The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
My husband couldn't get over the light and breezy coverage of Ryan Lochte's mother saying her son has one-night stands. She said this on national television and the media covered it but seemed to have no problem with it. My husband said he feels like up is down. Why, he wonders, do the media revile an athlete like Tim Tebow for attempting to be virtuous but celebrate Lochte for announcing he's not?
One of the things that was so striking about the Million Mouth March (as Jon Stewart called the Chick-fil-A "eat-in") was that it showed that many people strongly believe in things that the media ignore or deliberately hide. They are sick of government overreach and violations of free speech. They are sick of being bullied about same-sex marriage. And they are sick of having traditional values mocked and denigrated. (And, yes, maybe they just like perfectly fried chicken sandwiches.)
The media routinely characterize belief that marriage is sacred -- and that it's a conjugal union, that it should not be dissolved, that it is a blessing if it includes children -- as homophobic or bigoted or retrograde or unloving.
And while that characterization and bullying has been remarkably effective at pushing public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage, at what cost I wonder? This week has been very difficult for activists who support same-sex marriage. Here are three examples:
A mainstream media reporter published on his public Facebook page all sorts of things. Typical stuff -- his hatred for Mitt Romney. His strong support of Barack Obama. His belief that the HHS mandate is no big deal. His hatred for Chick-fil-A. But then it turned out that he was covering the Chick-fil-A eat-in for his paper. He put on Facebook that he'd never felt as much like an alien in his country as he did that day. He claimed he saw things that differed greatly from other reports around the country. He claimed that people were racist, homophobic and speaking ill of immigrants (but that when he asked for their names, they conveniently declined). He went on to mock the protesters for taking "such a brave stand ... eating a [expletive] sandwich." The comment thread to his post is full of people mocking rednecks and Christians and FoxNews. They plot how to physically attack Chick-fil-A locations, etc.
His editor got wind of the very public meltdown and reprimanded him.
Or what about the bully who went after a Chick-fil-A drive-thru worker and then, inexplicably, posted his boorish behavior on the internet for all to see? His employer also reprimanded him. Actually, his employer fired him. He was an executive at the company and had reflected poorly on it.
When I wrote about my experience at Chick-fil-A and media coverage of same, many of my readers expressed dismay that the media could cover it as anything other than bigoted jerks who seethe with hatred for their fellow man. To them it was self-evident. Take this note from a leftist site that a reader posted to show me how awful I was. A lesbian in Tucson drove by an insanely crowded Chick-fil-A and recorded the following reaction:
My reaction surprised me. It felt like all those people—young men in pickup trucks, moms with kids, older couples—were stepping on my chest. It felt like hidden bigotry had come out to make itself known. It felt like hatred and rejection. It felt like go home, you’re not wanted here. My response was visceral. My gut ached, a sob caught in my throat, and my eyes welled up with tears. I couldn’t drive away fast enough. And I’m not a person who cries easily, at least not usually, but I cried all the way home. Just those couple of minutes of seeing how many people are anti-gay, anti-me, hurt more than I could have ever expected.
All of these stories sadden me, even if I can find errors with the thinking or behavior of each of them. Each, in their own way, clearly indicate confusion about who their fellow Americans are and what they believe.
But I place most of the blame the media and the cultural elite.
If it is true that believing marriage is the conjugal union of one man and one wife is bigoted, the equivalent to the most vile racists of the past centuries, then it makes sense to react in the way the reporter, the recently fired corporate executive and the lesbian passer-by did.
If the idea that marriage is the conjugal union of man and wife is bigotry -- and the mainstream media and the cultural elite have pounded this view non-stop for years (here's the latest example of the accompanying holier-than-thou pietism with which the view is pushed) -- then you should respond by tormenting drive-thru workers who are part of the bigotry-industrial complex. You should speak ill of people who hold this view on Facebook. Often! You should feel like eating a chicken sandwich was about people putting their boot on your chest.
The thing is, though, that it's not. And the media and the cultural elite have been lying. And they have gotten us to a place where people are unable to just be civil to each other (one Ricochet member mentioned he recently got kicked out of his fantasy football league for supporting Chick-fil-A).
