thomascwaters.com

The family is the foundation of society.

Earlier today, I posted a blog entry about a video clip/ exchange between Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council, and Christopher Hitchens. Compare and contrast that with the blog entry linked here. These two represent, I believe the crux of the issue. Now, I’m sure that the Family Research Council and the writer of the editorial below, see themselves on the same side of the issue. But Blackwell cites the “primacy of the individual” whereas the basis of the argument below is the primacy of the Family.

So what exactly are we talking about? There are a number of ideas and terms being thrown about:

• Government
• Foundational Documents
• Primacy of the Individual
• Family
• Society

The first three are at the basis of the exchange in the Hitchens/Blackwell exchange, and the last two are from below. Now, for sure, Blackwell/Hitchens were discussing one question, and not the same question exactly as the editorial. but that is my point. One reason this while issue goes round and round is because differing ideas, that are possibly conflicting and interchangeably used or discussed, all under the rubric of “Traditional Values. “Primacy of the Individual stands in stark opposition to to the foundational place of the family.

via Diario Las Americas – The Great Significance of Family Values.

WEBCommentary(tm) – Miss USA And The Ugly Counterculture

Okay, I’m really tired of the Miss California-I-was-so-mistreated garbage. I don’t have any expectations that my post, added to all the verbiage out there is going to make it stop, but at least I’ll feel better after getting it off my chest. The final straw for me was the linked commentary below. Now, Christians are the victims? Good grief. But the part that really made my blood boil was this:

She returned an equally direct and honest answer that was well thought out and expressed,

THAT’s when I said, OK, I’m tired of being quiet- I am going to write about this.

First, here is my opinion on what happened. Then, some ranting about all that has transpired since.

Hilton posed a reasonable and excellent question to the constestent. It was far from an easy question. The topic is truly controversial. A good answer would have to be thoughtful, honest, and respectful of both sides of the issue. The constestent may have got the honest part right, but failed big time on thoughtful or respectful. The vote fell as it did. I don’t see any problem with that. Then Hilton added insult to injury by being his normal controversial self calling her names. He was a total ass, and single-handedly presented to the National Organization for Marriage their only hope for gaining any popularity.

I have no problems with the fact that she expressed her personal viewpoint against same-sex marriage. But that wasn’t the question. No one asked her what was her personal feelings about the subject. She didn’t really answer the question posed to her. Not only that, but in voicing her personal opinion, she did so in a highly offensive way, while saying some things that are either untrue or just confusing. I can’t find much of anything that Hilton did after the answer that was acceptable, except how he scored her. Past that, he was a total fail! So she failed in her answer, and he failed in his response to the answer.

Now, it is no surprise that Perez Hilton acted without class, respect, or common decency. He is Perez Hilton, and to expect him to rise to any reasonable level of respectful discourse would be expecting too much. He’s a gossip queen who knows how to stir the pot so the speak. But that is no excuse for his actions either. Miss CA’s answer however was totally surprising. Her inability to walk the fine line between sharing one’s personal viewpoints but doing it in a way that is respectful of all, is alarming, and shows her to be inadequate to be the winner. That’s why I believe she deserved a poor score.

So, let’s look at both the question and the answer:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?

Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage …. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.

That she didn’t realize that her answer would come across as offensive is no surprise. She goes to a Christian school where there is little diversity of opinions or people. She is very used to environments where there isn’t two very different and highly emotional viewpoints to things. And I truly feel bad for her in that regard. When you live sheltered away, you lack the experiences to enable you to act more compassionately towards everyone.

So, what does her answer mean? Mr. Adamo feels it was well thought out, direct and honest. When you cut through everything, she basically said, “No, every state should not follow because I think marriage is between a man and a woman. The entire country should go one way, because she thinks so? Because she thinks so? I can see that this would be a sufficient reason why she might do something, but Hilton’s question asked her what she thought the rest of the country should do, and personal opinion just isn’t enough to go on. it may have beren an honest portrayal of her feelings, but lousy reasoning. Now, if she had said, she believed that most Americans were not ready to accept same-sex marriage and tradition hold marriage to be between a man and a woman. That may still have pissed off some people, but it would have been a reasonable argument to support her position. and if she had said something along the lines of ” I think we as a country need to find a way that the rights of all can be protected while at the same time protecting the traditiuonal definition of marriage,” she would have started to display some well-thought out respectful dialogue that both is true to her personal beliefs and aknowledges that not everyone holds the same views.

