And now a man who holds meetings to eliminate my legal marriage will call me an 'aggressor'
Brian Brown's latest e-blast is a real piece of work. Here's just one snip from his faux-victimization:
But for me the worst part of the gay marriage debate is this eliminationist quality coming (in my experience, and of course I'm speaking only about public and visible organizations and spokespeople) almost exclusively from one side: activists who support gay marriage.
They've said over and over again, until they've totally convinced themselves, that there really is “no legitimate argument” against gay marriage, no reason why marriage in virtually every known society is a union of husband and wife.
They do not see themselves as behaving aggressively when they insist that all good people now support the redefinition of marriage, so the public and political resistance of others to their new views on marriage strikes them as incredibly aggressive.
Having already redefined marriage in their heads, living in progressive bubbles and talking mostly with folks who agree with them, too many have concluded that our words must simply be cover for some dark desire to make other people's lives miserable.
I've come to believe that this is not merely tactical on their part; they really experience the world in this way, which makes me sad.
If you say, “The ideal for a child is a mom and a dad,” they hear something very different, something which sounds more like, "You hate me and my family—you want to attack me."
I'm not sure what it is possible to do about reactions like that. Many parents are not married, and all responsible parents deserve respect. But an America where our ideal is seen as a vicious and hateful attack?
FULL PIECE: NOM National Marriage News: Defining the "Culture of Hate" [NOM]
Oh, where to even begin? We're gonna take this one free form:
(A) We're not "redefining marriage in our heads," Brian -- we have marriage equality in five states and D.C (and civil unions in others). And we had full marriage equality in other states as well, until groups like NOM stepped in and A.G.G.R.E.S.S.I.V.E.L.Y. took it away!
(B) We haven't "convinced ourselves" that there's no legitimate argument under American civil law to deny our marriage equality: Our continued studies on the subject have fully convinced us that our position is 100% right under the law of our shared land. That's a major distinction.
(C) We're not really ascribing the moral component to the fight that Brian suggests we are. Yes, most of us think that marriage equality for same-sex couples is the "good" thing to do. But it's not about "good" or "bad" people, at least not on the grand scale. It's about the constitution. It's about the rights of citizenship. It's about due process and equal protection. Personal "niceness" is a silly aside.
(D) The anti-marriage equality movement is RIFE with "ex-gay" rhetoric. And we're not talking in the abstract: We're talking about close NOM allies like Cornerstone Policy Research and the Iowa Family Policy Council, who are quite literally pushing scientifically-discredited "gays can change" rhetoric. You can call that many things. We certainly consider it an "eliminationist" campaign, targeted towards our very cores of existence.
(E) It's extremely rich for someone like Brian to say that gay activists talk "mostly with folks who agree with them." Because we are the ones who always go in and doggedly take on any and every thing that the opposition puts forth. They're the ones who so frequently ignore what we're actually saying in favor of their own spin!!! or they just ban/delete our comments outright.
(F) Brian says of gays: "too many have concluded that our words must simply be cover for some dark desire to make other people's lives miserable." Uhm, no, Brian: We don't have to form calculated conclusions on this subject -- WE LIVE IT! For example, the day after the Prop 8 vote? We were miserable! Hell, this writer had his planned California wedding forcibly cancelled (though ultimately only moved to CT) because of that vote! I didn't sit around and think about the most tactical way I could question basic decency on this and other NOM-crafted days: I experienced it! Organically!
(G) No Brian, when you say “The ideal for a child is a mom and a dad,” we don't hear hate. Instead we hear your personal opinion on the subject of parenting. The only reason -- THE ONLY REASON -- why this personal opinion exits your own head and gets on our nerves is because you are trying to (a) base an entire civil marriage campaign around this legally ancillary notion of child-rearing, and (b) codify that personal parental opinion into law!
(H) If even one prominent gay activist was truly seeking to alter the lives of even one person of faith, then there would be a little more merit to the "gays are the aggressors" claims. But this is not the case. In this contrived, two-sided conversation, there is only one group that is tangibly stifling the rights of their neighbors. That's a fact that remains true, no matter how much code-wording NOM crafts.
(I) What do you do about our reactions to your work, Brian? YOU FIND ANOTHER FRIGGIN' CAREER PATH! Because frankly, we're pretty sick of you using our backs to write your annual tax return.
comments powered by Disqus