Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Via JMG: Dan Savage On HGTV's Move
Via Daily Dharma
Transcend Ordinary Perceptions | May 7, 2014
In painting, as in any art, we can
escape the prison of our minds and connect with what transcends ordinary
perceptions. And just as a body of water stays still while a wave-form
moves through it, consciousness remains stable despite the constant
motion and flow of our thoughts.
—Fredericka Foster, “Spotlight On: Fredericka Foster”
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Via JMG: Cuba To Host LGBT Rights Convention
The sixth International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association for Latin America and the Caribbean (ILGALAC) Regional Conference will take place in the beach resort of Varadero. A number of parties and other events are scheduled to take place in nearby Havana, the Cuban capital, during the gathering. “As the host country for the sixth ILGALAC Regional Conference, Cuba is not exempt from the problems of the region’s LGBTI communities,” states the organization. “The humanistic nature of the Cuban Revolution has focused on the human being in his teleological purposes since its beginning. Although the Cuban LGBTI movement does not have the organization of other international movements, the fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the country is now evident with more impact and achievements.”Among the critics of the conference is US Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL): "Hosting a conference on LGBT rights is just another farcical attempt by the Cuban regime to pretend they care about anyone’s rights. The sad reality is that the Cuban people are harassed, beaten and bullied for having a point of view that differs from the regime’s. This desperate move to seem tolerant does not even come close to obscuring the repressive reality on the island.” Last year Ros-Lehtinen, who has a transgender son, endorsed marriage equality in Florida.
RELATED: Homosexuality is legal in Cuba and while no LGBT rights legislation exists, gay pride events have been allowed in recent years. In 2010 Fidel Castro publicly apologized for the treatment of LGBT people during his regime, calling it a "great injustice." Thousands of gay people were rounded up and placed in internment camps while he was in power. At the height of the AIDS crisis, HIV+ Cubans were quarantined. Today Cuba produces generic HIV drugs and provides them free of charge.
Via JMG: OREGON: AG Ellen Rosenblum Files Objection To NOM's Demand To Intervene
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has filed an objection to NOM's demand to intervene in that state's marriage equality case, calling it an "unreasonable" delaying tactic.
Read Rosenblum's full objection.
Rosenblum, who has joined plaintiffs in urging the judge to overturn Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage, charged that the anti-gay marriage group had no reasonable basis for waiting so long before attempting to intervene in the case. She also said in a legal brief filed Friday that NOM hasn't raised any new issues in the case and that only the attorney general can represent the state's interests. NOM filed a motion to intervene in the case less than 48 hours before McShane held oral arguments on April 23 on why the parties in the case believe that Oregon's prohibition on same-sex marriage violates federal constitutional protections.Rosenblum says that NOM "fails to identify any argument that has not already been presented to this Court by the defendants. Instead, what it would appear to offer this Court is the same arguments identified and presented by the state defendants without the context of how those arguments fail when considered in the full context of Oregon law." NOM has until Friday to file their reply brief. Openly gay US District Court Judge Michael McShane has scheduled oral arguments for May 14th.
Read Rosenblum's full objection.
Labels: Ellen Rosenblum, hate groups, lawsuits, LGBT rights, marriage equality, NOM, Oregon, religion
Via JMG: Two Years Ago Today
Favor vota Não! / Please vote no! Uma violenta campanha homofóbica!
Favor entrar no site abaixo e votar sobre a definição de familia.
Assunto: Uma violenta campanha homofóbica!
Amigos e amigas
Está correndo na internet esta mensagem:
A Câmara dos Deputados está promovendo uma enquete querendo saber se:
"Você concorda com a definição de família como núcleo formado a partir da união entre homem e mulher, prevista no projeto que cria o Estatuto da Família?" Vote sim. E divulgue o máximo que puder
http://www2.camara.leg.br/agencia-app/votarEnquete/enquete/101CE64E-8EC3-436C-BB4A-457EBC94DF4E
Vote urgente no sim - em menos de 1 minuto.REPASSE para seus CONTATOS.Podemos votar pelo celular!!Não deixe de votar para preservar o conceito de família.
Às pessoas que me mandaram esta mensagem devolvi o seguinte:
Devagar com o andor que o santo é de barro, amigos e amigas. A definição de família é uma questão muito complexa. A proposta de que se vote "sim" é simplista e não leva a sério as inúmeras facetas da realidade humana e das questões de gênero. Está sendo propugnada por grupos homofóbicos que não têm a menor consideração para com os sentimentos e valores das pessoas homossexuais, como se estas fossem incapazes de demonstrar amor e de educar as crianças que vierem a adotar como seus filhos. Na realidade - a família existente hoje, composta de um homem e uma mulher - tem se revelado um verdadeiro fracasso no amar e no educar seus filhos. Quem é capaz de negar isso? Então uma coisa nada tem a ver com a outra.
