Wednesday, December 15, 2010

1 Down

6,999,999 to go.

Elite "Marriage Defenders" who have built careers out of getting Americans to feel good about opposing same-sex marriage have claimed that it "defames" those who believe in "traditional marriage" to suggest that they, and the 7 million voters who upheld Prop 8, have anything less than benign motives for doing so.

It's not so much that American "marriage defenders" think same-sex couples or gay people are inferior to heterosexuals, they claim, it's just that they think every marriage should contain a man and a woman.

Well, oopsies.

NOM and company should check in with their ground troops more often. 'Cuz the word on the street is that, well, actually homos suck.

The following is an exchange I had with a "marriage defender" who is a member of the "grassroots" Digital Network Army (Ker-pow!). Ze (I know not this blogger's gender) had written a post entitled "The Slippery Slop[e] of SSM: Promoting Sodomy in Public Schools," which included a logically and factually-iffy statement from Brian Camenker of SPLC-identified hate group Mass Resistance.

In the comments, I wrote the following:

"Your link between same-sex marriage and 'the promotion of sodomy in public schools' is poor. And by 'poor' I mean non-existent."

To which the blogger responded:

"If the state recognizes SSM, it must tacitly acknowledge that 'Heather's two mommies,' if lesbians, are probably engaging in homosexual behavior; thus, the greater opportunity for homosexual activists to promote their lifestyle, validated by their 'marriage,' in the public forum. After all, ssm is now just one of many 'equally' acceptable lifestyle choices now.

Thanks for reading the blog."

No, really. Thank you.

An hour later, the blogger felt compelled to add:

"And, from my friend, Euripides [a fellow "marriage defense" blogger], this gem:

'There's only one thing important to those beholden to leftist doctrine, that the doctrine must be propagated at all costs. Such doctrine steps all over the rule of law and, instead, becomes a law unto itself, beyond reproach.'

The radical homosexual agenda certainly qualifies as 'leftist.'"

Now, before we get to my response to these "gems," let's take note of this blogger's comment policy, which is located above the comment box of hir blog:

"Comments are about dialogue. Dialogue demands diplomacy. So please, be kind. You can publish insults on your own blog. Thanks!"

Now, given that this blogger explains to us that "comments are about dialogue," I imagined that this blogger would be open to dialogue, at least as long as the exchange was sufficiently kind. Of course, I later noticed that the last approved comment at this particular blog was dated a month and a half before mine, which I should have taken as a big clue that this blogger might not know conversatin' if it crawled out of hir bible belt, pulled out a megaphone, and yelled "OOGEDY BOOGEDY" at the top of its figurative lungs.

Nonetheless, my experience with "marriage defenders" being what it is, I knew that no matter my actual level of kindness, it would be extremely unlikely that I, someone complicit in a villainous "radical homosexual agenda," would ever be capable of being perceived by this blogger with anything other than deep suspicion. Admission that you're a real live LGB or- goddess forbid- transgender person, can induce some folks to run cowering into the corner clutching their pearls as though it's primarily LGBT people who are on the dishing-it-out end of violence and harassment, rather than the receiving end of it.

So, before posting my reponse, I saved it, predicting a complete lack of interest on this blogger's part of engaging with a practitioner of one of hir fave topics of monologue- a radical homosexualist. Anyway, I wrote:

"I'm glad we agree that my lesbian 'lifestyle' is equally as acceptable as your presumably heterosexual 'lifestyle.' It would seem unkind of you to suggest otherwise.

Or, maybe you were using sarcasm to indicate that you actually believe my relationship with my partner is inferior, dangerous, worthy of condemnation, and/or immoral? If so, would you say your opinion is a common one amongst those who support bans on the legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

The vagueness and non-specificity of Euripedes' comment may be convincing to those who believe 'radical homosexual agenda' is something sinister, but it is entirely unconvincing to everyone else, including me."

(I may have made minor editing changes to the exact wording when I posted it in the comment box, but I promise it contained no insults, threats, or personal attacks.)

In addition to wanting to convey my opinion that this blogger's opinion was unkind, I was fishing for an explicit admission that this person's rhetoric and beliefs go far beyond that Nice Guy "I just want kids to have a mom and dad, it's not that I think gays or gay couples are inferior" civil posturing that NOM and company claim defines the "marriage defense" movement.

I wasn't disappointed.

Although the blogger didn't let my comment be visible on hir blog, ze did post a rather lengthy reply to it within the comment section. Other amateur "marriage defense" bloggers I've encountered also engage in this dishonest power trip which makes it appear as though a "radical homosexual activist" has left a comment laden with profanity, threats, and personal attacks. It fits into their larger narrative where LGBT advocates are violent villains, and the lezzzzbians look something like this:


Anyway, I won't post this blogger's long response, but if ze doesn't delete it, you can read it here. The gist of it is that it's just Objectively True that, unlike heterosexual relations within a marriage, homosexuality is "morally wrong, physically risky, and societally unhealthy."

Of course, that opinion about our inferiority and depravity comes as no surprise to anyone who actually pays attention to the marriage debate. I note it only to expose the utter mendaciousness of NOM and company's claim that bans on same-sex marriage have nothing at all to do with people's moral disapproval of homosexuality or "radical homosexuals." This moral disapproval is so common, in fact, that in so-called polite Christian company, it passes for civility, love, and kindness. And yet, it's not they who are unkind, it's us, for daring to suggest that they might be acting unkindly.

Indeed, the blogger ended by wishing me, a dangerous radical homosexualist, well:

I wish you a Merry Christmas, and heartily defend your right to your own opinions, expressed on your own blog. I wish you all possible happiness and good will.

In other words, despite what hir comment policy claims, this particular "marriage defense" blogger is not, actually, open to dialogue. My opinions, indeed my very presence, on hir blog is too offensive. My immorality is simply not up for debate, at least on hir blog or in hir mind, and really when it comes down to it, in hir schools or society as well.

See, "marriage defenders" who advocate against my equality on the bases that my "lifestyle" is inferior to theirs and that I am a threat to society have that privilege to walk away from dialogue and move on with their lives with empty wishes of "happiness and good will" as though their resistance and bigotry is not a contributing factor to my enduring inequality. It's this entirely schizophrenic message of, "Oh ho ho, you're immoral and dangerous and sucky. Welp, Merry Christmas, love ya!"

Dialogue, for many of these people, has ceased to mean an exchange of opinions. It means that their unkind opinions get to form the basis for law in our shared country and we can't touch those opinions without violating their "religious freedoms" and their "right" not to be reminded of their unkindness.

It is not civility that defines the "marriage defense" movement, but rather, that audacity.

No comments: