My goodness. No matter how many times I encounter it, no matter how much brainpower I exert in trying to understand it, the fundamentalist mindset continues to baffle me. How is it possible to be sucked into such a hateful life? People regularly underestimate just how angry the true god-fearers are, I think, and all it takes is a cursory visit to the feedback at
Fox News to send a chill down your spine.
Here's a few random selections of feedback that you can find attached to
this article about the upcoming joke of an amendment the Bush cronies are using to attempt to energize their fanatic constituency.
First, we have the
idiotic:
---
"I am in complete support of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Marriage is a God-ordained, not a man-made, institution. Therefore, we have no right to attempt to re-define it. But I firmly believe that the real issue here is not about marriage itself. It goes much deeper than that. It is about a group of individuals wanting to legally force society to not only accept but embrace their chosen lifestyle. To force us to say that this way of life is okay. People have the freedom to choose the way they want to live their lives. But they do not have the right to force that upon others." — Mark (St. Louis Park, MN)
Okay, listen up, dumbass. First off, if marriage is really a "God-ordained" institution, then why is it that people with no religious affiliation are still allowed to get married, in a courthouse, by a judge, and still gain all of the
secular, governmentally recognized manifestations of marriage? And why doesn't that get your panties in a bunch half as much as a couple of people who happen to like each others' weiners wanting the government (and most certainly not
your church) to recognize their union?
As for "It is about a group of individuals wanting to legally force society to not only accept but embrace their chosen lifestyle," um, what? First off, nobody expects the Southern Baptists, or whatever bigoted church you're affiliated with, to give them your endorsement. We don't expect the neo-nazis to get all cozy with the NAACP any time soon, either. What they do ask is that the government not cowtow to your irrational hatred and that we not allow the governmental position on marriage to be dictated by religious fanatics.
This is projection at its finest and most obvious. It would probably never occur to Mark, of St. Louis Park, MN, that in reality he is the one guilty of what he is accusing others of. He believes that homosexuality is wrong, almost assuredly for religious reasons. That's his right. But how far backwards do you have to work from there to the notion that gays, by wanting their unions to be recognized by the government, are forcing their lives upon others? How does two bone-smokers that want to get married affect him at all? It doesn't, of course. But, on the other hand, if he were given the power to
prevent those two bone-smokers from getting married, he most certainly would. So who's forcing their viewpoint upon others?
---
"It most certainly is a protection for marriage. This will prevent a lot of bad things from happening if this is passed." — Clarissa (Banner Elk, NC)
Um, yeah. Like what? Under whose definition of "bad things"? Because, you know, a lot of us think that people who just want their union to be recognized by the state being prevented from doing so because of the ignorant superstition of an archaic book constitutes a "bad thing". Please, Clarissa, explain it all.
---
Then we have the
scary.
---
"The bestselling book of all times is the Holy Bible. It is without error from the front cover to the back, including the word 'Holy.' For thousands of generations it has been made clear that a marriage is between one man and one woman. God created Adam and Eve. The younger generation has been brainwashed with this thing called tolerance. With true Christianity there can never be compromise." — Paul
Wow, how very Christ-like. Priceless and terrifying at the same time. We open with a blatant appeal to authority; the "bestselling book of all times." Great. What's the second-bestselling book of all time?
The Da Vinci Code? Doesn't mean it's a perfect moral basis, either.
Then we have a fun little segue. "For thousands of generations it has been made clear that a marriage is between one man and one woman." Really? Thousands of generations? Christianity is close to two thousand years old. Even with one generation at 20 years, that's only one
hundred generations. And according to many Christian fundamentalists, the earth is only about 300 generations old. Regardless, homosexuality has been present for that entire time, and hasn't managed to tear down society just yet (in fact, even many western cultures where homosexuality was rampant - say, Rome, or Greece - managed to do quite well).
Then there's the scary part. "The younger generation has been brainwashed with this thing called tolerance. With true Christianity there can never be compromise." Now just substitute "Christianity" for "Islam" and picture Usama bin Laden making that same statement. Doesn't take much imagination, does it?
