Sarzonia
08-02-2006, 20:45
I wrote an e-mail to Maryland Delegate Rosetta Parker (Democrat-47th District) expressing my disappointment to her for voting in favour of a petition to bring an amendment barring same-sex marriage to a vote on the House floor in spite of an unfavourable report from the Judiciary Committee. She was one of only four Democrats in the House who voted for the measure. The measure went down to defeat, but the Human Rights Campaign and Equality Maryland have asked their members to contact her about her decision to sign the petition even though her stated opinions have been for gay rights.
Honestly, I didn't expect her to respond at all, or if she did, to give me a form letter reply or a mealy-mouthed, wishy washy non-apology apology, and I certainly didn't expect to receive a timely response. However, roughly three hours after I sent an e-mail in which I made my feelings clear, she replied. According to her, she was deceived about the nature of what she was signing when the petition to bring the motion to the floor came her way.
"I wholeheartedly support equal rights for same-sex couples. I stand by this position with resolve and conviction, despite any misleading appearances otherwise," she wrote in her e-mail to me.
Frankly, considering the tactics employed by several anti-gay movements, I wouldn't be surprised if they deceived her. One recent time when then-Maine Governor Angus King was campaigning for a gay rights bill, organisation most strenuously fighting the measure used similar tactics to force a referendum for what Mainers call a "people's veto," where the state's citizens can overturn a law that the legislature and governor bring about. The recurring sentiment I recall from Mainers was they were opposed to "special" rights, as the anti-gay factions would describe them, but favoured equal rights for gays. The fact that she took the time from her day to respond to a somewhat angry constituent's letter to me speaks volumes about where her convictions lie. Bravo Rosetta Parker.
That brings me to another point as it relates to homosexuality: What The Advocate (or Out, I don't remember which) reported were the reactions to rapper and lightning rod Kanye West's separate declarations, both opposing homophobia in the rap community and admitting his own issues with internalised homophobia. When West began publicly speaking out against homophobia, he was lauded by gay rights activists and probably rank and file folks who otherwise didn't know, didn't care, or had preconceived notions about Kanye West. Then when he admits his own built-in prejudices, he's condemned with the sort of "if you're not with us all the way, you're against us" vitriol we've seen all too often.
Frankly, that's the wrong approach to take. Granted, Kanye West isn't one of my favourite people based on some of the controversial things he's said or done, but condemning someone for openly admitting he has issues he needs to work on is just plain wrong. So he's ambivalent toward same-sex marriage. He's not entirely comfortable with homosexuality. That doesn't mean he's a virulent homophobe. The dude spoke out against homophobia, for Chrissakes! While I don't expect to see him if I ever get married to another man or I don't think I'll ever see him at a gay club (not that I ever go to clubs to begin with), that doesn't mean he's suddenly scum of the Earth because he has some discomfort with homosexuality.
Rejecting people for not being 100 percent in our corner who are either neutral or potential allies stands an excellent chance of blowing up in our faces. That's why a measured response or patient understanding is often needed. It can work for the Rosetta Parkers and the Kanye Wests of the world and it can work for anyone who still needs time to process information when his son or his daughter comes out.
Honestly, I didn't expect her to respond at all, or if she did, to give me a form letter reply or a mealy-mouthed, wishy washy non-apology apology, and I certainly didn't expect to receive a timely response. However, roughly three hours after I sent an e-mail in which I made my feelings clear, she replied. According to her, she was deceived about the nature of what she was signing when the petition to bring the motion to the floor came her way.
"I wholeheartedly support equal rights for same-sex couples. I stand by this position with resolve and conviction, despite any misleading appearances otherwise," she wrote in her e-mail to me.
Frankly, considering the tactics employed by several anti-gay movements, I wouldn't be surprised if they deceived her. One recent time when then-Maine Governor Angus King was campaigning for a gay rights bill, organisation most strenuously fighting the measure used similar tactics to force a referendum for what Mainers call a "people's veto," where the state's citizens can overturn a law that the legislature and governor bring about. The recurring sentiment I recall from Mainers was they were opposed to "special" rights, as the anti-gay factions would describe them, but favoured equal rights for gays. The fact that she took the time from her day to respond to a somewhat angry constituent's letter to me speaks volumes about where her convictions lie. Bravo Rosetta Parker.
That brings me to another point as it relates to homosexuality: What The Advocate (or Out, I don't remember which) reported were the reactions to rapper and lightning rod Kanye West's separate declarations, both opposing homophobia in the rap community and admitting his own issues with internalised homophobia. When West began publicly speaking out against homophobia, he was lauded by gay rights activists and probably rank and file folks who otherwise didn't know, didn't care, or had preconceived notions about Kanye West. Then when he admits his own built-in prejudices, he's condemned with the sort of "if you're not with us all the way, you're against us" vitriol we've seen all too often.
Frankly, that's the wrong approach to take. Granted, Kanye West isn't one of my favourite people based on some of the controversial things he's said or done, but condemning someone for openly admitting he has issues he needs to work on is just plain wrong. So he's ambivalent toward same-sex marriage. He's not entirely comfortable with homosexuality. That doesn't mean he's a virulent homophobe. The dude spoke out against homophobia, for Chrissakes! While I don't expect to see him if I ever get married to another man or I don't think I'll ever see him at a gay club (not that I ever go to clubs to begin with), that doesn't mean he's suddenly scum of the Earth because he has some discomfort with homosexuality.
Rejecting people for not being 100 percent in our corner who are either neutral or potential allies stands an excellent chance of blowing up in our faces. That's why a measured response or patient understanding is often needed. It can work for the Rosetta Parkers and the Kanye Wests of the world and it can work for anyone who still needs time to process information when his son or his daughter comes out.