire wording is really getting ridiculous. It's obviously intended for anti-gay folks who believe they already know exactly how pro-LGBT people are going to respond).

16. Do you believe it’s okay for thirteen- year- olds to learn at school that they have the right to have homosexual sex with each other?

This is a strangely-worded question. I believe 13-year olds shouldn't be taught that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural. The right for 13-year-olds to have sex with each other is a real thing that exists in the real world and, accordingly, I believe they should learn how to keep themselves safe for when they start having sex. That's a big difference from showing them PowerPoint slides taken from the The Joy of Gay Sex, as this question implies.

Do you close your ears when concerned parents are outraged?

Outraged at what, exactly? The idea that homosexuality isn't wrong? Also, how does one close their ears, literally? Is there a flap some people have that others don't?

Would you call such parents “ignorant” and accuse them of “censorship”?

This is difficult to answer without knowing exactly what scenario the question pertains to. Are we talking state action? Banning books? Revising curriculum? What?

17. Do you believe that, after several thousand years where most cultures have prohibited homosexuality, only now the ‘real’ truth is emerging?

The "real truth" about what? The origins of homosexuality? The morality of it? Homosexuality isn't true or false. It is a phenomenon in the real world.

Do you believe this is not an arrogant, narrow or immature position?

No. What is frightening is that this question implies that homosexuality should once again become prohibited because tolerance of homosexuality is arrogant, narrow, and immature.

18. Do you believe that ‘gays’ are the target of widespread violence that goes unpunished in the United States?

Yes.

Do you understand that hate crimes stats don’t support this claim and that laws already exist to punish all crimes, no matter why they are committed?

The FBI hate crimes statistics show that at least 1,706 people were victims of sexual-orientation-based hate crimes in 2008. This may not rise to some people's level of "widespread violence," but it should also be noted that many hate crimes are not reported as such and studies show that 45% of gay male youth and 20% of lesbian youth report being the victims of verbal or physical assaults in schools. As an attorney, yes, I understand that laws exist already making certain actions like murder illegal. I would encourage the author of this question to seek understanding as to the purpose of hate crime penalty enhancement statutes.

Would you be unconcerned about overall civil liberties if trumped -up charges of so-called “hate speech” were used to silence people?

I oppose laws restricting the expression of anti-gay speech.

19. Do you believe that conservatives are making a big deal out of a behavior that has no harmful effects on individuals, families, communities, or societies?

I do believe many anti-gay folks are unnecessarily making a big deal about homosexuality. I would likewise encourage anti-gay individuals to contemplate how their making a big deal out of homosexuality has harmful effects on individuals, families, communities, and societies.

Do you scoff at any claims that serious public health issues are involved, like sexually transmitted diseases or risks to children?

It's not clear what is meant by "risks to children" so I will address the elephant in the room. Male-to-male sexual behavior continues to be a high risk factor for the transmission of HIV and some STDs. I don't "scoff" at these statistics but I do think that, given that this is what much anti-gay furor over homosexuality centers around, effectively expecting all LGB people to negate our sexual identities is a bit of an overkill to a public health issue that is better managed through education and tolerance.

20. And–very big question: Is your need for other people’s approval greater than your appreciation of truth?

In a heterocentric Christian nation, I am an agnostic lesbian feminist. There is no but. And not the fun kind. You probably don't want to go down this "need for other people's approval" comparison road with me.

Do you refuse to consider an unpopular viewpoint because it might make you appear unenlightened to some people?

After being on the receiving end of veiled rape and death threats because of my "unpopular viewpoints," appearing "unenlightened" is not a big concern of mine.

If your mind and heart changed about this issue, would you have the courage to be a rebel for a worthy cause, to speak up and inform family, friends–and fellow humans who are involved in homosexuality?

I like Rob's answer here: "Yes. And in fact I get enormous satisfaction from being a small rebel in a great and worthy cause — the crusade for truth, dignity, and equality. Wait — are you people claiming to see yourselves as rebels?"


