Tag: gay marriage

Posted on

gay marriage

Can we talk?

Seriously, can we talk?

 

As I watched the red equals sign go viral on Tuesday — knowing the Supreme Court was hearing arguments in regard to California’s Proposition 8, a voter-approved backing of the Defense of Marriage Act — I was struck by the lack of dialogue of the day.

 

In all seriousness, friends, in regard to this issue — in regard to gay marriage and its approval, constitutionality, and societal acceptance — allow me to say this:  there are some of you on both sides of this issue that I have significant difficulty talking to.  Why?  Because you don’t listen.  You don’t listen to me.  In fact, you don’t listen to anyone… well, at least anyone you don’t know ahead of time will automatically agree with your perspective.

 

It’s not that I don’t respect you.  It’s not that I don’t respect your opinion.  It’s rather because you feel so emboldened that you are right that you have no respect for the opinion of any other.  Listening, my friends, is a sign of respect.

 

Let’s face it; this is an emotionally driven argument.  Many of you who support gay marriage have had an experience that has propelled you in that direction.  Perhaps either you or a beloved friend or family member is gay and thus you have passionately painted this as an issue of equality.  Perhaps you see it as civil right…  an equal pursuit of happiness, and each of us deserves to be happy!  Thus, anyone who feels differently than you is a bigot… or a homophobe… or perhaps, egad, something far worse.

 

Similarly, many of you who oppose gay marriage have read all the scriptures that have caused you to condemn it — and condemn it with a spewing passion.  You have read the old… and read the new.  You have then weighted this sin above all others… overlooking “specks” elsewhere in order to zero in on this huge “log.”  Thus, anyone who feels differently than you is a blatant sinner…  or a gay sympathizer… or yes, perhaps, egad, something far worse.

 

The reality is that I find it challenging to talk with both of you.  I don’t always enjoy it.  Why?  Because with all due respect, my friends — really — you guys stink at dialogue.

 

I don’t say that with any articulation of hatred or meanness or even disrespect.  There was a time in my life when if anyone in my physical presence actually opposed the obvious, enduring greatness of baseball’s Cincinnati Reds, I couldn’t talk with them either.  I had no desire to listen.  I was right.  They were wrong.  End of story.

 

Here, however, is where a huge problem lies…

 

This is a tough issue.  Gay marriage is hard.  This is an issue where not everyone who supports it nor everyone who opposes it is some arrogant, blind, or idiotic zealot.  Not everyone who supports it is a weakminded sympathizer nor everyone who opposes it is a prideful homophobe.  But yet, far too many of us act that way; far too many of us judge those who possess a differing perspective.  And far too many of us find solace in the facade that if we keep shouting a little louder the other side will recognize the obvious error in their ways… forgetting that hardly ever — ever — does shouting prompt positive, lasting change.

 

We have forgotten that it isn’t just law either side wants changed.  Law is only the law.  Hearts are far greater… far, far more powerful…  far, far more influential.  Whether you believe either side is sinful or wrong, a change of heart is more meaningful than any change in legality.  And heart change, friends, will never happen as a result of one side shouting louder.

 

Hence, I return to my original question…

 

Can we talk?

Can we — will we — are we brave enough — bold enough — humble enough — to ask why each feels the way they do?  Is there a way to work together?  … that is, as an actual, united state of America?

 

Or is it sadly acceptable to simply stink at dialogue?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

good politics?

In case you missed it:

 

First, background info, prior to Sunday…

 

  • In 2004 then State Sen. Obama said, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” and “I don’t think marriage is a civil right.”
  • When campaigning in 2008, Obama and VP Biden opposed same-sex marriage.
  • Gay marriage is legal in D.C. and in 6 states, while Maryland and Washington have referendums pending in November.
  • With the ongoing state marriage debates, gay rights activists have pushed Obama to vocally advocate for same-sex marriage.
  • Obama has said his position is “evolving.”
  • Historically, a majority of Hispanic, African-American, and Catholic voters don’t support gay marriage.

 

Then, beginning Sunday…

 

  • Biden appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” saying he is now “absolutely comfortable” with gay marriage; his office immediately began clarifying the VP’s comments, saying they reflected no change in policy.
  • Both left and right leaning news outlets believed Biden’s latest verbosity was intentional, with the President wanting to “have it both ways.”
  • On Monday, White House Press Sec. Jay Carney attempted to clarify Obama’s position, saying, “Marriage is a state issue, and the states have the right to take action on it.”  Carney added that Obama’s “views on LGBT rights are crystal clear.”
  • Left and right leaning commentators continued debating Obama’s views, with CNN’s Anderson Cooper saying, “The president’s position on gay marriage is anything but precise.”
  • On Tuesday, swing state North Carolina voted 61% to 39% to ban gay marriage in their state constitution.
  • On Wednesday morning, Obama said he was “disappointed” in North Carolina’s vote.
  • On Wednesday afternoon, Obama said his position on gay marriage has now evolved, saying, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”  He also stated that the states have the right to decide.

 

Shew.  Sorry; that’s a lot to follow.  Know, though, that all of the above is fact.

 

The Intramuralist understands that this is a sensitive issue; it is hard to discuss well.  Almost all conversations end up with someone on both sides spewing scorn in the name of passion (as in the Colorado state legislature Tuesday, where one civil union supporter yelled, “I hope you f***ing die!”).  I was amazed, too, for example, at the number of persons who boldly identified the North Carolina vote as the manifestation of bigotry.  Hold fast to your opinion, but is one automatically a bigot if they oppose same-sex marriage?  Is that what Pres. Obama was considered the first 3 years of his term?

 

Allow me not to digress, friends.  The point of this post is not to debate the legality nor morality of same-sex marriage.  We have addressed both advocacy and opposition in previous, respectful posts.

 

The concern I have this day is the factual timeline shared above:  the supposed “evolution.”  The entire transpiration of how the administration is approaching gay marriage looks like, feels like, smells like, quacks like…

Politics…  the motivation for this policy feels like it is completely political.  There is no cultural conversation — led by the federal government — as to what is wise and what is foolish.  What is good.  What is moral.  What is the long term impact.  What evolution of the policy will be good.  What evolution of the policy will be destructive.  How the Constitution supports government’s involvement.  The primary motivator is what makes for good politics.  Egad.

 

Now don’t let me act as if politics serving as the primary motivation is indigenous to Pres. Obama.  The Intramuralist believes this happens all over the place, across all party lines, transcending all issues, and most of the time, we’re all oblivious.  Issues and advocacy is passed off as prudent policy, when the reality is that the motivation for the policy is purely political.

 

Truth?  I can’t tell how Obama feels about gay marriage.  Does he really support it now — or does he feel he needs it to please and thus shore up his so-called “base”?  Did he really oppose it before — or did he feel as if he couldn’t be honest because it might negatively impact the Hispanic, African-American, and Catholic vote?

 

Change the issue.  Change the politician.  Are they being honest with us?  Or is their support or dissension based most upon what they believe to be good politics?

 

I said it before; I’ll say it once more…

 

Egad.

 

Respectfully,

AR