Some folks are picking at my contention that "the future of same-sex marriage and civil unions in Wisconsin has been put in the hands of two straight, single folks."
People point out that Mike Tate may have a girlfriend. Straight guys do have them, ya know. But until he's "married" in the eyes of the IRS and everyone else he's "single." Perhaps one of the reason Mike burns for this issue is that he's in some form of domestic partnership. I haven't heard it in his stump speech or in the PR releases though.
Julaine openly claims straight singlehood: In her April 10 Wisconsin Family Connection she offered up as much when she said: "I'm frequently asked why I as a single, never-married, straight, no-children woman care so much about marriage. It's a fair question."
Now I know many of my lesbian friends tell me that their gaydar goes "ding" when they're in close contact with Julaine. I also know from friends down in Watertown about the sightings of a long-time female house share. That does not make her "not straight."
Gay people who have lived through an extended coming out process are the last ones who should be throwing up the "guilt by association" canard. Remember how you felt when it was dumped on you? To paraphrase Nathan Hale: "Give me Polaroids or save your breath."
Then again if Julaine's relationship is as long-term as the reports indicate, it might be considered a domestic partnership - since sex is not a pre-condition for any relationship (yes, even for marriage).
"Accepting children lovingly from God" is a vow of Holy Matrimony, not civil marriage. Unless you're writing your own vows it's officially "love, honor and obey" not "love, honor and roll in the hay."
One of the reasons the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging groups is opposed the the amendment is the impact it can have on the companion-based domestic partnership of senior widows and widowers. Those relationships were challenged in Utah after a similar broadly-worded amendment was passed there.
Sure, sex may be part of some of those seasoned relationships, but from the personal testimony I've heard from many of those couples, the only thing heating up the sheets for them is the electric blanket. Its the caring for one another (and the desire to maintain full Social Security benefits) that drives nearly all of those senior "shack ups."
Many of the supporters of the marriage and civil unions ban seem to come from a belief that sex drives marital relations across the board. Anyone who has ever attended a bridal shower or a bachelor party knows a lot of straight people appear to think that way. Those of us who have been engaged in this fight over the years know that once you get a supporter talking about same sex unions, its really the "homo sex thing" that drives them crazy. What a low opinion of the human heart - straight or gay!
Who knows? Maybe its jealousy - a new twist on the "haves" versus the "have nots." I know I pray every night to my Unitarian "to whom it may concern" that I have one tenth the sex life that these professional homo-haters claim I do. Unfortunately, the ways things have been they'll be playing Billy Preston's "Nothing From Nothing" at my final send-off.
Over the years, I've attended the homo-haters' rallies. I learned more about bizarre sex practices during a speech by "Pink Swastika" author Scott Lively than I ever had in all the gay periodicals and chat sessions I've ever encountered. A close second: a speech by pseudo-researcher Paul Cameron. I gotta thank Rantin' Ralph Ovadal and his 1990's "truth tours" for those illuminations. These guys are sex-obsessed. But what both these guys forgot is that sex practices are sex practices - what makes them homo or hetero are the parties involved.
Fortunately each day more and more Wisconsinites are learning - much to the chagrin of the "all marriage is sex" gang - that gay and lesbian unions are far more about about who puts out the garbage than who puts out, or about getting the laundry and the housework done than gettin' busy in the bedroom. In other words, just like those bizarre sex practices the quality of our relationships is not based on the sexes of the partners, but on the commitment and shared values of the couple.
When we defeat the ban this November - and each day I'm more convinced we will - the greatest irony may be that straight Wisconsin understands just how much alike they are to queer folk. Its all about hearts, not private parts.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Irony
The future of same-sex marriage and civil unions in Wisconsin has been put in the hands of two straight, single folks.
For the "defense of marriage" amendment: Julaine Appling, Family Research of Wisconsin
Against the "marriage and civil unions ban" amendment: Mike Tate, Fair Wisconsin
Am I the only one who sees the irony?
For the "defense of marriage" amendment: Julaine Appling, Family Research of Wisconsin
Against the "marriage and civil unions ban" amendment: Mike Tate, Fair Wisconsin
Am I the only one who sees the irony?
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Poll: 4 of 5 Americans Dead From The Neck Up
Yahoo! News is reporting a new poll showing that 60 million Americans are "intellectually curious."
However, current census figures show we have 300,000,000 living in the U. S. at this time.
Thus the poll results suggest something far worse: 80% (or four out of five) of my fellow Americans are intellectual dullards.
At last, the secret of the Republican majority and the sustained runaway popularity of "American Idol" has been unveiled.
However, current census figures show we have 300,000,000 living in the U. S. at this time.
Thus the poll results suggest something far worse: 80% (or four out of five) of my fellow Americans are intellectual dullards.
At last, the secret of the Republican majority and the sustained runaway popularity of "American Idol" has been unveiled.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
RIP: Rev. William Sloane Coffin 1924-2006
It was with great sadness that I read of the passing of civil rights leaders and Christian moral leader Rev. William Sloane Coffin April 12.
I had the honor of getting to know this truly great man while he was a visiting professor at Lawrence University in Appleton ten years ago.
Gay activists nationally will remember that Rev. Coffin marched in New York City's Stonewall 25 parade back in 1994. We in Wisconsin will also remember his principled response to the late Reggie White following the Packer hall of famer's notorious speech to the Wisconsin Assembly at the request of Congressional candidate John Gard: the one where White in a few sentences managed to insultingly stereotype Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans and gay people.
At the time he wrote that response, Rev. Sloane Coffin had been active the civil rights movement for nearly four decades. In 1962, he was a Freedom Rider in the black civil rights movement in the South. As chaplain at Harvard, he provided sanctuary to draft-resistors to the Vietnam war. In 1979, he was one of four clergy permitted to minister to the Americans held hostage in the U. S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran. Rev. Throughout the 1990's and until his death, Rev. Coffin had been active in the gay civil rights movement, marching with his wife and at times with his (straight) children in numerous Gay Pride parades in New York and other cities.
Rev. Coffin's words are worth re-reading as we continue to battle the ban of same sex marriage and civil unions here:
ONE MINISTER TO ANOTHER: AN OPEN LETTER TO REGGIE WHITE
Dear Reggie White,
I've only heard good things about you, and nobody for a moment doubts your greatness as an athlete. But if your words to the (Wisconsin) legislature this week were accurately reported, I'm troubled, and in particular about what you said about homosexuality.
I write to you as one ordained minister to another. As the Bible is the founding document of every Christian church in the world, it can't be taken seriously enough. But if you take the Bible seriously, you can't take it literally - not all of it.
For instance, in the book of Leviticus, it is a "toevah" - an abomination - not only to eat bacon, sausage and ribs, it is sinful even to touch the skin of a dead pig. If you thought that insight valid today, would you be playing football?
Homosexuality is not a big issue for Biblical writers. In the 66 books of Scripture (71 if you're Roman Catholic), only seven verses refer to homosexual behavior. Some time ago, I picked up a pamphlet entitled "What did Jesus say about homosexuality?" Opening it, I came across two blank pages. Closing it, I read on the back, "That's right, nothing."
St. Paul thought all men were straight. He assumed all homosexual activity was done by heterosexuals.
This assumption is true as well of Old Testament writers, which means that all the Biblical passages used to flay gays and lesbians have really nothing whatsoever to say about constitutionally gay people in genuinely loving relationships.
As Christians, we don't honor the higher truth we find in Christ by ignoring truths found elsewhere. I'm impressed that the American Psychological Association does not consider homosexuality an illness, and that natural scientists have discovered homosexuality in mammals, birds and insects. Clearly, God is more comfortable with diversity than we are!
In my experience, a lot of people talk in the abstract about homosexuality being a sin, but without first-hand knowledge of gays and lesbians. Wouldn't it be better to talk with rather than about homosexuals?
