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
Excellent, and thoughtful, post.
Here's my view. I oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons, but also on the basis of the non-religious "conjugal marriage" theory articulated by Princeton professor Robert George and his colleagues. Here.
I live in a red, religious state so I rarely argue with anyone about the subject. But when I do, I try to respect the other person's point of view (assuming it's not just a bunch of ad hominem attacks).
It behooves all of us understand our arguments and then stand our ground on them. Ironically, as Paules pointed out above, the other side, for the most part, doesn't want civil debate. They want to shove it down the country's throat. All the more reason to remain calm, reasonable, but unflinching.
I mentioned on another thread that today's "kiss-in" may make the other side feel good, but it is a horrendously misguided tactic. Do you really win when you purposely offend others? [That applies to a male and female making out at a Chick-fil-A as well]. It won't make friends and influence people.
Mar '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Without a doubt.
But this only begs the question that I was pointing to in an earlier post. Just because the Left have disgustingly weaponized slurs like "racist" to tar anything they disagree with and refuse to engage with on the basis of reason doesn't mean that there aren't people who are actually racists.
When we confront an argument which is intellectually rigorous, it deserves to be addressed in the same manner and tone, and not condemned as some thought-crime by a bunch of brown-shirt lock-step Lefties.
But when we confront an attitude that is trying to pretend, for nice company, that it merely agrees with an argument and nothing more, but which, under the surface, is something altogether different and which will, in time, reveal itself to be much uglier--we have to be willing to put our own house in order and call a spade a spade.
Jul '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Caryn, are you offering? You really think it's a good idea for me to marry a woman? Of course I'm willing to overturn it. I want to marry the man I'm in love with. As presumably, you want to do or maybe already have done. Insisting that you can do so and that I cannot tells me that in your eyes, we are unequal. This is part of why the debate has become so unhinged. You don't even realize that you're insulting my dignity as you do it.
I'm not sure the government should be in the business of limiting consensual private behavior period and I wonder sometimes if they should only issue civil unions for everyone, gay or straight, but I personally limit marriage to romantic love and commitment, not roommates.
My gayness defines me as much as my conservatism, skin color, profession, education, and delightful southern heritage.
Dec '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Turkey ham is not ham. Non-dairy creamer is not cream. Margarine is not butter. People can argue these maybe better but why can't people agree these things are different. Can not people understand a knock-off from an original?
May '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
I separate the License & Civil Union from the Holy Union: one is legally binding and taken before Secular authorities (who also offer loopholes just in case I want out of the the arrangement later), and the other is morally binding and taken before God and a Community of the (Hopefully - God only knows we are not also so) Faithful. Both Secular and Sacred authorities get to decide who can take those vows, and neither has to offer anyone they don't want to the opportunity to do so.
Which means I don't see why anyone should be arguing about this
But that's me.
I can even see a distinction between me paying for an Abortion (which I won't do) and someone else paying for it. I think there are Health & Safety issue to be sorted out, but past that, Abortion is one of those Hells that individuals get to choose enter into.
There are Hells we go into (relatively) alone, and Hells we drag every one around us into. It is the latter Hell I would legislate against, the former merely Preach against.
Sometimes people want life to be too simple - and make it worse.
Jul '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
You make some very good points, to which I can really only say two words: federal benefits. Either I'm as equal of a citizen as you are...or I'm not. The word marriage isn't a huge concern to me, but being treated on paper the same way as every other tax-paying American is.
HVTs
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?
May '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Agreed. However, the danger is that by allowing the Left to dominate and control the debate, people who disagree are left with no alternative place or forum to confront the issue other than with real racists, etc. thereby giving these groups support and legitimacy they never would have otherwise gotten.
