As a social conservative on some issues, I find myself in the odd position of recommending a post with which I very much disagree, and under which I would probably be classified as a "bigot." But I'll take good writing wherever I can find it.
Many great posts slip through OS without much notice, and John Mortimer's "Making Sense of Prop H8 As Iowa Steals California's Cool" is one of those.
Mortimer's post is a balls-out, pedal-to-the-metal call to action in favor of gay marriage. It is by far the best-written, most persuasive, and most interesting piece on gay marriage that I have read so far on Open Salon. Mixing legal reasoning, moral outrage, and passion, it is exciting to read. It's like being attacked by a shark while simultaneously being swept away by a tusnami. (I may get an award for "worst metaphor of the year" for that sentence. But I stand by it.)
It was published two days ago and it got 2 thumbs up . . . . .
If you're interested in the issue, please check it out. Here are two small samples:
It’s embarrassing to admit what dupes and utter toothless lap dogs some of us have become. What has happened to the famous in-your-face activism that made New York and California the centers for gay rights? . . . . . . .
Indeed, as the high court of Massachusetts pointed out so aptly in Goodridge six years ago, heterosexuals, for their own convenience and self-interest, have amended and re-written the marriage laws and the definition of marriage to suit themselves in virtually every regard. Oscar Wilde was famously correct when he said that “those who moralize are usually hypocrites.” Whether it be divorce, a women’s right to own property, a woman’s right to be protected from rape by any drunken lout of a husband, women as chattel property, etcetera, ad nauseam, you name it, every aspect of so-called ‘traditional marriage’ has been abolished or amended except for one - the sex of the partners! How telling. How very, very telling. Bigots always tell on themselves.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
David Cox
Steve Blevins
Natalie Not Pedantic
Kent Pitman
undertow
Douglas Moran
Salon.com
Comments
Thanks, I missed that. It is a great post.
phm: " . . . made what I considered a civil disagreement to it in a short comment -- and was promptly deleted."
In my humble opinion people should never delete comments simply because they disagree with the post. If the writer is that fragile, then he or she should simply turn off comments.
I read it after your comment. I wouldn't say I was impressed with the argument or her "logic" and lack thereof, but I was impressed with the writing itself. It flowed well.
@Monsieur Chariot -
I'm with you. Why are governments in the "marriage" business at all? Let religions marry whoever they want and let the legality of the situation be handled by a SECULAR government. We have a secular government, right?
When people pose an argument against full civil, secular, equality for others (in this case marriage) and that objection is based on stereotypes or false statements (e.g. ‘marriage is a religious institution’ or ‘marriage is only for those who can breed,’ then that is mere prejudice. But when someone comes along and flatly refutes those arguments and exposes them as false. (E.g., “marriage has historically always been a secular institution”(not even a debatable issue) or “the same people don’t object to straights getting married even though they can not reproduce (as with the elderly or the infertile)) but the proponent still obstinately adheres to that false premise then that is the very definition of bigotry.
That you admit to bigotry demonstrates (1) that you are at least honest and big about it and that is half way to Enlightenment and (2) it exemplifies why you don’t get to vote on it and why such issues are taken away from your vote – to protect a minority from just such majority tyranny. This is the essence of the American Social Contract at the heart of our Bill of Rights.
As to the complaints of censorship the first objector was deleted because his comments were anything but civil or respectful and the second hate-monger’s vulgar vile trash speaks for itself. The great thing about Salon is that if some nincompoop comes and _hits in my space I can clean it up and they can sit with their own _hit.
What I meant was that I could be perceived as a bigot.
I'm a rather odd fellow because I'm liberal on so many issues but a conservative on a handful of social issues. Marriage is one of those issues.
That said, I support civil unions for same-sex couples, including all rights and benefits, whether state or federal, in addition to all the other rights and protections afforded to same-sex couples.
I thought the Iowa decision was a bad decision. I didn't agree with classifying gays and lesbians as a suspect class, especially under the "political power" criterion. Without the suspect class determination the Court would have applied the "rational basis" test, and I suspect the law would have survived that. It certainly has in other states (e.g., Washington's Anderson v. King County).
In my observation many supporters of same-sex marriage have an impoverished and inadequate view of what marriage is. In every OS discussion of marriage that I've seen, people actually argue for polygamy or whatever other poly- relationship people might want to engage in. They often see marriage as "nothing more" than a contract, and not a very good contract. Others see no reason for monogamy; some gays on OS have actually argued against it.
People think the "slippery slope" argument against same-sex marriage is without merit, but every week I see people here arguing for the slippery slope, and I take them seriously.
That aside, I recommended your post because I thought it was very well-written, and I was shocked, given the interest in the issue on OS, to see only two thumbs up.
I almost get the feeling that communicating with you about this topic will be a waste of time because you operate from such an unusually closed minded stance. Your argument is so fatally flawed that you may be hopeless.
You voiced some opinions that you stated as fact. First, You said: "(E.g., “marriage has historically always been a secular institution”(not even a debatable issue) or “the same people don’t object to straights getting married even though they can not reproduce (as with the elderly or the infertile)) but the proponent still obstinately adheres to that false premise then that is the very definition of bigotry.”
The earliest records of marriage were religious. The people were nomadic and tribal and were being obedient to their understanding of what God requested. When Abraham lied and told people that Sarah, his wife, was his sister, the King got angry when he found out because he could have taken Abrahams sister "legally", but had he, he would have sinned against God for being with another mans wife. In most ancient cultures religious law and civil law were synonymous. The earliest references to marriage were very specifically religious.
According to your own definition, you sir, are a bigot.
Also, age has nothing to do with peoples capacity to reproduce and to define marriage. Especially older men.
Even Darwin would agree that marriage "is only for those who breed". See my April 11, post "Darwin vs Liberals". Sex is for anybody. Relationships are for everybody. Before science made families even viable for homosexuals, the idea of same sex "marriage" wasn’t even considered. People engaged in same sex activity, but it was a forgone conclusion, and an obvious one at that, that people of the opposite sex married specifically for the healthy propagation of the species & culture. (You can read into that if you want to. it only means what it means) Same sex marriage is by definition a product of contemporary classical liberal thought.
Throughout history, marriage has been an institution specifically arranged by “God” or peoples collective understanding of God, within the context of religion to promote a system of healthy progeny.
You can do with that what you will. I expect you to disagree, so I chose to post it here so you can’t delete me.
I find the root of your argument and the more recent (20 – 30 years) climate of boldness supporting the argument on the behalf of the homosexual community to come from the “born gay” position. Sadly, science is not on your side and if we (straight and homosexual) as a rational people will face the facts we can come to a conclusion that strengthens reality. Homosexuality and bisexuality is a behavioral choice that free, peaceful, private citizens should have the choice to make. Civil unions should exist. Homosexuals should not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of society.
Is Sexual Orientation Fixed at Birth? I have provided a link. The following site has been dismissed and ridiculed by those on the left who support the very radical homosexual agenda of same sex marriage, but it is hard to refute science. There are many more, less vocal, people within the homosexual community who know that it is a chosen behavior and agree with the facts.
http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html
P.S. You said: “The great thing about Salon is that if some nincompoop comes and _hits in my space I can clean it up and they can sit with their own _hit.”
Unless there were vile personal attacks, only intellectual wimps delete posts that merely disagree. The great thing about Salon is that you can be outed, as you have been, as an intellectual wimp.
I liked sharks and tsunamis. :)