When I first began covering this issue -- back when California was deciding Prop. 8 -- I was shocked to learn that what the media had told me was wrong. When I interviewed people who supported Prop. 8, I found that they were eminently calm and reasonable. Their arguments did take a while to learn, but they were able to be learned.
These people explained why marriage law exists and what it is designed to protect. They explained why they viewed a change to those laws as seriously misguided. They pointed out some of the logical conclusions to changing the definition of marriage.
Now, you may agree or disagree with what they have to say (and to learn more about what they say, I think this paper is easy to read and digest), but it's not bigotry. And it is a scurrilous indefensible charge to say otherwise.
If our country is to work through these debates about what marriage is and what it should be, we simply must devote ourselves to listening to arguments and thinking things through. It is impossible to do that when we dismiss supporters of traditional marriage as bigots.
It is time to start talking about what marriage is without charging people with bigotry. Some people believe that marriage is the conjugal union of a man and woman who make permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, based on their gender differences and built around conjugal acts -- those acts that naturally lead to reproduction and unite them as a reproductive unit. Other people believe that marriage is the union of two people of any sex who commit to romantically love and care for each other and share domestic burdens.
Marriage law built on either view will have consequences that are far-reaching. We probably haven't even touched the surface of what those consequences might be. And we will never be able to think these things through rationally and calmly if we denounce one or the other view as unfit for public discussion.
Many of us are tired of cultural battles. Unfortunately, tiring of them doesn't do much to help us resolve them. So when we discuss these things, and we must, let's discuss them in a spirit of love and charity. And let's encourage others to do likewise.
-- If you liked this post and want to join the conversation on it, click here to sign up for a One-Month Free Trial Offer. --
- Comment (165)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
The left doesn't want a dialogue about gay marriage. They know they'll lose by a wide margin (as per every referendum on the issue including Proposition 8 in California). The bigotry accusation is designed to truncate and stop the debate. The gambit has the additional advantage in keeping the liberal base energized so they can be shaken down for campaign contributions. This is precisely what BHO was up to when he announced his support for gay marriage. Cynical? You bet!
Apr '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Don't hold your breath over this Mollie. Maybe on Ricochet there can be a debate about the nature of marriage that doesn't descend into to melodramatic hysterics, but sadly too many people make their living off of these hysterics. In any forum the level of debate will sink to the lowest common denominator, and as Jerry Springer taught us the lowest common denominator packs in the rattings.
Jul '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
I would absolutely love to lower the tone on this issue--and many others. As a gay Republican who supports marriage equality but generally supports a conservative agenda at the same time, I'm called all sorts of interesting things by people on either side, and none of it helps. It doesn't change minds to attack. The only way to change minds is to discuss and be willing to accept that someone else may disagree with you. I cannot defend the response of most of the gay community to people opposed to same-sex marriage; we have not as a group handled it as well as we could. The only explanation I can offer is that for gay people, it's very hard for us to avoid seeing the debate simply: either we are equal citizens and human beings...or we or not. There's not a lot of gray area. And seeing things that way, which will not change, makes it hard to see anyone opposed to marriage equality as anything but misguided or outright malicious. We both know that's not true...but I don't think it's hard to see how we get there.
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
I believe this cultural battle was hurt by using religion as part of the argument: God says homosexuals are unnatural, marriage is only between a man and a woman as it says in the Bible, etc. Limiting marriage to only between a man and woman should be argued along the "promotion of society and continuation of the community" line.
I suppose the conjugal union (leading to reproductive unit) argument could be twisted when considering infertile couples. Should you deny a marriage certificate to a woman who is post-menopause and/or an impotent man? We as a society have to draw a line in the sand or we'll find ourselves sinking into the bog.
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Yes, we are tired of battling the amoral liberal establishment, but we have to keep it up. Because the left is clearly projecting for the world it's inner ugliness and totalitarian tendencies, they have become our best weapon. They are becoming more and more shrill and brittle. For the first time in my life I think Gandhi-like behavior will eventually win the day. Refusing to give in and refusing to take the bait. Eventually they will burn themselves up. It may take a decade, but we can win in the end.
