Marriage Equality Defended in Massachusetts

[CTU2fan]

.

Yet, some of these last few posts seem to be equating the struggles that gays face with the Holocaust. Now that doesnt quite seem appropriate, does it?

If I'm getting beaten to death by somebody because of who or what I am, be it black, Jewish, or gay, I'm still getting killed. Why wouldn't you compare them?

Actually maybe comparing the gay struggle to the Jewish struggle is appropriate, since you seem to think people "choose" to be gay...well isn't religion a choice too? And that really is, it's not even a gray area.

 

[deep]

Yet, some of these last few posts seem to be equating the struggles that gays face with the Holocaust. Now that doesnt quite seem appropriate, does it?

Good point,

It's not like the Nazi's were gathering up queers and putting them in the ovens.

 

[Irvine511]

It's not like the Nazi's were gathering up queers and putting them in the ovens.

[q]The pink triangle was one of the Nazi concentration camp badges, used by the Nazis to identify male prisoners in concentration camps who were sent there because of their homosexuality. Every prisoner had to wear a triangle on his or her jacket, the color of which was to categorize him or her according "to his kind." Jews had to wear the yellow badge, and "anti-social individuals" (which included vagrants, "work shy" individuals and often, but not exclusively, lesbians[citation needed]), the black triangle. The black triangle as a symbol of lesbian or feminist solidarity, a counterpart to the gay pink triangle, probably originated from the Nazi "asocial" black triangle.[/q]

 

[deep]

It's not like the Nazi's were gathering up queers and putting them in the ovens.

If only that had happened
perhaps we would have changed our intolerance towards gays

After the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed
America took a look at it's collective soul and repealed anti-Semetic laws, and associations that had been previously considered acceptable.


After-all, we are better than the Nazis?

Are we not?

 

[martha]

Old fart alert

maybe you should ask Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving. they know all about being in a relationship that was condemned from a Biblical and social standpoint.

Mildred is black, and Richard is white. and the judge in Loving vs. Virginia -- from 1967, barely 40 years ago -- said, thusly:

[q]Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[/q]

I was thinking about this and decided to put on my rose-colored glasses.

In my lifetime, we've gone from the bullshit cited above to Massachusetts having legalized marriage between people of the same sex. That's ok with me. It's not as far as we'd like to see, but it's still pretty far to come in 40 years. Most people will work their way to realizing that if Memphis and Irvine want to get married it doesn't hurt anyone; that it makes everything just that more stable when happy couples get married. Those that still oppose will be able to see themselves in museum exhibits, much like those who opposed school integration can see themselves now (something which a certain young man might keep in mind).

 

[CTU2fan]

I am. But I'm from a blue state.

 

[Irvine511]

After the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed
America took a look at it's collective soul and repealed anti-Semetic laws, and associations that had been previously considered acceptable.

while it's impossible to directly compare the extermination of 6m people to the AIDS crisis (in north america and western europe ... not sub-saharan africa, that's a different animal), some of the effects of the AIDS crisis are similar.

it became impossible to hide being gay if you were covered in KS scars. if your brother, your nephew, your son, your piano teacher, your uncle ... people from all walks of life ... all start to die around you, it forces them out of the closet and forces you to start to deal with the gay urban ghetto. when a gay man starts to watch his friends die, he's not going to hide in a closet any more; he's going to take to the streets and demand that the Reagan administration acknowledge the crisis.

horribly, it often takes mass tragedy to get the majority to wake up and realize that, hey, we have a problem here.

at the very least, we've come a long way from the "AIDS is killing the right people" (read: gays, hatians, IV drug ussers) attitudes of the early 1980s.

 

[CTU2fan]

Re: Long story to get to this point;I'

Yet another piece of evidence supporting the separation of church & state.

Though I honestly think a lot of the anti-gay-marriage crowd would rather ban marriage between races too...after all, it's in the bible.

That's when it gets personal for me, so I try to steer clear of that topic.

