Not the football coach, the man. Most of us know that Dungy opposes gay marriage. It's very hard for me to not apply the word bigot to people who hold that position. But I understand that bigot--like racist--has come to be associated with a kind of violence, a kind of torch waving maliciousness. Most importantly, it likely shuts down conversation. I think Dungy presents something that black folks were faced with in the South.
There were people, like George Wallace, who embraced racism as opportunism, people who were not bigots themselves, but saw what bigotry could do for their careers. There were others, who would have, say, opposed a lynching, who believed in blacks being able to work and support their families, but also firmly believed God made the races to be separate. Even today you have folks who are friendly with black folks, but would have real trouble with interracial marriage.
So there's the recurring theme where you have black folks protesting, and trying to get basic civil rights, but people who were, otherwise, upstanding members of society standing in the way. But these people--whatever their community bonafides--were essential elements of an evil system. It was the veneer of genteel respectability that made segregation tenable, no? With that in mind, I think a guy like Dungy has to be challenged--if, and when, he makes public statements. Of course the question is, how to do it in a way that garners you more allies than it loses you.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The power of the word "bigot" ceases to motivate if it's applied selectively.
If a person holds a reprehensible, bigoted position - they are by definition a bigot. Speculating on their motives doesn't exclude them from that determination.
Just as I honestly don't give a shit what George Wallace's internal dialogues were about opposing Black civil rights, I couldn't care less about the rationalizations bouncing around in the heads of evangelicals opposed to GLBT rights.
Can we finally start calling them what they are, instead of apologizing for them all the time?
I was listening to Dan Patrick yesterday and he asked the question what other great coaches are out there where when you think of them, you think of the man, and not just the coach? Few, if any. I think it's a testament to Tony that we knew or felt we knew him this way, that there was more to the man than the sport.
That's a tough question. I think you have to separate the individual from the public persona to a certain extent. If Dungy makes a public statement--as he has in the past--about opposing same-sex marriage, if he publicly organizes for legislation opposing it, for example, then you have to treat him like you would any other person in that position. You have to point out the bigotry inherent in the position. But you have to attack the position, not the person, at least if the goal is to change minds (whether his or the public's).
well, this is certainly far more reasonable thinking than LZ Granderson's silly "apology" column on this issue over at ESPN.
I had a professor in graduate school try to define the difference bigotry and racism as the application of institutional power: the bigot's just wrong, but the racist will use economic, social, and governmental might to disenfranchise you.
This used to frustrate me to no end and for a while I sort of stopped reading most left leaning political blogs after the election. But I guess Ive realized that calling people who dont support gay marriage "bigot" is sort of like how pro life folks call gynecologists murderers. To anyone who doesn't already agree with their position it sounds overblown and unreasonable, but you sort of understand, they are attempting to elicit an impassioned or emotional response and are too close to the issue to be able to see how over the top it sounds.
Green, what the fuck planet are you on? When you want to take rights away from people (or not grant those rights) it's bigotry. You might well be a good person in other respects, but you're still a bigot. And maybe that's the way we should be talking about Dungy-- as a decent guy (apparently), an excellent coach, but unfortunately a bigot.
I agree with the conciliatory tone of your post, but I think that people of faith need to be upfront in admitting the irrationality of their position, and in acknowledging the constant, widespread wrongdoing committed under the banner of organized religion.
I don’t equate Dungy to Bush or bin Laden, but once we open the door to irrationality, it’s hard to complain about who walks through, and we’ve surrendered a crucial tool - logic - for objecting to their behavior.
People of faith have a special duty to reach out to other believers in seeking peace and tolerance.
I have always wondered why we don't just get out of the business of having state marriages and the attendant benefits. Or to the extent that we view a committed relationship (hetero or homosexual) an important prerogrative of the state, then just call it a civil union that has to be administered by the state. In Germany, if you get married you get married by the state, and if you want to you have a church wedding as well. Thus, people that view marriage as a sacrament between a man and a woman and anything other than that a violation of their faith would have no legs to stand on.
Persia:
You seem upset. Yes, exactly- Anyone who doesn't read the situation as you do must be from another planet. Obviously.
Or maybe I just believe in, you know, basic human decency, dignity, and freedom. Possible.
Richard, I think that's probably the best solution-- a civil partnership granted by the state, and then a marriage blessed by clergy of your choosing-- if you choose that at all.
Green,
Can you address Persia's point about not treating people equally and not wanting to call them bigots?
If I were to believe that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote, just because they were religious, would you think that the term "bigot" would apply to me?
I would. What's the difference between your beliefs and this situation.
Explain it to me (and Persia) and others so that we understand.
You might well be a good person in other respects, but you're still a bigot. And maybe that's the way we should be talking about Dungy-- as a decent guy (apparently), an excellent coach, but unfortunately a bigot.
I think this nails it. I think we've gotten to the point where most people agree that bigotry (writ large) is evil. So, it's a short leap from that to feeling that bigots are, themselves, evil -- and, more particularly, malicious.
We've lost sight of the fact that bigotry can also be something more like a moral failing. Just as otherwise good people can be prone to greed, inappropriate anger, selfishness, laziness, or shortsightedness, so too can otherwise good people be prone to bigotry.
The idea that all bigots are always and forever evil (or even bad) people may be an easy shortcut, but it isn't really very thoughtful. People are amazingly complex. There's room for nuance.
And, reading this post, I realize that this might sound like an apology for bigotry. It's not. I just feel like we needn't be afraid to call it what it is, and still see people for their other merits.
I think we should allow people to be against gay marriage as long as they do not try to institutionalize(make them become law) there beliefs.
Dungy dose not believe in Islam, but we do not label him a bigot because he does not believe in Islam. We do not label him a bigot because freedom of religion is a basic right in this country and you are allow to believe what ever he wants.
As long as Dungy does not actively seek to take marriage rights away from others. I believe he can be anti-marriage all he wants.
John, I see it in exactly the opposite way: throwing around "bigot" to describe those who hold discriminatory views, whether or not they're particularly aggressive about promoting them, is likely to rob the word of whatever force it may have. Bigotry is not the same thing as prejudice.
Watson, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that people of faith need to concede that they're making irrational arguments so that those of us who believe in reason and logic can get down to the business of serious argument. Whether or not I've got that right, I don't agree with the equation of faith with irrationality (and I say this as an atheist). Faith and secularism (or science, or whatever you want to call it) begin from different premises, but from there they can proceed either rationally or irrationally. There's ultimately a "belief" at the core of liberal inclusion just as there is at the core of religious zealotry.
I think it's a pretty standard belief, expectation, whatever that marriage is between a man and a woman. Sure there's lots of people who are open to defining it some other way, but no one is required to think that way because of some patently obvious moral imperative. Opposition to same sex marriage does not in itself imply any sort of hatred or intolerance of gay people, it, by itself, means just that- the indiviual doesn't support changeing the way they define marriage to the way you'd like them to define marraige.
And back to my original point, equating throwing bigot around to the way pro life folks throw murderer around. Yeah I guess we could just "call it what it is" and realize that being a murderer doesn't necessarily imply that youre a bad person or evil or anything. I mean for people that believe a fetus is a human life it does fit the definition of murder pretty well.
