I had hoped that my post election day entry would be one of triumph and celebration. But alas, we lost. And even though I am excited about Obama's victory, it feels a bit hollow to me. It is so ironic that on the same day we elected our first black president, many states in our country also voted to eliminate the civil rights of gay people, effectively relegating them to the "back of the bus". Obama's election was a huge step forward. But as a nation, we have taken two steps back.
These last couple of weeks have been quite interesting, and I've learned a great deal. On the personal side, I've learned that it feels good to take a stand and speak out. I've learned that there are many people--both in and out of religion--who think like I do. And I've learned that there are many who think I'm on Satan's payroll. I've also learned that you cannot argue with people who believe God is on their side. God is the trump card and logic doesn't stand a chance.
But perhaps the most important thing I've learned is the truth behind FDR's statement: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." As I reflect on how Prop 8 went from being significantly behind in the polls only a couple of months ago to a win on Tuesday, it's clear that it was due to a well orchestrated campaign to propagate fear (that and quite a bit of money). Bertrand Russell said, “Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.” The strategist behind Prop 8's ad campaign obviously understood this all too well. I keep thinking about the civil rights movement in the 60s and the fear-inducing rhetoric that its opponents spewed forth. A local Memphis paper reported that MLK's famous "I Am A Man" march brought "unleashed animalistic destruction" from "Africa's bush country" to Memphis. It seems crazy 50 years later, but consider what an organization called the Traditional Values Coalition states on their website: that the real agenda behind same-sex marriage is to find "a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as 'families'". It's no wonder people are so afraid...that even scares me!! I feel confident that had Prop 8 been defeated, in five years we would have looked back and seen how unsubstantiated these fears were. Field trips to same-sex weddings would not have become mandatory; churches would not have been forced to marry gay people; and (addressing what is probably the biggest fear) kids would not start "turning" gay in record numbers. While there may be valid reasons to resist social change, I just don't believe fear is one of them.
Another lesson I've learned is that, at least in the state of California, it is possible for the "tyranny of the majority" to go unchecked. Because Prop 8 was put on the ballot as an amendment to the constitution, the state supreme court cannot overturn it. John Stuart Mill's famous essay on liberty talks about the "tyranny of the majority" and the threat that it poses to our freedom:
"Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them."
I would ask then, what is protecting us from the tyranny of the current "prevailing opinion and feeling" that gay people are not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us? I thought it was the CA Supreme Court. I am confounded by the fact that our constitution was amended with only 52% of the vote. Just because the majority thinks something is right, doesn't make it so, and there are countless examples in history to prove it. Hitler's tyrannical regime is the first to come to mind. He was elected by the majority...and then he went on to kill six million jews with their support. Californians may not be killing gays, but they are stripping away their constitutional rights and destroying their families. If this isn't tyranny, I don't know what is.
And finally, there is a reason to hope. Activist and writer Anne Lamott writes, “Hope begins in the dark, the stubborn hope that if you just show up and try to do the right thing, the dawn will come. You wait and watch and work: you don't give up.” There is evidence the dawn is coming. I find it hopeful that in only eight years, we gained so much ground, seeing opposition to the proposition rise from 38% to 48%. But the thing that gives me the most hope is the generation of middle and high school kids who are just a few short years away from being able to vote. On Tuesday, we were working the polling place at University High, a large, diverse school in West LA. When school let out for the day, we were quickly enveloped by a swarm of teenagers, begging us for stickers and signs. Studies have shown that these "generation nexters" feel that homosexuality is a way of life and should be accepted by society. In other words, fighting to keep two gay people from marrying each other is not going to be on their list of priorities. I have heard people refer to this generation as nothing more than entitled, self-serving, thrill-seekers who thrive on praise and instant gratification. That may be true. But they also don't see the world as black and white, gay or straight. Entitled? Maybe. Enlightened? Absolutely!
When I created this blog, I knew I was sticking my neck out by circulating it among my many conservative, Christian friends. I tried to dissent respectfully to those in favor of Prop 8 without bashing religion. But I wanted to leave no doubt that I was clearly on the side of social justice and equality for all. Hopefully, I succeeded on both counts.
I love this quote by Martin Niemoeller, a prominent, German, anti-nazi theologian: “First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
In 2008, when they came for the gays, this straight girl spoke out. And she won't be shutting up any time soon...
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Prop 8...Protecting Families?