 

[deep]

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

also sited by the segregationist

is the "Tower of Babel" story.

Genesis 11:1-9 as follows:

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children builded. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel (confusion); because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

God does not want us to have one language, be one people, or race mixers.

 

[martha]

Re: Re: Long story to get to this point;I'

Though I honestly think a lot of the anti-gay-marriage crowd would rather ban marriage between races too...after all, it's in the bible.

That's when it gets personal for me, so I try to steer clear of that topic.

But when it gets personal is when minds can get changed.

 

[deep]

There are eternal truths

what was true yesterday is
true today
will be true tomorrow.


And as God did not want the people united by a great tower where the people would come together, but wanted them to be separated as he created them.



Sometimes we never learn.

Man is arrogant.

God is Great.
Peace be upon him.

 

[maycocksean]

Or are bisexuals a completely different story?

I've come to believe that sexual orientation may be a sort of sliding scale, with bisexuals being in the middle. Bisexuals, I would posit, have no more "choice" in their orientation than do those who are straight or gay. However, I suppose they might have a wider array of choices as they find both sexes sexuallly attractive. I would imagine bisexuals would find it easier to take the socially acceptable "straight" route, but as Irvine pointed out,heaven help them if they happen to fall for the "wrong" gender.

Clearly this is a lot of speculation on my part and perhaps those with more firsthand experience can share their insights. Irvine, I really appreciate your willingess to share your experiences and insights. When you consider that most of us aren't particular eager to share our personal experiences with sexuality (and I'm sure Irvine is no different) it really highlights the courage he has shown.

2861U2, you might consider reading Middlesex by Jeffery Euginedes (I think I got that name right). It's about a person who was born a male but with improperly developed genitalia. If I recall correctly, the doctors encourage the parents to raise him as a girl. Now granted, this is talking about a physical condition rather than sexual orientation, but I found it valuable because it definitely makes you stop short in assuming that people can so easily be categorized. And I think it's not such a stretch to assume that if things can be so "unclear" on the physical level, why not at the level of sexual orientation as well?

A couple of caveats: It is fiction, but such individuals do actually exist. Perhaps someone else can represent a non-fiction book on the same topic.

Also, I thought the book was a bit slow in some sections and took me awhile to finish. But it was worth it. I read it several years ago. . .I can't remember what drew me to it (it was well before Oprah anointed it and catapaulted it back on to the front shelves of the bookstores).

 

[Irvine511]

^ is an excellent book.

 

[maycocksean]

Re: Re: Long story to get to this point;I'

That's when it gets personal for me, so I try to steer clear of that topic.

Wish they had a smiley for a raised fist of solidarity.

 

[maycocksean]

I think I understand your thinking.

It is my opinion that you tend view things in terms of "absolutes".

Right or wrong.

I once broke down things that way.

It is a practical way of viewing things and it left me with pretty good confidence that my conclusions were well reasoned
because I had evaluated everything and gave it a thumps up or thumbs down.

People that had different opinions from me?
I considered them wishy washy afraid to make the hard judgements
because they did not want to hurt anyone's feelings, even if that person was wrong.

When I held these views it was pretty easy for me dismiss opposing points of view. I tried to do it as respectful as I could.


Well, there came a point were I threw this process of judgements completely out the window.

I don't know that anyone every completely throws this process out the window. But we can aware of it's pitfalls and try to avoid it most of the time. That's what I try to do.

 

[deep]

I don't know that anyone every completely throws this process out the window. But we can aware of it's pitfalls and try to avoid it most of the time. That's what I try to do.

I hold you in high regard.

And as you are a "religious" person
I understand why you use that process.

The time I considered myself a religious person, is when I used that way of thinking.

I do constantly evaluate if I think something is the proper or right course of action to take.

But there are so many things that I do not have to pigeon hole as right or wrong.

And life is much more simple and rewarding for me now.

