I’m lucky enough to have some pretty creative friends here in New York. This weekend I attended a variety show put on by some friends of mine in Bed-Stuy. Poetry, theater, music, burlesque, film and comedy- all in one place at one time, curated and hosted by one of Bed-Stuy’s best emerging drag queens, Kacey Camel-toe. My eyes twinkled with delight through nearly every performance and I wondered to myself how I manage to straddle my seemingly conflicting social spheres- the deep respect I have for my fellow purveyors of the right wing conspiracy here on FS, and my adorable dyke playwright peers out here in the gut of Brooklyn. As I walked home and processed the night’s performances it struck me how much we all have in common.
The Skit:
Laura-lee is bent over on the kitchen table wearing basketball sweats and a sports bra, her mother dangles a cigarette and dons a bathrobe as she toils away at a home-made tramp stamp for her daughter, an act of love. “You swear this is gonna get me a man Mama?” the daughter asks. “Yes, of course honey, now stay still ‘less you want me to mess it up.” The eldest daughter enters the scene, very pregnant, swinging a tall-boy of Miller-lite. The next string of dialogue tells us that Laura-lee is very jealous of her pregnant sister. She is the lucky one. Mom comforts her daughter,”It’s okay Laura-lee, we’ll get you a man soon enough. You’ve just gotta learn to be patient.”
There’s a knock at the door. “Oh girls! It’s the UPS man!” Laura-Lee jumps at the knob to let him in. Immediately she gives him the eye. “Wanna come in?” all three women suggest. “No, no. I really can’t. I’m on a schedule” the UPS man asserts. The girls drag him in. Laura-Lee sits him down in a chair and begins gyrating on him. “You’re cute!” she says. The UPS man leaps up and heads for the door. The women pull him back to the chair and tie him down with rope. Laura-lee makes a grand speech about their future children and how happy they’ll be forever and ever. The man is quivering in his chair, desperate for an escape. “I’m engaged!” he says. “I need to get back to my fiance!” “You’re whaaaat?!” the women scream. Mama pulls out a gun. “You’ve been cheatin’ on my Laura-lee with some hussy?” Mama holds a gun to the UPS man’s head. “Laura-lee is your fiance now big boy.”
Laura-lee speedily changes into a wedding gown. Mama declares to the man, “It’s your lucky day. I’m a licensed minister!” With some quick words and a reluctant I do, the two are wed, right there in the kitchen/tattoo parlor. Laura-lee unties him to drag him away to their “wedding bed”. He scurries quick-as-he-can and in a series of comedic choreographed moves, he grabs the gun and with nowhere to go, shoots himself in the head.
“Aw man! Not another one!” cries Laura-lee. “That bastard!” says Mama. Laura-lee hops on top of his dead body and starts wiggling her hips. “You think it still might be possible Mama?” Hinting she may be able to squeeze a little baby-juice out of him post suicide.
“Nah… all his blood is on the floor darlin’.”
The film:
Kacey Camel-toe, besides looking beautiful in a red dress, is a talented filmmaker as well. The house lights dimmed down and the projector lit up the wall to show us Kacey’s newest short titled “I had a baby!”
Kacey’s quivering body is pained and coiled up in a corner of what appears to be a prison cell. He’s wearing his famous red dress and long wig. His voice moans in agony and at first we think that he just got beat up. Then the labor pain noises are made clearer. The aesthetic parodies the horror genre and after a few minutes of torturous audio, the pains of birth, we watch as Kacey delivers his own little demon-child, a gooey mass of protein he holds tightly as his first-born. “I had a baby!” he pronounces. Roman Pulanski would be proud.
It all calmed down when my dear friend and performance partner Christopher Paul Stelling took the stage for some musical relief. He gathered us ’round and in the middle of his set, delivered a most familiar tune in which no one could resist singing along to. Kacey Camel-toe and the derelict dykes responsible for the UPS man seduction-piece all chimed in and we sang together this song, a song that I sang last month at church with my grandparents when I visited them at their farm for our family reunion:
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
My variety-show epiphany was this: pro-creation is a political statement no matter which circle you fall in. It seems to be on just about everybody’s mind. Some take it very seriously. Others take every opportunity to make fun of it. But it inspires all of us.
Categories: General
Why was the comment that had been here, deleted? (I think it was by Jay).
Like Jay, I think the humor is probably “you had to have been there.” Humor like the skits you describe only works for me if something in the performers’ presences or attitudes really reassures me that absolutely no malice is intended.
Tough crowd.
I keep trying to write these pieces that make it clear no one here is trying to gay bash. I keep trying to make it clear that there’s no hate and that there are people, like me, who socialize, care, support and engage a variety of people with a variety of identities, including sexual identities.