Thank goodness for Barbara Young, wife of former NFL quarterback Steve Young. She recently came out in opposition to Prop 8 saying, "We believe ALL families matter and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop 8."
I agree. All families do matter. I have been troubled throughout this debate by the argument from opponents of same-sex marriage that this is all about protecting children and preserving the traditional family structure. Several of my friends have cited a report that came out of France. Apparently, they rejected same-sex marriage on the basis that “the best interests of children must prevail over adult freedoms…even including the lifestyle choices of parents.” The report goes on to say, "It is essential that the male-female nature of marriage be preserved. This corresponds to a biological reality that same-sex couples are naturally infertile, and to an imperative, that of helping the child develop his/her identity as necessarily coming from the union of a man and a woman.” Here's what else the report recommended: denying homosexuals the right to adopt or to have physician-assisted fertility treatments such as artificial insemination or IVF. Fortunately, the French lawmakers rejected those conditions.
For the sake of this argument, let's suppose that it truly is better for a child to be raised by two heterosexual parents (although there are plenty of studies to the contrary). So, how is eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry going to decrease the number of children being raised by homosexual parents? IT ISN'T!! Same-sex couples will continue to adopt, and undergo artificial insemination and IVF in order to have their own families. But taking away the right of same-sex couples to legally marry does relegate those families to second-class status. Is this in the best interest of THOSE children? I don't think so. In an LA Times Op/Ed, Jonathan Rauch wrote, "For children, no other arrangement matches the security and stability afforded by married parents, because no other arrangement confers comparable status and social support. If they could cast ballots, how many of the more than 50,000 children being raised in California's same-sex households would vote to deprive themselves of married parents?"
Now back to the French. Even though I think their report was off base, at least it had teeth. I mean, if you really believe that children have a right to be raised in a home with two married, heterosexual parents, then you'd better also make sure that homosexuals don't adopt or procreate. I'd even take it a step further...you must outlaw procreation or adoption by single, straight parents or heterosexual couples who are living together outside of the bonds of wedlock. And if straight parents divorce? Well, their children should be immediately reassigned to another family whose parents are still married.
Do you really want it written into the constitution what defines a family? I guess to those in favor of Prop 8, the answer is "yes" because it supports their view of what a family should be. But it's a very slippery slope. There are many who would say that with global warming and overpopulation putting the existence of our planet in jeopardy, limiting the number of children a couple can have is essential for our survival as a species. There could come a day when people want to define a family as no more than two children. If Prop 8 passes and we set a precedent that it's okay to take away fundamental rights, you'll have no room to complain when you find yourself on the other end.
Lola Van Wagenen, a Mormon historian, wrote in a recent LA Times Op/Ed, "Our polygamous ancestors were accused of being incapable of providing loving homes for their children. Who knows better than we do that this was untrue? Who can deny that our "nontraditional" ancestors left a heritage of hardworking, high-achieving progeny. And yet the fallacy that "nontraditional" marriages erode and destroy family values is one of the main attacks being used against gay and lesbian couples by LDS proponents of Proposition 8."
Prop 8 is "one size fits all" legislation that elevates the traditional family above the many other types of families that exist today. This is 2008. Children do not need to be "protected" from loving, same-sex parents. What they need to be protected from is a general populous that finds it acceptable to write discrimination into our constitution.
I agree. All families do matter. I have been troubled throughout this debate by the argument from opponents of same-sex marriage that this is all about protecting children and preserving the traditional family structure. Several of my friends have cited a report that came out of France. Apparently, they rejected same-sex marriage on the basis that “the best interests of children must prevail over adult freedoms…even including the lifestyle choices of parents.” The report goes on to say, "It is essential that the male-female nature of marriage be preserved. This corresponds to a biological reality that same-sex couples are naturally infertile, and to an imperative, that of helping the child develop his/her identity as necessarily coming from the union of a man and a woman.” Here's what else the report recommended: denying homosexuals the right to adopt or to have physician-assisted fertility treatments such as artificial insemination or IVF. Fortunately, the French lawmakers rejected those conditions.
For the sake of this argument, let's suppose that it truly is better for a child to be raised by two heterosexual parents (although there are plenty of studies to the contrary). So, how is eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry going to decrease the number of children being raised by homosexual parents? IT ISN'T!! Same-sex couples will continue to adopt, and undergo artificial insemination and IVF in order to have their own families. But taking away the right of same-sex couples to legally marry does relegate those families to second-class status. Is this in the best interest of THOSE children? I don't think so. In an LA Times Op/Ed, Jonathan Rauch wrote, "For children, no other arrangement matches the security and stability afforded by married parents, because no other arrangement confers comparable status and social support. If they could cast ballots, how many of the more than 50,000 children being raised in California's same-sex households would vote to deprive themselves of married parents?"