To end, perhaps many of you answered these questions for yourselves as you went along. As this quiz doesn't contain a scoring method, it's hard to say whether or not we "passed." Nonetheless, given the wording of the questions, the quiz seemed aimed more at an anti-gay audience, trying as it did to set up "gotchas" while assuming total foresight as to how a "pro-gay" person would respond. Ironically enough, such questions ultimately revealed a fair among of bigotry, stereotyping, and prejudice on the part of the questioner.

The Totally-Not-At-All-Prejudicially-Worded "Are You A Pro-Gay Bigot" Quiz, Part I

[Cross-posted at Our Big Gayborhood]

For a brief moment during the Prop 8 debacle, the national discourse surrounding same-sex marriage shifted away from families and instead centered around whether one man, "marriage defender" David Blankenhorn, was a bigot. As distracting from the substantive issue as it was to have various folks, both gay and straight, debate this Matter of Supreme Importance in national op-eds, the conversation does speak to the frustration that many feel with the power of the word bigot to shut down dialogue.

However, the bigot bomb is hardly a one-way shot. Increasibly, prominent anti-gay voices like the National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage have begun turning the tables, implying and outright calling LGBT equality advocates intolerant bigots. Because bigotry is a human failing rather than an anti-gay or pro-gay one, it should come as no surprise that intolerant bigots would also exist on "our" side of the ideological aisle.

Thus, following the lead of Rob Tsinani, who posted his responses at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, I too am going to (as briefly as possible) respond to the 20 (weasily-worded) questions that purport to answer the Big Pressing Question of whether or not a person is a "pro-gay bigot." (I used the Google to find the original source of these questions, and they seem to emanate from an anti-abortion, anti-gay Christian ministry page that is no longer active and/or from this Yahoo message board by poster "pro_family_activist." The questions were also posted at the pro-Prop 8 "Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman" Facebook page. Also, because I don't want to conflate sexual orientation with gender identity, I have intentionally omitted the "T" from LGBT, in case anyone thinks I've unintentionally left out transgender folks.)

Here we go:

1. Do you believe in free speech about homosexuality for everyone except conservatives or Christians?

While noting that this question erroneously conflates anti-gay ideology with both conservatism and Christianity, I do not support censorship of anti-gay statements.

2. Do you participate in name-calling of those who object to homosexuality — names like bigot, hate-monger, etc.?

This question seems to problematically assume that no anti-gay person is deserving of being called a bigot or hate-monger, and thus reads as an attempt to silence the label when it is appropriate. I don't think a person who opposes LGB equality is automatically a bigot but, like Rob Tsinani, I would argue that those who engage in or support sexuality-based bullying, assault, fear-mongering, hostility, harassment, discrimination, imprisonment, or murder would fall under the category of hateful or bigoted.

3. Do you believe ‘gays’ have been deprived of the right to marry?

First, it's just gays. Not "gays." If this is to be a dialogue, shouldn't anti-gay folks make the simple concession of not questioning the label many in the community choose to identify with? Secondly, yes, gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals have been deprived of the right to marry the person of their choice.

Doesn’t pretty much everyone have the right to marry now — to a person of the opposite sex?

This question implies that since bisexuals, gay men, and lesbians currently have the right to marry persons of the other sex just as heterosexuals do, marriage laws do not discriminate against LGB people. Here, I would advise the asker of this question to become informed about what sexual orienation means. To suggest that the right for a lesbian to marry a man is a meaningful right is an uninformed argument. To paraphrase the great (!) Justice Scalia, A tax on yarmulkes, after all, is effectively a tax on Jews.

4. Do you believe those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear or ignorance?

I think that some people who object to homosexuality are indeed motivated by fear and/or ignorance. See above, regarding those who believe entering into a male-female marriage is an acceptable, good, or viable option for gay men and lesbians.

Do you believe they could never be motivated by compassion for the people involved, and if they say so, they must be lying?

Although I strongly disagree with the notion that LGB people are in need of compassion solely because of our sexual orientations, I do think that some people hold their anti-gay views out of compassion for those they view as living in an unhealthy, morally wrong, and/or unacceptable "lifestyle" that condemns those "involved" to "Hell."

5. Do you believe some people will just inevitably be homosexual, and that there’s a set percentage of the population that will always be ‘gay’, and that this won’t increase, even if a culture embraces ‘gay’ sex?

