The Cake Will Be Bone-Shaped, I Assume

Pat Robertson is worried. In other news, the sky is blue.

But seriously, Pat Robertson is concerned about same-sex marriage. Again.

After a Washington state judge found on Wednesday that a Christian florist had violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to sell flower arrangements for a same-sex couple’s wedding, Robertson asserted that an “intelligent judge” would have ruled against the gay men.

“To say that some procedural anomaly in the statute overrides the fundamental religious freedoms of the people, it’s just crazy,” he insisted. “And I hope that the lawyers for this florist will appeal this thing to get into the federal courts.”

“But this is outrageous!” the conservative preacher continued. “To tell a florist that she’s got to provide flowers for a particular kind of wedding. What if somebody wanted to marry his dog? She’s got to have flowers for that? What if there’s a polygamous situation where a guy has five wives and he wants to have five ceremonies, and she’s going to be forced by the law to provide them flowers. I mean, this is crazy.”

[Emphasis added.] (h/t Alice)

My favorite part of this whole “marrying-your-dog” trope is that it gets the question backwards. If you really value liberty and freedom, the question should always be “why should this be illegal?”, not “Why should we as a society allow this?” (Yes, I’m paraphrasing Donna from “The West Wing.”) Continue reading

Share

Social Media Synergy Leads to Awkward Results

A couple of friends shared a story on Facebook yesterday, about attorney Ted Olsen schooling right-wing legal dilettante Tony Perkins on marriage equality  In short, Perkins tried to pull out the tired old standby argument that allowing same-sex marriage would open the floodgates to all kinds of marriages.

Watch lawyer destroy Tony Perkins on Fox after he says gay marriage leads to girls marrying dads. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins argued on Sunday that girls would be allowed to marry their biological fathers if the U.S. Supreme Court legalized... RAWSTORY.COM
At least this time Perkins had an actual news story to cite, regarding a father and daughter who say they plan on getting married after two years of dating  which began after twelve years of separation (when the woman was ages 4 through 16). There is plenty to unpack and analyze in that story, beginning with the fact that it certainly appears to be an outlier, followed by the fact that so far no one else seems to be seriously advocating for legal recognition of their marriage.

If they want legal recognition for their marriage, though, I say let them make their case, either in court or in front of one or more state legislatures. This is not the point I want to make in this post, though.

Continue reading

Share

You May Keep Your Backwoods Stereotypes

You know how people sometimes mock certain states of the union as being backward places that allow first cousins to get married? Have you ever wondered how many of those places actually allow that? After a friend brought it up on Facebook yesterday, I decided to waste a fair amount of time doing some research—miraculously, without ever having to Google anything related to marrying one’s first cousin.

Laws against marrying family members are based on concepts of consanguinity, a word which shows up in many of these statutes. A first cousin is in the fourth degree of consanguinity.

I was just curious to see how the stereotypes held up to actual law. I only looked at the U.S. states that seem like they might most often fit into a certain stereotype. As it happens, they are all “southern” states. Some of the states that have perhaps been the subject of the most mockery actually do not allow first-cousin marriage, while others—including my home state of Texas—do.

Later, I might look at the states whose denizens might consider themselves more cultured or enlightened to see what their laws have to say. (Spoiler alert: you can legally marry your first cousin in California and New York.) With regard to the “southern states,” six states do not allow first cousins to get married, and eight do.

I had research help from a website called CousinCouples.com, which actually exists.

No First Cousins: Continue reading

Share

There’s More to Marriage than Lust

Chris Sevier, whom you might remember as the guy who sued Apple for not stopping him from looking at porn, is really mad about the prospect of two dudes getting married. So mad, in fact, that he has decided to once again embarrass himself on the national stage in protest:

In Florida, James Domer Brenner and his partner are currently suing the state to recognize their marriage, which was legally performed in Canada. Florida does not currently allow same-sex marriage or recognize marriages performed legally elsewhere, so this is likely to be a pretty important case.

However, one man is really not happy about it. His name is Chris Savier, “a former Judge Advocate and combat veteran” who is really just a treasure. In order to protest the case before it even starts, he filed a motion to intervene in this case and demand the right to marry his “porn-filled Apple computer.” In the 24-page long document, Savier insists that if gay people “have the right to marry their object of sexual desire, even if they lack corresponding sexual parts, then I should have the right to marry my preferred sexual object.”