Come on, Mr Adamo! Well, thought out? Direct? What does it mean to say, “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other?” First, this is inaccurate. Only people in three states can choose one or the other (although one or the other what is a reasonable follow-up).  but here is her first step away from a winning answer.  Here she is trying to find something to say that will reflect the diverse opinions on this issue. She wants to come across as pro- freedom to choose. I think she genuinely doesn’t want to force others to see things only her way. That’s fine, but she just didn’t find the right words. Yes, thinking on your feet is hard. winners can do it more successfully than she did.

But here’s the part where she failed big time. “And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe…” Her country? Her family? By speaking in the possessive of “my,” she alienates all those who feel differently than she does. They must not belong in “her country?”  But wait, that is a direct contradiction to her first statement that Americans can choose one or the other. So which is it? My Country! My Way? Or Americans can choose?

Mr Adamo, if respecting both sides of a highly emotionally charged issue is being politically correct, then we need more of that all around, not only with this subject. but I don’t think the lack of a “politically correct” answer is what caused her loss. It was the lack of a well expressed comment that allowed her to be true to her personal feelings, but spoke to the issue in such a way that both respected differing viewpoints and was a valid argument for the question of “why or why not.”

I can’t disagree with Mr Adamo that Hilton’s behavior post the episode was atrocious at best. I don’t however think Hilton speaks for me or the thousands of GLBTQ people who are demanding equal rights. The GLBTQ communities are no more monolithic than the straight community.

What’s unfortunate is how Miss CA has been treated through all of this including how she is being used by Mr Adamo to advance his own cause. She said, “No offense to anybody out there.” It was not her intent to cause a controversy with her answer. In that sense, she isn’t dumb as Hilton labeled her, but naive. So now she is being exploited by all sides in this battle over marriage.

The other thing that has happened is that the real issue- why same-sex couples do or do not deserve equal rights is again lost in craziness. I tend to think that’s how they like it. There are no valid emotional-less valid reasons why loving committed same-sex couples do not deserve equal rights under the law. When a straight couple is married there are about 1000 civil rights and civil privileges that become theirs immediately. Same-sex couples who have a civil union- about one quarter as many of those, and for couples like myself and my partner who have been together 10 years… nothing.

WEBCommentary(tm) – Miss USA And The Ugly Counterculture.

Maggie Gallagher: Don’t give up marriage fight!

I just posted a commentary to the Boston Edge article claiming “It’s official, the culture war is over.” This linked blog is a great addition to that discussion. Gallagher is the head of the National Organization on Marriage (NOM) the group that created the meant-to-be-scary storm is coming ad. Reading this article, I’d say, that what we are seeing is the opposition is trying to redefine its strategy. Can they find a new strategy that will gain back the momentum that appeared evident in the earliest part of the culture wars?

I’m not they can or they can not, but time can tell. The blow is a good read, either way. Weigh in- tell me what you think. Leave a comment, and let’s get a discussion going.

Maggie Gallagher: Don’t give up marriage fight! – Crunchy Con.

Adele House does a great job debunking some of the myths used to oppose marriage equality. The whole post is great reading and a good resource. Here are a few of  things that I didn’t know but learned from her blog:

• Same-sex couples live in 99.3 percent of all counties nationwide (2000 U.S. Census).
• In a national poll in 2006, 80 percent of Catholics said they agree with this statement: “Marriage is about love and commitment. Regardless of how I personally feel about gay people getting married, I don’t think it is my place to judge these people’s love for and commitment to each other” (Research by Peter D. Hart & Associates).
• The federal government could save more than $1 billion a year by allowing same-sex couples to marry (2004 Congressional Budget Office).

I especially like her conclusion:

So, let’s see…allowing same-sex couples to marry: 1) strengthens the economy (God knows we need that!); 2) extends basic equal rights to all (regardless of who they love); 3) increases self-esteem and provides a sense of stability to families and children; and, 4) generally improves each individual’s emotional, physical and financial well-being. Hmmm…seems like a no-brainer to me.

LA Gay and Lesbian Relationships Examiner: Marriage equality for all.

I have written that I think the overall war- marriage equality is over, but there will continue to be battles. There just won’t be any going back. Now, a collumnist writing on the Liberty University web site agrees, claiming:

This battle was lost some time ago. We are just now seeing the results.

What really cracks me up though- is his closing sentence:

I guess that means we had better do a better job of preserving our own marriages.

You think?

If the proponents of marriage really cared about saving “the family” they would forget about demonizing GLBT people and start to address poverty, domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and the myriad factors that impact and damage families every day.

The Public Battle for Marriage Is Over .

The linked blog post is a good explanation of what’s to come in Iowa. Near the bottom, is an update- the Senate leadership Mike Gronstal will not co-sponsor a leadership bill which means that opponents can not push this issue forward until next session in 2010. Interestingly, there is a second way to get a constitutional amendment which is a state-wide constitutional convention which may be held every 10 years and so it could be called in 2010.

