As I mentioned in the Morning News, last night’s Hardball featured a gay-marriage discussion between Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage (the group behind the shamelessly fear-mongering “Gathering Storm” ad) and Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, and here it is:
First impressions: Maggie Gallagher is more eloquent than I imagined, and Joe Solmonese was less eloquent than I wanted.
A key point left unaddressed is brought up by Gallagher’s repetition of the idea that “redefining marriage will change marriage forever.” This is true, and pretending it isn’t is unwise. The question is whether this disruption to the existing idea of marriage is threatening enough to deny equal rights to an entire class of citizens, and the answer is unequivocally no.
Yes, granting marriage rights to same-sex couples will “change marriage forever,” just like the civil rights movement changed public transportation forever, and the suffrage movement changed democracy forever. This is called progress, and protecting the (unfair) world that the marriage-is-only-between-a-man-and-a-woman folks have grown accustomed is in no way so pressing a concern it mandates denying equal rights to an entire group of Americans. (In other words: wrapping her brain around the new realities of 21st-century life is Ms. Gallagher’s job; it is not the government’s job to perpetuate injustice just to keep her and her ilk comfortable.)
I watched that last night and agree – but it still feels like the wave can’t be stopped, so long as people DO OUTREACH to EVERYONE.
Fair point.
I was disappointed she didn’t come off as crazy. Joe did a good job in taking down her talking points from the video. It seems like that video is getting a lot of attention which is its sole purpose.
The moderator was on our side and he didn’t have to apologize for that. That is progress.
Aww… and I always liked Dawn French!
We did cross a very important (dangerous) line a line into making people of faith into felons if they dare to practise their faith and values publicly.
I watched it and thought the same thing. If I were scoring a debate, she did much better than I would have liked.
Part of the reason, I think, is that her side of the debate has these soundbites they use that sound good (the institution of marriage will be harmed! gay marriage will change the way you live!), but don’t hold up to scrutiny. At all. But, unfortunately, “scrutiny” does not mean 4 seconds to explain your position before the other person starts talking over you. The gay marriage side of this debate is not terribly well-served by this format, unless its spokesperson is willing to be a bit of an asshole.
Also, that adoption thing is a really good point on their side. That religious organizations may be prevented from doing good in the world because they don’t recognize homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality… I think that will resonate with people (it’s much better than stoking the fear that “our church is going to have to perform gay marriage”, because it’s pretty easy to debunk that with the religious protection clauses).
Loveschild, you should be a spin doctor for the gay marriage side. You make it sound like people are going to be arrested for going to fucking church, when you know damn well how far that is from the truth. You have the persecution complex down pat…
@ 4, explain a scenario where someone would be jailed for practicing their faith publicly.
@4: You are so ill-informed.
If your faith includes bigotry and hatred of others publically and denies them equal rights…YES you should be put in jail.
Notice how the pro-gay-marriage side argued based on facts and stuck to the topic at hand?
Notice how the pro-gay-marriage side didn’t distract from the topic by needlessly antagonizing the other side?
The pro-gay-marriage side was fair, level-headed, and never sunk to name-calling.
How cool was that? It would be nice to see that more often.
Speaking of the 21st century…nobody’s getting married any more:
Out-of-wedlock births hit record high
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife…
@6 Oops. I meant anti-gay marriage side, obviously. In addition to comment registration, it would be nice if Slog had that commenting system where you could edit your comment for 5 minutes after you post….
if marriage will be “redefined”, that assumes it is currently defined. it isn’t. is marriage the ceremony that happens in your place of worship, or is it the contract you sign at city hall (which is where the legality of it resides)?
what is happening is the extension of the franchise of civil marriage to all. religious marriage is not debased.
7 Doctors wanting to exercise their conscience and refusal to participate in cooperating with certain medical practices or procedures ((such as in vitro fertilization for lesbians) that they deem morally, ethically or religiously objectionable.
When I spread blatant lies, you are not allowed to point that out, in any way, shape or form; for if you do it’s because you disagree w/ me and orthodoxy in general, and not because I’m lying and trying to foment irrational fear… remember that.
Doctors take an oath to help everybody. If they only want to help straight patients, they might want to pick another field. It’s all or nothing, no gray area. You don’t want to fill perscriptions for the pill, don’t be a pharmacist.
@ 14, you missed out on how the Hippocratic Oath allows no outs on denying medical treatment based on a moral failing in the patient, whether perceived or real. If they did, a lot more people shot and stabbed in bar fights would die since the doctors could just write them off as violent lowlifes, which many of them are.
So, if they must treat the violent lowlife, or the criminal who got shot by police, then they must also provide fertility treatment to the lesbian couple.
Your example is a failure. Can you try another example?
