As actively engaged citizens, we are supposed to be involved in healthy, productive debates about this topic from one end of the Free State to the other in advance of casting our ballots. But for some reason, decent folks with legitimate viewpoints frequently choose to remain silent. Why?It gets better? I beg to differ. Who would've thunk that a faculty member would actually try and bully another faculty member into submission in the hope of getting that member fired?
We've seen pundits like the Washington Post's Richard Cohen saying, "The opponents [of same sex marriage] have no case other than ignorance and misconception and prejudice," (June 28, 2011). Is a statement like this intended to invite robust debate, or shut it down?
Who can forget the mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco last summer, vowing to exile beyond their city limits any person or business (i.e., Chick-Fil-A) questioning the notion of same-sex marriage? Seems more like tyranny than collegial dialogue.
When the Washington Blade published the names and addresses of everyone who signed the same-sex marriage petition which led to Question 6's inclusion on the Maryland ballot, this incited multiple instances of personal harassment. It led to people being confronted by strangers in their driveways. It went so far as to jeopardize the employment of Gallaudet University's Chief Diversity Officer, Angela McCaskill. These types of incidents are meant to intimidate those who hold a differing view from expressing their views. Yet these folks had only signed a petition, not a letter of condemnation.
People who don't have a prejudiced, homophobic bone in their bodies are afraid to make known the fact that they're not prepared to jump on board with same-sex marriage. The too-clever proponents of the new law have conflated the issue of ending prejudice against gays with the notion of same-sex marriage. They are unrelated.
Saturday, November 03, 2012
When gays support McCaskill
Here's a guy who is gay makes a point about the importance of not stifling a healthy debate and makes a note about the whole marriage thing by referring to the McCaskill/Gallaudet snafu.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's a witch hunt basically. The issue is at the core of rights, when one 'right' can clash with another,then there are two outcomes, one gets overruled, or, attacked. It would seem (In the USA where a gay lobby has far too much clout !), the loudest voice was expected to tail wag the dog. But it failed, because one area of rights was as strong as the other, one hopes common sense prevails and the Gays back off and admit they went too far and it ends at the deaf door. It takes a strong area to stand up to another one, especially one that doesn't have a handle on its more zealous/extreme activists. Deaf are learning to deal with theirs, and that experience means they can stand up to issues like this.
She did not "only sign a petition." She actively stopped the passage of a law of equality. That action effectively made a group of citizens second class. And for what? So another group could feel better about themselves? So their religious beliefs won't be violated? What about mine? Or am I not deserving of that consideration because I'm gay? What happens when I experience harassment on campus or off? Do I put it up to a vote?
This petition wasn't just a statement, wasn't just a petition, and you're being dishonest if you say it was. A bill was already drafted and ready to be put into law in March. It was going to be put through. Civil rights for gays and lesbians would be much more equitable. Then came the petition, and suddenly millions of us are relegated to the back of the room again. You have totally ignored this part of history.
And you and others have the gall to claim that this is because of "wanting democracy!" Democracy doesn't accept majority rule at the expense of the minority. That's not in the spirit of the Founders and not in the spirit of America.
People who don't have a prejudiced, homophobic bone in their bodies are afraid to make known the fact that they're not prepared to jump on board with same-sex marriage. The too-clever proponents of the new law have conflated the issue of ending prejudice against gays with the notion of same-sex marriage. They are unrelated.
You don't see the irony here that people who claim not to be homophobic are afraid? You don't see the irony that you're claiming denying people equal rights and denying people the right to marriage are one and the same?
I mean, you can't claim only Christian, non-gay religions utilize marriage. That's just not true. Several religious denominations accept gay marriage.
Anony @ 5:59 AM,
In other words, a petition cannot be made on offering another ballot measure for voters to choose from as an alternative? Offering an alternative ballot measure happens all the time. Everyone has a right to participate in the political process and not about "wanting democracy!" (your words). And that's what McCaskill did, she participated in a political process. But this turned out to be a classic example of voter intimidation and bullying tactics under the threat of gettng fired just for participating in a political process. McCaskill has not voted on the issue which is where democracy would be. Yet, there were no calls for a dialogue behind doors first. Instead the choice was made by Hurwitz to allow this to turn into a public flogging event.
Anony @ 6:01 AM,
No irony. It's the same idea for speaking up on certain issues but get castigated by calling them as "racists" when nothing of the sort is ever true.
Never did claim that Christians "own" the concept of marriage however clergy, churches and religious institutions do have the right to not to recognize or perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs and that they have exclusive control over its theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith.
Post a Comment