Politics, religion, and PMS

[emmagrant01]

I was wondering if 24 hours would pass before the idiots and trolls started making appearances on jedirita's recent post of Senfronia Thompson's speech to the Texas Legislature.

There's already a "You're going to hell and I'll pray for you!" comment -- the irony of someone making that comment to Rita makes my head want to explode.

But there was another comment that really, truly pissed me off. I'll just paste the relevant statement made here:

It is a nice speech, but there are some gaping holes in it, and playing up the Christianity angle really hurts it.

*rolls eyes*


My reply:

It is a nice speech, but there are some gaping holes in it

It's not intended to be a logically sound argument, though. It's a political speech! All she has to do is play the game better than the bigoted idiots who take up most of the space in the state legislature. She has to make them look bad for casting their vote for this ammendment. She has to frame the argument in such a way that their constituents start to ask them uncomfortable questions. She has to say things that get her point across as strongly as possible and that will get her position lots of attention. (Which is clearly happening.)

She has to reframe the discussion about gay marriage, take away the power and meaning they give to words like "family" and "protection", and reframe them from the point of view of tolerance and love. She has to draw analogies to the Civil Rights movement, because that is a recent powerful example of how the majority can be wrong here in the South. Notice how cleverly she does this: she first says the gay rights movement is not the same, but then goes on to plant image after image in the reader's mind of people being treated as second class citizens, all from a first person point of view. It's a classic political trick, and it's brilliantly executed. At the end of her speech, we draw the analogy ourselves, and she never equated the two! After you read or hear this speech, it's difficult to hear "gay marriage" and not immediately think of issues of discrimination and bigotry against a group of people.

playing up the Christianity angle really hurts it.

Here's where it's clear you don't know how politics works in Texas. She uses her faith to do that because she (a) is a Christain, and (b) knows the legislature is full of Christians. If she left it out, her argument would be dismissed as liberal whining.

I'm frankly stunned that you would read this and be critical -- no, worse: condescending. This is Texas politics, for fuck's sake! This is a really good thing to happen here.
+++++


Okay, need coffee now.

Comments

[hazelhawthorne.livejournal.com]

*rolls eyes along with you*

Very well worded response.

I, for one, am extremely glad to see someone make this speech. The fact that it happened in Texas makes my heart just that much happier.

And the person praying for Rita? OMGWTFLLAMA?!! Yeah.

[bubblegumtotchi.livejournal.com]

*applauds you while rolling eyes at idiocy*

Very well worded reply.

[eristeleute.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Well spoken!

[eristeleute.livejournal.com]

One further comment:

I don't understand how "playing up the Christianity angle" hurts it. Although I wish we could divorce religion from politics, it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. And as much as relying on religion may get us into trouble later when we *need* to separate the two, I think this is a concession we must make.

Now. How does the "Christianity angle" hurt it? Is it that this person disagrees with the Christian interpretation used here? The New Testament makes many statements on loving others, yet people invoke a select (and out of context) few verses from the Old Testament (and occasionally some oblique references by Paul in the New Testament) to support their arguments that GLB people are evil, will burn in hell, etc. And as the Representative said, similar arguments were used to disallow equal rights to minorities, including *marriage* between black and white people. I fail to understand how incorporating Christianity into the argument hurts it at all. In almost any state, a speech such as this without religious Christian underpinnings will be ridiculed as liberal propaganda.

As you said, if we're going to make progress, we have to reframe the argument for GLB rights just as we must reframe it for being good stewards of the earth, helping the poor, etc. Christianity, for the most part, supports our side. Hopefully one day soon people will realize it.

[tarotemp.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, Texas isn't the only place where there's a kerfuffle over gay rights. Here's what happened recently in my state:

AUGUSTA, MAINE - Within hours of Gov. John Baldacci signing his gay rights bill into law Thursday at a State House ceremony, the measure's religious conservative opponents gathered in the Hall of Flags to outline their plan to overturn it.

If the prospect of a "people's veto" referendum to repeal the bill hung over the signing ceremony, supporters who packed into the governor's Cabinet room weren't showing it. Neither was the governor, proclaiming confidently, "It's a law."

"Together we will send a message to the world. Maine is a state that embraces everyone who lives here, or moves here, or visits here, or returns home," the governor said to cheers from the large crowd. "Our doors are open to all people."

The new law prohibits discrimination against homosexuals in the areas of housing, education, lending and employment. The Maine Human Rights Act already prohibits discrimination in those areas based on gender, age, race, religion, and physical and mental disability.

