Coach (of course) (tkdcoach) wrote,
Coach (of course)

On lies and reason in the fight over marriage

I never really asked anyone to become my Facebook friend, including my family members so I've had to debate with myself whether I should "cheese it" insofar as I expressed my actual beliefs in a rigorous fashion. That'd be a no! And, my Internet life is one that has existed since 1993--well before the WWW even had the capability of showing photos. I have shut down my "updates" to some out of a desire not to be invasive. Feel free to use Facebook's "hide" feature (there's an X by every single item in your news feed to hide updates from me), etc. As I otherwise intend to do my thing.

It can seem like an endless train of cheerleading at times--social activism--esp. in its forms of resistance. But the need is real. Certainly the willingness of the majority to vote against our unalienable rights (that this majority has done so since the inception of our society makes it no more just) is self-evident. A quick search of the Internet regarding "judicial activism" (a cliche of the far right and its agitation against the Constitutional role of the courts to protect the rights of (any) minority against usurpation by the majority) and "gay marriage" in the wake of the Iowa decision reveals a virulent, entrenched, and intellectually loopy sub-culture based entirely on gay-baiting (as a fundraiser, gay-bait and gay-panic are unparalleled).

Of course, the minority has to have legs to stand on, to get to court, avoid a lynching in the first place--and so, we as gay men and women have done so against all odds by the strength of our Character.

The Internet is alive with anti-gay, far-right activism as well (actually, much better funded due to the role of tax-free money in the churches):

In the first article you find the litany of discredited anti-gay concepts: special rights, judicial activism, traditional Judeo-Christian values (sic), un-Biblical, etcetera.

Just one of 100s of groups whose sole purpose is to use tax-free Christian money to attack gay people and come up with clever malapropisms such as "special rights" or to use the idea of "liberty" itself to deny such to those who seek it (after centuries of recorded injustice). These groups seek to "restore" American culture to ...what? Segregation, racism, homophobia, misogyny. Ah, the good old days.

"Their objective, as clearly seen in the legal actions taken and the instructional materials being used in the elementary schools, is not tolerance but celebration of homosexuality and gay pride while teaching that opposing views are mean spirited and hateful bigotry." says Ron Paul. Firstly, the idea that "tolerance" is somehow equivalent to keeping the lid on the celebration of homosexuality as a good thing is a joke. You tolerate, I'll celebrate myself as I see fit. Despite Ron Paul's reputation as an independent thinker this is right off the Family Research Council (sic)'s list of talking points. It is a lie that my existence is something to be "tolerated" anymore than yours is, a lie that is in itself a residual brutality. Go off and tolerate--I'll not be hampered by your shameful notions about my own self.

This is similar to the rhetoric used by Louisville's Sojourn Church and across the Christian right on the topic of sexuality in politics. It is a false premise, if not a mean-spirited lie, to suggest that opposing YOUR attempts to restrict my rights is an imposition of MY VIEWS on you (e.g. intolerance).

One gets the impression from reading the anti-gay circuit that gay people arose one day and just decided to be inconvenient--that having already tasted all the fruits of true liberty and democracy they were not satisfied--and decided to mouth off. Instead of the reality, which is that every aspect of our rightful lives and birthright had been thwarted, discarded, abused, and in many cases--beaten out of us.

But, our response is a response to history as well as the daily lives we lead. History does show the brutal atrocities committed against the natural rights of gay people, including murder, immolation, the pillory (being tied to a post in a wagon and led through the streets while the mob throws rocks and other solid objects at the prisoner...usually not survived). And that's just counting the actions of the Roman Catholic Church!

To the right, the word "tolerance" is said only with spittle and means something to the effect of: "I'll refrain from acknowledging the atrocity in my own heart (so long as no one's looking) if you'll shut up and go away (for now, we'll find you later, or our sons will, while we look away).

Unfortunately, it takes a of intellectual power to refute Mr. Paul's putative claims--to refute the whole nexus of "actual liberty as repression". This is an elaborate, but tragically flawed set of conclusions, and those conclusions are not in the least uncommon. The assertion that the battle for gay marriage is also a battle against the freedom of speech of the Christian majority is, on its face, a lie of the first order, and one can only doubt the motives of such a claim as much as one doubts that Christians are "on the run" in a culture that they simultaneously assume they dominate and assume they have the right to...or what is "tolerance"?

Tolerance is when you keep sexual orientation off of federal and state EEOC statements, keep me from service to my country without abrogating my own integrity (don't ask, don't tell--but you left off "don't pursue" whenever it was convenient), you exclude me from federal benefits for which I have paid in full, assassinate my character at every turn--and then you wish to call that "tolerance".

Tags: gay-rights gay-marriage conservatism
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded