Anti-Marriage Forces Unable To Conceal Their Real Bigotries
Initiative Backers Begin Expanding Debate Beyond Marriage
Yesterday, the first potential cracks began to open in the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents. As reported by The Bend Bulletin, the Defense of Marriage Coalition (apparently in a press release, but apparently we still don't get their material) has begun to resurrect an attack last seen from them during court proceedings regarding Multnomah County's issuance of same-sex marriage licenses.
No longer content to simply make this a matter of protecting the "status quo," the Coalition is trying to fan the flames of the prejudice against gay parents:
The source of the angst is part of a press release issued by the Defense of Marriage Coalition, which says: "Endless studies demonstrate the benefits to children of being raised with both a mother and father. A redefinition of marriage (to include same-sex unions) would permanently deny some children this proven advantage."
There are several points to hit here, the first of which is the one covered by the Bulletin: Some of the research cited by the Coalition appears to not actually support their position, while other "research" is from clearly biased sources.
According to the paper, one source cited by the Coalition actually found that "children with a loving parent are less likely to commit crimes, but makes no distinction about the sexual orientation of the parent." The paper goes on to point out that another source cited by the Coalition is a member of Focus on the Family, which is expressly biased against same-sex marriage to begin with.
During the various court wranglings over same-sex marriage in Oregon, the Coalition tried similar tricks, citing "research" by Dr. E. Walter Throckmorton and Dr. Jeffrey B. Satinover. See one of the updates to this earlier item to see what the ACLU of Oregon pointed out about these two sources.
So the first point about all of this is the one made by the paper: The Coalition is entirely misrepresenting research in its pitch to convince people that there's a problem with gay parents, or using "research" that's actually just thinly-disguised propaganda from "researchers" with a bias against gays and lesbians.
But here's the second point: The nice thing about many right-wing activists in Oregon is that they have a lovely habit of shooting themselves in the ass. So righteous are they, so divinely certain that they are the protectors of all that is true and holy, that they frequently over-reach in their arrogance.
So give thanks to the Defense of Marriage Coalition. By being unable to keep their focus simply on the question of "preserving traditional marriage," by being unable to resist their compulsion to bring their wider and deeper bigotry into play, they will help the rest of us unmask their true motivations to the voters of Oregon.
The only off-chance we have to derail the anti-marriage ballot measure is to demonstrate to Oregon voters that this isn't about marriage but about fearing gays and lesbians. Every little bit the Defense of Marriage Coalitions offers up to help us make that point should be welcomed with open arms, and played up for all it's worth.
July 09, 2004 at 10:59 AM
Scooped you again: (grin)
http://www.aboutitall.com/oregonblog_comments.php?id=P1516_0_7_0
July 09, 2004 at 11:02 AM
Yes, actually, I had started writing this meaning to mention that at the end, but by the time I got worked up into writing, I forgot. Heh.
July 09, 2004 at 03:07 PM
Good luck , but most people aren't that bigoted. They want to live and let live but also don't want to re-define marriage. You're off base if you think bigotry is the main cause of opposition to same sex marriage.
Just because all bigots are against same sex marriage doesn't mean that everyone against same sex marriage is a bigot.
Kerry and Edwards are both against same sex marriage.
July 09, 2004 at 03:12 PM
Just because all bigots are against same sex marriage doesn't mean that everyone against same sex marriage is a bigot.
Nice try, but I never claimed that everyone against same-sex marriage is a bigot.
What I claimed was that the parties most directly responsible for challenging the County and pimping the ballot measure are bigots, and they repeatedly demonstrate this by over-reaching in their rhetoric beyond the question of marriage into other realms such as parenting.
I further claimed that because they seem uncapable of hiding their deeper bigotry when discussing "protecting" marriage, it provides supporters of equality with a tool to help them show to more mainstream voters that this ballot measure is just a cover for anti-gay bigotry -- and then ask these more mainstream voters if that's something they really want to be a part of.
July 09, 2004 at 04:17 PM
Gay activism has brought on this debate. There's lots of people who are with the gay community on other issues but lose them by trying to change marriage.
Why don't gay activists try to get a ballot initiative allowing civil unions or domestic partners, or work through the legislature for something besides marriage? In the political process, that's something a consensus could be built on, i.e. a civil union type or arrangement, rather than forcing a change in the definition of marriage, which we see is upsetting a lot of people and will be counter productive.
