Proposition 8 is a ballot proposition in California to ban gay marriage in response to a California Supreme Court ruling legalizing it. Not surprisingly the vote is a hot topic in the newspaper opinion section. In Al Martinez’s LA Times editorial, God, Gay Marriage and One Unhappy Man, he argues for gay marriage and against the proposition. In order to prove that he is right he comically uses an example of a man whom he depicts as behind the times. According to Martinez, Harvey is not happy about anything. He hates gay people, believes in Creationism, and is only useful to Martinez as a way of keeping in touch with “the blurry thinking of the religious right.” By taking this approach Martinez loses any chance he had of appealing to those who disagree with him and he is not impressive to those who agree with him either.
In some sense, Martinez is taking the viewpoint opposite of Jerry Falwell’s. Falwell argued that homosexuality, feminism, and abortion were ruining America. According to him, we needed to deal with these problems or we faced certain failure as a nation. All Martinez is basically saying is that the people who agree with Falwell, even only to some extent, are the ones really ruining America. Martinez ends the article by saying he want to “see how [Harvey] feels about forbidding marriage between a man and woman with IQs lower than 75 to prevent more idiots from populating the world.” As someone who is pro-gay marriage I have always laughed when someone claims that gay marriage will lead to bestiality or something of the sort. But, by implying that all Creationists and anti-gay marriage people are too stupid to procreate Martinez is making an argument that is just as offensive and unproductive to a logical discussion about the issue.
When we look back through American history it quickly becomes apparent that our greatest heroes are those who could articulate their opinions in a way that did not create and us against them argument. Martin Luther King is a great example. Obviously, in many ways he was fighting an us against them battle, but he did so without making dishonest and unwarranted claims about his opposition. Instead, he appealed to a sense of justice that he saw at the heart of American ideals.
In the debate on gay marriage we have a long way to go in understanding where people on both sides of the argument come from. Columnists like Martinez only hurt the chances of this happening by mocking and labeling the opposition. And, in an increasingly polarized America it seems unlikely that these types of columns will stop anytime soon. The political world seems to do nothing to ease this polarization. Is this another issue that religion will have to somehow come to terms with if America is to move past the current us against them debate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
James I think you raise a very important issue in your post. Mr. Martinez’s article certainly took me aback. I agree with your analysis of his ineffective strategy and aggressive writing techniques. But I am unsure about your claim that “Columnists like Martinez only hurt the chances of this happening by mocking and labeling the opposition.” Perhaps to some Huey is a mocking exaggeration of the religious right and its beliefs. But I feel that there are indeed individuals from the religious right (and outside of it) that feel just as Martinez’s character did. I certainly would never argue that Huey accurately depicts the ideology of the religious right as a whole, but I do not think Martinez would either. I think solutions to the problem of differing opinions on issues such as gay-marriage can only come about with compromise. And pointing out the real absurdities in a particular side’s views is necessary. Whether that is the right’s condemnation to hell of homosexuals wishing to marry or the left’s ill-based criticism of anyone wanting to own a gun.
Post a Comment