It seems there are plenty of readers and gay-rights supporters who feel fine condemning anyone and everyone as a homophobe, if they’re unwilling to morph policy to fit the LGBTQ agenda.
Besides going out and marrying a woman myself I’m not sure how to prove I’m not homophobic to these folks.
It’s really telling to me how the Tolerance Committee can slap the “B” word on just about anyone they want, in the name of justice and open-mindedness. Even one of their own daughters…
I didn’t delete Jay’s comment.
But I think he said something about how “my gay friends and my friends here on FS actually don’t have all that much in common- my gay friends can’t marry and my FS friends are busy making sure they never will be able to..”
to which I’ll say:
Right Jay… How perceptive of you. All of the work, all of the writing, all of the research, all of the time… all of it is in pursuance to prevent gay people from marrying because our disdain for homosexuality overrides all other interests. That’s why we’re here. To thwart love and commitment. Exactly.
So, are all the gay men you know drag queens? Nice sterotyping.
To the moderated: I find Alana story and her frequent mentioning of “drag queens” as representing gay men a terrible and offensive sterotype. Please ask her to refrain from adding these offensive stories, which are also nonsequiters, to this discussion on your site.
(forgive the iPhone typos)
Alana, of course IAV has some worthy work and there are many fine people in your ranks, but you must admit that you work very hard to ensure denial of access to civil marriage licenses by gay couples, however much you might like that aspect of your work that is one of the outcomes you guys seek. I think that was Jay’s point.
okay-
I’ll refrain. I’m sorry I offended you Jeff.
Trying my hardest to be a bridge builder but see that I’m missing the mark.
I, personally, am not trying to deny anyone marriage licenses.
My goal is to minimize the number of kids separated from their biological parents and get people to think harder before they use ART to start their families.
Please accept my apology.
and no not all of my gay friends are drag queens, just the one that was performing that night. My band-mate whom I interviewed here (http://familyscholars.org/2010/07/31/elin-and-alana/) is also gay, and my roommate, a number of old co-workers, and high-school classmates back in San Francisco. And my friend John Smith, who is a vlogger on gay rights here: (http://familyscholars.org/2010/06/17/solidarity-gay-pride-month/)
I’ll try and clean up my posts, but I hope you can see that it’s not in malice.
Thanks Alana. I don’t think people here (you, DB, EM, etc.) are doing this out of malice. (There are a lot of people who do, but I don’t think that exists here, or frankly I wouldn’t bother commenting.) It seems to me that you guys have very legitimate concerns for kids (a good thing) but I think the concern (fear?) that gay couples getting a marriage license is going to harm kids is misplaced. I do think the “deinstitutionalization” ship sailed 50 years ago and can’t be called back now. It was launched by birth control, the “individual” as a target of advertising, franker sexuality in general, and the women’s rights movement.
I can tell you that my partner and I have been together for 10 years and when we together for 6 months I was diagnosed with Lymphoma. It was very aggressive and I had four YEARS of chemotherapy — a four hour infusion every three weeks (I really didn’t that was possible and a human could endure that.). I had my chemo a few blocks from the IAV offices, on a good day I could walk a block to Columbus Circle to get a cab home when my partner couldn’t pick me up. David we’ve probably passed each other on the street. Chemo doesn’t make you the best, most loving or attentive partner to say the least. It matasicized into my right lung which collapsed and had to removed. My chest was open (with just rolls of gauze filling it and bandages over the hole — a space the size a football) for nine months. The gauze/bandages had to be changed twice a day to avoid infection, my partner learned how (though blood had freaked him out prior to this) to change my dressing and did it twice every single day. (Knock wood — I’m five years cancer free now.) Few people would do for their spouses what my partner did for me. This is why I take umbrage when people tell me I am not married, nor can I be. Because there are thousands of stories like ours, and these people’s lives (my life with my partner) has been made more difficult by the “anti-gay marriage” movement. (My name is actually Chris btw, knowing all this you should know that to.)
I agree with your point about that donor kids have a right to know who their biological parents are. I would gladly help you get those laws passed. (There are tough questions of when etc. that i haven’t thought/read enough about yet — but people in that situation have the right to know.) I know there are some questions around that but, now that we’re talking, how many couples who conceive via donor sperm/eggs are gay? Are there any figures? My (educated) guess is about 10%, maybe 15%. I think those couples are about 3% of all gay couples and about 20% of all gay couples with kids under 18. I really don’t think marriage equality will increase that significantly (it will make the lives of those families much easier/not as difficult). My partner and I have no intention of having kids, nor do most of our friends. Those who have kids all either had kids from a previous straight marriage or adopted. Most gay couple really don’t want kids. I am happy to have nieces and nephews and I regret a bit (now that my parents are gone — I put a lot of parenting energy into my parents and we still care for/support my partner’s mother.) that I won’t have them but we could adopt and it is just not in the cards for us.
