My Letter to Brian Brown (of NOM)

As I'm sure the vast majority of you are aware by now, there was a ground-breaking move made by Dan Savage. No, this time he behaved himself - quite well, in fact. He invited Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (a misnomer, but I digress...) to come to his home, eat dinner with his family, and have an open, moderated debate on marriage equality. I know, right?

It's an hour long, but so very, very worth the time. Take a look here.

Now, I have come against Dan Savage's methods on this blog before, and I stand by my words. But I have to say that during this debate he is once again the Dan Savage I am so proud of...the one that has done so much good for our community by engaging in thoughtful, meaningful, intelligent, informed, and well-researched and referenced conversation. 

And for his part, I also have to commend Mr. Brown on his composure during the debate. It does run contrary to what I have seen of him via other media links, but we all have our bad days, I suppose. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Until I saw this.

In case you don't feel like following a link, essentially Mr. Brown got on NOM's website (and on his high horse) to declare his "victory" in the "valley of the beast". Really? Gone was the civility...replaced by fabricated sadness that he just couldn't lead Savage to the truth, and inflammatory talking points that attempted to make his followers believe what he believed - that Savage was just flat out wrong. Never mind that he actually gave any proof that Dan was wrong. He shouldn't have to, you know? Because he just was. 

I was so blown away by his claim to apparent victory, and by the responses given in the comments, that I could not help myself. I had to add one. I know, I know...deaf ears and all of that. But I could not click that 'back' button without speaking my mind. I know that comes as a horrible shock to all of you.

Below is the text of my comment...all lengthy and verbose, as is my personal style. But I really hope that maybe just one person on that site will read it, and hear what it is I am trying to say. I did my best to not be ugly, and for the most part I think I succeeded. 

Let me know what you think in the comments - should I have been harsher? Nicer? Just left it alone? (Pshh. C'mon guys...you know I can't leave things alone!)

________________________________________

Well, I must say...there is certainly one aspect of this post that I appreciate. And that is the fact that you say we are not the poor little gay people deserving of pity due to being a minority. Because we are not. Deserving of pity, that is. We're deserving of rights. And before the vast majority of you jump the gun and start mentally writing out your insulted retort to this, please take the time to read what I have to say. The only way to have a fair debate is to actually give time and consideration to what the other side has to say. I read this article in its entirety, twice, and watched the debate as well. 

All this double-talk and circular arguments that lead to the basic assumption we are simply deviants who need to be pitied amounts to nothing more than the southern equivalent of "bless their hearts". You know, how we can get away with saying something horrible about someone down here, as long as we follow it with "bless her heart"? - i.e., "She looks positively obese in that dress, bless her sweet heart!"

Unfortunately, this is the elitist attitude that is all too often displayed by you, Mr. Brown, and many of your cohorts/followers. 'Well, I tried to tell them, but they just won't listen! They seem completely immune to the truth, and bent on remaining deviant...bless their hearts!'

What is somehow just not getting through to you is that while you absolutely have the right to believe as you wish, and you absolutely have the right to speak about and promote those beliefs, you absolutely do not have the right to seek change or ban change to civil legislation on religious grounds. Marriage is a civil institution. Religious marriage is a religious institution. There is most certainly crossover - even in the gay community - but it is not mandated. Pagans are entitled to civil marriage. Atheists are entitled to civil marriage. Divorcees are entitled to civil marriage. Muslims, Taoists, Hindus...everyone is entitled to civil marriage under the law...unless you happen to have the same plumbing. 

It is a fundamental flaw that we are seeking to repair.

I do not need nor desire your approval of my relationship or my family, just as you do not need or desire my approval of yours. That is what is so wonderful about this country - it's not necessary that one or the other of us be 'right' on the subject. 

But what you and so many others seem to dance around every time is that this country is not a theocracy - not by a long shot. In fact, it was founded on principles that run directly contrary to theocracy. Therefore, civil legislation must be decided on civil merits, not religious ideology. 

So many on the right are whipped up about the possibility of the nation falling under Sharia Law... Have you even stopped to think that Dominionism or a Christian theocracy is every bit as frightening to some people? Yes, I know you believe your way is the only way, and that's just fine. But there are millions of others who believe the same thing - about their version of the Christian religion or their non-Christian religion. 

What if a large, well-funded majority of them stood up and suddenly started making claims that everyone should be subject to the tenets of their faith, even in a country that is founded on the inherent right to religious freedom? Take Sharia Law just as an example...there are only the tiniest of echos of any kind of possibility that it could ever become a widespread situation, and how crazy has the world gone over just that? Do you think women would just sit by and let it happen? Or millions of others? Without protest? No. Because what is right for some is not right for all, and that goes for all of us. Period.

So please do not continue equating your religious beliefs and therefore your basis for the definition of marriage with actual civil rights. While there are certainly places the Venn diagram of life shows overlap, it does not - in any fashion - show dominion. 

Learn to see outside of yourself. Not go into "the valley of the beast" and consider yourself a hero...truly see outside of yourself. 

Honestly take a good look inside, and find the courage to say, "No, I do not agree with your life and who you are or claim to be, and I do not support your marriage. But my opinion is not law, and you have the same rights to the over 1130 federal benefits and protections that legal civil marriage has to offer." It's not so much to ask, really. It's what we do every day with others who do not hold our same faith or morals or ethics in whatever regard. This is no different, except where you make it so.

Call us what you wish...call us pitiable, or wrong, or lost. 

That is absolutely your right. 

But do not stand in the way of our civil rights based on your personal interpretation of one of hundreds of religions (or the absence thereof) that are allowed and practiced in this great nation. 

Because that, Mr. Brown, is not.

Dear Pat Robertson...

Just so you are aware - I do not now, nor shall I ever have any plans to 'shut my mouth' with regard to LGBT equality, as you have so eloquently requested. And while I cannot speak for each individual involved in the activist community at large, my educated guess would be that they, too, will refuse your rather obnoxious demand. 
_____________________________

For those of you who are not familiar with his request, here is a link to the story. Essentially, our good buddy Pat got so upset about advocates at several universities petitioning to oust Chic-fil-A from their campus, that he called upon the LGBT demonstrators/population to either "bring forth a baby from that part of the anatomy they concentrate on", or "shut their mouths". 

I'll admit, I'm a tad confused. I was unaware that babies were born to any individual out of their heart. I mean - that is the part of the anatomy we focus the most on, after all...oh, wait. I forgot - Mr. Robertson and his ilk only think of the actual s-e-x act when they think of us and our relationships. My mistake. 

Okay then, that makes sense...except...wait a minute. I am a lesbian, and have actually brought forth two babies (albeit out the window instead of the door, since I had to have c-sections). So...does that mean I'm supposed to be concentrating on my stomach? And what about the cis women* who are lesbians or bisexuals, and have had vaginal deliveries? Are they exempt? Or infertile couples? Older couples? Should hetero- and homosexual cis men* just be tossed out altogether since they physically cannot conceive and 'bring forth' children at all? And don't even get me started on what to do with trans men* who have had vaginal deliveries - I'm pretty sure that would make Patty's head explode.

I'm so lost. I think essentially what he was trying to say was unless you can poop a baby, you should shut your mouth. Which I agree would be a really cool trick, but I'm also quite doubtful that good ol' Pat could pull that off, himself. Which means he should shut his mouth. Now there's a sentiment I can wholeheartedly agree with.

Of course, he also had to pull out the tired and entirely irrelevant Leviticus passage, claiming that due to abortion and gay rights, the world is going to "vomit out its inhabitants". 

Short disclaimer: Just so we're clear - I am unapologetically pro-life. (I know, how very un-liberal of me). My stand has very little to do with religion and very much to do with scientific data, and it's just something about me you're going to have to deal with. Like my horrid housecleaning skills, or the fact that I have to have the toilet paper coming off the roll in one certain direction (from the top) or it ruins my whole day. Just part of the package.

Moving on..

So Patty-boy invoked the seemingly damning passage from Leviticus again - which I'm not quite sure has anything to do with pooping babies, incidentally - and tells the viewers,

"it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman. It’s what it says. That is the moral law that God set forth and now we’ve got people at a university petitioning because somebody said I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Well no, Mr. Robertson, on many counts. 

One, while I agree that the text of that particular passage does indeed say those words, it also says just a few lines down that it is an "abomination" to eat shellfish and wear fabric made of mixed linen. So the next time you sit down to that shrimp cocktail in your poly/rayon blend suit, make sure you are aware of the consequences. We'll save you a seat on the bus.

Two, should you actually apply the knowledge you should have about your own religion, that 'moral law' you speak of no longer applies, as Jesus came to abolish the law in the New Testament. Which is why no one is going around slapping crawfish out of people's hands or stripping them of their horribly sinful mixed-linen clothing. 

And three, the people at the university are not petitioning because someone said they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. People can say that all day - that's their right. What they are petitioning was allowing a secular company on their campus that is taking secular, public monies and funneling them into various hate groups - one of which even supported the law to kill gays in Uganda - on the basis of personal religious beliefs. Bit of a difference, that. 

In reality, Dan Cathy did us a bit of a favor...we deserve to know where our fabulous gay dollars are going, and we retain the right to refuse to contribute to the very causes that seek to keep us as second-class citizens. And that's just what these activists were protesting and petitioning for - to keep that kind of company away from their school, and away from the people that either do not know or willfully ignore the impact their money is having when they buy those waffle fries. 

So frankly, my dear Patrickins, you lack the critical support data and the basic understanding of the topic necessary to give your little demand any power whatsoever.

Which is why I will restate my earlier position:

I will not now, nor at any time in the future 'shut my mouth', 'keep quiet', 'calm down', or any other euphemism for 'sitting down and taking it' you can come up with. 

I will continue to speak out. I will continue to educate. And I will continue to fight until we are granted the same rights, the same privileges, the same respect as our heterosexual peers. And I assure you, Mr. Robertson - neither you nor anyone else has what it takes to stop me.

But hey, if you happen to poop a baby anytime soon, let me know. I'll bring you a chicken sandwich.

________________________________________

If you're unfamiliar with the terms I used in this blog, here is a little lesson:

*cis men: individuals whose biological sex is "male" and who experiences their gender and/or identifies as "male"

*cis women: individuals whose biological sex is "female" and who experiences their gender and/or identifies as "female" 

*trans man: an individual who was assigned a "female" sex at birth, but experiences their gender and/or identifies as "male"