Saturday, November 22, 2008

A house divided...

In a strange way, I'm finding the aftermath of the US election almost as interesting as the election itself. Moreso, in some ways, because I can't predict how this is going to turn out.

Alongside the euphoria and delirium that comes with electing a black man to the nation's highest office, comes the hate, fear and ugliness that has spread across the nation, and can be summed up quite simply:

In North Carolina, four students at the state university admitted writing anti-Obama comments in a tunnel designated for free speech expression, including one that said: "Let's shoot that (N-word) in the head." (via Alternet)

But the cavalcade of nasty doesn't stop there, kittens. Alongside the groundbreaking dismissal of racism was the ringing endorsement of homophobia. It was a sight to see, and the backlash has managed to more deeply entrench the culture wars.

There's a lot out there, but I think I'll show some balls and call out Chuck Norris. His article at Town Hall lists a long series of stupid, short-sighted, foolish, wrong and unacceptable attacks on people of faith who supported Prop. 8. Many have been independently corroborated, and so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Gay rights supporters are being shitheads. Your shitheadedness is not helping, and it's also wrong. Get your shit together and fight this fight with words, kindness and ideas.

Having said that, Chuckie goes off the rails:

There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don't see us protesting in the streets or crying "unfair." Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy. That would be like the Wild West, the resurrection of which seems to be happening in these postelection protests.

Bullshit, dude. See the previous link, you hypocritical asshole.

I agree with Prison Fellowship's founder, Chuck Colson, who wrote: "This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs."

Regardless of one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectfully advocating one's civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider to be unnatural sexual behavior through cruel coercion and repression tactics.
Funny thing, here, and I didn't even notice it on the first readthrough. Chuck recognizes that the activists seek civil rights, and he still doesn't think they should have them. I think he needs a better toupee. This one is cutting off the oxygen to his brain

How fucked up and hateful do you have to be to recognize that these people have the right to marry, and you get to deny it because buttsex is icky? There's also the delightful inability to see the inconsistency that while being mean to Christians is wrong, being mean to fags is Kool & The Gang. I also like that Christians are crying foul at the use of boycotts to draw attention to those who supported this ugly piece of business. "It's just not fair! People could lose their jobs!" To which I say, suck it up, Princess, pun absofuckinlutely intended.

I posted this on facebook, and a friend of mine lit into me. He's from Canada, I remind you.
GIVE ME A BREAK. They have human rights!!! Marriage is a religious union which most (Not all) of these protesters reject. They have a right to civil unions and all the rights of any other couples in that state, adoption, sharing of medical benefits. Their are hate laws in place to punish those who harm or hurt someone due to their sexual orientation. Just because someone does not agree with Homosexuality does not mean that they hate them and you calling anyone who disagrees with Homosexuality a Homophobe is no different or less bigoted than someone who disagrees with Homosexuality calling a gay person a fag! There are extremists in both camps but everyone should have the right to their opinion without being called names! Their struggle for what they believe to be their rights?!?! is no where near the struggle of Black Americans and likening the two is ludicrous and shallow. Gay activist should apologize to the Black community for diminishing their struggle.
This is how I responded. I don't know if he's read it, and I had to spread it over three posts, because I got all wordy:
Chris, there is are two fundamental issues I have with your argument, and they can be dealt with pretty quickly.

First, marriage is NOT necessarily a religious union. Though I did get married in a church, it wasn't legal until the Province said it was. That piece of paper, not some words said by some guy who has never been married and is not allowed to marry, said in the name of some guy who supposedly never married, is what makes me married. The state decides who gets married, not the church, the synagogue, mosque, temple or whatever.

Secondly, there are VERY clear parallels between gay marriage bans and interracial marriage bans. There is a direct link between racism and homophobia. Quite simply, blacks don't choose to be black, and gays don't choose to be gay. Do you remember when you decided to be straight? Honestly, who would choose to be a second class citizen, denied the right to live in security with the person you love, to be threatened, hated, feared,
insulted and attacked? What is particularly bad is that in California, gays had a right STRIPPED from them. They were able to marry, and then they weren't. And I think any marriages performed in California were annulled.

Homophobia, like racism, need not be overt to exist. Simply saying that they're different, not like us, and do not have the same rights as us is discriminatory. You can call what they do a sin all you want. You can say that god thinks they're an abomination. That's your right. I have the right to say that you're hiding your prejudice behind your god. Free speech swings both ways. And my calling those who would withhold the rights of others bigots is not the same as someone calling someone a fag. You can change your opinions, but not your sexual orientation. I insult your ideas, not you.

And they do have human rights. Rights which have been stripped in California, and are not recognized in most of the rest of the Union. Rights that have been withheld for religious reasons.

Religion was used to justify slavery. It was used to justify religious wars. It was used to deny women the right to vote. It was used to justify miscegenation laws. And it is used to justify the denial of the right to marry the person you love.

Quite simply, my brother would be a second class citizen in the US, because of something he can't change. It is not exactly like the Jim Crow laws, but only because homosexuals weren't forcibly relocated to be farm animals. Civil unions are "separate but equal".

Sorry, dude. It is bigotry. I'm glad we don't have it here in Canada.
Congratulations on your black president, US. Good luck with the rest of your prejudices.

1 comment:

PhillyChief said...

Technically yes, marriage is a religious union, but the government in the US has its nose in it. Ideally, everyone should simply get a civil union and marriage would simply be some extra thing people did in their churches.

Thing is, marriage now is well beyond its original religious label. It is the default term for legal (and even illegal) unions. Hell, it's even used colloquially for things like "being married to an idea". So it's too late now to say the gays can have something that's essentially the same but just called something different. Furthermore, that distinction can be exploited like in AK where now you can't adopt unless you're "married". A civil union won't cut it.

I remember Chuck had an article some time ago about wanting to stamp the foreheads of atheists. I think his forehead should be stamped with "bigot".