I also don’t think gay couples, or any couple, looks to government or the marriage pundits on either side for a “definition of marriage”. They may have once, but now it is worked out by each couple at the kitchen table and chatting in bed before they turn out the light.
This idea that my partner and I have to prohibited from a getting a marriage license in order to help other people’s children seems misguided to me. To restrain the liberty of any couple to marry you have to an excellent reason (legally and morally). I support your (very laudable) goals for kids I simply don’t think achieving requires or would even be furthered by barring gay couples from getting a civil marriage license.
My hope in telling you (all of you) all this is really to open up this dialog and humanize it a bit.
Jeff:
First, welcome to the conversation. I personally respect much of what you have to say.
You’ve directed several questions and comments my way, referring both to me personally and to the Institute for American Values, so let me try to address them.
There are no topics that are off limits, and no facts that cannot be presented.
We are serious about our civility policy. Comments that don’t conform to it will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. We are trying to do something very unusual here — have an actual, serious conversation — and enforcing our civility rule is essential if we are to have any chance at all of success.
I don’t intend to debate with you, or bagain with you, over what constitutes civility. Just be nice.
I am not the aministrator/moderator of this site. I never say anything on the site in anything other than my own name. I am one of several people who have the authority to delete uncivil comments, and I have used that authority on exactly two occasions since the launch of the site.
In several of your comments you seem to want to hold individual bloggers, such as Alana or Karen, responsible for my views, and/or for what you presume to be the views or positions of the Institute for American Values. I would ask you not to do that. There is a wide diversity of views among our bloggers — that’s part of the point! Also, the Institute for American Values does not have group or corporate positions on specific policy issues; each invidual speaks and acts for himself or herself. Within the organization, for example, people have divergent positions on gay marriage (including taking the position of having no public position). So, Karen and Alana are responsible for what they as individuals say, but they are not responsbible for my views, or for some (wrongly) presumed “position” of the organization. Again, everyone’s recognition of this point is essential if we are to have any chance of success at a genuine conversation.
Stephen:
Discussing this site, and addressing another commentor, your comment in part says:
“I hope that your humanizing question of ssm helps move some of the opponents, but don’t count on it. I expect that you will be banned soon. Apparently, that is what happened to Jay, who also shared a lot of his life. Most of the people here who oppose ssm think that THEY are the victims. Paranoia runs rampant here.”
Accusing others participants of being paranoid and/or of operating from malicious motives (banning someone for sharing about his life) is an example of violating our civility policy. Please don’t do that. Our policy is to delete uncivil comments and to ban repeat offenders.
Chris-
Thank you so much for sharing your story. I’m very much relieved that you came back to me with a gentle narrative and a very smartly written set of thoughts and conclusions.
These issues are messy. And I never in a million years would have imagined that I would be involved in a gay rights debate. I was in the gay-straight alliance three out of my four years in high school. And then of course I chose to go to university in downtown San Francisco. I’ve been to at least one gay pride parade every year for the last seven years.
So when I say that I genuinely want to see the gay community thrive, I mean it. I’m talking about people that I love and have known for years.
Your story resonates. You’ve been through a lot. The dedication your partner has shown is absolutely worthy of respect. And dignity.
As I blog on here and have these conversations, what I’m really doing is shaping my thoughts and discovering how my position and my actions effect change and others’ lives.
“I do think the “deinstitutionalization” ship sailed 50 years ago and can’t be called back now. It was launched by birth control, the “individual” as a target of advertising, franker sexuality in general, and the women’s rights movement. ”
I’ve struggled with these points myself and in this huge messy culture we’ve created where people don’t know who they are anymore or where they come from and we seek out material to fill the void of spirituality it leaves me stunned and paralyzed as to where to concentrate my energies.
Nuance is a scary thing. As a woman, I’m thankful for feminism in many respects. As a donor kid, I’m resentful of it.
This is getting long. Thank you for sharing your story with me.
I like this tone we’re sharing.
Stephen-
I never said I was against gay men adopting.
And yes, I am against anyone using anonymous sperm.
