Proposition 8
November 25, 2008
Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this
By John Fay
Photo by Matthew Jackson.
Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this
Few issues of cultural importance in America long escape the gaze of a Simpsons’ episode.
In the episode titled “There’s Something About Marrying,” the city of Springfield legalizes gay marriage, prompting Homer Simpson to become an Episcopal priest in order to reap lucrative benefits for conducting such unions.
Homer very quickly realizes that he could make even more money in nuptials if he is less discriminating, and by the end of the episode he’s proceeding to marry the Sea Captain to the mermaid-shaped masthead of his ship.
We laugh about scenes like this and say they could never happen; of course, that’s what our grandparents were saying about gay marriage a generation ago.
Now, I realize the gay marriage issue surrounding the California voters’ decision on Proposition 8 is extremely emotional for a lot of people, and I respect their difference of opinion, but let us try and consider the vote from a rational basis.
The decision of California’s Supreme Court in May to legalize gay marriage, which Prop. 8 overturned, was extremely rash. There is nothing constitutional about gay marriage on a state or federal level. For gay marriage to even fit within the court’s jurisdiction, it must have some basis in constitutionality.
Yet the court argued that forbidding marriage rights to gays is discrimination, “like a person’s race or gender.” Race is a biological state; homosexuality is more of an emotional condition, and we should not, for that reason alone, start passing laws condoning it.
Being homosexual, like other emotional tendencies, doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied.
Now, there are several major problems with legalizing gay marriage. Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?
Also, the Christian concept of marriage predates any state-sanctioned licensing program, which means marriage is an inherently religious concept in America. Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.
There’s also a social consideration. The potential of open homosexuality for creating social dysfunction has been made manifest in the protests against Prop 8 since Nov. 4.
Organizations such as the Mormon Church have been intimidated; people who financially supported Prop. 8 have had their names posted on antigayblacklist.com — some have been harassed or even threatened with losing their jobs.
This sad reaction illustrates the danger of gay marriage. Now, this is not to suggest that all or even most supporters of gay marriage have acted inappropriately.
Once people become accustomed to violating certain social norms, they tend to feel less constrained about breaking others.
It’s hard to tell someone they should respect basic social rules — such as not harassing people for honest disagreement — when they already reject other customs, such as traditional marriage.
So, let’s think long and hard about this before overturning a tradition that has been in place for 2,000 years.
If traditional marriage is overturned, it won’t be the last tradition to be abolished by our government, and some of those will be ones none of us want to lose.
Reach columnist John Fay at opinion@dailyuw.com.
Proposition 8 disappointing
By Sarah Gaither
Photo by Matthew Jackson.
Proposition 8 disappointing
It is difficult for me to express how profound a disappointment the passage of Proposition 8 is.
Approved on Nov. 4, Prop. 8 stripped homosexual California couples of their right to marry, defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. As a contrast to the unprecedented election of a black man to the U.S. presidency, the proposition’s passage is a reminder of how much progress in civil rights there is left to be made.
While it is sad to learn that 52 percent of Californians view homosexual love as inherently inferior to heterosexual love, it is outraging and continually baffling that the proposition’s backers see enshrining this prejudice in law as just.
The arguments used to defend the proposition are feeble at best. The argument that marriages are intended for the production of children belies the reality that many heterosexual couples are childless. Are they to be denied the right of marriage too?
The reasoning that heterosexual marriages are the fundamental unit of society and thus deserving of “protection” from untraditional forms of family, is unfounded. Not only does it rely on normative gender assumptions, but it assumes that it is the government’s role to both determine what forms of love and family are acceptable and to enforce them.
A recent parody of this logic has been used in an anti-Prop. 8 ad, which calls to protect traditional marriage by outlawing divorce. With divorce having garnered no such ire from the traditional marriage establishment, the hypocrisy is plain.
Other arguments that claim gay marriage is outside the historical norms of society make the mistake of assuming that the longevity of norms indicates their legitimacy. As Keith Olbermann remarked in his moving commentary on gay marriage, in 16 states interracial marriage remained illegal up until 1967. Only until the United States “redefined” marriage did it become legal for people of different races to wed.
Then, as now, discrimination against individuals stepping outside the norms of society supports the unjust withholding of rights granted to other citizens. In this light, snide comments made by Prop. 8 supporters that “everyone has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex” are especially off base. I can imagine someone 50 years ago arguing that “everyone has the equal right to marry members of their own race.”
Perhaps most significantly, the exclusion of homosexuals from the right of marriage wholly breaches the division between church and state by allowing religious beliefs to determine state policy, however unconstitutional they may be.
And those who argue that Prop. 8 is justified because it passed with a democratic majority should Google “tyranny of the majority” and consider that a majority of Americans once opposed the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage and the desegregation of schools.
It’s apparent, given the logical irrationality of the common arguments made against gay marriage, that the support of Prop. 8 is driven not by reason, but by emotion. The sooner that anti-Prop. 8 organizers realize this, the sooner they will rally voters to their cause.
In the anti-Prop. 8 ads aired prior to Election Day, there was a remarkable absence of gay couples. By not emphasizing the common commitment, humanness and love of homosexual couples, organizers missed a key opportunity.
It is easy to forget in a relatively open-minded city like Seattle that the vast majority of people have little to no contact with same sex partners.
Thus, their conception of gay relationships are composed almost entirely of conjecture.
For this reason, it’s key that pro-same-sex-marriage efforts, in tandem with battling this discrimination in the courts, encourage understanding. They must emphasize an emotionally-based understanding of these couples’ experiences.