I write you all this in large part because today the "gay agenda" has replaced the "communist threat" as the battering ram of reactionary politics. It grieves me to see you put your considerable muscle behind such a blunt instrument of prejudice.
We live in a land of great prejudice and you as an African American and I as a white man have had to overcome the differences we have invented about one another. It is urgent that men and women, gays and straights, do the same, for as James Baldwin described us, "Each of us, helplessly and forever contains the other - We are a part of each other."
--Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Lawrence University
It's interesting to note that in his final year and a half of his life, Reggie White rejected the anti-gay tenets of Christian fundamentalists as well as the fawning born-again types who were drawn by his celebrity not his Christianity.
Also, compare Rev. Coffin's take on the Bible with the Dominionist thinking of Julaine Appling in her Holy Week Wisconsin Family Connection screed:
"We aren't interested in constitutional amendments for purely social and political reasons. We're engaged in this campaign for nobler and higher reasons. We're motivated by a Sovereign Who some 2000 years ago devoted His sacred Head on our behalf, as undeserving as we are. Surely the least we can do is to stand up for Him and His Truth. "
Of course Ms. Appling is telling a bald faced lie. Julaine's goal - like fellow Dominionist Rantin' Ralph Ovadal's - is re-shaping laws and Constitutions to mimic their twisted view of "Biblical principles," one that creates a more perfect union by banishing (or worse) those pesky homosexuals and anyone who takes the Golden Rule literally.
I had the honor of getting to know this truly great man while he was a visiting professor at Lawrence University in Appleton ten years ago.
Gay activists nationally will remember that Rev. Coffin marched in New York City's Stonewall 25 parade back in 1994. We in Wisconsin will also remember his principled response to the late Reggie White following the Packer hall of famer's notorious speech to the Wisconsin Assembly at the request of Congressional candidate John Gard: the one where White in a few sentences managed to insultingly stereotype Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans and gay people.
At the time he wrote that response, Rev. Sloane Coffin had been active the civil rights movement for nearly four decades. In 1962, he was a Freedom Rider in the black civil rights movement in the South. As chaplain at Harvard, he provided sanctuary to draft-resistors to the Vietnam war. In 1979, he was one of four clergy permitted to minister to the Americans held hostage in the U. S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran. Rev. Throughout the 1990's and until his death, Rev. Coffin had been active in the gay civil rights movement, marching with his wife and at times with his (straight) children in numerous Gay Pride parades in New York and other cities.
Rev. Coffin's words are worth re-reading as we continue to battle the ban of same sex marriage and civil unions here:
ONE MINISTER TO ANOTHER: AN OPEN LETTER TO REGGIE WHITE
Dear Reggie White,
I've only heard good things about you, and nobody for a moment doubts your greatness as an athlete. But if your words to the (Wisconsin) legislature this week were accurately reported, I'm troubled, and in particular about what you said about homosexuality.
I write to you as one ordained minister to another. As the Bible is the founding document of every Christian church in the world, it can't be taken seriously enough. But if you take the Bible seriously, you can't take it literally - not all of it.
For instance, in the book of Leviticus, it is a "toevah" - an abomination - not only to eat bacon, sausage and ribs, it is sinful even to touch the skin of a dead pig. If you thought that insight valid today, would you be playing football?
Homosexuality is not a big issue for Biblical writers. In the 66 books of Scripture (71 if you're Roman Catholic), only seven verses refer to homosexual behavior. Some time ago, I picked up a pamphlet entitled "What did Jesus say about homosexuality?" Opening it, I came across two blank pages. Closing it, I read on the back, "That's right, nothing."
St. Paul thought all men were straight. He assumed all homosexual activity was done by heterosexuals.
This assumption is true as well of Old Testament writers, which means that all the Biblical passages used to flay gays and lesbians have really nothing whatsoever to say about constitutionally gay people in genuinely loving relationships.
