This arises from the recent controversy concerning Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A, who recently said:
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”
Typical responses from the left tended to characterize that remark as “hatfel”, “bigoted”, a “rant”, and so forth. Yet, oddly enough, there are plenty of people who say the same thing and are not labeled by the left as hateful, bigoted ranters. To cite just one of the more obvious examples, President Obama held the same position as Dan Cathy on gay marriage until May 8 of this year. In his words:
"I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage.”
And yet the same people who are attacking Dan Cathy’s remarks do not have the same venom for Obama’s remarks. Likewise there are numerous other Democratic politicians who are still opposed to legalizing gay marriage, yet I rarely see anyone labeling them as hateful, bigoted, and so forth. And most obviously, legal marriage certificates are not given to gay couples in the great majority of states, yet I haven’t seen anyone calling for boycotts or disruptive protests in any of those states. So what’s the difference?
Because those comments led people to investigate Cathy’s charitable contributions, some of which are used to advance bigoted and hateful goals such as de-programming gays and linking homosexuality with pedophilia.
While that’s a point worth stating, it’s not even mentioned in the vast majority of anti-Chick-fil-A articles I’ve read. Most of them, including the one I linked to, explicitly state that Dan Cathy’s words were hateful, bigoted, etc… And they don’t even mention any charitable donations. So the question remains, why are Cathy’s words so much worse than virtually identical words from folks such as President Obama?
I saw a lot of people calling Obama on his views on Gay Marriage. I’d say enough people expressed disappointment in his previously held views that he felt that modifying his view would not be so very detrimental to his re-election.
The words themselves? Nothing, really. But when coupled with his actions re: ex-gay therapy and supporting the limitation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples it becomes clear they originate from an animus towards gay people.
Conversely, Obama’s comments are coupled with other statements and actions (the repeal of DADT, for example) that indicate that while his opinions re: marriage rights were misguided (a position for which he was called bigoted on more than one occasion) they stemmed more from religious tradition (or, more cynically, political opportunism) than from innate dislike of homosexuality.
Even the two quotes are miles apart. Obama’s, while wrapped in the same ignorance, is at lease thoughtful – he mentions “to this point” indicating he’s willing to learn; that his views may evolve, if you will.
Cathy’s is willful, proud, ignorance, which he wouldn’t consider changing for all the chick in fillet.
The most important difference between the two people is that, while Obama was saying things that were manifestly no different than what Cathy is saying, Obama never actually did anything. He never visibly acted on those beliefs. The controversy around Cathy erupted precisely because he was donating very large amounts of money to translate his beliefs into policy.
I always find it works best to use a technique called “asking”. Start asking questions as to why and how the person feels the way they do. I admit, I can be a bit of a dick when I don’t think the other person is answering my questions, and I can push real hard to get them. The thing with that is that people get angry, and angry people ultimately betray their true feelings.
People who aren’t racists or trying to hide their agenda will answer honestly and often admit that they may be wrong.
Some people do have honest feelings against something based on their learned context of life. Their religion, their upbringing, their moral center. It may not necessarily pass all logical arguments. The bigotry comes in when you press the logical arguments and they react in anger and hate. That’s what shows you who they are.
All instances of opposition to gay marriage support a bigoted position which is hateful. Whether or not those who voice such positions have “hate in their hearts” is a game that’s not worth playing. David Duke doesn’t hate Jews either, to hear him tell it.
It’s enough that anti-SSM folks are supporting the continued denial of civil rights to other American citizens. They may be wrong because they’re prisoners of the past, or have found some sort of new respect for linguistic prescriptivism or because they hate gays… but they’re still wrong, the tide of history is against them, and the future will view them no differently than those who opposed the anti-miscegenation laws. There will be little room for nuance when America looks back on these dark days in our history.
I’m not even sure I agree that the two comments are identical or as-close-to-identical-to-make-no-difference.
The most obvious difference is that the first explicitly mentions the Bible, and that’s going to come with a lot of gay-hating, bigoted baggage. It’s absolutely unambiguous that the reason the speaker is against gay marriage is because of his hateful bigoted religion. (Not to mention that’s it’s just ignorant and plain *wrong *- the Biblical tradition of marriage is a polygynous, sometimes pedophilic, chattel one, not a monogamous heterosexual consenting one.)
Obama’s comment, while sad and misguided, I’ve heard in the larger context of his interview and always understood as coming from the traditional *American *definition of marriage. That’s got religious roots a mile deep, to be sure, but coming from a Constitutional scholar and politician, the statement also has political roots, separation of state and federal power roots and social/cultural inertia roots.
But yeah, if it’s held for more than a few minutes of careful consideration, I’d agree that all opposition to gay people being able to marry is bigoted and hateful, and that includes Obama’s.
All of them, without exception. There is no other reason than hate and bigotry to oppose it. Something that is demonstrated every time opponents are challenged to come up with such a rational, non-bigoted reason and fail. At most they rant and rave about being mischaracterized and oppressed and so on, while avoiding coming up with an actual non-bigoted reason.
You just haven’t been listening then, he’s gotten a lot of criticism over them. As said, Cathy gets more though because he acted on his remarks, and because Obama backed down and made some concessions, eventually.
Obama’s statement against SSM was dubious because he filled out a questionnaire in 1996 saying he supported SSM. Is there anything in Cathy’s past that shows he didn’t mean what he said?
Moreover, Obama actually took positions and did things that could demonstrate he favored gay rights. For example, having openly gay advisors, marching in gay pride parades(I think not 100% sure) supporting anti-discrimination legislation protecting gays, speaking out against the ballot initiative in California which would have made gay marriage illegal and encouraging his followers to vote against it(though not as strongly as he could have) and voting against the federal “Marriage Protection Amendment”.
Now perhaps if Cathy had donated money to organizations trying to prevent the Federal Marriage amendment from passing or against the California ballot initiative we’d be having a different conversation.
I hope this isn’t considered a thread hijack, because it’s not intended as such:
Do those of you who feel that nothing but hate and bigotry motivate the anti-gay-marriage folks feel the same way about the anti-polygamy crowd as well? Or is that marital arrangement somehow different from same-sex marriage in your eyes?
Come on, are you asking what the difference between two people who want to pair-bond and have legal protection o they can do thing like get on health care policies and inherit, with polygamous arrangements?
No. There are actual, rational arguments to be made against polygamy. When challenged to come up with real, non bigoted reasons to oppose it, they can; unlike the anti-SSM people who can’t. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or right for that matter; but it does mean that the debate over polygamy is one that has two real sides. It’s not a one sided argument with the reasonable people all on one side, and nothing but bigots on the other.