Guided by two unnamed exgay activists, Minnesota state senator Michele Bachmann vowed Apr. 8 to win a constitutional ban against gay unions.
Bachmann told them (opponents of a ban), as she has said before, that they can get married just like anyone else — but they have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Evidently, some exgays and their politicians take it for granted that marriages can or should be sexless.
I keep hearing this “oh well you CAN get married” bla bla bla. It’s just plain insulting.
I agree, one of the most insulting comments I have heard. It shows pretty clearly that the other party involved has no desire to empathize with gay people. How Christianly…
This harsh simple substitution, yet has existed before the 1960s is what I think about this kind of idiotic statement:
“Bachmann told them (opponents of a ban), as she has said before, that [negroes] can get married just like anyone else — but they have to marry someone of the [same race].”
“Bachmann told them (opponents of a ban), as she has said before, that [negroes] can get married just like anyone else — but they have to marry someone of the [same race].”
XENO,
Your use of this “simple substitution” doesnt prove your argument but rather disproves it. The racists of the 60s had no problem with blacks marrying people of the same race. It was just the opposite. Your substitution would only be applicable if the racists did NOT want people of the same race to marry. You would have to argue that to be applicable to same sex marriage, racists would have demanded that blacks marry someone of the opposite race.
Of course they didnt, which highlights why many African Americans deeply resent white gay comparisons to black civil rights by making broad platitudes about interracial marriage.
You may think Bachmann who doesnt get it, but its really you who havent “got it” yet. Please stop trying to use the race card to shore up your demands for special rights. As the dearly departed black attorney Johnny Cochran said,”It if don’t fit, you must aquit.”
Xeno, it dont fit.
Mr. Foster:
Your post makes no sense, because you are failing to get the point. When interracial marriages were first legalized nationwide by the US Supreme Court, racists did not want any mixing between those of different races. They argued that anti-miscegenation laws didn’t violate rights because blacks could still marry blacks, and whites marry whites, so everyone could still get married – not to the person of their choice, necessarily, but to someone.
That is the exact same argument that anti-gay bigots use to deny us our civil rights. Gays and lesbians can get married, but only to people of the opposite gender. That, of course, is a meaningless “right” to have, as being able to enter a false marriage is not exactly what we have in mind, nor is it good for society.
As for the “race card” – the struggle for the equality, for the humanity really, of gays and lesbians is directly comparable to the struggle for equality of people of color. In the beginning of the 20th century, people of color were legally barred from full participation in society. It took a host of brave and courageous people, including at least one gay man, Bayard Rustin, to fight those laws.
In a similar manner, during the 20th century, gays were barred from working for the federal government, from assembling in groups, from eating in restaurants or going to bars, even from publishing information about our lives. Thanks to a series of Supreme and federal court rulings, gays and lesbians have been gradually recognized as human beings with the same rights as all other human beings – including the right to believe that we are decent and honorable citizens.
Unfortunately there are still people in America who believe it is entirely appropriate to violate basic American values and condemn all gay people without the benefit of judge or jury. We are collectively guilty of horrible crimes, according to the anti-gay right, including the alleged destruction of our own civilization (because we want the right to have have the lives we build together valued by the government).
Thank God there are still some more reasonable people in this country who reject such prejudice and bigotry. Just as Orthodox Jews have no right to demand the rest of us not eat BLTs, conservative “Christians” (who IMHO follow an immoral and invalid perversion of Christianity) have no right to demand that innocent, tax-paying, gays and lesbians live in isolation and shame.
I do get the point XENO was attempting to make, but superimposing it over interracial marriage as a means to justify said point, is completely illogical.
It appears that homosexuals simply cannot deploy a believable argument about their own quest for marriage without trying cite the struggles of black people as a precedent.
Its very clear,the denial of interracial marriage was not about the sexual habits of the black man/white woman or vice versa but the humanity of the black man/white woman.
Recognizing and fighting for basic human rights is an honorable goal. The problem America faces is determining what constitutes basic rights. Its my contention that marriage whether homosexual or heterosexual is not an intrinsic basic right, but a privelege to those who comply with the standards of community progression.
For the record, I believe basic rights include employment, housing, association and speech. Those are human rights regardless of your sexual choices.
Of course, I am well aware that most gay activists dont feel this way. And they are entitled to push for change in those areas of disagreement. But I have an equal right to fight your push to change the standards. In a word, this is America and the American way.
It doesnt make me a conservative nor does it make you a liberal, it makes us true Americans. Hence my support of amending every state constitution and the US constitution to ensure that homosexuality marriage dies in America. Its not an “exgay” issue as MIkeA tries to make, but an American issue. Quote me on that.
DL Foster:
Re: “Its my contention that marriage (is)…a privelege to those who comply with the standards of community progression.”
Three questions:
1) How do you define “community progression”?
2) On that standard, what is it about me personally that does not comply with the standards of community progression?
3) On that standard, what is it about Britney Spears that comply with the standards of community progression?
And please, since you brought it up, it would be especially helpful if you could frame your response not in terms of sexual habits of the gays men/gay women but the humanity of gay men and gay women (to paraphrase your distinction vis-a-vis the mixed-race marrage analogy).
Your comment sounds logical to me, Xeno.
DL Foster’s rebuttal made my head hurt.
Foster’s comments, I think, are a good example of what happens when logic starts going someplace the fundamentalist mind doesn’t want it to go. It always turns into something along the lines of “Your logical conclusion is offensive to a particular article of my faith. Therefore, you’re wrong.”
Its my contention that marriage whether homosexual or heterosexual is not an intrinsic basic right, but a privelege to those who comply with the standards of community progression.
Which is why convicted murderers (the Menendez brothers in CA) and child molesters (defrocked priest John Porter [James Porter?] in MA) can get married while still in prison – right?
Apparently criminals retain this “privelege” no matter how heinous or evil their crime (I believe the Supreme Court has actually ruled this way)while faggots and dykes, being the subhuman trash we are, can have our rights thrown to the whims of mob rule. Interesting.
If the public at large gets to approve or disapprove specific types of marriages based on their own “values” then why stop with gay people? Why don’t we put J-Ho’s next “marriage” (she’ on her 3rd or her 5th, depending on whether you count broken engagements or not) to a public test? I think she’d fail.
And for that matter, why are Roman Catholics, who believe that remarriage after divorce is a sin that gets you sent straight to hell, forced to pay for health and other benefits for people like Senator Elizabeth Dole, who is living a life of mortal sin?
Being an American means more than having freedom of speech, Mr. Foster, it also means allowing people to live according to their own religious/ethical/moral beliefs, as long as they are not hurting anyone else, no matter how invalid, immoral or offensive we might find those beliefs. Thus Christians must accept the basic humanity and value of the lives of those who choose religions that reject the divinity of the rabbi named Jesus, and I personally have to accept that those who have chosen the evangelical lifestyle, despite the fact they risk hell for their false beliefs, have a right to live that lifestyle.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander Mr. Foster – but you don’t really want us at the meal, do you?
I’ve got a blog dedicated to retiring Michele Bachmann from the legislature, and to stop her from any future political career.
Let me address all of my detractors in one post for the sake of orderliness.
First, Mr. Burroway,
I suggest you read my testimony before the Georgia Senate hearing committee.
Senate Testimony
It should answer your questions regarding community progression and the standards thereof.
Re Question #2: This seems a rather strange request seeing as how I do not know you personally.
Ditto on Question #3.
Are you suggesting that the sexual habits of “gay” men and women have nothing to do with their gay identities? Is that why you want the response framed in such a manner?
Next to Mr. Doom,
You say my post makes no sense, then you proceed with multiple keystrokes of jeremiadism. Which, by the way, offers nothing constructive to the exchange of progressive ideals. I’m quite curious Mr. Doom, exactly what qualifies you to make such definitive statements on the SC, interracial marriage and racists? And what decides that your version of the story is more credible than mine. I would suggest simple perspective. Unless you want to post your credentials.
You,TA and kurtt continue alluding to a religious argument (faith, Christian, etc) that I have not brought up. Now IF you want to talk religion simply say so. But I spoke here of American principles, not Biblical suppositions. Which did you want to explore? Perhaps you cannot distinguish which is more applicable to discussions about homosexual marriage in America.
