Fun with the Homo Hivemind!

I can't stand rhetorical sloppiness like this. Straight from the nation's most prominent national group opposing same-sex marriage:

"Many in the gay marriage movement claim that they have no desire to force their lifestyle on anyone else, they only want the freedom to love and marry whomever they wish. But sometimes this carefully-crafted claim is undermined by the real-world actions of the homosexual community itself."

Emphasis added, because, likewise, if some gay people say they hate ice cream, but then some other gay people go and actually have an ice cream social, it means that the gay people who claimed they hated ice cream were obviously lying and in on the ice cream extravaganza the whole time!  

So, basically, that's the level of rational thought coming from the National Organization for Marriage.

It's kind of a good starting point for thinking about the other shit they do.

NOM Slides Down the Slope

The National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage (NOM) has run a somewhat snarky post on their agency blog about a recent Salon piece that featured three consenting adults in a polyamorous union.

The post generally falls into the "Seeeeeeeee, we told you so!" category of anti-same-sex-marriage advocacy, in which opponents of equality take one instance of something that's been going on for thousands of years and act like it's a Startling New Trend Brought About By Same-Sex Marriage.

It's like we're expected to believe that the legal process is so shallow and so simple that a movement to secure rights for polyamorous relationships would not be expected to win on its own substantive merits in courts, but rather would magically be able to piggyback entirely on the exact same reasoning as same-sex marriage.

And once that happens, of course, we've paved the way to bestiality! Because new lines have never been drawn around marriage before and drawing new lines around something means abandoning all lines altogether! And you see, this is what happens!

What NOM seems to fail to realize is that it's that notion that many people scoff at. Which, I think, is maybe a reflection of that agency's own shallow, surface-level rhetorical style and propaganda.

Just as a style note, the NOM post doesn't currently link to the Salon article (it can be found here, though), and the post's formatting awkwardly suggests that the NOM author's writing comes from the Salon piece. Nonetheless, the "NOM Staff" poster writes:

"The author uses her 9-year-old daughter to deflect criticism. Her daughter dutifully and understandably repeats the adult arguments for same-sex marriage and applies them to her family. 

...Because 'love makes a marriage' now. And to say otherwise means you’re a hater." 

Well, no. Not necessarily.

Opponents of same-sex marriage are and were called "haters" not for a "mere" opposition to the idea that "love makes a marriage." They've been called haters because of many advocates' opposition to equality plus their extensive, widely-documented history of perpetuating hatred and bigotry against gay people.

If NOM wants to seriously deny that history, I can post evidence all day.

I'll end here by noting that I support the extension of protections to additional family units, and that I have mixed thoughts about marriage as the be-all, recognized family structure in the US. I'm not aware of mass numbers of people in polyamorous relationships seeking marriage, or of any coordinated large effort for that to gain traction, however.

I know that even mentioning that one might support protections expanded family structures is an "admission" that anti-equality adovcates love to play the "Seeeeeee, we told you so" game with, which is weird because they're usually the same folks who are all about supposedly protecting families.

But, I think that conversation reveals just how narrowly many traditionalists view the concept of family and how they often view marriage as an institution to coerce men into marrying the mothers of their children, and to coerce those who procreate together to raise their children together no matter what.

Beyond that, marriage as a useful institution, and even basic protections, for other family structures seems to be, to them, meaningless and pointless. Other family types seemingly have no place at all in the ideal society of many traditionalists and may as well, to them, not even exist.

Nope!

Notoriously anti-gay science fiction writer Orson Scott Card has issued a "plea" for people not to boycott the Ender's Game film, which is based on a book he wrote, due to his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying:

"With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."

Wut?

As an actual gay person in a civil union who still doesn't possess the full rights of marriage even after the DOMA decision, I beg to differ that the same-sex marriage issue is now "moot."

But, of course, leave it to a hetero privileged guy to have a very surface-level understanding of the relevant legal issues as he casually dismisses the real-world struggles that actual gay people are actually still enduring, in part, because of people like himself. He is, after all, a board member of the National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage [Supremacy] - perhaps the most prominent agency in the nation working with a near single-minded devotion to opposing equality for same-sex couples.

Also notable is his reliance on the trusty old how dare you not tolerate my intolerance?! trap.

What will actually be interesting is not how "accepting" and "tolerant" gay people are toward our opponents now that these opponents are losing more and more despite their best efforts, but the extent to which these opponents are gracious in their defeat and truly sorry (or not) for the harm they've caused.

Spoiler alert: I won't be seeing Ender's Game. I read the books more than a decade ago so I actually would have been marginally interested in seeing a film adaptation. Oh well.

New Anti-Equality "Primer" Published

And they say it's us with the agenda, LOL.

Nathan Hitchen, an alunmus of the conservative Christian John Jay Institute, has collaborated with Brian Brown to create a neat, very cool "new primer for the marriage debate." (PDF).

Here's how the document describes Brian Brown:

"With a background in political science and nonprofit management, Narrator principal and John Jay Institute alumnus Brian Brown has spent 10 years observing changes in the way people share information, approach social issues, and get involved. Brian founded Narrator in 2011 with other marketing and policy professionals to provide a communications consultancy that helps organizations take advantage of these changes."

This Brian Brown doesn't seem to be the same Brian Brown who's the President of the National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage (NOM).

Nonetheless, the purpose of this document seems to be give opponents of marriage equality (whom the document calls "marriage advocates"- see what they did there?) new ways to frame the national conversation so they can persuade more people to oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples. The primer also, for your reference, refers to same-sex marriage advocate as "marriage revisionists" (see what they did there, too?).

Key take-aways from this propaganda manual, er, "primer" include "elevat[ing] as spokesmen" gay people who oppose same-sex marriage, "telling bigger stories" that reverse who the victims and victimizers are, and subverting the "marriage equality" meme with "stickier" anti-equality memes. 

I guess these tactics are..... new for them?

After reading through this "primer," I'm reminded of why this national conversation is so tiresome and so polarizing. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that this document is publicly-available, what with it's up front, creepy discussion of the "exploitable narrative vulnerabilities" of Americans and so forth.  The document also includes a sample op-ed piece (see page 50) demonstrating how "one could implement some basic techniques" outlined in the document (funnily enough, it's largely illegible because of the giant brain graphic that's in the background, whooooops!).

It all seems like such an admission of the grave desperation of some anti-equality advocates. It seems they used to be more covert about these strategies.

These tactics it outlines, after all, are of course not new.

Even since Prop 8, in 2008, anti-gay groups have been promoting so-called "gays against gay marriage," like David Benkof, who eventually dropped out of publicly advocating against same-sex marriage roughly that same year, although he did submit a strange amicus brief with other purported gays against gay marriage, Robert Oscar Lopez and Doug Mainwaring, in the pending US Supreme Court Prop 8 case in January 2013 (PDF). And, recently, Jeremy Hooper of G-A-Y noted that NOM has been buying domain names around the theme of "gays against gay marriage."

