Posted by
t.m. vecchio on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 5:19:52 AM
As everyone out there knows, Maureen Dowd is a New York Times columnist. This means she actually earns a living, and probably a fairly decent one, too, by writing, for one thing, and for writing columns, for another. Yet it is difficult to ascertain just what kind of writer she is. Talented? Comedic? Insightful? Knowledgeable? Controversial? Rational? Philosophical? Rhetorical? Analytical? Well, for the sake of time and space, let's end it there. Perhaps she's something, but what she's not is much easier to determine than what she is, at least in terms of her writing, that is, her talents, skills and abilities as a writer, which doesn't mean she has any, which is okay, I guess, since such things appear not to be job requirements.
Her latest column is entitled "Gay-rights fight then and now," and it's yet another excerise in obviousness and oblivian. She writes of a biopic coming to a theatre near you about the life and times of Harvey Milk (as depicted by Sean Penn). "The movie, chronicling the California fight of gay activists against church-backed forces in the '70s to prevent discrimination against gays, is opening amid a California fight of gay activists against church-backed forces to prevent discrimination against gays."
What is this discrimination that she writes about? No, not the '70s stuff; the current discrimination. Are they not allowed to seek political office? Own their own homes? Patronize any stores or restaurants they choose? Engage in any private acts that all legal, consenting adults can engage? Do they not have the right to peacefully assemble and protest? Can they denied a job or fired for being gay? Well, then, what is it? Oh, they are being denied the right--yes, the right--to get married, which means they are being victimized by being discriminated against, since, hey, everyone has (or should have) the right to marry, and because their heterosexual counterparts can do it, well, they should have that choice, too. Of course, a gay man can marry a lesbian woman (or vice-versa), so it's not like they can't get married because they're simply homosexual. It's just that a gay man can't marry another man or a lesbian woman can't marry another woman. But they can get all those fine and dandy benefits that man-woman couples get by way of forming civil unions or some kind of domestic partnerships, right? Well, if that's true, then what's the difference? What is the benefit that marriage has that civil unions or domestic parternships don't enjoy? So how exactly are gays being discriminated against? What is gayness, anyway? Is it a color of skin? An ethnicity? A religious or political belief? It's not race, creed, color or country of natural origin, is it? Is it sexual orientation? If a man is sexually attracted to other men--well, some other men--does that mean he's gay? Suppose he's so attracted to some men and some women? Does that mean he's bisexual? What if he's actually attracted to women most of the time but a few men some of the time? Or some men only a few times? Does that mean he's kind of gay, either mostly or slightly?
It doesn't seem to make any sense to speak of a person who's never had sex with another person as being gay, straight or bi based strictly on orientation, since one is only defined through his or her actions and behavior. Thus the definition, for example, of a homosexual virgin is functionally senseless. Orientation or attraction alone mean or signify nothing, for one only can become or be gay by having sex with a like gendered person or persons, and for that to be the case, then it would have to be repeatedly and consistently, for many young women and men "experiment," especially while in college or at some stage of their psycho-sexual development. But to engage in sexual activity is a choice or decision, isn't it? I mean, we are talking about human beings here, right? We're not talking about dogs or cats, are we? Are not human being free to choose or decide with whom they will have sex and when? Because if they are not free, but merely follow some genetic code or command, then talk of responsibility goes right out the window. And so does morality. So can it be said accurately that people don't choose to be gay, straight or bi? They just are, that's all. And there's nothing they or anyone can do about it, right? Well, since there's apparently nothing that can be done about this, then gays should be allowed to marry other gays, since, after all, straights are allowed to marry other straights, right? And to disallow this is just downright discrimination. It's unfair and unjust. And woe to those that won't allow it, for they have proven--yes, proven--to be people who are bigoted, mean, intolerant, nasty, homophobic, homo-hating, ignorant, inconsiderate, unfeeling, unthinking, unenlightened, unegalitarian and just downright non-compassionate and disrespectful people.
Well, I guess that's proven because, hey, that's what they say it is, for to assert (and condemn) is to prove. But back to the doltish Ms. Dowd. She makes it known that White was an Irish Catholic former policeman who opposed White's equal-rights initiatives for gays. So is she implying something here? White was Catholic. The Catholic Church, then as now, teaches that homosexual acts are morally disorderd and sinful, being contrary to nature, and that homosexuality and bisexuality are among the sins denounced by St. Paul. So was it because of White's Catholicism that he murdered Milk? Or was that at least one of the factors? Sure, White resigned from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and then wanted his seat back, which was something apparently that Milk convinced the mayor to reject. So Milk was murdered because of this and because White was Catholic. Is that it? What made White Catholic? Did he go to church every Sunday? Was he active in his local parish? Did he partake of the sacraments? Did he follow the teachings of the Catholic Church? Was he a papist? Obviously Dowd wanted to make it clear that White was an Irish Catholic and thus he very likely was a homophobic gay-hater. And this led, at least to some extent, to his being a homophobic gay-murderer. Of course, I would have to argue that it's wrong. No, not murder. No, not homophobia. No, not discrimination. No, not unfairness or intolerance. In a the world of situation ethics and moral relativism, nothing is wrong or right in and of itself. No action is, that it, and certainly no attitude or belief can be, either. There is not right or wrong, after all. There is only opinion. Now things may be illegal, it's true, but that's not because they are immoral, for it makes no sense to speak of quaint things like morality and ethics, does it? So the law can't be based on any kind of morality or moral belief system or world view, for there is no objective one, is there? There is no one standard, is there? There simply is no such thing as a shared, secular, rationally-based, objective morality. But if there's not one for morality, there can't be one for justice, either, can there? And it's difficult to overlook just how morality, justice and the law are related, isn't it? But let us press ever so slowly on.