July 09, 2004 at 04:22 PM
In the political process, that's something a consensus could be built on, i.e. a civil union type or arrangement...
That's not consensus, that's compromise. If it were your equality, would you compromise?
Actually, I suppose you are compromising. If you support marriage for some people and not for others, you are compromising your equality in order to hold onto privileges and benefits other people don't get to have.
Does that make you feel special?
July 09, 2004 at 04:27 PM
I agree with the above. If the amendment in Oregon passes, and/or if the Federal Marriage Amendment passed, it will be because the gay community pushed for too much, too fast.
I'm one of those people who would be in favor of a civil union, definitely. Not sure about marriage. I'm definitely open minded. But I'm just saying, there wouldn't be this backlash if not for the Mass. court ruling, and various places in the country where local officials decided to break the existing law and flount giving marriage licenses to same sex couples. It's just not having a good effect. The gay community is doing a bad job, in my opinion, of defusing people's fears of what will happen if we have gay marriage. Some think it's the end of the world, of course it's not, but too many people are too scared of the issue. In my observation of things anyway.
July 09, 2004 at 04:32 PM
Actually, I suppose you are compromising. If you support marriage for some people and not for others, you are compromising your equality in order to hold onto privileges and benefits other people don't get to have.
Does that make you feel special?
Do you think comments like this are going to help persuade people to support gay marriage?
July 09, 2004 at 04:51 PM
No, but they help distract me from my roaring headache which is making me testy.
July 09, 2004 at 04:56 PM
Hope you feel better! I think there could be perusasion of some people. Face it, some people are threatened by anything new. There's fear of the unknown. If people can know that same sex marriage isn't a threat, they might be persuaded. If not now, maybe in the future.
July 09, 2004 at 05:01 PM
You're quite right, which in part is why I'm trying to draw attention to recent statements by the pro-amendment crew that demonstrate that they are after much more than just "protecting" marriage. One of the connections that same-sex marriage supporters need to foster in the minds of voters is that the vote for this ballot measure is something that its backers will inevitably spin as support for their broader agenda -- an agenda which is about keeping gays and lesbians out of social institutions (such as, in the current example, parenting) as much as possible.
July 09, 2004 at 05:05 PM
What I imagine the amendment backers doing if and when the initiative passes is turning to the voters of Oregon and saying something along the lines of the following: "If you believe that gays and lesbians are a threat to marriage, which you must because you passed this amendment, then it follows that they are a threat to the family. If they are a threat to the family, then they cannot be allowed to raise children."
Now, I unquestionably believe that many voters leaning towards voting in favor of this constitutional ban on same-sex marriage are not as put off by the idea of gays and lesbians riasing children. The trick for the rest of us is to convince them that voting for this measure will be seized upon for its momentum by the anti-gay forces in this state. And so voters should be asked: Do you really want to contribute to the momentum of bigots?
July 09, 2004 at 05:19 PM
Politicians taking the easy way out on a perceived "hot potato" issue don't count.
Lots of bigotry arises out of fear--even out of the fears of good, well-meaning people. A bigoted idea is no less bigoted because the person who holds it is a nice person or because practically everyone agrees with it or even because that's the way it's always been.
Gay people have lost their children and their homes, have been denied a place by their partner's hospital bed--and you want to keep it that way because allowing gay people to get married upsets people.
When you say "redefining marriage" it sounds like a big deal. But gay marriage doesn't redefine anything. Gay marriage simply extends the existing definition to a small minority of people.
The irony is, heterosexuals really have been redefining marriage for quite some time now.
It might make you feel better to slam the barn door in the faces of gay people, but the horses have been out in the meadow carrying on for some time now.
July 09, 2004 at 05:37 PM
While we are at it, we might as well retire the canard that this is about "gay activists" or "the gay community".
Until very recently, "the gay community" has shown little interest in gay marriage.
The overwhelming majority of people who have moved gay marriage forward have not been "gay activists".
We're where we are today because of people who just want to get married.
They want to get married for the same reasons most heterosexuals want to get married. They're in love, they want to express their commitment to one another and they want to provide some security for their families.