As Christians, we don't honor the higher truth we find in Christ by ignoring truths found elsewhere. I'm impressed that the American Psychological Association does not consider homosexuality an illness, and that natural scientists have discovered homosexuality in mammals, birds and insects. Clearly, God is more comfortable with diversity than we are!
In my experience, a lot of people talk in the abstract about homosexuality being a sin, but without first-hand knowledge of gays and lesbians. Wouldn't it be better to talk with rather than about homosexuals?
I write you all this in large part because today the "gay agenda" has replaced the "communist threat" as the battering ram of reactionary politics. It grieves me to see you put your considerable muscle behind such a blunt instrument of prejudice.
We live in a land of great prejudice and you as an African American and I as a white man have had to overcome the differences we have invented about one another. It is urgent that men and women, gays and straights, do the same, for as James Baldwin described us, "Each of us, helplessly and forever contains the other - We are a part of each other."
--Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Lawrence University
It's interesting to note that in his final year and a half of his life, Reggie White rejected the anti-gay tenets of Christian fundamentalists as well as the fawning born-again types who were drawn by his celebrity not his Christianity.
Also, compare Rev. Coffin's take on the Bible with the Dominionist thinking of Julaine Appling in her Holy Week Wisconsin Family Connection screed:
"We aren't interested in constitutional amendments for purely social and political reasons. We're engaged in this campaign for nobler and higher reasons. We're motivated by a Sovereign Who some 2000 years ago devoted His sacred Head on our behalf, as undeserving as we are. Surely the least we can do is to stand up for Him and His Truth. "
Of course Ms. Appling is telling a bald faced lie. Julaine's goal - like fellow Dominionist Rantin' Ralph Ovadal's - is re-shaping laws and Constitutions to mimic their twisted view of "Biblical principles," one that creates a more perfect union by banishing (or worse) those pesky homosexuals and anyone who takes the Golden Rule literally.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
The Editorial You Didn't Get To See...
Those of you who saw my anti-Wisconsin Marriage Amendment editorial in the Green Bay Press Gazette November 30 got to see a second, significantly revised version the piece (if you have trouble loading the page - I have on several occasions - you can also get the Campbell's Condensed Soup version over at Action Wisconsin's "No On The Amendment" blog).
Josh Freker, Action Wisconsin's Energizer Bunny of a Communications Director, literally spent months trying to persuade the GBPG's editors to run an OpEd on the amendment. He worked with me to coordinate the column and made a valid criticism of the original piece. I listed the opposition's arguments in a way that would allow a casual reader skimming the piece to pick up their side's view much easier than the opinion I was arguing.
However, the original was a little less personal and (I feel) hit the other side arguments harder with factoids I could not include in the revised piece due to space limitations. It also better countered the Camille Solberg editorial that appeared a day earlier.
(Aside #1: I believe those who told me it was ghosted by the FRI. The rhetoric was classically Appling-esque.)
(Aside #2: Can you imagine if the forces of bigotry and discrimination's "let the people decide" argument had prevailed over the last century or so? Camille probably would be spending her time trying to win the vote for women and equal civil rights for Latinos or other people of color, rather than serving as a diversity shill for the overwhelming white, upper class forces supporting this amendment initiative.)
So I'm sharing the original draft here for my loyal and entry-starved blog readers. I've added a little formatting that obviously would not have been in the original submission, had it been printed in the paper. Here goes:
About this time next year, if the Republican-controlled legislature gets its way, Wisconsin citizens will have the opportunity to vote to adopt or reject what its supporters call the "Wisconsin Marriage Amendment" to our state's Constitution.
The amendment reads as follows: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
Now that you've read the language of the amendment, I want you to take a little quiz. Answer "true" or "false" to the following statements, all of which have been used to promote the amendment:
1. This amendment is necessary to make gay marriage illegal in Wisconsin.
2. This amendment will protect traditional marriages.
3. This amendment was introduced to uphold traditional values in our state.
All the above statements are false. Allow me to explain.
This amendment is necessary to make gay marriage illegal in Wisconsin.