That is what this is about — the universal human quest for love unbounded by gender and unhindered by law.
Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@dailyuw.com.
654 Comments
I think Dan Savage and the above commenters have addressed the problematic logic and obviously ill-informed bigotry of the author better than I can.
But I also think this editorial calls into question this student's education. As a teacher, I would be embarrassed to see reasoning and writing like this coming from a student. It shows ignorance of the issue, no familiarity with the conversation that already exists about the issue, a number of major logical fallacies, and a complete disregard for the audience (whether friendly or hostile).
It's sloppy, and reflects poorly on this student's teachers and institution.
Sarah Jeglum Editor in Chief 206-543-2700 editor@dailyuw.com
Please, everyone contact her and complain about the article today.
And contact UW President Mark Emmert
206-543-5010
pres@u.washington.edu
I can't believe the daily would print this trash. They better fire his ass or they'll have a lawsuit on their hands.
You disgust me. Comparing homosexuality to beastiality and child rape? You are the problem with this country.
unbelievable. wrong and so bigoted on many accounts as stated by other comments - echoed here. EDITOR: how can you let this hate fly and expect to have a publication which promotes education and fact? sad, sad, sad! fay you should be ashamed.
stop commenting here. the daily editors feed off negative publicity. instead go comment on the slog post.
and to natalie sikavi: this is exactly the kind of bullshit that's going to cost you your job. we're coming for you. be ready.
So essentially you're comparing homosexuals to goats and child abusers. Way to go. What on earth do they teach you at UW?
This article saddens and frustrates me. Different opinions are good, however proven-false ideas masquerading as facts are not. ("Race is a biological state; homosexuality is more of an emotional condition") This was a terrible job by the editor and a shameful one by John Fay. The very least I expect is an apology in the next Daily and the prompt removal of this hate-spewer.
Go Fuck Yourself
I normally hesitate to respond in comment sections. But I feel compelled to here because it seems that no one has noticed that this piece is racist too! The author claims:
"Race is a biological state"
This idea is archaic as the writer's vision of traditional marriage. Academically speaking, biological notions of race died after the Nazi's took it to its extreme. Most academics agree (at least on the surface) that race is a social construct and not a biological, immutable, or essential characteristic. This article is an excellent example of how the multiple forms of bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) are intrinsically linked. This is why commenter #88 is correct, there are some lines that should not be crossed. When we cross one line, we are likely to cross the others as the writer of this piece has done. (Note that several comments have also acknowledged the deeply sexist roots of so-called traditional marriage.)
I implore the Daily to raise its standards. I am all for the free expression of well-reasoned opinions, but there is a difference between that and bigotry. ANY form of bigotry has no place in our university's paper. This is shameful.
STOP COMMENTING HERE
unless you're all really excited to read jeglum's imminent post about how she's excited the daily opened up the forum on gay marriage by publishing a homophobic, bigoted, putrid pile of shit like this. congratulations jeglum! you're the worst editor in the history of our rotten newspaper.
NO U!
Perhaps UW should consider issuing standardized tests to screen out students who believe in the kinds of fallacies that John Fay asserts. Here are some sample questions they could use:
1) Which of the following is not an emotional state:
a. happy
b. disappointed
c. hopeful
d. lonely
e. gay
2) Please mark any grammatical and/or logical errors in the following sentence:
Fred was not looking forward to meeting his wife for dinner because his stressful day at work had left him feeling irritable and gay.
This is despicable. If Hitler wrote an article about how Jews were inferior, I doubt the Daily would publish it. Yet John Fay's article on homosexuality as an "emotional problem" that needs to be dealt with is pretty much the same thing. Shame on the Daily, and shame on the bigot.
This is disgusting, bigoted, ignorant nonsense.
Though I seldom appreciate superlatives as a means of retort, I'm afraid that the most appropriate response yet delivered to Mr. Fay is #109.
Oh, right, maybe people should just take their "anti-homosexuality" pills along with their anti-depressants... give me a break!!! And what's with the sheep graphic? Is that somehow the next logical step, if we allow gay marriage then somehow marriage to a sheep is probable and will become acceptable? Utterly absurd propaganda, while this is your opinion, it is completely unfounded and ridiculous.
The arguments against gay marriage are, in my opinion, shallow, discriminatory, and often disgusting. I don't really care what straight Christians think marriage is or isn't, and I definitely don't care what John Fay thinks marriage is or should be. In fact, I don't really care about the word "marriage." I care about equal rights and protections for tax-paying citizens under the law. There are currently over 1,000 legal rights awarded to married couples, and those rights should be extended to any two consenting adults that love each other and are committed to one another. No Bible verse, historical anecdote, or illogical future vision can justify a group of citizens withholding equal rights from other citizens in this country. Open your eyes and start using your effing brain.
November 25, 2008
Dear Editor-
Matthew Jackson’s attempt at “rational” discussion of marriage equality was remarkably illogical, fear-based, and inaccurate. Full of gaps in logic and misinformation, I will focus my response on what I find to be the most egregious errors in his piece.
1. If you wish to be rational, let’s call upon some rational organizations to help us out. Sexual orientation, as the APA, AMA, AAP and many other well-respected medical and psychological professional and licensing organizations, is not an “emotional tendency.” And, not to parse too terribly much, race is not a biological state.
2. Actually, Mr. Jackson, the constitutionality of denying people of the same gender to marry is being called into question across the country. Loving vs. Virginia helped decide the constitutionality of denying people the access to marriage. Simply saying there is no basis for the California Supreme Court’s decision does not make it so.