But to everyone else out there who doesn't already support the cause, it just sounds unreasonable.
I think the excessive use of the word "bigot" can inhibit conversation and exacerbate an already difficult conversation. Just think in terms of your personal relationships: if someone calls you a name for a belief you hold, you are MUCH less likely to engage that person and listen to that person, and you are MUCH less likely to think, reasonably, about why your position might be wrong.
This is going to be a hard truth to hear, and it's coming from someone who is atheist, fairly anti-organized religion, and 100% pro gay rights of all types. But I have recently been having a conversation with a religious Evangelical Christian who believes, with all of his heart, that people who act on homosexual impulses are going to be punished with eternal damnation. There are, apparently, some who will be forgiven, if they take live in Christ and try their hardest not to sin. I do not find this position rational, but as he bases his life on "Living through Christ" and the idea of eternal salvation or eternal damnation, he is acting in a rational manner when he doesn't support gay marriage. ALthough he is not actively trying to fight it, and believes it will happen, he would (and did) vote against it. However, he believes that, say, if he were to keep someone from acting on their homosexual desires, that would be the most loving and compassionate thing he could do. His heart breaks for gay people. In this particular case, I believe he means no malice; I believe he wants to "save" everyone (as he wants to save me). He claims he does not, in any way, hate gays, and after long converstions, I believe him.
People on this board probably already know this. But it seems to me that calling someone a "bigot" does not help with the matter. I don't know what does; to me, it seems completely irrational to hold such a worldview, but if you completely, with all of your heart and all of your mind, believe that most of the human population is going to hell and you can teach them the way to avoid it, and if you believe that the Bible is a historical document and everything in it is true and a guideline for how to live (although ignoring certain parts, which is something i am attempting to get this guy to explain to me), and if you completely believe that your loved ones might be separated from you for eternity, it would probably make you behave in a certain way.
faith = irrationality?
From what I’ve seen, faith as promoted by the major religions involves an irrational ‘leap of faith’ around the ‘uncaused cause’, and entails a belief in a worldview that is substantially at odds with scientific evidence, and in supernatural beings who allegedly have made rules which trump our efforts at democratic governance.
Green --
But what reason do you have for opposing granting gays the right to marry? That's the issue. Saying "I just don't want to redefine it" is a cop-out -- something you say when you want to admit your real reason.
So if you have a rational reason for denying the fundamental right to marry to gay couples, let's hear it. But if that's the best you've got, you can hardly blame folks for assuming your real reason is bigotry.
I think the anti-miscegenation debate from the '60s and '70s is a good reference point here (though, for obvious reasons, an imperfect analogy given our history of slavery). Interracial marriage, historically, has generally been taboo. Would you argue that otherwise good people who oppose interracial marriage because of "standard belief, expectation, whatever" are not bigots?
Green,
People smarter than I have already addressed your core argument that the definition of marriage is just like the definition of any word, so we can argue over it like we might over, say, "conversate." Marriage is a fundamental right (ask the Supreme Court). You cannot arbitrarily deny a person a fundamental right and dismiss it as a semantic dispute. One could just as easily define voting as "the act of white people choosing their elected leaders" and then argue that excluding minorities from voting isn't prejudice, it's just about maintaining the traditional definition of a word.
Oops:
want -> don't want
in my last post, 1st par
I've often thought a term like "homophobic" is problematic in part because it covers two different attitudes: bigots that are disgusted by gay people and don't want them to have a public place in society (much less rights), and religious people who sincerely believe homosexuality is a sin (though I also think many people hide the bigoted attitude behind the religious attitude). I perceive from Dungy the latter--not bigoted hatred, but commitment to a religious belief.
Of course, it shouldn't matter what a religious group believes to be a sin when it comes to equal rights under the law (the Catholic Church may teach that divorce is a sin, but as far as I know there's no great movement to criminalize divorce or take rights from divorcees). If it is Dungy's sincere religious belief that leads him to support institutional discrimination, that doesn't mean he is not wrong to support institutional discrimination.
Y'all want to be more careful with words in general.
One of the great things about English is that there are usually several words that very nearly mean the same thing, which can be used AS IF they do mean exactly the same thing, but which have shades of meaning and nuance that we ought to protect, cuz we need 'em. It's sharp enough, but it's not smart to shave with a scalpel; it's strong enough, but it's a waste to use a chisel as a screwdriver.
A "bigot" is a superstitious hypocrite, someone who refuses UTTERLY to tolerate any dissent from his particular prejudices. The nature of the hypocrisy, what makes the person a bigot, is the expectation that while understanding not everyone sees the proof of their prejudice so clearly, the bigot expects tolerance for their views which they do not give to others.
In this sense, a 'bigot' is different from a 'racist', even though arguably all bigots are racists (depending on what you mean by 'racist', or if you make no distinctions been prejudices as prejudice), but not all racists are bigots -- or, if you'd rather not be personal, not all racial prejudice (or cultural prejudice affected by race) is bigotry. F'r instance, there are lots of people who acknowledge all sorts of prejudices who are nevertheless not bigots -- personally, I don't get the pants below your butt fashion, and I doubt I'd hire a guy who showed up for a job interview dressed like that, but I think it'd be unfair to conclude I'm a bigot from it.
I dunno from Dungy's views on civil unions vs. same sex marriage vs. religious liberty vs. gay rights, but those ARE all very different issues: and if you can't make distinctions, you won't make sense.
It doesn't surprise me to find folks who brag how politically aware and legally educated they are, who can't make those distinctions, so I wouldn't be surprised if a football coach didn't get 'em, either.
"Marriage" is an odd concept -- one of the few, maybe the only way in which we institutionally bridge the famous wall between church and state: marriages are routinely performed by ministers and priests and rabbis who are acting as agents of the state (which is why they are legal marriages).
Maybe Dungy believes that same sex "marriage" would require that various religions recognize a sacrament where there is only a contract -- which would be a bitch to sort out, but it's not necessarily bigotry to be confused over it. (Quick: what would same sex marriage mean for a Catholic hospital where a gay man is dying if his life partner claims power of attorney based on... a marriage? What if the guy's mom disagrees, and insists that her son isn't "married"? No, I have no idea why the guy would be in a Catholic hospital, but you get the idea.)
Maybe Dungy flat out supports civil unions, but not same sex marriage: BFD.
Then again, maybe Dungy believes that there is something immoral about separating marriage and parenting, not so much in that one can be married and childless, as he may object to the cultural shift toward unmarried people having and even raising children -- and he may further believe that same sex marriages, including adoption, etc., is the wrong answer. (That is, he may think that the right answer is straight parents getting and staying married, not that gay parents marry each other.... ya know, writing about this stuff leads to too many clauses.)
The point is, acting as if ALL of those 'tudes and opinions can be dismissed as "bigotry" ain't precise: don't use a good boning knife to scrape ice off your windshield.
