Please Don't Tolerate Me, Reverend Senator Díaz
"Foe of Gay Marriage in New York Says It's Nothing Personal" ran the headline in a New York Times piece on November 9 about New York State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr.
Nothing personal? Really?
I suppose if you believe in talking snakes, it's not such a stretch. As Richard Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion:
You say you have experienced God directly? Well some people have experienced a pink elephant, but that probably doesn't impress you.
I guess I need one of these evangelists to explain the "it's nothing personal" thing to me. Because frankly I can't imagine a single thing more personal than denying my family rights.
So let's get personal, Senator Díaz: Tell us about those two brothers and granddaughter of yours who are homosexuals. You claim you're not homophobic; you've said "I have a problem with gay marriage. I have no problem with gays."
What kind of cognitive dissonance is that? If I could be a fly on the wall of your brain! George Orwell might have called this fabulous statement doublethink: "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." (From 1984, that novel that never ceases to be timely.)
You'll remember a strikingly similar defense from the vice-presidential debates last November:
PALIN: If there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue. ... I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
You'll notice what's important here is not so much the issue of civil rights but rather that we come away recognizing how tolerant she is. (Look for the buzz words: "tolerant," "diverse," "issue." I suppose for folks like Sarah Palin, all this is just that: an issue.)
I'd like to be bold here--call a spade a spade. Senator Díaz and Sarah Palin are bigots who rely on doublethink to make friends with insecure homosexuals (Cristopher Lynn, an openly gay former Giuliani aide and best friend of Senator Díaz, for instance), whom they then avail themselves of as evidence for their "tolerance."
If I've jumped to some wild conclusion, I would welcome a response from Mr. Lynn... or any other reader, for that matter, who befriends someone like the Reverend Senator.
Where I come from, however, this is Gay 101: When somebody "tolerates" you, run away, and run away fast. When someone tells you they love you, but some bestselling fantasy novel (that's a hyperlink to the King James Bible) tells them that your "lifestyle" is an abomination ... well, you should run even faster from that.
And when it's your state senator?
I have a proposition for Reverend Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. (Reverend Senator? I recoil just typing that.): You take away my civil rights and my family, I'll take away yours. According to your New York Senate Web page, you were born and raised in Puerto Rico--that might be a way I can extort your rights. After all, Puerto Ricans may be U.S. citizens, but they "lack full protection under the U.S. Constitution" and aren't represented in Congress. Or is that too personal for you? Forget Puerto Rico, I'm sure we can take your rights away if we highlight your arrest for possession of heroin and marijuana. (And while we're at it, doesn't your religion have something to say about casting the first stone?)
Indeed, with enough imagination, couldn't we take away anyone's rights for any reason?
So let's talk about your "religion." According to the Times article, in 2003 you "sued the city to shut down a high school for gay and transgender students" and once suggested that "the Gay Games would encourage homosexuality and spread HIV." How ... Christlike.
But look, I want to be your "friend"...
If you're the kind of person who's bought your morals wholesale from that bestselling fantasy novel, here's the moral of this blog: There's nothing more personal than taking my family away. And if you take my family away from me, you'd better be prepared to fight me tooth and nail.
Of course, I'm nobody to reason with somebody who believes in talking snakes, so here's another takeaway for the Cristopher Lynns out there: Grow a set, or it's gonna get ugly.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Why call it marriage if all you claim to want is the same Legal Rights. Why not fight for Domestic Partnerships which most people can support. Changing definitions gets sticky.
Because it is marriage. Every time we try to get anything like "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships", people still vote against our civil rights. Why should we compromise on our equality? Who else would you counsel to compromise on their equality? Women? Jews? Blacks? Who else?
Because we're not going to align ourselves with OFFICIAL second-class citizenship.
In the eyes of the government, marriage is a civil contract between two people.
Paying the same taxes and holding the same responsibilites as productive citizens, we deserve that same contract.
If churches don't want to recognize these contracts, so be it.
But on a civil level, nothing else will do.
Our heteresexual counterparts wouldn't compromise. Why should we?
I'm an absolute supporter of equal rights for all, which includes the right for same-sex partners to marry. The fact that gay marriage is still such a debate, speaks volumes about our cultural maturity.
However, I found this article hard to stomach at times.
As a spiritual person (not Christian), the overtones of religious intolerance really took a lot away from otherwise saliant points.