And, when this new "primer" suggests finding gay people opposed to gay marriage to be elevated as "spokesmen," I'm reminded of NOM's revealed agenda to, their words, "drive a wedge between gays and blacks."

So, that's fun.

Then, on the theme of switching who the victims and victimizers are, after Prop 8 passed, all of these, ahem, allegedly "grassroots" blogs called the "Digital Network Army" (DNA) sprung up from the aether. After noticing that these bloggers often seemed to be posting articles that were incredibly similar to each other's articles, I got myself on the "DNA" email list and saw that these bloggers were largely being fed content from mysterious "Team Captains." #seemslegit

While these "DNA" bloggers were pretty active for a year or so after claiming to be totally outraged by how mean gay people were to them post-Prop 8, nearly all of these blogs petered out when these Totally Outraged Straight People seemed to get bored talking amongst themselves (while banning actual gay people from their conversations) once they realized marriage equality actually has no real effect on their lives. This scenario suggested to me that the "DNA" blog ring was likely actually coordinated by at least one anti-gay organization, and that the key narrative the organization was interested in pushing was, "OMG the Normal People are being oppressed by the gay mobs!"

The Heritage Foundation even put a Very Official Report out about how mean gay people are to people who oppose same-sex marriage. The whole narrative, of course, has nothing to do with the substantive merits of same-sex marriage, but getting people to think they are being persecuted by a minority group is a historically key strategy in helping a privileged majority feel justified about oppressing a minority group.

I'm also reminded of NOM defector Louis Marinelli's claim that NOM's Brian Brown sought "crazy pictures" of pro-equality advocates, pictures that would discredit the pro-equality movement and frame us as unhinged, angry, and totally mean.

So, that's all fun too.

Although, what I'm most struck by in this "primer" is its utter lack of concern for its effect on same-sex couples and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. It's as though our lives, relationships, and aspirations for equal rights and dignity are little political footballs to be deflated and stomped upon. As though our lived experiences are stories that need to be reversed, and written over, to make heterosexuals feel okay about opposing our rights.

A snippet:

"Marriage revisionists also tell stories implying  that mothers and fathers together offer nothing  unique—marriages built on sexual difference  are not special and homosexual parents are just  as good as heterosexual parents (i.e. Creativity  plots)—or that homosexuals couples are not as  abnormal as people think (i.e., Connection plots)....

 ...The best response for advocates of conjugal marriage  is to  tell better, bigger stories that subvert who the  “protagonist victim” is and reposition who the heroes  are. Advocates could make children—and specific children—the protagonist victims of Challenge plot  stories, mothers and fathers the heroes, and identify  their villains as the mindsets and public policies that  obstruct their path to important goals."

Maybe someone needs to tell Nathan Hitchen that the whole "Save Our Children" gimmick isn't actually a new thing.

Anyway, I will likely post more on this new "primer" later, especially as I see anti-gay groups conitnue using the methods this document describes, but I wanted to give readers a heads up to be on the lookout for shifting tactics and narratives in the anti-marriage-equality movement.

Oh, and "kudos" to this Nathan Hitchen dude.  What a great career move for him! Sounds like he learned some really neat things at that John Jay Institute.

Regnerus Speaks at Ruth Institute Conference

Mark Regnerus, who authored a notorious study on what he referred to as "lesbian and gay families," recently spoke at The Ruth Institute's "It Takes a Family" conference this past weekend.

The Ruth Institute is a project of the anti-equality National Organization for Marriage. Its "About Ruth" web page for some reason is entitled, "Making Marriage Cool," even though, in my opinion, the Institute does precisely the opposite, for instance, by selling "one man one woman" "party kits" and "tote bags."

Also speaking at the conference was Ruth Institute founder and president Jennifer Roback Morse. In addition to being quite the proponent of inequality, Morse has also engaged in gaslighting against the LGBT community by suggesting that hatred of gay people does not actually exist in those who oppose marriage equality, has admitted that she opposes same-sex marriage because (her words) "anal sex is icky," and has invented absurd lingo to refer to her political opponents (eg- "the Life Style Left").

Others speaking were Robert Gagnon (whose opinions you can read all about here), the National Organization for Marriage's Thomas Peters, and Alana Newman (who wrote a controversial post calling "older or infertile women, and gay men," those who use surrogacy and egg donation, "the new sexual predators. And then wrote an awkward follow-up.)

So, what's the point of today's post?

Well, The American Independent has already obtained documents and emails from a public records request showing that the widely-critiqued Regnerus study was timed to influence "major decisions of the Supreme Court" and that, contrary to language in the study purporting otherwise, The Witherspoon Institute, which opposes same-sex marriage, may have played a larger role in the study than claimed.

Associating with the Ruth Institute and advocates who are notorious for uncivil-y opposing same-sex marriage is not a great way way to demonstrate that one is just a mere, impartial observer of the facts about "lesbian and gay families."

Neither does making statements like the following, which one conservative-leaning college news source cites Regnerus as saying at the conference:

“Sex doesn’t explain the world, religion does,” Regnerus said. “Sex will come up short.” 

Oh. Really. Sometimes I just have to laugh at the simple-minded way some conservative-leaning religious folks imagine that other people are like. I mean, are there even hoards of people out there claiming that sex is the big thing that explains the world? Is the battle for how people interpret reality really one of Religion v. Sex? Alrighty then.

Catholic Leader Denies Reality, Expresses Concern About Looking Bigoted

In Totally Shocking News, Cardinal Francis George in Chicago has written a letter opposing the bill in Illinois that would legalize same-sex marriage. Currently, the state offers civil unions with all of the state level rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage.

In his letter, whose vague and silly arguments can be read here (PDF), I will only highlight two items.  First, he claims:

"Should the lame duck legislature or the new Assembly take up the passage of a 'same-sex marriage' law, it will be acting against the common good of society. We will all have to pretend to accept something that is contrary to the common sense of the human race." [my emphasis]

We all, eh?

I find it disgusting, alienating, and incredibly problematic that a purported holy man deigning to be on Team Moral Authority who tries to define supporters of same-sex marriage out of existence.  I know same-sex couples who are legally married, not in Illinois, but in other states where it is legal.

That is a fact. Their marriages are a real thing that exist in the real world. These couples are not pretending to be married, nor are they or their supporters pretending to accept same-sex marriage. The courts are not pretending. Religious and civil supporters, and family members, are not pretending. And, if same-sex marriage becomes legal in Illinois, "we" "all" will not be pretending to accept it.

Now, people may disagree with the law, but the actual truth is, they have a legal marriage certificate even if some poopy-pants pastors don't like it.

How insulated and surrounded by sycophants does a man have to be to think he can deny reality? I continue to be amused at the lengths to which followers of this religion let men define and deny reality for other people, whether they're insisting that men and women have an oxymoronic "equal hierarchical" "complementary" relationship to one another or that it's an impossibility for women to be priests.

He continues:

"Those who continue to distinguish between genuine marital union and same sex arrangements will be regarded in law as discriminatory, the equivalent of bigots."

Yes, and?

