People,

Ok, I have gotten a lot of responses to yesterday's journal. Most were positive "you go girl" type affirmations, but that's only to be expected from my mostly liberal friends and readers. I did get one very negative response and I'd like to share it, because this reader not only eloquently defends his position but also seems to think I'm a huge asshole, so it makes good reading.

Here is John's letter (in italics), complete with my replies:

"The entire purpose of our government is to NOT legislate
individuals's behavior in so far as it is not harmful to other
people."

That is my quote and I stand by it.

You've shifted the argument to what constitutes harm. If I'm
opposed to gay marriage, doesn't having my taxes go to providing
spousal benefits to a married gay spouse harm me? Well, you say,
that's your problem for being a bigot. But you have harmed me,
economically and psychologically. Your argument boils down to
defending harming one set of people over another.

Legalizing gay marriage harms those who oppose it; making it illegal
harms its proponents. It's not a question of whether harm is done -
you are going to harm somebody - it's a question of who you're going
to harm.

I'm afraid that none of this is true. I did not shift the argument to a discussion of what constitutes harm. I shifted the argument to a discussion of people's rights, and went on to make the point that, following the American ideal of "all men created equal", those rights in turn should be equal under the law.

Also, there is a big difference between law and feelings. What you define as "harm", John, is, in fact, your feelings and they have no place in this argument. I mean, of course people will be pissed off if gay people are allowed to get married. But a whole bunch of people are pissed off that black people can marry white people. Imagine the uproar if that were still illegal. My point is that you can dislike it all you want, but the idea of America is freedom for all and the expansive non-biased inclusion of many different ideas and lifestyles. Ideally, that means that no one gets it exactly his way, but still gets it better than say, in Iran. I mean, if I had my way, everyone would have to be really hot chicks and buy me pizza while telling me what a great guitar player I am, but as it is I only get about 90% of that.

In all seriousness, it's really like the equation used by many black scholars Race + Power = Racism. Prejudice on its own is ugly, but prejudice codified by law is a whole different un-American ballgame. I mean, hate all you want (Constitution has got you covered), just don't legislate it. That's when you step over the line.

And furthermore (although I do think that you should have to pay for the benefits of gay couples, just like I agree that I should have to pay for things I don't like, like Pat Robertson's benefits or this stupid war) you actually don't have to pay a god damn thing. Yet. Check it out. Spousal rights and their affect on taxes.

Think of how your argument applies to other issues and you'll
realize its lack of clarity. Apply to child porn, drugs, polygamy,
molestation of minors, and you'll see its weakness. Think about who
you would rather harm, and why you've chosen to harm one group above
another. The statement "not harmful to other people" is vacuous.

Now this is just silly. Let's get the easy ones out of the way first. Child porn obviously harms its victims in a substantial physical and psychological way. It is not remotely equivalent to someone having to watch gays get married. Molestation, same thing. To even compare them is ludicrous. If you really are going to be that horribly traumatized by some guy having his love for another guy validated by the government then it might be time to invest in a bubble to live in. This is 2004.

As for drugs and polygamy, I wouldn't legislate against them either I'm afraid. With drugs I always come back to the fact that America's drug laws are insanely hypocritical (alcohol and cigarettes are fine, but marijuana isn't?) and a waste of money (the drug war does not work. It creates more crime than it stops and is costing us far more than homosexual spousal benefits ever could....ok, topic for another time). Anyway, in my opinion, if you're an adult and you are not directly harming someone (driving stoned, beating people up, molesting children etc) then I think you can do whatever you want to yourself. And if you want eight wives and they want you back without being coerced, well then more power to you. What people want to do behind closed doors is their business. I might not like it, but tough shit. They might not like me making out with Ladybetrothed Sarah either, but we have to tolerate each other. That's the whole point.

You might also have a stronger argument if you backed up some of
your invectives against Mr. Robertson ("you don't understand in the
slightest", "extremist's bigotry", "institutionalized hate") with
facts to justify these assertions.

Ok, that's fair. I should have used examples. "You don't understand in the slightest" and "extremist's bigotry" are opinions and not facts. Sorry.

Now on to the other stuff. Pat Robertson and his bigotry are institutional, because he is an institution. He is a minister with many followers and he founded the CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network). The views of this massive corporation, this institution if you will, are Robertson's own and are bigoted, thus institutionalized bigotry. They're not bigoted you might say? Well, try these on for size:

"When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved in Adolph Hitler were Satanists. Many of them were homosexual. The
two things seem to go together." -- Pat Robertson, January 21st, 1993 on the 700 Club

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.

"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening." -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

"I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 3/18/92

"NOW is saying that in order to be a woman, you've got to be a lesbian."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 12/3/97

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

And, just for giggles:

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." --Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."-- George Bush

God damn, that is some stupid and bigoted shit. And hell, I take it back, I think "extremist" is an apt descriptive.

Anyway, in conclusion I hope you all called your senators these past few days and urged them to vote NO on this amendment, which did NOT pass.

As always, I am available at joe@fooledbyapril.com if you think I'm right or wrong.