Finally to kurt t,
About your perjorative use of the word fundamentalist [ism]. Fundamentalism is a point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views.
Are you willing to embrace change for homosexuals? Are you tolerant of exgays? Christians who believe in traditional marriage? If not, you are a fundamentalist and by extension a bigot. [One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics, sexual orientation,etc and is intolerant of those who differ.]
Re: Question #2: This seems a rather strange request seeing as how I do not know you personally. Ditto on Question #3.
This is exactly my point, particularly since you did not provide a definition of “standards of community progression”. I could only guess what you meant by that.
Re: “You,TA and kurtt continue alluding to a religious argument (faith, Christian, etc) that I have not brought up.”
Ah, but you see, when you quickly brushed aside my questions and asked me to read your link, you did exactly that. Your entire defense is based on, in your very own words (including capitalization), the Authority of God.
Now that I have read your testimony, I understand the basis of your standard. It is not one of “community progression” (in fact, nothing approximating that phrase can be found in your posted testimony), but your religious belief that God ordained marriage between man and a woman.
These are interesting and perfectly valid theological concepts, as far as I am concerned. I respect them and have no interest whatsoever in trying to change theology. The Catholic church can recognize and keep its sacrament of marriage in whatever way they see fit. They refuse to recognize divorce, ignoring civil laws on the matter, and no civil authority can make them change their position. Protestant churches can recognize marriage however way they see fit. I no more want to change a religion’s rules for marriage any more than I would want to change a religion’s rules for baptism, communion, or ordination.
However, we are talking about the law, not religion, and we are talking about some pretty fundamental decisions that people make for and with their spouses and children. Except some people are permanently barred by law from seeing their decisions respected. A lesbian cannot even claim her lover’s body from the coroner in some states, no matter how many powers of attorney and other legal documents she may have.
You posed your defense of your position on some sort of standard of community progression. In avoiding my questions, you suddenly switched your standard to a religious one. Since I don’t share your faith, I can’t address that argument. But if you wish to remain consistent in your arguments, I would respectfully ask you again to provide a definition of “standards of community progression”, and how they relate to me, Britney Spears, and yes, now that CPT Doom brings it up, convicted felons.
I left something out:
Re “Are you suggesting that the sexual habits of “gay” men and women have nothing to do with their gay identities? Is that why you want the response framed in such a manner?”
I only suggest that effective arguments are consistent arguments. You rightfully pointed out that the ban on interracial marriage has nothing to do with the sexual habits of the couples involved, but their very humanity. In the spirit of consistency, I would point out that sexual habits have nothing to do with gays and lesbians making lifetime commitments to love and honor each other. When you correctly denounce the idea that sexual habits was the basis for denying interracial marriage, I would ask that you be consistent in addressing gay marriage in terms of the couple’s humanity as well. It’s only fair.
Nobody, gay or straight, needs marriage to fulfill their sexual habits, as we all well know — and as every teenager knows all too well. I only ask that we keep the discussion focused on marriage and keep it on a consistent plane.
Mr. Burroway, surely you jest. From my statement…
“I must speak to the false notion that people are what make marriage perfect. This is untrue. Standards remain in place regardless of if any of us can reach or attain it. It is set high purposely to produce the best results in the human family. Some have drudged up personal information on legislators who have had the courage to stand up and defend traditional marriage and held this man’s marriage failure as proof of hypocritical discrimination. However, all it proves is that we have all had our failures, whether intentional or mistaken, but that is no justification for changing the standard of marriage. For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part, marriage should remain between one man and one woman. Please do not change the standards.”
Now, if I should have to explain that to you, I would first have to question your level of understanding.
Secondly, why provide you with a definition? As you did in your rebuttal of the Christianity Today article (and I suspect others), you will simply dismiss it as “circular logic”. Please, let’s be mature.
There is no law or public policy I’m aware of which states that one citizen must personally know another before they can engage in issue advocacy. So your premise/point is irrelevant. You should be more interested in discussion, not trite, linguistical set-ups.
You err. I suggest you not scan, but read slowly. Here’s what I said in context: You,TA and kurtt continue alluding to a religious argument (faith, Christian, etc) that I have not brought up. Now IF you want to talk religion simply say so. But I spoke here of American principles, not Biblical suppositions. Notice the word HERE. It connotates a certain location. HERE, in this instance means on this board.