Notice how this "reason" for opposing same-sex marriage entirely centers the same-sex marriage opponent. 

That "equivalent of bigots" lingo, as a side note, comes straight from the National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage's playbook. Here's Brian Brown in just one article parroting that phrase:

"Religious organizations are going to be punished if same-sex marriage stands in California and throughout the country. Why? Because we're going to be told that we are the equivalent of bigots and the law saying that has a tremendous powerful effect."

Good.

Conversations on Political Speech and Equality

A lively discussion has followed Barry Deutsch's post over at Family Scholars Blog regarding the recent case of a Chief Diversity Officer at a university being placed on leave for signing a petition asking for Maryland's marriage equality law to be put to a repeal vote.

This instance, naturally, is being used by anti-equality groups as further proof as to Why Same-Sex Marriage Is Bad, the substantive merits of same-sex marriage itself being irrelevant, I suppose.

Barry aptly points out many examples in which LGBT people and advocates of same-sex marriage have been fired for their jobs for being LGBT and/or because of their position on marriage equality- as opposed to, as happened to the Diversity Officer, being placed on leave and then reinstated. He further notes that these instances demonstrate that people being fired because of their identities and/or political beliefs is not a problem unique to opponents of equality, as their advocacy organizations like to lead their followers to believe.

Maggie Gallagher has directly responded to the post in comments but has thus far avoided answering the, in my opinion, most pressing points of Barry's posts and my commentary.

Check it out.

The Civility Series

I haven't been totally away from Internet.

Over at Family Scholars Blog, I've been reading and engaging with some of the posts on civility. There, prominent opponent of same-sex marriage Maggie Gallagher wrote a couple and somewhat engaged with commenters.

In her first post on the topic, she suggests that ad hominem arguments are a defining characteristic of being uncivil:

"An uncivil argument is not one that offends. It is one that in its turn does not address a person’s argument but attempts to rule the person out of the circle of civility by presupposing their motivations and dismissing them."

When she opened another comment thread for folks to continue the discussion, she then articulated:

"For me, this debate is not about me. I don’t care about me. Whatever happens, I will be fine.

I didn’t enter this debate to get rich, to be famous, to be remembered, to get a pass, or for any other reason than that my reason for being as a writer is: to speak the truth within the limits of my insight.

No third party can determine for me whether I’ve done that.

You have to guess at my motivation. I know."

I actually agree with the general, non-contentious statement that ad hom arguments are uncivil, and I agree with Maggie's sentiment that the debate about marriage equality isn't and shouldn't be about her. However, as someone who is pretty influential in the equality debates, and is perhaps the most well-known opponent of equality, I was curious to know if she ever gives thought to how her words and actions might be affecting others. So, I asked her:

"You are right that others would have to guess at [your motivations in the equality debate], and would possibly be wrong. So, I won’t go there.

And rather, per my post on civility, I would be curious to know when, if ever, you have tried to put yourself in the position of LGBT people and tried to understand our history of pain, achievement, oppression, disappointment, fear, idealism, and aspiration that have contributed to acts of harassment and violence on both sides of the SSM issue?

How well do you think you understand our position and experiences?

I would suggest that, despite your possible good faith motivations, it is possible for you to hurt LGBT people through your advocacy and writing. And, I would further suggest that if you had a better understanding of our experience, you might possibly be able to contribute to the discourse in ways that promote civility rather than hinder it.

I hope you take the opportunity to respond to my questions, Maggie.

NOM perpetuates an ongoing message that advocates for same-sex marriage are mean bullies to people like you, and I’m sincerely trying to have a civil dialogue with you about an issue you devote your life to and that affects my life in a very personal manner."

To which, she replied:

"What would constitute evidence –either before or henceforth–that someone cared about your pain?

Can someone care about your pain–care about you–and yet disagree with you?

I’m not asking about me–as I said I don’t think I’m that important. I get from you that you need someone to care about what you’ve been through.

If someone cares, can they nonetheless disagree?

How do we demonstrate caring across disagreement?

(I think myself perhaps an analogy to the abortion issue might help. But maybe not.)"

This reply suggests to me a disconnect in our communication. I'm picking up that Maggie perhaps thinks I'm advocating a wishy-washy "can't we all just get along" plea to just "care" about each other more.

But, the point I've been trying to get at is how and whether a person with her persuasive potential, power, and platform thinks about how her words might possibly hurt lots of people even if she doesn't intend to hurt them. And, if she's not doing that already, I further suggest that a good way for prominent opponents of marriage equality to think about the impact they are having on those whose rights they oppose is is for them to try to put themselves on the receiving end of their own rhetoric as though she were an LGBT person.

So, I responded:

"You are one of the most active, vocal, and prominent opponents of same-sex marriage, and given that level of importance, I really do want to know, specifically, whether you have tried to put yourself in the position of gay people and tried to understand our history of pain, achievement, oppression, disappointment, fear, idealism, and aspiration that have contributed to acts of harassment and violence on both sides of the SSM issue?

So, in response to this:

“I get from you that you need someone to care about what you’ve been through.”

No.

To clarify, I don’t “need” people to “care” about what I’ve been through. Sure, that would be nice. It’s not about what I need, it’s about each of us going through a process of trying to understand the other side better. If you go through that process of compassion and end up not caring, or end up weighing social goods differently, then fine.

It would then be fair of you to articulate that though and explicitly say, “I understand that where you’re coming from is x, y, and z, and really, I don’t care, or I think a, b, and c are more important than your pain.” In public conversation, from what I’ve read of you, you mostly avoid talking about gay people at all, let alone acknowledge our struggles and history of oppression- so much so that I really do wonder whether or not your actions and rhetoric are guided by any semblance of understanding of what LGBT people have historically endured.

And consequently, I am led to wonder whether you think about how your rhetoric and what I see as vilification of gay people might be “piling on” to these historical injustices.

Because yes, I do think that if someone cares about LGBT people, and understands our historical pain and oppression, they can still disagree with us about same-sex marriage. A key part, to me, of disagreeing civilly is to oppose SSM while keeping the dignity of gay people and your political opponents intact, which includes not vilifying us and not making sweeping, unfair generalizations about us.

I know that you strongly object to all opponents of SSM being called “haters” and “bigots,” but you and NOM have a tendency to vilify all supporters of SSM as mean bullies. And yes, I know that some pro-SSM advocates and groups vilify and generalize all opponents of SSM. I get that. It’s par for the course in the “culture wars.”

But, change has to start somewhere, right? Be the change you want to see in the world, and all that…

I would add that David Blankenhorn, when he was opposed to SSM, demonstrated very well how to be a (what I would consider) civil opponent of SSM.

When I read his book The Future of Marriage, I disagreed with him from a substantive standpoint, but I did not come away thinking that he was a bigot. When I read his book, as a lesbian, I didn’t walk away thinking, “This guy has no clue about my life, he hates me, and he doesn’t understand where the other side is coming from”- which, honestly, is what I sometimes feel when I read some anti-SSM rhetoric.