"This month, gays who supported Barack Obama had the bittersweet experience of seeing some of the black and Latino voters who surged to the polls to vote Democratic also vote for Proposition 8, which turned 'I do's' into 'You can'ts.' About 20,000 gay couples had exchanged vows before Prop 8 passed, backed by a coalition that included Mormon and Catholic opponents."
Some of the black voters? The figure given, I believe, was seven out of ten. That's seven out of ten black voters who decided to vote YES on Prop 8, which meant they wanted the California State Constitution admended so that marriage could only be between one man and one woman, which it was at all times in the past until some folks filed a lawsuit because they claimed it was unfair and discriminatory that 60% of California voters decided they didn't want the definition of marriage to be changed from what it was and what it's always been, namely, that marriage consists of the union of one man and one woman. Anyway, if 70% of black voters constitute "some," what exactly constitutes most for Ms. Dowd? 90%? 115%? Well, if anyone or any group gets the blame for the "I do's" changing into "You can'ts," it's likely the four (out of seven) California Supreme Court Justices who decided not only to go against the will of the people by deciding that it was unconsitutional (and therefore illegal) to deny a man from marrying a man or a woman from marrying a woman, BUT (and this is a rather big but), when asked to stay their decision in order to allow a petition to be signed so that the majority could get a proposition on the ballot in the next election, they refused. Thus they knew full well that their ruling could be trumped (by the people via an amendment) in the next election, and that if it was, then ... well, then what? Chaos? What about all those gay (but not necessarily happy) people who got married? Gee, we'll just have to cross that bridge if we come to it. Okay, but how is it going to be crossed now? All they had to do was stay their decision until the election. But no. They reap what they sow. So now what? More lawsuits, I'm sure, since the people that lost simply refuse to accept it. The will of the majority rules, as it usually does in a democracy, but that just won't do for those who want what they want, and since they can't get it through the legislative process, they'll run to the courts in order to circumvent it and deny the will of the people. This is obviously a fine way to run things in a democracy (and a fine way to run things, period ... right into the ground).
Ms. Dowd seems to have a problem with a coalition that included Mormons and Catholic opponents to same sex marriage. Why? Should religious groups be excluded from the political process? Should people with (Christian) religious views and beliefs not be allowed to vote? Should they leave their religious beliefs out of it? Just how are they to do that, since their religious beliefs constitute who they are, how they see the world and relate to reality and inform and form them as human beings? Yes, of course, their religious beliefs are irrational, intolerant, bigoted, homophobic, unenlightened, mean, nasty, offensive and just plain offensive. So it obviously follows that they are as well. But non-religious or irreligious people suffer no such effects, since their lack of religion or religious faith liberates them from such terrible things. And that's just plain obvious to any right-thinking, enlightened, rational person, isn't it?
"In both Prop 6 in 1978 and this year's Prop 8, the specter of children being converted to a gay orientation was raised. Feinstein said the TV ad of Prop 8 supporters insinuating that 'gay marriage would be taught in schools really hurt.' " Hurt how? Because it had the ring of truth? The subject of marriage is required to be taught in 96% of California public (government) schools. The Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same sex marriage means that it will be taught to children in those schools. Why should anyone accept a court decision that forces same sex marriage on young children in California schools (like it does in Massachusetts) if they believe same sex marriage is wrong (as in immoral), thus counter to their moral beliefs, or that it is sinful, thus counter to their religious beliefs? What kind of spineless, idiotic moron of a parent would just sit back and allow her or his child to be so indoctrinated at school, especially when the child is already being socially conditioned to accept (if not approve of) it? Duh.
As much as I'd like to quote Dianne Feinstein a little more, I've had enough of her innane, banal comments about, well, anything (including, of course, same sex marriage). The woman is oh so lost, just like the doltish Ms. Dowd and her uncanny inability to present a coherent, sensible, valid argument about, well, anything. What is even the purpose of her columns? Are they to entertain, inform, persuade or to show off how ridiculously transparent and ignorant a New York Times columnist and writer can be ... and is?
But she is a wage earner and taxpayer, which means she's making some kind of useful contribution to society, at least in that way.