3. Incest, bestiality, and pedophilia generally include non-consensual sexual behavior in which power is exerted by one over another. These things have nothing to do with a particular sexual orientation. In fact, most incest and pedophilia is perpetrated by straight men.
4. Mr. Jackson, queerness has already been made openly manifest in the United States and the sky has not fallen. The social dysfunction, to which you refer, might best be described as resistance to heterosexism and homophobia.
5. Christianity does not own the concept of marriage, nor do all Christians agree with your position and what you call “traditional marriage.” Furthermore, Christianity is not the only religion in the world or this country.
6. Traditional marriage, though a nice catch phrase, is an empty symbol for an institution that has evolved over centuries. “Traditional marriage,” at various times, has included the following: forced marriages, agreements between families re: wealth and property, anti-miscegenation laws, refusal to recognize the marriages of Indigenous peoples, slaves, immigrants of color, and the list goes on. If this is traditional, I say, let’s break with tradition.
This marriage issue seems to be the political football of the day for some queer people and many conservatives. For me, this response is less about whether or not I think marriage equality is the most important goal for queer communities, it is about the tragic replaying of stereotypes, misinformation, and fear that Mr. Jackson’s editorial embodied. It will be nice when we, as a people, move past this obsession with heterosexuality and take up more pressing concerns.
Jennifer Self
Who is the editor of this newspaper? If this university wasn't so homophobic and racist itself, it SHOULD shut your whole operation DOWN.
I think that the real people who should be writing for this paper have already commented on how blatantly bigoted, uneducated, and flat out flawed Matt Jackson's argument is...
And P.s. Race is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION! How could someone at a university not know that? As a concept that has been traditionally decided by a bunch of ignorant white men (go figure) running pencils through people's hair... NOTHING BIOLOGICAL ABOUT THAT! IT'S JUST PLAIN RACIST AND IGNORANT, LIKE MATT JACKSON AND THE DAILY STAFF. Whoever let this one slide should be punished by this university on the basis of anti-discrimination laws... There, I said it.
Jaimee, while, as I posted above, I thoroughly disagree with the Daily's decision to publish such tripe, I am NOT in favor of using anti-discrimination laws to shut down discourse, however inane it is.
Lesson 1: Daily, can you not afford journalistic integrity? Editors, you are only embarrassing yourselves by letting this hateful "opinion" piece run.
Lesson 2: Don't put your home address on Facebook. And if you're a (See #69, 70, 71) Fedora-wearing-LOTR-nerd-Republican that didn't take Bio 101, or Logic 101, then know you're going to get some slack for writing such gibberish.
This isn't even opinion. Opinion should be founded based on factual evidence. This is shear ignorance and bigotry. John Fay should resign.
Regardless of where you stand in this debate, it is unecessary and offensive to have this picture of a man and a sheep. Equating the love between two consenting adults to the lecherous desires of those involved in bestiality and pedophilia is innaccurate and apalling.
(1) Fuck you.
(2) Marriage has been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman by the same people who used to exclude non-whites from participating in such unions because, well, they weren't people. They were considered sub-human. Property. Something to be owned, not someone to be recognized as having dignity and self-determination. Just because it has traditionally been known as XY:XX Union doesn't mean it should stay that way.
(3) I hope that you would stop using your privilege to fuck up people's lives and do something beneficial.
(4) Fuck you.
Mr. Fay,
While you are entitled to your bigoted, ill-informed, anachronistic opinion, if you are in fact pursuing a career in journalism, you may want to research your subject matter before you spew your translucently-veiled hate propaganda.
There are too many inaccuracies in your article to address in this forum, but I would just like to sincerely say that you should be ashamed of yourself.
@ Jennifer #121
Glad to see that someone from the Q Center has responded to this. Your response is very well thought out. I'm a little bit...unnerved I guess...at your closing urge to move beyond the marriage issues though. I am no supporter of emulating traditional heterosexual (and typically misogynistic) practices & institutions, but I think it is terribly important that the queer community be allowed the civil rights of hospital visitation, inheritance rights, etc. The current legal institution that grants these rights is the marriage license. That is the only reason I am fighting for the right to marry...only for the legal rights associated with it. Not to try and be more "heterosexual". To set up a separate legal institution to accommodate these rights would not only be wasteful of all the tax dollars that would invariably be spent on sorting out all the legal complexities of it when we could just adopt the existing format, but also there are the troubling precedents of the establishment of "separate but equal" type institutions. Separate but equal is not equal.
I may be misunderstanding your intent, but while I agree that there are a lot of more important things going on in the world, especially with the economy, I think that rather than abandoning this cause it is just that much more irresponsible of those who seek to deny us these rights to focus on such things instead of what is more important.
How can anyone seriously believe this?
"the Christian concept of marriage predates any state-sanctioned licensing program, which means marriage is an inherently religious concept in America." In America maybe, but if you look at the history of marriage, you find that it actually started as a contractual state between two men, and only over time included a contract between a man and a woman. Women had no (or at best few) legal rights, and the original concept of marriage was to define the contractual relationship between 2 men. Check Boswell's book.
...First Endorsing Dino Rossi, now publishing an article of pure misinformation and hate....
I'm convinced the Daily is just doing this for PR......but heck, if over 100 comments can be posted a day, as well as other news sources bash just how bad you are, I think it's great for publicity!...but not so great for credibility.
2008 UW Daily, what a joke.
I remember there being a lot of social dysfunction in the 60's. I'm pretty sure we call it the Civil Rights Movement now though.