The fact that David made a concession about the equal dignity and worth of gay people was a large component of civility. It seemed to me like he had an understanding of the fact that, yep, actual bigotry really does exist against gay people still and is a part of our history. And, he was able to articulate that, yes, gay people and same-sex couples are worthy of respect even though he ended up weighing social goods differently and opposing same-sex marriage."

 I haven't received a response.

Although, I do realize Maggie is probably pretty busy. It's election year and some anti-gay ballot initiatives are coming up. And along those lines, I can understand why Maggie's blogpost on civility denounced ad hominems above all other logical fallacies and modes of incivility including slippery slopes, hasty generalizations, argumentum ad nauseum, circular reasoning, and unfair vilification of one's opponents.

Gay Man Covertly Attends NOM Conference

[Content note: homophobia]

Recent college grad and blogger Carlos Maza recently attended the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) "It Takes a Family to Raise a Village" conference in San Diego. This conference contained segments on homosexuality, defending marriage, and included a number of speakers known for, to put it generously, their anti-equality views on marriage.

Maza's account, which is pretty detailed, is interesting. If you follow this particular "culture war," not much about the conference is surprising, including the repeated mis-use and citing of Mark Regnerus' discredited study.

One of the more bizarre claims, entirely new to me, as the following, uttered by Douglas Allen:

"This is a puzzling one, but very interesting. The lesbian households, they tend to be much more likely to marry in the rates, not just in numbers, in numbers and rates, but they’re much less stable than the gay households. And lots of theories about why that is. You know, getting on the same menstrual cycle, getting really attached to your own biological child and not being willing to share the biological child with your female spouse." [emphasis added]

Wut the wut now?

Maza ends by talking about how he became kind of close to a young woman there who attended BYU. Despite their different views on homosexuality and marriage, they seemed to have much in common and she seemed to be kind, thoughtful and not motivated by anti-gay animus. "The enemy lines," he writes, "were blurrier" than he had previously imagined them to be. To him, the "us v. them" mentality seemed to have become stark mostly through the work and advocacy of NOM and the Ruth Institute. He notes:

"The ideological divide between me and the BYU student may have been small, but NOM had spent the entire weekend trying to widen it by teaching her that gays and lesbians - including me - are unstable, dangerous, and unworthy of raising their own families. Despite the promise to focus on 'marriage, not gayness,' ITAF had been a veritable crash course in demonizing LGBT people."

How sad.

I hope NOM and the Ruth Institute learn how to do a better job of bringing people together, rather than further polarizing society. Maybe one day, the LGBT people can be present at these conferences, not as undercover agents, but as people whose opinions matter with respect to our own health, autonomy, relationships, humanity, and morality.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go synchronize my lady cycle with my partner's.

Scholars Critique Regnerus Study

A group of 200 scholars has signed a critique of the Mark Regnerus New Family Structure Study.

If you remember, this study used a sketchy method for categorizing parents as "gay" and "lesbian," and households as "same-sex households." Rather than asking respondents if they were raised by two parents of the same sex, the study asked respondents if one of their parents had ever had a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex while the respondent was under the age of 18 and living with the parent. Incredibly, regardless of the duration or commitment-level of the parents' same-sex relationship, those who responded yes were categorized as having been raised in a same-sex household by gay or lesbian parents.

The above-cited statement signed by scholars makes note of this methodology in addition to several other substantive critiques.

If you follow the link to Family Scholars Blog, where Barry Deutsch posted about the critique, you will notice that Maggie Gallagher has shown up in the comment section with a very problematic interpretation of the statement.

Rather than addressing the merits or substance of the critique, she simply asks "Why the attacks?" while also suggesting that the critique was motivated by ideology rather than for a sincere concern about the scientific merits of the study.

It's really unfortunate, but sadly characteristic, that her comment fails to seriously engage the very legitimate critiques that folks have made about the Regnerus study, instead appearing to choose to engage in the propagandistic meme that "marriage defenders" are being forever victimized by the mean, defamatory, bullying same-sex marriage advocates.

Upcoming Live Blogging/Streaming Marriage Convo

Family Scholars Blog, where I post the occasional guest blog as a feminist, pro-LGBT voice, is going to be live streaming and live blogging a conversation between Maggie Gallagher, who opposes same-sex marriage (obvs), and John Corvino, who supports it.

The two recently wrote a book together called Debating Same-Sex Marriage.

David Blankenhorn is hosting the conversation and Family Scholars Blog is inviting people to the live stream and to comment on the event, which starts at 6 p.m. EST on June 7th.

Chicago Tribune: Let Churches Decide, Repeal DOMA

The Chicago Tribune opines on Obama's coming-out in support of marriage equality, and I agree:

"Government recognition of same-sex marriage shouldn't infringe on faiths which teach that marriage is reserved for the union of a man and a woman. Religious creeds would, and should, remain free to identify what they do or don't choose to consecrate as marriages. The tolerance and acceptance we're advocating should reach beyond this religious realm — and should flow in two directions: Remember, for many Americans, opposition to gay marriage isn't synonymous with opposition to gays. It is, instead, rooted in their belief of what should constitute marriage.

Obama was sensible to say the issue should be decided at the state level. Over time, it's safe to bet, more and more states will embrace the idea.

What should be done at the federal level is to repeal the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages. That policy deprives same-sex spouses of the benefits of marriage in everything from Social Security to immigration to income taxes. Washington ought to let states decide who may marry — and then treat every spouse as a spouse."

If a religious organization chooses not to solemnize a same-sex marriage, the state shouldn't force it to.

DOMA should be repealed and the federal government should recognize same-sex unions that are legal in the states where they were performed.

Just as a fun fact, this position contrasts sharply with Mitt Romney's position on marriage. He has signed the pledge of the anti-equality National Organization for Marriage (NOM), vowing to support a federal marriage amendment, to defend DOMA, and to establish a commission to transform "marriage defenders," who are apparently being bullied by the big bad mean queers, into a class of special victims investigate "American who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed."

No word on whether Romney will support a commission for people who are bullied for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or gender non-conforming. But he guesses he's sorry if any people are offended by that.

Blankenhorn and Marquardt Oppose NC Anti-Gay Amendment

For what it's worth, same-sex marriage opponents David Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt of the Institute for American Values (and Family Scholars Blog, where I guest post sometimes), have come out in opposition of a proposed amendment to North Carolina's constitution.

The amendment, they believe (and I agree), "goes too far." Namely, it would prohibit the state from recognizing any sort of union between a same-sex couple- including marriage, domestic partnerships, and civil unions. While the amendment would allow private citizens to "contract" with each other for some rights, it is worth noting here that many rights are associated with legal unions that cannot, actually, be contracted for- such as health insurance, social security benefits, right to sue for loss of consortium and wrongful death, and immigration rights.

David and Elizabeth write:

"That’s mighty cold. If you disdain gay and lesbian persons, and don’t care whether they and their families remain permanently outside of the protection of our laws, such a policy might be your cup of tea. But it’s not our view, and we doubt that it’s the view of most North Carolinians.

