[Previous entry: "Kent State and Jackson State"] [Next entry: "Stop the Republican Gay Bashing"]
04/06/2005: "We have to Fight these people"
we have no choice
I try to be even handed, and I don’t generally believe that people who disagree with me are evil or stupid. I honestly try to listen and be open minded. I have even changed my mind from listening to people, but come on now, shouldn’t the other side do a little of the same?
I watched the debate an the State House on the Gay marriage amendment last week. I saw the dignity of Karen Clark, the eloquence of Neva Walker, and was proud to know them. I just don’t understand how reasonable people can believe that their religion should govern all of us. I don’t doubt for a minute that the proponents of this bill come to their beliefs honestly, and even (with difficulty) try to understand them as not being hateful, but I don’t understand them as intellectually consistent with American culture and values.
I looks like these people have so bought into the I am a victim, the establishment is against us myth that is being espoused by radio talk show hosts and the Christian Right, that they can rationalize the need to win at any costs. Yes, if you have not been following things, the Christian Right has the audacity to proclaim that they are the victim and that the establishment is against them. Never mind that the they control the Presidency, both houses of congress and the Supreme Court. Never mind that the Supreme Court appointed their man as president, never mind that they enjoy the privileges of being (mostly) heterosexual, white, male, American, Christians. These people claim that the main stream media like the television networks, most of the daily newspapers etc. are left wing slanted, and that only Faux news is truly “Fair and Balanced”. No really, it seems that many of the dupes in our legislature really believe this. I know I know, it makes you want to ask “What color is the sky in their world”.
In the interest of knowing your enemy, check out their video’s at http://www.minnesotaformarriage.org . They have no shame in saying anything they want to, do matter how in error to win this battle. Why, because like the Crusades of 500 years ago, they are marching into battle for God.
In the latest salvo in the case of the unfortunate family in Florida that finally allowed their family member to die, they are attacking the Federal Court. Yes, the Court that followed what every legal expert in the country said was the law, the court that appointed their man president, didn’t follow lock step into the jungle of total hypocrisy, so the Federal Court too are being attacked. It almost makes we want to defend them.
I bring this up to be instructive.
We in Minnesota are, whether we want to or not, going to be a battleground in the next several months. The Right wing believe that they can use the Gay marriage amendment on the ballot to get citizens of Minnesota to come to the polls and elect Rep. Kennedy or whomever they want to the seat now being held by Senator Dayton. Do not kid yourself, they can do it. These are the people who lied about WMDs to get a war they wanted, and still are not the least bit embarrassed. These are the people that can tell the elderly in this country with a straight face that not negotiating with pharmaceutical companies will lower their drug costs, these are the people who want the young people in this country to believe that cutting their Social Security benefits, and speculating with their savings will make their retirement more secure.
The only way we can win this is to speak truth to power. Call that Aunt, Uncle or Cousin in out state Minnesota and work on them. Get them to call their State Senator about apposing the Gay marriage amendment. Now is the time.
If it gets on the ballot, then our battle is defined for us. As much as this may not be the war we want to fight, it is the war we are called upon to fight. For the sake of our community, for the sake of our family, for the sake of our country, we must fight these people, they are crazy, yea sure they are, crazy like a fox!
Get your energy up, we are headed for the fight
Replies: 19 Comments
on Sunday, April 10th, Steve S. said
Why are you so afraid of the vote of the people? Particularly regarding such a controversial issue facing the nation/community. The people do have a right to their voice and the judiciary will not be the end-all.
on Sunday, April 10th, dtilsen said
minorities must not be subject to the blind tyranny of the majority. The right wing propaganda machine can distort this issue and cause reall harm to people that I love. Elected officials have the responsibility to protect the rights of minorities. It is their responsibility.
on Wednesday, April 13th, Steve S. said
Its hardly 'blind tyranny', but that sounds like a good poetic scare tactic. There is far more to this than the right wing conspiracy. That only stifles debate. If reasonable and open debate and votes are the nemisis to an agenda, there will be serious problems encountered when trying to get around the Constitution... but I see the libs had the foresight to recognize this with their fervent defense of legistlative judges.
on Wednesday, April 13th, David Tilsen said
Of course it is tyranny. And come on, don't shed those crock tears about legislative judges. You didn't have a problem with them stopping the counting of votes to name your guy president. You don't have a probablem with judges, just ones that don't toe the line.
