Threat and comfort
Well, Mrs. du Toit has closed the comments on her gay marriage thread, so that’s the end of that. I feel relief in some ways. It’s wrenching to be told, basically, “We let you exist, even though you’re an aberration. What makes you think you deserve to get married? Pretty soon we’ll figure out what went wrong with you and your kind and we’ll be rid of you.” So it’s nice to have that over, although the hatred stays with me.
But worst of all, she closed the thread right after an emotional account of the deaths of her brother and his longtime partner to AIDS, in which she predicted that her brother, too, would be against gay marriage. Her dead gay brother would be against being allowed to marry his partner because
“There is no evidence yet to suggest that homosexual couples can offer society, through marriage, what heterosexual marriages have proven to offer. That is not to say that there is evidence that homosexual unions are not as good, or there is no potential for equal benefit, but the data is not there yet.”
and this…
“If they want society to change then they must prove that they are of value and present a compelling argument that they are worthy because they have demonstrated that they are, not because they covet what others have.”
There’s more…a lot more. But you get the idea. She eulogized her brother by saying he would have agreed with her that his relationship was intrinsically less than hers (and by extension, that *he* was less). That’s sick and wrong. And that’s what will stay with me, long after the particulars of this debate fade.
I did take comfort in comments snuck in by another poster while she was writing this awful stuff – comments directed toward MDT and her minions that ended up being the capper to the thread.
“Face it folks, despite the lively and somewhat frightening debate we’ve been having here, you’ve already lost.
And that’s the best part.”
I’ve not been following MDT or her commentary on this subject, and have no desire to.
Her comments are deeply disturbing, to say the least. I’ll avoid any armchair psychiatry, aside from saying that she clearly has a lot of anger and grief over the whole subject.
The idea that gays have to some how “prove” themselves to be good and productive members of society before society will let them in has a cynical realism to it, but is as unprincipled as it would be if we were speaking about “Asians” or “Blacks” or “immigrants” or “Jews” or “Pagans” or “women” or any other marginalized or once-marginalized group. The presumption of equal protection under the law, and “all men are created equal” is just the opposite — it is the burden of MDT and Co. to deomstrate that gays (et al.) are *not* worthy of being treated equally, of being accepted at the table, that they do *not* have something to offer the rest of society (which, incidentally, they are a part of).
Feh.
Indeed, it is the presumption that gay and lesbian Americans are somehow not part of society, that we are some foreign strain being forcibly injected into the populace, is at the root of Mrs. du Toit’s righteous anger. How DARE these barbarians at the gate clang their spears and chant in their alien babble, demanding entrance into our fair citadel, when we know all they want to do is steal our chickens and ravish our women and destroy our civilized way of life! They must prove themselves friend and not foe!
Well, I think I proved myself friend and not foe when I didn’t start shooting people at random in Junior High like I wanted to, but that’s just me.
MdT takes so many ideas for granted that it doesn’t even occur to her to list the supposed benefits that straight marriage brings to society, as if she’s willfully withholding information like some reactionary Riddler, hoping we’ll fail to figure out the puzzle. Except that I have no desire to see her in green tights.
I’d like her to prove to me what overreaching social good straight marriage is provided to society, before I bother standing before her pudgy Sphinx-like smugness.
Yes, I’ve been awake too long.
It feels like being a slave on Thomas Jefferson’s Plantation. Seeing him spend time with the white folk and the black folk. Falling in love with a black woman and having 2 families that he loves dearly one white and one black. And then still, owning black people because that’s the way it’s been done forever and, to be set free, the slaves need to prove their benefit to society.
Was Jefferson a racist? Is MDT a homophobe? In both cases, it feels like something worse.
Like Dave, I have not followed, and have had no interest in following, MDT’s remarks on this or other matters. However, dare I suggest that the greater contributions heterosexual marriage offer are illustrated in this Village Voice comic strip? ;->}
Unlike Adam and John, I’m one gay guy who’s a bit less enthusiastic in supporting gay marriage. Don’t get me wrong: I do firmly believe that it is wrong to deny gays and lesbians the opportunity to marry on the grounds that marriage has “always” been defined as a union between a man and a woman, or that relationship between two persons of the same sex is somehow less significant and contributes less to society. MDT is using societal shame towards sex and sexuality that deviates even remotely from her narrow view of what’s “normal.” Clearly her norm will never include John and his “boyfriend-unit.” :-<} I'm still struggling to find out exactly why I feel the way I do about gay marriage. It's a work in progress. But let me tell you: It's not easy to take an opposing stand as a gay man and not be dismissed by his friends as a gay guy who has internalized homophobic sentiments and become socially conservative. One trap I fear greatly is that even if we do manage to blend into the norm by getting gay marriage recognized, a lot of people, like MDT, will continue to think privately that our unions are still second rate and treat those unions as such.
I think your argument against gay marriage is taking into account the religious and social meanings of marriage. In that sense, I think you’re right: even if we get the right to marry, our marriages will always be seen as something less than valid by a chunk of the populace. This however, is still true for inter-racial marriage, inter-denominational marriage, and marriage that was preceded by extramarital sex. There will always be people who think they can define a “proper” relationship.
The societal and cultural issues, however, will sort themselves out. People can *think* whatever they want, but even marriages they don’t like are legal marriages.
