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
BTW: Obama is not pro gay marriage... but he also said he doesn't believe in prop 8 and laws that prohibit these rights.
"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."
straight from Obama's website.
http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights...
For for all of you that think you're not prejudice because you voted for a black president, and think your ignorant point of view on LGBT issues are justifiable, get your fucking facts straight. Thanks.
Wow ... I'm not sure which is worse, the appalling, ignorant article or the totally offensive graphic that's paired with it.
I have no connection to UW or The Daily so I'm not embarrassed. But I'm embarrassed for all who do. Wow.
being gay is a problem that needs to be dealt with, not condoned? wow- so illuminating. whats more is that you even managed to so artistically incorporate the completely illogical 'slippery slope' argument utilized with great efficacy everywhere by people with marginal legal understanding. nice. also, thanks for intimating the parallel between homosexuality and bestiality- I guess wanting to marry the one you love is akin to sexual deviancy. Disappointing to say the least.
"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."
If all people provided a premise like this as a condition for deflating equal marriage laws, there would be good reason for the world to say most Americans are full of it.
Mr. Fay's one statement is a vitreous presence in the body of his entire writing. Not only is it a flimsy and easily broken premise, it is a completely backward one supported by an un-reflected, un-empathetic opinion. In an academic sense, this article would be deemed as a discursive piece: writing that passes aimlessly from one argument to another.
The notion that race is purely biological is a MYTH.
Racial identity parallels much like sexual identity. It is known that amongst various ethnic cultures that same-sex relationships were considered normal up until this century.
Perhaps Mr. Fay overlooked the influence “white society” had on ethnic beauty as Professor Cornel West noted. The ‘normative gaze’, which conditions thinking to prefer one idea over the other (white beauty over black beauty), is tethered to the modern thinking of the GLBT community.
Mr. Fay notes the court decision as “extremely rash” behavior. How ironic.
I have never in kind met Mr. Fay but I would gather that a journalist such as himself is knowledgeable of the core belief intrinsic to the career: truth. It is Mr. Fay’s duty to constantly challenge personal opinion in an exploration of all facets of an event/issue.
There is a mistake in believing that race and sexuality are remotely different. They have ties we now know to be significant to the destruction of oppression.
I hope Mr. Fay acknowledges the distinction as connection and that he in future articles (speaking optimistically) can derive a premise of truth from truth itself.
Is this article serious? The basic premises are so incredibly irrational, ignorant, and flawed. These are arguments I would expect someone in Junior High to use.
I'm honestly appalled that this John Fay was even admitted to the University, let alone able to get this trash published in The Daily.
READ, THEN ACT:
--------------------------------------------
John Fay is only repeating the same homophobic hate speech and baseless arguments that have been rehashed for hundreds of years. There's nothing new here. People like this don't listen to rational arguments, and it's a waste of time trying to refute this pile of trash here.
The editors are the ones at fault here for not subjecting this editorial to factual scrutiny or evaluating its potential impact on the university community. I'm for having a rational debate about marriage rights, but this is simply the propagation of hate and discrimination.
Don't bother contacting the editors about this. I can assure you they couldn't care less and revel in the negative feedback. Anything they publish they will defend under the guise of "free speech" whether or not it's offensive to members of our GLBT community and borders on violation of hate crime statutes (see: "being homosexual...is a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied"). They are hacks who let their personal views interfere with the standards of journalistic integrity, and for that they should be fired.
If you are as appalled as I am, a straight man, that university resources are being used to propagate hate and discrimination against our GLBT community, let the UW administration know:
Mark Emmert, President
pres@u.washington.edu
Phyllis Wise, Provost
pmwise@u.washington.edu
Sheila Lange, Vice Provost for Diversity
diversity@u.washington.edu
Also, show your support for the beautifully written editorial by Sarah Gaither in support gay marriage:
http://dailyuw.com/2008/11/25/proposi...
And remember that silence is complicity. Fight hate with love.
Homosexuals have no need of "marriage" rights. Goverment sanction isn't necessary for the lot of you to sodomize each other, you've been doing it in secret for years.
What this is REALLY about is an attempt to destroy traditional family practises, and damn you all for it.
this has to be a troll article.
Well done sir.
8/10
I hadn't realized that patronizing, poorly-researched dribble lacking in even a basic level of comprehension of the Constitution or the smallest degree of human compassion could make it into the Daily's opinion page. Ok...maybe I did.
I just want to know: if this is a "rational" look at things, then what would an irrational view look like??? I don't even take offense to this type of article because i know that the person writing it is ignorant and might not even know any better than to spew false information, crazy assumptions, and perpetuate homophobia and hate... wisen up, my friend, because otherwise life will toughen you up.
Everyone's day will come when they will have to be enlightened in some way. Or when they will have to suffer for their faults. Hey, when that day comes, maybe you can write another article about your struggles. But then no one will want to listen...
Forget people like this. We who believe in human rights and EQUALITY of people need to unite! love is stronger than hate.
Wow. This kind of ignorance is the main problem we, as a culture, face. I'd like to remind you that marriage has NOT always been defined as a "union between a man and a woman"; it used to be defined as a union between a WHITE woman and a WHITE man! Are you suggesting we should return to THAT definition? Saying the definition of marriage hasn't changed in 2000 years is a very ignorant and short-sighted opinion.
You'll never score.
Jennifer Self-
Awesome. I agree that it is really pathetic that we are stuck on this issue. The only reason we are is because religious fanatics don't understand the separation of church & state. I have confidence we will prevail eventually. I'm just an impatient man who wants his big fat gay wedding. :)
Sounds like another person brought up in a religious household who, during a critical phase in development, was not allowed to fully evaluate his own values.
Keep your religion out of my government.
Get used to it, straight people. We have already infiltrated every corner of society, and now we want your divorce courts.
Editor:
Balanced opinion is one thing - airing infantile, lazy, recidivist "analysis" such as this only ends up achieving one (or more) of four things:
- cementing your extreme-right readership;
- humiliating the University of Washington and particulary its journalism pedigree on a world stage;
- winning over converts to the side of equality, if only out of a desire to not share company with the likes of Messrs Fay or Jackson; and/or
- threatening the very principles of free and informed speech by misusing that privilege.