"I think it's a pretty standard belief, expectation, whatever that marriage is between a man and a woman. Sure there's lots of people who are open to defining it some other way, but no one is required to think that way because of some patently obvious moral imperative. Opposition to same sex marriage does not in itself imply any sort of hatred or intolerance of gay people, it, by itself, means just that- the indiviual doesn't support changeing the way they define marriage to the way you'd like them to define marraige."
I think it was a pretty standard belief, expectation, whatever that full citizenship was for white men. Sure there were lots of people who were open to defining it some other way, but no one was required to think that way because of some patently obvious moral imperative. Opposition to full enfranchisement does not in itself imply any sort of hatred or intolerance of non-white and female people, it by itself, means just that- the individual didn't support changing the way they define citizenship to the way that non-white and females wanted them to define marriage.
If I say the hell with the moral imperatives found in the Declaration and Constitution only when they apply to one category of person, I can still be a non-bigot? Wow. Exciting.
anonymous:
Catholic hospitals recognize the second wives or husbands of their divorced patients, while the Catholic Church does not. They also recognize non-Catholic marriages, which the Catholic Church does not. In other words, they recognize the legality of civil marriages.
I just read Dungy's full comments. He's a bigot. And he should get his Jesus off my windshield.
I'm late to the table on this one, but I can see a couple of themes going.
Let me first state that I'm Libertarian enough not to care if two guys want to gain the same legal rights as a man and a woman as long as the law is standardized across the country.
Second, I'm convinced the word "marriage" is the problem. Marriage was first and has always been a religious rite. Codifying it into public statute was a mistake in the first place.
Third, I've still not seen a convincing argument why allowing a man to "marry" a man, but not allowing three consenting men to "marry" is no less arbitrary or discriminating.
That being said, I'd just like to join the Ongoing with a few observations:
@Incertus
"But you have to attack the position, not the person, at least if the goal is to change minds (whether his or the public's)"
Bravo! This should be the mindset of anyone that considers themselves politically aware and socially active. Doing it the way we're unfortunately used to smells of Boomerism. Let's take pains to raise the overall level of the discourse so things might actually get solved rather than bombs lobbed.
@Watson
"but I think that people of faith need to be upfront in admitting the irrationality of their position, and in acknowledging the constant, widespread wrongdoing committed under the banner of organized religion"
Where to start...first, who here (or anywhere if they're being intellectually honest) has ever claimed that being a person of faith has anything to do with rationality? There's no more need for logic in having faith in a deity than there is for logic when falling in love. It's a non-starter, just ask the Bard. Second...does that mean that people who don't consider themselves "of faith" have to also acknowledge the constant, widespread wrongdoing committed by those without faith? Seems like the most accomplished mass-murderers in the 20th century were all either non-religious or vehemently anti-religious.
@richard
"I have always wondered why we don't just get out of the business of having state marriages and the attendant benefits"
'xactly! Apply some logic and that's what you inevitably come up with.
@Brad L
"I think this nails it. I think we've gotten to the point where most people agree that bigotry (writ large) is evil"
This is anecdotal, but most people I've known that consider themselves progressives or at least on the left would disagree simply because they would claim there's no such thing as evil. I disagree with that personally (I believe evil does exist), but when you label something evil, you're making an arbitrary call. All of the aforementioned types would say it's all relative. This isn't to say I believe bigotry not to be evil (I do), but to call something evil means you have to have a moral center to base that on and know what the center itself is based on. Do you?
Sorry for the wall of text. Let the flames begin!
Scott--
"Marriage was first and has always been a religious rite. Codifying it into public statute was a mistake in the first place."
This is not true. Marriage was not a Christian sacrament until the 12th or 13th century. Marriage has always been civil, though it's true that for much of history in most cultures this has been synonymous with "religious".
Ralph
Respectfully, I think you need to check your facts. Besides, I said "rite" not "sacrament". Two completely different things. Further, who said anything about Christian?
As you correctly pointed out, though, from the earliest known tribal structures, civil authority equated to religious authority. More correctly, civil authority was derived from perceived religious authority and it was in deference to those religions that people begged for blessings (of whatever kind) on their pairings.
Watson -
Faith itself does seem irrational to non-believers, but if you have it, the actions that follow those beliefs are perfectly rational. So to try to convince a true believer that he is, in fact, irrational, is almost impossible. Also, even if logically a true believer understands that other people don't share his beliefs, and should have the same rights he does, he truly believes he is right and they are wrong. Therefore, allowing, legally, something he considers sin is extraordinarily difficult: if he prevents the full acceptance of homosexuality, he maybe will prevent some people from acting on homosexual desires, and he will save them. It is, in fact, completely irrational, but not if you really want everyone to avoid going to hell.
If someone has an idea of how to combat this, it would probably be very helpful...
Like I said, ya gotta use words precisely if you're gonna make sense -- and not incidentally, it helps when you want to persuade people, too.
I dunno much about Dungy on these matters -- the only quote I've seen is from Costas awhile back, where Dungy answered when asked that of course he wouldn't cut a good player cuz he was gay, but he'd sit down with him, if he had an out linebacker or something, and try to explain to him what the Bible says about homosexuality...
Never mind whether that's "bigotry", cuz it sounds more like garden-variety evangelism to me. What seems more interesting, is: isn't it bullshit?
TNC, do YOU believe that?
Look -- it's a hypothetical, but it's not that hard to figure out: either the coach would cut a guy cuz he was out, no matter how good he was, or he'd... sit down with him to read Leviticus and St. Paul?
Riiight. Just THINK about what life will be like for the first out player in the NFL. Call him a linebacker, just to pick a position.
I'm persuaded that the first NFL linebacker to come out of the closet is gonna make Dick Butkus look like a pansy. (Perhaps I should rephrase that.) NO coach is gonna want to cut that guy -- hell, the next time the coach played that guy's team, his cut gay linebacker might literally eat the quarterback.
On the field. With his helmet on. Hell, he might start putting pink triangles on his own helmet, the way the Dawgs wear bones or OSU players get buckeyes.
I dunno Dungy personally, but I find it hard to believe that ANY coach, much less a guy with his record, wouldn't go the other way, and start channelling Knute Rockne in a team meeting -- 'you may not be comfortable with his lifestyle, gentlemen, but he's helping to get us to the Super Bowl, and before you feel uncomfortable about your teammate, let me read some of the things being said about him...'
Christ, it's practically a made-for-TV movie.
(Come to think on it... maybe I'll call Spielberg.)
George Wallace wasn't a bigot? Really?
@anonymous
That all begs the question, though, thinking hetero for a sec...can you think of another activity in which men and women are so violently physical (for fun, mind you) with the very objects of their sexual motivations? Not personally motivated, but in the generally our-plumbing-fits-together-so-why-not sort?
I'm at a loss, but I'm not all that bright either. Fun question, though :)
I think you could reasonably call Dungy a bigot. What I am less sure of, is why such a label matters.
I'm pro-choice. A large segment of the population would call me (with some justification) a "baby-killer". The chances of that making me abandon my pro-choice views are 0%. If Dungy is a man of conscience, who for some reason believes gay marriage is "wrong", a pejorative label isn't going to make him rethink anything.