As far as marriage,
I’m by no means an expert. I respect and admire David and Elizabeth’s thinking. Their books have developed my ideas on the importance of marriage and commitment.
but I also came of age in San Francisco and align myself with the zeitgeist of my old home on almost every topic.
i think people have the right to love and be with whomever they want. And share property with whomever they want. And be visited in the hospital by whomever they want. And spend thousands of dollars on ridiculous ceremonies to tell the world who exactly they love. But they don’t have the right to deliberately separate a child from one or both of their biological parents.
But they don’t have the right to deliberately separate a child from one or both of their biological parents.
Of course, this is exactly what adoption is.
Nevertheless, I do think one issue you will need to confront is that your donor rights approach runs headlong into the gay rights issue because it is lesbians who are disproportionate users of anonymous sperm donors and gay men who are disproportionate users of surrogates. When you declare war on that regime, you are declaring war on gay and lesbian families.
Now, I think there is an argument to be made that can be convincing on why donor anonymity is bad, but the fact that people opposed to same-sex marriage are in bed with people who want to regulate donor anonymity raises eyebrows.
Peter: Referring to “the right to deliberately separate a child from one or both of their biological parents,” you say:
“Of course, this is exactly what adoption is.”
But that’s NOT what adoption is. Adoption is a derivative and compensatory institution, based in loss, that assumes the importance of biological ties and was developed by society to handle with grace and love precisely those sad instances (universally viewed as tragic) in which the natural parents cannot or will not competently raise their own child.
Nowhere in the adoption process does anyone say “let’s go out and make a child that can never know its father, or mother.”
That’s why those who are professionally involved with adoption, and those who (like me) deeply admire and respect the institution, acknowledge that adoption is inextricably connected with loss, suffering, and deprivation. Thus, no one runs around saying, “Wouldn’t it be great is EVERY child could be adopted!” … Whereas lots of people (like me) run around saying, “Wouldn’t it be great if EVERY child could love and be loved by the two parents who brought them into the world!” … AND (with Alana), “Wouldn’t it be great if we would stop deliberately separating a child from one or both of its biological parents.”
Alana, Thanks for the comment and I’d like to address it in a longer post in a bit, but I have one question.
How is the issue of depriving kids of biological parents (I point I agree with you on) connected to barring gay couples from obtaining a civil marriage license?
Gay couples with kids are a small minority of all gay couples and the great majority of those either have kids from heterosexual marriages before came out (shared custody with the straight biological parent) or adopted. My educated guess (do you have figures on this? — I can’t find reliable ones) is that only about 3% of gay couples conceive with donor egg/sperm (I think they are 20% of the 15% of gay couples with kids under 18.) and some of those are in open donation arrangements with friends (which frankly I still find a little odd).
As a gay man, I can tell you that when marriage equality is allowed, the percentage of donor kids among gay couples is unlikely to change in a significant way. I don’t think it has changed in MA, Canada, etc.
Given the stats I outlined (assuming they are close to actual figures but they can’t be too far), does it make sense to legally bar ALL gay couples from a civil marriage license for that reason? Besides those kids exist in their current families and will continue to whether their caregiver/parents have a civil marriage, DP, CU, or no legal recognition.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to enact laws surrounding sperm/egg donation to address this issue for everyone, straight and gay?
Peter — David is certainly right about the difference between adoption and donor kids with no connection to their biological parents. (I agree that that’s a problem and I think it is unjust to those kids.)
But David, can you please read my previous post and respond to the idea that regulating that (which very very few gay couples (3%?) are participants in) requires barring all gay couples from obtaining a civil marriage license? I don’t see a connection there.
And also, Peter:
Your quip about “raises eyebrows” definitely … raised my eyebrows! Are you suggesting that there is some hidden agenda? If so, and speaking only for myself, I will say that there is nothing hidden about it at all! The issue of deliberately separating a child from one or both of its biological parents is a part of the ART debate and it’s also a part of the gay marriage debate. Two debates, same issue. And when someone (such as yours truly) who participates in both debates says exactly the same thing about this issue, in whatever context it comes up, and agrees with others who say the same thing, regardless of context, what is there, exactly, to cause raised eyebrows?
Thank you David.
When I “declare war” on reproductive technologies…
I am telling my story and explaining to the best of my abilities the difficulties with reproductive technologies.
I am not nor have ever decided to run headlong against gay and lesbian rights. I talk about my conflict of interest with my lesbian friends all the time and we have found common ground. In my interview with Elin ey (http://familyscholars.org/2010/07/31/elin-and-alana/) I ask her what her strategy to start her family was going to be before she met me, and how has knowing me changed her plans…
she said that before she knew me she planned on using anonymous sperm or adopting.
after knowing me and hearing my story, she plans on adopting or collaborating with a male friend of hers so that her child will know who hir father is.
that to me, was a success.
and I’d just like to repeat what I did with her for more lesbian households.
