I've read various posts/comments in the blogosphere from homosexual folks concerning their reaction to last Tuesday's overwhelming support for the Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment, but this video report (here) from WKRN (NewsChannel2) begged for a response--unfortunately, the story only presented one side of the debate, that is, the people-who-voted-for-Amendment-One-are-bigots-or-ignoramuses side of the debate.
The main subject of the story, Rev. Gail Seavey of the Universalist Unitarian Church in Nashville, said that homosexuals were looking around at work on Wednesday thinking, "80% of these people hate me; 80% of these people are afraid of me . . ." Seavey also credited the vote to "ignorance and lack of education."
I'll give Seavey the benefit of the doubt on whether she was intending to insult supporters of the Amendment, but her statements reflect a couple of misconceptions, intentional or not, about opposition to homosexual marriage.
First, just because someone doesn't agree that marriage should be re-defined or un-defined or expanded to include same-sex pairings doesn't mean s/he "hates" or is "afraid of" homosexuals. Heck, just because someone thinks that homosexual sex is sin or immoral doesn't mean that s/he "hates" or is "afraid of" homosexuals. Rather, I'd posit that most supporters of the amendment did so based on an opinion that homosexual acts are unwise, indulgent and unnatural, and that marriage between one man and one woman is uniquely worthy of protection in the law. I don't want to get mushy here, but I can love, respect and enjoy someone even if I think they are confused about their sexuality or making bad choices in their life.
Second, blaming "ignorance and lack of education" for the Amendment's passge is, at best, naive. Sure, not all supporters of the amendment have been indoctrinated to the gay-friendly view at America's institutions of higher learning, but incredulity is different than ignorance. Average folks are bombarded in popular media (TV, film, music) with flattering portrayals of homosexuals. Many supporters of the amendment knowingly socialize and work with homosexuals. Accordingly, I think that support of the amendment is a reflection of the fact that most Tennesseans (and most Americans, frankly) are not persuaded that homosexual attraction is an immutable trait like race or sex ("gender").
I guess there may be some potential political benefit--for the homosexual lobby, in questioning the intelligence or motives of opponents of same-sex marriage. But as long as line items of the gay agenda are being submitted to the electorate, such characterizations probably hurt more than help the gay "cause."
Hello world!
7 years ago
5 comments:
I've spent the better part of the latter half of last week thinking that the Vote No reaction to the Amendment's passage was perhaps the worst possible P.R. move for gay marriage advocates.
Word.
That 20% is a powerful minority and they're not about to let everyone else forget it.
Yep, even if it hurts their cause. Indeed, as the electoral backlash continues to demonstrate, that minority's effort to impose homosexual marriage via the judiciary was, likewise, unwise.
Maybe not ignorant, just archaic and out of step with progressive thinking. What do we expect? Tennessee is of course a Red(neck) state. Look how long it took Alabama to legalize interacial marriage. A look around the room of the voting precinct at "Bud's Tire" ... with all the pickup trucks, baseball caps and farmers, it didn't take a genious to know how the gay marriage amendment would turn out in this county. The defeat of Harold Ford shows Tennessee is out of step with the nation and I'm really surprised he did as well as he did.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557013,00.html
Yeah . . . you're right . . . good points.
Post a Comment