The statement is false because same-sex marriage is already illegal in Wisconsin. Should this referendum be on the ballot and fail, Wisconsin's heterosexual "husband and wife" definition of marriage statute remains intact. Gay and lesbian couples will continue to be prohibited from marrying in our state.
However, the broad, vague language prohibiting "any legal status... for unmarried individuals" likely will hurt hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin's unmarried heterosexual couples impacted by that second sentence. In states that have passed amendments with such similar language - Ohio and Michigan to name two - domestic violence laws have been ruled inapplicable and private sector domestic partner benefits have been called into question for unmarried straight couples.
Given that a 2004 Business Week survey showed that 49.6% of all adults in the United States live in unmarried relationships, the impact could be significant. The vague language of the proposed amendment simply goes too far.
This amendment will protect traditional marriages.
That statement is not only false but illogical. Denying same sex couples any legal recognition of their unions will do absolutely nothing to stop the 50% divorce rate that currently plagues the so-called traditional marriages. I find it ironic that nondenominational evangelical Christians and Baptists - the two religious groups most strongly opposed to gay marriage equality - have the #1 and #2 highest divorce rates, according to fellow evangelical George Barna's exhaustive research study.
I won't name that irony as hypocritical. I'll let Jesus do it for me. Read Matthew, Chapter 7 - all of it.
On the subject of hypocrisy, let's talk about the third statement: This amendment was introduced to uphold traditional values in our state. If the value argument were true, this issue could have been resolved nine months ago, during the Spring 2005 elections.
Assembly Speaker and 8th District Republican Congressional candidate John Gard made his intentions clear in his June 2, 2005 letter to Wisconsin's lead supporter of the marriage amendment, Julaine Appling of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin. In his letter Gard wrote: "the best time to bring this issue before the voters is when we have the potential for high voter turnout," noting the November, 2006 election would be the next such vote.
Political junkies have been quick to note the November, 2006 election also will determine who will be the next governor in Wisconsin and who will go to Washington to represent the 8th Congressional District in an open race for that seat.
All the stained-glass rhetoric about traditional marriage professed by the amendment's supporters masks the true perversion that will occur if this amendment becomes part of our state's Constitution: the writing of discrimination against all unmarried couples, gay or straight, into a document that currently defines our rights as citizens of Wisconsin.
Several thousand same-sex in the Green Bay Press Gazette's readership area volunteered to report their unions in the 2000 US Census. Tens of thousands more unmarried heterosexual couples live here as well. Tens of thousands more dependent children live with these couples.
How many people will be denied full equality so a political party can make a short-term gain? The so-called Wisconsin Marriage Amendment protects no one and has the potential to hurt thousands of your friends and neighbors. No matter what your views about gay marriage, if you oppose discrimination, you should oppose the so-called Wisconsin Marriage Amendment.
Josh Freker, Action Wisconsin's Energizer Bunny of a Communications Director, literally spent months trying to persuade the GBPG's editors to run an OpEd on the amendment. He worked with me to coordinate the column and made a valid criticism of the original piece. I listed the opposition's arguments in a way that would allow a casual reader skimming the piece to pick up their side's view much easier than the opinion I was arguing.
However, the original was a little less personal and (I feel) hit the other side arguments harder with factoids I could not include in the revised piece due to space limitations. It also better countered the Camille Solberg editorial that appeared a day earlier.
(Aside #1: I believe those who told me it was ghosted by the FRI. The rhetoric was classically Appling-esque.)
(Aside #2: Can you imagine if the forces of bigotry and discrimination's "let the people decide" argument had prevailed over the last century or so? Camille probably would be spending her time trying to win the vote for women and equal civil rights for Latinos or other people of color, rather than serving as a diversity shill for the overwhelming white, upper class forces supporting this amendment initiative.)
So I'm sharing the original draft here for my loyal and entry-starved blog readers. I've added a little formatting that obviously would not have been in the original submission, had it been printed in the paper. Here goes:
About this time next year, if the Republican-controlled legislature gets its way, Wisconsin citizens will have the opportunity to vote to adopt or reject what its supporters call the "Wisconsin Marriage Amendment" to our state's Constitution.