The author is implying that gay marriage is a concept completely unknow before and against all traditions.
This is one thing: a big, fat lie.
One of the "great" actions of Theodosius, the Roman emperor who made Christianity state religion and started the persecution of pagans, was the prohibition of gay marriage.
And don't forget that similiar insitutions existed in other cultures.
But of course if the criterion for gay marriage is the understanding of a hillbilly ...
That may have been the most ignorant thing I've read lately.
You're almost up there with the folks at Westboro Church, you know the ones... "God Hates Fags".
Look them up, maybe you can join.
One is welcomed to have an opinion that opposes gay marriage. However, spouting hate and ignorant bigotry and calling it "natural" is simply unacceptable. I would think that The Daily editorial staff would know the difference between a valid opinion based on evidence and that based entirely on hatred. I can only conclude that the editorial staff made a conscious decision to spread hate and bigotry. As an alum, I am truly ashamed. More importantly, I am NOT alone in saying (according to the many alumnae who have been made aware of this pseudotorial) that we will NOT be supporting the UW until something is done about this issue. Freedom of the press does NOT include spreading lies and hatred through print.
Informed consent is such a simple concept. Doesn't say much for UW that some of its students are apparently even simpler.
Senegal gay community regroups to demand rights
afrol News, 13 November - The gay and lesbian community in Senegal last year shattered last year, after the local press published private photos of a gay wedding, causing fierce reactions from the police, religious leaders and ordinary citizens. Now, the community gathers strength to start fighting for gay rights in Senegal.
Last year, two young men celebrated their love with a wedding ceremony in Dakar, Senegal, complete with photographs, guests, and vows. Months later, many who attended the wedding faced a nightmare when they found that the photographer had sold the wedding photos to a national tabloid.
Many of the photos were published, complete with screaming headlines decrying homosexuality. The photos and the hatred were republished for months throughout Senegal, creating a firestorm of hatred and hostility mostly among religious conservatives.
Within days, 17 people whose photos appeared in the magazine were hounded, driven from their homes, harassed, threatened and arrested. One man, Soulyman, jumped from a third floor window to avoid arrest, only to be captured and brutally interrogated despite a broken leg and other serious wounds.
Pape Mbaye sought safety in neighbouring Gambia. That is, until Gambian President Yahya Jammeh vowed to kill any homosexual found in his country and commanded landlords and hotels owners to turn away lesbian and gay people. With the help of the international community, Pape was eventually able to make his way to New York.
Qusmane, a 24-year old man, was easily identified in the photos. The police came to his home. Not finding him, they arrested his French-national boyfriend and deported him. Qusmane was shunned by friends and neighbours, his mother was fired from her job, and his family members were attacked by mobs. Qusmane went into hiding, hoping the situation would clear. Eventually, though, he too had to leave his country.
While those arrested have by now been released, "the wide public exposure and ensuing hateful response stoked by religious conservatives continues to plague them," the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) reports from Dakar today. "They will never regain the lives they had. The scars and fear have impacted the entire LGBT community in Senegal," IGLHRC added.
The New York-based organisation today announced its increased aid to Senegal's gay and lesbian community to "re-group, and to turn this tragedy into positive action." IGLHRC had stepped in to respond to the arrests and condemn the violence already last year, but now hopes to be able to turn from emergency aid to the development of a forceful Senegalese movement fighting for less discrimination of sexual minorities and increased legal rights.
"In Senegal, the laws and social attitudes leave no place for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to live in safety," IGLHRC says in a statement.
So basically, what I'm getting from this is that all that's holding you back from pedophilia and bestiality is keeping same-sex marriage illegal. That and maybe some biblical laws, but take those away and you wont be able to help yourself.
Hmmm, I had never really thought about it that way. Personally, I feel like I will still be able to resist pedophilia and bestiality if equal rights are given to same-sex adult couples, but I do worry for you.
"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."
Funny you think that the supporters of Prop 8 are the ones being harassed. Maybe you just haven't opened your eyes wide enough to see all of the hate crimes that have happened against gay people for decades.
This is incredibly bigoted and I am disgusted my school would allow such an editorial to published.
You are a disgrace.
lol 8/10, would troll again
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Yes, having a relationship with a man is exactly like having a relationship with a sheep.
Because, you know, neither will do the dishes, and both leave the toilet seat up.
Okay, now I'm truly upset. Two points before I begin:
- To Kim (#138), Hindus aren't polygamists, they're polytheists. There's a difference.
- To Tim H and Matt (near the top), who were arguing about the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the quote is "(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." Nowhere in that does it say men and women must marry at a 1:1 ratio. Nowhere does it say in that sentence that marriage must be even two people. Please don't misinterpret what the UDHR says. (And as a side note, the only reason it even says "men and women" and not "people" is because it wanted to be clear about women also having those rights, not just men, to initiate/end marriages, as well as rights during them.)
It would be worthwhile to go into a discourse as to why the guy was wrong, but I think we've learned something more valuable here. (Besides that, 224 comments above me consisted of exactly that).
1. The Daily refuses to hire certain people for its opinion section for some unknown reason, but hires people that would write opinion pieces like this.
2. The Daily has editors (Editor-in-Chief and the Opinion Editor) who will not check these pieces for logical consistency prior to printing, and will simply allow these handpicked authors to say whatever they will.
3. There is NO CHECK on the Daily. They already don't make all their money from advertising, but get money FROM US through the Student Publications Board.
Isn't it time we called upon the Student Publications Board to (at the least) promote another student newspaper so the people can decide what they want to read? Or, better yet, to STOP FUNDING the Daily so students' fee dollars aren't funding this kind of bigotry, couched as opinion, not checked for logical consistency or for basic decency prior to being posted in a forum that represents the journalistic community within UW and the entire UW community to the world at large?
It's time.