Yes. I think that if a culture "embraces 'gay' sex," it is logical to expect more people to act upon their sexual orientations and attractions to those of the same sex.

Do you think homosexual experimentation could never become ‘chic’ and popular?

It is already somewhat "chic" and "popular" for two attractive women to engage in non-threatening displays of sexual interest with each other. However, rather than being legitimate acceptance of "homosexual experimentation," it is acceptable only if it occurs on patriarchally-approved terms. The women have to be feminine and attractive and must be engaging in the behavior primarily for purposes of heterosexual male tilillation.

Is there no risk for the people involved or our culture if this happens?

Female-female sex has lower rates of STD transmission than both male-female sex and male-male sex, and the CDC has yet to document a case of female-female sexual transmission of HIV. More women having sex with each other would be a good thing from a public health standpoint. However, this question seems to have a male-centricity to it that assumes that (a) male homosexual behavior is becoming "chic" and "popular" and that, (b) therefore, we must worry about rising HIV/AIDS rates. Actually, tolerance of homosexuality corresponds with less risky sex and, consequently, lower rates of HIV/AIDS infection in gay and bisexual male populations.
As for the risk to "our culture," I would have to know how the author defines "our culture" (and, of course, what people don't count as legitimate members of that culture) before I could answer that.

6. Do you automatically dismiss any conservative comments about homosexuality without listening?

Here, I'm going to echo what Rob said: "No. I dismiss lots of conservative comments because I do listen. And then I write a blog post detailing the factual and logical errors."

Do you believe you are well-informed, while refusing to learn about what homosexuals actually do and the risks involved?

Ditto: "I do believe I am well-informed, despite the best efforts of conservatives to deceive the public about what homosexuals actually do." Furthermore, as a "homosexual" myself, I am intimately familiar with what "homosexuals actually do" and the alleged "risks involved," presumably more than most heterosexuals.

7. Do you believe that the tragedy of any suicide by someone involved in homosexuality is the fault of conservatives?

I believe those who espouse hostility toward homosexuality and LGB people and who dedicate their lives to demonizing us contribute to feelings of hopelessness and self-hate that would cause someone to view death as a better alternative to living as a gay person. Such anti-gay folks don't cause suicide, but I do think they are a contributing factor. It is disingenuous and ignorant to discount the effect of social stigma, prejudice, and hatred of LGB people on the suicidality and mental health status of LGB people.

Is the best solution to these tragedies to demand that everyone in America accept homosexuality?

I believe the increased suicidality of LGB people could be lessened if Ameria was more accepting of LGB people. Yet, I believe it is an oxymoronic concept to suggest that people can be forced, through others' demands, to accept something. Those who are "accepting" of homosexuality only because it has been demanded of them do not truly accept homosexuality. So no, demanding acceptance is not "the best solution" to the tragedies of LGB suicide.

That being said, given that anti-gay folks have yet to propose a viable "solution" to these "tragedies" and that the effect of anti-gay bias on LGB people is so harmful, I find it sad, uncompassionate, and appalling that those who claim the moral high road remain so stubbornly unaccepting.

8. Do you automatically dismiss the idea that anyone could be a former homosexual, despite the hundreds of groups started by ex-‘gays’ and the thousands who live in America?

Automatically? No. I dismiss the idea because reviews of ex-gay studies have found that true change to sexual orientation is rare and that after "ex-gay therapy" same-sex attractions persist.

9. Do you believe that homosexuals are born that way?

From the research I have read, no compelling evidence definitively demonstrates the origins of human sexuality.

Do you refuse to consider the evidence against this claim?

No.

Have you ever looked at the connection between child sexual abuse and later homosexual attraction?

From the research I have read, no compelling evidence definitively demonstrates the origins of human sexuality. The author of this question seems to suggest otherwise.


Tomorrow, I will post the rest of the questions with my responses.

Cardinal Catholicly Opines on Same-Sex Parents

[Trigger warning: Hate speech]

In response to Mexico City's legalization of same-sex marriage:

"Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez, archbishop of Guadalajara and one of the most senior prelates in the nation, in recent days made especially harsh comments widely seen here as offensive.

Calling same-sex unions an 'aberration,' he said, 'Would you want to be adopted by a pair of faggots or lesbians?'"

