Reconciliation on the Warren issue [View All]

Let's look at the point of view from one of the sides in the ongoing debate here. I think it is the continued expression of that point of view that is causing the uproar.

"Look I support gay marriage and gay rights, and don't get me wrong I do not like Warren, but the gay people are making far too big a deal out of this, and are being hateful and bigoted themselves, and are acting in ways that are not good, which is driving away their supporters and hurting the party and therefore actually setting back their cause."

That is the anti-gay point of view here. It is the only socially acceptable way to express opposition to the GLBTQ community in liberal circles, the only way to express opposition to the GLBTQ community that is permitted here by the rules.

The point of the rules is not to inform people of precisely which words they are permitted to use - "so long as you mouth the words 'I support gay marriage' you are good." There is a spirit to the law, so to speak, as well as the letter of the law. The point of the rules is to make a declaration that this community supports our brothers and sisters in the GLBTQ community. Otherwise, what is the point?

It costs people nothing, carries no risks, does not directly affect them to merely pay lip service to the official position and say that they support gay marriage. It represents a beginning, a start at understanding and supporting the GLBTQ community, not the last step or the last word.

It also means nothing to say that one does not "like Warren." There is much hostility here to religion of all kinds, and also much hostility toward any and all activities of the common people and the rural and blue collar whites who are most attracted to the religious right. Saying that one does not like Warren does the GLBTQ folks no favors, and doesn't prove anything.

Now we are up to the word "but" in that argument, and what follows are words of opposition to the people in the GLBTQ community. "They" have "their cause," and "they" are not going about things right, and "they" are alienating their supporters, and "they" are the ones in the way here and causing all of the trouble, and "they" are hurting the larger community, and "they" are setting back their own cause.

I am not overstating this. What I just wrote is very mild when compared to some of the things people have written here about people in the GLBTQ community.

It is truly stunning to see the blind spot that too many here have about this, to see that they are unable or unwilling to notice how condescending and derogatory these characterizations are, how hateful and how hurtful.

If we distill the argument down to a few words, it would be "I am good on this issue; now let me tell you what is wrong with you people." Those making this argument want us to focus on the first part of that statement, and not the second. They want us to think that the first part of the statement is all that is important, and that it gives them permission to say anything they want to say based on the second part of the statement without being challenged or contradicted. So we may only talk about the first part, and they are free to talk about the second.

The first part is weak and shallow, it costs nothing, it is risk free and safe to say - it is meaningless in this context, and misapplied. The second part opens the door to the very ideas that isolate and marginalize people in the community based on their orientation, the ideas that dismiss and demean people, and that thinking is the root cause of hatred and bigotry, the foundation of the anti-gay movement.

People then get angry when any of us refuse to ignore the second part of the statement, and instead insist upon examining and discussing that part of the argument. Why can that not be discussed without people getting angry and hostile, and demanding that it cease? What is threatened by that?

This argument is not much different than Warrens's argument - "I love gay people; now let me tell you what is wrong with those people."

It is not so much that Warren was given an invitation that has many of us upset, it is that this has led to too many progressives and Democrats making anti-gay arguments - clever variations on the same anti-gay arguments that the religious right is making.

In some ways, the anti-gay arguments being made here are worse than those the religious right is making - more hurtful and more destructive. It is one thing to be attacked by your known enemies, and yet another matter to be wounded in the house of your friends.

Some will see this post as yet another salvo in the ongoing war. Some will see it as a clever chess move intended to defeat them or embarrass them. Some will see it as the latest talking point in an ongoing "Crossfire" shout fest. It is none of those things. It is an appeal for reconciliation.

How can we resolve the bitter feud here? One side can stop speaking. The side that people are demanding cease speaking is always the side defending the GLBTQ community, but even were that not the case it is a poor peace indeed that is won at the price of silencing one of the two parties and forcing them to submit and surrender, regardless of which side is forced to do that. We could "agree to disagree" and let it fester and grow until it erupts again.

Or we can discuss it. If you read this and find yourself getting angry and hostile, I would ask you to think about just why that might be. What can it hurt to discuss this? Is being right more important than the community, of more value than the people who are members of this community, our friends and allies?

The feud here is being caused by the stubborn refusal by some to examine and discuss this subject. The anger, and the fear, springs from that, and is directed at those who continue to discuss this subject. That is a weakness, an Achilles heel. Refusing to discuss and examine an issue that is related to hatred and bigotry contradicts everything that it means to be a liberal or a progressive. It makes us all into hypocrites and cowards.

The only meaningful and powerful way to resolve the feud and to reconcile the two sides is to examine and discuss this issue, and to stop demanding that we move on and sweep this under the rug. Do we as a community now have the courage to do this?