Alana — I haven’t been able to open the link to the audio of your conversation with Elin, but I’m so glad you gave the jist of it. That’s wonderful. That a very appropriate (and clearly effective) way to educate people on why anonymous sperm/egg donation creates problems. Please consider this a huge pat on the back from me.
I have to ask though, once Elin conceives with friend’s sperm (and gives birth)/adopts and their family (I think we can all agree it is indeed a family?) is formed, it is necessary (and David you are in on this conversation too I think) for Elin and her future (current?) partner to be legally barred from getting a civil marriage license? What purpose would that serve?
The issue of deliberately separating a child from one or both of its biological parents is a part of the ART debate and it’s also a part of the gay marriage debate.
I agree. But Alana wants to be loved by her lesbian friends and true to her San Francisco values while working to cut off a medical procedure that is used by lesbians to create families. And she advocates for it for an organization that advocates against SSM and argues that gay families are dangerous to families generally.
If folks like Alana want to gain support for changing the regime that eliminates donor anonymity, they will have to have gain the support of the LGBT community which will have questions about the overall motives of such an effort. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but there are terrific barriers. Picking allies will be important.
I agree that adoption, generally, is an admirable endeavor (although some international adoption does border on baby selling and buying). But people don’t go into using anonymous donors out of some act of hostility and misanthropy, but instead of out of love and a desire to have children.
Peter — I agree with what you say about making common cause between donor kids and getting a buy in from lesbians particularly, but I do think you a bit unfair to Alana in that she wants to get rid of donor anonymity (for the sake of the kids) not ART entirely as I understand what she’s saying.
David — is it your position, as Peter suggests, that families headed by gay couples are dangerous to families generally?
David — I can understand why children being separated from biologically parents is part of the ART debate.
But why is it a part of the debate over whether gay couples can obtain a civil marriage license?
Civil marriage for gay couples will do nothing to affect donor kids (except positively for those kids already gay-couple-headed families) that exist or the rates of future donor kids.
If the goal is have kids know their biological parents, wouldn’t it be more efficient to focus on laws and regulations surrounding ART? That would certainly address all cases of concerns surrounding donation — not just indirectly discourage (by penalty) gay couples from using ART.
If those laws were changed to, let’s say, ban anonymous sperm/egg donation, is there still a good reason to ban gay couples from obtaining a civil marriage license? What is it?
Is it fair to penalize the 97% of gay couples who are not connected in anyway with ART, to prevent the small percentage who have or might from anonymous donation arrangements?
How does allowing a “civil union” arrangement but not a marriage license further the goal of banning anonymous egg/sperm donation?
Chris: I read your argument about what you view as the weak (would you say non-existent?) link between gay marriage and the right of the child to know his or her biological parents. And I will say that I can understand and respect your thesis; and there are some respects in which I agree with it.
I wrote a pretty long section of a book making the case that there IS a connection, and that changing marriage as you and others want it changed would almost certainly change and weaken parenthood as an institution — for all children. I am not up, this afternoon, to the task summarizing that argument in a sentence or two here, but it’s there to read in full, if you are interested.
This is also one of those topics that cries out for actual, face to face discusison rather than ping-ponging short takes.
You also ask if what Peter says about me is true. It isn’t. In fact, it deeply distresses me that he would announce that David Blankenhorn believes that “gay families are a danger to families generally.” I have never said those words, or anything close to them, and I certainly do not believe that. Putting hateful words in my mouth based on nothing more than his own deductions is … not a nice thing to do.
Correction: On re-reading, I see that Peter made his accusation not (only) against me personally, but against the organization of which I am president. Which actually, in my view, makes the accusation worse, since it implicates many other people, some of whom actually favor gay marriage. If he’s going to name-call, I’d rarther he just stick with me.
Alana, thanks for responding.
“Right Jay… How perceptive of you. All of the work, all of the writing, all of the research, all of the time… all of it is in pursuance to prevent gay people from marrying because our disdain for homosexuality overrides all other interests.”
I don’t think it’s true that you have “disdain for homosexuality,” nor do I think all the other posters here hate lesbians and gays. But I am frustrated that posters here (as you do, in this thread) often talk about gay marriage in terms of your own motivation, and how pure your own heart is, and how some of your best friends are gay.
You sound great. If I ever met you, I’d probably like you. You obviously have genuine affection and love for your lesbian and gay friends. You’re not a bigot.
None of that has anything to do with whether the policy of opposing equality for same-sex couples is, or is not, a bigoted and unfair policy. It’s completely irrelevant. The issue here is not, and shouldn’t be, about your motivations.
