“Bigot,” is a word I rarely ever use, for I don’t think it benefits anyone or thde dialogue about everyone getting their Civil Rights, yet today, it feels really appropriate given the recent statements by Phyllis Schlafly:
“The polls are very defective. If you look at the polls, most of them ask the question: Are you in favor of banning same-sex marriage? Now, we have no law that bans same-sex marriage. Any gay couple can get married— all they have to do is find a preacher or justice of the peace who will perform the ceremony. There’s no law against that. What they are demanding is that we respect them as being OK, and that’s an interference with our free speech rights. There’s no obligation that we have to respect something we think is morally wrong.”
Clearly, Schlafly doesn’t speak for all conservatives, yet she has been known for decades as a staunch conservative and anti-gay spokesperson. There are three aspects to this quote that deserve to be note:
1) “…no law that bans same-sex marriage.” This is blatantly incorrect, as there are a number of status which do ban same-sex marriage. Try and get a marriage certificate, ad you will be unsuccessful. This is a new twist however on an old tale. Usually, it goes like this: there is no law that bans a gay or lesbian person from getting married. Everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex.Either way, the result is the same. Two persons of the same sex can not in many states marry their loved one. By framing it, as “there is no law” attempts to dismiss the call for marriage equality outright. There is no need to discuss something that is not outlawed.
2) One would think that Schafly would have the National Organization for Marriage, the Catholic Church and others shouting her down as she redefines marriage. All you need to get married according to Schafly is a preacher or a justice of the peace who will do it. Truly, many gay and lesbian couples do have a ceremony, but the real issue comes in how that marriage is recognized. There are over 1100 rights and privileges that legally married people have that others couples do not. The ability to have a ceremony isn’t what Marriage Equality is all about.
3) “demanding that we respect them as being OK.” This point is much like the very first point. Schlafly tries to shift the focus away from the reality of what is at stake, although this is is a bit more tricky. Is she suggesting that if our relationships have a legal basis that everyone will respect them, or feel obligated to respect them? No, she wants to distract from the real issue and pretend that this is about a group of people forcing something onto others. This plays well with many tripe sod conservatives from the far right religious conservatives to the Tea Party types. In reality, respect has nothing to do with anything. It is all about fairness and having the same rights as anyone else- the right to get a marriage license and a marriage that is recognized by the Government. The “we” Schlafly is speaking for is irrelevant. Really.
This wanton extravagance of lies and misinformation- that’s what allows this to be characterized as bigotry. It is an utter failure to see those who seek Marriage Equality as real people with a real interest, and is far more offensive than what we get from anti-gay groups like NOM. At least NOM acknowledges exactly what we want, even if they are fighting tooth and nail to stop us from achieving it.