If you want to create a backlash against mother-father marriage – if you want to convince people that the real agenda of marriage advocates is not protecting marriage, but ignoring and ostracizing gay people – then this amendment might be to your liking. But we believe that the cause of marriage is hurt, not helped, by gratuitously linking it to the cause of never under any circumstances helping gay and lesbian couples."

Despite our disagreement over marriage equality, I am sincerely grateful that they have publicly opposed such a measure.

I said "for what it's worth" up at the top of this post because I'm just not sure those who are motivated by actual, genuine, overt anti-gay animus will do the same.

Extreme groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), I believe, attempt to portray a relatively civil face of "marriage defense," claiming that they don't have anything against same-sex couples, they just want every child to have a mom and a dad. However, many LGBT people believe for good reason that bigotry does the bulk of the work for these anti-equality groups, accounting for nearly all of the various "marriage defense" victories.

In The Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart is stunned by David and Elizabeth's opposition to the amendment, and I think that is quite telling.

When those who make their livelihoods "defending marriage" aren't outright denigrating LGBT people, they mostly ignore the impact their various measures have on our lives.

Most notable to me, for instance, in a recent Salon piece on NOM's Maggie Gallagher, wasn't her professed un-bigotedness, but that she doesn't appear to think much about gay people at all. Our rights, human dignity, and needs to protect our families just don't seem to be a concern of hers, let alone a factor in weighing the competing interests of "marriage defenders" and same-sex couples.

As Capehart writes:

"For the first time that I’ve ever seen, proponents of 'traditional marriage' acknowledge and express concern for gay and lesbian families."

I'm not surprised by David and Elizabeth's opposition to the amendment. I blog with them, have conversations with them, and have seen them express many times their belief that same-sex couples are deserving of dignity. To them, the issues seems to be complicated, an issue of the competing public goods of protecting same-sex couples versus not severing the link between marriage and procreation.

What I am surprised by is their willingness to express their conservative-politically-incorrect view in an op-ed piece that could potentially have actual, real-world repercussions on the amendment initiative. For that at least, they have my admiration and gratitude.

In any event, whether this amendment passes in North Carolina will be a good test, I think, as to the real agenda of most "marriage defense" advocates.

Is it really about saving marriage for couples capable of procreation, or is it about that and something more sinister- the marginalization and degradation of homosexuality, same-sex couples, and LGBT people?


[Cross-posted: Alas]

An Agenda Revealed

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…"

-From a confidential, internal National Organization for Marriage (NOM) memo, referring to a NOM endeavor entitled "Not a Civil Right Project."

This revelation, of course, has long been obvious to many equality advocates, including myself, for many years. White opponents of same-sex marriage, most of whom rarely talk about race in any other context, appear to take a certain glee in citing their Best Conservative Black Friends who are Gravely Offended at comparisons between race-based and sexual-orientation-based oppression.

It's affirming, nonetheless, to see NOM admit to its divisive agenda in print.

This admission comes from a strategic report that was unsealed as part of Maine's ongoing campaign finance investigation of the group. The pro-equality Human Rights Campaign (HRC) initially posted the documents, and the release quickly spread on the Internet yesterday.

Other strategies outlined in the document include "interrupt[ing" the analogy that being gay is like being black, "rais[ing] the costs of identifying with gay marriage," and to "develop an effective culture of resistance from behind enemy lines."

Every single project and action item in the document pertains to same-sex marriage and constitutes millions of dollars worth of activities.

I find this monomania, frankly, to be incredibly troubling and threatening to my existence as a lesbian in a same-sex partnership that is legally recognized.

In his book, The Future of Marriage, David Blankenhorn outlined dozens of concrete steps that married couples and the government could take to strengthen marriage including mandating counseling, ending marriage penalties for low-income people, and passing new laws offering tax and financial incentives for marriage.

One is led to wonder, if NOM's mission is, as it claims, to "protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it," why does every. single. activity. documented in this strategic memo relate solely to NOM's efforts to oppose same-sex marriage and to get other people to oppose same-sex marriage?

Do other strategies to protect marriage matter at all?

Now, what I'm about to suggest is not politically correct for progressives to utter aloud in mixed company with social conservative, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

If this, dare I say, obsessive activity to oppose same-sex marriage, as represented by millions upon millions of dollars spent, countless robocalls made, social media utilized, billboard and media campaigns created, minority groups pitted against one another, narratives told wherein SSM opponents are "victims," blogposts and press releases written, and voter (lack of) interest in the same-sex marriage issue stoked is not evidence of animus toward LGBT people, what is it evidence of?

Does an organization that is truly serious about wanting to protect marriage behave like this?

This gathering storm of single-minded opposition to same-sex marriage is simply not, to many reasonable people, a logical response to the "threat" posed by the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.


Related:

Marinelli: NOM Sought "Crazy" Pictures of Equality Advocates


Cross-posted: Family Scholars Blog

Salon Piece on Maggie Gallagher

Here's an interesting, humanizing portrait of Maggie Gallagher, perhaps the most active and well-known opponent of same-sex marriage.

In Mark Oppenheimer's framing of Gallagher, her early pregnancy, followed by abandonment by the father, contributed to not only her opposition to same-sex marriage but also to her anti-feminism. He writes:

"Gallagher was years ahead of her time in arguing, as writers like Kay Hymowitz do today, that contemporary society has left men without a role. 'We will never find a solution to the New Man shortage, unless we jettison gender neutrality,' Gallagher writes. 'Men need a role in the family. What men need, loath though we are to utter the word, is a sex role.'”

In all, I found it to be a glum read.

Gallagher's pessimistic thesis is that men are naturally hard-wired to impregnate women and then abandon them and the resulting children. It is a view that sees non-heterosexual men, and men who stick around without the carrot/stick of Traditional Male Supremacist Gender Roles In Marriage, as aberrations- as people motivated by "ideology" rather than their True Male Nature.

So, even while Oppenheimer makes a note of stating that Gallagher doesn't "seem" motivated by anti-gay animus, the subtext of the piece, whether accurate or not, invites the reader to infer that Maggie Gallagher is basically a nice person but because she had an out-of-wedlock child with a man who left her, other women, feminists, and gay, bisexual, and lesbian people must pay. Basically, I can't marry my partner because all men who have sex with women are essentially deadbeat dads, and when same-sex marriage is legal men, who are apparently very easily confused, start thinking that it's extra okay to abandon their children.

In any event, it is interesting that Oppenheimer explores Gallagher's alleged Un-Bigotedness. Gallagher utters the word bigot more than practically any LGBT advocate I've ever met or heard. And, it often comes when she's accusing LGBT advocates of "defaming" opponents of same-sex marriage with the label.

Not being privy to her thoughts, I don't know if she's a bigot or if she hates LGBT people.

From what I've read of her various NOM fundraising appeals, blog posts, and letters, she doesn't actually appear to think much about us at all. Our rights, human dignity, and needs to protect our families just don't seem to be a concern of hers, let alone a factor in weighing the competing interests of "marriage defenders" and same-sex couples.

