Maman Poulet has two excellent posts on some mistakes been made by groups here in Ireland looking for gay marriage and I have to agree whole heatedly with her. She gives some advice and this should be required reading for LGBT Noise and Marriage Equality activists. On one point that I must stress is that where Maman stresses
Don’t talk about segregation and apartheid - see here. Find your/our own language to use in this situation and stop using the very different experiences of others.
She is correct. A phrase that is far more useful us "Second Class Citizens" and is something that resonates more with people. Its something that people understand more in the context of gay rights.
GayPatriot.net got me thinking of the political make-up of those campaigning for gay marriage, but the one thing they continually over look is a question that is posed over on Gaypatriot.net
With a leadership which well represents its left-wing donor base, how do gay groups reach out to social moderates and conservatives whom we most need to move?
In short, the gay groups need to reach out to people who are least like themselves. They need to communicate with people who speak a different (cultural) language than they do.
That is something LGBT Noise, Marriage Equality and others need to sit down and try to answer. Slogans will get you so far but you need persuasive arguements.
In relation to my view on gay marriage, I find myself in complete agreement with a number of people. Firstly I agree with Queer Conservative when he states
Personally I think the whole argument boils down to semantics, i.e. the word "marriage." Well fine, don't call it marriage. Exempt religious institutions from having to recognize it. As long as the rights, privileges, and duties are the same I don't care if we call it Blueberry Sherbet.
This has been an arguement of mine for awhile. I don't like the word marriage and I am perfectlly happy with Civil Unions/Civil Partnerships. I mightened be so happy with Blueberry Sherbet
Secondly I also find myself in agreement with GayPatriotWest when he states:
They trying to change the type of relationships states privilege by calling them marriages.
Note the verb I use in that last sentence, “privilege” because that’s what states do when they call a particular kind of union, “marriage,” they privilege it. I’ve been saying that for years.
Again this is something I have stated before to friends. An article byThomas Sowell backs up that arguement.
The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights"-- especially "equal rights."
Thirdly I find myself completely agreeing with Sowell when he states:
Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.
Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.
None of us has a right to other people's approval.
(I do recommending reading his full column as like Maman Poulet he points out the problems with using segregation in relation to the campaign for gay marriage)
Strong stuff but wholly accurate.
The campaigns, not just in California and Ireland, but around the globe for Gay Marriage need to look closely at what they are agruing for and try and phrase it so that they get the maximum support. Until they can do this they are not likely to get mine or many other conservatives support for gay marriage.
Howdy Stephen, what’s the fun in a blog if you’ve nobody to argue with eh? ;)
ReplyDeleteSo here goes…
Firstly, just because you don’t like the word marriage and are perfectly happy with separate-but-equal status says nothing about the legitimacy of those who do seek to have their marriages recognised. So this isn’t really an argument so much as it’s a statement of personal preference.( Honestly I can’t ever see myself getting married, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think gay people are entitled to the word. )
Secondly, as far as whether marriage is a right or a privilege, it really doesn’t matter either way so long as the privileges are being afforded on a discriminatory basis. Also it seems to me that could make a perfectly plausible case for the right to marry being entailed by rights such as “the right to pursue happiness” etc., depending on the country in question. Marriage is not merely a set of legal obligations, it also carries with it various legal rights as well as a very important level of respect toward the couple whose marriage is being recognised by the state.
Which brings me to my third point. The right to marriage is no more asserting the right to other people’s approval as decriminalising homosexuality was asserting the right to other people’s approval. It is not the approval of the Church, or a slim majority (in the case of California) which is being sought, it is the recognition by the state, which has an obligation to treat all its citizens with the respect they deserve, regardless of factors such as race or religion or sexual orientation.
Phew!
Thanks for the comment Brian! while I understand what you are syaing it still dosent convince me that we need gay marriage......
ReplyDelete