I agree with the assertion that you cannot claim to be tolerant/ friendly towards gays and yet want to deny them their civil rights.
But is an 'eye for an eye' argument and anger really going to make anything better?
(And don't get me started on Dawkins. Only someone who has no idea what he's talking about compares thousands of mystical experiences of generations of human beings with pink elephants.)
Let's have the nation vote on YOUR rights. Let's see how you feel if YOUR relationship is being insulted and denigrated in churches... Let's see if you get a little angry.... Perhaps?
And please don't give me this: "It's not ALL religious people who feel that way."
There are religious people who are exceptions, who support marriage equality. They are, of course, deeply appreciated. But they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
In the end, people who believe there's a man in the sky watching over them will do and believe just about anything. Organized religion is for the credulous and obedient by definition.
I'm not religious. I'm spiritual. There's a difference.
And sorry, but only those who have never felt drawn to a spiritual path or religion of any sort would believe that all religious people are credulous and tend towards obedience. It is the A-1 BIG blind spot in the way some atheists view the role of religion in the history of humankind.
I won't hijack this thread by starting a conversation on the many indicators that contradict that claim.
But like I said. I'm pro-gay rights. I just wondered about the approach towards achieving it as mooted in this article.
It's not that gays are anti-religion, it's that gays RECOGNIZE that most religions are anti-gay. If a black man has been arrested by the same white cop 50 times without doing anything wrong, wouldn't it be fair for him to call out that white cop?????
I agree. Many religions are anti-gay. My question is, what outcome do you think we could expect to see when the black man calls out the white cop?
That black man could very well have been Martin Luther King. And he chose a different path. A path of peace.
What future do we want to create? That's the only question that really matters.
See Johnathan Wilber's Profile
Isiscat, you might take a look at GOD DELUSION because Dawkins definitely knows what he's talking about, although admittedly I could have picked a better quote.
I very much understand why you find the "intolerant" tone hard to stomach. That was my intent. That kind of intolerance should be hard to stomach.
Unfortunately, there seem to be no high roads convincing enough when dealing with someone like this senator or with Palin. The question that interests me and the one I was hoping to raise here is: What are we left with when the high road no longer works?
Hi Johnathan. Fair enough. If that was the intent, it works. And I'm not sure I have an answer to the question of what road you take when the high-road gets you nowhere. I guess I'm still on the high-road, hoping that whether in my lifetime or the next, it will lead us to a greater equality, compassion and understanding for all.
"What are we left with when the high road no longer works?"
And that's EXACTLY where we are today.
I'm sorry, but I'm not "tolerant" of people trying to live their lives. I'm not "tolerant" of those who wish to speak out and thus obey their First Amendment rights. I'm ACCEPTING of them. They have their rights, and I have mine, and as long as they are not trying to take my rights AWAY from me, then we won't have a problem, now will we???
Right freakin' ON, Jonathan!!
In my lifetime it was Morally Wrong and Illegal for me (White) to marry my husband (not White). The same arguments were used then as they use now, and it took the Supreme Court to give us the right to marry. How many years has it been, and I still can't take my husband to visit relatives in Idaho without being very aware that people do not approve... and he's not even Black - he's Asian. I mean, that's close to White, no?
Of course, people will say that interracial marriage, as an issue, was not the same thing. Pwah! I've got news for them - it is EXACTLY the same thing - equal rights under the law. Because in this country 'marriage' is a civil contract as much as it is a social contract, with many legal ramifications on property and rights to take part in each other's legal matters. It's NOT just religion, so arguing only on religious grounds ignores the 500 pound gorilla of civil rights that has been ignored far too long.
America stands for Liberty and Justice for all, or it stands for Liberty and Justice for none. I'm with you, brother!!
I agree Nina, this article isn't fair-minded at all. There is sense to what Palin and Diaz are saying.
They are saying is they can support people's choices about who to love and live with, but not support marriage rights for same-sex couples. Giving equal marriage rights to same-sex couples means either giving the right to attempt to conceive children together from the couples own genes, which would open the door to genetic engineering as well as be really dangerous and expensive and wasteful, or it would mean denying that marriage rights include the right to conceive children together from the couple's own genes.
Before anyone tries to avoid addressing those points directly by bringing up other subjects, just admit that you will eventually have to make one of those claims and tell us which one it is.