The question isn't "is Dungy a bigot", the question is "can we convince Dungy he's wrong?".
Tony Dungy and Rick Warren are both bigots, or they are both not. You can't give Dungy a pass without giving Warren one as well.
I don't see TNC giving Warren a pass, and have to believe his whole "George Wallace wasn't a bigot" thing must be the result of a hangover from a late-night cipher.
This is anecdotal, but most people I've known that consider themselves progressives or at least on the left would disagree simply because they would claim there's no such thing as evil.
Not to go all Godwin's law on you, but do you really think that most progressives would not view the holocaust as evil?
...but to call something evil means you have to have a moral center to base that on and know what the center itself is based on. Do you?
I'm not quite sure what to say about this.
First: yes, of course I do. It seems strange to even have to answer the question. I'd argue that everyone short of a genuine sociopath has "a moral center." It may be inconsistent, incoherent, poorly thought out, but its there for everyone. We all have some sense of right and wrong, as well as good and evil. (I like to think mine is pretty sound, but I'm human). Ask yourself this: where does outrage come from, if not from this sense?
Second, I don't think moral relativism precludes having a moral center in any case, as I think(?) you are suggesting. It is a type of moral center. Further, it doesn't preclude having a sense of "evil." It may preclude the assignment of judgment to a particular act without context (as absolutism might), but that isn't the same thing at all.
"Of course the question is, how to do it in a way that garners you more allies than it loses you."
You don't. You denounce bigotry in the strongest of terms, no matter who is espousing it. You can't let someone off the hook just because they're prominent, close to you, or whatever.
The way you change attitudes, broadly, is familiarizing the issue. This is why it's important to have prominent, out, gays, as well sa non-prominent ones for that matter. It's quite a bit harder to be a hateful bigot when your favorite uncle, or your brother, or the baseball player you idolized as a kid, or whatever is a gay individual. But the those two aspects, familiarizing gay people and ostracizing homophobia, have to go hand in hand.
Please dont take this as an apology for Dungy but...
For everyone irritated with the attempt to parse the term "bigot" as it applies to Dungy...
...is Obama a bigot? He too opposes same-sex marriage.
Let's see all that stern moral invective applied to POTUS 44.
big-ot [big-uht]
-noun
“a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”
Under the dictionary definition of the term it would seem to me neither Dungy, nor Obama are “bigots”. In my wide-ranging participation in this debate I have encountered (properly defined) “bigots” on either side.
However: I must say that in both word and actions there are many more pro same-sex “marriage” bigots the among traditional marriage supporters.
This opinion is given substance ironically by the quick and ready ability of same-sex “marriage” proponents to brandish the charge of “bigotry”. A term used to shut down debate more often than contribute to it.
This is perhaps a nit picked but one cannot "believe in gay marriage." That makes no sense. Islam is a set of beliefs, ghosts are a set of beliefs, gay marriage is not a set of beliefs, it is an action, it is perhaps a set of rights, but it is not something subject to faith. I hear this all the time and it drives me up the wall.
Anyhoo... I would have said ten minutes ago that Dungy is a bigot. Plain and simple. I don't care why he believes what he believes, he thinks gay people do not deserve the same rights/privlidges as straight people, that is nothing other than bigotry.
BUT then I looked up the word in the dictionary and got something like this:
"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
I don't know if that applies to Dungy or not, frankly. He certainly has said things which I belive are discriminatory, but what's the word for "discriminator?" Discriminator? Homophobe? I dunno.
Scott, that falls into the "ewwww...." category. (Though one answer is co-ed rugby: ahhh.... college.)
The thing about Wallace is that he was a hypocrite, cuz he famously adopted his approach to race after an election when he was beaten by a guy who got around him on the white supremacist side. Wallace swore he'd never let that happen again -- and he didn't. The hypocrisy of it suggests bigot would be a good word for him.
I don't know, I'm not sympathetic to, and I don't particularly care about Wallace's personal prejudices based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender or sexual orientation. That's the thing -- part of the nuance is that a bigot PROJECTS, while a racist might simply view the world wrong.
So if we're gonna use words well (and hell, we all slide on it, constantly), the word "bigot" ought to pry open some knucklehead in a way that "racist" does not -- OR, if you like, the other way around: calling someone a "racist" ought to be worse, or at least distinctly different, from calling him a "bigot".
It's funny how revealing the origins of words can be: the legend is that "bigot" started as a slur by the French against the Normans, who were a stiff-necked bunch.(Normandy was part of France, but sorta kinda independent: the Hundred Years War and all that.) A Norman Duke, so the legend goes, refused to bow down to the French king when protocol required it, saying "bigod", the dialect version of Hell, no. So the French started using the word to dis the Normans, which is how it evolved to mean a superstitious hypocrite -- with the emphasis on the motivation FOR the hypocrisy. (The Normans certainly didn't cut the English any slack -- there is a reason why all the words for good food -- like beef -- in Britain are Norman, while all the words for lousy food -- like eels -- are Saxon.)
"Racism" is also originally a French word, and it comes out of all that pseudo-scientific crap that surrounded discussions of race and gender in the 19th century -- yanno, the way the French (and Belgians) imposed race on the Hutus and Tutsis, measuring their noses and whatnot.
Whoever made the comparison upthread to premarital sex was closer than most, I think -- true, I expect that a football coach (like Dungy, dealing with professionals) would be reluctant to sit 'em down and talk about the morality of chasing women. But professional sports are legendary for coaches and managers doing something very like that -- Casey Stengel famously told the Yankees that he didn't give a damn if they chased women, so long as they succeeded in a timely fashion: be in bed by midnight, alone or otherwise, was his view.
And of course there's the great Vince Lombardi threat to Paul Hornung, said in front of the whole team at training camp in the early 60s when this was real money: "the first time I catch you out after curfew, it's a hundred dollar fine. The second time I catch you, it's a thousand. And the THIRD time (Lombardi's face red, right next to Hornung), I'm gonna fine you FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.... and Paul, if you can find something worth sneaking out after midnight for five thousand dollars, hell, take me with you."
That wasn't morality, nor bigotry: that was... coaching.
Scott –
I certainly agree that those without faith should acknowledge their wrongdoing. The problem is that people of faith tend to believe that their crusades, conquests, and inquisitions are not wrong, because they are sanctioned by higher powers.
N –
I appreciate the spirit of your comment. I’m not suggesting that believers are less sincere than non-believers. I’m pretty sure that bin Laden is quite sincere in his views about sin. He’s an example of the need to subordinate faith to reason.
My pet theory is that his son was gay and couldn't deal with the fact given how he was brought up, his father's very public stance, his love for his father, and his need to not disappoint his father.
Scott--
I will yield on the technical details of Catholic theology (viz. rite vs. sacrament, and when marriage became a recognized as a sacrament, per se). But I maintain my larger point.
You asked, "Further, who said anything about Christian?". My answer: you did, implicitly, when you stated that "Marriage was first and has always been a religious rite", a universal statement that includes Christian traditions.
