Gay credentials. You know, people show them right before they express their opposition to marriage equality or other gay rights. I hear it all the time. "I have gay friends" or "I have a gay neighbor" or something like that. The best credentials involve knowledge of a gay or lesbian that actually opposes marriage equality (yeah, I've actually heard that one).
Obviously, I'm talking about the tendency for people to preface their anti-gay sentiments with some reference to a gay friend, relative, or neighbor that they know. I call them gay credentials. I think it serves a couple purposes. First, it is meant to preempt any sort of comeback like "well, do you even know a single gay person?" Second, it is meant to give the impression that the speaker, you know, the person flashing their gay credentials, isn't some hate-filled, homophobic bigot. It's as if to say "see, I can talk to gay people and even be friends with them! I just can't allow them to have the same rights that I enjoy."
I'm a bit skeptical about the relationship someone like this is touting. Obviously, it wasn't enough to convince the person that gays and lesbians don't just have some "agenda" or "lifestyle." It wasn't enough to help that person see that gays and lesbians are just like you and I and deserve to be able to get married just like you and I.
I suppose I'm being a bit of a punk. I don't doubt that some of these people do in fact have some meaningful relationship with a gay or lesbian person. After all, I have positive relationships with people that have beliefs I disagree with wholeheartedly. But I'm not out fighting to use the constitution as a weapon against these people.
I continue to strongly support same-sex marriage. I do have friends that are gay or lesbian (see, my gay credentials!). And I think they're wonderful, caring people that deserve every right and privilege and blessing that I enjoy, including marriage.
By the way, I'm pro-family, too. I'm for ALL families where there's love and commitment. I'm not so sure Prop 8 in California (which would take away gays' right to marry) is pro-family. Millions and millions of dollars and thousands of volunteer hours will have been spent to keep loving, committed couples from getting married. Dollars and hours that could have spent helping ALL families get stronger and better.
If you support marriage equality, please donate to No on 8. If you live in California, get out there and volunteer. Speak up and speak out.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Steve,
I appreciate your opinions on this issue and hope that you'll respect mine as well. I am a Californian and LDS and live in an area where a lot of gays live (my 1st gay credential:). I wholeheartedly admit that I currently have no CLOSE homosexual friends and that I don't totally understand either the subject OR exactly how I feel about it. However, I know that I have total compassion for people who struggle with homosexuality. This includes both the people who choose to act on their feelings AND those who choose not to act on them (because face it, it's a struggle even for people living in the heart of SF). I am currently helping on Prop 8 but only after studying the actual proposition. I was asked to help prior to me really reading the Prop and was uncomfortable with it. Honestly, I believe 100% that gay people deserve the same rights as any other person. And if this Prop were to take away any rights from anyone I honestly wouldn't have helped, even if it meant I wasn't following my Church's (LDS) plea for help. However, when I read about the proposition I learned that it didn't take away any rights at all. Gay people will still have custody rights, be able to visit partners in the hospital, have medical benefits, etc. So, I had to decide for myself if the actual act of getting MARRIED was a right. And you know what? For me, marriage is a word that by definition allows a man and a woman to make a commitment to each other. Can gay people make a commitment to each other and receive all the same legal benefits? In California, yes. It's a different word, yes. But that's the definition of it! I also sought information on my own about the potential problems with this prop not passing. The information sources weren't hokey or lame and I trust them. There is for all kinds of issues such as church being forced to conduct gay marriages even if it's contrary to their doctrine. Churches may be sued for hate speech of they teach that gay acts are wrong behavior. For me, that means that by this Prop not passing, it may take rights away from me and my Church. Since I believe that Churches should be able to teach whatever they want, I think it's wrong for them to be punished if they teach something contrary to what some judges decide. Anyways, I appreciate your perspective on things and I'm totally ok to agree to disagree but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents out there.
Kim,
I may disagree with your opinions, but I do respect your right to hold your opinions.
However, there is a problem when it comes to facts. While we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.
Fact #1 -- The fact here is that the courts in California have decided that all couples (gay and straight) deserve equal access to marriage.
Fact #2 -- You don't agree with the court's decision to treat all California citizens equally. Rather than using the definition of civil marriage used by the courts and government of California, you want to substitute your personal definition which (conveniently) supports unequal treatment of some citizens in California.
Fact #3 -- Churches cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriages (First Amendment protection for freedom of religion).
Fact #4 -- Churches cannot be sued or prosecuted for "hate speech" if they condemn homosexuality (First Amendment protection for freedom of religion and speech).
Fact #5 -- To protect you and your church from non-existent "threats" to religious freedom and free speech, you apparently want to take away the right of some citizens in California to marry.
Check out the following facts vs. fiction resource for more information:
http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction
Steve (either one but I'm responding to Steve Caldwell's comment),
Regarding the facts you list:
1. I agree
2. Not a fact, it's your perception and I think a false one, too. It is false that I don't want to treat all citizens equally. I totally want all people to have equal rights. I'm glad that California is one of the few states that strives to make things equal. However, I just think that marriage, by definition, is between 1 man and 1 woman. I don't think that using the word marriage to define a commitment between two gay men is correct. I want black people and white people to be treated exactly the same. But that doesn't mean that I call a black person white or a white person black. And I'm not taking any black person's rights away by not calling them white. Let homosexuals make commitments, let them have rights. But by my definition marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman (which is why I support prop 8).