The sad truth, though, is that most people in Western societies do have biases against homosexuality and LGBT people. Even many of us LGBT people have these biases. It is the result of living in a heterocentric/heterosupremacist society that regularly and pervasively communicates to us that heterosexuality is the default normal and best way of being human.

It actually takes a lot of work and thought to overcome these biases, and even with that work it doesn't appear that all people can completely overcome these biases.

So, I guess what I'm left thinking is, if I harbor some anti-LGBT animus and I'm a lesbian who supports marriage equality, affirms the equal human dignity of LGBT people, and I regularly work to counter the biases against LGBT people, why on Earth would I ever assume or believe that Maggie Gallagher, or any opponent of same-sex marriage for that matter, doesn't harbor some anti-LGBT animus?

Unfortunately, that's exactly what this conservative politically-correct "don't you dare call us bigots" culture asks from us. As long as some people push the animus deep enough inside of themselves so much that they don't ever have to think or talk about the people on the receiving end of their policy positions, I guess it's all good. No need to re-think things. No need to actually talk to LGBT people about our human dignity. Because really, the important thing is that people don't get called bigots.

Quote of the Day

"They came in and she introduced herself and I shook her hand and I said, 'Is this your sister?' And she said, 'No, this is my partner.' And I said 'okay' and I asked them to sit down because we needed to talk. I said 'I will tell you that I'm a Christian and I do have convictions and I'm sorry to tell you that I'm not going to be able to do your cake.'"

-Victoria Childress, owner of a cake-baking business, speaking about how she refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding.


Although I have experienced how degrading situations like this can be, I also found this instance kind of funny. Because it's a cake. A freaking cake. That would later be consumed by GaY PeOpLe OOGEDY BOOGEDY WOOGEDY!

I mean, it's been a long time since I was in Bible school, but I do not remember Jesus saying anything about how it's prohibited to bake cakes for lesbians.

In an interview, Childress explained that she refused to bake the women's cake because of "her convictions for their lifestyle," and not "to discriminate against them."

So. Yeah.

One, we see that apparent desperation some people have about wanting to act bigoted but not be called bigoted. Like, her actions constitute the very essence of discrimination in that she's treating a same-sex couple differently than she treats heterosexual couples because of their belonging to a group she has "convictions" about, but she's all I'm Not Trying To Discriminate Against Them Or Anything. As though saying it's not discrimination magically makes it Un-Discrimination.

Two. Why is it always same-sex couples and GLBT people that Religious People With Strong Convictions feel this extra special need to discriminate against as opposed to other "sinners"? Like, lady probably doesn't turn down business from heterosexuals who have been married multiple times, right? She probably doesn't make people fill out forms attesting that they follow the Ten Commandments, right? But when it comes to gay weddings she's all Thou Shalt Not Bake This Cake, like it's some Big-Time Stand For Morality.

It's like, really, this is your battle?

Whatevs. Pie is better anyway.

Anti-Gays Seek Special Right to Not Perform Their Jobs Yet Still Keep Them

Via a ridiculous press release from the National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage (NOM):

"New York Town Clerks Lose Jobs for Defending Marriage"

Oh pulease.

Let me fix that for you:

"2 New York Town Clerks Lose Quit Their Jobs for Defending Marriage Because They Don't Want to Perform Certain Occupational Duties, Like Issuing State Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples. Another Clerk Who Opposes Same-Sex Marriage Has Delegated Her Licensing Duty to a Deputy; Cites Book of Myths, Rather Than State Law, as Final Authority on Matter."

The so-called "Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance" is, naturally, all over this case, claiming:

"All three women are examples of why MADA was established: to create a supportive community for those who have been threatened for standing for marriage."

Excuse me, "threatened"?

These public officials are refusing to do their freaking jobs, people!

So what about, say, a fundamentalist DMV clerk who has religious reasons for believing women shouldn't vote. Does he have a special right to only give men the voter registration forms?

What about a Christian judge who has Strong Personal Beliefs about the immorality of inter-racial marriage? Is the "Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance" totes going to come to his defense and protest his resignation? What about his religious feeeeeeeeeeelings?

How many times are we going to carve out special little exceptions for religious people who hold public positions and who refuse to fulfill the duties of those positions in accordance with the law?

It's a slippery slope, my friends! (LULZ)

I maintain that anti-LGBT advocacy is, at times, an affirmative action program to help people keep their jobs when their bigotry prevents them from actually performing their jobs.

Thinking Bigger Picture

[TW: Homophobia]

What's a nice, civil Family Scholars Blog (FSB) doing promoting a piece like this?

Eh?

Over at FSB, where I sometimes comment (and genuinely enjoy interacting with some of the bloggers, who tend to lean towards opposing marriage equality), blogger Karen Clark recently posted a link, without commentary, to a *clears throat* problematic piece over at conservative Christian news source OneNewsNow.

In the OneNewsNow piece, entitled "Don't Drink the Kool-Aid**," Marcia Segelstein bemoans the fact that LGBT characters get to be on television too. She says that it's "not enough" for parents to homeschool to avoid having their children become "infected by the culture." No, what is essential, according to some book she's read, is that anti-LGBT parents "staunch the flow" of shows like "Glee," "Modern Family," and The Kids Are Alright that observe the reality that LGBT people actually exist in reality.

She offers no concrete suggestions for how to staunch this alleged flow of "infection," but she promises her readers that further advice would be forthcoming.

In the comment section at FSB, I noted that it was difficult for me to see the piece as anything but bigoted. The piece's premise was that the representation of people like me on television was an "infection" that needed to be stopped. Frankly, most of the blogposts over at FSB are not as blatantly or virulently anti-LGBT as this piece was. I was surprised to see it promoted there.

Karen Clark quickly responded to my comment by citing a quote from the OneNewsNow article and adding her own defense of the piece:

"'[Segelstein's quote from OneNewsNow:] Yet the media endlessly mocks traditional families (to say nothing of traditional values) by providing entertainment that, as Hicks writes, 'relentlessly promotes the idea that traditional families are obsolete, unnecessary, hypocritical, and even a little absurd.'"
[Karen's quote:] "I think this is the main take-away point from this article but of course it all depends on a lens we are reading though. 'Bigotry' can go both ways but it’s really a useless word when thinking bigger picture."

Here, Karen seems to suggest that from her point of view, shows like Glee are actually bigoted toward "traditional families." But, really, it's not entirely clear what she means here, especially the part where she says that bigotry is a "useless word when thinking bigger picture."

Nonetheless, it was a somewhat informative exchange.

Some Christian "traditional family" folks believe, however ignorantly, that shows featuring "non-traditional families" are totally centered around mocking "traditional families." Yes, this claim feels a little project-y to me. At the very least, it is inaccurate. Having watched all three of the programs Segelstein cited, I suspect that Segelstein has not actually watched any of them if she thinks they "relentlessly" promote such horrible notions about the "traditional family."