It should be possible for us to discuss the idea of bigotry in policy — whether or not Policy X unjustly discriminates against group Y — without everyone who supports Policy X immediately changing the topic to “I don’t think it’s fair of you to call me a bigot!”
I feel like I’ve spent years trying my best to be scrupulously polite to folks like David and Elizabeth and (now) you, and to talk about policy without talking about people personally. (I’m sure I’ve slipped up now and then — I’m human — but I’d bet that 95% of my comments never attack anyone personally, only on policy.) But I’m not sure that any of the posters on this blog even recognize the difference between saying “this policy is unacceptable because it is bigoted” and saying “you’re a bigot.”
I have never said those words, or anything close to them, and I certainly do not believe that.
OK, fair enough. But when you say gay marriage would be dangerous to marriage and hurt families, aren’t you in fact saying that gay families are a danger to marriage since gay marriage creates families? I understand that gay families who are willing to forgo the legal protection of marriage are less of a threat rhetorically, but it’s a fine line.
David, I think perhaps you’re not making a distinction between the private views held by members (is that the right word?) of IAV, and public positions taken by members of the IAV.
I’ve never seen a public debate on marriage equality, in which the speaker was introduced as being affiliated with the IAV, in which the IAV-affiliated speaker spoke in favor of marriage equality. I’ve never read an op-ed in the New York Times or any other major publication, in which the writer was identified by their IAV affiliation, in which the writer argued in favor of marriage equality. But I’ve seen the opposite a bunch of times.
You say there are IAV associates who favor marriage equality, either in private or in very low-visibility public statements (such as on a blog). But it’s not fair of you to expect us to judge the IAV by positions that are held privately, rather than by the positions we’ve seen you trumpet in the New York Times or on stage. If those folks go public and start arguing for SSM in prominent op-ed pages and in debates, that would certainly change my view of IAV.
But as things currently stand, you seem to want us to consider IAV a neutral organization when — judging from the record of public advocacy — IAV has not acted like a neutral organization.
I don’t know if you’re a Christian, but even if you’re not, you might agree with me that sometimes the Bible gives good, practical advice. One such piece of advice is to judge a tree by its fruit. Do you really think it’s unfair if people apply that advice to the IAV’s freely-chosen actions?
Ampersand: I agree with all of your good distinctions between a result and a motivation, and between castigating a policy and castigating a person. And from my point of view, I agree that you seem to try very hard to focus on the policy, not the person. And I appreciate that.
The only thing you say with which I disagree is that bloggers here don’t get this point. I believe that I have grasped it well enough, and I think that (given, as you say, that all of us are fallible at times) all of those who post here are able to grasp such distinctions pretty well.
If you look back, I think you’ll see that most of the “I don’t beat my wife” protestations that you cite in fact came in response to actual, direct accusations of wife-beating — so it’s a bit too easy, I think, for you simply to pull out those comments as proof that people who post here are somehow too clueless to recognize the difference between a commentor saying to the blogger, “You favor a policy that I fear could lead to spouse abuse” and saying to the blogger “We all know that you beat your wife.”
Ampersand: The point I’m trying to make about guilt (or credit) by association is really a much simpler one than you seem to think. All I’m saying is: On this blog, in order to have a productive conversation, it’s best to hold participants accountable only (and fully!) for what THEY say, not for what OTHER people whom they may like or associate with, say. That’s really all. Pretty simple. But it’s also a pretty important rule, if we are going to improve the quality of the conversation.
Davdi: “The only thing you say with which I disagree is that bloggers here don’t get this point.”
Fair enough, I might be mistaken on this point (and I’d be glad to be mistaken).
David: “On this blog, in order to have a productive conversation, it’s best to hold participants accountable only (and fully!) for what THEY say…”
But what about holding participants accountable for what they do?
By joining the IAV, Alana adds credibility to your claim that the IAV is not an anti-SSM organization. This claim, in turn, makes the frequent high-profile stands of IAV members against marriage equality seem more credible (because a neutral, scholarly association seems more credible, to many people, than a group like NOM does). So — even though I’m sure this isn’t her intention — by affiliating with IAV, Alana is assisting the argument against marriage equality.
I don’t think it’s unfair to criticize people for what they’ve freely chosen to do — including who they’ve chosen to formally associate with — as long as the criticism is fact-based and not just a string of insults.
(I emphasize “formally” because I think that joining a politically active organization is different from, say, hanging out with someone socially.)
David — I guess that leads me to ask what Amp pointed out — is allowing gay couples a civil marriage license a threat to families overall? And, if so, does keeping us in “civil unions”/DPs lessen that threat?
