How can someone just say it?

[heidi]

Here's what I don't understand about Shrub's DOM proclomaition - his vice president has a daughter who is a lesbian. And he has said that he loves her very much.

And yet...

And yet...

And yet...

Do her parents think that for her to marry a woman she loves would be bad? Would it somehow denigrate their own marriage, to see the daughter that they love very much married to a woman she loves?

I'm a heterosexual breeder, the daughter of a couple who're about to celebrate their 35th anniversary, and I'm about to buy a minivan, and by dint of that, I don't see the proclomation in the same way that people who are gay or bisexual or transgenderd see it, or the way that someone who's been raised by a single parent - so what the president and others are speaking against doesn't impact my relationship with my husband directly - but, as peacock_harpy said, I can imagine how devestating it would be to know that I couldn't be married to him.

Love is love, and isn't that enough? And how can Dick look at his daughter and say, "You may not marry," and expect that to validate his own marriage? How can someone look at his or her child, and say such a thing?

Comments

[hermorrine.livejournal.com]

I think you said very well a lot of what I've been thinking. Even though I'm bi, I'm in a het relationship so I do understand that POV. Overall, I just can't understand why this is necessary.

[themorningstarr.livejournal.com]

I never got that about Newt Gingrich either. His sister is a lesbian, and they get along, but his policitics and policies would prevent her from being legally married to someone she loves. How can someone do that to someone they claim to love? How can a person support policies that would hurt their loved ones so blatantly? I just don't get it.

If either Nate or Kellie grow up and decide that they want to be with someone of the same sex, then I just hope that there will be policies in this country to allow them to be together. Because I love my kids and want them to be happy. But, Heidi, I'm with you. I just don't get it. Does Dick's daughter speak out in favor of same sex marriages?

[sff-corgi.livejournal.com]

Nicely said, imho.

[blonde-dude.livejournal.com]

I think the word we're looking for here is 'OMGthatmanhasnoheart.'

[shelaghc.livejournal.com]

I'm presuming you're talking about the domestic partnership issue, yes?

But what is DOM an acronym for?

Also, for anyone interested, I posted here at my LJ a batch of links dealing with the shrub and "marriage protection week." (gag me)

It's elementary

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

Dick Cheney is a tool. And Shrubya is an even worse tool because he lets Cheney and Karl Rove pull his strings :-( And it's daughter Mary Cheney who should be ashamed of her dad, not vice versa.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

<333

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

DOM is my shorthand for 'defense of marriage' because it sounds appropriate aloud.

[melodylemming.livejournal.com]

People can be so set in their ways. They think things are wrong, but they don't ever bother to think about why they're wrong.

I always feel that if these people would really think about these bigoted views of theirs, they would change their mind, but I guess there isn't any way to make them do that.

[til-midnight.livejournal.com]

It's the "love the sinner, hate the sin" frame of mind. My best friend, Sarah, is from a very conservative, very Southern Baptist family and her aunt is a lesbian who has been with her partner for ages. The two families are very close, the aunt, whose business takes her away from her home and very near my home, lives with Sarah’s family when she needs to be in that area, and she and her partner watch Sarah and her brothers when Sarah’s parents go out of town. However, Sarah and her family believe that homosexuality is wrong and immoral. They don't approve that their aunt/sister is a lesbian, but love her anyway. I don’t understand how they justify that belief, but plenty of people do.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

It depends a great deal, I think, on your definition of love. If you believe that to love someone means encouraging them to do anything and everything that they want to do and that they believe will make them happy, even if you personally believe that they are making a wrong and ultimately destructive choice, then yeah, I guess the VP doesn't really love his daughter, since he's not willing to celebrate and promote the idea of her legally marrying another woman if she wants to.

If you believe, however, that the true focus of love is the beloved's ultimate, highest, and eternal good, things start to look a little different. Then you have to sit down and ask yourself not just what the beloved wants from you, but what you believe is really the best for the beloved -- which may mean you can't give them what they want.

If the VP truly and sincerely believes that the practice of lesbianism is a moral evil and destructive to his daughter's life and soul, it would be hypocritical and indeed unloving of him to encourage her to seek marriage with another woman. Because in his view that is not in her best interest, regardless of how ardently she may feel or insist otherwise.