 

[maycocksean]

Exactly, I love how white conservative Christian males think they are so persecuted. It just furthers my belief that they live very sheltered, narrow lives.

Actually, the white conservative Christian male position is quite understandable to me (though I don't agree with it).

They recognize that their ability to control over what is considered "normal" and "acceptable" in the United States is in jepoardy. Losing the ability to have society defined according to terms that are comfortable to you is a scary thing. It takes courage and selflessness to say "this is a good thing even though it takes me out of my comfort zone." Not many people have the guts.

This is the appeal of Rush and O'Reilly and Coulter and their ilk. They're speaking directly to that fear and confusion and saying, "Hey, there's nothing WRONG with you being the arbiters, the standards, of societal mores. Your comfort zone is a GOOD thing. You don't NEED to be ashamed of it. Your domination of society should be DEFENDED." And then they take it further. . .they imply that if white male Chrisitan America loses it's hegemony then they will become the oppressed. There won't be an equitable society. The white Christian man will become the new "n_____". It's a perfect storm of self-justification and fear.

If we can put ourselves in their shoes, you can see the power of such an appeal.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Re: Re: Re: Long story to get to this point;I'

Wish they had a smiley for a raised fist of solidarity.

Ditto.

Anytime people start talking about marriage status quo, I just think about the fact that not so long ago me and my boyfriend would have been looked upon in the same way that gay couples are now. And I feel very sad. And I can't quite be "logical" about it because it's just as evil as racism, whatever "ism" it may be. It's viewing another person as less than human, deserving of unequal treatment and less rights than the rest of us. I can't think of anything further from the teachings of the Jesus I try to follow.

 

[martha]

I miss you, sula.

 

[maycocksean]

I hold you in high regard.

Thank you. I feel likewise.

And as you are a "religious" person
I understand why you use that process.

The time I considered myself a religious person, is when I used that way of thinking.

I do constantly evaluate if I think something is the proper or right course of action to take.

But there are so many things that I do not have to pigeon hole as right or wrong.

And life is much more simple and rewarding for me now.

I'll grant you that my faith might make such a black/white process more of an issue, and there may be more issues that you see as not black or white than I do (though, I wouldn't be TOO sure of that. Shoot, even the existence of the God that I love and have given my life to, I know cannot be proven in the black and white sense) but I really do believe that no one is ever TOTALLY free of it.

Especially in a forum like this, most of us tend to be pretty sure of our opinions, to be quite confident of our "rightness." You don't find too many people in FYM saying, "Ehh. . .I don't know. . .I could be wrong but. . ." The key is to catch ourselves. . .to make sure that we're constantly keeping our minds open.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[BVS]

Actually, the white conservative Christian male position is quite understandable to me (though I don't agree with it).

They recognize that their ability to control over what is considered "normal" and "acceptable" in the United States is in jepoardy. Losing the ability to have society defined according to terms that are comfortable to you is a scary thing. It takes courage and selflessness to say "this is a good thing even though it takes me out of my comfort zone." Not many people have the guts.

This is the appeal of Rush and O'Reilly and Coulter and their ilk. They're speaking directly to that fear and confusion and saying, "Hey, there's nothing WRONG with you being the arbiters, the standards, of societal mores. Your comfort zone is a GOOD thing. You don't NEED to be ashamed of it. Your domination of society should be DEFENDED." And then they take it further. . .they imply that if white male Chrisitan America loses it's hegemony then they will become the oppressed. There won't be an equitable society. The white Christian man will become the new "n_____". It's a perfect storm of self-justification and fear.

If we can put ourselves in their shoes, you can see the power of such an appeal.

Absolutely, I understand where it comes from it's just not valid. It is a narrow and sheltered view. I don't have to put myself in those shoes I used to own a pair.

 

[maycocksean]

Absolutely, I understand where it comes from it's just not valid. It is a narrow and sheltered view. I don't have to put myself in those shoes I used to own a pair.

I asked a good friend of mine (also white Christian and male) this question and I'll ask you as well.