I am very glad to hear that you don’t feel gay families are a threat to families overall and that you regard that sentiment as “hatred”, and I know you’ve lamented the homophobia in the anti-marriage-equality movement.
I do have to ask how you feel about the current anti-gay-marriage rallies where invited speakers openly compare gay people to salmonella tainted food and Toyotas and suggest that we be recalled — again these are featured speakers at the dias, not mere attendees (in fact MLK’s niece compared gay relationships to genocide last week at one of these events). There are prominent IAV-affiliated leaders onsite at these rallies who stand by and say nothing but nod approvingly and applaud while this goes on.
I know you wouldn’t agree with these statements and can’t believe you wouldn’t recognize this as revolting homophobia and dehumanization. In fact I would suggest that the desired position of the great majority of these people is for gay people to essentially disapear — “Just keep it in the bedroom”, “You have the right to marry — a woman the same as I do”, “We don’t recognize friendships in the law” these sentiments are very common in this movement even among its leaders.
The moderator of the group’s FB page said “homosexuals have never been discriminated against” and “homosexuals we’re discriminated against in Nazi Germany because it was kept private then”. Of course tens of thousand of gay men died in concentration camps during the Nazi period.
Do you feel these sentiments should be confronted? Might you understand how people connect you, rightly or wrongly, with the people espousing those sentiments — there is only one degree of separation?
Should the folks who organize these rallies be called out for the rhetoric espoused from their own microphone by their invited speakers?
You said a week or so ago that you saw that “gay marriage advocates have endured a lot more” than you have (in being “called in a bigot”). But it’s not just that, the rhetoric at these rallies (and the like) leads to increased violence against and a lot of pain for gay people who have nothing with the marriage debate. Anti-gay violence spiked during the Prop 8 debate in California — a demonstrable fact.
If you wish to be thought of as “favoring gay rights” but against gay couples obtaining a civil marriage license and are concerned about your reputation (as you seem to be) among people who love gay people, doesn’t it behoove you to directly confront those who would use your writings as justification for denying any civil right to gay people?
I recognize the difficult position this means you’re in with some of your colleagues, but I’m afraid that is your predicament.
Ampersand: “But what about holding participants accountable for what they do?”
Well, sorry, but no — for several reasons. First, you don’t really know “what they do”; you are only guessing. For example, in your comment you talk about Alana. But all that Alana is a “member” of, that has anything to do with me, is this blog. Please tell me, therefore, what specifically you think she is “doing” — OTHER THAN POSTING ON THIS BLOG — for which you feel the need to hold her accountable?
This is a blog. It’s a medium for people, as individuals, to write and exchange views. To have integrity, it has to resemble a conversation, in which the focus is on what is being said — the actual words that are being used. If participants try to turn it into something else — an easy opportunity to get at Sally by attacking Sue, or putting words into people’s mouths, or responding to specific words from one individual with broad assertions rooted in guilt by association — we lose any chance of having real, serious conversation. So, no. For the purposes of this conversation, it’s not your interpretation of what you think Betty is doing. It’s what Betty actually says, on the blog. Just as, when I address you, I am not going to attack you merely on the basis of people you know or something I think you are doing, or deciding not to do; I am going to center always on what you actually say.
David, the blog is–as it states below–”the online site for engagement for the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values.” Therefore the bloggers do represent IAV and the Center for Marriage and Families when the blog and they end up “owning,” to some degree, the positions of IAV and the Center for Marriage and Families.
Yes, it’s unfair to burden Alana with the policy positions of IAV she may not agree with. But it’s naive to assume that someone who is on a IAV-sponsored blog isn’t going to be asked about IAV’s work and positions and be able to articulate a response.
Jeff (Chris): I have not attended or seen any of the events you mention, but as a matter of personal policy, in any forum in which I appear that generally seems to be anti-gay marriage, I go out of my way to say things about gay rights and homosexual love that some or perhaps many of those who are listening to me may strongly disagree with.
Do I do enough? Probably not. Do I do as much as you think I should? Almost certainly not, judging from what I have read so far of your comments. Do you do as much as you should to reach out generously to others? Maybe you do; I have no idea. The fact that you are engaging in this forum suggests to me that you are trying to do just that.
Peter, is this the “policy position” you are referring to?
http://www.americanvalues.org/html/institute_at_a_glance.html
Karen, I was referring to the editorials, testimony, interviews, and research that advocates specific policy positions that are done in the name of IAV. Everytime your name (and the name of IAV) is on an editorial about your research, you are taking a policy position. Same with testimony, columns, speeches, policy-oriented research, policy-recommendations that occur in research.
