So we lost the CA Supreme Court fight. Boo hoo. We’ll win the war.
The next step in our battle will be to talk to EVERYONE we know about marriage equality. This video is my first stab at developing a set of answers to our opponents’ objections. I hope it can help prepare people and give them confidence for those one-to-one conversations that will win us equality.
Download a text compilation of these points. Also, a list of the source videos after the jump.
You’ll have to cut and paste these links into your browser — I’m crazy busy getting ready for the AIDS LifeCycle bike ride from San Francisco to LA, and don’t have time to make it pretty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw7YoXXxRj4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTiTYRvaloQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EczIRpJkVZM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM2MNdIGT7g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNdaAyQp_Og
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4A1tH5MbMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUskV1RxRfA
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905120037
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKoqpV2L9_4
http://glaadblog.org/2009/05/13/bill-oreillys-evolution-marriage-equality-thing-will-lead-to-unions-with-a-goat-duck-turtle-dolphin/
Fantastic video, as always. Wanna gay marry me all up in Massachusetts?
PS You should think about updating your about page and include contact info — don’t be surprised when people want to put you in higher profile situations, because you’re one of the top 3 most effective gay rights advocates I’ve ever encountered.
Thanks! Your points are clear and concise — just what we need when it’s so easy to get all upset and flustered by the sheer cussedness of the haters.
I’m going to post a link to your YouTube video on our Gay Christian Network site (www.gaychristian.net). We have a generally younger crowd, often just coming out and working through issues of faith and orientation. Your videos will be helpful for them to have clear answers if they get slammed with rapid fire questions from contentious family or religionists.
Your comment about growing up in a small town was ‘deja vu all over again’ as Yogi Berra would say. Without role models it’s easy to believe the very worst someone says about gay and lesbian people and end up hating yourself. And saying you’ll never “qualify” to be marriageable, in fact, you’re disqualified by definition instills a perpetual outsider identity in the terms of the overall society as well. UGH! But I’m preaching to the choir!
Hope your LifeCycle ride goes well! All the best!
Bill
Rob: I haven’t had the chance to watch the video yet (difficult at work) but I did read the pdf. I hope this isn’t presumptuous but if I may make some suggestions…
1. You may wish to proofread the document. Some words are missing that make a couple of sentences confusing.
2. In #3 you may wish to add the fact that these same groups are lying, seeking bans even on civil unions and domestic partnerships in 19 of the 30 states these amendments have passed in. Their deception is contrary to the faith they claim to hold and is a dishonest tactic with the American people. If they want all such arrangements banned they should clearly state this rather than misleading folks by saying one thing in one state and something else in others.
3. In #4 you may wish to include the fact that their religious freedoms are protected by the US 1st Amendment, i.e. that no one may force churches who oppose same-sex unions to marry them. There seem to be many conspiracy theories out there that this is our intended goal, but perhaps point out that divorce is contrary to Catholic teaching yet no Catholic church has been forced to marry divorced persons nor has any been sanctioned by the government (incluidng losing their tax exempt status) for refusing to do so. The same applies in this case. You may also wish to point out that language explicitly stating these US 1st Amendment rights was inserted into the bills which passed in Vermont and Maine – both of which Maggie Gallagher praised.
4. In #5 you may wish to include something from these groups that deny children the chance to be adopted because of their anti-gay animus, instead leaving these kids in the system. See comments from John Thomas, Vice President of the Arkansas Family Council:
http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com/2008/12/and-asshat-award-of-month-goes-to.html
5. In #7 you may wish to include that this slippery slope argument is a strawman as children and animals are unable to legally give consent, besides as you point out that they lack the intellectual capacity to understand marriage.
Overall a good job, Rob, and I’ve enjoyed all of the videos you’ve made to date. I’ll watch this later when I get home. Take care.
Hi Rob,
Love your stuff. Clear, concise and logical.
Here’s another argument on why Gays and Lesbians can make excellent parents.. and on average, we probably provide a better homelife than the average straight couple. Why? Because we usually only become parent because we make a conscious decision to do so. It doesn’t happen by “accident” as in so many “opposite sex” marriages.