How were you able to step away from that viewpoint given it's appeal? What was it that gave you the courage to, at least on individual level, give up that grip on "running things" in our society?

 

[BVS]

I asked a good friend of mine (also white Christian and male) this question and I'll ask you as well.

How were you able to step away from that viewpoint given it's appeal? What was it that gave you the courage to, at least on individual level, give up that grip on "running things" in our society?

I've always struggled with faith and religion since middle school, but one thing that always remained constant was my attraction to the model set forth by Jesus. Even on the days that I find myself to be more agnostic than anything, I still admire him and his teachings. Completely selfless, love your enemy, love your neighbor, he who's free of sin cast the first stone, turn the other cheek, etc... These are incredibly hard things to do, in fact many will see these types of things as weak, but if we were ever able to do these things, imagine how amazing this world would be. He was always reaching out to the underdog and the downtrodden, to me that was powerful.

I think the biggest irony of our time is that most conservative Christian males set their value system completely opposite of his teachings. Their entire value system is geared towards looking out for themselves, holding on tightly to everything they own, let the poor help themselves, fight for everything, etc...

In fact I think you just recently called someone out on their "do not expect things to be simply handed to me" and what that was really code for. I mean that was a perfect example of doing exactly the opposite of what they claim is their belief. They just baffle me, and I've seen this movement, in fact someone brought it up in here once, the "masculinization of Jesus". This idea that they are taking him back from the hippies, well basically they are just rewriting him...

Anyways I'm ranting now, and I even forgot the original question

But I hope that answers it.

 

[yolland]

I dont know about that. I would be proud to be whatever it is that I am, not ashamed. People attack Republicans and Christians pretty often, but I would never for a second pretend to be a Democrat or a non-Christian just to avoid persecution.

You certainly haven't been coming across as believing that gay people should be proud of what they are no matter what others say, and it's not like anyone else is suggesting that to be Christian or Republican is universally and intrinsically morally wrong for all human beings, everywhere, for all time and thus deserving of legalized discrimination. I really don't see how one's political views or religious beliefs are analogous--presumably you've arrived at those you hold now by thinking about them, reading about them, discussing them with other people and so on. I doubt very much that becoming attracted to women happened at all like that for you; orientation isn't an intellectual process. Of course it's physically possible, as Irvine already mentioned, for people of any orientation to 'put themselves up to it' with someone of a gender they aren't in fact attracted to, but if there's no serious possibility of mutual physical and emotional enjoyment from it, what's the point really? Sure, heterosexual sex can also have the 'point' of making babies if you so choose...for one day every month of the woman's fertile years, which I doubt many straight couples out there attempt to limit themselves to.

Also, as others have already touched on, as a straight person, you won't ever have to worry about job discrimination or housing discrimination (both perfectly legal against gay people in 32 states) on that basis, or--if you do fall in love with a woman and wish to marry her--being ineligible for not only that status itself, but also the more than a thousand federal rights conferred by it (freedom of marriage for gay people could have spared the family in the article MrsS posted earlier from the ordeal they went through). And then there's all the "intangibles" like knowing you can hold your partner's hand or put an arm around them in public (or refer to them in conversation) without risking harassment, social isolation or worse; not having to constantly hear denunciations from the "funny" to the downright vile about the type of human being you just are, never 'planned' to be, and have no choice but to be, sexually active or not; not having to fear rejection by your own family members and (former) good friends who suddenly decide you're unfit for their company when they learn the gender of the person you're in love with; etc., etc. ...knowing all the while that there are millions more out there who not only don't care if these things happen to you, but in fact believe you obviously deserve it, on account of the heinous thing you simply are.