"homosexuality is more of an emotional condition"? What is emotional or conditional about it? Why not say heterosexuality is emotional as well in that case? And do you mean "condition" like a "skin condition"? Because that is kind of like saying that the way you choose a partner is like getting a rash, which some people might relate to but it's not exactly a logical argument, much like the rest of this article. Not to mention your complete ignorance of issues like consent, the nature of marriage as a civil union NOT a religious one, and the social consideration of how many heterosexual marriage end in divorce (talk about social dysfunction!).
if you're going to write an opinion piece, at least back it up with something besides mindless blather.
Once you've legalized gay marriages in the United States, well, you're now left with marriage as an institution between two consenting adults who love and are committed to one another. That sounds about the same as what we have now--no underage children, no parties of ten, no mastheads, and no dogs. The only difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage is that some heterosexual are capable of conceiving children. However, until we are willing to tell heterosexual couples who cannot or do not intend to procreate that they cannot marry, that has no bearing on whether we should allow gay marriage.
Uhm, so I agree with everyone else that the author's arguments are in poor taste and illogical but...
What's with this lynch mob mentality on this board?
Why are people posting the dude's contact info? Why are people encouraging physical harm be done to this guy? Why are people proposing shutting down the newspaper and punishing the university for publishing an opposing voice (as poor as it is)?
Are people opposed to the logic in the article or that the author is for Prop 8?
By the way, this article probably did more to hurt the anti gay marriage cause than help it.
I figure this b.s. needs to throughly and systematically debunked. There is so much faulty logic packed into this short piece that one could not possibly address all of it. Here, I will address the major points. The author seems to subscribe to constitutional originalism, at least here, where it suits his purposes. The term unconstitutional gets bandied about way too much. The problem is that the consitution is a bare-bones document, so it is essantial to constantly interpret and reinterpret it. Even though its writers clearly meant for it to be a living document, people like Antonin Scalia over here love to act like we're still in the 18th Century, with all of the attendant prejudices. You need to remember the people who equate gay marriage with the exploitation of children and animals would not find any fault with the oppression of African-Americans, were it not for the cultural changes of the last few decades. Additionally, it is simply false for this guy to say that the only criteria for marriage is that two people love each other. The criteria for marriage, just like for sex, is that they are consenting adults. Next, the contemporary legal definition of marriage in no way violates the First Amendment rights of religious people. In fact, having the legal definition keep matching the religious one is an obvious violation of a little thing called the separation of church and state, which is something that the first amendment DOES speak to. Next, you talk about social unrest happening as a result of the gay marriage movement. Because of our strong history of the rule of law, there is no real risk of this social unrest turning violent. There may be some people who break the law, but they will be subject to the criminal justice system just like everyone else. By using such arguments, conservatives betray the fact that they do not really believe in civil liberties, or in the right to assemble and petition, except maybe when they don't want to pay their taxes. Additionally, you imply that traditional marriage is a social norm, when we live in the country of Las Vegas drive-through weddings. As for the health of society, not only will gay marriage not hurt anything, but it will likely strengthen the institution of marriage, by getting more people into committed relationships. This gets us to the most imporant point. Gay marriage is not a digression, much less an atavism. It is a major side of natural and healthy human sexuality. The people who get enraged about gay marriage are the same ones who engage in sex before marriage, cheat on their spouses and get divorces. Heterosexuals are considered normal, and thus are allowed to do whatever they want behind closed doors, hence the strain of hypocrisy that has marred this country since Puritan times.
Finally, the even more essential point is about the assumption upon which your entire argument rests. It is that heterosexuals have sex for different reasons than homosexuals. Looking at the empirical evidence, rather than theology, there can be no doubt that human beings do not have sex exclusively or even primarily for procreation. Not only this, but there is no way to induce that a creator god would want us to use sex strictly for reproductive purposes. The old slippery-slope argument about gay marriage today, bestiality tomorrow, starts with the enormous assumption that homosexuality is wrong. This belief cannot be supported, except by citing theology, traditional prejudices, or highly flawed anecdotal evidence. Also, you cannot be against homosexuality without hating gay people, because the only people who would ever choose to self-identify as homosexual with the intolerance of contemporary American society are those who are genetically predetermined to be exclusively attracted to those of their same gender, regardless of social influences.
However odious articles like these are, they serve an important purpose for our society. The freedom of people like this to be able to publish their views is an important test of the state of our civil liberties. However, we should not allow hatemongers to use the mantle of reason, without challenging them to substantiate their claims. So, I PUBLICLY CHALLENGE THE AUTHOR to persuasively refute even one of the many arguments I have just given as to why your article was a piece of irrational, hate-fueled drivel.
Hey everyone,
There is a lot of energy on this article. Let us channel it into something positive.
I made a group on facebook and would love you all to contribute to what we should do about this.
Thanks!
Kyle
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid...
I cannot believe Mr. Fay's words were even allowed to be published. I am all for freedom of speech, but not when that freedom is used to spread hate and lies.
The Daily, where is the bloody editor in all this?
Rarely do I pick up a Daily these days, being retired from UW - but I noted the columns on Prop 8 and read them, and then almost gagged on Mr. Fay's pronouncements, straight out of a "Focus on the Family" manual. The entire bestiality, and hand wringing over "what might happen next" reminds me so much of the arguments against sex equity in the early and mid-seventies. Conservatives worried that sex equity would mean 'everyone using unisex bathrooms', or a terrible morale problem in the U.S. military, or, or, or....wow, business and government might even have to PAY women equally for their work!
I live in a Capitol Hill townhouse where my adjoining neighbors are a gay couple in their late 50's who have been together over 8 years....they have been my best neighbors ever in 40 years in Seattle. My neighbors deserve to be able to visit each other in the hospital as next of kin; they deserve the relief of being able to insure one another on health insurance plans, and leaving property to one another upon death. In short, they deserve the right to marry should they wish to.
Marriage or civil unions are a civil right that is already recognized in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and South Africa. Not surprisingly, our Canadian friends do not seem at all worried about the marriage of pigs and people, or 9 year olds to adults, so why should these inquiring minds in the U.S. be going down such, well, peculiar roads?
Mr. Fay needs to open his mind to the necessary academic and social inquiry; he needs to take full advantage of the pertinent psych and sociology classes at the UW, and PLEAZE don't let him graduate in his current mental condition and foist him off on the general public.
