Yesterday the Washington Post wrote an article profiling Brian Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, the group that goes from state to state demanding inequality. They were instrumental in upholding Prop 8 in California and they have been traveling the country ever since, spreading their message of discrimination in easy-to-swallow, factually distorted sound bytes. They're very good at what they do. On the surface, they preach love for all. On the surface, they say they're simply protecting "traditional marriage." On the surface, they are a lot of things. I understand why people might listen to them. If you don't question what they're saying and just allow them to manipulate whatever prejudices you might hold in your heart against gay people, then you'll be easily swayed.
I would expect the Washington Post to dig a little deeper. I would expect the Washington Post not to simply print NOM's talking points without questioning one of them. If the Washington Post of today were covering Watergate, we would think that petty thieves broke into the Democratic National Headquarters and that would be the end of it.
Let's start at the very beginning. Brown claims that they're just fighting to uphold "traditional marriage," which has pretty much been the same for thousands of years. Any questions from the Washington Post? Any curiosity regarding how it's possible that this institution, which is thousands of years old, hasn't changed one iota until just recently? Nope. Shame on you Washington Post.
Marriage has been constantly evolving. Until recently you might not have been able to pick, or even know your spouse prior to the wedding. Until recently marriage was largely about property rights - and by property I'm referring to the wife. That is a very traditional idea. It's certainly been around longer than the idea that the wife is equal to the husband. Perhaps we need to go back to wife ownership.
Of his message, Brown says, "People already believe it...but the issue is so deep-seated that they've never had to create an argument for it." And where is the Washington Post with the follow up question? Why do people already believe it? Could it be "deep-seated" because we live in a society that teaches day in and day out that being gay is shameful? And that it's remarkably easy to awaken that prejudice in people? Could it be that we should work to alter this "deep-seated" prejudice with education instead of strengthening it with the fear and lies like the one's NOM uses as talking points? Could it be religion, which most Americans would say has no place in our government? Shame on you Washington Post.
This brings up another point, Mr. Brown's religion. Much in the same way he instructs his followers to avoid the phrase "ban gay marriage," because it turns people off, it seems that he and Maggie Gallagher and their band of righteousness have moved away from discussing their religion as a possible motivation for their inequality crusade. Here are a few quotes I got from Pam's House Blend (a wonderful site, by the way) in which Brown discusses in more plain terms his feelings about marriage equality.
"Can you give $5, $50, or even $500 to protect God's truth about marriage?"
"The One who designed marriage knew what He was doing. And we will never sit back passively and permit our own government to teach our own children a lie. Same-sex unions are not marriage. Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, it is a civil wrong."
And it's back to protecting the children. I often wish that these people be blessed with at least one gay child. But then it occurs to me that my wish for Brian Brown's world to be confused and muddled by facts turns into a world of torture for that young gay person and I have to unwish it.
When marriage equality gets compared to the miscegenation laws (traditional laws that have been changed, by the way) Brown responds with: "The racial bigot comparison is the most troubling part of the argument. It's horrible, offensive, deliberately incendiary." And where is the Washington Post to ask why it's "troubling," "horrible" and "offensive"? Nowhere to be found. Why is this comparison troubling to Mr. Brown? My guess would be, and I can't really know since the Washington Post didn't attempt to find out, is that black people don't choose to be black but gay people can choose to be straight. Going down that path, by choosing to be gay, we're committing a sin. And when one commits a sin, one doesn't get the "special right" to marry, one gets punished.
Again and again and again, the underlying, unspoken but extremely powerful message in the opposition's arguments against marriage equality is that we choose to be gay. Indeed, that is why it offends Mr. Brown to have his hate campaign compared to the hate of those who opposed interracial marriage in the 60s. Whether spoken explicitly or implied, all arguments against equality grow from that premise. Why the gay leaders never seem to mention it or deal with it, I'll never know.
Why the Washington Post didn't ask Brown about it, I'll never know either. Shame on you Washington Post.
Towards the end of the article, Brown's wife, who, until she married him, thought that marriage equality wasn't a "big deal," weighs in on the issue. "'I can only go by my own experience, and I believe there's a huge difference in gender.' The kids don't need Brian 'walking in the door because he's another person. They need him because he's a man.'"
And where is the follow up question: And what if you got a divorce - which certainly isn't ideal for kids and yet is perfectly legal? The church doesn't like it, and yet it's perfectly legal.
Because here's yet another unspoken but powerful message that has gone unchallenged - gay marriage will corrode this beautiful, perfect, God created union. How is it possible for gays to get blamed for the destruction of an institution that they haven't been able to participate in until recently, and then only on a very limited basis? The insinuation that we will destroy this sacred institution goes utterly unchallenged. Which one of Newt Gingrich's marriages was sacred? The one that was spawned from an affair he was having while his wife was in a hospital bed? Yes, it certainly would be disturbing to dirty something that pure and beautiful.
And where was the Washington Post to challenge the idea that currently families are perfect and that the gays will ruin them? Crickets.
But I have to say, the most shocking aspect of this article that goes utterly unquestioned is Brown's wife's hesitation in telling anyone what her husband does for a living. When discussing her husband's work, she "starts off by telling people that he's the director of a nonprofit group. If they ask for more information, she tells them it's a nonprofit dedicated to preserving marriage. And then, of course, they ask her about his position on gay marriage. Whether he's for it or against it. " Am I the only person who's curious as to why she wouldn't just tell people what he does for a living? Apparently I am.
Shame on you Washington Post.
No comments:
Post a Comment