IMO, one of the prime reasons the British Nationalist Party(as are other fascist political groups across Europe) is in ascendance is because the Left silenced the debate over the legitimate concerns of immigration and Islam. Under Tony Blair & ZaNu-Labour rule, any criticism was deemed 'racism', 'Islamophobia', etc. Consequently, the British public was really left with no alternative except the fascist xenophobic BNP. No one else had articulated a position that even bothered to address their concerns seriously except the BNP. ZaNU-Labour was too busy using political correctness as a whacking stick to bother noticing that their audience walked away into the arms of the BNP.
Edited on August 3, 2012 at 8:14pmApr '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Goldgeller
I wouldn't be so sure about that. . . . 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. · 16 minutes ago
I don't claim that the name-calling can't shut people up, I'm saying that it won't change people's minds. I know people who know better than to use the infamous N-word in public because they don't want to be called racists by people they don't know. But they will happily explain their theories of racial superiority in private. There are people who used to be racists and no longer think that way. But I believe they were persuaded by logic, not by name-calling. Maybe I'm naive, though.
May '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
If you think it's heated now, just wait until more gay couples move from states like California and Massachusetts to states like Texas and Alabama. Just because a government calls it marriage doesn't mean individual citizens will.
Religion is, first and foremost, a defined perception of reality. It describes what we believe the world is and how it works at a fundamental level. To exclude theological references from an argument is like excluding references to geology or psychology. No source of knowledge is irrelevant when debating truth.
A true Christian can't ignore our Creator's words any more than he can ignore legal requirements. Whether or not we talk about them, we are subject to them. Religion cannot simultaneously be central to a person's life and irrelevant to how that person conducts his or her life in public.
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Jonathan Matthew Gilbert: You make some very good points, to which I can really only say two words: federal benefits. Either I'm as equal of a citizen as you are...or I'm not. The word marriage isn't a huge concern to me, but being treated on paper the same way as every other tax-paying American is.
HVTs
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?
The Feds give a mortgage interest deduction to encourage home ownership. Tax benefits for marriage are to encourage child-producing, child-rearing families, for a future as economically and socially healthy and abundant as the present. Do we really want Government tax policy encouraging specific forms of sexual attraction? Concerning that specific human trait, I think we'll be better off if we leave Uncle Sam on the sideline, don't you?
Jul '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
This isn't about equal rights, and it never has been. If it were, civil unions which provide all of the same benefits under law, would be enough. Wanting the imprimatur of the word marriage is about legitimating homosexuality. One side sees it as perversion; the other sees it as normal. That pretty much kills any chance at discussion at the outset.
Feb '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
I agree with you about the importance of preserving marriage, Mollie, but I disagree on the method. The Left's mindless tactic of screaming bigotry where there is only disagreement, works: it intimidates opponents into silence and attracts undecided voters through a (specious) show of strength.
But have you heard the Left use the epithet "fascist" very often? I haven't, even though I used to hear it constantly. Why is that? I think it's because Jonah Goldberg wrote a bestseller pointing out that liberals have a lot more in common with fascism than conservatives, and he did not shirk from entitling the book Liberal Fascism.
I suggest that, without abandoning civility, conservatives respond to charges of bigotry with charges of bigotry of their own. We're bigoted against homosexuals? No, but you're bigoted against children (who do much worse on average in non-traditional families). We hate lesbians? No, but you despise women in general (who suffer much more poverty, abuse, and emotional difficulty outside traditional marriage).
(We might also dare ask why the Left is so racist: after leftist policies have destroyed the black family, the Left wants to make things even worse for those families.)
Edited on August 3, 2012 at 8:33pmJul '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Aaron Miller: If you think it's heated now, just wait until more gay couples move from states like California and Massachusetts to states like Texas and Alabama. Just because a government calls it marriage doesn't mean individual citizens will.
Religion is, first and foremost, a defined perception of reality. It describes what we believe the world is and how it works at a fundamental level. To exclude theological references from an argument is like excluding references to geology or psychology. No source of knowledge is irrelevant when debating truth.