Não se deixem condicionar pela campanha homofóbica que se esboça no Brasil hoje. Não deixem que alguém lhes diga como deve votar. Votem com consciência e especialmente com amor para com todas as pessoas - LGBT inclusive - e com consideração para com seus sentimentos. Imagine se você fosse uma destas pessoas e se visse impedida de formar uma família? Não julguemos as pessoas de acordo com as pressuposições e preconceitos de nossa hipócrita sociedade.
Repasso a vocês pedindo-lhes que, ao contrário dos que recomendam os homofóbicos - que estão votando no sim de forma maciça - entrem no link acima e votem no espírito de amor e inclusão que caracteriza a fé cristã mais genuína. Eu já votei NÃO!
Sérgio Marcus Pinto Lopes
(assinatura automática)
Prof. Dr. Sérgio Marcus Pinto Lopes
Tradutor e Intérprete
http://terrafirmetraducoeserevisoes.blogspot.com.br/
Assunto: Uma violenta campanha homofóbica!
Amigos e amigas
Está correndo na internet esta mensagem:
A Câmara dos Deputados está promovendo uma enquete querendo saber se:
"Você concorda com a definição de família como núcleo formado a partir da união entre homem e mulher, prevista no projeto que cria o Estatuto da Família?" Vote sim. E divulgue o máximo que puder
http://www2.camara.leg.br/agencia-app/votarEnquete/enquete/101CE64E-8EC3-436C-BB4A-457EBC94DF4E
Vote urgente no sim - em menos de 1 minuto.REPASSE para seus CONTATOS.Podemos votar pelo celular!!Não deixe de votar para preservar o conceito de família.
Às pessoas que me mandaram esta mensagem devolvi o seguinte:
Devagar com o andor que o santo é de barro, amigos e amigas. A definição de família é uma questão muito complexa. A proposta de que se vote "sim" é simplista e não leva a sério as inúmeras facetas da realidade humana e das questões de gênero. Está sendo propugnada por grupos homofóbicos que não têm a menor consideração para com os sentimentos e valores das pessoas homossexuais, como se estas fossem incapazes de demonstrar amor e de educar as crianças que vierem a adotar como seus filhos. Na realidade - a família existente hoje, composta de um homem e uma mulher - tem se revelado um verdadeiro fracasso no amar e no educar seus filhos. Quem é capaz de negar isso? Então uma coisa nada tem a ver com a outra.
Não se deixem condicionar pela campanha homofóbica que se esboça no Brasil hoje. Não deixem que alguém lhes diga como deve votar. Votem com consciência e especialmente com amor para com todas as pessoas - LGBT inclusive - e com consideração para com seus sentimentos. Imagine se você fosse uma destas pessoas e se visse impedida de formar uma família? Não julguemos as pessoas de acordo com as pressuposições e preconceitos de nossa hipócrita sociedade.
Repasso a vocês pedindo-lhes que, ao contrário dos que recomendam os homofóbicos - que estão votando no sim de forma maciça - entrem no link acima e votem no espírito de amor e inclusão que caracteriza a fé cristã mais genuína. Eu já votei NÃO!
Sérgio Marcus Pinto Lopes
(assinatura automática)
Prof. Dr. Sérgio Marcus Pinto Lopes
Tradutor e Intérprete
http://terrafirmetraducoeserevisoes.blogspot.com.br/
What our parish does about gay relationships
Pope Francis has asked our bishops to report to Rome on what is actually happening in the parishes in regard to marriage and family life. Among the many topics to be discussed are "same-sex unions between persons who are, not infrequently, permitted to adopt children."
I think that our parish is a fairly typical middle-class, mostly white, English-speaking, American parish. I also think it would be fair to say that our approach to same-sex couples, including marriage and adoption, is evolving. One might characterize our approach as public silence and private acceptance.
In public, we are silent about the fact that some of our fellow parishioners are gay, even though some people are aware of their relationships.
In private, we are accepting their relationships so long as we don't have to acknowledge them.
Thank you for supporting our Webathon!
Such a modus vivendi is not really an ethical resolution to the question. In fact, it is merely a strategy for avoidance.