So instead of “girlfriend,” “fiancée,” or “wife,” should I be saying “preferred sexual object”? I don’t see that going over well. At all.

Continue reading

Share

Social Science, Intolerance, and Redheads (Oh My?)

The social sciences are, in general, easier to ignore than the harder sciences if you don’t like their conclusions (not that this stops people from ignoring inconvenient aspects of physics, chemistry, or biology.) Where social issues are concerned, our abilities to convince ourselves of whatever we already believe are rather magnificent in their scope and brazenness. Anyway, George Will apparently doesn’t like to pay attention to what social science has to say about the lack of negative impact gay people have on society. It’s not that he discounts the research that has occurred. He apparently prefers to ignore it or pretend it does not exist at all.

Nathaniel Frank at Slate offers a good analogy for Will’s basic refusal to engage on the issue:

Suppose a group of people claim that redheads can’t enter the town square because they’ll drive away commerce, badly harming the economy—and then this group gets a law passed barring redheads from public spaces. To reverse the discriminatory law, they then argue, redheads must spend however long it takes to amass definitive proof that entering the town square won’t cause harm (which is impossible since you can’t conduct research on scenarios you won’t permit). When redheads nevertheless begin to produce a growing body of research that points conclusively to the fact that their presence does not harm commerce, the law’s defenders consistently reply, “It still might; more research is needed.” Continue reading

Share

When Conservatism Meets Empathy (UPDATED)

1146008_19639910Modern-day conservatism cannot survive a head-on collision with empathy, at least when the empathy is for a close loved one. That is really the only way to explain Senator Rob Portman’s (R-OH) about-face on same-sex marriage.

To be clear, I’m very glad that he has seen the light, so to speak. I also have no doubt that he will face severe backlash from his party’s “base,” who don’t seem to like any policy that expresses any sort of kindness towards people they dislike. So he went out on a limb here, and his specific reasons are perhaps not as important as the fact that he did it. I am less interested in why someone comes to the right conclusion as I am in supporting the fact that they got there. The reasons become important, however, when you consider how a change in tune will affect their positions on related issues. In this case, Senator Portman pretty much flat-out said that his mind was changed gradually after his son came out as gay in 2011. I assume he will continue to be a Republican darling on issues that do not affect his loved ones.

I don’t much feel like quoting from the senator’s self-serving justification for his flip-flop in the Columbus Dispatch, so I’ll quote Sylvia Nightshade, writing about it in Daily Kos:

[H]e never considered how the issue of gay marriage affects people until it affected him.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he’s come over to our side (we have cookies!), but this reveals exactly why Republican politicians suck.  They don’t think about things from other people’s perspective.  They don’t have to struggle to eat, so they don’t think about what happens when they cut food stamps and people who already have too little to eat have even less.  They have retirement savings and won’t have to depend on Social Security, so they don’t think about how gutting SS effects people who depend on it to survive.  They can afford their own healthcare without any problem, so this big scary Obamacare mandate is all bad news, it can’t possibly help people who have no insurance now and just pray they don’t get sick or injured, because it doesn’t help them.  They just end up paying extra taxes for people who are lazy, right?  Because how else would you end up in a situation like that, unless you were lazy?  Because Republican politicians aren’t lazy, and they’re all well-off, so the opposite must be true–if you’re lazy you fail at life.  Thus if you’ve failed, it’s your own fault, so why should anybody else help you?  Help yourself, damnit!

Leaving aside the misuse of the word “effect,” she raises many excellent points. Much of the ideology of the modern-day Republican party derives from a near-total failure (dare I say refusal?) to understand the actual lived experiences of the people affected by their policies. Perhaps the most obvious example from the past year would be Rush Limbaugh’s treatment of Sandra Fluke, who offered expressly non-sexual reasons for women to use contraception. Limbaugh, either because he is cognitively incapable of understanding that she was not talking about sex, or because he knows that his fan base won’t care that he was wrong, ignored all of the actual words that came out of her mouth and called her a slut. Repeatedly.

Same-sex couples want to get married? Well, they are sexual deviants, conservatives know, despite the fact that they want to get married and raise families.

Meanwhile, individual Republicans declare their support for policies deemed anathema to conservatism once it affects them or a family member directly. See Dick Cheney on same-sex marriage, Nancy Reagan on stem-cell research. Compare Nancy Reagan’s position on that issue to that of Rush Limbaugh.

It is tiresome to argue these points, because the only surefire way to make the point clear, apparently, is to put the effects of their policies directly in front of their faces, where it affects someone who actually matters to them.