I am sure that a vote in Germany about exterminating the Jews would have passed, but that would have been tyranny. A small group of highly organized christians are trying to legislate their religous beliefs, and by so doing, they are going to take away pensions, medical care, survival benefits, and many more important rights from about 7% of the population of the country, just because they can, and because they believe that they can, by putting these things on the ballot, increase their chances of winning more seats. This is, at its source a cynical political crusade, not the moral crusade that it is touted as.
on Wednesday, April 13th, Steve S. said
If it is indeed a tyranny, it is a fairly elected one. I know you may embrace Teresa Kerry's proclamation of voter fraud, but this has yet to gain tread amoung any reasonable person. The judges 'electing' the president were actually going by the letter of the law (for once) and decided the election based on the rules set forth by the Constitution (theres that word again!!!)
Regarding Germany's votes to kill Jews, speculation doesn't contribute to such a scenario as it never happened... a trite detail. Even so, the precedented barbaric act of genocide is never justified. While standing by one the words of one of the strongest legal documents ever created (I'll spare having to read its name again) and making definitions by it such as what our nation accepts as a family and what the rule of law will be is hardly comparable to declaring genocide. What is it about now that suggests our nation should turn on what has been noted as a foundation of society in marriage? Should not the voice of the people be heard on such a sweeping decision affecting social and economic aspects? Its not just a small conservative posse staging this war, but the votes of many states thus far that have declared they do not wish for this to happen. So there are organizations behind the rally. No different than PETA or NOW on the opposite spectrum declaring their 'truth' that no one should ever eat meat or matriarchs shall one day rule the world.
One more note: Please indicate where in the Constitution (whoops it slipped) pensions, medical care, survival benefits are rooted in law as 'rights'? Its important to not confuse luxuries of a socialist agenda with legitmate rights afforded by the text of the Constitution.
on Wednesday, April 13th, David Tilsen said
Steve, you are not thinking and listening, nor are you being intellectually honest. I don't care if tyranny is elected fairly or not. I believe that it is responsibility of government to protect the rights of the minority, from the majority. Your "traditional" marriage is a myth, the Leave it to Beaver, Brady Bunch culture existed for a short time after WW2 up to the late sixties. It has never been traditional, and only an extremely myopic reading of the bible would conclude that "one man one woman" is a historical definition of marriage. No this is clearly one group trying to impose its religious beliefs on the rest of us. As for your attempt to split hairs with me about the definition of rights, I hope you never have the problem of needing one of them, and having them unavailable.
Again, I fight this because it is a tyranny of the majority, because it is a political not a moral crusade, and because the hypocracy of its leaders and the naivitae of its followers is truly frightening if they stay in power.
It is amazing to me that white, rich, hetrosexual, male, Americans, who control all three branches of governemtn can pretend to be angry victims of the system. I guess Barnum is right, there is a sucker born every minute.
Oh and on the appointment of Bush by the supreme court, read the law reviews and law journals. It is universally accepted by legal scholors that the Court shit all over itself on that decision. That is one of the reasons they made such a point of tying to not make it is a precedent. It was a coup plain and simple. And you people have the nerve to complain about the Federal Judiciary. Sheesh.
I really think you should read more than the right wing journals, talk to more than the members of your promise keepers meetings, and watch more than FAUX news. You really need to get out more.
on Wednesday, April 13th, scott the seer said
If someday, we radicals come to power, we will want to pass a variety of laws that reflect our values and beliefs. There will be a strong opposition to this from the liberals and the few remaining conservatives. We will have no choice but to arm our followers and defend ourselves by shooting the moderates who try and shield the unraptured zealots who missed the sky train and are planting roadside bombs on our way to the future. At that time, you will be very unhappy that the consevative dominance of the early 2000's was able to wipe out the protection of minority rights and set the precedents for ignoring the rights of the unpopular or socially scorned. We will happily point out the path of legal rightousness that we are merely following. You will eat dog food in our reeducation camps and like it. And thats the way it is.