There seem to be two great divides in my parish over issues facing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. One divide is generational. The other divide is personal.
The generational divide is the most obvious and clear-cut, but not absolute. Older people are less accepting of LGBT relationships. Younger people see no problem. In fact, younger people often think the church should move beyond mere acceptance to affirmation. The dividing line seems to be about age 50.
This generational divide is radical and serious. For some young people, it determines whether or not they will remain Catholics. One young man left our church over the issue. As the older Catholics die off, the church will find very little acceptance of its current negative position on gay relationships. We will find ourselves culturally marginalized in countries like the United States.
The personal divide is more subtle and harder to quantify. People who know someone in their family or circle of friends who is publicly gay are much more accepting of LGBT people than people who claim they don't know anyone who is gay. Of course, the fact is, everyone actually does know someone who is gay. They just know that their friend or family member is gay but does not admit it.
Personal experience is important. More and more people are coming out as gay. More and more people will have to accept their relationships. Our younger people nearly always know someone who is out as gay and find it very easy to accept. This is a sea change from a generation ago.
More and more gay relationships are being discussed, even in a conservative community like ours. In the past few years, at least a dozen parents have come to me to tell me that their children are gay. They are supportive of their children. They want to know how I will respond. I always encourage them to accept and love their child.
Two of my friends who go to other parishes left the Catholic church when their children came out. They simply could not accept a church that judged their children to be "intrinsically disordered." If someone is put in the position of choosing between his or her child and the church, they will obviously and quite rightly choose their child.
The hyperbolic and harsh language of the church will have to change. It is not accurate, and it is not charitable.
Our purpose as a Christian church is to remain faithful to the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is significant that Jesus had nothing to say about gay relationships. If homosexuality had been important to Jesus, he would have said something about it. After all, he told us his views on divorce and adultery and many other ethical issues. But Jesus said nothing about it. Maybe it was not important to him.
Clearly, the most important thing to Jesus was love. The night before he died, he said to his disciples, "I give you a new commandment, love one another" (John 13:34). Love is the key and the measure of his followers. So long as gay relationships are truly loving and committed, I cannot see how they are intrinsically disordered.
So how do we respond to people in same-sex relationships in our parish?
First, I try to see the whole person.
This is what Pope Francis said he tries to do when he spoke with the Jesuit magazine La Civiltá Cattolica. He tries to see the "whole person" because people cannot be reduced to just one aspect of their lives. Certainly, no one is defined only by their sins. As the pope said, "If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them?"
Seeing the whole person has practical consequences in pastoral life.
Our parish motto is "All Are Welcome." We really mean it. That includes LGBT people, too. We welcome them to the Eucharist if they are Catholics. We baptize their children. We register the children in our activities and programs, just like any child. Welcome means welcome.
I am not the bedroom police. I do not quiz people on their private lives. I do not know who is sleeping with a boyfriend or girlfriend. I do not know who is cheating on a spouse. But one thing I know for sure: One hundred percent of the people who come to Communion at every Mass in the history of the world are sinners; redeemed sinners.
In a conservative parish like mine, the presence of LGBT people is not generally a big issue, but it does exist. We have a few same-sex couples in our parish. At least two couples have been married civilly. They live quietly, devoutly and humbly.
Maryland legalized gay marriage a little over a year ago. So far, it has not caused even so much as ripple in our parish. It simply does not affect us. Sacramental heterosexual marriages are not threatened by the civil law's recognition of gay marriage. We are much more threatened by no-fault divorce, which came into the law 50 years ago.
It is my view that we should get out of the civil aspects of marriage altogether, just as they do in France and Mexico and many other countries. People who want to be married in the eyes of the law should go to the courthouse. People who want to be married in the eyes of the church should come to us. Church and state should be free to have their own definitions.
Welcoming gay parishioners does have some limits. We do not perform gay marriages. We teach only about sacramental marriage in our religious education classes. We do not host wedding receptions for same-sex weddings.
(Our parish avoids this conflict by limiting our wedding receptions to weddings that take place in our parish church. We are not a hiring hall for weddings.)
Recently, I was asked to bless the home of a gay couple. Judging from the crucifixes and holy pictures, they have a very traditional piety. Apart from the fact that they are gay, it was a pretty Ozzie-and-Harriet relationship.
In the United States, gay marriage is now legal in 17 states and the District of Columbia. As a legal issue, I think the debate is all over but the shouting. There will still be serious disagreements within society, of course. There will even be disagreements within families. Just look at the recent smack down between the Cheney sisters over gay marriage.
