Jenny ([info]jenny_evergreen) wrote,
@ 2007-02-05 12:54:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: angry
Entry tags:opinions, politics, queer

Stooping to their level.
Gay rights activists in Washington have introduced an initiative, in a response to the Washington Supreme Court's ruling that the state could prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying because the state has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation, that would allow only couples capable of having kids to marry, and that they file "proof of procreation" within three years of the marriage. If not, the marriage would be annulled.

DAMNIT, people, THINK! Do you realize how hurtful this could be to gay-friendly people who are infertile? I'm bisexual, and all for gay rights, including marriage, and Tom and I tried to have a baby for seven years before we finally (with chemical help) succeeded. We were lucky. And I happen to be a pretty tough person, so I don't know how painful I'd've found this had we still not succeeded. But that's me.
There are a lot of people out there who are quietly, completely shattered because they can't have children, and this just pours salt on the wound. Some of them are going to cry. Think about that. You want that on your conscience? You want to hurt innocent people like that?

I know it's hard; I know we're in a battle that's been raging for a long time now. But when we stop thinking about who else, what innocents, might get hurt by what we do to make a point, we become a whole lot more like the people we're fighting; cruelty does NOT become us.

Activists, you go out there and you say you're SORRY, damnit, because there are a lot of people who are owed an apology. They'll understand why you did it, but it still hurt them, and it was/is still the wrong thing to do; two wrongs DON'T make a right.

I'm sorry, very sorry, that some of us lost sight of that very important fact.

Edited in April, 2008, because I happened to come upon this again then:
And guess what? It was withdrawn shortly thereafter because they didn't get the signatures they needed. *sarcasm* That was SO WORTH hurting our allies for, now, wasn't it? *end sarcasm*


(Post a new comment)


[info]ar_wahan
2007-02-05 07:57 pm UTC (link)
Wow, I'd totally missed that story.

You are right, it is insensitive to say the least.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-05 08:44 pm UTC (link)
*nod* I get the reasoning behind it, but someone needs a serious whack with a cluestick.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nitemirror
2007-02-05 08:24 pm UTC (link)
I try to say as far away from politics as I can. However, I have joined www.govtrack.us to keep an eye on the people who represent me in Washington and any proposed bills the congress is working on that effect (or in a few cases affect) me.

It seem the older I get, the more fed up I am with the government.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-05 08:45 pm UTC (link)
I am moving to a whole new government! Yay! (I think. ;P)

(Reply to this) (Parent)
DAMNIT, Jenny , THINK!
[info]gh4acws
2007-02-05 08:56 pm UTC (link)
Who is doing the hurting? The people who demand that laws should be applied fairly or the dickheads that declare that an unjust law CAN be made, that marriage CAN be reserved for people who can procreate. As that supreme court did. If states can be allowed to make laws to limit marriage then we want to hear the reasons. And if the only legitimate reason is procreation it is every citizens right to demand that such a law be applied fairly to all couples.
As for the hurting -

  1. If half the nation is hurting I bet laws would be changed pretty fast.

  2. I don't think politicians would ever enact a law like that - and if you do your lack of sleep must be more serious than I thought.

  3. If someone is hurt because someone else is demanding that a given law should be abolished or applied fairly - well that too bad that person should go and look for a nice unequal dictatorship1 somewhere.

  4. I know there are people that are infertile. I know that some people are desperate to have children. I have my own problem with that - I always wanted children and think it is too late now. Even if I did find a partner much younger now and we managed to hit the jackpot on first try I would be 70 by the time they were finished with school (supposing they never fail). There would be a good chance that my children would grow up without father from some point on. ( like I did when my father died when I was 13 - and he 90 - I know what I do NOT want to copy from him. )



  1. But not even dictatorships can be relied on treating people arbitrarily unfair - even the Nazis changed the laws first - before starting the 'legalized' persecution. And even "Bushland" keeps some prisoners deliberately outside the US so they can't demand a fair trial. ( I think in time courts will decide that the theory that US laws do not fully apply to Guantanamo base is fallacious and that if a nation controls a piece of land then the laws of that nation apply - but that may take a long time. )