A true Christian can't ignore our Creator's words any more than he can ignore legal requirements. Whether or not we talk about them, we are subject to them. Religion cannot simultaneously be central to a person's life and irrelevant to how that person conducts his or her life in public. · 9 minutes ago
Sadly, you've just described much of Western culture today: paying lip service to a form of religion but not living out what they espouse to believe.
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
That is a simple way of viewing the issue, but the actual disagreement here precedes debates about homosexuality or equal rights. Before we get to whether preserving traditional marriage amounts to a violation of equal rights, we must first decide what marriage even is, whether the public has an interest in it, and how the public should act (or not act) on that interest. See here for just one of the many, many Ricochet posts addressing this very issue.
Apr '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
This, like Life and guns, is an issue where we win by winning. When you have the momentum, you get to pick your battles. It's much harder to defend partial birth abortions, or abortions that cause pain to infants than expanded access for poor women. Because of Bush's success, in particular, we have public support for more.
Right now, we have a battle of two bigotries. There's the hateful homophobes, and the hateful LGBT activists. If the focus is on the SS couples getting married, we have a tough debate; SSM clearly benefits many of the couples directly impacted. If the focus is on the victims of thuggery, we have a pretty easy debate.
The SCOTUS will rule, eventually, that the US Constitution does not mandate SSM (unless there's an additional Obama appointee or two, in which case game over). This should end the judicial advance, leaving only legislative fights.
Mar '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Jim, you've adumbrated something really important here, and it is something that Leftists, in their hasty self-righteousness, are completely unconcerned with. They don't even realize that they undermine their own purposes and the values they claim to defend by their thoughtlessness and impatience.
When you demonize and marginalize legitimate arguments and concerns out of the public sphere, you strengthen the hand of the most virulent forms of these criticisms. And those forces are often unconcerned with the niceties of peace or the public good in their pursuits.
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
I don't think this is a left/right thing. The debates we've had right here on Ricochet should be enough to prove that. Hardly many lefties on this site.
Jul '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Perhaps we would be better off if Uncle Sam stayed out of it...but as long as he's in your business, he better be in mine or else something inherent to my identity (as science increasingly tells us) is making me a second class of citizen, and simply because some people's religious interpretations tell them that's all right. Which...isn't really who we as a people and a nation are supposed to be about.
Beyond that, as I think the most compelling cases against DOMA make clear, the issue is becoming confused enough state to state that a federal policy evaluation is necessary.
HVTs
The Feds give a mortgage interest deduction to encourage home ownership. Tax benefits for marriage are to encourage child-producing, child-rearing families, for a future as economically and socially healthy and abundant as the present. Do we really want Government tax policy encouraging specific forms of sexual attraction? Concerning that specific human trait, I think we'll be better off if we leave Uncle Sam on the sideline, don't you? · 4 minutes ago
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
I confess I don't really have strong views about gay marriage.
But it's my take that gay-marriage advocates essentially won nearly everything they wanted with civil unions. They had whatever legal benefits they imagined from marriage, and opponents could say there was no gay marriage. Win-win baby.
But no- gay marriage advocates needed the full, finger-in-the-eye victory over their opponents with no compromise acceptable.
So I don't think this is about gay marriage as much as it's about the left putting what they believe are loathsome dimbulb Jesus-freaks in their place at the bottom of the social heap.
Hence should gay-marriage advocates ever win- either through the ballot box or through the courts- I figure that immediately we'd be inundated with endless sob stories about poor put-upon polygamists.
Their goal isn't gay marriage per se- it's the destruction of American society so it can be reconstructed as they choose.
I oppose this. So I also oppose gay marriage. End of story.
Edited on August 4, 2012 at 12:44amFeb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
HVTs
.....
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. · 1 hour ago
I might be ok with that scenario too, but that is nowhere near the table when it comes to this debate. The debate is between either expanding the current "official" marriage regime to include additional relationships or leaving it as it is now.