Technically, the gay rights law, LD 1196, won't take effect until June 29. Opponents have until June 28 to submit 50,519 signatures to the Secretary of State's Office in order to force a November 2005 referendum. Opponents hope to collect 70,000 signatures and $2 million to run the campaign. If they can force a referendum, the law won't take effect unless voters approve it.

The ink is barely dry on this one and the Christian Civic League (nicknamed the Maine Taliban) and all the "old-school conservatives" are already holding protest rallies, blanketing the state with their propaganda of how this bill will be "the criminalization of Christianity."

It boggles the mind sometimes. Truly. *headdesk*

[dramaphile.livejournal.com]

*pets*

Point well made. People can be so close-minded and irritating sometimes!

I, for one, am not sure I'd want that sort of people praying for my soul. I think there are lots better hands I would want my chances of eternal damnation placed in.

Doesn't really have anything to do with your post but...

[sciencegeek.livejournal.com]

I always find it kind of amusing that people cite the bible on gay marriages. We have premarital sex, birth control, and don't sacrifice animals (ok, well, I don't anyway), and have divorce, but we take the bible at its word on homosexuality. I know here, at least, the arguement has been made that marriage is a religious/christian ceremony, and made clear (I'm assuming in the bible? yeah, one day I'll get around to reading it), that it's to be between a man and woman. However, pagans are allowed marry, and they aren't religious (which kinda defeats the whole 'the bible tells us so' deal), and we don't have a problem with that.

We congratulate ourselves on equal rights between women, men, caucasians and minorities, but it seems that many politians don't care about the equal rights of gay people. Why shouldn't they be allowed the same rights as everyone else? Can they even obtain common-law status in the US?

Re: Doesn't really have anything to do with your post but...

[helens78]

the arguement has been made that marriage is a religious/christian ceremony, and made clear (I'm assuming in the bible? yeah, one day I'll get around to reading it), that it's to be between a man and woman. However, pagans are allowed marry, and they aren't religious (which kinda defeats the whole 'the bible tells us so' deal), and we don't have a problem with that.

(I think maybe you meant atheists; pagans are religious, just not the same kind of religion as Christianity!)

My argument has always been this: either marriage is a religious rite or it's a civil contract. If it is a religious rite, I support the right of any religion to choose, at its leisure, whether or not it will or will not allow any two people of any kind, to participate in it. Maybe some religions won't allow people whose names have a J in them to wed -- whatever. But if that's the case, the government has specific instructions not to get involved in any religious ceremonies or rites of any kind, and needs to stop giving out marriage licenses, period.

If it's a civil contract, the government needs to back off on deciding who and how people can make civil contracts between themselves, provided all parties involved are consenting adults. As long as there's no fraud, theft, or coercion happening, I don't see why the government should ever have the right to prevent two adults from making a civil, nonviolent contract between each other, which "civil unions" or marriages, as you prefer, would be.

Either way I can't see any reason the government should be deciding who should and should not be allowed to join their lives to one another. That's wayyyyyyyy more power than I think any government should have.

Re: Doesn't really have anything to do with your post but...

[sciencegeek.livejournal.com]

I think maybe you meant atheists; pagans are religious, just not the same kind of religion as Christianity!)
Ha! Yes I did. I meant to correct it after my shower, but forgot.

Re: Doesn't really have anything to do with your post but...

[sciencegeek.livejournal.com]

either marriage is a religious rite or it's a civil contract. If it is a religious rite, I support the right of any religion to choose, at its leisure, whether or not it will or will not allow any two people of any kind, to participate in it. Maybe some religions won't allow people whose names have a J in them to wed -- whatever. But if that's the case, the government has specific instructions not to get involved in any religious ceremonies or rites of any kind, and needs to stop giving out marriage licenses, period.

Essentially that's the huge worry of some religions here. If the Federal government gets around to passing the bill which legalises gay marriage across Canada, some religious leaders are worried that they will be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, despite the fact that religion and politics are (supposed) to be separate.

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" Pierre Trudeau

Re: Doesn't really have anything to do with your post but...

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

While I understand the sentiment there, it doesn't change the fact that marriage is a bona fide social institution, not a religious one. I am an athiest, yet I am married. I got married in a civil ceremony, and there was no religious blessing or anything involved. In the eyes of most every organized religion, I am probably not considered technically "married".

But... I am married, because I have this nifty signed certificate from the state of Arizona that says I am. Texas recognizes that document, as do most other places I would go. So the fact is that the goverment is already in the business of determining who is considered married and who is not.