BRILLIANT. I’m a journalist for Wired and in one of the 18,000 legal marriages in CA. (My own story is recounted here in an article for a Buddhist magazine: http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3356). I am Facebook linking and tweeting that link everywhere right now. Thank you!
Rob, I saw your video via Steve Silberman’s linking it on Facebook. I just want to say bravo. That was very helpful and very clear. I’m a straight male–if that matters–entirely infuriated by the hypocritical fight against marriage equality. You see these horrid people with their hateful half-logic on TV all the time but I wonder . . . do you ever see them sitting down face-to-face on those shows with equality proponents to have their talking points disputed?
I’ve wondered why no one has yet to confront the statement that children do best with opposite sex parents. The American Psychological Association has stated that so far, children who are raised by same sex parents are not somehow disadvantaged compared to opposite sex parents: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpconclusion.html . As far as I know, no professional mental health organization (one that relies upon peer reviewed research) has come forward saying that same sex parenting is a bad idea. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200214.aspx , National Association of Social Workers http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/2004/081704.asp, and the American Academy of Pediatrics http://www.aap.org/publiced/BR_GayParent.htm rebuke the idea that somehow same sex parents are inferior to opposite sex parents.
I only read the text of your argument and did not watch the video…
This was brilliant! I will definitely be passing this on.
are you the awesomest person, or what
Great video.
Just thought you missed the issue that I hear so often is that marriage as defined by the bible is between a man in a woman. Here is my take on that; this is part of an excerpt of a flyer I posted on the cars at my church during the time of the Prop 8 voting.
Marriage in the eyes of government is about the rights and privileges offered to a couple that wish to have their relationship recognized by the government.
A wedding is a religious ceremony where a couple has their union recognized by their religion.
“Marriage is not limited now by the state of California to only Christians. Therefore if we use the bible to define marriage, marriage should only be limited to those who believe in the bible. We all know there are many couples that do not believe in the bible that are married. In fact they don’t even believe in a God and or Jesus, yet they can be married. So why are we using the bible to determine marriage. Let each religious organization define what types of weddings they will perform, but not what type of marriages the government will recognize.
Marriage as it relates to Prop.8 is a license, a marriage license, just as we have a driver’s license. It is to afford people privileges that are provided by the government, not religious institutions. Domestic partnerships and civil unions do not offer all the privileges by the government that a marriage does. For example, social security benefits for the surviving spouse are only provided to those that have a marriage license.
Let religions organizations decide whose weddings they will bless and marriages they will recognize but let our government issued the marriage license.”
Please feel free to change what I have written if this analysis works for you.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Another myth buster?
Prisoners have the right to marry. As the argument goes, even prisoners deserve this basic human right. See ACLU website
Turner v. Safley, supra, 482 U.S. 78, the court held that the constitutional right to marry extends to an individual confined in state prison — even a prisoner who has no right to conjugal visits with his would-be spouse — emphasizing that “[m]any important attributes of marriage remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life . . . [including the] expressions of emotional support and public commitment [that] are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship.” (482 U.S. at pp. 95?96.)
I love what you’re doing– very to the point and passionate.
I’d like to see you add one thing to the polygamy argument, however. People don’t choose to be gay, no matter how hard it’s debated. The illegality of polygamous marriage is a ban on personal choices, bans on same-sex marriage have more to do with bans on personhood itself.
Totally awesome, Rob!!!!!!
The argument about gay marriage/relationships being unnatural and abnormal doesn’t wash, really. It may be unnatural for a straight person to sleep with or have sex with a member of the same sex, but for a gay person, it is natural inherently because that is what he or she is. Straight people need to back off and be disabused of the notion that there is one “nature” for everyone. That is simply and obviously not true. As for the word “normal,” same goes. Since we are a minority, we are of course not the “norm.” Heterosexuality is. But for me, being intimate with a man is normal because I am gay.
Right wing religious nuts want a world where everyone is the same. That will never happen. Difference is what makes this world wonderful. And there is room on this poor miserable planet for EVERYONE.