on Wednesday, April 13th, scott the seer said
If someday, we radicals come to power, we will want to pass a variety of laws that reflect our values and beliefs. There will be a strong opposition to this from the liberals and the few remaining conservatives. We will have no choice but to arm our followers and defend ourselves by shooting the moderates who try and shield the unraptured zealots who missed the sky train and are planting roadside bombs on our way to the future. At that time, you will be very unhappy that the consevative dominance of the early 2000's was able to wipe out the protection of minority rights and set the precedents for ignoring the rights of the unpopular or socially scorned. We will happily point out the path of legal rightousness that we are merely following. You will eat dog food in our reeducation camps and like it. And thats the way it is.
on Wednesday, April 13th, ken tilsen said
Steve- Calm down a bit. Hitler was elected by a majority and the first thing he did was whip the courts into line. The current attacks on the judiciary by Republican senate leaders calling for people to rise up and intimidate judges is pure and simply a call for fascism in America. I have not heard anybody propose a law or a referandum advocating no one can eat meat or that Matriarchs shall rule our country(the world?) and if I heard of such a thing I would oppose it. But let us move to the real questions. Why is this"a sweeping decision affecting social and economic aspects?" It affects a small minority of people. But you suggests that in some undefined way if affects you negatively. I do not thing you really believe that this will take bread from you or your family. As near as I can guess you are opposed to gay marriage because it offends your sense of decency. I should stop here and let you explain why you believe this decision will affect you so much that you are driven to spend your time writting to blogs against it. But let me tell you that there is much in this society that offends my sense of decency and while I do what I can to change those things I have never beleived that I have a right to declare those things that I do not like unprotected by our constitution. Tell me, Steve, in the balance of things are you affected or offended more by a same-sex couple living in a comitted legally santioned marriage or by a federal budget that takes from the poorest people in our society and gives hugh benefits to the most wealthy and powerfull.How do you feel about health care? are you offended or affected by the fact that we spend 75% more on health care than France or Canada yet we rank far below them on most measures of health care quality. We rank near the bottom among industrial nations in indicators from life expectancy to infant mortality. This is a situation that affects and offends me and I am willing to spend my time to produce change. Shall we put it to a vote?
on Wednesday, April 13th, Jeremy said
Scott, earlier today you said that our government is “making definitions by it such as what our nation accepts as a family.” My questions for you are first? Why does the government have the right to define what is or is not a family? And who decides what our nation accepts as a family?
In my opinion the government should stay out me and my family. I have the right as a human to do what makes me happy, assuming I am not harming anyone else. Why should the government interfere because of what my neighbors believe?
If we do not stand up for the minority, the minority will grow. The first target may be the homosexuals but who is next. The only way to ensure that you will never be the target of persecution is by ensuring the no one is ever persecuted.
Scott let me level with you. You are like me and everyone else on this message board in that you believe certain things are right and speak out for them. This is more than enough to get you persecuted is any number or governments, so if you believe in your right to believe these things and speak them at will you should not participate in the persecution of any people.
on Wednesday, April 13th, Steve S. said
Your responses are eloquent enough, but my name isn't Scott, and I have enough people that I enjoy debating in person. I'll submit my reply later. Might I thank you all for refraining from simply replying with a "You're a fucking idiot" as was Mr. David Tilsen's intitial reply when our opinions first differed. No reason to take such open discussion personally, kind webmaster Tilsen.
PS - I endorse the persecution of no one (except terrorist of course)
on Wednesday, April 13th, Jeremy said
I apologize for the name confusion, and I am glad we agree that the persecution of people is a bad thing. I await your response as I to enjoy debating in any forum.
on Thursday, April 14th, Steve S. said
Wow... that apple didn't fall far from the tree in the Tilsen clan... tribe. I take pride in knowing I might be mentioned be name at the next gathering of Tilsens, whether it be with a sneer. An e-ambush and yet I stand undaunted. To answer one question, the reason i write into blogs to voice my opinion was to simply throw some opposing ideas into this hippy bastion. Its hard to say whether or not its worth while sounding off in a forum run by a family that proudly proclaims there ancestors to have defended the actions of communist infiltrators, threatening the well being of our country. All I'm doing is enjoying spirited debate with my comrade Dave... no need to patronize me with a 'settle down', old-timer. I'm quite calm. This is old hat for David and myself.