These people are evil to their very core, and the irony is, with all their accusations of the decline of society, these people are the ones that will really tear it down, if given the opportunity. The most militant of the Christian fundamentalists, like this nutcase, are nothing less than the Christian equivalent of the Ayatollahs in Iran.
---
"They definitely need to protect marriage. Small groups are taking rights away from the majority of people a little at a time. Prayer and discipline are not allowed in schools. Acknowledging God and His guidance is not allowed in government or in history books. Now they're attempting to destroy families by saying marriage isn't between a man and woman. What will it take for us to stand up and pay attention?" — Chris (Chattanooga, TN)
Let's take this one one sentence at a time.
They definitely need to protect marriage.
From what? People that want to get married?
Small groups are taking rights away from the majority of people a little at a time.
Ah yes. The poor victimized majority. As opposed to the rights of, say, having a union being recognized by the state, being denied a significant minority of the population.
Prayer and discipline are not allowed in schools.
By "Discipline" I assume he means "Child abuse." Aw... And as for prayer, I know a great many people that prayed before every test. Nobody said a thing. So by "Prayer" I assume he means "Organized Prayer", which would in turn require our school administrators to double as religious leaders, which probably isn't in their best interest. If I were a teacher, and were asked to lead a prayer, I wonder how he would react if I led the class in a Satanic chant? And if that's any less offensive to him than a Christian prayer would be, there's the telltale sign that he would favor the establishment of a State Religion and thinks the First Amendment should be shredded.
Of course, it's his right to believe that, but it's important to know what all these euphamisms entail.
Acknowledging God and His guidance is not allowed in government or in history books.
Actually, I went to public school, and I learned quite a bit about what people are capable of when they feel they're doing God's will. I learned about the Crusades and the Inquisition. I learned how the Church/State governments of medieval europe left 99.9% of the world's population in abject poverty while accumulating all of the wealth, power, and decadence in the hands of the government, the aristocrats, and the clergy. I learned about the Dark Ages, and the Enlightenment that followed, and I learned which of the two is to be preferred. Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.
Now they're attempting to destroy families by saying marriage isn't between a man and woman.
As far as I can tell, nothing about the legalization of gay marriage would prevent a man from marrying a woman. I've always had trouble figuring out how bone-smokers (and rugmunchers) wanting to get married has any affect on heterosexual marriage at all. I suppose I'll just keep scratching my head on that one.
---
"All I know is that marriage should be the union between one man and one woman. Actually, there is no should in it. That's the way it is no matter what anyone says." — David (El Paso, TX)
Well, good. Then, if you don't mind if, say, the government says that homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights that any other couples are entitled to. After all, nobody cares if
you recognize it. (shrug)
---
And, some people managed to provide, even on Fox News, the voices of reason.
---
"I find it humorous that the same good Christians who get married in the church and who want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage use the state laws and a good lawyer to get their divorce." — L.J. (Dallas, TX)
And there's the dirty little secret of the assault on gay marriage by the religious right. They frame gay marriage as an "attack" on traditional marriage, when of course it is nothing of the sort. The irony is that traditional marriage is under attack, by the process of divorce. Divorces really do tear families apart. They turn the act of raising a child, or children, into something extremely messy and complicated. They are an enormous psychological and financial burden on those that go through them. The family of divorce is the true antithesis to this "Family values" notion of evangelical Christianity. And yet you never hear a peep from them about it.
Wonder why that is? Well, of course, they are looking out for number one. Someone telling them that they can't divorce their wife most certainly *does* affect them, so they don't fight it. Such hypocrites. It's a wonder that more people don't see right through it.
---
"If they really wanted to protect marriage, they would outlaw divorce. Of course, that's not their goal, and we all know it." — Michael (Knoxville, TN)
Reiteration of the same point, in a nice succinct fashion, but it can't be repeated often enough. The goal of the evangelicals is, of course, to scapegoat homosexuality as a perpetrator in maintaining their illusion of a society continually on the verge of decadence and moral decay. Once we allow homosexual marriage and nothing much about society changes (as every reasonable human being knows would result), their argument loses its luster and they have to move on to something else. It is this illusion, of a society on the brink of disaster, with only the followers of God keeping it from the brink, that helps religion to maintain its political power. And thus it is in their best interests to maintain gays as the perpetrators of this illusory decay for as long as they can possibly hold out.
