Photo by Flickr user MIKECNY. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Pam Spaulding of Pandagon quotes a loudmouth country-music superstar being a bigot. A particularly stupid one as we’ll see in a minute.
“I think if you legalize that, you’ve got to legalize some other things that are pretty unsavory. You can call me a radical, but how can you tell an aunt that she can’t marry her nephew if they are really in love and sharing the bills? How can you tell them they can’t get married, but something else that’s unnatural can happen?”
– John Rich of the country group “Big & Rich”, with deep thoughts on marriage equality
Obviously homophobia is alive and well in the world But here’s a point I’ve been trying to make for a little while. Check out this update to Spaulding’s post:
...it looks like Rich must have felt his career was going south fast if he didn’t issue a “clarification” of sorts (that’s kind of surprising; figured he’d have some good old boys come to his defense):
“My earlier comments on same-sex marriage don’t reflect my full views on the broader issues regarding tolerance and the treatment of gays and lesbians in our society. I apologize for that and wish to state clearly my views. I oppose same-sex marriage because my father and minister brought me up to believe that marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. However, I also believe that intolerance, bigotry and hatred are wrong. People should be judged based on their merits, not on their sexual orientation. We are all children of God and should be valued and respected.” – John Rich, of country music duo Big & Rich
The point being that yes, there’s still plenty of homophobia out there. But unlike earlier days they know they’re wrong. Yes, code words like “sanctity of marriage” are just that — code words for gay bashing. But they’re using such words because they can no longer get away with saying what they think.
Even though largely driven to mask their opinions bigots of all stripes still do enormous damage. So no way this is a plea for anyone to rest on his or her laurels. But!
Look. For, oh, say, the last 27 years (since the first Reagan administration) conservatives have made a practice of “working the referees” in the press — never letting the least slight real or imaginary go unchallenged.
The fact that even a popular country-music star would feel the need to backpedal in the face of an uncoordinated push-back suggests that progressives could make a great deal of… well… progress if we started working the refs a little harder ourselves.
And unlike the bigots, the homophobes, the racists, the misogynists, the chicken-hawks, and the “moral” in name only majoritarians in name only, working the ref on behalf of toleration, decency, and authentic American diversity is ethical, moral, and a darn good idea.
Submitted by 1721 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-10-30 17:04.
This kind of politics seems strange for someone wild enough to write the song "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy." I wonder what his father and minister say about that. The song doesn't say anything about marrying the cowboy first.
I like these new photos you're using. At least I think I do. They always seem surprising somehow.
[Yeah, it's funny about those photos -- there are so many to pick from that you can almost always find... something. Just keep in mind that they often bear on the post the same way the post titles do: tenuously. :-) Let's just say they're an experiment for now. (That Lego knight for the Galahad post though? Totally made my day.) Thanks, B! --fl]
Submitted by 1721 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-31 08:13.
You have written before about the inadequacies of our language in sexual matters. If only another word could be found for same sex unions other than "marriage", perhaps much of the nonsense that is spoken on the subject could be avoided or at least exposed for the homophobia it tries to conceal.
It is probably correct to say that our cultural assumption of what constitutes a marriage are permeated with the patriarchal assumptions that dominated for so long. Some would say that because of that the meaning of the word needs to be radically changed. I would suggest however, that the traditionalists should be left with their word to mean what they insist it means and the rest of us try to capture the validity of same sex unions that involve life long commitment with another word. Any suggestions?
[My word of choice is "partners." There are extremely good analogies in everything from business to play that say way, way more about how relationships ought to work than the highly leveraged word "marriage." Thanks, LR. --fl]
Submitted by 1721 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-31 10:12.
I never understood the "unnatural" argument: very few things that humans do are "natural" but no one's up in arms that "if we wear clothing, what's keeping us from wearing something else unnatural like FLAYED HUMAN SKIN?"
Well, that's not actually what I think: I understand the "unnatural" argument perfectly. It's a rational-sounding cover for the real reasoning, which is something I REALLY don't understand but suspect boils down to "eww."
This story's really too bad though because I liked his music. I guess I still do though. If I had to agree with the artists' politics I wouldn't be able to listen to country at all.
[Even things like "unnatural" have a slippery meaning -- for instance as opposed to a polyesther vest flayed skin *would* be "natural." :-) (Eww!) Thanks, Holly. --fl]