Loveschild, in the workplace, there are many things you cannot do, even if that is what you “believe”, religiously. If your religious belief is that women should not work outside the home you still have to hire women because it’s against the law to discriminate against them. You cannot refuse to hire a single mother, even if you believe that sex out of wedlock is immoral. And on and on and on…
There are protections in place in this country for employees and for customers that do not allow you to discriminate based on your individual religious beliefs. You want to live in a theocracy? Move to fucking Iran.
Confidential to Julie: You rule.
In vitro fertilization is not a life and death matter and doctors whose religious convictions clearly are against it being available for homosexuals should be exempt of having to provide it to them. Of course in areas that clearly are life and death the Hippocratic Oath needs to be observed regardless of the person’s sexual activity. But there are many instances in the medical realm that need to be evaluated and the line clearly drawn such as with the appropriate ban on blood donations for men who engage in sex with other men, I fear that even in this area there is a push (by gay activist groups) to overturn this practise that have kept free of disease so many lives. The effect of gay marriage permeate in every aspect of the lives of those of us who are not involved in it.
< reaches into bag of Marxist terms >
Uh, isn’t “redefining marriage will change marriage forever” a useless tautology? How does that phrase have any merit in its existence?
So Loveschild… if Doctor didn’t want to provide invitro service to an hetero interracial couple because they don’t feel that races should be mixed you would be ok with that?
Why the fuck is this any different?
Seriously… replace every instance of you spouting “gays are bad” with your own skin color and see how that feels.
Fuck you, you ignorant piece of trash. I am so sick of your bigotry and hatred.
Loveschild, Jesus himself chided those who would put their faith on public display (praying in public, for example) and those who hide behind their faith because they are made uncomfortable by social obligation. He called them hypocrites and charlatans.
But what did that jackass know, anyway? We got babby to save.
That an interesting can of worms. Can a gay doctor refuse to help a religious asshole? How about a doctor who was abused as a child in church, can they refuse to help a priest? Can a KKK doctor refuse a black patient?
@20 “In vitro fertilization is not a life and death matter. ” You’re right, not a life or death matter, more like playing God…. And if your hypethetical religious nut job doctors are so worried about their religious convictions they should stop practicing medicine and just let patients pray until God decides to allow them to have a child.
The scariest part about you Loveschild is that one of your own children may be gay and you wouldn’t even know it. Will you still love that child if that day comes? How much damage do you think you are doing to that child right now? I hope for the sake of your children they have a rational voice they can listen to to counteract your hate.
No-fault divorce has “changed marriage forever” far more than gay marriage ever will. And yet, people still marry, procreation still happens, and the foundation of our republic was not shattered.
The arguments against gay marriage are no more than Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling.
I don’t care what people like Loveschild believe. What I care about is when their faith requires that I also believe what they do.
@ 20. 22 brings up a good point. If you leave stuff like that to the discretion of the doctor, where do you draw the line? Akbar is correct that there are those who find it morally abhorrent to have mixed racial relations; some can even cite religious justification for it. Can a doctor with such beliefs deny in vitro fertilization to such a couple?
What if a fertilization specialist didn’t want to help a heterosexual couple because he believed they led immoral lives?
You see the slippery slope involved? If you don’t allow treatment for everyone, especially on a subject like morals that has no popular consensus, where do you draw the line?
Do you have another example?
27 You cannot compare skin color (something that you cannot hide) with the sexual practices someone chooses to engage in. Get it through your thick skull. akbar fazil’s pigheaded comment stems from ignorance and disrespect of people of color, so it shouldn’t surprise me that you found it good.
@28: Tell that to native americans.
@28 yes, I agree. We should hide ALL marriage and ALL evidence of co-habitation…
ps, most marriages aren’t defined by sexual practices. there’s a lot more involved.
@28 – Get it through your thick skull that you can be gay, and married, and choose not to engage in any particular sexual practices. Would you be opposed to gay marriage if the couple promises to never touch eachother’s swimsuit areas? Being gay is intrinsic to your being, just as race is. You try to justify your position by making it about icky butt sex, but it’s not. It’s about love, you fuckhat, and isn’t that what marriage is supposed to be about?
@28 – YES YOU CAN COMPARE THEM. You are arguing that a doctor can refuse to assist somebody because they morally object to that person’s whatever. So if the doctor says patient X has the mark of Seth and they are unclean, I won’t help them, that is their moral belief and you’re going to be OK with that.
My reaction to the interview was the same as Schmader’s, and it gives me great hope. It feels like the debate has turned a corner and instead of having to defend the idea that we are not abominations, we now only need to express that, since we are not abominations, there are going to have to be some changes. For the first time, when I watched one of these defense of marriage assholes, I felt like saying, “Aww. I know. It totally sucks that after hundreds of years of having your religious ideology match up with the public ideology, you are having to face being a minority. It blows. I’m sorry. But you will make it through this.”