Also in response to legal same-sex marriage, Mexico's Roman Catholic Archdiocese claimed that such laws "do worse damage than drug trafficking."

Natch, he did not provide evidence in support of this claim.

In related news, the mayor of Mexico City is suing the cardinal for slander for having also claimed that the mayor accepted bribes in exchange for support for same-sex marriage.

I will file these latest incidents away as further proof that stubborn attachment to religious dogma, in this case the idea that homosexuality is wrong, takes the faithful further from, rather than closer to, god.

Narratives of Fear in the Gay Culture Wars

[Cross-posted at Our Big Gayborhood]

The other day I analyzed Doe v. Reed, the Supreme Court case rejecting a group's claim that revealing the names of anti-gay referendum signers violated the First Amendment. Relatedly, if you remember, anti-same-sex marriage groups successfully convinced the US Supreme Court to disallow cameras in the Prop 8 trial on the grounds that their already-well-known experts might be harassed.

I have speculated that the anti-same-sex marriage side's real intent with respect to this hiding has been to (a) publicly demonize the LGBT people by framing us as violent villains and (b) keep a substantive on-the-merits debate out of the living rooms of everyday Americans who don't think too much about this issue.

Law professor Marjorie Cohn hypothesizes a similar idea, regarding the Court's decision to disallow cameras in the Prop 8 trial:

"In my opinion, it is no accident that the five majority justices are the conservatives who, in all likelihood, oppose same-sex marriage. Why don’t those who oppose same-sex marriage want people to see this trial?

Perhaps they are mindful of the sympathy engendered by televised images of another civil rights struggle. 'It was hard for people watching at home not to take sides,' David Halberstam wrote about Little Rock in The Fifties. 'There they were, sitting in their living rooms in front of their own television sets watching orderly black children behaving with great dignity, trying to obtain nothing more than a decent education, the most elemental of American birthrights, yet being assaulted by a vicious mob of poor whites.'

The conservative justices may think that televising this trial will have the same effect on the public. Witnesses are describing their love for each other in deeply emotional terms."

Instead of showing compassion for LGBT families who are harmed by anti-equality advocacy, Protect Marriage, National Organization for Marriage, and Americans for Truth [sic] About Homosexuality frame "marriage defenders" as being incredibly harmed by LGBT rights advocacy. While nary a word is uttered from these anti-equality professionals about violence inflicted upon LGBT people, hearing it from them one is led to believe that "marriage defenders" are subject to pervasive and regular assaults by vicious mobs of LGBT people.

Gay people, their narrative goes, are not victims, but perpetrators. As the Texas GOP claims, gay people engage in activity that "tears at the fabric of society." As the signees of the anti-gay Manhattan Declaration have declared, it is the "marriage defense" majority that is incredibly brave and heroic for their advocacy to deny rights to a minority group that, at most, constitutes 10% of the population.

It is "marriage defenders," all of these folks imply or outright claim, who are the real victims, having to endure the unbelievable harassment of being called "bigots" for their political views. They are heroes, they say, because life is tough and scary for an opposer of the homosexual agenda. I do not claim here that all LGBT people are perfect angels or that society isn't facing real family problems. But the anti-gay movement has, for too long, succeeded in channeling all of its anxieties about social ills into homosexuality, irrationally and counter-productively blaming it for issues it has no relation to. For instance, banning same-sex marriage makes heterosexual marriages more stable, how again?

And so within this historical context, the "marriage defense" narrative of fear has a sliver of truth to it. Many "marriage defenders" are, indeed, incredibly afraid of LGBT advocacy.

More than any real or imagined fear of being a victim of violence, lies the scary, unthinkable possibility that, one day, the Americans who focus more on their own families than on the threat of homosexuality will see for themselves, on camera, in their own living rooms, our common humanity. And in that common humanity, Americans will see us, not as one violent, faceless, monolithic group, the entirety of which is damned because of the actions of a small minority, but as a group that is- like heterosexuals- afforded the same right to have some of its members mess up and still be considered deserving of equal rights

And when the homosexual monster of American mythology transforms into a human being, the anti-gay movement will no longer be able to pinpoint who, where, or what the big bogeyman is.