Oh....and that picture of a man and a sheep....classy. It pains me to see that a UW education has been wasted on you. The admissions office rejected a spot to someone else and gave it to you so that your defining moment at this historic university would be this article. Hmm....they should be feeling pretty dumb about that decision.
This is absurd.
I find particularly comic the notion that Jesus Christ invented marriage 2,000 years ago as some sort of standing statutory authority.
Judeo-Christian marriage is at least 10,000 years old and deeply polygamic, and Greek homosexual normalization predates recorded history.
I consider myself Christian. I'm straight. I'm a fairly moderate voter. But come the fuck on - homosexuality is a 'problem' that needs to be 'addressed' by some kind of federal policy? If anything is unconstitutional, it's aligning U.S. law with fictional notions of Christian marriage. That whole Establishment clause, you know.
There's no Gay Agenda that is ought to destroy your world. This is, as other commenters have rightly pointed out, a lot like writing an article about the Jew Problem or the Black Problem. Orientation, like race, is a primarily social construction that has no place affecting legislation when it involves consenting adults.
John Fay might be interested to know that Polygamy was legal in the United States until 1862. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont. Morrill was a renowned "Mormon-hater" who supported Missouri's Extermination Order, wherein the State of Missouri paid a bounty for killing "Known-Mormons".
Despite the name of the Act, the primary purpose of the Act was to limit the ownership of property by religious institutions to a value of $50,000. The intent was to strip away property ownership by the LDS Church in the Utah Territory, as the LDS Church legally filed all property claims with the Federal Government. One small line in the act outlaws polygamy.
Today, polygamy is practiced by Islam, Talmudist Jews, and Hindus.
Benjamin: This newspaper is supported by our tuition and tax payer dollars. It is not reflective of our views, as a student population as a whole, in any way shape or form. I agree with Jamie that the newspaper should not be allowed to publish such tripe (good word), although on different terms, and think they have crossed a fine line between freedom of expression and uninformed, unedited and untruthful hate speech.
Sad comment on the value of a university education for thoughtful reflections. Trash talk masquerade. Perhaps researching beyond the confines of the 700 Club would be helpful -- there's a whole big diverse world out there. Will you be smearing and outlawing every group but conservative "Christians" in the future? Hmmm, how did "love" between adults become so scary to people who aren't even involved? The degrading animal references are typical right wing slime -- get a life, get educated and stop being such a retro concrete thinker. Live your own life with your own lens - not your parent's.
I am officially embarrassed to say that I am an alumnus of the UW Communications department.
I will no longer be keeping up with the Daily, and I hope the editors take note.
I'm all for the free expression of opinion, but when something this inflammatory is printed with no logical argument and for seemingly for offensive value only, I lose it.
Was their no editorial oversight? I don't know exactly what the author was going for here, but it is not academic or intellectually provocative in any manner. Its just plain offensive and derogatory, with no facts to back any of it up.
As for us gays unfairly targeting supporters of prop 8... Do you realize that the Catholic League launches boycotts against Miller Brewing Company every year for supporting Folsom Street Fair? How is that any different? They boycott because Miller financially supports someone they oppose...Does your argument sound something like "the pot calling the kettle black" now?
The reality of it is that if you are willing to pitch your money in to a political cause, you must be prepared to face the ramifications of your actions. If I had been fired for financially opposing prop 8, I would have left my job with my dignity in tact, and my head held high, because its a cause that I firmly believe in.
At this point the damage is done. The writer is a bigot and one that I hope I will never have the disservice of meeting or working with. I will no longer be proud of the Daily, it was going downhill when I was finishing my degree, and it is nearly at rock bottom. I'll continue my protests, and living with my "emotional condition." Equal rights are on the horizon, whether this guy wants them or not, and I will be married someday.
As the now famous slogan goes: "No More Mr. Nice Gay." We're coming for your bigoted, misguided and intolerant ideology, and we will change it!
One seriously wonders how the Daily managed to get so many "editors" lacking both common sense and skill.
But I guess that's what we should expect after so many years of incompetence on display in DC.
One hopes replacements will be found soon.
I am truly amazed that The Daily would allow such discriminative propaganda to be published in their paper. Every point that the author made was completely ignorant and venomous. There is a reason for the separation of church and state, not allowing the religious right to dictate human rights. This is an issue of human rights and know matter who you love and/or want to marry you should have the same rights as any other human being.
He sounds like Hitler talking about the "Final solution" to the "Jewish question". The author is the type of person that has no place writing for a taxpayer supported news paper. If he wants to write such things he can write in some other forum.
Of the following, which are consenting adults:
A) A sheep
B) A child
C) All of the above
If your answer to this question was in the form of a letter, you are probably the article's author.
@142
You are exactly correct and I don't think that is a coincidence. Nazis were crazy nationalist conservatives. Sound familiar? If this hack is going to use arguments like "gay marriage = inevitable sheep sex" then allow me to make this one:
anti gay marriage rights advocates = future pogrom executioners
How do you like my slippery slope?
There is no merit to the idea that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalization of bestial marriages or predatory marriages unless the legalization of gay sex leads to the legalization of bestiality or predatory sex. I don't think any reasonable person believes the latter, so it doesn't make sense to believe the former.
The Simpsons episode you refer to is mocking the absurdity of your position.
Also, marriage predates CHRISTIANITY so that can't possibly be the reason why it is soooo important.
Yet another reason why the daily sucks.
As a student at the University of Washington, I'm officially embarrassed to be even distantly associated with The Daily. Over the last year, I have quietly chosen not to read our campus's publication, but now I'm shocked and offended that such a newspaper represents me and the UW in general.