July 09, 2004 at 08:19 PM
In a call to Senator Smith's office -- he's in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment -- his staffer said the main reason was "scientific research that children raised in traditional families do better."
The thing is, when you are for discriminating against fellow Americans, you can't help but get ugly in your arguments.
This is an issue of fairness. Same-sex couples suffer because they don't have the same rights, priviledges and responsibilities in their relationships, that everyone else has.
July 09, 2004 at 08:28 PM
In a call to Senator Smith's office -- he's in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment -- his staffer said the main reason was "scientific research that children raised in traditional families do better."
No comment.
July 09, 2004 at 09:02 PM
Indeed a crack. It will be interesting to see if it was released to satisfy the base and/or was just a slip of the veil.
...or, if it was a trial balloon. Bend is a smaller area with a rapidly changing population (from Rural to Portland getaway/retirement area)--an interesting blend. The logic (illogic as you indeed pointed out) could have been specifically designed to work on the swing voters, those who have doubts about same-sex marriage and haven't firmly settled in either camp. Appealing to thoughts of what's best for children is certainly a tried and true political strategy.
If it's a trial balloon, the defense of marriage folks could get feedback on how well the message got out, how the local populace reacted to the message, and how the activists react to the message. We've seen little thus far to know if organizations like BRO are really ready to react to the impending campaign, and if so whether they'll use a reasoned approach and/or go into aggressive attack mode.
Maybe I'm over-analyzing, but Bend sure seems like a logical place to conduct such testing, and its certainly not beyond the defense of marriage folks to try to refine their strategy.
I still can't imagine they won't do some much more self-destructive stuff, but what if one waits for the inevitable and it doesn't happen before the election?
July 09, 2004 at 09:04 PM
ok...this has been sitting in my craw for a coupla hours now:
"Just because all bigots are against same sex marriage doesn't mean that everyone against same sex marriage is a bigot."
Then just what the heck *are* they? People who are *uncomfortable*? People who can't stop themselves? People with poor homosexual activities impulse control?
Why can't we call a clump of dirt a clump of dirt? And YES, I *am* calling the majority of opponents of gay marriage unthinking clumps of dirt. I also call a shoe a "shoe". A boat a "boat", and picklewagon and "picklewagon".
These same groups have been working tirelessly for 15+ years to denigrate MY tribe. MY people.
Why is it that one group of people has to spend millions of dollars to defend our rights GUARANTEED under the constitution against organized groups who's sole argument against our rights is religiously based? We aren't breaking the law.
Furthermore, Civil Unions are a crock. Pure and simple. I say fooey! The Constitution applies to EVERYONE. Equally. End of story. And the the next time someone brings up Civil Unions with a straight face, ask yourself just WHY you are being asked to pay for a special drinking fountain for the gay and lesbian citizens to drink at. My people pay taxes, they fight and die for their country (even while forced into hiding thier true selves in order to do so).
Equal rights have never once equaled special rights. A long time ago, the *same* people who oppose gay rights/marriage/happiness were claiming that if special stuff had to be written into a government document to include them, it amounted to "special rights". Now, we have a (very) small number of people who want to just use the same documents as everyone else, and those same foes of liberty are flipping out about it.
The people who oppose gay marriage are an affront to liberty, an affront to common sense, and worst of all, a slap in the face to anyone who has ever actually READ the constitution, much less has fought and died to preserve the country that is run from that document.
You heard me right: The foes of freedom and liberty ARE UNAMERICAN. Ask yourself just why the Defense of Marriage Coalition hates America and American ideals.
If every movement needs a Malcolm X or a Chandra Bose, let me be it.
jj
July 09, 2004 at 09:10 PM
A long time ago, the *same* people who oppose gay rights/marriage/happiness were claiming that if special stuff had to be written into a government document to include them, it amounted to "special rights".
This is juicy. It makes me want to contextualize the initiative backers as seeking "special rights" and stick that phrase right back down their throats.
July 11, 2004 at 07:17 AM
As a Gay Male who does not usually identify as a Gay Activist, I agree with Doretta as I almost always do. However, I can't help but wonder why the government needs to have something other than civil unions for anyone. Shouldn't it be the government to recognize civil unions for everyone? And leave it to the religious organizations to choose who they want to wed?
I think it would have made the equality issue a whole lot easier.