More False TEACHING GAY SEX Claims

Writing an opinion column for the Hamilton Mountain News, Mark Cripps plays devil's advocate for the local school board's adoption of a new equity policy that contains "a component on sexual orientation."

This component on sexual orientation is an "anti-homophobia curriculum" that is intended to foster an environment free of discrimination.

After stating that he has a gay brother and "doesn't support the view" that homosexuality is a sin, Cripps goes on to pose some Troubling Questions about the anti-homophobia curriculum:

"What happens when little Johnny learns one view at church and home, and then is told that view is unacceptable at school? It seems to me there are a lot of adults playing around with little Johnny’s brain. Who does little Johnny believe? His parents, his church or his teacher?"

Who knows?! His head would probably just right well explode off of his little neck if he learned multiple views from multiple sources! (The brains of little boys, you see, are incredibly delicate and fragile. Not particularly receptive to large amounts of information.)

But seriously, even more disturbing than the fact that people oppose anti-homophobia campaigns in schools, is that some are so quick to underestimate, and oppose the teaching of, critical thinking skills in children. That some people so fear exposing "little Johnny" to multiple opinions on homosexuality from multiple sources and allowing him to form his own opinion on the matter in light of the available evidence speaks to a real insecurity of anti-gay religious belief.

There is much talk of "parents' rights" when it comes to teaching about homosexuality and homophobia, and so I think it's important to clearly define the right in question. For, what people who oppose anti-homophobia campaigns are suggesting is that parents have a right to prevent these campaigns because these campaigns go against their religious beliefs. Here, it's also important to note that this so-called parents' right comes into direct opposition with the right that public school students- children- have to receive an education in a safe environment.

See, what anti-gay folks and unhelpful devil's advocates rarely mention is that when we coddle anti-gay religious beliefs in public schools as though they're legit "other sides" to treating people respectfully, that tangibly means censoring the other "other side." Homophobic bullying is the status quo for children. And so to not address homophobic bullying is to let homophobia and discrimination go unaddressed in an environment that includes LGBT children and that includes kids who live in a society in which gay people exist.

When put this way, it quickly becomes clear that those valiant defenders of The Children are actually, quite boorishly insisting that their own rights with respect to public schools outweigh the safety of children who must actually attend those schools.

Although devil's advocate Cripps says at the end of his piece that "rejecting the dogma of certain faiths doesn't seem very inclusive," what he "doesn't seem" to get is that it's not the job of public schools to include religious dogma at all. Anti-homophobia education isn't about religion, it's about teaching people with respect. It really is as simple as that. And it's amazing (but not really) how so many religious folks are opposed to that.

Yet, to end, watch how Cripps magically transforms an "anti-homophobia curriculum" into a curriculum that Teaches Children Gay Sex:

"Teaching children how to engage in safe homosexual intercourse might be uncomfortable for someone who has been taught since birth that the very act constitutes a sin according to their respective faith."

Fail.

The LGBT community doesn't need faux-allies with gay brothers to play devil's advocate for our issues. There are enough people on the other side already doing that.

Manhattan Declaration: A Conflict Of Interest

A couple weeks ago was quite a Manhattan Declaration extravaganza here in Fannie's Room! It has been on my mind a bit because of something that happened to me in my real life.

You see, my girlfriend has a relative who recently got married. She and I attended this wedding, both of us spending quite a bit of time, money, and energy in helping this man have a beautiful wedding with his new wife. I was happy to do it because, hey, it's family (in a non-legal way of course) and it is nice to see others celebrate love and happiness. Much to my surprise, however, a couple of weeks after this man's wedding, he sent a message encouraging his friends and loved ones to sign on to the Manhattan Declaration- a statement by conservative Christians that opposes, among other things, same-sex marriage.

He knows that his very close relative is a lesbian and that she is, furthermore, in a relationship with me, unable to legally marry.

He sent this message out multiple times.

I put time and resources into supporting and celebrating the wedding of a man who so clearly fails to support my right to engage in a privilege that he took for granted on his own wedding day. I'm not going to go into how this makes me feel, because we all know that feeeeeeeeelings aren't important. What is objectively true is that this man not only doesn't support my equal rights, he actively encourages others to not support my equal rights.