Iowa is split with  26% of the voters approving of gay marriage and an additional 28% approving of domestic partnerships for a total of 54% in favor of some form of state recognition for GLBTQ families. Some of the work in the coming months has to be on that 28%, as well as in educating at least a part of the other 46% of the state.

Demoinesdem, spells out some of the risks to the republican party if they push full steam ahead for a constitutional amendment. It will be interesting to see how this continues to play out. Everything about this situation is so different from California. It is also interesting to watch how the movement in Vermont and the north east is influenced by Iowa.

My favorite quote is from the update near the bottom. It is from Gronstal’s statement:

“I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that.  And I’ve talked with other people about it and that’s what I see, Senator McKinley.   I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that.

Is that so wrong? I don’t think that’s so wrong.  As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife.  You know I’ve been married for 37 years.  I hugged my wife.  I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.

Bleeding Heartland:: The coming battle to amend the Iowa Constitution .

Plaintiffs in gay marriage case prepare for weddings

The linked story identifies 3 of the couples whose legal battle for marriage resulted in Friday’s Iowa Supreme Court decision. Unlike other court decisions on this issue, the justices were unanimous in the decision, sending a strong message from America’s heartland.

Some of the most radical opponents of equal rights for GLBTQ people, often claim that gay people do not deserve the same respect as straights. They try and portray gay and lesbian people as nothing but promiscuous and incapable of love and commitment. Those of us who are gay and lesbian, know this is not an accurate portrayal, and the 3 couples demonstrate that.

Kate and Trish: together for 7 years!

Jason and Chuck: together for 11 1/2 years!

Dawn and Jen: together for 18 years!

This quote from Jason sums it up well:

We have been together in sickness and health, through the death of his mother, through the adoption of our children, through four long years of this legal battle, and if being together through all of that isn’t love and commitment or isn’t family, or isn’t marriage, than I don’t know what is…

Plaintiffs in gay marriage case prepare for weddings.

This is possibly one of the sickest stories I have written about Since I started my blog almost 5 months ago. I came upon the story from a blog post about the daughter and her rehabilitation, and surprisingly hadn’t heard of the initial crime at all. The link below is about the court verdict, with just enough information about the gruesome crime.

Anyone who has been following my blog will know that Marriage Equality has been a real focus for me. I didn’t mean for it to happen that way, but it has. I think the reason is that the issue (one I didn’t have that strong an opinion about initially) has at it’s intersection, the true ultimate question of Religion.

A number f years ago, my artwork often dealt with the issues of AIDS, Stigma and Society, and the collision of sex, love, blood, fear, life and death. There too, within that pandemic, I saw the ultimate question of Religion, and it led me to look at graduate study in Religious Studies. I became extremely interested in the way Religion is used as a weapon, the tool by which one group attempts to overpower and dominate another group. To me this is a bastardization of what Religion is all about, yet it is how it is so frequently used.

In the movement to oppress GLBT people and keep them as second class citizens, religion and the Bible are frequently trotted out as the amunition. I don’t have enough fingers and toes to count the number of blog posts and articles I have seen that say that children are better off with a father and a mother- as if it were a given- a 100% always true TRUTH. The reality is different however. There are women and men who rise to the occasion and are great parents, and there are some who fall short, and in the case of the linked story, hideously short of what a child needs from a family. The dividing line isn’t the genders of the parents however.

This story doesn’t prove anything either way about straight or gay parents, or the children raised by them. But it does remind us that the sexual orientation of the 2 parents is not the thing that makes a family work or fail. Fortunately, this story is not the norm, although it isn’t hard to find stories, perhaps not quite as dramatic of straight families where many children have been harmed. But it is also easy to multitudes of stories of gay and lesbian parents loving and raising wonderful children. As we move forward, I hope the day comes when we judge a family by the love within it instead of the sex of the parents.

Josef Fritzl trial: Sentenced to life – the father who imprisoned, murdered, and raped unchecked for 24 years | World news | The Guardian .

Dear Greg,

Glad to have the opportunity to read your post. I just want to offer a few points for thought.

1) I really don’t think that the “LGBT segment is rapidly growing.” There have always been (and will always be) men and women who are LGBT. What is changing, is that these men and women are coming out and being more visible than ever before. We are refusing to be quiet and hide in the shadows, and pretend about our lives anymore. Some of us haven’t been quiet for a long time, and still others continue to lead double lives, passing as straight so as to not be fired from their job, etc. I think however it is a safe bet that visibility will increase. It isn’t like we are getting “new gays” at a faster rate, just that those who identify as gay and doing that, and speaking out more publicly.

