I recently saw this on a friend’s status on Facebook. OK, she’s more of an acquaintance. OK, she’s a classmate of my wife’s and I felt obligated to “friend” her. I barely know her. Anyway, she was quoting another friend of hers, but clearly she agrees with the statement or why would she post it?
"I have gay friends that I love, and I’m not really taking a stand for either side. It’s chicken…eat it where you want to eat it. But I do agree with this statement from a recent article: ‘It’s a shame that the gay community that asks for tolerance is so intolerant of others opinions.’ "
OK, that’s perfectly reas… wait, what? Hold on. TO.
Now you want to be tolerated for your ignorant, fearful, unenlightened beliefs? I’m sorry. You don’t get to do that. You don’t get to oppress a significant percentage of the population, deny them their basic human rights, and then ask for tolerance. You don’t get to bully them mercilessly, call them “pansy” and “dyke” and “faggot”, and then ask for tolerance. You don’t get to drag them behind a car until they’re dead, plead “gay panic”, and then ask for tolerance. You don’t get to picket soldiers’ funerals, loudly proclaiming that “God hates fags” and “Fags caused 9/11”, and then ask for tolerance.
Fuck you.
As has been said before by numerous people much smarter and more articulate than me, this is not about chicken, or even about free speech. It’s about a very rich man taking the profits from his company and funneling them into hate groups and legislation that oppress gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and other “t’aint normal” people. Sure, he has the right to hate queers all he wants. But when he starts using his company’s money to further his queer-hating agenda in a very public and official way, that’s when I have a problem. And I don’t really feel like I have to “tolerate” him for that.
Let’s look at the main arguments against giving gays the same rights as everyone else, shall we? Sure, I’m probably preaching to the choir, but just for the hell of it.
1. It’s an abomination against God.
The easiest argument against this one is simply: AMERICA IS NOT A THEOCRACY. How long will it take you to learn this? It never has been, and it never will be. The founding fathers may have been devout Christians (and even that’s probably doubtful depending on who you ask), but they knew about religious oppression and they feared it. It’s why the Constitution specifically mentions the separation of church and state.
But you know what else is an abomination against God? Eating shellfish. Wearing clothes made with two different kinds of cloth. Tattoos. Lots of stuff. And even if you’re not talking about the book of Leviticus, there are plenty of things in the Bible that have been changed, ignored, and misinterpreted over the last two millennia. This kind of cherry-picking just makes you look hateful. If you’re going to insist on this argument, you damn well better be living your life exactly like Jesus said, or you know what you are? That’s right. An evangelist preacher.
2. Changing the definition of traditional marriage would destroy marriage as we know it!
Bullshit. Do you know how many times “traditional” marriage has been redefined? The Bible is rife with polygamy; outside of the deeper reaches of Utah, you don’t see that much in this country any more. What about wives being part of the husband’s possessions? I doubt very much that my wife would like to be called chattel. I’d be lucky if I ended up sleeping on the couch for a couple of months. Or how about dowries? Not many men asking their betrotheds’ families for 10 cows and a goat before they’ll marry the poor girl.
And of course, the big one: miscegeny. A few short decades ago, it was illegal in many states for a black person to marry a white person. Hell, black men in the South were routinely intimidated, beaten, falsely charged and imprisoned, and even lynched just for looking at white women. Now, Seal and Heidi Klum can get it on and no one even bats an eye. Hell, they’re not even from the same country! That’s multi-mixing!
3. If we allow men to marry men, or women to marry women, what’s next? Will we have to allow men to marry dogs, or women to marry toasters? Aagh fear ignorance blargh!
Just stop. Right now. Stop using this argument. Do you realize how stupid you sound? Men and women are adults, capable of making intelligent decisions and giving consent. Dogs and toasters are not. End of discussion.
Tolerance is about allowing the other side to exist, in harmony, without oppression or unnecessary limitations. Gay people have been oppressed and had limitations put upon them for so long, and they, along with their friends and loved ones, have tolerated it for so long because frankly, what other choice did we have? But we will not tolerate it any more. Have your opinions. Speak your offensive, hateful speeches. You have the right to do that. But when you take actions that hurt, oppress, and otherwise make our friends less than full citizens, that is when we stop being tolerant.