He is also a member of a conservative Christian clergy that does not ordain women.

You can see how this would get one to thinking about people who use their power and privileges, not to confront injustice, but to perpetuate it in the world. See, after I read the Manhattan Declaration, I noticed a putrid smell oozing from it. Through my computer screen! When I took a deeper whiff, I realized it was that old familiar, musty aroma of authoritative heterosexual male privilege and entitlement.

You will notice that the Manhattan Declaration is a document written and signed by (mostly) heterosexual male conservative Christians proclaiming truths that supposedly emanate from a male God that looks remarkably and conveniently much like themselves, about issues that uniquely affect women and LGBT people. While expecting women and LGBT people to make certain sacrifices for the good of society, it asks nothing of heterosexual men other than that they affirm that women and same-sex couples ought to make said sacrifices.

Whilst Tiger Woods and countless other male superstars very publicly destroy what marriage means every single day, I found myself wondering why the heterosexual (mostly) male Christian signees did not produce a document that other male heterosexual Christians could sign on to that would actually require them to make sacrifices. Isn't time heterosexuals got serious about protecting marriage by creating consequences for their own misbehavior, as opposed to putting the blame for the failure of an institution they have always owned on everyone else?

See, as much as the authors of the document self-aggrandize about their own incredible awesomeness and bravery for insisting that the rights of women and same-sex couples ought to be restricted, it is not at all clear how it is particularly brave or awesome for heterosexual men to use their power and influence to restrict the rights of minorities whom are already largely considered to be Others in society.

In short, as Hugo Schwyzer notes, the declaration is cheap:

"It requires no particular personal sacrifice or reflection on the part of those who claim these are the top issues. Men who will never get pregnant; heterosexuals who have the privilege to marry those whom they love — they surrender nothing precious to them by fighting tooth and nail against reproductive and glbtq rights."

It's like if a bunch of gorillas got together and wrote a declaration about how dogs shouldn't be able to eat bacon because eating bacon is wrong. It requires no sacrifice on the part of the gorilla, as gorillas are vegetarians (termites aside, of course). One is left wondering, what are the gorillas tangibly doing to better society other than opposing rights for dogs?

Furthermore, even though the declaration opposes rights that uniquely affect women and gay people, it is very clear that the input of actual women and gay people was not deemed to be of importance in creating the document. The document, we are to understand, is just "god's" truth about these weighty matters. That, we are to believe, is just a given. Lucky for many of the signees, God The Dudeman has special jurisdiction when it comes to these issues that uniquely affect the rights of women and same-sex couples.

This circularity and self-serving nature of Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) is readily apparent to an outsider. It is less, if at all, so for one who accepts certain Biblical truths to be the Real Truths About Things. And so, for the sake of comparison, let's imagine that we live in an alternate dimension:

Let's imagine, instead, that we have found some ancient texts that speak of the Heavenly Mother, who the ancients called.... Starbuck. Starbuck, when she walked the Earth, was a tall woman. Kind of sporty too, if you know what I mean. She went around teaching certain truths. Like how female beings were created in her image and were, therefore, destined to be in charge of things. For one, women were to form pair bonds with other women. Two, most professions and the priesthood were to be restricted to women, owing to their cool demeanors relative to men, as it was taught that men were unable to control their testosterone-fueled rages.

In the Starbuck Texts, it was furthermore clearly stated that the role of men, who were created from a rather insubstantial part of woman (her pinky toe), was to be limited to two occupations. Men could (a) live in male communes serving as sperm depositors for female pair bonds, or (b) they could live alone in villages serving as garbagemen (because they're so strong). Furthermore, because men were wont to waste the miracle of life within themselves, the Starbuck Texts taught that all men had to wear special devices on their torsos to prevent them from masturbating. Starbuck was all about the sanctity of life like that.

Nowadays, whilst some in society currently teach that men should not have to wear such devices and some powerful, fashionable ideologies argue that pair-bonding should also be allowed between a man and a woman, followers of Starbuck have written a document reaffirming the One Real Truth about these matters. Like Starbuck, most of these religious leaders explaining this Truth are female and most are sporty, if you know what I mean. They explain that all of society must follow these rules or else Very Bad Things Will Happen. Certain truths, you see, are non-negotiable, especially the above-stated truths that uniquely affect male human beings. Followers of Starbuck, you see, love restricting the rights of Others, as opposed to the rights of women.