The root of the problem on this issue is the failure of separation of church and state. Government has no business defining marriage, it's overstepping its place in our society. The government should only be concerned about the legal rights of a civil union and those rights should be applied equally no matter what color or gender you are. We should have no government sanctioned marriages, that's more a ceremony anyway, the government should only be concerned about the legal implications of a union and the contract we all sign, gay or straight, should be for a civil union.
If Christians want to define marriage as one man and one woman, they should feel free to and let that be the practice in their church. They should not, however, expect the rest of Americans to live by their religious beliefs, nor should they push those religious beliefs upon us by law. We should limit government's roles in our relationships to the legal contract and stop looking to force our personal religious or ethical beliefs upon others through larger and more oppressive government.
The author's biggest flaw in his "rational" thinking is that he clearly fails to do his homework. His own claim that race is "a biological state" has been proven by (ahem rational) science to be INCORRECT. Race is a societal construct. There is more genetic variation WITHIN so-called racial groups than BETWEEN them. So no, sorry, race is not a biological state. So, Jon, if you're going to base your heterosexist argument on rational arguments, I'm afraid yours fails. Take some advice from a hetero ally: you might want to study up before you open your mouth next time.
I am disappointed in the Daily for allowing this to even run. This does not represent our University in a thoughtful or intelligent way.
What I am more disappointed about was some of the comments attacking Christians...seems hypocritical to me.
Why do we continue to put others down because of their race, color, sexuality or religious beliefs? How about we stop fighting each other and accept everyone for who they are WITHOUT negativity and WITHOUT placing restrictions on others for what they believe in or who they choose to love.
I am a Christian, but not all Christians believe that gay marriage is wrong. Unfortunately we are still in a time where equal rights are not equal. I believe in equal rights, unlike John.
The homosexual community cannot claim as a "right" something which has no historical precendent and no demonstrable legal necessity. This current hysterical bout of childish foot-stamping over "gay marriage rights (what an absurdly concocted phrase)" by the homosexual community is nothing more than a spoiled brattish temper tantrum.
The vast decent majority of the American people will continue to uphold the traditional institution of marriage between one man and one woman. Deal with it- it isn't going to change.
The paper needs to apologize for this article. Perhaps the paper can prevent becoming the obvious target for budget cuts that way.
Hey Bob.
I can't wait until things change. Not only will you have to deal with it, you'll have to LIVE with it. What an emotional condition that will be.
:)
You need to do your research dear. The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of gays and viewed their protected class similar to religious status which is also protected. You need also to read the Loving case to see how the courts ruled on interracial marriage. That’s just the beginning of your new homework assignment. There so much more you need to research before you ever write something like this again! Get to know some gay people for crying out loud!
"The homosexual community cannot claim as a "right" something which has no historical precendent and no demonstrable legal necessity."
I'm gonna have to call nonsense on this one. Marriage comes with thousands of federal rights, and numerous financial benefits. Among other things, a gay person in a committed relationships has to pay more to include their partner on their health insurance (if they even can) because they are not "married." That amounts to a tax on being gay.
So the ability to get married is very much a legal necessity.
You are supremely harrassing me with your religion and bible thumping, John. Like many ultra-religious conservative people, you are completely intolerant of others lives. You are also a hypocrite, when a christian pickets an abortion clinic or bomb it or shoot the Doctor or harrass the employees, you people believe its ethical and moral, when a gay group pickets a church that attacks gay rights like with Prop 8, you call say ;"Organizations such as the Mormon Church have been intimidated" or "The potential of open homosexuality for creating social dysfunction has been made manifest in the protests against Prop 8 since Nov. 4. " I say you are harrassing and intimidating me and my people!!! Were black people, latinos, unionists, the antiwar protestors, the million man marchers, "harrasers" or "socially dysfunctional"? I think not but perhaps you do? Also, you show your hating hand first by discussing the theater of the absurd by comparing rights of real living citizens with an imaginary TV cartoon world, the Simpsons. Further you set up a slippery slope straw man with your statement "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? " . The issue at hand, gay marriage between consenting adults, has nothing to do with those red herrings you mention at all. And saying by gay an emotional defect? You also show your prejudice, you aren't gay and don't know anything about being gay either so you have no business judging how "God created me", in your parlance. I think being an intolerant regious person is an emotional defect, and shows inner weakness, after all, did you not choose to be religious and yet you still demand to be protected by the laws form descrimination while denying us gays that right. That is hypocrisy. This gay atheist (read as ME) wants you to keep your intollerant bible laws and sad old beliefs to yourself, if you don't want gay marriage, DON"T HAVE ONE YOURSELF!!! Leave the gay marrying to me and my people.
Dear John,
I am really disappointed with you. After reading your article Jesus just had his hands above his head and asked, "Did I really die for THAT guy's sins?" We believe in kindness, love and equality. Please work on doing better.
A)The separation of church and state is fundamental to any approach to democracy. Those whose values fall outside of those of the majority are not to be disenfranchised as long as they are doing no harm to others in the commonwealth. Which dovetails with:
B) Your linking homosexuality to bestiality and incest is a clear indication that you have no real scientific or ethical basis for your thinly-disguised bigotry. We are talking about a marriage of TWO CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN BEINGS. To remove your argument from that context and cast homosexuality as a perversion akin to pedophilia shows a lack of intellectual discrimination and discredits your pretensions of a rational standpoint.
I cannot begin to understand what I have just read. I am not only shocked about your twisted logic and offensive language; I am furthermore humiliated and upset that the UW Daily would publish such a blatant characterization of hate speech that is codified as an “opinion.” FYI: race is not biological; it is a social construction just like gender, sex, sexuality, etc. Perhaps would should actually be familiar with the terms that you used in your "opinion piece" before you make all UW students look like ignorant asses. I hate to break the news to you but you probably have more “biological” characteristics similar to a person of color and a “deviant” homosexual than you do your heteonormative, sexist and homophobic groupies. If you are so interested in biology, I beg you to analyze your own genes in comparison to another person you deem that is “appropriate” and not “psychologically ill” to find out that it is BASIC science and genetic principles that you seem to manipulate for your own ignorant hate speech.