Jul '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Paules, I definitely agree that the cynicism of most politicians on this issue is sickening, especially the President. I'm less certain that referendum's will continue to go the way they have, though. The polling in Washington, Maine, and Maryland seem to point the opposite way this year, and if the state senate in New Jersey gives in and allows Christie a referendum on the issue, even he believes it will pass. It's possible that the threat of financial collapse is leading people to realize that this isn't an issue that threatens our very survival and that perhaps we should all try to calm down a bit and focus on things that actually will impact each and every one of us. At the end of the day, I remain convinced that my ability to marry...will only impact me and whomever the unlucky fella turns out to be...
Aug '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
I like your whole post. It is very thoughtfully spoken. I edited it only so I could respond. I think the tone is the hard thing to manage. Many Christians may never learned how to really talk about the issue of homosexuality (I say this as a Christian) and the issue became a flashpoint issue quickly. Now it isn't just about discovering how to open lines of communication, it's also dealing with charges of bigotry and such. It's frustrating because real people are involved on both sides of the issue.
But it's hard to want to find common ground with someone who calls you a bigot, and why have such common ground anyways? That's the issue with the tone. Also, today, I think people in general don't know how to discuss these political, philosophical and emotional issues. "Whats your theory on this?" People won't have answer. It will just be "feelings." Feelings are important, but they have to sometimes be tempered by reason.
Dec '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
I wrote a paper about the debate in school. It has a lot of good references for both sides of the argument. I'll see if I can find it when I get home and put it up on googledocs. I need to review the information in it since this issue has more lives than a cat.
May '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Jonathan, You are equal human beings and citizens and have the equal right to marry. A member of the opposite sex. That is the historic and current definition of the term. Are you really willing to overturn that foundational building block of society?
As far as infertile couples and such, which Spud mentions, checking on fertility is far too invasive. In fact, checking whether people are following through on the conjugal union stuff is too invasive. A faithful, opposite sex, married couple models proper behavior and that's all that really matters.
Related to that, how will the pro homosex union people control whether people who aren't "in love" but just want to marry to get benefits--say, two female long term roommates sharing expenses? Would you expand the definition of marriage to include them? What then of two spinster sisters? Or a brother and sister? Where do you draw the line once it's crossed?
BTW, much of the objection to homosexuality is not to the behind closed doors activity, but to the pride about it. Really? That's your defining activity?
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Ask them the logical basis for limiting it to just two people. Hint: There is none. Nor is there a logical basis for limiting it by species, for that matter.
But that will get us to the key issue: what is the State’s interest in marriage? It legitimately is only the natural reproduction of citizens … future generations to “share domestic burdens” of the Nation State. The private domestic bliss of adults is for those adults to sort out on their own. So we should resist Government encroachment into matters that lack a compelling public component. If marriage is redefined the way some Gay activists want, then marriage no longer should be regulated by or through the State. I’m OK with that … let marriage revert to a matter between individuals and their church or whatever other organization they freely associate with.
Apr '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Regardless of the topic or which side a person stands on, I think the only hope of ever persuading someone to change their mind is through reason. I doubt that many people have changed their mind on abortion, homosexuality, racism, drug policy, warfare, or whatever simply because someone has called them an unpleasant name at high volume or in all capital letters. If the yelling worked, would everybody not have already left the Republican party because we're tired of being called racists?
Mar '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Mollie, I agree heartily with what you’ve said above. And yet, I’m immediately confronted with a difficulty. Perhaps you’ve experienced the same thing.
While Prof. George et al.—and many others before them, and many others good folks alongside —are making a genuine, profound, and intellectually rigorous argument that draws on a long tradition of Catholic teaching and applies the reasoning and doctrines of natural law, I cannot help but notice that there are other people who are not making an argument in this rigorous and consistent manner. In fact, there are some who are not making an argumentat all, so much has hiding behind the cover of one.
I refuse to pretend that those are the same thing.
This isn’t a simple problem, and it isn't confined to only this issue. Just because WFB was making prescient, incisive criticisms of aspects of the civil rights movement and the 1964 legislation hardly means that others who did so were doing so for his reasons.