While your statement may be true in the narrow sense (I won't grant that -- how do you know? Heck, for all we know some form of informal "marriage" might even predate religion itself), in context it sounds to me that you are arguing that marriage began and belongs in the religious sphere, and that civil marriage is a new and unwelcome development.
I disagree for three reasons:
1) the importance of the religious component to marriage has evolved, as my example attempted to illustrate.
2) the distinction between civil and religious marriage has not always been clean.
3) There are many good reasons for civil recognition of non-blood family relations (i.e. adoption and marriage). I don't think anyone would argue that laws involving privacy, inheritance, children, or medical decisions should at least start with a presumption that family members have higher status than others. I don't think the law should treat my wife and me as strangers that happen to share an address.
It is for these reasons that your statement that "codifying [marriage] into public statute was a mistake" strikes me as a bit odd. It's always been a part of civil tradition, and for reasons that strike me as being as valid as ever.
Disagree on this one, TNC. Wrong question.
Whether he is a bigot or not doesn't matter much.
The chances to convince someone who talks like he does and goes out of his way to support anti-gay organizations based on deeply held religious convictions that he is wrong are very slim and I will try first to convince people more convinceable.
Probably the smartest way should be not to call him names (deserved or not) but we definitively have to point out how wrong his positions are. Kind of love the man hate the sin.
"Respectfully, I think you need to check your facts. Besides, I said "rite" not "sacrament". Two completely different things. Further, who said anything about Christian?"
Respectfully, he is correct on his facts. tThe fact is that in Europe, the basis for this country's laws and customs, the rites and the sacrments of the Roman church were the norm until the 1500's, and marriage didn't rise to level of meriting either a rite or qualify as a sacrament (and still doesn't qualify for that). For a very long time even when a marriage was solemnified at with a rite, it was performed at the door of the church because mariage was considered a less holy form of life than celibacy.
As for your reference to other traditions, well so what? Are you really arguing that they should be normative in this country? Weddings are indeed a religious rite in Judaism, maybe in Islam too. Good God - you can't be suggesting we make those normative in this country! Isn't one Gaza at a time enough for you?
Juba --
No, Obama fails the test of bigotry here. The issue isn't whether one opposes gay marriage, the issue is why. Absent a believable, non-bigoted reason, bigotry seems a reasonable supposition (and often is).
Obama is a politician and POTUS. His support or opposition to positions is based on many, many factors, including forging consensus and maintaining popularity. As a matter of public policy, he has stated that he will not support a movement to legalize gay marriage; but he has not said he'd oppose such a movement, either, and he does support complete legal equality for gay couples otherwise. This, on the campaign trail, gets reduced to "against gay marriage," but there's not much room in that position for a supposition of bigotry.
I'm not saying Obama's pandering; I'm saying that as a politician he has to distinguish his personal convictions from his policy goals.
But folks like Dungy are not in that stance. He's not against gay marriage as a matter of political posture, he's actually morally opposed to allowing gays to get married. That's totally different.
More generally---
Use of the term "bigot" in this context includes the supposition that there is no reasonable argument for denying gays the right to marry. That's why it's a loaded term -- it immediately presupposes someone's arguments are not reasonable.
So, it's not that all people that don't agree with you are bigots, it's that people who argue for rendering a class of people second-class citizens without good reason is demonstrably bigoted. Arguing "I'm not a bigot, I just oppose gay marriage because it's not traditional" is saying "this tradition is more important than your legal status", which is unreasonable and, frankly, therefore a bigoted thing to say.
"Juba --
No, Obama fails the test of bigotry here. The issue isn't whether one opposes gay marriage, the issue is why."
All due respect, but that sounds like a rationalization that many others in this thread have rejected. I specifically remember someone saying it didnt matter whether or not George Wallace was sincerely a bigot or a bigot for political reasons.
In fact, I'd respect Dungy more if he held those beliefs for moral reasons but did not take the next step of speaking against gay marriage publically (he did) and/or organizing or voting against it legally (have yet to see proof he took this next step.)
What put Dungy in the line of fire critically was speaking out against gay marriage publically at an award ceremony (for him) held by a conservative Illinois? Indiana? religious group. As a devout Christian, he follows the generally Christian prohibition against homosexuality. If that alone makes him a bigot, you're pronouncing a large segment (majority?) of our 75%+ Christian nation as bigots.
Including (apparently) POTUS 44, who is not only against same sex marriage politically (as is his VP) but also professes his Christianity publically (as does his VP). That double whammy should neatly fall under bigotry by your standard and that of many in this post thread.
Wow, this conversation reads like the one that went on in the 60s about Black civil rights.
I mean, if someone just tacitly supports the KKK because they share a point of view, are they bigots? If you belong to the KKK yet don't murder and lynch Black people, can you claim to not be a bigot? What if you're just in the administrative wing?
"Bigot" has a specific cultural cache; "Homophobia" (a terribly inaccurate term that I hate desperately) has none. That's why if you are for denying LGBT people equal protection under the law, you in my eyes are a bigot, not a homophobe. The deep, inescapable shame attached to being thought of as a bigot is the most useful tool gay people have in this war of attrition. We should use it as much as possible.
Ultimately, this is not a discussion about semantics, it's a discussion about people and how they behave and what is acceptable in a civil, pluralistic society. As a society, we have to decide that using the word "nigger" is inappropriate before people who are bigoted stop using the word "nigger". Part of how you do that is by applying labels that are negative to those people who refuse to conform with the generally held belief that blatant, virulent racism is a bad idea.
That's why we need to call him a bigot; the generally held belief amongst people under 40 is that LGBT people are pretty cool and need their civil rights. it's time that people who don't conform to that generally held belief start to experience the consequences of their noncomformity. Just like gay people had to for the last 60+ years for their noncomformity.
The reason that religious freedom vs. gay rights doesn't work is that I don't care what you believe; you can believe that the world was shit out of the anus of a giant slug who lives inside the head of every man woman and child (unless they're asian). Go ahead, believe! But, if you want to legislate that there needs to be giant anus slugs in every courthouse to remind us of the sacrifice the anus slugs made in creating the universe - I've got to draw the line. Or, if you want to murder the asians cause they don't have slugs in their brains, that is also a no-no.
Just like if you believe that a man was born immaculately, then was tortured to death to save the world from eternal damnation, but gays and lesbians have to be dragged behind trucks, tied to fences and thrown out of your house because this tortured individual didn't approve of them, you can go ahead and believe that but I have to draw the line at the fences, trucks and evictions.
The reason the bigot/murderer dynamic doesn't work is that while bigot has a huge societal meaning, it's not illegal to be a bigot. However, murdering someone has all sorts of messy legal issues attached to it. So, nice try! But not so much.
Could Obama be pro-gay marriage and still get elected in 2012? No.
'Nuff said.
I love the man, but he's still a politician. Gays are used to that kind of bullshit though, so it don't go so hard.
Anyway, I can get married tomorrow if I wanted to. In a Christian church no less. The state just won't recognize it. Ain't that a kick in the pants?