Also, UW Daily: I will never read the Daily again. I cannot believe that you would publish this piece!!! Look luck backing yourselves out of a premature and deep grave!
To #241 Tyson: Good luck with that... and don't hold your breath.
This article makes no grounded lines of argument. Putting aside my own stance on the issue, I think this author is terribly closed-minded and I wonder how many others like him attend our campus. How is homosexuality a "problem"? Homosexuality has been apart of human culture long before Jesus Christ (who himself never said anything about it... until the Roman Catholic Church changed that), and will be apart of it long after we are all dead. How is it a problem? Please let me know John Fay? What is the problem? Give me nomothetic causality that being gay creates a problem for open-minded communities?
Oh wait, you because the black listing and protesting? Hmm... so would you disagree with those who disrupt traffic in protest and blacklist others for not being Pro-Life? How about Pro-Choice? Those issues create emotional conditions, and according to your thin definition, merits being a problem for our community (just the emotional reactions, not the actual issue).
Please don't cite your claims based off of "2,000 years of history". I do not buy this at all. Have your marriage, whatever, but do not oppress good citizens and good people to have their unions.
I can make a perfectly comparable dubious claim that can stand with this terrible news piece. "Evangelical Conservatives should have their right to vote revoked because they don't read anything but fiction, i.e. the Bible. So they are not intelligent. And they cause social dysfunction because they make me uncomfortable by trying to convert me."
I understand the Daily wants to have diversity in their columns. But this isn't even near professional writing. This is a poorly constructed argument veiling hate.
Yes, Tyson, don't. Eight years IS a long time -- it was a 22% lead to a 4% lead in 8 years. Let's see, how long will it take to get the last of that 4% and make it 1% in favor of gay rights? About 2 years and change. No, no one can hold their breath that long.
I am so embarrassed and sad that this article was printed and approved by the Daily. As a campus newspaper, representing a diverse population, the discrimination, intolerance, and absolutely offensive graphic of this article is unacceptable. I can't believe this paper continues to print. I personally refuse to read the Daily until there is a formal apology and from the author of this article and the newspaper.
Are you joking? You just compared the love that I have with my boyfriend to the love between a man and sheep. What kind of dumbass are you? There will always be social movements, but that does not mean that they will pass. There are social movements for communism in our country, but do you expect those to pass? No. Beastiality rights will never happen because, clearly, they are cruel to animals. What is homosexuality cruel to? Your ego?
Sounds like someone is counting their chickens. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Prop 8 does get overturned. So what? It means nothing. You still have the DOMA to contend with. Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, the notion of "gay marriage" remains a nonsensical one, and the idea of "rights" in this context is ludicrous at best. Keep trying!
Obama is against gay marriage as he thinks its for the states decide, not the federal government.
There are some people who oppose gay reasons for personal or religious reasons. I think you can do that and not be a bigot, like our President elect.
This "opinion" piece is a not so thinly veiled hate speech. As a society with morals we can not tolerate hate. I call for the resignation of John Fay. Rights to free speech does not extend to hate and bigotry. There are many gay as well as straight students who are outraged at this display of bigotry. Nor do I condone violence but there are many of us who feel we've been backed into a corner on this issue.
To #255 Hate Speech:
" Rights to free speech does not extend to hate and bigotry. "
The hell it doesn't. There is a very clear precedent in America's legal system that free speech rights *explicitly* protect "hate and bigotry." Why do you think the WBC is allowed to continue speaking their beliefs? This is the price of TRUE free speech: protecting ALL speech, even that which some might deem distasteful, so that all might express their views fully and without sanction under the law.
" Nor do I condone violence but there are many of us who feel we've been backed into a corner on this issue. "
Is that some sort of a threat? It certainly sounds like a threat to me.
Quit stamping your feet and stop complaining, you wimps. So you don't get to have "gay marriage rights"- so what. To hear you people whining and whinging and moaning, anyone would think gays were being rounded up into concentration camps and shot. Please. What you people are experiencing can be classified at BEST as a minor inconvenience, nothing more.
John, I hope you're planning to be a Christian Science Monitor editor or conservative speech-writer. If not get prepared to explain your ill-constructed, horribly written, not to mention socially irresponsible piece to any credible journalistic organization who may want to interview you and researches your past work. Aside from condoning and perpetuating your bigotry, I think the journalism department is doing you a great disservice in allowing you to damage your career before it's even begun.
Aside from the almost innumerable factual errors (that's already been covered in previous comments), your "poor persecuted Conservatives" line will most likely fall upon many a deaf ear. Your cries of foul play regarding blacklisting, boycotting, harassing and threats of unemployment to those who supported Prop 8 pale in comparison to the legislated (DOMA), social (the still ridiculously high hate crime rate) and historical (from the Crusades through McCarthy-ism to today)violence perpetrate on the gay community over the centuries. Public shaming and ostracization have long been the tools of the conservative right in the persecution of any group that they find offends their sensibilities, not just gays. I'm afraid the term "Kharma's a [b-word]" is more than appropriate to this situation.
Who the hell is this Bob character?
Fay's brother? Perhaps secret lover!?
Homophobic people tend to just be gays with a ton of internalized homophobia.
How about you deal with whatever you have and stop pressing your own agenda onto others.
Just like I don't force you to get a penis up your ass (although it sounds like you have your head up there...) I would like some respect... don't push your fucking religion onto me (especially when others in the same religion disagree with you). Stop forcing others to be like you... some of us would like to keep our sanity and understanding of diversity.
This isn't an article about marriage nor prop 8. It's just a dude who has no respect for others. It's inhumane and hurtful. If this were about race, gender.. ANYTHING I would respond the same way. It's not a bunch of LGBTQ folks getting bitchy and angry because it's gay marriage. This is far beyond LGBTQ... that's why they're called HUMAN rights... LGBTQ folks are still considered HUMANS... That you have established since you believe we'd have sex with animals.
I love how bigots say gays have TOO much sex with each other... yet now they think we don't have enough sex with each other and need to move on to sheep...
I just hope no one read this and thought it was legit. I hope people just used it as something for their dogs to shit on.