Because these are religious truths, followers of Starbuck have vowed to break any law that makes them acknowledge that men don't have to wear devices on their torsos or that pair-bonding can mean something other than two women in a lifelong commitment. Having to live in such a society would be a violation of the Religious Freedom of the followers of Starbuck. These two issues, you understand, are the Most Important Issues In The World and, as such, are outside of the state's jurisdiction. We must refuse to render to Caesar what is Starbuck's.

Can you imagine? How absurd this all sounds! To an outsider, it does not at all look brave or awesome for one group of people to restrict the rights of another group of people and to then declare that restriction to constitute morality or truth.

In fact, it looks rather entitled. How aggrandizing, hubristic, and insane it appears for a group of people to create a god in their own image and then try to convince the rest of the world that this lookalike god is the One True God Who Says The Things That Are Really True.

The phrase, "Who died and made you god?" comes to mind.

So that's why, instead of informing the world as to what does and does not constitute truth for issues that uniquely affect women, lesbians, and gays, what these mostly-male mostly-heterosexual Christians really need to be doing is pointing their long, hairy, authoritative fingers right back at themselves and pondering how their gender exclusivity might be contributing to the numerous social ills that their precious document mentions.

Until then, this document shall be named for what it is:

A conflict of interest.

In Which the Manhattan Declaration Signees Tell Us "Truths" About Issues Uniquely Affecting Women and Gay People

(Hello readers, I am excited to announce that I will also be contributing to the group blog A World of Progress from time to time. A slightly shortened version of this blog post is my first contribution over there.)

A group of mostly male heterosexual, conservative Christians have recently created and signed on to their Manhattan Declaration in which they have informed us about certain "non-negotiable truths." These "truths," interestingly, pertain to issues that uniquely affect women and LGBT people and only tangentially affect the rights of heterosexual males. For, within the document the signees declare their strong opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage; audaciously, they declare this opposition to constitute Ultimate Truth.

(And also, they maybe mentioned a few times how awesome and courageous they are for taking a stand against "fashionable ideologies." Hint: I think "fashionable" is code for something.)

Today, I'm going to mostly restrict my comments to the Declaration's stance on marriage equality, although the document also makes its opposition to abortion quite clear. In fact, the authors conclude that global social ills like genocide, ethnic cleansing, racial discrimination, and sex trafficking result "from the same loss of dignity" that drives the abortion movement. The authors of the document do not, of course, provide arguments that support such a conclusion. And so, if sound-bitey "answers" to complex social issues passes for ultimate truth nowadays, my comments with respect to these dudes' stance on abortion will be similarly simple:

No uterus? Abortion isn't your call to make. No matter how hard certain religious men have tried to co-opt the female birthing experience and build their man-made religions around it, mandating a woman's pregnancy against her will is outside of their jurisdiction. Period.

Moving on then.

With respect to the marriage issue, not surprisingly, the document couches its "truth" about marriage in the language of gender complementarity. Leading with one of their Bible quotes that claims it was women who came from a man's body, rather than what we know to be the biological truth and, of course, gendering God/Jesus as male throughout, the men who wrote this document suddenly remembered that ladies exist too, when it comes to marriage anyway:

"[Those who advocate same-sex marriage] fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit."

What do you know, despite being inherently submissive to men and created in man's image, women can still serve a purpose. In fact, because of the magical complementarity that exists between "man and woman," the authors go on to make the bizarre argument that marriage exists in nature as some sort of God-created "objective reality." Perhaps like a tree, or a beetle. Or something. Whatever it is, marriage is definitely not something that "man" invented. It was created by God the Fatherly Father DudeMan:

"Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual— on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh....Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife."

Aside from giving us a bit too much coital visualization, all this circular paragraph tells us, of course, is that two people of the same sex cannot get married because marriage can only exist between one man and one woman. Conveniently, knowing the One Real Truth about things has a way of preventing debate on an issue.