Now back to the French. Even though I think their report was off base, at least it had teeth. I mean, if you really believe that children have a right to be raised in a home with two married, heterosexual parents, then you'd better also make sure that homosexuals don't adopt or procreate. I'd even take it a step further...you must outlaw procreation or adoption by single, straight parents or heterosexual couples who are living together outside of the bonds of wedlock. And if straight parents divorce? Well, their children should be immediately reassigned to another family whose parents are still married.
Do you really want it written into the constitution what defines a family? I guess to those in favor of Prop 8, the answer is "yes" because it supports their view of what a family should be. But it's a very slippery slope. There are many who would say that with global warming and overpopulation putting the existence of our planet in jeopardy, limiting the number of children a couple can have is essential for our survival as a species. There could come a day when people want to define a family as no more than two children. If Prop 8 passes and we set a precedent that it's okay to take away fundamental rights, you'll have no room to complain when you find yourself on the other end.
Lola Van Wagenen, a Mormon historian, wrote in a recent LA Times Op/Ed, "Our polygamous ancestors were accused of being incapable of providing loving homes for their children. Who knows better than we do that this was untrue? Who can deny that our "nontraditional" ancestors left a heritage of hardworking, high-achieving progeny. And yet the fallacy that "nontraditional" marriages erode and destroy family values is one of the main attacks being used against gay and lesbian couples by LDS proponents of Proposition 8."
Prop 8 is "one size fits all" legislation that elevates the traditional family above the many other types of families that exist today. This is 2008. Children do not need to be "protected" from loving, same-sex parents. What they need to be protected from is a general populous that finds it acceptable to write discrimination into our constitution.
Guest Blogger: Chris Crans on the Nature of Fear and the Fear of Nature
Initially, I didn’t care about Prop 8. Practical, real rights are more important than the dictionary entry for a silly word. Our language is too fluid to nail down with a constitutional amendment. But a Google search of Prop 8 brought up a host of pro-8 sites that troubled and surprised me. It IS about a word. And that word is “fear.”
Like Robert (who wrote a beautiful and heartbreaking post on this blog), I shared my adolescence with Mollie in yuppie, conservative, suburban Texas. We met at the Mormon Church. I served a Mormon mission in France and graduated from BYU.
20 years later, I finally made friends with the tidal wave of biological and/or societal forces that make up a large part of who I am—forces that terrified me because I could not control them and because they clashed violently with my religious paradigm and my world view. I had been taught to fear and distrust NATURE because it “is an enemy to God.”
There are battles we can win and needn’t fear fighting—for we must, to some degree, be the masters of our own destinies—but there are those other wars that merely drain our resources and have no end.
My recent departure from Mormonism leaves me with a clear memory of how I argued that side. I was an ambitious and zealous missionary, eager to convert thousands of French people to Mormonism. I stopped people in the streets every day for two years. I cornered people on busses. I stood on street corners and sang hymns and cried repentance. I made a complete fool of myself with total abandon. The more I did crazy stuff, the more I was convinced I was right. (There is a lesson in that somewhere.)
More recently, I argued against homosexuality with the same vigor. I remember secretly thinking I was an authority on the subject, because I struggled with it, but was obedient—an example of righteous celibacy. “If Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son’s life on the altar of obedience, then I should be prepared to sacrifice MY life on the altar of loneliness.” I believed we couldn’t, as a nation, allow gay marriage or ANY gay rights, because future generations would grow up with a normalized view of homosexuality, and be more likely to consider it a viable option.
This, of course, exposes the deeper, unspoken agenda, and the ESSENCE OF PROP 8: a wish for the institutionalized marginalization of homosexuality—a prayer that society send a warning, loud and clear: it is NOT ok to be gay; it is NOT a viable option; you WILL be ostracized; and your rights WILL be restricted. I do believe that many Christian religions harbor this rotten and vile wish while holding their noses—aware, on some level, of the un-Christlike and hypocritical nature—not to mention futility—of the wish.
