The Almanac ([info]pseudohistorian) wrote,
@ 2008-10-31 01:53:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood:determined
Entry tags:equalism

You Want to Go Where People Know People Are All the Same
There's been a fairly popular meme around here over the past couple of days which I imagine came about because of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative in California which would amend that state's constitution to ban same-sex marriage there. (On my friendslist alone, [info]amysisson, [info]daytonward, [info]ineti, [info]infinitydog, and [info]kradical have already paid it forward.) The meme is meant for you to post "if you're in a heterosexual marriage, and you don't want it 'protected' by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow."

I'm not married, but coincidentally, I already had to do some pruning on MySpace this week because of the same issue, so for those of you who don't follow me there, I'll offer up a verbatim copy of the MySpace Bulletin I wrote on Monday morning, which is definitely in the spirit of the meme:


Date: 27 Oct 2008 11:29
Subject: An Open Letter to the Haters


To Any Californian Voting Yes on Proposition 8,
and Anyone Who Supports Them:

We all have our political differences, and I respect that.

In the American presidential election, for example, I can respect that you might have legitimate policy reasons to support McCain/Palin as opposed to Obama/Biden.

I can't imagine what those policy reasons could possibly be, but I respect that you can imagine them.

What I can't respect is the idea that you're against equality, that you're against civil rights for all, that you would take away rights already granted, that you would restrict people from being with the people they loved and embracing all of the joys and responsibilities of forming a family as they see fit.

These are the people you would reject in favour of imposing your own definitions of "child," "couple," "parent," "loved one," and so much more:


If you would reject them, then I reject you.

Consider this your 24-hour notice. I've learned that you're planning to vote Yes on Hate, or that you support the notion, and I want you to know the reason for your removal before I take you off my list of friends here...

...because if you're that bigoted and fearful, I'm not interested in being friends with you.


Sincerely,

Edgar Governo.


Harsh? Inflammatory? Perhaps, but honestly, I stand by what I wrote. The main person I was directing it to had already posted many bulletins of her own, full of regurgitated right-wing talking points and insinuations about Barack Obama, before her vocal support of Prop 8 became the straw.

Unsurprisingly, she inferred her subject status, and a minor row ensued in the bulletin's comments where she trotted out the usual standards--the "I have a gay cousin with kids, but" argument, the "it takes something away from the church" argument, the "this country was based in Christianity" argument, and the "it's a slippery slope" argument--before saying that if I deleted her, it would "only scream [my] intolerance."

"Really?!" ask Seth and Amy. My intolerance, you say. Give me a break, 'cause I sure need one.

I spent the rest of Monday feeling really worked up over that whole exchange, and I'm starting to feel The Rage again just thinking about it.

All of those arguments are unfortunate echoes of the exact same arguments used in decades past to support slavery and segregation, to deny voting rights for women and minorities, and most particularly to argue against "miscegenation." Same-sex marriage doesn't lead to society's downfall any more than giving women the vote led to giving gerbils the vote, and encountering people who don't realise that is sad, frightening, and offensive at the same time.

As someone living in a country which has had same-sex marriage nationwide for several years, such arguments seem especially ridiculous. Remember when Canada descended into a pit of debauched anarchy? Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria? Well, I don't, either.

In the same set of MySpace comments, [info]seweccentric suggested that my approach to and characterisation of the other side was "not what [she]'d call catching flies with honey," and I can understand where she's coming from, but this is a civil rights issue, full stop. If I encountered someone today in favour of slavery, segregation, or restricting suffrage, I wouldn't have much patience or understanding for that level of ignorance, either.

"Separate but equal" is not equal.



(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]seweccentric
2008-10-31 06:34 pm UTC (link)
To be clear, I'm NOT against Gay marriage. But because I live in a red state and I hear so much of the opposition, I'm just saying it's not coming across as a successful tactic to persuade them against their religiosity (you already know I'm an atheist in the bible belt).

And you may recall how violent past civil rights issues have become when people get enraged - not a good strategy. Not something that has to happen again.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]pseudohistorian
2008-10-31 07:13 pm UTC (link)
I know you're not against gay marriage...and I'm grateful for that. :)

If I were living in a jurisdiction which was still trying to resolve this issue, and I were actively involved in supporting the cause of same-sex marriage, I might have to temper some of my public statements (especially if I were the public voice of a movement) for the tactical reasons you suggest, but the religiosity you also mention does not get to dictate state policy in a secular society, even if the religious far outweigh the rest.

As "an atheist in the Bible Belt," I'm sure you already understand that. The whole point is to ensure the rights of minorities.

I would never endorse violence in the name of any side of an issue, civil rights or otherwise, no matter how enraged I felt personally. However, the fear of violence (and the existence of actual violence) didn't stop the Civil Rights Act from being passed, which is a very good thing indeed, and protecting equality is most important when it is most threatened by outside forces.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dontmentionlove
2008-10-31 06:53 pm UTC (link)
in light of your stance on this issue, i'd like you to explain to me how something's right to be humorous trumps, or at leasts allows for the co-existance of any of its racist or misogynistic implications.

it's kind of a curious disconnect for me, and i'd really like to understand where you come from on that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]pseudohistorian
2008-10-31 07:45 pm UTC (link)
My personal spectrum of acceptable-to-offensive speech is a subjective one, and no matter how strong a stance I have on any particular issue, I would never deny someone the right to their own spectrum.

Deleted MySpace Friend clearly doesn't find her own speech offensive, and she can go on posting her three bulletins a day, and her mom can tell her she's doing God's work as a poor persecuted soul (because another liberal deleted her) while also implying that Obama is the Antichrist. I find that appalling, and I (obviously) don't want to be exposed to it anymore, but my personal choice on that front does not trump their right to be as homophobic as they like in their own free-speech corner over there.

On a more public front, people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are idiots, but I don't have to watch/listen to them to say I wouldn't favour their censorship because the free speech that allows them to be idiots also allows me to call them idiots. ;)

Equality has to be applied...well, equally. Short of an incitement to violence (which I noted above), I would be a hypocrite if I supported equality but then tried to quash someone's voice just because I, personally, don't want to put up with that crap. Speech (humourous or otherwise) has to be subversive or transgressive at times in order for it to mean anything--the lines can't be drawn (or redrawn) unless someone crosses over them, and the envelope won't expand until someone pushes it.

Disagreement is the hallmark of free speech, and the best weapon against bad speech is more speech. After all, if those bulletins hadn't been posted, I wouldn't have written what I did, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. ;)

The short answer, then, is that I don't see a disconnect.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…