I think the idea is brilliant. I does show the hypocrisy in the anti-gay movement.
Personally I think if marriage is something sacred than the state should keep completely out of it and only recognize civil unions and leave marriage to the religion of choice. And then only give benefits to civil unions.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: DAMNIT, Jenny , THINK!
[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-05 09:43 pm UTC (link)
Some of the blame definitely falls on the homophobes who started the whole thing. But that *does not* justify hurtful actions on our part. And it doesn't matter that it would never be put into effect; the pain is in the implication and the reminder.

It is not okay to say a dismissive "too bad" when innocents are hurt. Ever.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]steve_roby
2007-02-05 09:02 pm UTC (link)
Maybe I'm cynical and heartless, but I don't have a problem with this little exercise in satirical activism. The whole point, it seems to me, is to poke at the huge bundle of unexamined assumptions about marriage that so many people have. Even some of the people who are timidly okay with the idea of gay "civil unions" want to limit the word "marriage" to an explicitly religious ceremony between a man and a woman who go on to have children together. By that definition, I'm not married and I couldn't be married. Laura and I are atheists, after all, and we have no intention whatsoever of having children. And yet people who have issues with the idea of gay marriage don't think twice about accepting our marriage as valid. And why shouldn't our marriage be valid? We didn't do it for some god or for children who will never exist. We did it as a statement of commitment to each other and to our families and friends, a statement that we are together for the rest of our lives.

Obviously the activists involved in this bit of political theatre have no expectation of seeing their modest proposal accepted. No infertile couples will have their marriages annulled. This will have no real effect on any real people; that alone keeps them from stooping to the same level as their opponents, who actually are restricting people's rights.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-05 09:51 pm UTC (link)
The point is obvious, and, of course, it wouldn't pass. But, unlike in the case of Swift's proposal, the idea that childless couples are somehow lacking, that their marriages are somehow less valid, is a very real one that has a real effect on real people who want children and are unable to have them. Reminding them of that without so much as a by-your-leave...yes, it's heartless. And sending the message that gay rights activists are heartless is hardly going to do us any favors.
I am certain that the same point could have been made in a much less heartless way.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ar_wahan
2007-02-06 01:20 am UTC (link)
"is a very real one that has a real effect on real people who want children and are unable to have them."

There's another side to this, too. I know a very charming heterosexual, married couple who decided long ago to NOT have kids. They feel a prejudice against them in society, too. They feel judged as selfish and other things.

So while I "get" the satire, and I can see maybe someone raising it in a newspaper column or something, to actually file a lawsuit could smart.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-06 02:07 am UTC (link)
*nod* Oh, yeah. I hate that prejudice. I'm on the other side, constantly urging people to only have children if they REALLY want them. The vast majority apparently have kids because it's "what people do", which doesn't exactly equate to a good reason in my book. My decision to have children was extremely deliberate. I wish everyone's was.

