The Minister of Agriculture on Gay Marriage, Smugness, and Fatherhood
The Maximum Leader’s Minister of Agriculture would like to (briefly) re-enter the fray over gay marriage.
<< Pre-missive note: The last time I posted on this topic the Maximum Leader called my essay “shrill.” Conservative v. Liberal name calling, anyone? At any rate, his mockery led to a rebuke from Mrs. Maximum Leader and an apology of sorts from our megalomaniacal standard-bearer who made amends by appointing an Assistant Minister of Agriculture. This missive, unlike the last, does not rely on reasoned argument and actually is rather shrill. If the Maximum Leader feels I have crossed the line, I beg him to forgive my rhetorical excess and to delete this post. I would prefer, however, to repeat the earlier cycle of nastiness/apology so that I might acquire an Undersecretary of Agriculture. I believe Mademoiselles Theron, Diaz, or Milano could handle the portfolio…>>
GAY MARRIAGE: SMUGNESS AND FATHERHOOD
I am feeling rather smug because I know that “right will out.” Opposition to equal rights for gays is a generational issue. As old bigots die, justice will prevail. (That last sentence brought to you courtesy of the Big Hominid and the ML’s discussion of political name-calling. How ya like dem apples, ya liberal-bashing conservatives?)
Seriously, the expansion of equality is a recurring theme of American history. Thomas Jefferson, able to sit down and contemplate justice and freedom while watching his slaves out of Monticello’s windows, may have only meant white male property owners over the age of 25 when he wrote “all men are created equal,” but a free people’s sense of social justice has been continually expanding the definition of “all men.”
The Maximum Leader and his ilk may egofetishworship at the altar of Judeo-Christian tradition. One suspects that, back in 1860, they would have been vociferous supporters of the Reverend Wilson and “tradition.” Wilson’s sermon, “Mutual Relation of Masters and Slaves as Taught in the Bible” which reflected the vast majority of religious opinion in the South, can be found at:
http://docsouth.unc.edu/wilson/menu.html
(And yes, you English majors out there, I am fully aware that there is no such verb as “egofetishworship.” But as a German-American, I feel a certain license to combine words like my erstwhile countrymen. This glorious tradition has brought us the wonderful noun “schadenfreude.”)
So while the bigots reject reason and justice and cling to “tradition,” I can take comfort from the fact that America’s traditional, if slow, pursuit of justice will eventually win. Just look at the poll numbers broken down by age groups. The Maximum Leader and I share a reverence for a certain P.M. who once said “America can be depended upon to do the right thing – after exhausting all the other options.”
However –
It is hard to be complacent and wait for the inevitable victory. I am reminded of the better, but often forgotten, second half of Goldwater’s maxim: “Moderation in pursuit of Justice is no virtue.”
As a father, this takes on a new immediacy. I have a wonderful daughter and I want her to have all the opportunities in the world and I want her to be happy. Even if she is gay. I hope and pray that she is not – I would not want my daughter to grow up with an orientation that leads to rejection and persecution at the hands of the bigoted (current and temporary) majority. But, facing reality, there is a 3-5% chance that she is gay. If I truly love my daughter, and I emphatically do, I do not want her to be a second class citizen in her own society.
A person who is peripherally involved in this debate has claimed that fatherhood has made him MORE opposed to granting equal rights to homosexuals. I would like to hear him weigh in on this issue. At the risk of sounding like a Rawlsian*, if his child is too young to have begun demonstrating orientation, wouldn’t a father want to hedge his bets out of love for that child?
* The Maximum Leader and I read Rawls together in college and both concluded that his philosophy is untenable. However, it strikes me that the rhetorical tool of the original position is useful here.
While it is easy to advocate discrimination in the abstract, it is generally harder to advocate discrimination against someone you know. Unless you are the Speaker of the House and your sister is gay.
Even if the Maximum Leader rejects arguments of reason and justice, perhaps contemplating the villainettes will pry his lips from the teats of tradition.