I second very strongly what Jeff M. says about the issue below. I have seen many opponents to gay marriage strickly on this basis who would otherwise not oppose it. And don’t dismiss the argument as ridiculous. The attack on religious institutions forcing them to abide by secular law when it comes to same sex marriage has been tried in Sweden – so it’s more than just a theory. People need to be reassured it won’t happen here. “3. In #4 you may wish to include the fact that their religious freedoms are protected by the US 1st Amendment, i.e. that no one may force churches who oppose same-sex unions to marry them. There seem to be many conspiracy theories out there that this is our intended goal, but perhaps point out that divorce is contrary to Catholic teaching yet no Catholic church has been forced to marry divorced persons nor has any been sanctioned by the government (incluidng losing their tax exempt status) for refusing to do so. The same applies in this case. You may also wish to point out that language explicitly stating these US 1st Amendment rights was inserted into the bills which passed in Vermont and Maine – both of which Maggie Gallagher praised.”
Rob– love your videos. Here are a bunch of thoughts for you, culled from my voluminous writings and postings.
No one has decided that nothing’s wrong–just same sex marriage. It’s members of the far right that seems to have such a poorly developed moral compass that they aren’t able to parse different type of behaviors and instead create false equivalencies.
so then, will these incestuous polygamous heteros will have a civil union instead of a marriage, which we are told are precisely equivalent and that’s why gay people should settle for them.
So what will be the difference?
the argument is not and never has been that consenting adults should be allowed to do as they please– though they should, as long as they are not hurting anyone.
The argument more precisely is that any man and any woman who met five minutes ago and convince a clerk they are competent, of legal age, not already married, and not brother and sister can get married, but my friends andy and Paul, or Lance and Peter, devoted and monogamous couples through thick and thin for forty years EACH,cannot.
Gay marriage has exactly the same value to society that hetero marriage has, as my friends have shown. they are each others safety net. Children of gay parents need the same protection that having married parents provides their counterparts.
This meme gets so tiresome. If we allow gay people to get married, then why don’t we allow…. blah blah blah. Come up with something else that actually makes sense! Here’s the proper way to address the question.
If we allow a man to marry a woman, why can’t he marry two? Or three? Oh, wait, in Utah, then and now, we did and/or do. In large parts of africa and asia, they do. but that isn’t the question. And if you can find the a sufficiency of people who are interested in polygamy– aside from fundamentalist mormon heterosexuals, and islam, and a few others– they can ofrm their own movement. We’re not interested.
If we allow a woman to marry a man, why not her little brother? He will be a man. Maybe there’s a reason that has nothing to do with same sex marriage and is not invalidated by allowing to non-related adults of the same sex to marry. it might have something to do with how much some people hate gay people. it is only heteros bringing up the incest. I don’t know any gay people who have interest in it. And again, if it is something that amore than four people in arkansas are interested in, they can form their own movement.
If a man marries a woman, why not a pig? Goshamighty, that stumps me. A pig should be able to fulfill the civil contract of marriage as well as the 50% of heterosexuals that divorce, the 25% that commit adultery, or the fillintheblank percentage of heteros that abandon their wives/husbands and/or children. Or murder them. Hardly a week goes by where we don’t get a news report to that effect.
Here’s a thought: all of the reasons why marriage is supported for heteros apply to gay people.
Here’s one you didn’t think of: let us marry each other so that we don’t marry YOU.
Excellent video. With respect to the “what’s in a name” point (i.e., Why not civil unions?), especially with respect to the latest CA Supreme Court opinion, I used to following example to attempt to drive home the point that semantic segregation can have a powerful impact is viewed from a slightly different point of view (please forgive quasi-emotional tirade in last paragraph):
Hypothetical Situation:
In the year 2012 Californians initiate an amendment to their Constitution limiting the terms “Judge” and “Justice” and “Lawyer” to refer only to men.
Women could still act just like Judges and Justices and Lawyers, of course. Their determinations and actions would hold the same weight in law as those of male counterparts; compensation would remain equal; everyone would still wear formless black robes or dour expressions. But women are simply not called “Judge” or “Justice” or “Lawyer” from November 2012 onward.