(real quick.. what's up with ass holes saying gays are hypocrites for preaching tolerance and love when we do these protests and retaliate to discriminatory media... ok.. first of all... we never took away ANYTHING, you're taking away rights... not disagreeing with someone's lifestyles... you are AFFECTING people's life’s.. so don't compare our retaliation to your bigot agendas. Secondly, us calling you ass holes is in no way comparable to all the gay bashings, rapes, and violence put on LGBTQ folks by homophobic bastards. Thanks)
Bob,
I'm begging you to please move back to the swamp you obviously very RECENTLY crawled out of and allow the IQ average in your immediate vicinity to go up.
You so clearly have no idea of what you're talking about when you say that at best the gay community suffers from an inconvenience. I imagine that probably at least one of your familial relations proudly stood by Governor George Wallace in Alabama in 1963 and probably many more have heckled the quiet young gay kid who dreads going to school every day because of people like you.
PLEASE, for the love of all that is intelligent, go back to your bass-fishing TV shows and Hungry Man dinners. Leave the evolution of humanity to the rest of us.
To #258 Eduardo Brambila:
Way to make a coherent, compelling case for yourself and the rest of the gay community. What was your point again? It got lost under that 2nd-grade avalanche of epithets and colloquialisms.
" I would like some respect... don't push your fucking religion onto me (especially when others in the same religion disagree with you). "
First, you may have my respect when you earn it. As long as you insist on DEMANDING that I respect you, I'm simply going to laugh in your face and walk away.
Second, I'm not religious at all. I'm that rarest of rarities: an agnostic/atheist who supports the traditional historical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. If you don't like it, too bad. Your implicit threats of violence will not cause me to retract my opinions on this matter.
To #259 Justin C.:
Your laughable insults do nothing to invalidate my position. At best, all you are demonstrating is the weakness of the gay community's position in their incessant childish demands for "gay marriage rights." When confronted with the immutability of the will of the people, the best you seem to be able to do is retreat into whimpering ad hominem attacks. Is this really the best you can do? If so, you have my sincerest pity.
Bobby!
If your only rebuttal to Eduardo Brambila's comment is based on his grammar and clarification on your religious views...
Does that mean you agree with everything he said? Have you realized your hate responses can’t be justified any longer?
Respect isn't earned. Respect is given. But respect can be lost. Just like you and John Fay just lost all respect from any HUMANE person.
Also, these comments haven’t come solely from LGBTQ folks. Don’t respond to each comment as if they’re from a gay person. Sounds like you don’t know your own sexuality… let alone an understanding of others.
Finally... read the comment carefully, there were no "implicit threats of violence". Most people don't have your hatred, violent and ignorant way of thinking.
Love you much!
Bob's BF
You are an ass.
What a disgusting, bigoted article. It reflects terribly not only on the author but on his school.
Absolutely shameful.
You know, I thought I would finally be at peace with the Daily again. I even began coming in once in a while to say hi to the people I used to work with. But nooooo, the Daily doesn't want peace. The Daily wants drama! Dramarama. Everyone who knows me knows my position on gay marriage, so I won't be argumentative. All I can say? Ha. That's 2-0 Jenny for bailing out on this paper early.
To #254 Jonathan:
Actually our President-Elect favors civil unions. He believes gays should have the rights married couples do granted by the state (hospital visitations, tax policy, etc). He still believes religious institutions have say over who they sanctify as married under God.
TO MR. BOB'S POST: #18 Bob
(Unverified Name)
on November 25, 2008 at 4:33 a.m.
John Fay in disguise?
Dude, what do you not get about logical argument? Seriously, calling the "fundamental nature of the gay community" "anarchic and violent" and characterizing them as "deranged thugs and sociopaths" is beyond coarse insult; it's downright hate and bigotry.
Let's walk through your argument, tho let me take a few shots of Pepto-Bismol before so I don't throw up.
Done.
Point 1) Violence, Anarchy, Thugs, Sociopaths: Bob's Gay Community
Let's take a history lesson. If you stand by your words, you would not support the Black community. The violent clashes with police officers in the '60's (generally provoked by racist officers on protesting Blacks) would consider the Black community violent and anarchic, because they were part of the violence, and therefore you would of course not support this.
Barack Obama's mother is from Kansas, the geographic region which supported slavery during the civil war. The South seceded and caused violent, anarchic war. Surely you cannot agree with the South on this issue.
So already you're in a paradox in your own mind. You can't seemingly support '60's freedom fighters because of the trouble the uproar they caused (though they had suffered long before with little notice of attention from those who could do something to stop it), and you can't surely support the Pro-slave South because they sparked an all out Civil War! Your white matter must be mashing together to form lumps of protoplasm that eat each other right now.
And well, I'll be damned. You can't surely support American Revolutionaries, now can you? They caused violent, anarchic uprisings against their British state, causing agony and headache for the British King and complete societal upheaval in the Americas. Bob, are you a Loyalist?!
If we take your statement verbatim, you say the entire gay community is full of thugs and sociopaths. Do you have any gay professors? How about friends? How about acquaintances? This John Fay guy, who either is a closet homosexual and is having terrible cognitive dissonance right now in order to be able to write such hate, or a downright bigot (yes, his article is bigotry, especially on a college campus) seems more of a thug than any gay person I know. And you my friend come off as a sociopath, just a bit.
Point 2) Sodomy and Normalization
Sodomy is an invasive act huh... so can heterosexual sex be invasive. A man is entering a woman; the consent defines the sex as invasive or consentual. I could say being a Republican is an invasive act because I've been programmed like a robot to repeat what my parents tell me, but I don't. I reject the code and think for myself. Give it a try Bobby.
Normalization? What?! If the normalization of this "mental illness" should not be tolerated, this is the EXACT same argument made against interracial marriage, or voting and citizenship for African-Americans decades ago. Update your argument, god damn. This is 2008.
And what is normal behavior? You know it was perfectly normal for ancient Greeks to have multiple lovers, homosexual and heterosexual? You call it abnormal because it doesn't fit your paradigm of normal, yes? Well, you're going to an American University, allow it to open your mind a little. Normal to me is robot. Are you a robot?