Anyone who knows me, know that I passionately and openly advocate the authority of God as my guiding principles. Your “discovery” then was only news to you.
Let’s focus.
Advocating for traditional marriage (between a biological man and woman in a monogamous relationship) is not an “exgay” issue as MikeA’s post title suggested. It is an American issue. And whether I am for it or against it does not label me right or wrong, it is a testament to the American idealism of public debate.
I left something out too…
Now that I have read your testimony, I understand the basis of your standard. It is not one of “community progression” (in fact, nothing approximating that phrase can be found in your posted testimony), but your religious belief that God ordained marriage between man and a woman.
And religious belief is not a valid expression of belief? Or is it just religious expression which affirms homosexual conduct? You seem so quick on the “aha!, youre religious trigger” as if that is some anathema to who is qualified to weigh in on discussions about homosexual marriage. Community progression should include voices from all of the community. I am part of the community.(I pay taxes, support public school, serve on jury duty and shop in my neighborhood) I am a believer in God and his Authority over humanity. Therefore, if you attempt to excise my voice from the community, then you must silence your own.
Rev. Foster:
No I do not jest. I read your argument. I am looking for the basis of your “standards of community progression.”, not an argument that just because some people fail to meet the obligations of marriage that it makes them a hypocrite.
In fact, I find your particular point about hypocracy to be very persuasive. Let me concede that you have changed my mind on that point, and I thank you for it. I will no longer use people’s marital failures and indiscretions to knock the institution of marriage. And yet, I find all too often that people knock some gay people’s behavior to deny the rest of us the right to marry. I am still looking for consistency.
If we’re going to talk about a “standard of community progression”, we need a definition. If you don’t want to provide one, I could take a crack at it, but it might not be one you would agree with. To illustrate, I MIGHT say that when the people of Vermont returned their legislators to office who voted for civil unions, that it constitutes a “standard of community progression”. I don’t propose this as a definition because it came straight off the top of my head without much thought, and I haven’t thought about it enough to decide whether it is defendable. But I merely bring it up as a definition that someone might propose that you might not agree with. And if we cannot agree on a definition, it’s very difficult to keep the conversation focused.
Yes, I dismiss circular arguments. If the standard is simply what someone says it is regardless of other events in the community and the nation, then yes I would dismiss the argument as being circular simply because that is the textbook definition of a circular argument. I cannot dismiss your definition as circular because you haven’t provided one. I will not dismiss it if it isn’t. Please leave “probablies” out of it when you don’t know me. I don’t use “probablies” on you.
Re: “There is no law or public policy I’m aware of which states that one citizen must personally know another before they can engage in issue advocacy. So your premise/point is irrelevant.”
That’s absolutely correct. However, if a “standard of community progression” could be established, it does then go into real-world applications. I am merely attempting to flesh out how your standards apply to specific situations and why. You proposed a keen and insightful principle with regard to the humanity of interracial marriage. I merely assumed that this principle somehow made it into your standard and so I was interested in how it expressed itself in other examples.
I asked you for a definition of how you drived at a community standard, and you provided me a link to a religious one. In virtually the same breath, you criticized others for bringing religion into it HERE when you didn’t. But now you follow up by telling me I shouldn’t be surprised if religion is the basis of your arguments. You’re right, I did not know you, and so yes, I only now “discovered” that your guiding Authority is God. But now this means we’ve gone full circle at least one and a half times. Does that make it circular?
Please, let’s focus.
Re: Advocating for traditional marriage … is an American issue. And whether I am for it or against it does not label me right or wrong, it is a testament to the American idealism of public debate.
There is so much we can agree on, and here’s another one. One of the mistakes people make on both sides of the debate is to impugn evil intentions to the other side. That is wrong, and I hope I can refrain from falling into that trap. I try, but sometimes I fall short — ask anybody here. At any rate, I don’t believe I have done that with you.
I appreciate your comments, and I and others here will also participate in that American idealism of public debate.
Rev Foster:
Re: “Community progression should include voices from all of the community. I am part of the community.(I pay taxes, support public school, serve on jury duty and shop in my neighborhood) I am a believer in God and his Authority over humanity. Therefore, if you attempt to excise my voice from the community, then you must silence your own.