I don't care that Mr. Fay's article was an opinion. It STILL represents The Daily and its staff. It was totally uninformed, fearful, and utterly homophobic. I consider myself a Christian, and as such, I'm embarrassed to say that people use my religion to justify hate, particularly of gays.
I can easily say that most homosexuals I know are much better people than I am, and would probably do better in a marriage than myself. The idea of comparing the conscious, committed choice of gay marriage to bestiality or even underage marriage is not only extreme and exaggerated, it's just plain wrong.
Normally I would not respond to something The Daily wrote simply on principle. This time, however, the paper and Mr. Fay have simply gone too far. Any perpetuation of the lies and uninformed assumptions that the article asserts is simply unacceptable in this day and age and at a prestigious public university. I'm afraid for Mr. Fay living in a cloud of ignorance, and I'm afraid for the future of The Daily.
I guess I just wonder why this was allowed past the editors. Seriously this is like letting anybody write and opinion piece: Deep south racists, eight year olds, inmates, broccoli; I mean isn't an author or his writing supposed to present some sort of inteligent argument for his case or cause, or show some sort of skill at writing that the "editors" can notice. This piece is pure hate and ignorance. Although, I do like that the above "commenters" have posted the authors phone number, address, and other information because maybe he should know what it feels like to be hated because of an "emotional condition," as that is surely what the author has. Have a good senior year, John.
Evin @146:
One could hardly expect someone who as a staunch conservative cites Stephen Colbert as a personal hero, and probably means it in all seriousness, to grasp the subtle mockery in that Simpsons episode.
It sure is funny, though.
Marriage Equality Is About Just That - EQUALITY
Like many on campus today, I was angered, frustrated, and most importantly, hurt by the anti same-sex marriage op-ed published. The GLBTQ civil rights movement is fundamentally about recognition by society and the law of equality for all individuals.
The Daily has taken a step backwards in time by printing an opinion that relegates homosexuality to an "emotional condition" – a view that has long been disregarded by medicine and psychology. Homosexuality and bisexuality are no more a condition or tendency than heterosexuality. Sexuality is a fundamental aspect of each and every one of us. None of us can control who we love or to whom we are attracted. For those who simply cannot understand same-sex attraction, please note that some of us cannot understand opposite-sex attraction. The next time you are at a bar, dance club, or coffee shop and you find yourself checking out someone, try to prevent your feelings of attraction - maybe when you try and realize that you cannot, then the labeling of homosexuality as a tendency or condition will stop.
The most horrific part of the article is the cartoon image of a man and a sheep under the headline – a component of the op-ed that required more than a simple reprinting of words but an active decision by The Daily. The marriage equality movement has never pushed for the expansion of marriage laws to include bestiality. Suggesting such a link denies basic human decency to the entire LGBTQ community; The Daily is slapping thousands of Washington citizens in the face. It is a travesty that this long-discredited “slippery slope” argument is still appearing in print.
Remember that the community you undercut includes your friends, family members, teachers, religious figures, elected officials, neighbors, the girl who makes your latte at Starbucks, that sweet bus driver who greets you every morning, and the guy in your neighborhood who walks that cute dog you like to stop and pet. Every time words and images like those in The Daily are printed you are pushing all these people to the ground and kicking them as hard as you can.
Ms. Gaither, thank you for your thoughtful opinion. Mr. Fay, we might be able to have a reasonable conversation with you about the differences between religious marriage and the rights that state governments tie to marriage licenses. However, first we need to make sure you know we are fellow human beings with real feelings and are as equally legitimate members of society as you.
Please don't think that all Christians are this biased and intolerant. I am a Christian and I fully support gay marriage. I am sorry for John Fay's representation of the religious community.
Much has already been said regarding this op-ed piece, but as an ally I just wanted to say that this article was entirely offensive (and on top of that, just not well argued!).
If we legalize gay marriage, homos will be able to sodomize each other on your front lawn. And then, Barack Obama is going to take away your gun so you can't shoot 'em!
We must stand up and fight gay marriage!
The only emotional problem that needs to be dealt with here is your homophobia.
P.S. Don't get me started on your obscene lack of intelligence, research, or logical thought process. Maybe you should spend some time in class rather than trying to prove to your readers how ignorant you are.
Obama doesnt support gay marriage. If the One does not, then maybe not supporting it is an ok position:
Politico reported that he DOES NOT support same sex marriage here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
Why does the UW Daily provide a forum any bigot with (barely) a third grade education? Does this newspaper have any standards for what it publishes? I'm only secondarily disgusted at John Fay's pathetic attempt at social commentary. What offends me most is that this is entirely unoriginal and provokative only in its distance from reality. this is nothing more than a regurgitation of long discredited homophobic fantasy and crap. Dude, come up with an original thought instead of simply repeating word for word, phrase for phrase, rantings that the majority of people in this country know to be crap. Shame on the UW Daily for allowing this! What next? Pictures of dog poo?
This article makes me sick. I got less than half way through reading it before I wanted to slam my computer shut in disgust at this lack of sensitivity and lack of professional journalism. How is there "nothing constitutional about gay marriage" when it says IN OUR CONSTITUTION that all men are created equal. Homosexuality is NOT an emotional condition. This is a scientific fact. And was the picture of a man and a sheep really necessary? Comparing gay marriage to bestiality is completely absurd. The so called "journalist" who wrote this extremely biased and hurtful article needs to grow up, do some proper research, consider the feelings of others, and consider a different career path.
I checked it out and Obama does not support GAY Marriage.
How can Barack Obama not support it? And how come people don't even know that Obama does not support gay marriage?