No one's arguing that heterosexuality warrants limitation of rights by the state, despite the fact that millions of heterosexual individuals fail to live up to their own stated ideals ('lifestyle'?) for their relationships...staying faithful to your spouse, waiting until you're married to have sex, being good parents to their children, refraining from birth control or weird kinky sex techniques or whatever one's personal beliefs/religious texts call for...so why the double standard? We don't seem troubled by the fact that so many straight people can be counted on not to uphold whichever ideals the benefits of marital status are meant to honor and assist, so why not extend that same honor and assistance in good faith to gay people as we do to straight? We imagine that their relationships couldn't possibly involve all the noble-but-occasionally-unpleasant-self-sacrifices ours do and are jealous, or what?

 

[anitram]

How were you able to step away from that viewpoint given it's appeal? What was it that gave you the courage to, at least on individual level, give up that grip on "running things" in our society?

I wanted to comment on this even though you asked BVS. But he's lovely so he won't mind.

I was born in a Communist country where you couldn't be openly religious or you'd lose your job (since every job was a government job). This really applied differently based on your position. For example, my Mom was a professor, so she could DEFINITELY not be religious. My neighbour who worked in a bakery shouldn't have been religious, but if she was seen at a church on Sunday, nobody would have really cared. Thing is, my Mom still went to church, and took the kids. My grandmothers also went. None of the men went and about 95% of church attendance was by women - much like what Jesus experienced, perhaps? In any case, my Mom, my grandmothers, they preserved their religion, maintained their relationship with God, and introduced their children to it, had them baptized and so on. This was in the face of real and actual persecution (my Mom was once nearly arrested for singing a Christmas carol when she was in university). But they still managed to have their faith and live their lives in accordance with their beliefs.

When they moved West, they believed in complete secularism. Why? Because they knew that there is no need for a government to mandate that we have a pledge, there is no need that the greeter at Walmart wishes you a Merry Christmas and there is no need to pray at school. None of us did, and yet came out with a faith that was strong and personal.

People who want religion in the public sphere are doing it for political reasons and also out of some sense of hegemony. They are NOT doing it to preserve their faith, because it is absolutely unnecessary. The early Christians did not live in Christian nations, and many Christians today do not either. But that is the beauty of Christianity - prepare your heart for the arrival of the kingdom of God, because Jesus will return like a thief in the night. Who cares about the public sphere - you are either a good Christian on your own, or you are not. It has nothing to do with the government or businesses validating your views.

To tie it all in with my views on homosexuality - I personally don't think it's wrong or unnatural or whatever else gets bandied about. My Mom is one of those people who struggles with it, because she is from a different time, a different culture and much more religious. That said, she has consistently voted for parties who support gay rights, gay marriage and so on. Because it has NOTHING to do with who she is like as a Christian. Gay marriage, which is legal here, has not threatened or cheapened her marriage, nor has it changed her life. It has given gay people rights they should have always had, and my Mom is free to keep her personal views to herself (which she does). It isn't that difficult, but it's because she doesn't feel it's her business to legislate her religious beliefs.

 

[BVS]

But he's lovely so he won't mind.

Aw, you just made my day. Thank you...

 

[maycocksean]

I wanted to comment on this even though you asked BVS. But he's lovely so he won't mind.

I was born in a Communist country where you couldn't be openly religious or you'd lose your job (since every job was a government job). This really applied differently based on your position. For example, my Mom was a professor, so she could DEFINITELY not be religious. My neighbour who worked in a bakery shouldn't have been religious, but if she was seen at a church on Sunday, nobody would have really cared. Thing is, my Mom still went to church, and took the kids. My grandmothers also went. None of the men went and about 95% of church attendance was by women - much like what Jesus experienced, perhaps? In any case, my Mom, my grandmothers, they preserved their religion, maintained their relationship with God, and introduced their children to it, had them baptized and so on. This was in the face of real and actual persecution (my Mom was once nearly arrested for singing a Christmas carol when she was in university). But they still managed to have their faith and live their lives in accordance with their beliefs.

When they moved West, they believed in complete secularism. Why? Because they knew that there is no need for a government to mandate that we have a pledge, there is no need that the greeter at Walmart wishes you a Merry Christmas and there is no need to pray at school. None of us did, and yet came out with a faith that was strong and personal.