If you take comfort, as Mormons do, in the notion that God put ALL of us here on Earth with the SAME eternal purpose, which is essentially to get married to the opposite sex and procreate as heterosexual gods throughout eternity, then you MUST view homosexuality as doing violence to God’s plan. It is a plague that potentially threatens every spirit God sends to Earth. I don’t envy the Mormon position. They want to love everyone—I know they do. But you cannot love someone while fearing they are the plague! It’s not possible. And in an increasingly chaotic world, one can’t risk embracing an idea that jeopardizes the whole plan—a plan that is so soothing and secure!
All this is to say that the heart of the conflict is fear—terror, even. These ARE scary times. After terrorists attacked MY city on 9/11, I woke up crying every morning for weeks. I was dependant on the morning news to be sure I was safe. I’m still like that. My “spiritual” response to this new insecurity was … informative. I made a little, portable, laminated “shrine,” with pictures of the WTC, firefighters (who became my heroes), and my newly composed, personal creed, wherein I pledged to pray ALWAYS and to keep God as my constant, best friend. My silly response to the crisis was a short-lived but very intense attempt to broker a deal with god. In exchange for his protection, I would vow to pray always and never ever, um ...defile myself--so to speak, for fear of losing favor with him at the moment of the next attack.
Studies have shown that people who fear they are losing control of their surroundings become more prone to superstition, conspiracy theories, and belief in the supernatural. They are also more prone to yield their civil liberties for a false feeling of safety. We MUST resist this. We must not write this fear into the constitution by passing Prop 8.
How does this play out in real life? If you're AFRAID they will teach gay marriage in schools, take it up with your school board. Pass a proposition THERE, that no kind of marriage be taught in classes—where they should be more focused on math and science anyway! Just add “marriage” to the long list of things (like creationism) that you’ll have to teach your children yourselves.
AFRAID your church will be forced to marry same-sex couples? That’s never going to happen because of protections under the 1st amendment. The CA supreme court ruling made it very clear that their ruling would not "diminish any other person's constitutional rights" or "impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person."
FEAR children will be adversely affected? Gays can already adopt. What about parents SHOULD be considered? Stability? Yes. Psychological health? Yes. Financial means to support a child? Yes. Two parents better than one? Yes. Legally recognized union? Yes. Married or baptized in a church? Not important.
AFRAID that the gay lifestyle is getting more and more mainstreamed, more and more accepted, and that this will seep into the consciousness of your children? It does seem likely. The thing is, when you give up hopeless battles (such as trying to ostracize gays out of existence) EVERYONE wins. Being gay will be less dramatic. We won’t have to wave flags and march in parades or kill ourselves out of guilt and hopelessness. People will either be gay, because they JUST ARE, or they won’t. If you’re worried about turning into a pillar of salt as God destroys YOUR Gomorrah, well… just have faith in a kind and just god, and know that you did your best. What are you afraid of?
Finally, your Prop 8 dream narrative is unfortunately flimsy shelter from your greatest fear. Ask my parents. I grew up in a very conservative, Christian community. I was a varsity athlete who dated the prom queen. My entire circle of friends used the word “gay” to mean “stupid.” To my knowledge, there was not ONE, single gay kid in my entire high school. No one EVER pushed a gay agenda on me. There was no Will and Grace or Brokeback Mountain. In fact, I never had a clue about “gay”—until the day I fell in love. I was 25. His name was Matt. What proposition would you pass to prevent THAT? Scary stuff!
Like Robert (who wrote a beautiful and heartbreaking post on this blog), I shared my adolescence with Mollie in yuppie, conservative, suburban Texas. We met at the Mormon Church. I served a Mormon mission in France and graduated from BYU.
20 years later, I finally made friends with the tidal wave of biological and/or societal forces that make up a large part of who I am—forces that terrified me because I could not control them and because they clashed violently with my religious paradigm and my world view. I had been taught to fear and distrust NATURE because it “is an enemy to God.”
There are battles we can win and needn’t fear fighting—for we must, to some degree, be the masters of our own destinies—but there are those other wars that merely drain our resources and have no end.
My recent departure from Mormonism leaves me with a clear memory of how I argued that side. I was an ambitious and zealous missionary, eager to convert thousands of French people to Mormonism. I stopped people in the streets every day for two years. I cornered people on busses. I stood on street corners and sang hymns and cried repentance. I made a complete fool of myself with total abandon. The more I did crazy stuff, the more I was convinced I was right. (There is a lesson in that somewhere.)