I get the satire. I get the point. But there had to be a way to make it that didn't turn the good guys into bad guys, which is what this did.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nellorat
2007-02-08 04:50 pm UTC (link)
I'm a heterosexual woman who chose not to have children, and I saw the so-called proposal as ideological judo, not at all hurtful. If anything, it reminded me that I am currently (and for the forseeable future) lucky in the way a lot of my friends are not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-08 05:45 pm UTC (link)
I do know of someone who was hurt by it. I think that was a possibility that could easily have been anticipated. I know it meant to kick the bad guys, but it hit good guys on the way, and that's not okay, imo.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Eh Hemmm!
[info]shelleybear
2007-02-06 04:44 pm UTC (link)
Speaking as a trans gendered MtF who very much loves her S.O. I am looking for ANYHING that will push society into looking at their feelings an opinions and help legitimize our relationship.
Including this.
This attacks Hypocracy more then anything else.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Eh Hemmm!
[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-06 05:50 pm UTC (link)
Pouring salt on a very sensitive wound isn't going to win us any friends, and, in fact, could lose us some.
There were other ways to make the point that wouldn't have made us the bad guy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Eh Hemmm!
[info]shelleybear
2007-02-06 06:22 pm UTC (link)
Me:
Married 14 years.
No children (not for want of trying).
BUT, I still don't find this offensive.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Eh Hemmm!
[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-06 07:03 pm UTC (link)
Just because it doesn't hurt you personally doesn't mean it isn't hurtful.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Eh Hemmm!
[info]shelleybear
2007-02-06 07:26 pm UTC (link)
I think it's best that we agree to disagree.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Eh Hemmm!
[info]rhialto
2007-02-13 09:48 pm UTC (link)
But "us" are not the bad guy. The Supreme Court is. The initiative merely puts the opinion of the Supreme Court in the form of a law.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Eh Hemmm!
[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-13 10:44 pm UTC (link)
By putting the initiative out there in this way, we effectively side with the bad guys. I'm not saying it shouldn't/couldn't have been done, but that at the very least we should have done it making very clear that we don't agree with it, and ideally with people in that situation right there next to us.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Eh Hemmm!
[info]rhialto
2007-02-13 11:00 pm UTC (link)
Well, I would hope that people would realise that "we" don't agree with it. (Actually, my personal opinion would be to ban marriage altogether, but I don't require laws to go that far).
I think the main problem with the strategy is that it requires some basic logical thinking of the people. There is the premisse, the opinion of the Supreme Court that marriage is solely for the purpose of procreation. There is then the logical conclusion, a law which enforces that idea. If people disagree with the conclusion (and the presumption is that most people will indeed disagree), then they should (by logic) disagree with the premisse, and fight it.
Unfortunately, this apparently is too difficult for the public at large. Instead of saying "I feel hurt by the Supreme Court" they say "I feel hurt by this initiative". However, maybe with some additional explanation, they will point the finger at the real culprits.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Eh Hemmm!
[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-13 11:40 pm UTC (link)
We could have done more than hope; we could have given that additional explanation in advance.
It's all oversimplified anyway, and it's not actually a very solid argument, but that's beside the point.
A little forethought would have been wise, and kind, both qualities everyone could use more of.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]johnpalmer
2007-02-06 08:25 pm UTC (link)
I dunno. Someone has to establish that, no, marriage isn't about baby-making, it's about family formation.

The people who are hurting those who want children, but can't have them, are the ones who said "but marriage is all about the babies!" They are the ones who are saying "childless marriages aren't protected, and aren't what we want, and aren't what we're fighting for".

This certain-to-fail initiative is simply saying "put up or shut up."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-06 08:32 pm UTC (link)
Yes. But it might have been a bit wiser to get all the people who have an interest in that point *on our side* instead of *alienating them*.
Someone else started it, but we are compounding their pain, and that's not okay and, for that matter, not going to help us any. There were ways to make the point that would have not felt like an attack on people who may quite well have been our allies already.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dandelion_diva
2007-02-07 07:35 am UTC (link)
I'm sorry, hon. You're right, this will hurt some people. And I don't know what to do about it. I don't know what to say to the people who hate me and want to take my child away to make them see that I'm actually human and real, just like they are. I hope that things like this would make *somebody* go "Oh. That's what we're doing to them, isn't it? Maybe we're wrong". Or at least I'd like to hope. Right now, I have very, very little political hope. I just want to scream at everyone to just treat each other well. But it doesn't do any good and makes my throat sore.

****HUG****

Thank you for being so sweet and caring. It's important.

Love you.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jenny_evergreen
2007-02-07 12:39 pm UTC (link)
Sadly, I don't think things like this have that effect. All it's going to do, I suspect, it prove to Those People what Evil Beings we are, alienating some of our friends in the process. :\ There are very easy and simple arguments why It's Not The Same, anyway, that they'll put forth and agree with.
Me, I'm just gonna move to Canada. Less frustrating. *HUG* Love you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…