You may disagree with the VP's view that the practice of homosexuality is wrong and destructive -- indeed, most people here clearly do disagree with that view -- but that's a different argument. I know nothing about Dick Cheney on a personal level, so I'm not here to defend his character, but from a purely logical standpoint I don't agree that he is necessarily contradicting himself when he says he loves his lesbian daughter but won't endorse the idea of her marrying a woman.

[airemay.livejournal.com]

Sigh. It's like love has a loophole. Love justifies certain things if... But love has no loopholes. That's one of the many wonders of love. It is so simple in concept, but is one of the most complex emotions.

[cleverthylacine]

People who think they know better than I do what I want and need, particularly when they insist on getting their definition of what's best for me from books that I don't acknowledge as true, scare me. I'd rather deal with someone who is acting from their own self-interest or even actively hostile. I'd rather not be loved like that, thanks.

[sundancekid.livejournal.com]

Well put.

[folk.livejournal.com]

In the words of a great man, "that's not love. It's hate."

[tefkas.livejournal.com]

Well said.

I would say more, but you've already covered it, and more eloquently.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to pretend I don't understand 100% what you're saying here, because I do, and I think that it's a linear argument that at least explains it (even though I don't personally think it's a good explanation, it does set out why someone's views could lead to the conclusions you set out).

You're basically saying that they can love her as a person, hate the sin, think she's going to go to hell because of her sexual orientation, and have all that make sense from the perspective they're coming from.

The weird thing is, there are a lot of people in this world who think that I am going to hell because I'm Jewish.

I had this conversation with my friend Chris when we were in 11th grade (his father is friends with the Fallwells) and he explained that if I didn't convert to Christianity and accept Jesus, I would go to hell. He also explained that if Hitler hadn't committed suicide but had been, say, killed by Eva on the same day that he killed himself, but had "accepted Jesus" two minutes before, he'd be going to heaven.

Anyhow, that's a little away from the topic, but what I'm trying to say is, because some government officials think I'm going to hell, does that mean I don't deserve to have the right to marry, and create more Jews who also won't be accepting Jesus either?

I'm not saying that any religious institution should be forced to perform marriage rights for any two people, if it's something the members of that faith disagree with.

But when the government bases a decision that affects people's lives on the conclusion by some of its members that other citizens are damned because of do or believe (when said doings or beliefs don't physically or emotionally injure anyone else), that violates the constitution and makes me wonder exactly how, or even whether, I fit into their take on who deserves what.

What if Cheney's daughter wasn't a lesbian, but wanted to convert to Islam to marry a Muslim man? If a lesbian wedding should be barred because it's somehow unsacred, wouldn't an interfaith marriage be just as bad?

(Rebecca, you don't have to answer these questions, and I'm not really trying to pick a fight - it's just that your post caused these ideas to bubble up and I just had to write them out).

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

What if Dick Cheney also beats his wife because he sincerely believes that it will make her a better person, and that he loves her and wants her to be a better person? I mean, at which point do you start to draw the line? Some people murder their children supposedly out of love, would you quibble over that definition? David Koresh loved his people, do you disagree with that statement? Sure, you can be entirely subjective about it and say, hey, if they think it's love, it's love, and that's all there is to it. If you say they love someone, regardless of how you behave, well, you love them, and there's no contradiction.

Clearly no one sits around with willful contradictory beliefs. Of course Dick Cheney believes he's not being contradictory; he loves his daughter AND he has no respect for her whatsoever. Is that possible, do you think?

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

All the examples you gave involve doing bodily harm to another person. But I fail to see how Dick Cheney's unwillingness to give verbal approval and legal validation to his daughter's lifestyle is comparable to beating her, murdering her, or brainwashing her a la Koresh.

Unless Cheney is doing something I don't know about, I don't see him telling his daughter, "I'm locking you in the basement and feeding you on bread and water until you stop being a lesbian." He's not stopping her from having a relationship with another woman. He's not even stopping her from pledging a vow of fidelity to that woman in the presence of witnesses, and having a party to celebrate the occasion (at least, I don't think so -- mind you, I am not familiar with US law in every state). He is not even saying that because she is a practicing lesbian he disowns her and wants nothing to do with her. All he is saying is that he is not prepared to endorse, encourage, or give his political support to her lesbian relationship.