How do we make that admission and still make headway in this debate? Can any headway be made in the spirit in which Mollie enjoins without first making that admission candidly?
Jun '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Sorry, Mollie, it is quite simply impossible to have a discussion when Side A believes that Side B is well-meaning but mistaken, but Side B sincerely believes that Side A is evil and quite possibly subhuman.
Side A are the conservatives. Side B are the lefties.
A dialogue between the two is impossible.
Aug '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the whole thing where people who say "marriage should be between a man and a woman" are called names and such-- this belief now has very high social costs in many areas of society. People may just be inclined to throw their hands up and be silent. Would you risk tenure someplace to engage in this debate? or would you just drink your coffee when it came up? Given that people probably won't change their minds too much? In that sense, it's a powerful tool to pressure people.
Dec '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
It ain't happening. You can preach to the Ricochet choir all day, but liberals simply will not engage in this kind of argument. They don't debate. Lowering the volume is the opposite of what they want.
Sep '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Jonathan Matthew Gilbert: ...
I'm less certain that referendum's will continue to go the way they have, though. The polling in Washington, Maine, and Maryland seem to point the opposite way this year...
You are almost certainly correct on the trend. I'm sorry you're caught in the middle of this bitter fight in the meantime.
A calm discussion of the issues would be refreshing, but it seems unlikely. If we had such a discussion, I'm convinced that a reasonable accommodation could be made that would leave most people happy.
The fact that this issue is so large in the national discourse is a sign that either
- the media are too lazy or incompetent to cover real issues that have a significant effect on the lives of most Americans or
- people have way too much time on their hands.
Let's face it: whether or not same-sex marriage is legal has zero practical effect on the vast majority and a large effect on a few percent of the population. Aren't there more important issues to discuss like, say, the role of government in our lives? This affects everyone, and not in a small way.
Mar '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Unfortunately, most never get beyond the superficial on this (or any other) topic.
The gay marriage debate generally boils down to something like:
How can such an argument be resolved? It can't and that's the point. For the left, this isn't a argument to be won. This is one of a thousand chisels chipping away at the capitalist system.
We need to stop taking the superficial bait and focus on the real meat.
Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Find that fella, settle down, have a happy life. Why do you need to wrap that domestic tranquility with an ancient term that represents a particular bond which does not now and never has had anything at all to do with same sex attraction? I don't feel compelled to call my (opposite sex) marriage by some other term with which it has no connection. I have trouble seeing why you'd want a false association in the first place. Isn't this really about you wanting me to think differently about homosexuality? But, of course, you don't actually know how I think about homosexuality. I guess I'm not quite ready to concede that you get to use the power of the State to force me to think a certain way. How about you persuade me in some other way? You might find that I don't think it's any of my business what you do in private with a consenting adult.
May '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Exactly. Screaming cries of racism, homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, etc. is one of the cheapest and sleaziest tactics to end the debate, not further it. Conservatives need to call the Left out on these tactics by repeating just what I wrote and stay focused upon the discussion. In fact, I don't think Conservatives call out the Left on their moral bankruptcy enough. It's almost as if Conservatives (or rather Republicans) are afraid to challenge Feminists, the Homosex movement, Islamofascists, and other aberrant Leftist ideologies when these groups are morally bankrupt and easily refuted.
Dec '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
I have been in favor of gay marriage for 20 years or so, pretty much every since the issue was first seriously raised to me. I've always known this was a sensitive issue, and one that, if it were to prevail, would take a long time and a lot of persuasion, and that it must be accepted by the majority of society to be successful (which is why I never liked the courtroom as a venue to implement it). It needed healthy and vigourous debate so that the right side (whichever it might be - I am always willing to concede I might be wrong) wins out. But now it turns out people who are against gay marriage are hateful bigots. Wasn't like that 20 years ago, or even 2 years ago. I have watched lefties try to defend the Chik-Fil-A protests with incoherent outrageous illogic. There was no need for this to become the spectacle that it has. The pro-gay-marriage side forced this into the public eye, specifically the politicians who thought it was a matter for the government to weigh in on. Just absolutely shameful and in no way helpful to the cause.