Re: "The fight for gay marriage ban"

Recently, my university's newspaper published an editorial section on the upcoming May vote for a constitutional ban on gay marriage in North Carolina. There were two pieces, one pro-ban, one anti-ban. Needless to say, I have a big problem (well, lots of them) with the student who is in favor of the ban, though I don't have much good to say about the anti-ban opinion, either. Below is a copy of an essay which I have just emailed to the editor of the paper:

In the September 22 issue of NinterTimes, there is an opinion piece regarding the recently introduced North Carolina constitutional ban on gay marriage. While I certainly don’t have a complaint about its appearing in the paper, I do think both sides of the argument warrant a response.

First, the “progressive” position of Cheyenne Owens, which has only one real problem: while Cheyenne does a great job of listing organizations which oppose the amendment, she does little to explain why the amendment should be opposed on nearly all grounds. Cheyenne adeptly outlines the level of support the equality movement has in our state, but does not clearly espouse its tenets.

It is the “conservative” perspective of Jordan McSwain with which I have real issues. I would like to preface my criticisms by saying that I do not mind people being bigoted—as citizens in a free country, that is their right. If an individual doesn’t like anyone who is LGBT, or black, or female, then they’re allowed to do that within the confines of their own home. However, they are not allowed to take this discrimination with them to work, to the store, and certainly not to the government. I desperately wish these people were not bigoted, and struggle to see why they feel the need (or the right) to not allow their fellow citizens the same rights they enjoy, but again, what goes on in someone’s head is none of our business. I find it quite odd that those most in favor of small government want it to extend its hand into our bedrooms, controlling what goes on between consenting adults.

Now, to the opinion itself. Jordan McSwain first states, strangely and hypocritically, that he does not “believe in the exclusion or harassment of homosexuals” before going on to explain exactly why they should be excluded from legal marriage. Predictably, Jordan’s first point is one regarding his or her faith—Jordan’s version of Christianity believes homosexuality to be a sin, and because “the gay lifestyle” is “against [his] faith,” it should not be allowed. I have two points regarding this: First, if anyone can find exactly where Jesus himself mentions homosexuality, I would find it extremely enlightening. As far as I know, he never does—since Christianity is at least ostensibly based on the teachings of Christ rather than those of the old testament, one thinks that Christians would be more concerned with Jesus’ tenets; and if he didn’t mention it, it must not have been that big of a deal. The context in which homosexuality is most often referenced in the bible is not consensual sex between adults, and all but four (of twelve mentions) refer to either rape, cult activity, or pederasty, the other four being inconclusive. Second, what gives you the right to codify the tenets of your beliefs over others’? Last time I checked the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment clearly states that there shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion. And as I will point out shortly, the only real arguments (i.e., ones that are not demonstrably false) against gay marriage are religious, which, according to our constitution, cannot have any impact on our government and its control over us.

Jordan’s arguments, once they leave Christianity are, to put it bluntly, nonsensical. To say that homosexuality is “against nature” or violates “the natural order of life” is asinine. Homosexual activity has been observed in over 450 species of animals, and has been around in humans at least as long as there has been recorded history (and it would be ridiculous to believe that it has not been around for as long as us and our ancestors have been around, which is to say, always). While it is, of course, impossible for a homosexual couple to procreate without in vitro fertilization, this does not somehow make it “unnatural.” You might as well say that those who are sterile or choose not to have children should not be allowed to marry, because it is unnatural. Given that other animals do not have the same capacity for choice and reason as we do, one literally cannot say that animal behavior on this scale is unnatural.

Next, Jordan brings up the topic of homosexual adoption, spouting unequivocally disproven conjectures regarding the mental health of children brought up by homosexual couples. In a relatively recent Senate hearing, Minnesota Senator Al Franken (D) took Focus on the Family to task for this ridiculous opinion, citing a study which found that a child with two parents irrespective of their gender is better off than a child with one parent. A child with two fathers or two mothers is as well adjusted as a child with one male and one female parent. Jordan seems to think that gay parents would “pressure” their child to be gay. Given the fact that there are gay people (all of whom, I might add, were born to straight parents), I think we can write this off as equally asinine as the “unnatural” argument. For some reason, Jordan thinks that gay parents would cause “confusion regarding what a relationship is and how some people have heterosexual relationships while others have homosexual one” [sic]. Let’s replace a few words in that sentence: divorced parents may cause confusion regarding what a relationship is and how some people have two parents and others have one parent. Or, if we want to go back in time 50 years, we can wonder what terrible effect allowing African Americans to marry will have on our country. In short, there is absolutely zero credible evidence to back up the assertion that homosexual parents cause any harm to their children.