Civil society will still have to work out a new modus vivendi on such things as open housing, the wording of school textbooks, legal adoption policies, fringe benefits for spouses, and access to government programs. Even the church will have to adjust. Religious liberty, like all of the rights in the Bill of Rights, is a qualified right, not an absolute right.
But I don't think the sacramental definition of marriage as taught by the church will change. We will still limit marriage to one man and one woman.
It seems to me that so long as we are free to celebrate our weddings in our own way and live our understanding, we should not be threatened by same-sex marriages. Indeed, we may come to see them for what they really are: a rather conservative movement that pushes the gay community toward sexual restraint and stability. It may cut down on overall promiscuity in society. Surely, that is a good thing.
I have to say frankly that I have changed my view over the past 20 years. Like vice presidents Dick Cheney and Joe Biden, I am evolving. Perhaps the Catholic church should evolve, too.
When gay marriage passed by referendum in Maryland, our local bishops were notably quiet. Perhaps it was because it passed by a vote of the people and not by a court decision or legislative action. Maybe our bishops are evolving, too.
Most of my parishioners are military or civil servants. They vote Republican. One man, who identifies himself as a tea party Republican, told me that the son of a friend came out to him.
"What did you say to him?" I asked.
"I told him it was OK to be gay. Just don't become a Democrat."
For more than 40 years, the language of the magisterium said that all same-sex acts are "intrinsically disordered" and may never be approved in any way. But that certainly is not my experience as a pastor of souls.
Almost a decade ago, I got to know a gay couple in our parish. They had been together 35 years. Both are dead now. Joe was a retired school teacher. George was a retired architect.
When the George was dying of cancer, Richard came to see me to ask if I would anoint his friend. Once at their house, I realized they were a couple. Richard was nursing George through his final illness. He had also helped George's parents.
After George died, Richard came into the parish office to plan the funeral. The rest of the family refused to come, but they did telephone to say, "We don't want it mentioned that our brother was gay and we don't want that man mentioned."
At the funeral, I began the homily by saying, "I want to thank Richard for being such a great friend to George over more than 35 years. Your relationship was the defining relationship of his life and a real sign of love and friendship."
Richard was grateful. For the first time in 35 years, he started coming back to the church. Three years later, it was Richard who was dying of cancer. I went to see him in the hospital in Delaware. I anointed him and gave him Communion. He asked me to say his funeral Mass, just as I had done for his partner.
Since neither of them was buried in our parish cemetery, I put up a plaque for them on our wall of remembrance, as is our custom. On the plaque, I quoted Sirach 6:14: "A faithful friend is a sturdy shelter, he who finds one finds a treasure."
Their relationship was not perfect, but it was certainly not intrinsically disordered.
[Fr. Peter Daly is a priest in the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and has been pastor of St. John Vianney parish in Prince Frederick, Md., since 1994.]
Via Daily Dharma
Overcome Resistance | May 6, 2014
Dancing is a beautiful metaphor for the
richness of meditation. More than an exercise to focus the mind, it is a
transformational journey inward, a means to know ourselves and refine
our way of being. Like removing kinks from a hose, it propels us to
overcome our resistances so the best in us can flow.
—Lawrence Levy, “Let’s Dance”
Monday, May 5, 2014
Via Daily Dharma
The Pleasure of Foolishness | May 5, 2014
Being the fool is not the same as
acting the fool: you can’t decide to be playful, or foolish, for an hour
a day, as if it were yet another task to add to your campaign of
self-improvement. It’s rather the result of a relaxation of the rules
and goals that you normally run your life by. The pleasure of
foolishness lies in large part in the absence of self-consciousness; in
the self-forgetting that comes in a moment of abandon.
—Roger Housden, “A Fool’s Bargain”
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Via Daily Dharma
Nothing to Protect | May 4, 2014
Our fundamental problems are our
ignorance and ego-grasping. We grasp at our identity as being our
personality, memories, opinions, judgments, hopes, fears, chattering
away—all revolving around this me me me me. This creates the idea of an
unchanging permanent self at the center of our being, which we have to
satisfy and protect. This is an illusion.
—Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, “No Excuses”
\
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Via Dialy Dharma
Accept Discomfort, Prevent Torment | May 3, 2014
You eliminate an enormous amount of
suffering by concentrating on the suffering that is actually present
instead of creating more with your thinking. It is the difference
between discomfort and torment.