Is anyone who voted at Obama mad at him for this?
Ummm, if you watched the VP debate Joe Biden stated that gay marriage was not supported by him nor Obama.
Barack Obama does not support gay marriage because he has common sense, unlike most of the people posting here.
In the spirit of Dan Savage, has anyone noticed that John Fay has practically plagiarized this article from Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum?
As a follower of Christ I am saddened to read this article, and hope that readers will not bundle all of us who believe with Fay. Many of us have extremely different opinions.
Jesus was absolutely about love, and absolutely about spending time with people who are un-loved by society. To me that means that Jesus would absolutely love gay people (who receive an unfortunate amount of flak from society in this country). In any case, as a believer I don't feel it is my job to judge how other people live or think (Gay, Christian, Athiest, Fay, whatever), but rather pursue our lives LOVING and ACCEPTING as Jesus did.
This is my way of loving those that have been hurt by this article. I'm sorry, Jesus cares about you and loves you as you are; so do I.
This article was posted on the SLOG, which is the blog to the Stranger. Meaning the comments on here are not from fellow UW students for the most part, but from the Capitol Hill freaks who read that trash and are posting on this site. Keep that in mind as you read these.
For all the "Christians" who are "saddened" by reading this article and who support gay marriage are not christians. Jesus loved those that were gay, but he did not support their lifestyle. Love the sinner, but hate the sin. To say any different is to ignore very clear policy against homosexuality.
Civil unions are the way to go. Gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual ones, but because gay Americans do exist, there needs to be legal provisions for them to have hospital visitation rights and alike.
I support our new President, Barack Obama and his position AGAINST gay marriage.
This article makes me sick to my stomach! This guy needs to be fired from the UW Daily. This is unacceptable writing and should not be endorsed or tolerated by the UW. We are a lgbt friendly city and this is pure bigotry. Email and call the UW Daily and make complaints. Get the word out and let the UW know about this homophobic excuse of a human being! I am sick and tired of morons spewing hate.
There should be a protest organized against this article.
While I agree that he can share his thoughts, I do not think this was the proper avenue.
I am simply disgusted that the Daily would use the illustration suggesting a correlation of gay people and bestiality.
As a student of UW, and as a gay man who felt targeted by this article, I am ashamed of the Daily.
Because allowing one consenting male adult human to marrying another consenting male adult human that is not related to him is EXACTLY the same thing as having someone marry a goat. Or a tree. Or a house. Or a boat. Or their sister. Or a child.
Thank you for setting the intelligence of UW students back twenty years.
The Bible is open to interpretation. If we took every passage literally, we would be going to Hell if we wore two different types of fabric at the same time or had sex with a woman during her "monthly uncleanliness" or ate any animal with a split hoof (check out Deuteronomy). Do not question someone's faith because they don't conform to the status quo of "mainstream" Christianity. You can still be a Christian and love others who aren't Christian.
As John Fay suggests, “let’s think long and hard about this before overturning a tradition that has been in place for 2,000 years.” And after we’re done thinking, let’s overturn the tradition of discriminating against loving, long-term relationships of queer couples.
First, let's think about turning off the Simpsons cartoons and learning about the brutal history of how gay people have been treated over the last 100 years in this country. Next, let's think about all the ways that homophobia makes straight guys act like asses to queer people, women, and other straight men. We straight men obsessively make sure that we are not perceived as gay, and thus not a target for the venom and violence that we so readily directed at gay people. John Fay's opinion piece fits too well in the pattern of needlessly degrading queer people as if his life and traditions depended on it. Seriously, John -- get over it. And for the rest of us, take a minute to contribute $10 in John's honor to Stonewall Youth in Olympia so that our next generation of queer youth get the support they need to rise above crap like this. http://www.stonewallyouth.org/give.html
In RE about Obama:
He supports LGBT people and OPPOSED PROP 8.
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/10514...
Also, read his website about LGBT people and other civil rights issues.
http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights...
Support for the LGBT Community
"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007
The Obama-Biden Plan:.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not."
I was somewhat entertained by Mr. Fay's opinion, but I was extremely disappointed that The Daily considered his opinion piece worthy of being published. Mr. Fay ought to learn something about the Constitution before trying to write about its interpretation, and he should probably learn that a diverse student population will not look kindly on homosexuality being labeled a "problem" that needs to be dealt with. By all means The Daily should feature diverse opinions, but they should follow the example of programs such as NewsHour on PBS and feature enlightened, intelligent, and careful thinkers rather than the most outspoken.
Wow, you are such an ignorant fool that I do not even know where to begin with this. Firstly, since when is being homosexual an 'emotional condition'? I don't remember ever seeing that when I was reading up on psychology or anything related to it. And trust me, being the aspiring psychologist that I am, I read a heck of a lot about it. Maybe a good 30 or whatever years ago it was considered a mental illness, but I'm pretty sure that was ruled out because people came to their senses and realized that being gay is NOT a choice, being gay does NOT make you mentally crippled or emotionally disturbed. There are also a few scientific studies that suggest homosexuality is genetic. In this day and age it's utterly ridiculous that people should be so ignorant. Sure, homophobia still runs rampant, but when I hear someone say that it is a mental handicap or an 'emotional condition' as you so put it, I get more angry than I would at someone who called me a dyke.
Also, I'm pretty damn sure that not everyone in the USA is christian, and oh yea... ever heard of this little thing that we like to call 'separation of church and state'? Religion has absolutely no place in government or law, and the way people try to insert it into there is simply disgusting to me. People who try and force their beliefs on others are pathetic human beings who cannot handle the fact that someone disagrees with their beliefs. Maybe you should go and read about our country's laws and constitution all the while trying very hard to remove your head from your anus because it is apparently so far up I do not know if it is recoverable.
