MEMO TO BARACK: AS FAR AS SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, SILENCE IS GOLDEN
Barry, don’t say a word. Not a word. I know, I know. The California Supreme Court struck a blow against homophobic intolerance in a decision that trumpets open-mindedness, clear thinking, progressive ideology. Yeah, yeah. I know. Look, the decision in validating same sex marriage is the quintessence of clarity: the same limpid arguments that were used to overrule anti-miscegenation laws forty years ago are applicable and, more importantly, alive and well today. What a perfect analogue to Loving. It makes complete sense. And better yet, Scalia, by his own word and “unique” ideology, eschewing the notion of the Constitution being a living, protean, malleable document, should say nothing about the decision because the Constitution as he sees it likewise says nothing for or against . . . anything. It’s not dead. It’s on life support. You know, state’s rights. Tenth Amendment. Yada yada yada. And you, B.O., a con law prof at heart, I know you’re just itching to applaud and herald this triumph. This exquisitely obvious decision. But you can’t. Not a word. Let it go. You’ve just calmed the bitter masses who harp on your middle name, Michelle’s moment of pride and perseverate over that flag lapel pin nonsense. (By the by, the next time the lapel issue is brought up, have a flag pin wearer look at where his sartorial Old Glory was made. China.)
I know. At long last, we, the sentient and compassionate wing of the human race, can celebrate a judicial decision that makes sense, that grants, that’s right, grants protections. We’re so used to limitations of rights, strictures, juridical “not so fast’s.” Think of it. There seem to be no more Browns. No more Roes. Just judicial straightjackets.
Until now. OK, it’s only a state supreme court. But it’s not just any state. OK, maybe it is , but still. We can all rejoice, but not you, B.O. Don’t even hint at happy. Just respect the law, bow to precedent, give a wave to res judicata. Acknowledge stare decisis, remind them all how smart you are and move on. Not a word more.
I know, it’ll kill you. You, the first African-American President, er, candidate, whose parents would have been exposed to criminal, as in felony, liability just 40 years ago, will be tempted to say something profound, but you can’t. You’ll want to remind folks that just as we got over interracial marriages, we’ll get over intragender ones. But not a word on the subject. Got it?
Why?
Because lest you forget, this country is still awash in inter alia a subterranean racism. We’re infected by misogyny and pocked by homophobia. This great land of ours -- for the significant most part -- can’t stomach the idea of gay marriage. Why? I haven’t a clue. It’s that meanness. That determination not to change, not to embrace. To refuse to accept. To hell with alternative anything. It’s section one of the conservative playbook. You’ll hear folks claim that it’s the term “marriage” that bothers them. Go ahead; give same-sex partnerships all attendant rights and privileges, just don’t call it marriage. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, fine. But not the M-word. It’s a last ditch attempt at saying no. It’s digging your heels in. They see this as a concession; it’s a reluctant, obstinate refusal to be egalitarian and fair. It’s an anti-gay posture that speaks to tradition and normalcy. Well, there was a time when interracial marriages weren’t the norm and certainly not traditional. Hear that, DeNiro? But somehow we got over it and threw in the towel. How magnanimous of us to allow blacks and whites face the perils of skyrocketing divorce rates like the rest of us.
These folks argue that this gay marriage business is against nature, the Bible and all that’s right. They’ll remind you of that pathetic “Adam and Steve” joke. They see marriage as being about procreation, though they’ll not prohibit old and infertile men and women from marrying or people who just can’t have kids. They don’t seem to mind the inconsistencies and untenability of their argument(s).
Sad when you think of it. Nobody in this country really cares about same-sex marriage, save same-sex marriage (potential) spouses and (small in proportion) equal rights hierophants like me. Like flag burning, the only moments of concern center around the discussion of its legality. Who cares that there hasn’t been a flag burning in decades. (It’s real big in Iraq, though.) It’s irrelevant to most people, yet to a very loud and, I feel, de minimis group, it’s all they claim they can think of. How dare anybody imagine they can encroach upon that which has been heretofore established via convention and practice solely a heterosexual instrument!
So, Senator O, please. Just tip your hat to the process, hug your wife and kids, make a veiled reference to the celebration of love lest your LGBT -- or is it GLBT -- (sounds like a sandwich at the Carnegie) tolerance be misconstrued by a persnickety electorate who’s still trying to get over Reverend Wright. And don’t think we’re talking about counterfeit conservative Republican-types. Oh, no. A lot of folks who claim to possess progressive and liberal bona fides secretly harbor a resentment against gay folks.
See, a slew of folks think that the liberal or progressive or lefty platform in addition to wanting to hike taxes, dissolve our military and negotiate with terrorists stands for flag-burning and sodomy. They feel that somehow Dems want to deconstruct family values -- whatever the hell that means. They’re watching you to, Barack, see how you’ll react.
Remember, not a peep.
- FILED UNDER: Host Posts
- May 18, 2008
What does it really MEAN???
So that it is not unclear;
so that I not be misunderstood.
Lionel I am begging you; BEGGING YOU---> please address the reality of memes. The power of linguistical dissonance and language framing.