While poverty is a major concern of mine, believe it or not, I am simply of the belief that our nation is not one founded on the redistribution of wealth, but in the ability of the lowly to pull themself up and rise to their potential. We can see this in countless scenarios from J-Lo to Condoleeza Rice. As for charity, I am a huge believer in personal charity, and very firm in the belief that gov't programs have simply crumbled and by their nature let those people that grew to rely on them down. Unfortunately, over time, the structure has grown to rather than encourage a culture of giving, the culture of selfishness has blossomed under the impression that taxes are enough for charity. There are many generous people out there, but living with the self-sacrificing generosity that other cultures encourage, has become very unfashionable, to the demise of those that need it most. As for healthcare, there are so many circular factors contributing to this matter that its hard to know even where to begin. But the US will slip further yet into socialism by following the ways of Canada and France. It may be convenient, but its not conducive to maintaing the success of a 'free market' and not beneficial in the long haul. I understand it happening at a local level perhaps (Cook County Hospital for example), as I don't believe those that live in poverty should be helpless, but the idea that our federal dollars should pay is simply socialist (we obviously differ on that being a negative).
At this point, I'd like to request that the honorable webmaster Dave expand the comment window. This isn't a Highjump terminal!!!
Now where was I? Oh yes. Marwage is what brings us togever today. My and many other's interest in what our society accepts as marriage is this: A government that gives way to expanding a basic institution designed to create families will have an affect on the freedom of those that oppose it. Canada and other 'progressive nations' have already set in place legistlation that makes illegal any language that threatens or is perceived to threaten a homosexual. This has yet to be completely defined in courts, but very likely fallout is that freedom of speech to justifiably oppose a lifestyle viewed as sinful could soon be punishable by imprisonment of fines. Where does that fall with the Constitution? The recognition of homosexual marriage would also place the marriage of two same gendered folks at the same level of a man and woman when the functionality of the latter is what the point of marriage is in the first place. It is not a hidden fact, but obviously disputed that the best way to raise children is with a father and mother. Obviously, this is ideal, but a factor nonetheless. Third, my moral beliefs obviously play a role in my opinion. To suggest the government does not make moral legistlation is not accurate. Many laws are based on 'moral' legistlation. This is not an issue to just let slip by as none of the government's business. For the judicial branch of a govt that is by, of and for the people to alter its laws to openly accept behavior not only viewed as invalid by the majority, but also viewed as deviant and destructive to a society would be wrong. Protecting the minority is important as we learned many a times in our nation's history, but offering the extension of a right where it is not justified isn't in the same category. If the pleading rights of the minority were foremost in our society, pedophiles would have free access to children and the KKK would be able to openly harrass and intimidate anyone they wish. And please dont twist the Bible, suggesting it endorses homosexuality.
This is not a very easy point to argue, and I feel I have a pretty good grasp of both sides. Everytime I think about the issue, it reinvigorates the internal debate of whether or not it is the issue many are making it. For several reasons, I continue to find it worth the fight, none of these being my desire to restrict the rights of any person or express hatred for an act the offends my decency.
Are you still awake? Did I at least acknowledge questions? That was a lot to ponder.
on Thursday, April 14th, Jed Proujansky said
I will join in this for a word or two. I am a happily married heterosexual living in Massachusetts. I must stay that since the advent of the gay marriage laws here my marriage has been greatly deminished.
Okay, I lied. It really is as good now as it was before the law went into effect. I think the issue is really that the state has o right to issue a marriage license. It has the rights to define a legal union. Any two adults should be able to define a legal union and gain equal access to the rights therein. The religious affermation of a relationship is up to your favorite church, synagogue, mosque etc.
Defining marriage as we do is really a violation of the seperation of church and state.