The amendment reads as follows: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
Now that you've read the language of the amendment, I want you to take a little quiz. Answer "true" or "false" to the following statements, all of which have been used to promote the amendment:
1. This amendment is necessary to make gay marriage illegal in Wisconsin.
2. This amendment will protect traditional marriages.
3. This amendment was introduced to uphold traditional values in our state.
All the above statements are false. Allow me to explain.
This amendment is necessary to make gay marriage illegal in Wisconsin.
The statement is false because same-sex marriage is already illegal in Wisconsin. Should this referendum be on the ballot and fail, Wisconsin's heterosexual "husband and wife" definition of marriage statute remains intact. Gay and lesbian couples will continue to be prohibited from marrying in our state.
However, the broad, vague language prohibiting "any legal status... for unmarried individuals" likely will hurt hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin's unmarried heterosexual couples impacted by that second sentence. In states that have passed amendments with such similar language - Ohio and Michigan to name two - domestic violence laws have been ruled inapplicable and private sector domestic partner benefits have been called into question for unmarried straight couples.
Given that a 2004 Business Week survey showed that 49.6% of all adults in the United States live in unmarried relationships, the impact could be significant. The vague language of the proposed amendment simply goes too far.
This amendment will protect traditional marriages.
That statement is not only false but illogical. Denying same sex couples any legal recognition of their unions will do absolutely nothing to stop the 50% divorce rate that currently plagues the so-called traditional marriages. I find it ironic that nondenominational evangelical Christians and Baptists - the two religious groups most strongly opposed to gay marriage equality - have the #1 and #2 highest divorce rates, according to fellow evangelical George Barna's exhaustive research study.
I won't name that irony as hypocritical. I'll let Jesus do it for me. Read Matthew, Chapter 7 - all of it.
On the subject of hypocrisy, let's talk about the third statement: This amendment was introduced to uphold traditional values in our state. If the value argument were true, this issue could have been resolved nine months ago, during the Spring 2005 elections.
Assembly Speaker and 8th District Republican Congressional candidate John Gard made his intentions clear in his June 2, 2005 letter to Wisconsin's lead supporter of the marriage amendment, Julaine Appling of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin. In his letter Gard wrote: "the best time to bring this issue before the voters is when we have the potential for high voter turnout," noting the November, 2006 election would be the next such vote.
Political junkies have been quick to note the November, 2006 election also will determine who will be the next governor in Wisconsin and who will go to Washington to represent the 8th Congressional District in an open race for that seat.
All the stained-glass rhetoric about traditional marriage professed by the amendment's supporters masks the true perversion that will occur if this amendment becomes part of our state's Constitution: the writing of discrimination against all unmarried couples, gay or straight, into a document that currently defines our rights as citizens of Wisconsin.
Several thousand same-sex in the Green Bay Press Gazette's readership area volunteered to report their unions in the 2000 US Census. Tens of thousands more unmarried heterosexual couples live here as well. Tens of thousands more dependent children live with these couples.
How many people will be denied full equality so a political party can make a short-term gain? The so-called Wisconsin Marriage Amendment protects no one and has the potential to hurt thousands of your friends and neighbors. No matter what your views about gay marriage, if you oppose discrimination, you should oppose the so-called Wisconsin Marriage Amendment.
Friday, December 02, 2005
It's alive!
Just a quick note to those who keep asking me why there have been no recent entries...
The Reality Blog will arise from its moribund state shortly... The real fight has begun on the so-called Wisconsin Marriage Amendment...
It's not like I'm not pounding out readable stuff at the keyboard... Just check the Quest website, or more recently the Green Bay Press-Gazette...
The Reality Blog will arise from its moribund state shortly... The real fight has begun on the so-called Wisconsin Marriage Amendment...
It's not like I'm not pounding out readable stuff at the keyboard... Just check the Quest website, or more recently the Green Bay Press-Gazette...
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