More recently, I argued against homosexuality with the same vigor. I remember secretly thinking I was an authority on the subject, because I struggled with it, but was obedient—an example of righteous celibacy. “If Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son’s life on the altar of obedience, then I should be prepared to sacrifice MY life on the altar of loneliness.” I believed we couldn’t, as a nation, allow gay marriage or ANY gay rights, because future generations would grow up with a normalized view of homosexuality, and be more likely to consider it a viable option.
This, of course, exposes the deeper, unspoken agenda, and the ESSENCE OF PROP 8: a wish for the institutionalized marginalization of homosexuality—a prayer that society send a warning, loud and clear: it is NOT ok to be gay; it is NOT a viable option; you WILL be ostracized; and your rights WILL be restricted. I do believe that many Christian religions harbor this rotten and vile wish while holding their noses—aware, on some level, of the un-Christlike and hypocritical nature—not to mention futility—of the wish.
If you take comfort, as Mormons do, in the notion that God put ALL of us here on Earth with the SAME eternal purpose, which is essentially to get married to the opposite sex and procreate as heterosexual gods throughout eternity, then you MUST view homosexuality as doing violence to God’s plan. It is a plague that potentially threatens every spirit God sends to Earth. I don’t envy the Mormon position. They want to love everyone—I know they do. But you cannot love someone while fearing they are the plague! It’s not possible. And in an increasingly chaotic world, one can’t risk embracing an idea that jeopardizes the whole plan—a plan that is so soothing and secure!
All this is to say that the heart of the conflict is fear—terror, even. These ARE scary times. After terrorists attacked MY city on 9/11, I woke up crying every morning for weeks. I was dependant on the morning news to be sure I was safe. I’m still like that. My “spiritual” response to this new insecurity was … informative. I made a little, portable, laminated “shrine,” with pictures of the WTC, firefighters (who became my heroes), and my newly composed, personal creed, wherein I pledged to pray ALWAYS and to keep God as my constant, best friend. My silly response to the crisis was a short-lived but very intense attempt to broker a deal with god. In exchange for his protection, I would vow to pray always and never ever, um ...defile myself--so to speak, for fear of losing favor with him at the moment of the next attack.
Studies have shown that people who fear they are losing control of their surroundings become more prone to superstition, conspiracy theories, and belief in the supernatural. They are also more prone to yield their civil liberties for a false feeling of safety. We MUST resist this. We must not write this fear into the constitution by passing Prop 8.
How does this play out in real life? If you're AFRAID they will teach gay marriage in schools, take it up with your school board. Pass a proposition THERE, that no kind of marriage be taught in classes—where they should be more focused on math and science anyway! Just add “marriage” to the long list of things (like creationism) that you’ll have to teach your children yourselves.
AFRAID your church will be forced to marry same-sex couples? That’s never going to happen because of protections under the 1st amendment. The CA supreme court ruling made it very clear that their ruling would not "diminish any other person's constitutional rights" or "impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person."
FEAR children will be adversely affected? Gays can already adopt. What about parents SHOULD be considered? Stability? Yes. Psychological health? Yes. Financial means to support a child? Yes. Two parents better than one? Yes. Legally recognized union? Yes. Married or baptized in a church? Not important.
AFRAID that the gay lifestyle is getting more and more mainstreamed, more and more accepted, and that this will seep into the consciousness of your children? It does seem likely. The thing is, when you give up hopeless battles (such as trying to ostracize gays out of existence) EVERYONE wins. Being gay will be less dramatic. We won’t have to wave flags and march in parades or kill ourselves out of guilt and hopelessness. People will either be gay, because they JUST ARE, or they won’t. If you’re worried about turning into a pillar of salt as God destroys YOUR Gomorrah, well… just have faith in a kind and just god, and know that you did your best. What are you afraid of?
Finally, your Prop 8 dream narrative is unfortunately flimsy shelter from your greatest fear. Ask my parents. I grew up in a very conservative, Christian community. I was a varsity athlete who dated the prom queen. My entire circle of friends used the word “gay” to mean “stupid.” To my knowledge, there was not ONE, single gay kid in my entire high school. No one EVER pushed a gay agenda on me. There was no Will and Grace or Brokeback Mountain. In fact, I never had a clue about “gay”—until the day I fell in love. I was 25. His name was Matt. What proposition would you pass to prevent THAT? Scary stuff!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