And vice versa. I doo am a part of the community. I pay taxes, support public schools, serve on jury duty, and shop in my neighborhood. And I know this surprises a lot of people, but I too am religious even though I don’t share your faith. I am not attempting to excise your voice from the community. But if you attempt to excise my voice from the community, then you must silence your own.
Arghh!! “doo” should have read “too”. Time to leave the computer for a while! 🙂
Rev. Foster:
Now that the issue of religion has been raised:
It is the calling of the Christian to be Christ to the World. I find it interesting that Jesus chose not to make any attempts at influencing the political world around Him. In fact, it seems that Jesus was highly critical of those who used law or force to impose a standard on others. If Christ said “Sin no more” he said it to the individual and never to the community.
So, if you are acting as an individual and seeking your own view of community, that’s fine. But if you think you are doing God’s work by testifying before a legislative body, I think that a closer inspection of scripture might suggest the opposite.
You say my post makes no sense, then you proceed with multiple keystrokes of jeremiadism. Which, by the way, offers nothing constructive to the exchange of progressive ideals. I’m quite curious Mr. Doom, exactly what qualifies you to make such definitive statements on the SC, interracial marriage and racists? And what decides that your version of the story is more credible than mine. I would suggest simple perspective. Unless you want to post your credentials.
I apologize Mr. Foster, I assumed that the United States Supreme Court’s rulings on marriage were common knowledge. Surely you know that in 1967 the Supreme Court ruled, in Loving v. Virginia that interracial marriage bans were unConstitutional. Their work does not stop there, however.
In 1978, in Zablocki v. Redhail, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was “of fundamental importance to all individuals” and “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man'” and “the most important relation in life.” The court also stated “the right to marry is part of the fundamental ‘right to privacy'” in the U.S. Constitution.
In 1987, in Turner v. Safley, the Supreme Court ruled that inmates could not be barred from marriage because their marriages, although they were incarcerated continued to share most, if not all, of the attributes of marriage:
expression of emotional support and public commitment;
spiritual significance, and for some the exercise of a religious faith;
the expectation that for most, the marriage will be consummated; and
the receipt of tangible benefits, including government benefits and property rights.
My point, Mr. Foster, is that the Supreme Court of this land has ruled marriage a fundamental civil right. Although you argue that marriage is only for those who those who comply with the standards of community progression it is clear the law does not agree with that presumption. Clearly those who are incarcerated have not complied with community standards – they would be free if they had.
More importantly, you state that you support amending every state constitution and the US constitution to ensure that homosexuality marriage dies in America. Clearly you believe that those who disagree with marriage rights for gays and lesbians have the authority to deny gays and lesbians their basic civil marriage rights through the amendment process (of course you are also implicitly stating that current laws banning gay marriage are not Constitutional – or else an amendment would not be necessary). In my previous post I simply extended that thinking into other areas. It is clear that in this country we all must accept and honor “marriages” that violate our personal beliefs, and that we consider to be detrimental to society at large. Yet it is only marriages of gays and lesbians that you seem bent on stopping.
One more item I have not previously mentioned. As anyone who studies biology knows, there are human beings who are neither male nor female. Known as “hermaphodites,” although the real term is intersexed, these people have genetic or other physical problems that result in their being between genders. They may have the sexual organs of both genders, may appear to be one gender while genetically actually being the other gender and so on. Your amendments would deny them the right to marry for all time, as they cannot be classified as either gender. How “American” is that?
I’m not sure how I got brought into this debate, since my post was not about DL, but about the statement in the post.
That aside, DL and Jim- with regards to this idea, “I must speak to the false notion that people are what make marriage perfect. This is untrue. Standards remain in place regardless of if any of us can reach or attain it. It is set high purposely to produce the best results in the human family. Some have drudged up personal information on legislators who have had the courage to stand up and defend traditional marriage and held this man’s marriage failure as proof of hypocritical discrimination. However, all it proves is that we have all had our failures, whether intentional or mistaken, but that is no justification for changing the standard of marriage. For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part, marriage should remain between one man and one woman.”