See, by insisting that marriage exists as some sort of "objective reality," this document has preemptively changed the debate from is same-sex marriage a good or bad idea for society to the truth is, marriage is only between a man and a lady, end of story. (As an aside, do these learned Christian men not know that Biblical marriage was far from some one-man, one-woman objective, universal truth?)

After shutting down the debate on abortion and same-sex marriage, the authors end with a lecture on religious freedom. It is as though these Christian men do not realize that they live in a nation where they just freely wrote a religious manifesto in a country that is 76% Christian, published it, spread it via social networking sites, and gotten thousands of people to sign on to it. Comparing themselves to the persecuted Martin Luther King, Jr writing from the Birmingham Jail, they further vow to "not comply" with any law "that purports to compel them to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act" or that forces them to "bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family."

The whole thing is a bit of an overkill, really, if not entirely ridiculous considering that Christianity is the dominant religion in American society and same-sex marriage has lost virtually every legal battle in every state in the US because of Christian opposition to it. Unlike Dr. King, these "men at the center of political, cultural, academic and ecclesiastical privilege" are "overlords posing as undergods." They're minority wannabes, grossly misinterpreting which party is on the end of oppression and which party is perpetuating it.

Substantively, the Manhattan Declaration is extremely sub-par from an argumentation standpoint. The authors keep stating over and over again, in various over-the-top ways, how they know the One Real Truth about things and how it's a good thing their own brave, awesome selves are here to inform us as to what that is.

Their parting, stubborn, histrionic threat:

"We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s."

[Lights Fade, Curtain]

It's a fitting quote, really, as one gets the impression from the document that we are supposed to adhere to these One Real Truths, not so much because of their inherent truthiness or goodness, but because God Our Fatherly Father will be upset with us if we don't. God, we are to understand, is a dictator. And, a dictator who is God is good, because he's God. Especially when he has jurisdiction over certain issues that, conveniently, uniquely affect the rights of women and gay people.

I am reminded of a quote about religious fundamentalism:

"It is not God that is worshipped but the group or authority that claims to speak in His name. Sin becomes disobedience to authority not violation of integrity."

The Manhattan Declaration tries to pass itself off as a statement about universal truth, but in reality it is mere solipsism. In it, these privileged men who wouldn't recognize oppression if it crawled under their lady robes and tied their balls in a knot, attempt to convince everyone else that the biases of their own error-prone human minds are "God's" law. Signed as it is by Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christian leaders, it is a statement by some of the most literally patriarchal Christian sects that exist in the world. By gendering God/Jesus as male and restricting clergy and church leadership roles to males, many of these sects perpetuate incredible gender hierarchy in the world. Rather than trying to eradicate this hierarchy, they ignore it, pointing their fingers at how Others are misbehaving and accusing Others, always Others, of being hell-bent on destroying society.

But lest we forget, when society restricts female access to abortion and prohibits same-sex marriage it is heterosexual males, as a class, who benefit.

When you think about that, don't you start to wonder who the Manhattan Declaration signees are really asking us to worship?


Related Links:

1. Christian dudes comparing themselves to Declaration of Independence signees and debating whether or not to sign onto this "noble and godly" cause. That's right, it's a given that restricting abortion rights and same-sex marriage is "noble and godly"; apparently, the real debate is whether real Christians should unite with other, less authentic types of Christians on such an endeavor.

2. The Manhattan Declaration "strongly implies that those who disagree with their declaration sanction infanticide, euthanasia and Nazi death camps.... Those with consciences formed differently than those of the signers may well perceive that the purported call of conscience issued by the Manhattan Declaration is but another echo from the ever so gradually emptying chambers of the radical Christian right."

3. From the Box Turtle Bulletin- "This is not a war over civil marriage definition – nor, indeed, has that ever been the real motivation behind anti-gay marriage drives. Rather, this is a war over religious domination, a fight over who is 'really a Christian' and an effort on the part of a long-suffering religious subset to spite those who have long had what they coveted."

4. Hugo Schwyzer: "Here’s the thing: fighting against abortion and gay rights is, in the end, cheap. It requires no particular personal sacrifice or reflection on the part of those who claim these are the top issues. Men who will never get pregnant; heterosexuals who have the privilege to marry those whom they love — they surrender nothing precious to them by fighting tooth and nail against reproductive and glbtq rights."