« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
08/12/2008
Anti-gay side: To know them is to be disquieted by their stances
Last Friday, the Los Angeles Times editorial board released their formal view on the anti-gay Proposition 8 ballot initiative. In what should be a surprise to no one, they found its passage would be unfair, and even create "second-class citizens." It was a reasoned assessment that's quite familiar to those of us who deal with these so-called "culture wars," yet one that is still refreshing to hear coming from a media outlet with such a large reach.
But even though the Times initial stance was quite nice, a supplemental piece that was put out yesterday afternoon provides even more insight into what, exactly, led the editorial board to its conclusion. In an opinion blog, the paper's Karin Klein says the following about the meeting she and her peers had with Prop. 8 supporters:
The measure's supporters are generally careful to avoid appearing anti-gay, probably because they realize that, for all the voter split on same-sex marriage, Californians generally support gay rights. They professed in our meeting to have no ill will toward gay people...until the talk went deeper.
At one point, the conversation turned to the "activist judges" whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality. So much for the expert opinions of the American Psychological Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics that people cannot choose their sexuality. Oh, those activist doctor types.
In any case, one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children's rights, and it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments. Aside from this notion of a homosexual recruitment plot -- making it understandable where the word "homophobia" came from -- this made no logical sense at all. Same-sex couples. whether married or not, already have children. Marriage wouldn't change a thing about this picture except, perhaps, to model for children that parents tend to be married.
Points of view that might have left Ms. Klein "momentarily speechless," yet ones that are intimately familiar to regular G-A-Y readers. For years now we've been noting the anti-gay side's almost fanatical way of trying to mask their bias behind code-wording, positive images of smiling families, and carefully crafted campaigns in which they claim to be "protecting" rather than depriving society. We've also covered their constant judicial cherry-picking, a thoroughly anti-American tactic in which they not only exalt rulings with which they agree (a common stance for either side), but also resoundingly denounce and even call for the impeachment of justices who cast decisions that conflict with their world views (a stance unique to their movement). And we've written hundreds of pieces on both the flawed and scientifically unsupported "ex-gay" concept, as well as the wackily offensive ida that we gays "recruit" our next generations.
Over the 3.5 years we've been at this, there has been a noticeable tone shift. Eyes, hearts, and minds are all being opened. The "pro-family" side, emboldened under the Bush administration, completely overplayed their hand in way that allowed those of us on the pro-equality side to more easily connect the dots of bias. This latest insight from the LA Times, as well as all of the positive pro-gay developments that have defined the pro-gay summer of 2008, are bearing out what we have said all along: The anti-gay side has no way of ultimately winning, because they have chosen a losing position.
We're not home yet. But rest assured, LGBT folks and allies -- our goals are very much in sight.
Behind the gay-marriage talk [Opinion L.A.]
**Initial Times editorial: Reneging on a right [LA Times]
Your thoughts
I think you're right. I think the latest move that these "pro-family" types gave up on trying to keep the original definition means that they realize that theirs is a losing proposition. And when you have to lie, cherry-pick studies, use discredited researchers like Paul Cameron there is something wrong there. Because once the truth is discovered by the general population these "pro-family" types will be thoroughly discredited and no one will ever believe them even if they tell the truth. There is a refrain from a song that comes from a mormon musical, "Once you choose the first step on a road you also choose the last" meaning you may have free will but you can't choose the consequences for that choice. The only way they can win the culture wars is to censor the truth. And even then the truth will still get out,ala "Gossip Girl" style.
Posted by: Adam Kautz | Aug 12, 2008 10:23:42 AM
It's not that Pro Prop 8 supporters have to lie or deny the truth, it's just that the truth is so simple it's being overlooked. Men and Women were created for the purpose of beng joined together (with the opposite sex) to become one, to compliment each other with gender-specific differences, and to pro-create and form families. The Creator designed it this way so that every child born on this earth would have the balance of a mother and a father to teach, love, provide for, and nurture them. Anything else is not ideal or optimum for the raising of children OR for men and women.
Obviously, this is a world with imperfections, including divorce, death, abuse, neglect, abandonment, handicaps, mental illness, sickness and disease, substance abuse, crime, and war. It's also a world of confusion and searching for the truth. Somehow the world has also produced people who do not have heterosexual feelings. Whether they are born that way or somehow become that way by environment or by experimentation or by choice, I do not know. But what I do know is that the desire to join in homosexual relationships and raise children is NOT ideal. Establishing same-sex marriage would not only be promoting a less than IDEAL situation, it would also dilute or water down the IDEAL of heterosexual marriage to the point where it will become insignificant...all because people have been willing to alter the divine design of our Creator. Marriage and procreation have eternal implications. Our life on this earth is but a small part of our eternal existence. It is really important for us to have the bigger picture and look beyond our self-centered instant-gratification of today's generation to a day far beyond the current one.
Posted by: tamarasw | Aug 13, 2008 12:52:38 PM
Tamara: [::yawn::]
Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 13, 2008 1:11:55 PM
No, TAMARASW, not everyone was designed by god to be married, as jesus clearly taught.."not all men can accept this word..For some are eunuchs born that way(gay men, unable to marry),others were made that way by men(castrated, therefore unable to marry), and others have renounced marriage for heaven's sake(celibate straight men)The one who can accept this should should accept this" (Matthew 19:11-12)
Amen.
Posted by: nikko | Aug 13, 2008 4:14:04 PM
I'm ex gay ( for lack of a better word) and I'm a conservative christian (again for lack of a better word) However, it's my opinion that gay people should be allowed to marry a person whom they love. That may or may not be a person of their same gender. Constitutionally, there's no law that says you cannot marry someone of the same sex. As a judge, I would rule liberally. But here's what bugs me - why do cc's (conservative christians) feel so compelled to have everyone bow to their religion? And why are judges making decisions that belong to the people? It's a contrast and quagmire of thoughts and opinions. The answer is not easy.
I would like to see cc's come to the place of understanding that we share this country with a lot of other people who view things differently. And far left liberals need to do the same. As far as the marriage issue goes - Hec! There are a lot of hetersexual couples that shouldn't be married nor procreating (in my opinion.) Focusing on the gay segment of our population is sooooooo off the mark of what as cc's we need to be doing to serve as the poor and needy in this country (which make up a far greater population than gays.)
I am often ashamed to admit to being a cc when issues are confused with needs.
Posted by: mary | Aug 13, 2008 4:40:45 PM
comments powered by Disqus