Yes, indeed, and thank you for saying it. I think it is also vitally important to underline that it is my right to spend my money on the products and services I choose, furthermore I believe that right comes with the responsibility to understand where those products come from, how they were produced, and what effects my purchase of them will have upon the world. This includes everything from knowing how the chicken who laid the eggs I eat was raised and treated to knowing what the person I buy my chicken from will do with the profits he earns from that transaction. The chicken vendor is free to do what he wants with his money (I will not touch the issue of the morality of his choice, it may be that the intolerance and potential violence that he supports is not supported under any clause of any bill of rights. . . .) but I also have the right to not give my money to him because of it. I also have the right to tell my friends why I won’t buy his chicken, and encourage them not to buy it either. Unfortunatley, that also means that all of those ‘God-fearing Christians’ flocking to buy chicken this week are free to put their money where their morals are too.
Oh, I’m so sorry that you are Sarah’s arch-nemesis and hope it’s still okay to love this STFU. However, while I am in no way advocating interspecies liasons, it is only fair to point out that I’ve known many a dog in my lifetime who are far smarter than many a human and have made intelligent decisions. Nonetheless, I support wholeheartedly your admonition to people to Just Stop That. Seriously, these are invalid comparisons and prove that the people behind them are not wearing their thinking caps at all, but perhaps have hate hoods on their heads. Maybe these are the same heads that say the second amendment gives us the rights to own an arsenal of assault weapons?
Hate hoods gonna hate?
Excellent post, Josh! I’d say you hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head, here.
Hey writer, I agree with the thrust of your article, but I think that you lack a solid grounding in the Constitutional law. Unfortunately this article presents the kind of fuzzy thinking and grandstanding that deludes people into believing they understand an issue when, in fact, they have no idea what is going on. So now I’m gonna have to school you. And as you read, remember that I am on your side.
I’m afraid your “America is not a theocracy” argument is a mischaracterization of your real point. Saying that America is not a theocracy is true, but it is not really relevant. America has a long history of morals legislation. Take laws against bigamy, drug possession, public nudity, and prostitution. These are crimes that don’t harm anyone specifically but (arguably) harm the very fabric of society. Is there anything in the Constitution and its amendments which would prevent people from basing these morality laws on their religious beliefs? Absolutely not.
I believe your real point is that gay marriage is a right, and therefore anyone trying to stop it is an oppressor. Unfortunately, rights only exist if the laws grant them to us. Having said that, the Supreme Court has recognized certain “fundamental rights” that are inherent in the Constitution (e.g. right to travel, right to privacy, right to interracial (heterosexual) marriage, etc). Laws which restrict these fundamental rights are subject to “strict scrutiny”, meaning that they will usually be thrown out as unconstitutional, (unless there’s a damn good reason for the law).
So far, there is no fundamental right for gays to get married. You and I may feel in our bosoms that it is a basic human right, but who’s to say? The mutha lovin’ Supreme Court, that’s who, biatch. Their analysis would probably be something like this: On the one hand, there are some good arguments for why gay-marriage should be allowed (i.e. Right to privacy + right to marriage= gay marriage is a right, too.) On the other hand, there is certainly no evidence that the founding fathers intended this to be a right, and there is little to no historical protection of this right in the states’ laws. Even in the most progressive countries in Europe, the rights to gay-marry have only been on the books for a few years.
You could also argue that, even if gay marriage is not a fundamental right, the laws forbidding it should be thrown out anyway because they are based on malice to a particular group (i.e. gays) and are therefore invalid under rational basis review. But as Justice Scalia would say, couldn’t the same argument be made with respect to bigamists? Wouldn’t anti-bigamy laws unfairly punish bigamists? What about laws against prostitution? Wouldn’t they unfairly target prostitutes? Are we mistaking a mere culture war for animus towards the gay community?
To put it bluntly, these are the arguments that matter. The arguments you addressed are paper tigers; and even worse, your responses to them were completely beside the point. I hate to say this, friend, but stop making us look bad or STFU.