There are lots of legal and financial reasons for the government to have an interest in doing this. If two people are married, certain sets inheritance and property laws concerning them go into effect, as well as issues with custody of children, testimony in court cases, financial responsibility should one of them get sued, power of attorney, and so on. These are important societal functions of marriage, and it is recognized to be in the interest of governments to be able to know who is married and who is not.

Historically, governments weren't involved; marriage was generally a private matter between individuals. Back in the middle ages inEurope, two people were considered married simply if they exchanged vows. There didn't even need to be witnesses. Churches started getting in on the action when such clandestiine marriages disrupted property inheritances that affected church finances. So churches began to define marriages in ways that were beneficial to them. Governments began to take an interest when the world got complicated enough that there was a need for them to be able to distinguish between who was married and who was not, mostly, again for reasons of interest to the state.

There are many problems with having multiple kinds of marriage recognized under the law. One is that there is an inherent hierarchy that comes along with that. All kinds of "marriage" can't have the same benefits; if they did, there'd be no reason to discriminate. But that means some kinds of marriage are better than others under the eyes of the law. That does nothing to promote equality, and just makes the system much more complicated! Governments would have to work a lot harder to keep track of who was "married" and who had a "Nevada Civil Union" and who had a "Delaware Civil Union". The government, ironically, would actually have more power and control over marriage!

So let anyone get married, call it "marriage", and then let us get on with the real problems of the world.

[brushfire2437.livejournal.com]

you're my new favourite person ever.

[x7bren.livejournal.com]

As a new Texan, I'm with you Em. Such idiots always try to make stupid remarks when they are clearly not needed. Let's Just Say This:

playing up the stupidity angle really hurts your comment doofus.

[herbie-weasley.livejournal.com]

Here's where it's clear you don't know how politics works in Texas. She uses her faith to do that because she (a) is a Christain, and (b) knows the legislature is full of Christians. If she left it out, her argument would be dismissed as liberal whining.

I'm frankly stunned that you would read this and be critical -- no, worse: condescending. This is Texas politics, for fuck's sake! This is a really good thing to happen here

It's sad because it's true.

Thank you

[(Anonymous)]

I stop by your LJ every Wednesday to read Surrender the Grey. Although I was slightly disappointed when there was no update; I realized as I read Ms. Thompson's speech this was more important. It was a very moving speech to read. Maybe (hopefully) she changed one legislator's mind. Thanks for the link.

JC

[meredyth-13.livejournal.com]

Totally agree - but I still haven't gotten over the whole "no sexy moves in cheerleading" thingy - frankly, I think you guys are sliding back into the dark ages.

Had a discussion with my husband in bed this morning, along the lines of "Why are Americans so afraid of sex?" - I mean, everything seems to be ok if it's about death, or mutilation, or war or crime, but have a little honest sex and the world's about to end!

Isn't it time we all grew up a bit and realised that a lot more people get hurt by guns than penises?

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

Your reply was so eloquent and lovely.

And if I'm going to hell, that's cool, because you'll be there with me. And Gandhi! Party on, dude!

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Aww, thanks! Here, I'll make room in my handbasket for you. :-P

[dela-sonrisa.livejournal.com]

I've commented randomly in your journal entries without ever really introducing myself.

I'm Risa, Texas born and raised, currently schooling in the northeastern part of the United States.

Thank you for these posts. I'm presently trying to graduate and I have little if any accurate access to state policy and climate. I've always appreciated your entries since they follow governmental trends that have an immediate affect on my life.

Sometimes the posts' subjects make my head want to explode, but I appreciate seeing them just to know what is happening in and to my home.

Beautifully put response. Thanks.

can you say seperation of church and state?

[jim-stencil.livejournal.com]

the only cool thing about crazy christians is making fun of them and yelling at them

when the gay marriages where going on here in sf i went down to city hall to support and applaud them and there were all these fundamentalist yelling at the happy couples.. me and my friends had made a sign that said " damn straight, we're gay!" and this creep came up to me and said " you know your going to hell right?" and i said " i'll see ya there bitch!" and i threw my half eaten banana in his stupid ignorent face.. and then it was an all out yelling match between my group of rowdy dykey teen girlfriends and crazy fundamentalist with crosses and cardgians.. haha it ruled

Re: can you say seperation of church and state?

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

It's fantastic that you feel confident enough to be out and proud! Go you. :-)

Re: can you say seperation of church and state?

[jim-stencil.livejournal.com]

well its not really that hard to be out in san fran, i was out at 14 .. same with a bunch of my friends.. but i figure if people have a problem with it, theyre not worth my time, so fuck 'em

Re: can you say seperation of church and state?

[jim-stencil.livejournal.com]

thanks tho <3