Injured by religion; gay marriage; minorities

I wrote the following letter to the Minneapolis Star Tribune on November 14, 2004. They neither printed it or responded, of course.

The Saturday after the election, I was spending the morning in my favorite coffee place, doing some work and enjoying the company of a friend, when I overheard a man speak at great length in celebration of the slap in the face that the electorate has given to gays. I might have been listening to a group of Nazis gloating over the confiscation of the belongings, lives, and dreams of their favorite scapegoats. When I'd heard my fill, I walked over, civilly stated my opinion of their views, and left. Net time, I'll speak my mind and stay.

This is addressed to those of you who try to use the government as a club to force your views down other's throats, as a threat to take other's property, and to punish nonconformity. You are a large majority in nearly all political parties.

If you crave labels, I'm a gay, libertarian, evolution embracing, literate, atheistic, and thoughtful scientist. I'm in a minority - often, it seems, a minority of one. Among the few legitimate functions of government is the protection of minorities from majorities. You are responsible for the abuse and failure of the government in this regard.

If I wish to marry, I shall marry. Are you afraid that I will do a better job at building and nurturing a family than you? The odds are in my favor. You will take your petty revenge for my acting against your wishes, but you will be at most a nuisance, akin to a tapeworm. You intrude in my life without permission or cause, and at some risk.

Do not speak to me of moral values - you understand little and practice less. You yearn for power, not the good. You have nothing to teach me about morality.

If you wish to accomplish something, learn to persuade rather than coerce, and spend your own money rather than mine. Don't try to persuade me, however - my life is too short and too sweet to waste any more of it on you. You have a right to speak but no right to be heard. Keep your superstitions to yourself. Attend to your own life and leave me to mine.

May your hatred, fear, and twisted need to control be buried with you.

As a bisexual atheist, I have to say - that was....

well, you know.

NOMINATED!

It's been interesting to watch the right wing freak out here in Massachusetts as all their weird homophobe fantasies crash against the actuality of same-sex marriage. Their tantrum continues, but it clearly takes them a lot more strain and effort to be fearful and vindictive now.

Complexity said:

If you crave labels, I'm a...thoughtful scientist.

Click to expand...

Now, we just can't have any of that. Shame on you!

Brilliant! It never fails to scare me that some people are so stupid that they on one hand hide behind the Flag and yet do everything in that power to take us back to fascist times just because they believe that in order to have a functioning society, everybody must be exactly the same.

Makes me wonder if the WTC attacks are the Reichstag Fire of the 21st Century, in terms of rallying the ******** to start destroying freedom as a whole. *sigh*

Anyway, great post.

stupidquestion said:

It's been interesting to watch the right wing freak out here in Massachusetts as all their weird homophobe fantasies crash against the actuality of same-sex marriage. Their tantrum continues, but it clearly takes them a lot more strain and effort to be fearful and vindictive now.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the Commonwealth has not collapsed since gay marriages started?

I knew I recognized that avatar as a familiar face.

Nice editorial, Complexity; too bad they didn’t print it. I’m batting about 1 out of 4 for getting editorials printed; keep at it and they’ll get you in there.

It makes one ask, though: to whom is this really addressed? It states that the scary "you" are a large majority in nearly all political parties, but I very much doubt that a large majority in nearly all political parties present the characteristics (often vague, subjective or theoretical) outlined. It seems to say more about the speaker than any other identifiable person. I personally like the writing - there are a number of well-turned phrases - but, generally, this strikes me as the sort of thing that tends to get nailed to doors, not published in mainstream newspapers.

(Also it prematurely shoots its Godwin.)

I'm a bit curious why some angry homosexuals haven't tried to get heterosexual marriage banned as well. Just post the figures of divorce, dysfunctional families, and various other problems and then use the homophobes rationale to link it to hetero marriage. Then threaten to get it banned based on some Bible passage.

If that goes through, I think I'll prolapse my rectum in laughing so hard.

ceo_esq said:

(Also it prematurely shoots its Godwin.)

Click to expand...

Sometimes the Nazi analogy is not only appropriate, but right on.

I believe that this is one of those times.

The attitudes that I heard presented in that coffee shop were close kin to the attitudes that Nazis expressed and encourage regarding Jews, gays, gypsies, Baha'is, and several other minorities prior to and during World War II.