I stand ready for the firing squad.
Minister of Agriculture
<< Pre-missive note: The last time I posted on this topic the Maximum Leader called my essay “shrill.” Conservative v. Liberal name calling, anyone? At any rate, his mockery led to a rebuke from Mrs. Maximum Leader and an apology of sorts from our megalomaniacal standard-bearer who made amends by appointing an Assistant Minister of Agriculture. This missive, unlike the last, does not rely on reasoned argument and actually is rather shrill. If the Maximum Leader feels I have crossed the line, I beg him to forgive my rhetorical excess and to delete this post. I would prefer, however, to repeat the earlier cycle of nastiness/apology so that I might acquire an Undersecretary of Agriculture. I believe Mademoiselles Theron, Diaz, or Milano could handle the portfolio…>>
GAY MARRIAGE: SMUGNESS AND FATHERHOOD
I am feeling rather smug because I know that “right will out.” Opposition to equal rights for gays is a generational issue. As old bigots die, justice will prevail. (That last sentence brought to you courtesy of the Big Hominid and the ML’s discussion of political name-calling. How ya like dem apples, ya liberal-bashing conservatives?)
Seriously, the expansion of equality is a recurring theme of American history. Thomas Jefferson, able to sit down and contemplate justice and freedom while watching his slaves out of Monticello’s windows, may have only meant white male property owners over the age of 25 when he wrote “all men are created equal,” but a free people’s sense of social justice has been continually expanding the definition of “all men.”
The Maximum Leader and his ilk may egofetishworship at the altar of Judeo-Christian tradition. One suspects that, back in 1860, they would have been vociferous supporters of the Reverend Wilson and “tradition.” Wilson’s sermon, “Mutual Relation of Masters and Slaves as Taught in the Bible” which reflected the vast majority of religious opinion in the South, can be found at:
http://docsouth.unc.edu/wilson/menu.html
(And yes, you English majors out there, I am fully aware that there is no such verb as “egofetishworship.” But as a German-American, I feel a certain license to combine words like my erstwhile countrymen. This glorious tradition has brought us the wonderful noun “schadenfreude.”)
So while the bigots reject reason and justice and cling to “tradition,” I can take comfort from the fact that America’s traditional, if slow, pursuit of justice will eventually win. Just look at the poll numbers broken down by age groups. The Maximum Leader and I share a reverence for a certain P.M. who once said “America can be depended upon to do the right thing – after exhausting all the other options.”
However –
It is hard to be complacent and wait for the inevitable victory. I am reminded of the better, but often forgotten, second half of Goldwater’s maxim: “Moderation in pursuit of Justice is no virtue.”
As a father, this takes on a new immediacy. I have a wonderful daughter and I want her to have all the opportunities in the world and I want her to be happy. Even if she is gay. I hope and pray that she is not – I would not want my daughter to grow up with an orientation that leads to rejection and persecution at the hands of the bigoted (current and temporary) majority. But, facing reality, there is a 3-5% chance that she is gay. If I truly love my daughter, and I emphatically do, I do not want her to be a second class citizen in her own society.
A person who is peripherally involved in this debate has claimed that fatherhood has made him MORE opposed to granting equal rights to homosexuals. I would like to hear him weigh in on this issue. At the risk of sounding like a Rawlsian*, if his child is too young to have begun demonstrating orientation, wouldn’t a father want to hedge his bets out of love for that child?
* The Maximum Leader and I read Rawls together in college and both concluded that his philosophy is untenable. However, it strikes me that the rhetorical tool of the original position is useful here.
While it is easy to advocate discrimination in the abstract, it is generally harder to advocate discrimination against someone you know. Unless you are the Speaker of the House and your sister is gay.
Even if the Maximum Leader rejects arguments of reason and justice, perhaps contemplating the villainettes will pry his lips from the teats of tradition.
I stand ready for the firing squad.
Minister of Agriculture
posted by Anonymous at 11/21/2003 04:17:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home