Facts 3 and 4: Both sides argue about whether these are facts. I understand that that these are your (and others) interpretations. However, there are other interpretations to the contrary. Time will tell.
Fact 5: Again, not a fact, it's your perception and again I think it's a false one.
Thank you for the interesting discussion.
Kim,
I didn't realize it was you until Carrie told me today that it was you that commented on my blog! Anyway, hello! And thanks for commenting on my blog. I really appreciate your honesty, and your tone, and your general approach to this. I had decided basically to not respond to comments on Prop 8-related posts because I felt like I was just butting heads with folks. It seemed pretty pointless. But since I know you, I'll respond to your comments.
First, you sound a lot less ideological and a lot more realistic about the whole thing than a lot of prop 8 supporters. I think it's great that you support civil unions for gays and lesbians.
I have a couple responses to things you mentioned. First, you said you sympathize with those who "struggle with homosexuality." I understand that this is basically the church's perspective on homosexuality - it's a temptation or tendency that some people are inexplicably born with, but that like any temptation or tendency, we are expected to control it and deny ourselves. Thus, the "struggle." I take issue with this line of thinking, however. What if your sexuality was called a "struggle"? And not just the temptation to use it - but the fact that it even existed? What if your sexuality was called merely a "struggle" or a "tendency" or a "temptation"? What if you were told that, unlike those of the opposite sexual orientation, you were to never be able to express your sexuality within the bond of marriage? It would amount to the denial of part of your very core identity. I can't even imagine how painful that would be. And from what I've read of gay Mormons, it really is a painful thing. So, I just wanted to point that out first. I truly believe that for whatever reason, some people are born with a desire to share all the things you share with your husband with someone of the same sex. And I don't think it's a disease, or a "struggle." Indeed, every major mental health-related organization has basically said so. It is not unhealthy, or abnormal, or dangerous.
Second, the passage of Prop 8 would take away rights from gays and lesbians - the right to marry. I know that gays and lesbians currently enjoy some benefits, but it's not the same as marriage. Denying them marriage is to hold them to a second-class status. The irony of those supporting civil unions but not same-sex marriage is that they're actually encouraging extra-marital sex and denying gays and lesbians from forming committed, legally recognized relationships! Think about it! That's nuts. For a church that's pro-marriage and pro-fidelity, that's seems a little screwy.
Finally, I think that the Yes on 8 campaign has resorted to some good ol' fashioned fear mongering when it comes to supposed threats to religious freedoms. Religions in the U.S. enjoy an incredible amount of protection and are generally left alone quite a bit. In no way do I envision churches being forced to perform gay marriages or being sued for hate speech. This just seems so ridiculous to me.
I'd recommend checking out that link that the other commenter provided:
http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction
I think it's important to get both sides.
Anyway, thanks for visiting my blog and being willing to have a dialogue. Say hi to your husband.
Hi Steve,
Happy to comment on your blog. I always like interesting discussions. I have thought about all the things you've said (and I've already seen the sites you and the other Steve mentioned). When I say 'struggle' I don't think I meant it the way that you think I did. I can't imagine someone telling me that I was SUPPOSED to love women and I can't imagine what it's like for others to be told that. But I do believe it's a struggle for anyone to be gay in a society that generally doesn't appreciate it. That's what I meant. I agree that many gay people may be born with the tendency to be gay. However, I personally believe it's probably a combination of factors--genetics, biological environment, culture, etc. I don't think that detracts from their innate desire but I do think this is more complicated than just genes. I know that this is a very difficult challenge for gay LDS people. I personally know a family whose son committed suicide over this very issue. And my dad is a bishop and has told me (in general, anonymous terms) about many stake members who are gay. And I have 2 close-ish friends in a former ward who are gay. (do you like all these gay credentials I have?). However, the bottom line for me is that I believe the nuclear family is the ideal. Even though I know that there are people who don't fit the mold, I still think it's important to shoot for the ideal. And one of my concerns honestly is that we draw the line somewhere. Because if gay marriage is ok, then how about polygamy? Because you know people are already doing it society. I'm not just talking break-offs of the LDS church. I mean men who have 3 girlfriends with 2 kids from each relationship, etc. So, should that be ok just because he loves them and is committed to all three? And because people are already doing it? And maybe because some men have some tendency to have multiple partners (which I've heard of) I don't think so. Now, I'm sure you're asking what I think gay people should do. I'm not 100% sure because to me it's a complicated topic and I'm totally ok with not knowing all the answers or my feelings right now. I'm ok with civil unions. I'm ok with rights for all. But for me, I believe marriage is just between 1 man and 1 woman. And using the word marriage for any commitments isn't a right. Anyways, I'm sure we've reached the point of agreeing to disagree but thanks for at least letting me put my point of view out there.
Kim,
You said:
However, the bottom line for me is that I believe the nuclear family is the ideal. Even though I know that there are people who don't fit the mold, I still think it's important to shoot for the ideal.
But don't you think it's unfair to hold gays and lesbians to a higher standard? There are loads of single parent families, cohabiting couples, couples that marry with no intention to have children, and so on. That's just totally unfair to hold gays and lesbians to a different standard. I believe that what makes a family successful has less to do with the X and Y chromosomes of who is present as much as how much love, patience, respect, and dedication people have for each other.
I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument, Kim. Same-sex marriage supporters have never called for the legalization of polygamy or adult-child stuff or anything. Again, it's not fair to associate all this crap with gays and lesbians.
Post a Comment