Scuze me, after re-reading your last paragraph, I just vomited in my trash can. Get a god damn life besides your hate-spewin. Amen.
There are far too many comments to read but I just wanted to throw out some ideas--though I can't claim them completely my own.
If over 50% of marriages currently end in divorce, how can anyone claim marriage is such a sacred act? Why would any believe that homosexuals deserve marriage rights any less than heteros that have marriage after marriage after marriage?
If you want to restrict marriage rights to a certain type of couple BY LAW, then why not also disallow divorce? If it's so sacred, PROVE IT and stop taking it for granted!
Why do we want to punish those that stimulate our economy (despite how intrinsically flawed the system may be) and pay taxes?
This country was founded on the idea of protecting freedoms, not limiting them.
Also
this is the most asinine thing i've read in a long time. i can't believe your editor allowed this trash in the school paper.
Hahaha!! I can't believe there are so many comments! That's so great. I really love that I am by far not the only one upset by this. This article is so poorly written it's hard to believe this was even passed off as journalistic.
Join the facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid...
Look for the email links at the bottom to start writing the daily editors and other UW higher ups. I think all the comments are great- buy why give him any more notoriety? Talk to someone who counts, and demand that this kind of thing be kept from happening. Even for an editorial, this definitely crosses a line.
"Few issues of cultural importance in America long escape the gaze of an ignorant bigot."
"Now, I realize the gay marriage issue surrounding the daily writer's article ’ is extremely emotional for a lot of people, and I respect the author's difference of opinion, but let us try and consider the article from a rational basis."
"Being a bigot, like other emotional tendencies, doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied."
John Fay, your ignorance is abysmal.
I think that there has been way too much time spent on arguing over whether gay marriage is right or wrong, and too little time deciding if it is a religious ceremony or a legal partnership. When the government decided to get involved in marriage it became a legal partnership and is subject to the laws regarding discrimination. If it were just a religious ceremony then the churches involved could discriminate all they want against the gays. But just like you can’t tell someone that they can’t enter into a business partnership with someone of the opposite sex, you shouldn’t be able to tell someone that they can’t enter into a legal marriage with someone of the same sex. So lets decide first which marriage is governed by, church or state. Then argue over the details.
Folks, it's the opinion section. It's one guy's opinion. There are lots of popular and unpopular positions, and the Daily above all upholds freedom of speech. If the article were censored or not allowed, that would be everything that the Daily, and journalistic principles in general, stands against.
In essence -- get a grip.
To Jeff Tripoli:
You make a point, but keep in mind the UW is CONSTANTLY reminding us students that we are part of an open-minded, ACCEPTING community (not just tolerating). With that in mind, articles like these should not be published, because I'm pretty sure the University, and the University community would not consider homosexuality a "problem" that needs to be "fixed".
And plus this article is astoundingly poorly written. I thought our school educated us well? This just demonstrates, again, the quality, or lack there of, of our newspaper.
In essence--tell your University Board of Directors to get a grip.
Mr. Fay, this neither an original line of attack nor worthy of the label "rational." Did you write this for an intro class or something?
To the issue of this piece's publication in the Daily: I recognize that this is the Opinion section, and Mr. Fay has every write to submit his articles. That said, does the editorial board really just print whatever crap reasoning comes across their desk? And if they choose to, they ought to expect a barrage of not-so-happy comments.
Sure, Editors, you're grappling with the struggle for balance in your pages. But at least print a pro-Prop 8 argument that's worth reading. These tired jabs are impotent when it comes to persuading people to reconsider their views.
Jeff, get a grip on journalistic principles.
Yes, this is in the Opinion section. But if you believe a publishable opinion should not necessarily rely on an accurate or at least reasonable interpretation of documents, social and psychological data, or even competent thought, then you're the one who needs some refreshment in journalistic principles and ethics. It's sad that you, an ex-news editor at The Daily, could not only defend publishing the ill-based rant of someone who is so clearly full of blind self hate that it seeps from him onto the page, but wildly, wildly, miss a fundamental ideological code of journalism.
"Being homosexual...a problem that needs to be dealt with"...really? Wow.
Let me preface by saying that I take no direct stance on this article's content.
What I am ashamed of is that the author of this article should be so ridiculed by his peers for writing an opinion article. Now, I have no problem with the refuting of inaccurate points or flat disagreement with the author's stance, but let's get one thing straight here (no pun intended), this is an opinion article. If this were page one news of the Daily, then maybe we should examine the editorial policies for new content, but let the man say his piece.
It is so often the case that someone can speak openly for anti-religious, anti-conservative, anti-moralist issues and these can even seem to find their way into mainstream newsmedia. The difference is that these can be talked about by news-commentators. These new positions are taking the place of the former "news-anchor" who actually reports the news, in favor of speculation and commentary. Rarely do these individuals receive the kind of horrendous bashing that this opinion writer has here received.
Back off! Let Mr. Fay have his opinion where it belongs: In an Opinion article.
thx
You know, I have to agree with John Fay on one point he makes: this slippery slope is definitely real. Take the 1960's civil rights movement as a prime example: social revolution actually occurred, and look what happened! A few short decades later, a black man was elected president of the United States.
We, as a people and a nation, cannot allow the same to happen with homosexuals. Now, I'm not a man filled with hate, so I suggest that we kindly create a "Gay State." A small section of one of our sparsely populated states could be cordoned off and designated as a homosexual reserve. We've done similar things in the past for Native Americans and endangered animal species, so why not extend the same kind of protection to gays? This could solve a lot of problems, especially if we grant the newly minted reservation sovereign rights. Then they could make their own laws regarding what kinds of legal unions are allowable.
Who's with me!?
(It's probably not a great solution, but at least I'm thinking creatively, Unlike John Fay.)
PS All the previous statements are only opinions, and certainly not ones I take seriously.
Alumni,
I take it you don't know much about journalism, Opinion journalism or otherwise. Your general ignorance on what is acceptable on an opinion page screams this point.