The Nazis dehumanized their scapegoats so that their maltreatment, ghettoization, theft, torture, and murder of them would be more palatable for the German people. The classification of gays as second-class citizens who are not entitled to the rights of full citizenship is a significant step down the path that the Nazis chose.

Don't forget that the Pink Triangle patches came from the same people that brought you the Star of David patches.

Zbu said:

I'm a bit curious why some angry homosexuals haven't tried to get heterosexual marriage banned as well. Just post the figures of divorce, dysfunctional families, and various other problems and then use the homophobes rationale to link it to hetero marriage. Then threaten to get it banned based on some Bible passage.

If that goes through, I think I'll prolapse my rectum in laughing so hard.

Click to expand...

My own preference would be to get the government completely out of the marriage business. Civil unions should be available to all - they are a form of partnership. Religious institutions that wish to add something on top of that could have marriages, and they should control what constitutes a marriage (above and beyond a civil union) and what preconditions they require for marriage.

However, since the religious busybodies have insisted on injecting their religious beliefs and insititutions into the government, and US laws are written with regard to marriage rather than just civil unions, marriage needs to be available to all.

If religions want to control what marriage means, then they have to be willing to remove the concept of 'marriage' from civil law.

Nominated.

Complexity, weren't we going to have a beer one of these days? I'm in Saint Paul. Next time you're going to be up by the Liffey shoot me an email.

**** you Huntster!

Huntster, I don't see Complexity telling you who you can and can't marry. Why do you feel that you can do so to him?

Complexity, I am deeply saddened by your frustration, anger, and feelings of alienation. I truly believe that the insensitive among us are in the minority. They just fear you and are very loud. If they weren't afraid of you, why would they protest so vehemently? How does what you do affect them?

Huntster, I am even more depressed by your remarks. Why are you so stubborn and intolerant? He's not doing anything to hurt you. He just wants a fair playing field. What's wrong with that? So he prefers male companionship. You don't have to like it but Frankly, I don't care who he wants to spend his time with. We're talking about two people who want to spend their lives together and be given the same rights as any other two people who wish the same. To deny them that right really is beyond me, and I'm a straight man.

TragicMonkey, right on.

Huntster, the gays in my home state of Missouri didn't do any lawsuits, or challenges, or anything.

The fundy majority responded to this lack of activity by doing a pre-emptive strike against them by voting their own religious bigotry into law.

So much for 'religious tolerence'...

I am against allowing Libertarians to marry.

For some reason, I'm not at all surprised Huntster took Complexity's letter to the editor so personally.

Huntster said:

Since it has been the homosexual community initiating these ballot initiatives and inundating the courts with all manner of lawsuits,

Click to expand...

While the second part is true, the first is clearly not true. I don't think the gay community has ever sought a ballot initiative on anything, with the exception of a few non-discrimination ordinances at the local level. Lawsuits, they file in plenty, but ballot boxes aren't the preferred route for their activism.

As for the rest of Hunster's post, I can't help noticing that the majority of it was agreeing with what Complexity wrote. Despite that, it seems to have provoked some hostility here.

Those of you who have crossed verbal swords with me on the subject of gay marriage know that it's a topic I flip-flop on. On the one hand, there are legitimate concerns of real people that need to be addressed. (Scot may already be typing his reply.) I have a lot of sympathy for those people and think there should be a legal mechanism to make sure those needs are met.

On the other hand, I see an awful lot of hate-filled rants on both sides of this issue, and I don't have any sympathy for those. A lot of people think the original post was a masterwork, "nominated" to use the local preferred means of praise. I just can't see it. I understand the frustration, but, Complexity, I see a hate-filled rant.

If those of you who strongly support gay marriage want to bring people like me over to your side, here's some advice. Stop the over the top rhetoric, and stop insisting that gay marriages are exactly like straight marriages. They aren't. It's obvious they aren't.* The insistence that they are just makes the rest of your argument seem irrelevant. Instead, focus on the real needs of real people, and you might make some headway.



*To paraphrase the Clinton campaign, "It's the babies, stupid." We can have babies without even trying. We have to work to not have babies. For those of us who have tried to have babies and failed, we have to live with the fact that there is something wrong with us, physically. And I don't care that not every heterosexual couple wants babies, and I don't care that not every heterosexual couple can have babies. If you think that's the issue, you are missing the point by a long, long way.