Happy Fourth of July from Seattlest
Seattlest Day Trips to Mount Rainier (in Photos)
Can't Miss It: Weekend Edition July 3-5
Weekend Theatre: July 3-5
In this guest editorial, Chris Kaasa, a senior at the University of Washington, responds to John Fay's controversial pro-Prop 8 article, published last week in the UW Daily.
by Chris Kaasa
John Fay says: "Gay Marriage? Let’s Stop and Think About This."
Oh yes. Let us please.
First of all, thank you to Sarah Gaither for holding down the fort. Someone in her article’s comments suggested framing her piece next to John Fay’s bizarre screed. I second. The difference in the quality of the articles--the writing, the reasoning, the basic connection to the reality most of us on the planet Earth live in--is staggering.
As such, I refuse to be angered by this article. I prefer to be entertained.
Now, I realize the gay marriage issue surrounding the California voters’ decision on Proposition 8 is extremely emotional for a lot of people, and I respect their difference of opinion, but let us try and consider the vote from a rational basis.
Early on, we get an important window into the American theocrat mindset. If you look carefully, you’ll notice the application of the Wingnut Transitive Property of Hysterical Faggotry. It goes something like this:
(1) Fags = Feminine
(2) Feminine = Hysterical
(3) Hence Fags = Hysterical. QED.
As far as John Fay is concerned, the massive nationwide protests we recently saw were really just an enormous temper tantrum--much, he surely imagines, like the wailing of an incorrigible housewife whose husband tells her he’s cutting her weekly allowance. And like the hysterical housewife, Teh Gayz can be mollified by a moment of patronizing, feigned validation, à la "I respect their difference of opinion."
But here’s the kicker (and the part that leads one to believe that The Daily has decided it doesn’t need editors):
[T]he court argued that forbidding marriage rights to gays is discrimination, "like a person’s race or gender." Race is a biological state; homosexuality is more of an emotional condition, and we should not, for that reason alone, start passing laws condoning it.Being homosexual, like other emotional tendencies, doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied.
Yes, admitting you have a problem is the first step. A serious problem that no doubt needs to be dealt with aggressively by frontal lobotomy and possibly exorcism…Argh. Where to begin?
Kaasa on race as a social construct, the missionary position, and the core strength of free societies--all after the jump!
"Race" is not a "biological state." It is a social construct that assigns human beings different innate characteristics according to the color of their skin, the size of their jaw, the fullness of their lips, etc. It’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of race because race tells you nothing about an individual’s abilities, character, temperament, or intelligence. So too with sexual orientation. Clear?
What makes this so interesting is that it lays bare what I think most of the people reading this note already suspect: People of John Fay’s ilk have so internalized their privilege that they think it’s a result of their "biological state." They have rights and advantages others do not because they were born superior. It’s an inversion of reality that resides exclusively in oblivious minds. Fags can’t marry? Well, that’s because they have an "emotional condition"; just as soon as they plug that up with prayer and pills, they can have a woman too (or, alternately, the cured former lesbians can have a man like me).
I was almost disappointed when he moved on to the Christian Right boilerplate:
Now, there are several major problems with legalizing gay marriage. Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality, or any other form of union? If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?
It has a lot to do with the fact that sheep and underage girls can’t give consent to the union. Which actually leads nicely into this:
Also, the Christian concept of marriage predates any state-sanctioned licensing program, which means marriage is an inherently religious concept in America. Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.
Yikes, the boilerplate didn’t last for long. This is the first time I’ve encountered the notion that that "any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment." Left out, of course, is a precise definition of what traditional church views are. The traditional church view is that a marriage ceremony is a transfer of chattel labor between the father of the bride and the new husband, preferably accompanied by a dowry and signaling a collectivization of the two families’ landed property. The consent of the woman is a total non-issue.
And oh yes, polygamy is A-OK, the missionary position is the only acceptable form of marital intercourse, and if she gives you some lip you’re under no obligation to spare her the rod.
And predictably, John Fay gets the legal question completely assbackwards. Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t compel any church to perform a ceremony it doesn’t want to perform. That would plausibly be a Free Exercise clause violation. Hence, gay couples in California were married either by willing churches or justices of the peace.
The fact that it’s a matter of state licensing does the exact opposite of what he thinks it does: It removes religious tradition as a consideration. That’s a pretty basic Establishment clause concept.
Tell me more, tell me more:
Once people become accustomed to violating certain social norms, they tend to feel less constrained about breaking others.
God willing. And the really disgusting thing is that John Fay thinks this is some sort of tragedy, when it’s actually the core strength of free societies. People challenge social norms--the ones that are just and useful come out stronger, and the ones based in ignorance and superstition are discarded. The fact that Prop. H8 barely won, and only after an intense and paranoid misinformation campaign, is a sign of progress. Excruciatingly slow, sure, but progress.
My favorite comment on John Fay’s piece:
Wake up people! If we allow opinion pieces by John Fay, before long sheep, retarded infants, and mermaid-shaped bits of wood will be demanding the right to contribute!
Seriously, what the fuck were The Daily’s editors thinking? Epic fail.
**Read this.
Photo of Chris Kaasa courtesy of Kaasa, via Facebook.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
"Being homosexual, like other emotional tendencies, doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied."
That pretty much sums up this clown's insight. If you start with this point of view, there really isn't much you can expect in the way of rationale thought.
Yeah, but he really beat the itty bitty bit of rational thought left in Fay's head with:
Bravo!
Additionally, I would like to add, the State has no right to acknowledge any religious notion of unions. State and religion are separated... kinda the fucking reason that while Orthodox Mormonism is in favor of polygamy it is still illegal. Even in state's like Utah where the laws are pretty close to theocratic as possible under the US Constitution.