And while we are talking about church. I have not yet found one that I would trust making laws for the masses. The job of the church is to spread (or enforce) their beliefs to all. The responsibility of the state is to protect the rights of minorities.
jed
on Thursday, April 14th, Jeremy said
Steve, how does the behavior of two individuals in private have any effect on society? You said that the judicial branch could “alter its laws to openly accept [homosexual] behavior” this would be impossible as it is the job of the court to interpret the laws not alter them. The is done by saying interpreting the US (or state) constitution(s) as protecting the rights of various groups.
As for comparing a group of people defined by the love of each other, to the KKK and pedophiles who are defined by their hate and search for control over others, is not only disturbing and gross but also insulting and rude.
As for suggesting that the bible endorsing homosexuality I cannot say but I do know that when you say “The best way to raise children is with a father and mother.” is contradicted multiple times in the bible. (A prime example is Abraham and his wives, and children with both.) I think it is not twisting to say the person who started it the old testament is “twisting”
Jed, I agree with you on all but one point, I disagree with you in great length as to the purpose of a religious community. I do not feel that the purpose of a “church is to spread (or enforce) their beliefs to all.” I feel that the purpose of a religious community is to give back to it members a sense of spiritual health and wellbeing. This may be though evangelical means or not.
Jeremy
on Friday, April 15th, Steve S. said
Just a quick (a first for me) on the purpose of religion, Jeremy. The Scripture though not obviously not embraced as a whole by a secular society, has embedded the words of Christ stating "to go forth and spread the word/truth to all peoples." The Koran states the same, although i do not consider the Koran to be truth. The Crusades were not a 'Christian event', but rather a misrepresentation with no backing in Scripture. Vengeance is God's role, not man's. But thats an entirely different debate that is met with great hostility in this relative truth era we find ourselves in. I guess is all comes down to considering God existing for us, or we existing for God. That is a question that will be answered in the end I guess.
Please note, this entry bears no bearing on how I believe the gov't should be operated or legistlation should be written. I do not think the govt's role is evangelical, while I believe the members have equal right to express and represent their individual belief.
on Saturday, April 16th, Jeremy said
Steve, my final question for the day, if it the purpose of religion to be evangelical, then why is it important to go to church? Than arn't the nonevangelical christian groups being hyporcrytical. I am treading on ground I do not know. Just an exercise in thought.
Jeremy
on Monday, April 18th, Steve S. said
I'll try to answer that. I didn't mean to suggest the purpose of 'religion' was to be evangelical. Thats a major calling of being a Christian. And to put it in context, if you believed something to be undeniable truth and to not accept that truth had consequences greater that death (hell), do you see the value in sharing that with others? Not ramming down the throats, but not brushing it off with no immediacy either. This is hardly a strong point of mine, personally.
As for attending church, I don't think that a Christian has to attend church to be saved. Thats not written anywhere in the Bible. I believe there is a very high value in becoming a part of a local church in the community and support and teaching it will provide. But a relationship with God doesn't hinge on weekly attendance with shirt pressed and shoes shined. When it comes down to it, every individual will answer for themself. Christians believe that in place of their flawed sinfullness, Christ will stand there and answer for them in the end, declaring them righteous before a Holy God.
Answer anything?
on Tuesday, April 19th, Jed said
I believe I was the one that said the purpose of religions is evangelical. The reason the Shakers did not prosper is because they were non-evangelical and did not procreate.While this is not 100%, nor is it what it professes to be and in many cases it is not what the members of the church see it as, I do think that most religions see themselves as "right" and want to spread the word.
On a more business / organizational level, any organization that is not busy growing is busy dying. It is therefore part and parcel of any ortanization's goal to increase its membership.
Jeremy,
The behavior of two individuals in private effects society in that their behavior is part of a pattern which they exhibit outside of their private domain. Homosexuality exhibits itself outside of the bedroom in many cases and that is why it is difficult for people to remain in the closet. This means that it is important to support the rights of gay and lesbian people so that they can have equal protection under law, not just under the covers, in public. FYI, I spend part of every summer in Provincetown, MA a gay and lesbian mecca. I find their overt (over the top) sexual displays as offensive as I do heterosexuals. We must not confuse one's rights with license.
jed
