"First, we have to repeal the law of unintended consequences." - Rick Sincere at the Sorensen Institute's VA Blogger Conference
I love dogs and cats. I've owned both. For the last few years I haven't been able to have a dog, so until very recently I was a cat owner. I love them.
One of the really surprising things about owning a cat is the crazy disjoint between human logic and cat logic. You want to play. The cat wants to sit. You want to sleep. The cat wants to jump on your head. You show your love by bringing home a cat toy and scratching her ears. She shows her love by bringing a dead bird home and putting it on your pillow.
It's that last bit of cat behavior, the dead bird on the pillow, that caught my attention recently and which, simply stated, should truly trouble the the spokesmen of the Conservative movement.
Here are some seemingly unrelated news items:
Last Thursday a young man named Jacob Robida went in to a gay bar with a gun and a hatchet. Three men were seriously injured because Robida was a neo-nazi with a fanatical hatred of gays. Robida was later gunned down, but not before he killed a police officer and a young woman.
Last January a 3 year old boy died in Florida, because his father would box with him out of fear the boy would become gay:
Ronnie Paris would shake, wet himself and vomit as his father forced him into a box and repeatedly slapped him on the head in an effort to prevent him from being gay, the child's mother, Nysheerah Paris, told the court Monday.The boy was 3 years old when he died from swelling on both sides of the brain on January 28.
Gene Stone has this to say on the issue of the progenitors of anti-gay sentiments in this country:
Here you have a father so afraid that his son might be gay that he?s willing to beat the crap out of him, as though that somehow might make the child straight. There?s no point arguing with the strategy, or even the thinking (or the lack thereof). Outside of the fact that an innocent child has died for no reason, what?s most frightening is the idea that a father would feel it necessary to take such extraordinary steps to prevent his son from being gay.[...]
The right wing's relentless propaganda machine has a pernicious effect throughout society. Not only does it remind gays how much they're hated by a segment of the population, it helps convince parents who don't know much about homosexuality that it's evil, a perversion, something that no family could possible want in its midst. When people are exposed only to the hateful bigotry of the right, what's the result? When taken to the extreme, infanticide -- as the Tampa case reveals.
Is this really what the right wing wants? A war against homosexuality in which innocent children are slaughtered in the name of righteousness?
Sometimes, it seems that, yes indeed, this is exactly what the right wing hopes for. Because where else can such anger, hatred, and intolerance lead?
Let's all be very clear on this issue. Hatred of any sort only harms. It never helps. It doesn't matter who you want to hate, Blacks, Muslims,
Gays, Jews, Women... it doesn't matter. The ultimate result will be abominable to the human spirit, the human soul.
The Virginia Legislature recently passed, for the second time, the "Virginia Marriage Amendment", which not only defines marriage as an institution which can only exist between a man and a woman, but goes much farther. It goes so far as to make illegal all contracts between unmarried persons which could be construed as marriage-like.
Now, as Tim Kaine considers the language of the "Marriage Ammendment" referrendum he has a lot to consider. Is the institution of Marriage under attack from homosexuals? Does the ammendment really address that issue or does it serve as the opportunity for Virginians to act out of the same misguided anti-gay spirit that made murderers out of Jacob Robida and the father of Ronnie Paris?
The "culture war" is the single most successful populist tool in the conservative electoral arsenal. While, for Democrats, "culture war" issues fly beneath the radar, conservatives are consistently aware of and reinforcing these issues. For example, take the case of Matthew Shepard. Bill Clinton mourned the death of the homosexual Shepard and worked to include sexual orientation as a legal justification for hate crime prosecution. George W. Bush, meanwhile set the day of Shepard's murder, October 12, as the first day of "Marriage Protection Week." While Democrats don't hear these cues, "culture war"-motivated conservatives most certainly do.
One anonymous Blogger wrote the following:
Had Robida lived, he may well have been prosecuted for a hate crime. But the true villians in my opinion, are those sources in the major media who have made their living demonizing liberals, non-christians, Hollywood, gays and lesbians, ad nauseum. When so many prominent broadcasters and pundits fill our airwaves and newspapers with this vision of hatred for other human beings, is it any surprise that some young people begin to take them seriously?Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, the killers of Matthew Shepard and now Jacob D. Robida have all committed heinous crimes. They are all terrorists, as well as murderers. I have no good word for them, nor for any of their copycat brethren whose actions may have garnered less attention and less fame, but are equally as reprehensible.