And the legal aspect is really the clincher here. Contrary to popular belief, this really isn’t about societal sanction and approval. That’s something no law can give us. This is really about financial issues and property issues. Straight marriages are protected so that their propertycan stay in the family. That’s really what I’m after with gay marriage.
As an individualist and an atheist, I could give two liters of rat fuck whether some church or some neighbor thinks I’m living a moral life. What I *do* care about is whether Matt gets all my stuff if I die without a bunch of legal maneuvering. I care whether he can pull the plug if I’m in a coma. I care whether I can get on his health insurance. The day-to-day, nuts-and-bolts operational issues of marriage are what I’m worried about. Society and culture will regulate themselves.
I actually take MDT at her word concerning her brother. I used to frequent a gay message board where a few people were gay conservatives, and while they didn’t make any bones about their preferences, they were adamantly opposed to just about all gay rights legislation — it’s actually kind of common among gay right-wingers.
There’s a faction of non-religious ardent conservatives which just doesn’t consider fairness or compassion to be virtues. It doesn’t matter how many grievances you pile up, or how carefully you make your argument that things should be different. Their response is always “So what? That’s how the world works. Suck it up.” Gay conservatives who are happy with their finances are angered by those who might rock the boat by demanding social progress because they honestly don’t care about it — it doesn’t seem to come from internalized self-loathing or fear of reprisal, but from an honest and deeply felt (albeit weird) philosophy of economics and government. Marriage, as far as they’re concerned, is the property of heterosexuals. Hiring and firing should be entirely at the discretion of employers. And so forth.
I don’t think much of this position, but it’s hard to deny its prevalence. Anyway, MDT obviously loved her brother and accepted him, whatever language she’s using to tell his story. Their feelings on the subject were probably in tune. I don’t see the point in quibbling over the details; if she feels that his life was some kind of experiment in social engineering that had a tragic and typical end, it still isn’t like she was lobbying him to start reparative therapy. Her posts make a lot of concessions to gay rights and leave room for progress.
The woman has posted far worse things than this (her jaw-dropping enemies list, f’rinstance). Give it a rest already.
I think I will give it a rest when I believe that there are no more 16, 17, ….. whatever year olds out there that might read somebodies bullshit that might make them feel unworthy of equal rights or a good life or the pursuit of happiness and not know that there are folks out here that think differently.
Her brother deserved better than that and any gay heirs of hers deserve to grow up with hope and hopefully good gay role models. There’s a good chance that it runs in the family.
this is so weird…. i just have to write it here…. i just went to check out Mike’s web site and this is an excerpt from the first/last entry….
“For immigration reasons (she’s a British citizen), they consulted a lawyer to make sure she’d be legally able to take an international business trip in a few months, and asked whether they should get married at some point to facilitate things. His answer was that there would likely be big trouble if they didn’t get married now, and they did. A delightful shock, if lessened by the fact that neither seems to regard marriage as much other than an important piece of paper.”
the FUNNY thing is… i’m living in Tel Aviv because my partner is Israeli and couldn’t get a visa to live in the states and so it’s easier for us to stay together if I live here with him. god, life is so funny sometimes.
Bob, I’m on your side. But I still think this entire debate has been kicked off by some Mars/Venus-type misunderstandings, not by differences so fundamental they really bear discussion.
MDT says she supports equal rights for gay couples through civil unions — I imagine that includes immigration rights. I don’t know why she’s so explosively angry about the prospect of us having marriage too, but I don’t see why we should get angry in return.
Mike, I appreciate the new perspective re: conservative gays. But I don’t let go of the fact that MDT is spreading a lot of anti-gay rhetoric in the guise of support. If this was not the case, she would have countered the talk of “cattle cars” and “Homosexual Control Acts” and such. Instead, she revels in it as a symbol of the “backlash” she’s just a little too interested in. And the passage I quoted, where gay people have to prove their worthiness to society, stands on its own as a tremendously negative and damaging outlook.
Yes, it does make me angry, because I don’t think she’s being honest with herself or her readers, and she’s said some incredibly insulting things. I don’t regret anything I said on her board or here, and I’ll continue to say it if it comes up again.
Well, and plus, she’s just really fucking stupid. She claims to be for civil unions and such, but then refuses to acknowledge (due to her lack of proper syntax recognition) that the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would make impossible the very civil unions she supports. She claims to have been inspired by the relationship between her brother and his partner, yet she’s more willing to see our relationships outlawed than she is to advocate for them.
Her anti-gay marriage arguments are full of fire and indignation, yet her pro-civil union arguments are lukewarm and best, dismissive at worst. I think her ideas are worth challenging because she’s got an audience who actually believes she can think. That, more than anything, is what nauseates me.
Mike, I am not angry. I agree with you about the supposed feeling of MDT. I just don’t understand them.
I don’t think it’s a mars-venus thing. it is some kind of phobia based thing. She thinks that if we can get married then polygamists, brothers and sisters, or humans and animals will follow suit.
While she does say she supports gay rights to a point, she remains in cohoots with those she claims will put us in cattle cars. She doesn’t realize that they will put her in the cattle car too for the gay civil union thing. Or she does realize this and that’s why she supports gay rights in a footnote and argues against gay marriage with a billboard blog.