Conservative talk show host and columnist Charles Sykes has an interesting piece in this week's Isthmus. On the cover it is described as "Charles Sykes' Shocking views on gay marriage". In it he talks about the proposal to amend the state's constitution to disallow gay marriage. The vast majority of the column seems like a level-headed admonition against the extreme viewpoints on the issue. It seems like he is seeking a middle ground. But all is not as it seems as, upon closer inspection, it's just another screed against gay marriage. (I write this not knowing if he has clearly enunciated his position on the matter.)
He begins by saying that everyone on the left is against the amendment while many conservatives, including him, are undecided about it. Sykes continues by explaining that the proposed amendment contains a mere two sentences with the frist explicitly defining marriage as being something that involves one man and one woman. He labels it "straightforward enough". But:
The second is a bit murkier:
"A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
To which the thoughtful conservatives reply: Say what?
The language seems to ban civil unions. Does it extend to other benefits as well?
In other words, conservatives who are undecided about the proposed amendment are so not because they would for one second consider recognizing gay marriage, but rather because of the unclear wording of the second bit. The worry is about the effect on heterosexuals. In the middle of the piece, he spends 10 or so paragraphs discussing the conservative position and ways to shore it up. The liberal side is given one and that is merely the admonition not to equate everyone who favors the amendment with nutcases such as Rev. Ralph Ovadal.
He concludes by saying:
If gays want more tolerance and acceptance, they will have to be more tolerant themselves.
Exactly whom should gays be more tolerant of? Certainly not Ovadal who sponsors conferences on what he calls "Homo-Facism" nor people like Sidney Swift who, along with 4 of his Army buddies, beat the crap out of a gay man and told the police, "Yes, I beat that mother-fucking faggot up." These people deserve no tolerance from the gay community nor the straight community. Sykes tells us Lefties, "But calling your opponents bigots or assuming that supporters of the amendment 'hate' gays will not win any converts." But what argument has been put forth by supporters of such amendments that stands up to scrutiny? Sykes concedes that divorce is a bigger threat to marriage than is allowing gays to marry yet that is the prime argument for such amendments. There has yet to be a real argument made that gives one reason to think that allowing gays to marriage will ruin the marriages of heterosexual couples. And then there's the slippery slope bullshit about how gay marriage would lead to legalized bestiality, incest, and the like thusly transmogrifying our state into Sodom or Gomorrah. No one ever gives a credible reason for such a belief; it's just that they put homosexual relationships on the same level bestiality, etc. despite the fact that gay people are of the same species as each other as well as straight people and that gay marriage is not about consanguineous relationships. Notice how Sykes says, "And Christians who want respect and tolerance for their faith need to distance themselves from extremists who insist the pope is in hell." So he equates conservatives and Christians and then relieves them of the onus to actually be tolerant or accepting. Why? Does he seriously want us to believe that it is a given that Christians are just 100% tolerant and accepting so they can't be more so? If this is what he believes, then what excuse do the Christians who wrote the amendment and want to ban gay marriage have as an excuse for what appears to be a real whopper of intolerance? So far, it's been a litany of bullshit slippery slope arguments and quotes from Leviticus. On the one hand you have supposedly tolerant Christians thinking, "Well, I'm tolerant of gay people but, if we allow them to get married, then my own marriage will fall apart or people will lay with their dogs or their own children!" Is this really what thoughtful conservatives/Christians believe? Are they that stupid? Perhaps some are but I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that it's bigotry. As for anything in Leviticus - keep your 2500 year old superstitious bullshit out of our constitution! This is 2006 C.E., not 750 B.C.E.
Sykes conveniently makes a straw man out of Ovadal. He's a figure that everyone on the political spectrum except far-out right wingers can bash. Sykes does this because he wants his readers to believe that Ovadal and his ilk are the face of bigotry and hatefulness. He wants us to believe that these traits can never be found in your garden variety Christian. This is, of course, bullshit. Bigotry, spite, and hatefulness are not qualities found only in non-Christians but in human beings regardless of religion. (I would argue that religion exacerbates these all-too human traits but that's another story.) Fred Phelps is not the only person to hold up placards with hateful messages towards gays. There are "average" Christians who are bigots and they too hold up placards with hateful messages.
This amendment is a zero-sum situation. There's nothing about attaining a certain age or having a certain amount of money in it. This is not about being able to work hard and earn a privilege. It says that, unless gays achieve the impossible, our state will deny them marriage and equality. If you are a conservative/Christian who supports enshrining inequality in the state constitution, you should have a good goddamn reason for doing so. But irrational fears of the sky falling and the words of a fictional book written by desert nomads thousands of years ago are not good reasons.
Voting against this amendment can say many things. It can tell Christians who want to foist their biblical dogma on the rest of us to go fly a kite; voting now would also send a message to irrational slippery slope fearmongers that we aren't falling for their ruse; and it would also be something more than mere lip service to our ideals of freedom and equality.
No comments:
Post a Comment