---
"Personally, I think their efforts would serve the nation better if used elsewhere. Although I am solidly in favor of same-sex marriage, I would vote solidly against a constitutional amendment for it. Marriage is a sacrament of the church (any church); as such, its regulation needs to be left to the church. The government may weigh in on civil unions as much, and as often, as it chooses, but it needs to keep its nose out of marriage and other church business. This is where separation of church and state comes in, NOT in whether or not to permit prayer in schools, or the public display of the Ten Commandments or similar documents. This is what the framers of the Constitution meant when they said that government should not interfere with or establish religious practice." — Hopkins
This one is the most interesting of the various pieces of feedback. The writer here is surely misguided in his notions that the state has no authority over marriage, but in the aspect of separation of church and state, he certainly gets it, and that is enough to open him to the rational and compassionate political position. Marriage of course has a secular side and, for many, a religious side as well. What so many people fail to understand is that these two sides are
completely independent. When your average couple gets married, they tend to combine the two: they sign a bunch of legal documents and then participate in a religious ceremony, usually in the same day. But that does not imply a necessary link. Many secular folks get married in courthouses, by justices of the peace, with no religious aspect to the union whatsoever, and their unions are not recognized by any church, but they surely enjoy the same legal benefits of marriage as any other couple. Polygamists, on the other extreme, participate in weddings that are recognized by their religion but not recognized by the state. This alone proves that the two are independent.
Marriage exists as BOTH a sacrament of the church and an institution of the state. The state has absolutely no right, according to the constitution, to tell the church what constitutes a marriage. And nobody is trying to. Nobody is saying that the Southern Baptists must start holding gay weddings in their churches. That would be as silly as forcing the Klan to sponsor a minority scholarship. But the church also has no authority to tell the state what constitutes a marriage. Of course many churches have no problem telling the state exactly that, and too many politicians listen to them. That is where the fundamental disconnect occurs.
The writer uses the term "civil unions", which is of course an impotent term; while the majority of gays don't care one way or another what their union is called by the state so long as they get the rights associated with marriage (I remember Barney Frank coming onto Bill Maher's show and saying "I don't care what we call it; we could have a contest!"), saying that heterosexual couples get "marriages" (as recognized by the state) but homosexual couples get "civil unions" (also as recognized by the state) is fundamentally no different from saying that blacks get their own separate restrooms to use. That doesn't sound like such a bad deal, until you realize that the white bathrooms are kept in pristine condition while the black bathrooms are left to shit (pun not intended but not avoided). If gays are awarded rights that are kept distinct from the laws surrounding marriage, then we have succeeded in creating our own Jim Crow state. (And yes, I know that many blacks chafe at that comparison, but all that proves is that some blacks are capable of being every bit as prejudiced against gays as whites were and sometimes still are against them).
So the writer here utilizes a false statement - that is, that a marriage not recognized by religion is not a marriage - but utilizes the concept of a civil union to reconcile a respect for the separation of church and state. And that's why it goes into the category of "voices of reason." The problem does not ultimately manifest itself in the semantics of what is a "civil union" versus what is a "marriage", although that could certainly become a problem if the two institutions are kept too separate for too long, in the eyes of the state. It is a problem that religion as an institution feels it "owns" marriage when it clearly does not; but it is a bigger problem that that institution feels the need to project its version of what constitutes a marriage onto the state, in clear violation of the first amendment. Bill O'Reilly likes to rail about "Activist judges" that dare point out inconvenient facts, like that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional (how DARE they actually follow the Constitution even when it is contrary to public opinion!), which is the very reason that Bush is attempting the (cynical or desperate, take your pick) path of trying to amend the constitution, of which he has zero chance whatsoever.
Joe Biden hits the nail squarely on the head, I think, when he pegs this as a political move by Bush to try and assuage and re-energize his fanatic-fundie base, who are more than a little peeved with him for not making any progress whatsoever on any of their fascist agendas. Well, duh. For what it's worth, if the Dems can get their shit together, Biden will wind up with the nomination in '08, because unlike Hilary, he is actually electable.