People who want religion in the public sphere are doing it for political reasons and also out of some sense of hegemony. They are NOT doing it to preserve their faith, because it is absolutely unnecessary. The early Christians did not live in Christian nations, and many Christians today do not either. But that is the beauty of Christianity - prepare your heart for the arrival of the kingdom of God, because Jesus will return like a thief in the night. Who cares about the public sphere - you are either a good Christian on your own, or you are not. It has nothing to do with the government or businesses validating your views.

To tie it all in with my views on homosexuality - I personally don't think it's wrong or unnatural or whatever else gets bandied about. My Mom is one of those people who struggles with it, because she is from a different time, a different culture and much more religious. That said, she has consistently voted for parties who support gay rights, gay marriage and so on. Because it has NOTHING to do with who she is like as a Christian. Gay marriage, which is legal here, has not threatened or cheapened her marriage, nor has it changed her life. It has given gay people rights they should have always had, and my Mom is free to keep her personal views to herself (which she does). It isn't that difficult, but it's because she doesn't feel it's her business to legislate her religious beliefs.

Wow, that was quite compelling. Thanks for sharing!

 

[joyfulgirl]

Indeed, that was a great post, anitram.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, kicked off San Francisco's annual gay pride parade Sunday by splitting with her husband over support for legalized gay marriage.

"I don't know why someone else's marriage has anything to do with me," Mrs. Edwards said at a news conference before the parade started. "I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage."

She made the remark almost offhandedly in answering a question from reporters after she delivered a standard campaign stump speech during a breakfast hosted by the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, an influential San Francisco political organization. California's presidential primary is Feb. 5, one of the earliest contests in the nation.

She conceded her support puts her at odds with her husband, a former senator from North Carolina who she said supports civil unions among gay couples - but not same-sex marriages.

"John has been pretty clear about it, that he is very conflicted," she said. "He has a deeply held belief against any form of discrimination, but that's up against his being raised in the 1950s in a rural southern town."

No serious presidential candidate from either major political party has publicly supported gay marriage.

"John believes that couples in committed long-term relationships should enjoy the same rights, benefits and responsibilities regardless of whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples," Edwards said earlier during her speech. "He supports civil unions."

When John Edwards was asked about gay marriage during a debate earlier this month, he emphasized his support for civil unions and partnership benefits but said, "I don't think the federal government has a role in telling either states or religious institutions, churches, what marriages they can bless and can't bless."

Elizabeth Edwards delivered her speech before a roomful of San Francisco's most powerful politicians, including Mayor Gavin Newsom, who in 2004 legalized gay marriage in San Francisco. The California Supreme Court has since prohibited same-sex marriages while it considers the legality of the issue.

Edwards also said her husband believes in ending the "don't ask, don't tell" government policy regarding gays serving in the military.

"The military is already sexually integrated," she said to laughter and applause.

Julius Turman, the Toklas organization's co-chairman, said all major Democratic candidates were invited to address the club, but only Edwards accepted.

San Francisco's gay pride parade is a campy civil rights celebration, sprinkled with drag queens, leather chaps and a healthy dose of nudity _ but very few, if any, mainstream, national politicians. Even San Francisco resident Sen. Dianne Feinstein, when she served as mayor here from 1978 to 1988, never rode in the annual parade that started in 1970.

That's why local politicians and activists hailed Elizabeth Edwards' appearance Sunday as another step for gay civil rights.

"It's very powerful thing," Newsom said. "The symbolism is very important."

San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno said Edwards' appearance didn't go far enough.

"This is definitely a step in the right direction in the evolution of the civil rights fight," Leno said. "But it's not like she's out there riding with me in the parade."

 

[Irvine511]

and smart politically, too. Elizabeth becomes a friend to "the gays," while John gets to highlight his differing opinion from his wife.