While these programs depict a handful of lesbian, gay, and bisexual characters (and no transgender characters, to my knowledge) and non-traditional families, this depiction in and of itself doesn't "mock" traditional families. So, I noted that in my reply to Karen:

"....'Modern Family' certainly depicts non-traditional families, but in so doing, it doesn’t mock traditional families or paint them as absurd. If anything, the show depicts all types of families as being absurd at times. All of the characters in the show are caricatures (eg 'the flamboyant gay,' the 'young, hot Latina 2nd wife,' 'the bumbling hetero man,' 'the nerdy daughter, v. the popular daughter' etc.). The show is hardly a celebration of anyone or any single family form. It simply depicts the reality that different types of families exist.
And, rather than The Kids Are Alright being a celebration of sperm donation, the show itself actually raises the question, 'Are they really alright?' Both kids in that movie sought out the identity of their biological father, without their moms knowing, and established a relationship with him because they yearned to know him. It depicts the messiness of such situations, and that’s pretty evident to anyone who watches it."

Another commenter then politely asked Karen to further clarify her "bigger picture" comment in light of the apparent bigotry of the piece she was promoting.

Karen's response? An unfortunate, dramatic, and defensive accusation:

"Who the heck cares what 'Karen Clark' thinks – really. Who cares? Other than ppl who want to spin my words and intentions to their benefit."

Er... okay. That came from left field. I thought we were just having a convo.

Karen then threw a grammatically incomprehensible word salad into her comment and several (unformatted) links intended to be "thought food" for her critics to gain "a better understanding of 'the bigger picture'" (Note: One of these links was to the highly-problematic National Organization for Marriage's so-called Marriage Anti-defamation Alliance, which I've already written about).

She then she promptly closed down the comment thread, as though it somehow would constitute her "winning" the "conversation" if she got the last word in by throwing a bunch of even more bigoted links at us, putting her fingers in her ears, and ordering everyone else to become more educated by reading her hardly-impartial sources.

So yeah. I found Karen's behavior to be really problematic.

For one, it seemed to fall into that classic, pearl-clutching How dare you try to talk to me about spreading bigoted propaganda about you!? category of Internet discourse. That's always fun. Good on you, Karen, for having the privilege to just walk away from hostile conversations you initiate that end up making you feel like you might be acting problematically.

Two, Karen has a history of linking to bigoted or provocative pieces, but she often keeps the comment section following such promotions closed. Or, as in this case, she will quickly close down a thread when people are like, "what's up with that bigoted piece, Karen?"

Three, about those links she threw in to "educate" her critics about "the bigger picture." As a lesbian blogger, yep, I'm pretty sure I'm already familiar with what NOM and company are saying and accusing equality advocates of. While many of us are highly familiar with NOM's theatrics re: How The Big Bad Mean Gays Are Oppressing The Nice Marriage Defenders, Karen seems to have chomped down on that hook, line, and sinker.

In her efforts to bring it to the attention of LGBT people, she assumes ignorance on our part, rather than considering that maybe it's she who needs to "think bigger picture" than what NOM and company are telling her. For instance, while I regularly and deliberately put myself in hostile anti-LGBT blog territory, how many LGBT-written blogs does she regularly read and comment on? Does she listen to LGBT people at all? Can she adequately and informatively explain our viewpoints, fears, and concerns? Or, is most of her information coming from groups like NOM?

Four, I found it strange that Karen backed up with her hands in the air and demeaned herself by asking, "who the heck cares what 'Karen Clark' thinks"?

She posts at Family Scholars Blog, a project of the Institute for American Values, which is an institution opposing same-sex marriage and that, presumably, runs a blog for the purpose of an intellectual exchanging ideas with others. I think the bigger question is why Karen Clark, the Family Scholars blogger, would think people wouldn't care what she thinks? I mean, is it really fair or realistic of her to not expect debate about what she posts?

And really, my beef is not even about her, it's about the hostile pieces she (a) promotes and (b) then proceeds to shut down conversations about. The OneNewsNow piece she promoted, to me, looked less embiggening to a scholarly discourse, and more about a propagandic attack on LGBT representation in the media. A good conversation could have been had about it by people of differing viewpoints and yet, Karen acted as though it was totally out of line that people might take issue with the piece she promoted.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the Internet 'Asplosion with Stacy, the Catholic woman who wrote a cruel, intolerant, and hateful screed about how awful it was for her to see a same-sex couple at a public park. Later, Stacy too, reacted with that "why does anyone even care what I think anyway" attitude. Stacy, too, reacted to polite criticism by perceiving it and framing it as a violent infringement on her rights.

So, here I would encourage Karen to stop reactively framing every bit of criticism or requests for clarification as an aggressive, hostile attack on herself. When I noted that, as a lesbian, it seems bigoted toward me when someone writes about what an awful "infection" it is that there are lesbian characters on television, it is a strange thing to be told that bigoted is a "useles word" and that I should, instead, focus on an alleged "bigger picture"- especially when that "bigger picture" is painted by a group like NOM.

When we truly think about the bigger picture, I will against suggest that some anti-LGBT people have fundamental misunderstandings of (1) the aggression, cruelty, and hostility inherent in their words; and (2) the fact that when one person shares their opinion in public, other people might then share their opinions about that opinion.


[TW: suicide]

** Regarding the title of the OneNewsNow piece, "Don't Drink the Kool-Aid": Not only is Segelstein's article bigoted in its content, her title wantonly compares LGBT representation in the media to an unbelievably tragic instance of cult-induced mass suicide. First, can we please stop with the metaphors that trivilialize tragedy? Watching Kurt Hummel sing stupid showtunes on Glee is actually nothing at all like drinking cyanide-laced sugar water.

Two, the phrase is used in the article to imply that believers in LGBT equality have an unquestioning adherence to some ideology. In this instance, it implies that the larger society uncritically accepts LGBT people as "evidenced" by the fact that 35 LGBT characters exist on TV out of, like, thousands.

Could anti-LGBT Christians be any more project-y here? Not only do many of them have an unquestioning, uncritical, and unwavering religiously-based devotion to the idea that being LGBT is horribly wrong, homophobia and transphobia are still incredibly pervasive in society. As evidenced by Segelstein's article, which somehow gets promoted even on nice, civil, "scholarly" blogs.

The Problem With the "Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance"

The National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage ("NOM") and professional anti-equality advocate Maggie Gallagher have a new project in the works called the "Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance" ("MarriageADA").

Shrug.

I'd like to be able to report that this project truly appears interested in provoking an exchange of civil dialogue about the marriage debate, but alas.

The "About" section starts promising enough:

"We recognize that marriage is an important issue, about which people of good will can and do disagree. We believe America should be a place where passionate moral disagreements about important issues such as marriage are expressed with respect, thoughtfulness and civility—and without fear.,[sic] or threats of retaliation, on both sides."

Sure.

People on "both sides," if they're being honest, should be able to concede that both equality advocates and "marriage defenders" have acted aggressively, violently, and inappropriately at times with respect to the debate. And, reasonable people on "both sides" should be able to agree that people should be able to express "passionate moral disagreements" without fear of threats of physical violence.