Does this hurt Cheney's daughter's feelings and dash her hopes? I'm sure it does. I'm also sure that Cheney's feelings were hurt and his hopes dashed by his daughter's choice to live with another woman. But the same thing might be true if his daughter had a relationship with a man Cheney believed to be unsuitable -- hurt feelings and dashed hopes on both sides when Cheney and his daughter realized they couldn't see eye to eye on her choice of a partner.

he loves his daughter AND he has no respect for her whatsoever. Is that possible, do you think?

So you can't respect a person without agreeing with everything they do and say? I disagree. I can respect you as an intelligent person and a talented writer; I can respect your sense of humour and your loyalty to your friends; I can admire all kinds of qualities in you that I wish I possessed in the same measure, and I can hope and pray the very best for you, without wishing you any ill at all -- and yet still not agree with all of your political, philosophical and social beliefs, and still not be willing to give my verbal or financial support to all of the causes you hold dear.

And for my part, I don't assume that my friends can't love and respect me unless they support all my beliefs either. Even the beliefs and causes I hold most dear to my heart, the ones that I consider to be vitally important and self-defining, are not shared by all of the people I love.

If I accepted your and folk's definition of love, then I would have to conclude that all my atheist, agnostic, and otherwise non-Christian friends hate my guts, and that all their apparent kindnesses toward me are false and hypocritical. Because if they really loved me, they would agree with my beliefs and support my lifestyle, the way you say that Dick Cheney ought to agree with and support his daughter's lifestyle if he really loves her.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Except that being gay isn't a belief system. It's not not a logical framework that a person decides to adhere to. Do you choose to agree or disagree with a person being black? Do you make a choice to accept their lifestyle? No. You either accept a person or you don't. You either respect a person or you don't.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Being attracted to members of the same sex is not necessarily a belief system or a lifestyle choice, I agree. However, sleeping with a member of the same sex is a lifestyle choice. Marrying a member of the same sex is a lifestyle choice. Campaigning to have same-sex marriages legally recognized as equal to opposite-sex marriages is a belief system.

I talked about the question of orientation and sexual behaviour at considerable length a couple months ago in my blog, right here. Perhaps that will make my position more clear.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Actively blocking the recognition of same-sex marriages is also a belief system, one which I believe is completely incompatible with genuine respect for gay and lesbian people.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Well, personally, I'm not at all involved in "actively blocking the recognition of same-sex marriages". In fact, when same-sex marriages became legalized in Ontario, I wrote a lengthy article, plus a follow-up, on the subject, explaining why I believed it was not my duty or responsibility as a Christian to get upset about, or fight against, that legalization.

Please note that I never entered this discussion with the intent of defending current Republican political policy. I only tried to point out that you can love someone, and have respect for them, without approving of everything they do or agreeing with all their beliefs. Whether Dick Cheney really loves his daughter or not, I can't prove one way or the other; but unlike you and heidi8, I do think it possible that he does.

P.S. I'm not averse to continuing this discussion if you have more to say, but in an hour from now I'm leaving for a four-day trip, so I'm afraid any replies from me will have to wait until next week. Just so you know I'm not ignoring you. :)

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not accusing you of actively blocking anything. I was thinking of Dick Cheney. :)

[erised1810.livejournal.com]

I fuloly agree. THis is such nauseating stuff. I sadi in soemoen elses commetns page that I remember some kidn of statement B**h made some months ago abouthis stuff. Not that I realy follow much indept americna politics and I don't have aclue very much on who is who (I better sa ytaht I hear enogu hvoices but wnot be able to tell the mapart) but someoen else had a statement liek that too adn it just gotto me in a very bad way. Come on! If it was unnatural to love osmeoen of the same gender why are there so many people wit hat preference? IT's qutie normal I think. Marriage doen'st hav much to do with gender either .It's simply declaring yoru love for the other-one and I said somewerhe else Ididn't care one bit even if someoen'd decide to buy aring of some sorts and marry their cat. :)
peace
Yvonne

[folk.livejournal.com]

I only tried to point out that you can love someone, and have respect for them, without approving of everything they do or agreeing with all their beliefs.

Oh, agreed. I love my Christian friends deeply. However, none of my Christian friends is actively trying to deny me equal rights, unlike Dick Cheney. If my own father were in that position, I would never speak to him again.