I really can’t take the Christians seriously in any argument. Just think, this weekend they will be celebrating the story that a man, born to a virgin, turned wine into blood and then rose from the dead after being executed. I love Cadbury Creme Eggs and Peeps and all, but seriously, that story sounds fucking absurd to me.
@27
Why not? Unless you think gay people choose to be gay. Which would show you are even more ignorant than your posts imply. And let us not forget, no one, of any color, is born religious, they CHOOSE to believe. So if you want start arguing about choice, let’s start with that one.
Memo to people who argue with Loveschild:
Loveschild [and people like her] don’t believe homosexuality is something you are. They believe it’s something you do. In their minds, it’s not a state of being, it’s just bad behavior. They believe this for cultural/religious reasons and you will never convince them otherwise. So trying to convince them of the validity of civil rights for gays is a non-starter. Better to focus your attention on those who can be reasoned with.
There are certain occupations that require one to selflessly perform one’s job without consideration of personal morality. Doctors, firefighters, police officers, just to name a few. The access to these services is extremely limited, especially in small communities, and it is an implicit condition of accepting one of these jobs that you perform the services for which you have been trained without allowing one’s personal beliefs to affect how you do that job. People in these positions have been given a vast trust by society and to pick and choose who will receive your services based on your own beliefs is to violate that trust. Anyone violating that trust should have their jobs revoked. I don’t think jail time should be involved, but they have clearly violated the terms of their contract with society.
I agree with Schmader’s review and post.
I also agree with SF in SF @ 36.
I also agree with 27 and 32.
Discrimination be it justified by a dislike for a particular ethnicity, sexual oriention, gender identity, or religious affiliation is immoral.
@27:
Tell that to all the light-skinned, narrow-nosed, non-kinky haired blacks who have hidden their true identity and passed for white since the beginning of time.
To paraphrase the great Dan Akroyd
“Loveschild, you ignorant slut.”
I am done arguing with your own ignorance. I recommend everyone else do the same.
She is an ignorant, bigoted woman who hides behind a religion and thinks she is righteous.
“Marriage is public”
Only if you give a shit
Loveschild, you make me so fucking hot. I just want to breed your pooper all night long and eat that sweet pussy of yours all day. Make you suck on my love bone and bark like a bitch in heat. Girl, I want you as my bitch. Every night I jack off about three times thinking of your bearded clam of love.
In Canada same sex partners can get married. No one talks about it anymore. It did not change marriage or ruin anything.
Life goes on. It is a non issue now.
@ 28, remember when I brought up “passing?” Some African Americans did find they could hide it.
But that’s just a silly point and you know it. We’re talking about a condition people are born with – something every credible scientist and psychologist who’s studied homosexuality agrees upon – which is EXACTLY like skin color. It’s something you’re born with and can not control.
Anyway, I’ll take this to mean that you can’t come up with a realistic example of religious persecution. I hope you’ll be big enough to not use that talking point again.
@36
Actually it is biology that shows that to be true. Were homosexuality an innate trait it would be a fatal biological DEFECT that would render those afflicted with it unable to reproduce. That’s just silly. Homosexuality is a behavior people choose to engage in.
(If you look at homosexuality thru history and in other parts of the world today that is very much evident. Historically in cultures that tolerated homosexuality those who engaged in it also had heterosexual relationships. The notion that someone IS homosexual as an identity trait is a post-Stonewall American invention.
@ 36, I’m aware of that. But not engaging her reasonably lets her win on one level – she can go back and add rudeness and disrespect to the list of sins we’re guilty of; thus further justifying her presumed superiority.
When I reason with her, she becomes dismayed because deep down she realizes that we’re right; she becomes angry and insulting so as not to face the truth. It pulls the rug out from under her. If I can’t make her see reason, at least I can show her that I can beat her at her own game.
@ 45, your assertions do not stand up to the simple logic of asking, If it’s just behavior then why do they want to get married? Why is it such an ingrained part of their identities?
Fail.
@36 and 45
Which is also why gay marriage has not come up before. There have been cultures where homosexuality was much more prevalent and totally unquestioned, but none of them established homosexual marriage.
@47 Because they have chosen a dead end path and seek validation from outside themselves. Throughout history people have been cruelly persecuted for race and religion; typically they grow stronger under the pressure and find strength in what they believe/are. It is like the brainwashed kid in Vermont Dan was fawning over, he thinks if he can marry a boy it will prove to the other kids he is just as good. He should know that within himself already. Gays feel compelled to force the rest of society to validate their lifestyle choices.
@ 49, they’ve chosen nothing. It was set. Compassionate humans will already validate that. Persecuting bigots will not.