While the idea that the people involved in failed marriages were striving for the best, but failed like everyone does is a good one, it’s not completely honest. Is it fair to call a divorced legilator that votes in favor of ammendments outlawing gay marriage a hypocrite? Maybe, maybe not.
Is it fair to call someone that participates in no fault or just regular divorce (no abuse, etc.) and then gets remarried and votes for these ammendments a hypocrite? Absolutely!
You see, this person that has been divorced and remarried hasn’t just failed, he has then taken advantage of an institution that has lowered its standards for those that have failed. As DL pointed out, marriage is “till death do us part.” Then again, it used to be that way, but it isn’t anymore. Society has lowered the standards on marriage for straight people. It “won’t” for gays (not that this would be lowering imo) becuase they are the easy target of the other. Don’t let anyone fool you into believing otherwise.
TA:
I agree with your point that their actions are hypocritical. But I don’t think that it has served us well as a tactic to use other people’s hypocracy to prove our point. I’m sure that many people will be able to find examples of hypocracy in my own life if they looked hard enough.
The might not even have to look that hard. My boyfriend has gotten pretty good at it. 😉
Good questions.
I’m not sure what you mean by “embrace change for homosexuals.” If you mean, do I think homosexuals have the right to try to change their sexual orientation, then, yes I do. If you mean do I believe that changing your sexual orientation is a worthwhile endeavour or something that’s likely to succeed, no I don’t.
Am I tolerant of exgays? Sure. I believe exgays should have the same civil rights as everybody else, and I have cordial online relationships with one or two exgays.
Am I tolerant of Christians who believe in traditional marriage? Sure. They have as much right to express their opinions as everybody else. I’m not one of these left-wing Berkeley radicals who thinks that the Love Won Out speakers bureau should be prosecuted for hate speech and sent to a re-education camp.
Now, with regard to my use of the term “fundamentalist,” I should have defined my terms more carefully. I use the word “fundamentalist” to mean a person who believes in the literal truth of written document or oral tradition that forms the basis of a faith community.
I believe that a lot of the ideological “moral values” conflicts that we’re having in our country right now, whether you’re talking about same-sex marriage, gay adoption, sodomy laws, Creationism, these are really conflicts between a secular/scientific worldview and a fundamentalist worlview. That doesn’t mean I’m intolerant of fundamentalists, or I think they should be stripped of their civil rights. It just means I’m on one side of the culture wars, and they’re on the other.
This is funny in the extreme. Marry and be sexless? Apparently this Bachmann character has never heard of, for example, Matt Glavin. Former head of the Southeastern Legal Foundation–a conservative legal operation. Married with children. And who was caught fondling a male park ranger in a park outside of Atlanta.
Twice.
According to reports I’ve read, the first time was in 1996 (which was largely ignored by the media), and the second time was in around 2000. (Apparently, some people are so dumb that they can’t hide their actions.)
It’s highly likely that people who are same-sex-attracted will act on that attraction regardless of their marriage status. (Heck, I’ve been with my same-sex partner for 26 years, but we only got married less than a year ago. And, since we’re residents of Massachusetts, yes, we’re really married.) And regardless of what die Frau Bachmann says.
BTW, I’m sure that the Germans are grateful that people like die Frau Bachmann left Germany a long time ago. We are currently in Germany–a suburb of Munich–and it’s fairly clear that idiots like die Frau Bachmann would be ignored here.
Following up, and freely associating, it’s interesting that the celebration in Traunstein for the new pope was a flop. Traunstein, a city south of Munich, was the city in which der Ratzinger was ordained. They held a little celebration last week. The celebration was something of a flop. The mayor was out of town–he was in Berlin, for a discussion with (get this) the transit ministry (Verkehrsministerium). And they couldn’t even entice Germans with free beer.
I’ll ignore Foster’s bloviating. He’s a BS artist in the extreme. There’s lots of money in the ex-gay industry. Obviously more than if he got an honest job.
What you really need to understand about Foster is that he’s got a gig–he’s nothing more than another (c)rap artist. He’s got a gig that makes him money.
Money makes the world go ’round, the world go ’round
You get the idea.
Well, with some of that money he’s been raising, he might consider hiring a proof-reader for his website — or at least buy a decent spell-check program.