The fact is people should only have a right to procreate with their own unmodified genes, which means, due to genetic imprinting being complementary in male and female gametes so that they come together to form a viable embryo, with someone of the other sex. Equating the rights of both-sex and same-sex couples forces us to deny there is a right to use unmodified gametes.
Civil Unions could give all the rights of marriage except the right to conceive children together from their own genes, which can remain a right of every marriage.
Seriously??? You're trying to bring this BS to THIS article too????? Either gays get all the rights that straights have, or straights lose all their rights until all are equal!
See Johnathan Wilber's Profile
I have a hard time understanding this conflation of marriage and procreation. John Howard, would you say that an eighty-year-old man and woman couldn't get married because they're no longer fertile?
They could marry because we never lose the right to procreate. They probably won't, but it doesn't hurt to give them the right to try, even if they have no interest in trying, they're allowed to try because everyone is allowed to try til the day they die. There is no age limit to procreate, nor an age at which point it becomes too unethical, partly because it would be completely arbitrary to set an age limit (why prohibit a healthy 70 year old but allow an unhealthy 69 year old?), and also we shouldn't introduce invasive tests to determine each person's or couple's right to attempt to procreate, and partly there is no age limit because it takes care of itself. We'd rather let old people try than prohibit any from trying because they're too old. They wouldn't be the first couple to have a child face adversity.
We must allow all people to attempt to procreate, not only those who are most fit or youngest. But not with anyone, not with siblings, not with children, not with someone of the same-sex, etc. Unlike with 80 year olds, a prohibition would not be arbitrary, invasive or private. We should not let people try to procreate with someone of the same sex, it should be prohibited, whether they are interested in doing it or not, they shouldn't be allowed to.
Also Johnathan, I think LeftRight would agree it isn't worth it to go off on tangents with me in this argument, it'll just waste time. Eventually you'll have to choose one of these two options:
Giving equal marriage rights to same-sex couples means either:
1) giving same-sex couples the right to attempt to conceive children together from the couples' own genes
or
2) denying that married couples have the right to conceive children together from the couple's own genes.
I think both are unacceptable. All marriages should have the right to conceive children together from the couple's own genes, and same-sex couples should not have the right to attempt to conceive. The only way to do that is to not allow same-sex marriage, but we can create Civil Unions that are exactly like marriage except they are prohibited from attempting to procreate together.
So long as reproducing isn't a legal requirement for heterosexual marriage your point is mute.
It's as simple as that.
Your specious argument is a thinly veiled justification for discrimination.
I find this article too insulting to take seriously. The irony of the point trying to be made on the heels of such intolerance is simply outstanding. If this a legitimate Gay rights activist writing, then I should not be surprised the Gay rights movement has hit a brick wall of late.
This is not an argument, this is a pound for pound brawl to decide who is the biggest hater of whom. It's a tie.
Ummm..... The best point I've ever seen about arguments is what happens when it's turned around the other way.
To put it better, if someone says to you, "You can have a TOTAL right to free religion, except that you can ONLY practice Christianity!" and you say back to them, "You can have a TOTAL right to free religion, except that you can ONLY practice Islam!" and they find that it's unfair in the other direction......
That's the point that Jonathan is trying to make here, that people saying that they "tolerate" gay people, but don't want to give them full rights is complete and total BS.
See Johnathan Wilber's Profile
Nina, how would you debate something with this senator? What happens when the "high road" is exhausted?
"This is not an argument, this is a pound for pound brawl to decide who is the biggest hater of whom. It's a tie."
That is utter rubbish.
I'm sick of people complaining about gays responding to these bans with anger and outrage.
Accusations of bitterness and hatred aimed towards the gay community are beyond offensive, considering that we have not rallied to ban organized religion, or to repeal tax exempt status of organized relgion...considering that we HAVE been tolerant of "a differing view."
We have been on the DEFENSIVE in this scenario. Our rights have been attacked. We haven't attacked anyone else's rights, despite the opposition feeling as if we have (that's paranoid "End of Days" insecurity and that's all). To accuse gays of being equal haters is a slap in the face.
Let's see how you feel when you repeatedly have your rights stripped via a degrading and humiliating public voting process.
Frankly, you've got one heck of a nerve.
Great post and you're right about growing a pair! Gave me a chuckle on what has been an otherwise gray news day. Keep writing mate!
SING OUT LOUISE!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