As a point of clarification, and also illustrative of the first problem with this campaign, it's not clear what NOM means by "retaliation." In the past, "marriage defenders" have characterized legitimate, non-violent protesting and boycotts as unfair "retaliation," "censorship" and "hate." Yet, historically, non-violent protestors such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi recognized that a key component of non-violent protesting was accepting the possibility of jail time, the loss of a job, and/or the loss of business due to one's advocacy.

Many "marriage defenders," while trying to paint themselves as Gandhi-esque paragons of peace and civility, do not tend to accept these consequences of their political activity. Instead, they ask for the special right to engage in political discourse leading to the denial of other people's rights without any consequence to themselves. In fact, that seems to be the very point of this "MarriageADA" campaign.

Furthermore, and hypocritically, NOM has recently forked over money to put up gigantic billboards in New York threatening the imminent removal from office of politicians who voted in favor of marriage equality. The billboards target specific politicians and boldly exclaim, "You're next." Sure, I see the billboards as a legitimate means of advocacy, but let's call it what it is: a threat of retaliation. I guess the "MarriageADA" is okay with such threats coming from "their side."

Moving on, the very next paragraphs fall prey to the very vilification this project condemns- unfairly demonizing the "other side":

"Since Prop 8, we have grown concerned about the increasing number of reports from people whose persons, property, and/or livelihoods have been threatened because they oppose-same sex marriage.

These incidents, we have come to suspect, are not neither isolated, nor mere thuggery, but are the fruit of a very bad idea relentlessly promoted by gay marriage elites: there is no reason why marriage is the union of husband and wife, opposition to same-sex marriage is just like opposition to interracial marriage, and that “anti-equality” views are therefore the moral, legal, intellectual equivalent of the hateful dogmas of racism." [emphasis added]

The site then encourages "marriage defenders," but not LGBT people or allies, to submit their stories of having been threatened and harassed for their views about marriage.

So. Right. Okay.

Let's talk about the the very phrase "gay marriage elite." For a project extolling the virtues of civility, that one's incredibly inflammatory. It is suggestive of rich, beret-capped "leftists" twirling their mustaches while inventing a "myth" that anti-equality advocates are bigots even though, apparently, anti-equality advocates are actually perfect paragons of civility.

But, well, anyone who even tangentially follows this debate knows that that would be an incredibly dishonest portrait of the debate. People call many "marriage defenders" bigots and the equivalents of racists because many "marriage defenders" actually are bigots and the equivalents of racists.

An important step in demonstrating civility and a sincere concern about dialogue on "both sides" is to concede that hardly-controversial point, especially when many of the regular commenters at NOM's very own blog actually are bigots and the equivalent of racists.

Yet, if we're to believe this project's running narrative, it's incredibly out of line, and possibly a severe human rights violation, to acknowledge that some people oppose marriage equality because they "think anal sex is icky" and/or they just don't like gay people. (Don't forget, equality is important! But more important that that are anti-equality advocates feelings about being anti-equality advocates!)

So, while I can agree that "both sides" should be able to express their views without fear of violence, I cannot agree that "marriage defenders" are entitled to the right to demand that society treat them like special snowflakes of civility for their opposition to equality, when it's the rare "marriage defender" who actually earns that treatment. See, the best way for people to be treated as though they're civil is for them to start actually being civil.

Lastly, the cited report that this campaign relies on is the Heritage Foundation's "The Price of Prop 8" which has "documented" some of the real and imagined harms that "marriage defenders" have endured post-Prop 8.

This report, which reads more like propaganda than a scholarly study, has been widely critiqued for relying on anonymous and unsubstantiated accusations, for recounting incidents that were only questionably linked to Prop 8, and for conflating legal protesting methods and impoliteness with illegal acts of violence. Example: One John Doe received a book of the "greatest homosexual love stories of all time" while another reported receiving a phone call where he was called a "bigot." These acts were conflated with the mysterious "white powder" that was sent to a Mormon church (and that the FBI was never able to link to Prop 8).

Without acknowledging the aggression, bullying, harassment, threats of violence, and acts of actual physical violence that LGBT people regularly endure, it is difficult for me- a lesbian equality advocate- to take the project's professed concern for "both sides" seriously when it only encourages "marriage defenders" to submit their stories of fear, threats, and violence they have experienced.

This post, I suppose, was a long way of explaining why I question the sincerity of this project's purpose.

*I have intentionally not included links to the MarriageADA's website. It can be easily found with the Google.

Related-
Marinelli: NOM Sought "Crazy" Pictures of Equality Advocates

New Word of the Day: "Same-Sex Enthusiast"

On Internet, in a forum that I refuse to link to (nomnomnomnom), I recently came across a fellow who refers to lesbians and gay men as "same-sex enthusiasts." (I'm honestly not sure if his silly term encompasses bisexual people. It...seems not to? Like... maybe he would call bisexual people "same-sex and opposite-sex enthusiasts"?)

Anyway, it's such a bizarre term.

For one, it implies that it's only gays and lesbians who are enthusiastic about people of the same-sex. Like, if my defining feature is that I'm an "enthusiast" of other women, does it mean that straight women basically think other women can all go shit in a hat?

Two, when we consider the word origin and history of "enthusiast," things get really projecty really quickly:

"enthusiast
c.1600, pejorative, one who believes himself possessed of divine revelations or special communication from God, from Gk. enthousiastes, from enthousiazein (see enthusiasm). General sense (not always entirely pejorative) is from mid-18c."

Couldn't we also, therefore, refer to those who believe their religion gives them special insight into the suckiness of gays and lesbians "same-sex enthusiasts"?

And three, when one is said to be an enthusiast, it is generally meant that one "is ardently attached to a cause, object, or pursuit," rather than another sentient being. For instance, people are generally "enthusiasts" of things or activities like veganism, meat-eating, cars, cycling, rock-collecting, rock climbing, and being mean to marginalized people on Internet.

With that in mind, it just kind of seems like this guy is trying to say that lesbian and gay people are "enthusiasts of having sex with people of the same-sex," but like, he just couldn't commit to actually saying what he meant. Like, it would have been too wordy for him to be more accurate so he had to invent a dog-whistle shorthand that would be readily-recognizable to other bigots. And, on the Internet forum in which this fellow throws around his made-up word, I've never seen another anti-LGBT person be like, "Dude, I agree with you about the sucky gays, but what's up with 'same-sex enthusiast?'"

It's like some of them are all on the same wavelength: "You know what would really make our comments pop? If we started calling them 'same-sex enthusiasts. Awwww yeah, suh-weet!"

I don't know why I've let myself think about this strange phrase so much and then proceeded to blog about it. I think I'm just intrigued by the lengths some anti-equality advocates will go to just not call us "lesbian and gay." Like, gawd forbid they concede that one small point in the conversation.

But whatevs.

"Same-sex enthusiast."

Neat. I'm sure it'll catch on.