A few more things before I go:
Do NOT compare homosexuality to pedophilia... EVER. It is completely unacceptable, vile, and downright disgusting.
OFCOURSE homosexuals are upset that they got stripped of the right to marry who they love... yea.. LOVE. Love isn't something that exists only between a man and woman, you know. If the roles were reversed and it was socially unacceptable to be straight and you finally got granted the right to marry the person you love and then had it stripped from you, wouldn't YOU be pissed off? My god, people like you sicken me.
Signed,
A very annoyed lesbian.
I'm actually quite happy The Daily is willing to publish controversial pieces, but they need to be pieces based on solid arguments and persuasive rhetoric--not bigoted language and scientifically rejected claims.
The Daily represents the students and the University of Washington as a whole, and thus ought to hold high standards for its journalism. I have a feeling conservatives can make more compelling arguments against same-sex marriage than Mr. Fay does in this piece.
In light of the 10-20% budget cut coming down to UW from the state, it might be a good time to cut funding for the Daily. Force 'em to go to a weekly edition. Any one care to sign a petition?
As a University of Washington Law student and "Capitol Hill Freak" (per the the inaptly named #163 poster who is slandering an inspirational President-Elect by using his name to spread bigotry) I would like to extend a hearty
"Fuck you!" to poster #163.
Peace.
Why isn't polygamy okay? It's okay in the Bible.
I think we should stop redefining marriage. It's horrible how people get married because they're "in love". It's the fucking feminist movement. Women are property in the Bible and will always be property. That is a true Christian ideal.
Words simply cannot describe the number of idiotic statements discussed in this article. I am editor of a college paper and I would never condone such a trashy piece of work to be published, despite my views on gay marriage. This reporter should be fired.
#163 I would love to know why homosexual marriages are different from heterosexual marriages.
And Obama opposed Prop. 8.
#175. Shove your dick up your ass and jump off a bride.
This is by far the most idiotic article I have ever read. A 'rational' basis? This is far from rational, and in my opinion, homophobic. Personally, I find this extremely distasteful.
I cannot believe the Daily would publish this homophobic, reactionary garbage. Is publishing a picture of a man with a sheep really intended to do anything but deeply wound and offend?
The author repeatedly reveals himself as an incredibly base fearmonger - on par with the worst racists and sexists -and the Daily has embarassed itself by printing this. Anyone remotely involved with allowing something like this to surface should be removed immediately.
I haven't seen something so ignorant in a long time. This article gave me a good laugh that people like this exist. But I love the comments far much more intelligent than this piece of shit presented.
Wow, I think this article is ridiculous.
Do gays oppose your marriage? No, they don't. They just want the same freedoms that everyone should be entitled to. What makes your marriage so much more acceptable then a gay marriage? Love is love and we should leave it at that. America is about equal freedoms and opportunities. I can't believe we can't over come something like this. People need to stop being so closed minded. Let them be, they let you be.
Is this for real? Did you just equate homosexuality with bestiality, incest, and child molestation? Pure ignorance.
This is on reddit.com. You're about to have a lot of people call you a moron. These people are all correct.
Thanks for contributing to the gay-baiting debate. I am one half of the 18,000 or so gay couples that took advantage of the window to get married in the state of California.
What did my marriage certificate mean to me when I got it? That at least one state in this country was willing to recognize that my wife and I were willing to fly over 1,000 miles to get paper saying we are committed to each other, in the way John Milton described Adam and Eve when he said "to cleave unto each other." What does this marriage mean in my home state of Indiana: bupkus. Nada. What does it mean federally? Absolutely nothing.
To protect my property, medical decisions, and estate in the event I am incapacitated (and change my name legally) in the Great State of Indiana, I spent over $2,000. What I get for my money spent: I can make/have medical decision about/by my partner. I have written my crazy bigoted family out of my will. My partner can direct that our assets, no matter what, are mine. Not anyone else's. I can see and collect her body for burial if she should die. She and I have devised and taken a family name for ourselves that very clearly denotes the cleaving of one unto the other.
And that's about it. If we produce children, it's another couple thousand and another trip back to the attorney's office to create more paperwork to co-parent so that I may see my son/daughter and make medical, school, other legal decisions on his or her behalf, even if it is not my biological child.
So let me ask you: if you had to do all this for about 5 responsibilities (forget combining student loans, filing taxes jointly, and over 1,000 other rights and responsibilities), would you still get married? Would we see people like Britney Spears upholding the "sanctity of marriage" with 55 hour commitments?
If I were a betting person, I would think not.
Furthermore:
There have been some hypotheses stated that passing ones genes on means having some homosexual offspring to further care for the clan's children in the event of a loss of biological parent or to ease the strain of marathon parenting. Basically stated, a homosexual orientation is a genetic variation intended to reinforce protection of offspring...even if it is over multiple generations and not directly descended.
This has been reinforced in studies that show that the more male offspring a woman has, the more likely the younger male offspring are to be gay.
The slogan, I believe, is "it takes a village to raise a child." Kurt Vonnegut touched on this theme of extended families, as have actual anthropologists.
I do not discount that a child can not be raised with a two-parent or single-parent situation. But for everyone who can look back on their mom in their childhood from adulthood--wouldn't it have been a lot easier for mom if her gay brother or sister delighted in caring for you for a weekend while she went on a date or went to the spa or just had a day or two to herself to veg and watch tv and do whatever happy things she would do if she didn't have to care for a child?