Everyone is so overwhelming passionate in discussing issues and the strength of rationality and such- THIS ELECTION WILL NOT BE RATIONAL.
The political issue at hand is not gay marriage- it is state's rights; an illustration of continuing Republican hypocrisy. State's rights has traditionally been a Republican cornerstone, now they want to attack the actual implementation of it? See what I have just done is an exercise in logic; yet ironically an exercise in futility, concurrently.
I listen to your show DAILY, and living in NYC, this is not an easy task as I am not always next to my computer. I listen because I scarcely hear anyone actually addressing the real nature of the election to come. It is going to be about framing of issues with manipulative language games- [click to see: Frank Luntz]
If anyone has time please watch [George Lakoff's lecture on framing]. While not the most effective strategist, he makes some valuable points about the opposition.
It goes beyond just the issue of gay marriage, or even homosexuality for that matter. In the world of Republican framing, gay marriage (or homosexuality) is code for immorality/disobedience of God, and that is code for evil- in the most Manichaeist manner possible. If gay marriage is to be discussed it is analogous to godless, demonic non-humans invading our homes at the behest of Satan, in a bloodlust rage in order to destroy Christian families (read: Americans- God's Favorites). Think I'm joking. Being hyperbolic?
Think again.
In the 2oth/21st century, religions for the most part have become concretized, calicified- into the place of "factual belief" (an oxymoron). Now religious texts are looked upon as facts, not lessons. Religions used to be merely myths used for teaching lesson of necessary social relevance. Parables. The myth of Shiva engaged in the Nataraja (loosely translated as "dance of destruction and rebirth"), is usually depicted as such: [click here]. While Shiva is swirling around, destroying the entire universe he/she is standing upon the dwarf Apasmara (the representation of Ignorance) who is completely entranced with the serpent shedding its skin, the serpent representing the fickleness of changing of everyday life. .
See any corollaries with today's voters and the 24 hour news cycle? The weight of the entire universe is pressing against our backs (ok, so THIS is hyperbolic) and we are addressing micro statements, and not the macro "code" inferred by those statements, snuggled neatly between the actual words.
What makes us beautiful (as whatever we choose to label ourselves) - our core tenant is that democracy is the greatest experiment that can be attributed to the human mind. That in theory, this is the truest balance of natural liberty and the necessary surrender of liberties in order to engage in an organized, civil society. We believe (this is my assumption) that we have come to a point where we see humankind is intelligible, rational; and that we make decisions regarding our best interests, meaning the best interest for the group, not our own immediate selfish desires. We have forgotten that structure of belief and have opted to become a cacophony of bickering voices- even within our own huddle of like-minded associates. We all want to quarterback, we all want to call the play. In a illustration of hypocrisy, if one were to be needed, people's evidence #1 - this very comment. What makes us beautiful paper, makes us look confused, disjointed, and childlike in praxis. Is this a true characterization? Not at all, but when we practice democracy, we look less organized than the obediant.
We (as whatever we choose to label ourselves) need to understand our attackers, and the structure of their thought. It is "same-think" or "group-think" in a truely Orwellian manner- regardless of what Ol' drunk Hitch says. This like-mindedness is brought about by fear of future and change, a need for the structure that an Authoritarian brings. I mean they do get the trains running on time- regardless of what may be on those trains. The same people that are driven to genuflect to the God of James Dobson (who is more powerful than you give him credit) will bow to whatever the Republican meme is. These people love the status-quo, even if it is crippling them. There is a sufficient contingent of patriarchal authoritarians (and their subsequent, necessary followers) who abhor debate and logic, and would rather strap themselves to a sinking ship then swim for shore- even if the boat is docked. If polled, more Americans believe in the presence of demons and angels in the form of human bodies, currently engaged in a spiritual war, than believe that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena -actually quite prevalent in the animal kingdom. Explain to me how ANY logic is going to break through that wall of willful ignorance.
But does this matter?
This issue of ignorance of foreign policy and the coming issues of McCain's ties to lobbyists (inc. oil and weapons tech. lobbyists) are going to carry NO weight. This is for the same reasons why I have been leaving these comments- they do not make sexy entertainment. I know this so I do not destroy the rhythm of the show by calling in to discuss boring inane subjects such as this.
ABC, NBC, CBs, FOX, CNN, MSNBC even NPR for that matter, will not pick up on the stories of factual or logical basis. Only sexy "Parade magazine" or "Saturday Evening Post" profiles. I love TMZ, but they certainly aren't going to follow around Jack Abramoff, Doug Feith, or Billy Kristol- not sexy. They will, and have, followed Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So do the small issues matter- only in the negative way, I agree with Lionel- Mr. O shut your f*cking mouth about this one. I add the addendum- until you can figure out how to get on the other side of the 50 yard line to where we are not always playing catch-up.
In short- we need to not address the singular issue, instead we need to question what the supposed "stickling issue" is representative of.
I ended the sentence with a preposition because rules mean nothing to me, but I could not end the comment with one.
-sorry again for the length.
- parent
By caspere1May 19, 2008 - 7:23am