Let me try and educate you. It seems you're Alumni, presumably of UW, so maybe you've written a paper before. When you write a paper within almost any discipline, you are expressing an opinion or stance (your thesis, topic sentence) on a particular issue. Then what you do is support that opinion with evidence you've gathered through research. What kind of evidence you present, the amount, how direct the connection between your points and that evidence, and how you treat (this is where someone’s feelings tend to come into play) the evidence while analyzing it are all important variables when making a credible argument.
Opinion journalism is no different. "Opinion" is only in the name because the writer takes a stance on an issue. This is different from news journalism. A news journalist does not, at least explicitly, assert an opinion about an issue; he or she tries to portray an event or issue as clearly, balanced and accurately as possible. But an opinion journalist must support his or her opinion according to the requirements I outlined above.
Fay's article failed to meet the basic requirements of opinion journalism. He treated the evidence he collected with little regard for what that evidence really demonstrated. That's why it was a mistake for The Daily to publish his article.
I would encourage Jeff and the entire Daily staff to read this post. It seems they’re in need of the help.
Fay, you deserve to get your face beat in, i'm not a violent person but if you say something like that to me in person
Grayson D:
I wouldn't exactly call the idea of segregation of gay people from the rest of the nation a product of "creativity". If you are interested in devolving and backpedaling through all of the progress we have made since the civil rights movement, then your idea is great. Otherwise, you might want to recognize that segregation is not a solution, but a indication of intolerance and stone age thinking. Great job!
Grayson D/Post # 281:
Wow!
Sounds a lot like taking sections of the cities in Nazi Germany and creating "Jewish zones", you know...for their own good and protection. Guess we all know how that worked out!
Jeff, dear, considering you are a bisexual man, I am really quite shocked that you would stand up for garbage journalism, especially a poorly-researched editorial that attacks you. But, considering your previous history of bad writing with the Daily, I guess you have to stand up for your fellow bad writers. At one point, I'm sure your self-esteem snapped under the pressure of criticism, too.
John Fay's article must be taken into prospective. His purpose was to create controversy, as he stated when he ran to be President of the UW College Republicans.
From his Facebook Group page:
John Fay For President of UW College Republicans (http://www.facebook.com/directory/gro...)
"6. Controversy: As Republicans and as Americans we must be proud of who we are because we have something to be proud of. We must never let unkind and dishonest people shame us or cow us into quiescence. I know some folks hesitate about our seeking controversy but frankly that is the best way to get the word out about our club and hey, we actually believe in what we are doing anyway. If the Horowitz Foundation repeats Islamo-fascist week we should be a part of that. We also should work with the SCCC again if they do another empty holster protest. But there were lots of other ideas we didn't pursue this year, like global warming awareness, an affirmative action bakesale etc. We should plan on at least one major controversy per quarter. I don't know about you guys but I always sleep with a cleaner conscience after being called a fascist by a bunch of out of work hippies."
Will,
There is no acceptable context for this article. The Daily is not to be used as a controversy-starter. It is the student newspaper and student voice of this campus, and should be treated as such. For a nationally award-winning newspaper, this is a disgrace.
FIRST:
"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?"
Gay people are rational thoughtful human beings. They are able to form their own conclusions and think coherently, which also makes them capable of being in a healthy, CONSENSUAL relationship. Many of the gay people I have talked with have spend months, even years discovering themselves and their sexual preferences. To equate them to polygamists, pedophiles, etc. is to undermine their intelligence.
SECOND:
"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."
Unfortunately for your argument, the same is true for the LGBT community. "Milk" is a good film that successfully illustrates my point.
THIRD:
"Once people become accustomed to violating certain social norms, they tend to feel less constrained about breaking others."
Yes, I DO want a mass societal regression back to slavery and discrimination against both women and minorities. It sure is a bummer that those social norms were challenged!
FOURTH:
"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."
Here, you fail to recognize the fact that, whether we like it or not, the Church and government remain entwined. When the Church recognizes the union between a man and woman, the government is forced to recognize this union with legal rights to the couple. So why is it ok for religion to become involved in government, but not vice versa, especially when it involves basic human rights?
FIFTH:
"...homosexuality is more of an emotional condition, and we should not, for that reason alone, start passing laws condoning it."
The same can be said for traditional marriage, because LOVE IS AN EMOTIONAL CONDITION. With this taken into account, we should abolish marriage altogether because the laws that condone traditional marriage are also based upon an emotional condition (which, according to you, is unacceptable). The union between a man and a woman is sacred, and will not be made any less sacred if gays are given legal rights.
So John Fay, to use your words, "let us try and consider the vote from a rational basis."
Also, I'll write a short constitutional law section here for the people who don't seem to be able to read/comprehend it:
The first amendment protects John Fay in his writing of this piece. It does not, however, force The Daily to print it. The Daily is, however, protected by the first amendment after its printing. The real issue here is in the choice to actually print something like this. That choice is what most intelligent people here are taking issue with.
Well, that and the fact that John Fay seems to be stuck 30 years ago in his psychology arguments.
Dear OP: You, sir, are awesome.
I like the image too, kudos.
Furthermore, realize that marriage is a state-sanctioned institution (not federal), and it probably doesn't make any sense for the government to be regulating it anyway.
Abolish marriage of all types, and issue union contracts.
It is important to realize that this comment page is about an article, not about tearing each other apart for comments. I like how the Daily hasn't responded to any of this yet.
This article is disgusting
I just have to say, I am SO disappointed to go to a university where this type of hate, rudeness, and b.s. goes on.
And, no, I'm not really talking about the article.
You, sir, are a disgusting excuse for a human being.
this article is awesome. you rock man!
Hate speech is the kind of speech that must be protected in a society that values free speech.
John Fay, more power to you.
I believe this person is so dead on about everything if we allow gays to "marry" why not sheep or anything else? I met one guy that wants to marry his car...
Why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? There's NO reason at all!
I also believe that children are getting off WAY too easy - there's 17yo's knocking up 15yo's why make it thier little playhouse only? why can't older people join in!
Thank you for showing everyone how flawed getting married really is - if I want to marry a 6 year old goat then I should be allowed to just like if she was a 21yo heterosexual women - expect the goat knows when to stfu.
THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
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.
#201 Eduardo Brambila
(Everett, WA | Unverified Name)
on November 26, 2008 at 12:25 a.m.