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

If I accepted your and folk's definition of love, then I would have to conclude that all my atheist, agnostic, and otherwise non-Christian friends hate my guts, and that all their apparent kindnesses toward me are false and hypocritical. Because if they really loved me, they would agree with my beliefs and support my lifestyle,

Yes, but what if your friends not only refused to support your lifestyle, but went out of their way to see to it that you couldn't live your life as you wished to, even though you weren't infringing upon anyone else's rights, even though you weren't doing anything but being yourself? What if all your friends, on the grounds that they didn't "agree with" or "support" your lifestyle, barred you from participating in or being a part of certain social activities or rituals, because *they* thought that your personal lifestyle choices just didn't fit in with that particular habit?

What if you had a Jewish friend who was holding a bar mitzvah, and when you went you were told you couldn't attend the ceremony because you weren't Jewish?

What if that Jewish friend was slated to be the best man at your wedding, but when you went to the church the pastor refused to perform the ceremony because your best man's lifestyle was against his religion?

That would never happen, though, would it? Because the fact that your friend is a practicing Jew is not directly infringing upon you, your pastor's, or your church's religious values. That is, his state of being Jewish is in no way linked to your personal right to practice Christianity, and have a Christian wedding.

Do you understand?

Now. Under what reading of the Constitution of the United States, which states in the 9th Amendment that *all* rights not explicitly delegated to the states are retained by the people, does it make *any* sense to say that one man's right to be a practicing Christian overrules another man's right to be a practicing homosexual? --not to mention another man's right to be a practicing *gasp* Christian homosexual?

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that all rights not explicitly delegated to the states are retained by the people *except* for those rights which infringe upon someone else's sense of morality. Do you know why there is nothing in the Constitution that says that? Because the Constitution was designed to respect the rights of *every* American citizen--not just the moral majority.

(more)

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

Please notice that I did not use the phrase "to *protect* the rights." I said to *respect* the rights. The word "protect" implies that there is something to be protected from, that there is a power imbalance--that someone is doing the persecuting and someone is else is being victimized, all but for that word, "protect."

You talk about how it's possible to be respectful of someone else's beliefs, someone else's lifestyles, while disagreeing with them. Yes, of course it is. "Respect" implies that you acknowledge their *right* to live that lifestyle, that you acknowledge their basic humanity, their basic freedom to live and be what they want to be. The word "respect" implies equality. The word "protect" implies an inequality, an imbalance of power.

The Constitution was established to empower citizens, to respect their rights. Not to protect them. The reason I say this is because the Declaration of Independence specifically states that "all men are created equal."

You can argue all day about the connotations of that phrase, but the hard truth is that the laws of this country are designed around that idea of basic equality.

You said you fail to see how Dick Cheney's "unwillingness to give verbal approval and legal validation to his daughter's lifestyle" is an issue. You then said that "the same thing might be true if his daughter had a relationship with a man Cheney believed to be unsuitable."

The two issues are not the same. Cheney's daughter can be legally married to any man of her choosing, whether or not her dad likes it.

Cheney's daughter can not be legally married to any woman of her choosing. And right now her dad, in the capacity of lawmaker, is deliberately controlling her ability to do so--deliberately hindering her from having the same basic rights that he does.

That is a power imbalance. Pure and Simple. That is inequality under the law. That is unconstitutional.

That is *not* respect.

There is no way, no *possible* way, under any literal reading of the laws of this country, that denying anyone in this country their right to the pursuit of happiness, whether that means the right to marry or simply the right to go about their lives in peace, is authorized by the constitution. It was wrong when we did it to African Americans. It was wrong when we did it to Japanese Americans. It is wrong when our government does it to American immigrants and American citizens of foreign descent today under the guises of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. And it is wrong when we do it to gays and lesbians. Period.

It is not respect to deny someone a basic human right. There is no possible way it can be considered respect, by any definition of the word.

It is disrespectful. It is inhumane.

It is wrong.

[effervescent.livejournal.com]

I've run across that kind of opinion before as well - it seems to come from a more lenient sort of Christians who believe that such and such is wrong but they also believe that the best way to counter these evil things is by offering love and kindness as Jesus did (going more by the attitude in the N.T, that is). While I find it hard to understand this type of thinking I find it far more appealing than the rigid frame of mind that some Christians have where they think that homosexuality is wrong and therefore despise everyone who is one because they are going to hell. Give me a tolerantly-minded Christian any day over that.