Backers of Gay Marriage Call Opponents Bigots
Iowa and the New American Gothic
Doug and I are very lucky to live in Iowa where gay marriage is legal. We were married in at Plymouth Church UCC which is open and affirming. Over 300 friends came to celebrate our same sex wedding.
Many of those friends are heterosexual, some quite conservative and probably have difficulty understanding why marriage equality is so important to the LGBT community. Some of our friends just couldn’t come because of their beliefs.
It was our hope that all of those who knew about our marriage learned what it was about: A wish to have our relationship blessed by our church, a desire to ask each other’s family to include each of us as full members in the other’s family, but mostly, a wish to publically declare our love and commitment.
We were also aware that our marriage had political implications. Our wedding announcement was published in the New York Times, and we heard from people across the country, some whom we know and other’s we don’t.
I am not a big fan of the term “homo-phobia,” for the reasons expressed in the article shown below. I think for the most part, many people are “homo-naive.” Before she died, my mother worked hard to understand our relationship. She loved Doug as much as she loved me, but she had no frame of reference for understanding. Unfortunately, the pastor of her Lutheran church was not much help, but I think she would have celebrated the recent decision by ELCA to allow gay pastors.
One advantage of growing older is to understand that change, especially social change, occurs slowly. It is driven by the passion and impatience of the young, and many of those members of the younger LGBT community are hurt and angry that the public has turned back their efforts for marriage equality. But change will come. This week Argentina became the first latin American country to allow gay marriage.
The following article, called “Backers of Gay Marriage Stumble,” by Jeff Jacoby, appeared in the Boston Globe and immediately generated over 600 comments. Whether or not opponents of gay marriage are bigots, calling them bigots will be counter-productive. While it is impossible to argue with ideologies, name calling simply reinforces the polarization. Attitudes will change as people begin to understand the true nature of our relationships, and that we wish to support, not undermine, the institution of marriage.
ON ELECTION DAY, voters in Maine repealed a six-month-old state law authorizing same-sex marriage. Maine was the 31st state in which the legal definition of marriage was put to a vote, and the 31st in which voters rejected gay marriage. And once again, the response from many on the losing side was bitter.
“Bigotry trumps compassion,’’ wrote commentator Michael Stone, calling the vote “a shameful display of ignorance, bigotry, and hate.’’ In the Maine Campus, the newspaper of the University of Maine, columnist Samantha Hansen denounced the voters who “let hatred, confusion, misinformation, and ignorance emerge victorious over liberty.’’ When will it occur to supporters of same-sex marriage that they do their cause no good by characterizing those who disagree with them as haters, bigots, and ignorant homophobes?
For the entire article and over 600 comments, see Wedded to Vitriol
I have two problems with the word “homophobia”: First, it’s become almost meaningless through overuse, including where it’s simply not relevant. The second problem is that it implies that their irrational fear of and possibly hatred towards gay people is a mental illness that can treated, like fear of spiders. Yet very little anti-gay antipathy really falls into that category.
So we’re left with the word “bigotry”, and here I must disagree with you and many others: I think the word is useful and accurate when used correctly and VERY specifically. It’s neither when applied to ALL our opponents, especially people who vote against us. Such people are probably, more often than not, “homo-naive”, as you put it, and some may be mildly prejudiced, but it’s illogical to believe that they’re ALL bigots. Using the word “bigot” to mean everyone who voted against us is indeed VERY counter-productive.
However, the folks behind the organising pretty clearly are bigoted: An organisation that merely disagrees with us, or that merely supports and alternative view, will not feel the need to lie, smear, fear-monger and distort in order to win their fight. These Karl Rove-like tactics are used precisely because at best they don’t like us, and at worst, actually hate us. Their rhetoric on homosexuality in general, usually expressed to their believers and away from the cameras, is, more often that not, rife with bigotry.
The problem is that it’s VERY difficult to call-out the anti-GLBT militants on their bigotry without seeming to brand everyone who’s voted against us as being bigoted, too. Certainly the militants are eager to spin any criticism of them as anti-Christian bigotry which we and all reasonable people can see is absurd, but which carries a lot of weight with people who oppose us, even if only mildly.
So anyone who uses the word “bigot” must be pedantically clear in how they mean it and to whom they’re applying it. No one can have any doubt that it applies only—exclusively—to the militants. The militants have successfully portrayed themselves as “ordinary” Christians who are being “victimised” by the weird, “otherly” homosexuals. Our task is to reveal the militants as the true “other” in this fight, without scaring off the “homo-naive” in the process.
Those homo-naive folks need to know and understand exactly who their negative votes are affecting (which is why we must all come out), and then they’ll see how much they have in common with us. But they also need to understand that the militants are bigots with whom they have little in common. It’s a delicate, tricky thing to to do, but one which I believe is crucial.
An excellent, well written and thoughtful response to my post. I agree with most of what you’ve written.
One of my primary concerns is that often name calling, whatever label is used, paints all people with the same brush. Described by some as the “Law of Small Numbers,” it is the basis of all prejudice. What is true for one must be true of all.
I do believe that many who are in the leadership of the anti-gay movement aren’t even that opposed to homosexuality or same sex marriage. They see it as a wedge issue. They have no commitment to honesty and they never correct their distortions. They know that what they say makes some people mad and they will be motivated to work for and contribute to their cause. It is precisely what I was discussing in an early post about sex education in public schools, which became a major reason marriage equality was defeated in Maine.