And I don't want to tell you how to think, but let me put this in your rationality pipe to smoke: How does the sexual expression compare between two consenting adults to the sexual aggression expressed by an adult on a child or animal who cannot give consent? A child cannot give consent until a certain level of brain development is reached (check your state for the locally agreed upon age) and an animal cannot, in a real way, give consent. EVER.
People who confuse the two make me only a little less sick than these sexual predators. So, pretty please with a cherry on top, stop confusing the two as soon as possible if you can.
I was a Daily writer back in 2003. I remember when someone on our editorial team wrote a racist op-ed piece; I'm pretty sure he was fired, and the staff editor got in trouble for letting it go to print.
I'm really glad I graduated before I had to write beside anyone affiliated with this op-ed. Frankly, I think the cartoonist deserves to be drummed off the staff even before the writer. Anyone who manages to create an image that ignorant, stereotypical, and asinine doesn't deserve a job with the paper.
I'm with the people who suggested cutting the Daily's budget. I'm sure there are other under-funded programs that would put the money to better use.
Wow, I'm never going to pick up a fucking Daily ever again. I love UW, but I'm ashamed to go to a school with a newspaper that publishes garbage like this. Fuck you, Daily! The UW should seriously consider cutting this bigoted newspaper out of the budget - no one is better off for having it around.
Ok dude, what the hell? Comparing homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia is like comparing bread to concrete.
But anyways. I, myself, am gay. Lesbian to be more exact. I don't really give a shit about the work marriage. You can keep it. But, I do want the same rights as marriage. Call it a civil union if you want. Shit, call it a fuckin pomegranate for all I care, as long as we have the same rights. I like the way England is doing it. It's called a civil union, you get all the same rights, you just can't have the ceremony in a religious establishment. I think that would work well over here. The Christians who want to protect the sanctity and what nots would be satisfied, and us gays would get what we wanted too. Of course there will still be the haters, but hey, it happens, and it always will.
I really don't know what the big fuss over it is. Are you effected by the fact that 50 drunken strangers just all got married in Vegas? No. Are you effected by the fact that right now your straight neighbors are engaging in BDSM? No. Are you effected by the fact that two dogs are doing it in an alley half a mile away? No. So why are you so traumatized that a woman and a woman, or a man and a man are in love? Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either.
Who in the WORLD allowed this in the Daily?! This is ATROCIOUS! Not that there can't be pro-oppression opinions, but that its expression is so shamefully uneducated and just...horrid. "Emotional tendencies?!" "Beastiality?!"
I can't respond intelligently to so unintelligent an ass-wiping of an "article."
Zeph-
No, I'm totally with you. I support marriage equality....it was not my point to say, let's just move beyond it. Glad you asked! I actually would support a much broader legal agenda than that...like the ability for other kinds of families to enter into legal relationships with one another. I'm partnered, have a child....the importance of the rights attached to marriage are not lost on me. I just think it is sad that as a country we are stuck on this issue...one that is really about love, family, caring for one another, etc. Thanks again for asking!
jen
It pains me to think that I graduated from UW just two years ago, and now they are allowing shit like this to actually be published (not like it's never happened before, but this takes the cake!). Whether or not it was to gain publicity, I'm sorry, the Daily, but your credibility just doesn't exist anymore. I no longer live in Seattle, and I get calls every now and then for donations to the university, and THANK GOD I didn't cave in to those calls. How the hell do you think I can support an institution of "higher learning" that allows this kind of garbage to even be published?? Someone please tell me that people are hunting this guy down (John Fay) and throwing this shit back in his face. The funny thing about this is, he likens open homosexuality to social dysfunction. Well, back in the 60's, this "social dysfunction" he refers to also happened because of segregation. And look where it has led us...our first black President. Contemplate that. And I sure hope that the Daily receives a helluva lot of backlash for this.
Wake up people! If we allow opinion pieces by John Fay, before long sheep, retarded infants and mermaid-shaped bits of wood will be demanding the right to contribute.
Let's do something about this.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid...
This is upsetting in so many levels.
Such a recognized institution allowing such bigotry to be shown.
Freedom of speech is important... but you can't use your first amendment to justify hatred and prejudice.
Like many have said., it brings up so many emotions, all the things you grow up trying to convince people aren't true... and now… all of them put down on paper by someone who thinks they're educated and fucking Jesus's mesiah.
For all of you against gay marriage and say they're not homophobic and that they have gay friends. How about you go tell them what your stance is and try giving them a hug... hopefully they'll push away and slap some bigotry and hatred out. You can collect whatever dignity you have left and realize you're ignorant and haven't matured emotionally enough to comprehend what you're actually saying.. I wont go into being raised right at home, many aren’t. But I’d hope going to college would knock some empathy into someone.
Def taking UW off my list of schools to apply.
Btw: I’m sure anyone (not just gay) would rather sleep with the sheep than your fucking stupid ass. :D
It is shocking, outrageous and disgusting that something as hate-filled as this so called article could be published. I'm ashamed I attend a school that condones this.
#121
Jennifer, I appreciate and agree with your post, but I want to clarify that John Fay is the author of the article, not Matthew Jackson.
This article is just embarrasing. I'm a Christian and have always been for equal rights under the law for gay couples. I admit to not being the biggest protester of prop 8, although not at all for it. But an article as ignorant and stupid as this totally makes me for legalization of gay marriage. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this was just ridiculous.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
96 Comments
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
#101 coreyc
(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
on November 25, 2008 at 12:26 p.m.