But in my book, those who encourage such hatred with savage rhethoric are far worse: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, et al. They provide the ideological foundation, and the heated rhetoric, in which such senseless and hateful acts of violence flourish. The true culture war was initiated by the extreme right, and those who hold high its banners should bear most of the blame for the violence they incite. To say otherwise is to deny both history and common sense.
What lovely carcasses Coulter, Hannity and friends have on their pillows.
Here are some important facts to consider when considering gay rights and so-called "Marriage Protection":
The Associated Press, using data supplied by the US Census Bureau, found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt. The AP report stated that "the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people." The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
As Patricia Goldsmith says "Taken together, these studies demonstrate, first and most obviously, that gay marriage correlates positively with low divorce rates."
Motivation matters, and unless Virginians in general and Tim Kaine in particular want laws that serve to support a reactionary wave of hatred against gays in the Commonwealth, we need to examine our motivation with this bill. Marriage is one of the best things that people can do for themselves and society. Married people live longer. Children from two-parent homes do better in life. It's a no-brainer. It's not the ends that are in question, but the means. Outlawing marriage, or anything like it, for homosexuals based on the belief that it will somehow "defend" Marriage is just factually wrong. Forget homophobia, the facts just don't support this solution.
Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, Ann Coulter and the rest of the reactionary right who defame homosexuals at every turn are waking up with some lovely gifts on their pillows. They spread the hatred of gays and then quietly clean up when the progeny of their message bring home the ultimate product of all hate: the death of innocents.
Now in Virginia, we don't go around proclaiming homosexuals evil. We don't proclaim our hatred of gays or try to label them as sub-human or worthy only of second-class status. We do however, see the power of Marriage and want to encourage it. When, Tim Kaine considers the pending referrendum language, will he question whether the motivation is based on hatred and fear, or whether it is based on real desire to encourage marriage. If protecting marriage were the real issue, the facts would seem to dictate a solid investment in education, espeically among women, and the legalization of gay marriage.
When Virginians decide on our approach to bolster marriage, what will be the unintended consequences?
When we send this cat out to play, what will she proudly bring home and place on our pillow?
[Crosspost at Democracy for Virginia Blog, yes, it's back!]
Great blog. My great hope re: the culture wars is that religious leaders old or new will step up and show how these people cloaking themselves in the language of faith are in fact nothing more than idol peddling false prophets. The edict to love one another does not have any exception clauses, nor should it.
Keep up the good work, my friend.
...
too good a comment not to share.
Teddy: Remember, the purpose of Aristocrats is to be Aristocrats. No other consideration is significant. Moloch? I'll have to read up on that one... lol
Ben: The strategy is long-term and difficult, but simple to explain:
Stand by the traditional values of democracy with absolute conviction - fairness, honesty, courage, honor.
Stand by facts and use them rather than passion or opinion to refute passion-based arguments of hatred wherever they are found.
Above all, remember the vision and mission of the American nation: Universal Freedom. Remember the study from Cornell study that says that when you attack or question a man's masculinity he's more likely to be homophobic, buy an SUV and support the war in Iraq.
Everyone needs to be treated with respect, and the less respect you show American men, the less likely they are to listen to reason.
Interesting discussions on the Cornell Study here, and here.
 </div> <img src=)
I thought I'd upload this image to show something very powerful and also counterintuitive.
The more progressives impugn the virility of conservatives, more likely they will take hard-line conservative positions.
The constitutional amendment was introduced by Republicans and is designed for the electoral benefit of Republicans (to bring out the fundamentalist vote in November by getting it on the ballot).
So why are so many Democrats going along with it? Why did only seven Senators oppose this hateful legislation?
Kaine is going to sign the bill, and the Democrats in the House and Senate who voted for it have made it relatively easy for him to do so.
You could spare a bit of the outrage you rightly express at the Republicans' assault on gay rights for the Democrats who support it.
The conservative movement makes their compelling argument in 2 or 3 words.
Boil this thing down to less than 5 and we will win.
Protect Marriage.
---
You're right, Nell. We need to be able to criticize our Democrats for their failure here.
It's truly an ugly abdication of responsibility among the majority of Democrats.
shame
I'd like to hear the reasoning of all of the Democrats who voted for this bill.
mmmm.....
"If you want to defend marriage, the facts suggest that the best way is to educate women and legalize same-sex marriage."
could be good
People of Faith for Equality in Virginia
www.faith4equality.org
That's my five words.
Homosexuality is sinful?
Gays are icky?
God says no?
Reluctance to criticize them as harshly as those who initiated the bill encourages them in this belief.