On the other hand, it may be easier for youth to come out earlier today than ever before. Many people of my generation were not aware of their sexual orientation, or actively fought it for years before it felt safe to be gay. This had many bad side-effects, and that discussion probably warrants a separate post. Kids today may feel safer, and definitely have more positive gay and lesbian role models, and so may come out earlier and easier.

2) There is no such thing as “The Gay Lifestyle” as if it is what all GLBT people do. Just as there is no monolithic straight lifestyle. I’m sure your lifestyle and that of Paris Hilton or Britney Spears are not alike. Would you describe yourself and Paris as living the same lifestyle?

3) There is also no such thing as “The Gay Agenda” unless you call the desire to live in peace and dignity with equal rights an agenda. Thank you for saying so clearly, “the gay community deserves protection against violence, discrimination and tyranny. The right to live safe in this nation and indeed the world should be a proprietary human right.”

4) I don’t think it is true that the nation participated in a wide open debate on gay rights in the last election. If anything the lid was blown off the debate, such that real dialogue began only because of the outcome of the election. Now, today, is when the largest national dialogue is happening. It is also not entirely true to say “Most of the voters said YES” to Prop 8. While there were more Yes than no votes, the percent difference was not very big! It is more honest to say that the state was almost evenly divided and the Yes votes had a very slight edge. Some polls suggest that if the vote was held today, it would go the opposite way. But either way, the state is very divided on this issue, and even a simple majority- enough to pass a prop doesn’t signify “most.”

5) Our Country was founded by pilgrims who left England and Europe to escape religious persecution. My own family tree links to the Sprague family that arrived at Plymouth Colony the year after the Mayflower. They sought, and our brave new world was founded on a basis of Freedom of Religion. But Freedom of Religion is not the same as the ability to force one’s personal religious views upon all others. That is a religious tyranny similar to what my ancestors left to come here. Your ancestors as well as mine both experienced and perpetuated horrific crimes against humanity in the formation and growth of this country- what we are so proud of and are working to uphold today. This is worth thinking about as this dialogue over gay rights continues.

6) I respect your faith and strongly support your freedom to worship as you see fit. Ultimately, it is God who will judge each of us on our actions or lack there of. As a Gay man and a Christian, I am fully ready to stand before my Maker and have no doubt that he will deem my life as moral and acceptable.

7) However, it really irritates me when the Bible is used as the weapon to suggest that my life is immoral by people who claim that we must uphold the Bible at all cost! Where was this same ferocious vigor when the issue of Divorce was raised? Even in Covenant Marriages, divorce is allowed under certain circumstances, yet the words of Jesus are pretty clear, that divorce is a no-no. Those who use a few Bible passages but forget others are hypocrites if they do not apply the same standard to all areas of our culture. I do not think they mean to be hypocritical. I think it is more like the apostle Paul who came to recognize that he was wrong to be persecuting the Christians of his time, and changed his mind about many things.

And folks like you, who write so eloquently about human rights and yet hold to the myth of a “gay lifestyle” simply need to get to know more real gay people. Get to know them by name, and really care about their lives. Share a meal with a gay or lesbian raising children. See them as individuals instead of as stereotypes.

There is more to say, but this is plenty for one day. Again, thanks for your post.

http://kinghannibal.livejournal.com/5215.html?view=351#t351

One problem with blogging, is the felt need to publish EVERYDAY- more and more stuff. and today, I think I need a day off. But this is really worth reading! It gives me energy and renews my ability to do what I do, so please follow the link below for the full story. Thank you D. Allan Kerr for your writing! A few exerpts that are especially poignant:

If we stand by while friends and neighbors are denied a basic human right, I don’t know how we would be any different from good German citizens who looked the other way while Nazi thugs persecuted those who didn’t fit the ideal of a “master race.” We would be no less ignoble than those who stood by while black citizens were denied the dignity allotted to their white neighbors, or those who remained silent while individuals suspected of supporting a Communist ideology were deprived of their livelihoods.

They will try to convince me that two women marrying each other will somehow destroy or undermine what my wife and I have built. I value the institution of the family above all else, and will defend it with word, pen, fist or stone. So what I say now I don’t say lightly – if my household cannot withstand the legal marriage of two people belonging to the same sex, it deserves to crumble.

I lack the scientific background to assert whether the gay lifestyle is a matter of personal choice or genetic construction, and I don’t really care. The actions of consenting adults who do not seek to harm others in any way should be of no concern to anyone else.

Seacoastonline.com: A battle hymn for equality.