Okay, so this gets REAL technical, but what the hell:
"Arguing "I'm not a bigot, I just oppose gay marriage because it's not traditional" ... is CONSERVATIVE. It's not necessarily "bigoted". A conservative might say this even though, hell because they are open to be convinced that in this particular case, tradition can be improved on -- but, as a "conservative", their bias (another precise word) is against innovation.
Reducing that perspective to "this tradition is more important than your legal status..." is either redundant or argumentative, take your pick. But in itself, even it was fair, that characterization is not "bigoted" because it simply restates that the conservative is against same sex marriage: it's a legal status, he prefers tradition. We already know that.
There's another, precise word not being used here: "ignorant". Neither prejudice nor bigotry is cured by learning.
Somebody pointed out that Catholic hospitals recognize non-Catholic marriages for the various legal rights and responsibilities that spouses have, but sorta missed the point: those are LEGAL issues. In a sense, the Catholic hospital is legally required to act like a business in certain ways -- like a hospital, rather than a Catholic institution. There is a non-trivial concern that "marriage" rather than "civil unions" would cross a line someplace for various religious institutions (like hospitals) in all kinds of specific ways, about which I am flat-out ignorant. (There is a similar argument over abortion and contraception, e.g., the morning after pill: who can refuse to prescribe it? Under what circumstances?)
See how it works? Supposing somebody like Dungy believed that gay marriage would force the Catholic church to recognize same sex spouses, the way the law requires Catholic hospitals to recognize marriages that the Church denies. Suppose that belief is simply wrong, for some legal reason that I don't know anything about. IF you managed to show that to Dungy, and then he CONTINUED to insist that his belief was right despite evidence, then -- arguably -- he'd be a bigot, along the lines of the superstitious hypocrite definition.
But (as somebody else pointed out) skipping over this sorta reasoning as unworthy of the name misses the chance to use a more precise word: ignorance.
The same dynamic holds if Dungy happens to believe that (I dunno, so if the guy happens to read this blog, forgive me) that society ought to be set up to make temptation less, er, tempting. This was a powerful argument for outlawing prostitution, f'r instance, and oddly enough, it was the ORIGINAL rationale for welfare, back when mothers without husbands had very few economic options.
That is, it's not necessarily bigoted for somebody (like a religious conservative) to think that all this fornicatin' is a bad thing, not just because it goes against the commandments but also because it is bad for a society in the long run, viz., polygamous societies tend to stagnate and/or collapse, and so do (the argument goes) those that tolerate or even encourage all kinds of carrying on.
That's a question of FACT, not simply of values, so dismissing it as bigotry is in itself ignorant: maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong -- but if he's wrong, it's not necessarily cuz he's a bigot, it's maybe cuz he literally doesn't know better.
John,
"Could Obama be pro-gay marriage and still get elected in 2012? No.
'Nuff said.
I love the man, but he's still a politician. Gays are used to that kind of bullshit though, so it don't go so hard."
I dont know if Nuff has been said.
How is this different from George Wallace pretending to be a bigot to get votes?
Is Obama less of a bigot than Dungy because he's doing it for political, not faith based, reasons?
Fails my smell test anyway. Bottom line, if not supporting gay marriage = bigotry, then not only is Dungy a bigot but Obama, Biden, and at least 110 million Americans that voted for them and their bigoted opponents.
John: does your state have civil unions?
That is, WHY doesn't your state recognize a same sex marriage in a Christian church?
I ask, because it would seem that in your case, the church is acting on behalf of the state in a narrowly defined function that would not allow for the state to reject a civil union, simply because it is consecrated as a "marriage" by a church.
There was a neat little incident a few years back, about the politically muddy distinction between a sacrament (marriage) and a contract (civil unions, which is what "marriage" IS, when it is strictly done by the state and not a religious institution).
Apple Computer was about to open some huge facility in, I think, the Dallas-Fort Worth area, a couple thousand good, high-paying jobs, with lots of multipliers and excellent PR for the area. People who win elections were lining up to cut the ribbon.
At the same time, the Texas legislature was about to outlaw same sex marriages, civil unions, etc.
So Apple sent its lawyers to talk to the legislature -- are you saying, they asked, that the private contracts that we have with all of our employees, which include the option of civil union benefits to same sex couples that extend to health care and hospitalization and powers of attorney and living wills, etc., will be BANNED by the state of Texas?
The legislators kind of looked at their shoes and tried to think of an answer.
Apple went out and held a press conference: you do this, and we'll open our plant in Oklahoma or Colorado or (twisting the knife) NEW MEXICO.
Texas backed down.
Ralph:
I never made an argument against same sex marriage. I support it. I'm just not under the impression that everyone who doesn't share my viewpoint is, ipso facto, a bigot.
D-Sel:
You cannot support, enforce, legislate or otherwise meaningfully interact with any fundamental right or institution without having at least a mental framework of what that thing really is . For some, at it's very core marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. That's not semantics. Obviously you don't share that viewpoint, but that doesn't make you right and them wrong or vice versa. But again, if the position is that everyone who disagrees with you on this relatively narrow issue with no further context on the person and how they feel about homosexuals is a bigot, well see my original post.
It seems possible to me to say that Dungy has bigoted views on a specific topic without regarding him as a bigot in his overall view of society or the conduct of his life. I can't tell you that I know a huge amount about the man, and have never interacted with him personally, but it seems a little silly to worry too much about the opinions of one former NFL coach as opposed to a multitude of priests, politicians and people of greater influence.
I would further suggest that each of us probably holds views on some social issue that others might consider bigoted, whether we are honest about this or not. I support a woman's right to choose - which, to pro-lifers, might seem bigotry from their point of view. Why does the man hate the unborn etc etc?
Frankly, I worry more about the bigoted views of someone like Rick Warren who has a mega-church taking its theology from him, rather than those of Tony Dungy, which seem to me to have rather less impact on society as a whole. This is not to agree with Dungy, just to say that there are probably limits to the value of picking him out as the focus of such a discussion.
Green: Opposition to same sex marriage does not in itself imply any sort of hatred or intolerance of gay people, it, by itself, means just that- the indiviual doesn't support changeing the way they define marriage to the way you'd like them to define marraige.
The problem is that while an individual person may be able to reconcile opposing same-sex marriage and not hating gay people, for those of us who happen to be gay, the result is the same regardless of how you personally feel. You can love the gay people for days, but if you voted for Prop 8, then you actively support writing discrimination into the CA state constitution, and you are saying that I do not deserve the right to make the same legal committment to the person I love as someone who is heterosexual, solely because of my sexual orientation.
There's no way for me to parse"You don't deserve the same rights I do because of [insert characteristic here]" as anything other than "you are less-than", and that, to me, is the essence of bigotry.
N, you might try this with your evangelical friend: If you're using state law to save people from hellfire, consider whether that's an appropriate tool from your role not as a Jesus-following man but as an American. It is fundamentally unpatriotic to use your vote to force your neighbor to live as you think best.
It's also impious. The Romans who crucified His Son had the same plan as your friend: If only we can shut up this weirdo with his dangerous ideas about love and tolerance, our religion will continue to dominate and its spiritual demands will be fulfilled. Now, the Romans' beliefs required the inequity in their society that Jesus preached against. So the state tried to stop His message. So how did that work for them?