Hmmm? Does that mean that if one person, who is affiliated with this organization in some form, says something publicly, even though my name is not associated with that particular comment, but by default, because my name is on the “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” report, it is assumed that I agree with that comment?
That completely misses the entire point of this effort. We all have different POV’s and we are sharing them – debating them – learning from each other. That is why I am here anyway.
That completely misses the entire point of this effort. We all have different POV’s and we are sharing them – debating them – learning from each other. That is why I am here anyway.
Your name appears on IAV research (which I assume you received some compensation for). Your name appears on editorials saying you conducted research for IAV. You blog your opinions on the primary public face of IAV’s Center for Marriage and Families. So, yes, you are no longer just “Karen Clark” but you are now “Karen Clark, connected to IAV.” With that, you do end up owning some of IAV’s policy baggage just as others own yours.
I know your intent may be different, but it’s naive to assume that your name can be connected to an organization, you can do research for an organization, you can appear on an organization’s website, and not be viewed as part of that organization.
“Your name appears on IAV research (which I assume you received some compensation for).”
**:)!! NO! Actually I didn’t and in fact made it a point never to ask for any or even submit any expense reimbursement. My ONLY motivation was (still is) pure passion and gratitude to Elizabeth et al for their efforts in making this happen.
“Your name appears on editorials saying you conducted research for IAV. You blog your opinions on the primary public face of IAV’s Center for Marriage and Families. So, yes, you are no longer just “Karen Clark” but you are now “Karen Clark, connected to IAV.” With that, you do end up owning some of IAV’s policy baggage just as others own yours.”
**Nope. Don’t agree. As David has stated – I don’t own anything but what I say and write. Sometimes I get it wrong – and I own up to it if I believe I did.
“I know your intent may be different, but it’s naive to assume that your name can be connected to an organization, you can do research for an organization, you can appear on an organization’s website, and not be viewed as part of that organization.”
**Again, this organization is comprised of many ppl with many perspectives and POV’s – I’m not aware of any group policy position. I am only here to learn and share – as far as I understand, that is one of the main purposes of the IAV and I have great respect for it because of that – or at least that is MY perspective and opinion. Which I own.
Nope. Don’t agree
Well, that’s great. But the public may or may not agree with you and David in your attempts to distance yourself from the policy position of the people who use your name and reputation on their research, editorial and major public interface. You don’t get to choose that, I’m afraid.
If you blogged on a Wal-Mart blog, you’d viewed as Wal-Mart whether you wanted to be or not. No think tank should pursue a social media effort where contributors aren’t considered to speak, to some degree, for the organization and where contributors aren’t considered an adjunct of that organization.
The people who fund IAV have specific expectations of what they are getting for their dollars. They assume, I woud think, that people blogging on a blog sponsored by their dollars are going to take some ownership over the positions espoused by the organization. Not all of them, of course, but you still “own” those positions to some extent.
Chris-
I hear your points loud and clear. In a perfect world (for kids) each child would grow up with both of their biological parents who are married and perpetually in love.
Obviously, that ideal can be hard to meet for lots if not most of us.
David has thought A LOT about these issues and makes some very brilliant points in his book The Future of Marriage. I respect his insights. And his foresight. And I highly suggest reading the book. I think you’ll find it sensitive and illustrative of what the stakes are.
But I do agree, that in THIS world, THIS culture, today…. where casual sex is rampant, divorce rates are high, people marry out of convenience (my high-school sweet heart was the son of a mail order bride), and true love is often in conflict with sexual embodiment (that’s you)….
in this world, it is wrong to penalize gays from obtaining marriage licenses.
You have no idea how much it pains me that these two groups are in conflict. It’s really unfortunate that either side has to sacrifice anything in concession to the rights of the other.
But we’re definitely on the same journey in one sense,
both donor kids and the gay community are experiencing the degradation of the publicly viewed significance of a relationship. The gays to their partners. The kids to their parents. And half-siblings. And grandparents. And cousins.
If I were to make a qualitative statement, I think the ontological loss of an entire family history is a little more significant than visitation and property rights loss that are the most legitimate arguments for ssm.
But I think you’re right. I should focus my time on ending anonymity and ceasing payment for donors and surrogates.
The gay marriage debate isn’t a fitting platform for the points I want to make.
Elin is going to make a great mom. And I will support her when the time comes for her to start a family. But I do feel that the man who will be her child’s father, deserves the right to know his child and watch the magic of it growing up. And also that the child deserves to know who half of it is, and know the two halves that created it. And to have Mom #2 there as well will most likely be nothing but positive.
Peter, I’m afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.