The final, and perhaps the most outrageous, argument is that “if gay marriage were legalized, […] what’s to stop polygamists from demanding rights or people who want to marry animals or inanimate objects?” This is one of the most mind-bogglingly ignorant arguments against gay marriage that anyone could ever possibly come up with. Sure, polygamists might start demanding rights, and we should certainly think critically about that. But to equate gay people with animals and objects? This makes absolutely no logical sense. Allowing two consenting adults of any gender to marry one another does not in any way lead to one consenting adult being able to legally marry a goat, or a bagel, or a massaging recliner.

So when you vote next May, Jordan McSwain, you will be voting against the people. You will be voting against men, and women; against members of our armed forces, police officers, firefighters, and everyone who has sacrificed anything for the ideals of our freedom on which our country was built. You will not be voting against “the distortion of the sanctity of marriage” (something which plenty of straight couples have done exceedingly well), but voting to codify bigotry, and to advance an ideology of discrimination and hate. At least admit that. Don’t try to hide behind the absurdly specious arguments of “unnaturalness” and the supposed harmful effects of gay people on children. Admit that there are no logical arguments backing up your position. Just admit that you’re a bigot.

I speak because I can

Being a great lover of song lyrics, I thought I'd try to give my blog a snazzy, catchy song lyric for a name. The best I could come up with so far is this one, from REM's "Bad Day," an anthem about the dire state of the news. I think it decries the sort of sensationalist journalism that we as a nation have returned to the past decade or so: non-news dominates for hours at a time, news is doused in a healthy coating of opinion before it's repackaged as news like so much processed meat food being shoveled down the indiscriminately ravenous American gullet. Rather ironically, it premiered on CNN a few years ago.

It's partly the state of the news that made me want to start this blog. I've become increasingly disgusted by the asinine material that gets counted as news these days, and with the way it's presented on nearly every outlet. To that end, one of the stated goals of this blog is going to be to bring all the skills of an English master's student to bear on the news. I want to look critically at things, see what the news is saying beneath what it's saying. Unfortunately, I don't have cable, so I can't watch FOX News or CNN (and just how sad it makes me I am completely unable to articulate...). What i'm left with is Internet news (from their websites) as well as the local paper, which I'm planning to take out a subscription to, if it's not outrageously expensive. Activism on a budget, and all. My university also puts out a bi-weekly newspaper which I'll try to pick up when I can. That's always a fun one. Also, any time I write a blog about something in a paper, I'm going to email it to the new agency in question. I doubt that they'll publish any of it, but it will make me feel better, and they might at least read it.

I don't aim for this blog to be focused solely on politics, though. That gets old after a pretty short while, and I'd like to intersperse it with things that interest me generally (and critically). Other blogs, websites, TV shows that I totally watch legitimately. Anything goes, though the focus will probably be a bit narrower than I would prefer, simply due to me having lots to do and being generally forgetful when it comes to blogging.

It comes down to wanting to do something, really. It's not just the news that I've been disenchanted with lately, it's America as a whole. Well, no, not as a whole—but a large majority of it, and I don't just mean conservatives. I have equally incisive things to say about liberal/progressives as well, though perhaps fewer of them overall. I feel like we as a society are not headed in a very good direction. Not to sound overly apocalyptic, but some sort of major change is going to come in the not-too-distant future, that will probably change us forever. I'm under no illusions that I can change this, and I'm not even sure that I want to. But I simply cannot abide not saying anything. And why shouldn't I? There is little else that I can do. The old adage says that actions speak louder than words, but I think we can agree that that's not true in the slightest. Words are actions, but actions are not words. It is words, and not actions, which elects presidents, hoists dictators, and topples regimes. Actions have a time and a place, but we are not there yet. Revolutionary actions are always preceded by revolutionary words. Not that I fancy myself a revolutionary—just a guy with opinions that thinks they're not the most terrible opinions anyone has ever had, and thinks that people would benefit from a nice healthy does of logic and compassion.

So here goes.