—Larry Rosenberg, “When the Student is Ready, the Teacher Bites”
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Via Daily Dharma
Entering the Lotus | May 1, 2014
Truly entering the gate—truly
connecting to the Buddha's teaching—is to directly experience that there
is no inside and outside. This is not just an idea: you can't
understand it from the outside. Having entered, though, don't think you
are inside and others are still outside. Everyone enters with you.
—Michael Wenger, “Entering the Lotus”
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Via Daily Dharma
Live in Joy | April 29, 2014
When we are not attached to who we
think we are, life can move through us, playing us like an instrument.
Understanding how everything is in continual transformation, we release
our futile attempts to control circumstances. When we live in this easy
connection with life, we live in joy.
—James Baraz, “Lighten Up!”
Monday, April 28, 2014
Via Daily Dharma
Balancing Act | April 28, 2014
We’ve all got some balancing act going.
Maybe we juggle clarity and criticism; or it could be devotion and
credulity, warmth and vagueness, energy and rivalry, precision and a
need to control. We may struggle to cultivate one and suppress the
other, but sometimes all it takes is a willingness to let go of our
patterns as soon as we recognize them, and to stay open to whatever
comes next.
—Pamela Gayle White, “Walking the Walk”
JMG HomoQuotable - John Aravosis
Labels: Brendan Eich, Donald Sterling, LGBT rights, Los Angeles, Mozilla, NBA, Proposition 8, racism, sports
Sunday, April 27, 2014
How Should Gay People Engage With Bigots? A Straight Man Explains.
Pluralism fetishist Conor Friedersdorf has been on a tear over at the Atlantic in recent days, inveighing his heart out about why we shouldn’t “punish” people like Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla, who have actively hurt other people through their at this point ridiculous opposition to same-sex marriage and full civil equality for gay folks more generally. Instead, he and similarly minded members of the high-school debate team suggest, we should “try [our] best to criticize [our] interlocutor's position, not their person,” in order to “preserve the possibility of dialogue, and change hearts rather than shutting mouths.” Since I recently suggested that folks like Eich “simply shut up” in recognition of the fact that, while they are constitutionally entitled to their unique and special anti-gay feelings, they are no longer welcome to express them in the public sphere with the expectation of being taken seriously (or allowed high-profile jobs), it goes without saying that Friedersdorf and I don’t quite see eye-to-eye on this issue.
However, since I know that he is a gay ally (he is sure to assert his ally-ship at least once in each paragraph he writes), I do not want Friedersdorf to shut up. I do, though, wish he would think a bit more about whether his idealistic “hearts and minds” model of social change makes sense beyond the scale of personal relationships—and more important, for whom. As a starting point, let’s take on the question of what distinguishes gross bigotry, which I think Friedersdorf would agree we should treat with some amount of social stigma, from a reasonable political disagreement in which we should want to persuade the other side of the merits of our position. To be specific, in the Eich case, Friedersdorf has indicated that he would have had no qualms with the ouster if the former CEO had, say, sent out a company memo with the subject line “Attn: Faggots. Stop being so gay with each other”—that would be unquestionably bigoted. But a quiet donation of $1,000 to the Prop 8 campaign (ostensibly) in the name of defending some arbitrary, procreation-based definition of marriage doesn’t cross the line; that’s a person we should try to engage. To summarize: Directly saying that you don’t like the idea of two dudes loving on each other is bigoted, but using your checkbook to try to keep them from doing so as honest men is, if unsavory, rational enough. What are the special qualities of making a campaign contribution or voting for a marriage ban that makes those acts any less bigoted than punching me in my faggot face? Is it that they are quiet and semi-private, such that if I’m not looking over your shoulder I might not even notice? Is it that your intentions are supposedly based on ideological principles or traditional understandings and so you can’t be accused of personal malice? Or is it that, in a fit of altruism, you feel compelled to help prevent the sinner from further enjoying his sin? Even if I believed that any of these justifications could exist without the taint of homophobia (I sincerely doubt it), their function in the realm of laws and social conventions is still homophobic. Indeed, there’s something here of Chief Justice John Roberts’ fantastical thinking that only a direct bribe counts as political corruption—if he hasn’t committed a clear hate crime, Friedersdorf doesn’t think we should “punish” with “stigma” a person who is nonetheless hurting gay people. To the contrary, he is resolute in his view that it is possible to oppose gay marriage without actually harboring anti-gay animus and that in this fancy mental footwork, opposition to gay marriage is distinguished from opposition to something like miscegenation, its most obvious historical analog. In a consideration of the comparison, Friedersdorf argues that while the resistance to interracial marriage was based solely on white supremacy (bad), objectors to gay marriage are capable of taking their stand purely in the realm of religion-based, “traditional” definitions of marriage without rejecting gay people or gay sex at all (tolerable). However, even a cursory look at the history of miscegenation belies this distinction.