Finally, the separation of church and state was designed to benefit churches. Is it really a good idea to bend the power of the state to fit the present-day norms of one religion? What if the majority were Muslims, Jews or atheists?
On Dungy, the man's prejudiced and irrational. God is his excuse for holding those beliefs, so he's free in this great country to shout those beliefs from the rooftops. Yet his right to swing his fist ends where my nose begins, and his persuasion is damaging real families.
Unless he has put as much time, energy, and fame behind the cause of getting civil not-marriages for same-sex couples as he has into objecting to gays geting married--he's a bigot. I don't give a damn what a man believes if it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, as the man said. When you start doing both, while claiming your moral beliefs as cover for the immoral results*, that we've got bigotry.
*All major religions require believers to protect the widow and orphan, and to be kind to neighbors. Violating that requirement is immoral. Some of today's Christians (GLBT rights, women's health), Jews (Gaza) and Muslims (al-Qaeda actions) seem to have a common stumbling block about who the neighbors and widows and orphans can and can't be.
On Dungy, the man's prejudiced and irrational. God is his excuse for holding those beliefs, so he's free in this great country to shout those beliefs from the rooftops.
Posted by PhoenixRising | January 14, 2009 8:23 PM
It seems unfair to assume that Dungy's faith is simply an excuse. I don't find it congenial, but that doesn't make it insincere or less than deeply felt. Being this aggressive and denunciatory about his faith will hardly help to open dialogue with him.
But it's a very Republican thing to do.
Green,
I'm not sure your response has a lot of substance to it, at least as I interpret it (please correct me if I misunderstand). I understand you to say that some people have a sincere conception of marriage as consisting exclusively of one man and one woman. Point given. I just don't see how having a clearly defined and sincere conception of some right absolves one of blame if he or she seeks to arbitrarily exclude another from that right. If a person wants to exclude a group of people from a fundamental right, like marriage, the next question should be why. If the best answer is "well, I just always understood that it should be limited in such a way that you're excluded but I have no good reason to exclude you other than my subjective understanding of the right," well, I'd submit that is not a very compelling answer. And if the person actually believes the law should reflect his own personal conceptions of what a right should be even if it means arbitrarily excluding a group of people from enjoying that right, I would consider that person to be, in some fashion or another, a bigot. It may not be the most malicious example of bigotry out there, but it is bigotry nonetheless.
I'm not at my most eloquent (it's been a long day). Here's someone else making the case far better than I ever could,if you have an hour to spend reading up on it:
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/074401.pdf
bigot...homophobe...infidel...nigger...fanatic...
All this infantile name calling and I've-counted-all-the-words-in-the-bible certainty as to who's who, what's what and who's allowed to say what, makes for a pretty ridiculous conversation.
But it's a very Republican thing to do.
Posted by gwangung | January 14, 2009 9:02 PM
Pssst.. I want to win over Republicans, not become them *s*.
TNC, Anyone who would use the subjugation and murder of their fellow human beings for political gain and still expect to be lauded for their "tolerance" because they didn't send post cards to their friends and family celebrating scenes of the lastest lynching may be worse than the most candid racist. I'm an optimist, especially now. I really believe that today in this country, most racism (we are talking anti-Black people racism, but this is generally applicable to human society) is ignorance, the fear of the "unknown" aided and abetted by the volume and volacity of today's media and this nation's history. Ignorance can be fixed by personal experience and information. That's at least one of the reasons our next president is an African American man named Barack Hussein Obama.
I guess the question is "what's worse, being a racist or using racism?" The former is usually ignorant or stupid, the later is always cynical. The answer is all of the above.
Anonymous,
The issue is that for 20 years GLBT people have been able to get sacred marriages in established Christian churches, but those churches are discriminated against by the government, who refuses to give their sacrament the same recognition as the sacraments of, say, the Baptist church or the Mormon church.
This whole issue falls right in the center of the 1st amendment - it seems fairly clear that the government is picking sides in a theological discussion, and some denominations are being penalized for that. De facto, they are encouraging the establishment of those denominations who discriminate against gays vs. those who do not, by offering special benefits (i.e. marriage licenses) to those churches who refuse to marry GLBT couples.
Under the US constitution, whether it be separation of church and state ("your religion should not be legislated") or the anti-establishment clause ("the government shouldn't act to establish one religion as the state religion") bigots against gays LOSE. I think, though, we need to kick them where it hurts, and start making this a religious issue rather than a sex or civil rights issue. That's the fast track to gay marriage.
Juba,
The difference is Obama supports civil unions, which anyone with half a brain (so certainly Obama) knows is just semantics to make religious people happy. If a civil union has all the legal rights of a marriage it is a marriage. I understand the position of someone like Andrew Sullivan who argues that you need the term "marriage" as a sign that Gays are full memebers of society. And I recognize that as a straight guy it is easy for me to say (since it's not my relationship being treated as different) "be real, take what you can get, baby steps, once people see that civil unions don't lead to the demise of western civilisation full acceptance will come" sure the Rick Warren's and Tony Dungy's will never come around, but the majority of the country will.
Eric answers what John avoids -- that's why I asked the question.
A better illustration of the diminished role of the purely religious marriage is polygamy: there are a few sects that perform marriage rites for guys with multiple wives, but so far as the state is concerned, they are not legal marriages. The Mormons pioneered this more than a hundred years ago -- it is an odd fact of progressive politics that Mormons originated the right of married women to inherit and own property exclusive of their husbands, precisely because it's the only way to make polygamy work: civil and religious rules are different in kind. The way it's done these days in Utah, for example, is the FIRST marriage is the legal one, and after that the others are religious marriages without legal standing. (That's why so few polygamists are actually prosecuted -- they're not breaking the law.)
In fact, the NY Times did a marvelous bit of reporting about 14 years ago on the principal legal problem Big Love marriages have: zoning. Go figure.
It seems the easiest way to do the living arrangements for families like this -- REALLY extended families -- is a big common area with various independent residences, which looks (and is legally defined) like a hotel. Since these pose utility issues (water, sewer, electricity, gas lines, fire lanes) that are problematic in residential areas, there's a guy in the Salt Lake City planning and zoning office who has to adjudicate 'em.
I wonder what Brigham Young would've thought of that.
One hard core, Reaganista conservative I know has a lesbian sister in law who is married. He refers to the "partner", and salvages his principles by insisting that what they have is a 'civil union', not the equal of his Catholic marriage: BFD.
So I'm a big believer in the old political advice: "ALWAYS concede on principle." I like practical solutions that get us what we want; the other side can be happy rationalizing that they won on rhetoric.
Eric,
How can you be sure Dungy isnt as open to civil unions as Obama is? Have you asked him? Has anyone?
I think that too many people use the term 'bigot' incorrectly.
I mean according to some people and their definition of bigot on this post being anti-bigot is being bigoted against bigots.
And it's laughable that the same people who trip over themselves to condemn Dungy for his views, excuse Obama for his, even though they are the same, expressed unashamedly and in public. Support for civil unions is parsing, plain and simple.