UPDATE (04/18/2013): Peter Miller at Vice has a good piece on this phenomenon, “Republicans Don’t Have a Ton of Empathy for Strangers.” The whole thing is worth a read, but this jumped out at me:

I’m not saying that Republicans are monsters. I’m not even saying they don’t care about other people’s kids. They probably don’t, but that’s beside the point. The point is, right-wingers of all stripes, from the feisty libertarian to the noble Santorumite, are incapable of learning from the experiences of others. They just can’t help it.

He goes on to list examples, but this really captures the phenomenon for me.

Photo credit: twitchtoo on stock.xchng.

Share

Living in Hell

enhanced-buzz-20812-1354917127-1

Source: Reuters, via Buzzfeed

BuzzFeed published a couple of photo sets recently about marriage equality in Washington state and elsewhere:

20 Photos That Could Change Someone’s Mind About Gay Marriage

and

60 Moments That Gave Me The Chills During Seattle’s First Day Of Marriage Equality

I admit that there was a time when I did not understand the marriage equality issue. I didn’t see why it was such a big deal. Quite a few people still oppose allow people to marry the consenting adult of their choice. They cite many reasons, all of them ultimately indefensible. But that’s not why I’m writing this today.

Look at the pictures at these links. Look at the people who have spent decades waiting for the society in which they live to accept their love as worthy of recognition.

Source: Meryl Schenker/ZUMAPRESS.com, via BuzzFeed

Source: Meryl Schenker/ZUMAPRESS.com, via BuzzFeed

If you can look at these pictures, and see the joy that is so much in evidence, and yet you still maintain that limiting marriage to your particular view of it is more important than their happiness, then I have nothing kind to say to you.

Honestly, I want to tell you to go to hell. But I won’t.

If you look at these faces full of love, of lifelong commitments finally brought out of the shadows to show that they are no different than what society has deemed “normal” after all, and you still believe that your world is somehow under threat, then it is clear to me that you are already living in a hell of your own making.

Share

Confronting empathy head-on

'Protest against a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage' by Fibonacci Blue [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsA fascinating thing happened the other day. A Republican insider (at least, I think that’s a fair way to describe him), Jan Van Lohuizen, penned a memo urging the party to get with the times, so to speak, on the issue of same-sex marriage. On the heels of North Carolina’s farce and various other national embarrassments, it is a remarkable document.

He starts out citing statistics about increasing support for same-sex marriage (or at least civil unions) across the political spectrum. This may be a good political argument for changing positions on the issue, but that’s as far as I would be willing to go. The question of how many Americans favor extending these rights to same-sex couples implies that these rights are somehow ours to give, which they are not.

The policy statements he recommends, however, are very interesting. In essence, he makes arguments in favor of same-sex marriage based on what might be termed traditional conservative principles of “equality under the law.” He goes on to eviscerate the tired argument about “special rights:”

This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.

He goes on to point out the real reason why changing public opinions are important:

As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.

The problem with many of the positions taken by today’s Republicans is that they rarely survive a head-on collision with empathy.

He concludes with a shoutout to “the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing” and “the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”

The problem, of course, is that Republicans probably have some biological imperative to oppose same-sex marriage now that Obama has voiced support for it. Their all-but-chosen presidential candidate isn’t exactly winning empathy points, either.

Share

Shame on you, North Carolina (among others)

'New York City Proposition 8 Protest outside LDS temple 20' by David Shankbone (David Shankbone) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia CommonsI know many people from the state of North Carolina, and I know them all to be kind, decent, caring, generous people. I’m not sure how many of them still live there, if any, but I’m sorry if they have to live among that kind of bigotry. Of course, it’s not like Texas is much better.

A representative of the principle supporter of the amendment had this to say:

Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of Votes for Marriage NC, the main group behind the amendment, said: “We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage. The whole point is you don’t rewrite the nature of God’s design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults.”

Apparently, however, she does get to marginalize an entire group of people who have done her no wrong, based on the demands of her group of adults (emphasis added because I’m furious). Not only that, but this amendment may have much a much farther-reaching impact than people seem to realize. It could affect more than just those icky gay people (that’s how I imagine Tami Fitzgerald phrasing it, anyway). I have no words for the supporters of this amendment that don’t include “rectums” and “rusty pitchforks,” so I shall turn to the words of friends and people whom I admire. Continue reading

Share