Court documents from the period regularly cite religious definitions of marriage as the primary justification for keeping the races separate, and President Harry Truman, a strong advocate for integration otherwise, objected to miscegenation because it “ran counter to the teaching of the Bible.” (For more on the supreme aptness of the comparison, check out James M. Oleske Jr.’s paper on the legal academy’s response to each issue.) Of course, Friedersdorf is right to say that these arguments simply gave cover to plain old basic white supremacy—so why can’t he see that “traditional marriage” arguments are functioning the exact same way with regard to heterosexual/procreative supremacy? As Oleske puts it, “though there may be some religious people in the pro-gay-sex/anti-gay-marriage category … the primary religious argument against gay rights in America has been rooted in biblical passages concerning sex, not marriage.” The logic just doesn’t hold.
Make the jump here to read the full article
However, since I know that he is a gay ally (he is sure to assert his ally-ship at least once in each paragraph he writes), I do not want Friedersdorf to shut up. I do, though, wish he would think a bit more about whether his idealistic “hearts and minds” model of social change makes sense beyond the scale of personal relationships—and more important, for whom. As a starting point, let’s take on the question of what distinguishes gross bigotry, which I think Friedersdorf would agree we should treat with some amount of social stigma, from a reasonable political disagreement in which we should want to persuade the other side of the merits of our position. To be specific, in the Eich case, Friedersdorf has indicated that he would have had no qualms with the ouster if the former CEO had, say, sent out a company memo with the subject line “Attn: Faggots. Stop being so gay with each other”—that would be unquestionably bigoted. But a quiet donation of $1,000 to the Prop 8 campaign (ostensibly) in the name of defending some arbitrary, procreation-based definition of marriage doesn’t cross the line; that’s a person we should try to engage. To summarize: Directly saying that you don’t like the idea of two dudes loving on each other is bigoted, but using your checkbook to try to keep them from doing so as honest men is, if unsavory, rational enough. What are the special qualities of making a campaign contribution or voting for a marriage ban that makes those acts any less bigoted than punching me in my faggot face? Is it that they are quiet and semi-private, such that if I’m not looking over your shoulder I might not even notice? Is it that your intentions are supposedly based on ideological principles or traditional understandings and so you can’t be accused of personal malice? Or is it that, in a fit of altruism, you feel compelled to help prevent the sinner from further enjoying his sin? Even if I believed that any of these justifications could exist without the taint of homophobia (I sincerely doubt it), their function in the realm of laws and social conventions is still homophobic. Indeed, there’s something here of Chief Justice John Roberts’ fantastical thinking that only a direct bribe counts as political corruption—if he hasn’t committed a clear hate crime, Friedersdorf doesn’t think we should “punish” with “stigma” a person who is nonetheless hurting gay people. To the contrary, he is resolute in his view that it is possible to oppose gay marriage without actually harboring anti-gay animus and that in this fancy mental footwork, opposition to gay marriage is distinguished from opposition to something like miscegenation, its most obvious historical analog. In a consideration of the comparison, Friedersdorf argues that while the resistance to interracial marriage was based solely on white supremacy (bad), objectors to gay marriage are capable of taking their stand purely in the realm of religion-based, “traditional” definitions of marriage without rejecting gay people or gay sex at all (tolerable). However, even a cursory look at the history of miscegenation belies this distinction.
Court documents from the period regularly cite religious definitions of marriage as the primary justification for keeping the races separate, and President Harry Truman, a strong advocate for integration otherwise, objected to miscegenation because it “ran counter to the teaching of the Bible.” (For more on the supreme aptness of the comparison, check out James M. Oleske Jr.’s paper on the legal academy’s response to each issue.) Of course, Friedersdorf is right to say that these arguments simply gave cover to plain old basic white supremacy—so why can’t he see that “traditional marriage” arguments are functioning the exact same way with regard to heterosexual/procreative supremacy? As Oleske puts it, “though there may be some religious people in the pro-gay-sex/anti-gay-marriage category … the primary religious argument against gay rights in America has been rooted in biblical passages concerning sex, not marriage.” The logic just doesn’t hold.
Make the jump here to read the full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)