" sure the Rick Warren's and Tony Dungy's will never come around, but the majority of the country will..."
I gather this is a common problem in science where (you'd hallucinate) emotional investment in falsehood would be a bit less compelling.
But it's not.
I read an essay a long time ago where somebody pointed out that, as a practical matter, pretty much nobody is ever "convinced" of some new theory. Kepler and Galileo didn't persuade anybody who had accepted the Ptolemaic system that the sun revolved around the earth that they were wrong; Darwin didn't persuade his critics natural selection was real; Einstein didn't win over people who rejected his rejection of Newton.
IIRC, the guy had a long list of the Powers that Be (um, that Were) at the moment of great innovations and advances, and tracked 'em -- and virtually all of 'em continued to reject whatever it was that was new and true until the day they died.
But their successors didn't.
What made the Keplers, Galileos and Einsteins of the world into the new conventional wisdom, wasn't simply that they were more demonstrably correct than what had gone before, it's that BECAUSE they crossed that threshold, everybody coming up was first taught 'the controversy', and within a generation or so, it was 'the historical controversy': which is how they won.
Just an example for folks who think the keys to the kingdom are in the wrong pockets.
Am I the only one still stuck on the image of a football coach, arguably the most able to fire,demote at will one of his employee's, response to an openly gay employee being to sit him down and use a religous argument that he should stop being who he is? He may be a great guy in many respects, but the fact that he thinks that is in any way appropriate is laughable. Does he really think that a sport that plays on THE SABBATH can withstand a literal interpretation of his religous text? Should your Catholic boss be able to hound you about your impending divorce? Should your jewish boss require you to keep kosher in the break room?
Our whole problem here is people who want everything they think is wrong to be illegal. Who you chose to marry doesn't effect me at all. Any argument that the state has an interest here should have to show a civil explanation of what they are protecting and why. I've yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that passes that test. It's icky, it's against tradition and god says so don't cut it. The only argument that will ever work with people who have a faith based disagreement is to remind them that we are discussing cesars work not gods. The separation of church and state was a stroke of genius and protects the religous traditions they are so fond of. If they continue to vote it's icky,against tradtion and god told me to they can't be won over. That's ok, we only need to get to 51%.
RE: Obama
Gays have been fucked by politicians for as long as politicians have been fucking constituents.
We expect it. Someday, I hope, we will come to enjoy it.
Juba,
Your right, we don't know, maybe he is, but based on the fact that he is a fundamentalist Christian who would counsel gay players about the sin of homosexuality it is highly unlikely.
*The issue is that for 20 years GLBT people have been able to get sacred marriages in established Christian churches, but those churches are discriminated against by the government, who refuses to give their sacrament the same recognition as the sacraments of, say, the Baptist church or the Mormon church.*
John, there is no religious discrimination occuring because the state does not recognize any marital sacraments. The state isn't recognizing a Catholic marriage but not a Unitarian one. It recognizes civil marriages and allows clergy to perform two ceremonies simultaneously. Maybe, as a way of getting rid of this nonsensical religious confusion we should just stop allowing clergy to certify civil contracts. I say, separate the ceremonies.
Unfortunately, the word of the law and the spirit of the law are not matching - see the DMA if you want a very clear example of what I'm talking about.
As I said, refusing to recognize the marriages performed in say, Unitarian churches, just because they're between two men or two women, is DE FACTO establishment of religion. I understand that it's not seen as a de jure establishment.
Separating the ceremonies is fine; however, the only argument against gay marriage is one based in the Old Testament of the Bible. If you separate the ceremonies, gays can get married. If you refuse to separate them, then you are discriminating against denominations who believe GLBT unions to be part of their holy sacrament.
The government just has to pick it's poison. It's wrong that I can get married but the state won't recognize it, just because it's run by Southern Baptists and other evangelical nutjobs. My relationship AND my Christianity deserve respect from the government, and equal opportunity under the 1st amendment.
Eric sez,
The problem with unbelievers trying to argue points of fatih is that they are talking about something they know little to nothing about. To a Christian, marriage is very much different from a civil union. For the Christian, marriage has its origins in Genesis chapter 2 ("For this reason a man shall leave His mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh., For what the Lord has joined, let no man separate"). Marriage means a covenant relationship between husband, wife, and God with no clause for terminating the contract other than adultery. God is very clear about His views on divorce. Malachi 2:16 says "For I hate divorce," says the LORD".
On the other hand civil union is based on a contract between two people that can be voided in a court of law for nothing more than the fact that two people are tired of looking at each other. There are no moral requisities that go along with a civil union -- it merely sets up the framework for how two people who cohabitate deal with their property and with no regard to their gender.
So you see Eric, from the perspective of believers the semantic difference between marriage and civil union is a lot bigger than you understand because from the perspective of an unbeliever, the significance of the believer's relationship with the Lord is not part of the equation.
Russd,
I'll ignore the condenscension where you assume what I do or don't believe.
Your right and wrong at the same time.
The problem is the term marriage in the US means two things, from a legal standpoint it is a civil union, the religious side of it carries no legal significance. For example if a Catholic gets divorced they are perfectly free to get remarried legally, the church may not recognize that as a marriage and won't let a priest perform it, but as far as the law is concerend it is a marriage. All of the legal rights ascoiated with marriage are part of the civil aspect, not the religious aspect.
Your post highlights the problem's we've created by mixing civil/legal and religious marriage. The state shouldn't be involved in the legal side and conversely the church should have nothing to with the legal side.
The ideal solution would be to redefine all legal marriage as civil unions. The state has no interest in the religious aspects of marriage, within your church your free to have any ceremony you want and restrict it however you want (no gays, no divorcees etc.)
Teh atlantci needs an edit feature,
obviously my sentence should read:
The state shouldn't be involved in the religious side and conversely the church should have nothing to with the legal side
Eric,
Please do ignore any perceived condecension because none was intended. I really was trying to be respectful of your position.
However, I would disagree with your assertion that I am correct and incorrect simultaneously. Your example actually confirms the logic of my argument. While the civil marriage of the divorced Catholic is not recognized by the Church, the couple do enjoy all the rights extended by the law of the land to the couple.
"The state has no interest in the religious aspects of marriage"
Actually I believe Proposition 8 shows that the state (of California) DOES have quite the interest in the religious aspects of marriage, because thats the only real argument against it: 'Its forbidden by natural (my religion's) law.'
The question then becomes: is it Constitutional for the state (and its voters) to take any sort of interest the religious aspects of marriage?
I believe it isnt. I love the idea of taking away the Church's duty to certify the marriage and separating the dual application of the ceremony.
Could be exactly the compromise needed to move forward.
Russd,
this statement "Your example actually confirms the logic of my argument. While the civil marriage of the divorced Catholic is not recognized by the Church, the couple do enjoy all the rights extended by the law of the land to the couple." makes no sense.
My argument is that civil marraige as defined by the state has nothing to do with the religious aspect, in other words the marriage of divorced catholics is legal and has all the rights of marriage even though the church doesn't recognize it. How does that prove your point? We still call it marriage and we don;t force the church to recognize it, how would Gay marriage be any different?