Instead, a simple majority of the people of the state of California decide to call all female Judge-Analogues: “Female Adjudicative Assistance Givers”. That’s FAAGs, for short, in case you missed it. All the statutes that originally referred to judges could be changed to read: “Judges or Justices or Lawyers and FAAGs”, and everything would go on as normal.
That same year, Californians decide that all Doctors of Latino descent shall henceforth be called “Hispanics Offering Medical Operations”, not Doctors or Surgeons, or MDs or anything of the sort. HOMOs can do everything white doctors can, they just can’t advertise themselves as Doctors; they have to advertise themselves as HOMOs. “Hi, I’m HOMO Sanchez, the most respected Plastic HOMO in Los Angeles.” It’s only a name, after all, and the substantial rights associated with being a state licensed doctor are exactly the same for doctors, surgeons, and HOMOs.
So, according to the Supreme Court of California’s Prop 8 opinion, if I’m reading it more or less correctly, it’s totally cool and Constitutional for a simple majority of Californians to call people FAAGs and HOMOs instead of Judges, Lawyers, and Doctors, because doing so is merely an amendment, not a revision to that document.
Awesome. I’m starting my campaign tomorrow. Get ready, FAAGs and HOMOs. I’ve also already prepared a ballot initiative for a Fundamentalist Undermining Common Knowledge With Insidious Turpitude, or something like that.
Very well done.
In the next parts I hope you address the claim that “gays can already get most of the benefits of marriage through private contracts.” This is untrue both in theory (define “most”) and practice as these documents have been challenged and even ignored.
Good luck on your ride.
Can i get a one small picture from your site?
Jinny
[...] Some people are just [blah]…they cannot see beyond themself. http://wakingupnow.com/blog/talking-equality [...]
Rob,
Love your videos, you make better points than the people paid to make points for us. I’ve done a short blog about your vids here:
http://jasondabrowski.blogspot.com/2009/05/lgbt-advocates-take-notes.html
Rob, I just watched part one of your marriage arguments. Wonderful job! One of the people I work with, who happens to be a Baptist minister asked me the day after the CA supreme court ruling why it was so important to us that we have the right to marry instead of civil unionize. I will make sure that he sees this video, as you have done so much better at explaining it than I was able to.
I’m really looking forward to parts 2 and beyond.
I don’t want to get too detailed, but as a former sex educator, I have to point out two things:
1. There is no clear-cut, biological definition for “man” or “woman.”
2. “Marriage has always been between a man and a woman,” is a false premise.
In reverse order: Native American, Hawaiian, Polynesian, and many other indigenous cultures have accommodated same sex marriage, as well as plural marriage–both historically and currently in some regions.
Moreover, the Old Testament is full of plural marriage. That alone disproves the 1 man 1 woman assertion. Muslims can have more than one spouse, today. [But those must be the "Evil Islamists," right?]
John Bioswell [Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality] is only one scholar providing ample evidence of same-sex unions in early western cultures.
The false premise that marriage “has always” been of any specific format is nonsensical. What the statement is code for is: “My religion trumps yours.” Today’s Christianity/Judaism erases all earlier manifestations. No revisiting the original doctrines. Furthermore, “pagans” should not be allowed to practice their sacraments; and the law most certainly should not recognize their sacraments as equal to ours.
Lastly: what makes a man a man? A woman a woman? A hermaphrodite an [abomination]?
Humanity is not divided into XX and XY chromosomed people. Many people are born with a matrix of more than one X and/or Y chromosome. Some people are born with ambiguous genitalia. These children have generally been assigned a gender and raised as such. Not infrequently the imposed orientation turned out to be asynchronous with secondary sexual characteristics after puberty. We don’t categorically know which “sex” we are. Our gender-identity tells us much more than external gonads.
Having written that, deciding who may marry whom to create a family is called “eugenics.” There was a remarkable attempt at that last century, with entire categories of people determined to be so imperfect as to require much more than mere reproductive control. I would ask those who proscribe same sex marriage, “Whom may the hermaphrodite marry? Who may the genetically or sexually ambiguous marry?” Any answer except “whomever they love,” must come from the belief that birth “defective” people have to be controlled.
Just had a thought:
Could you get someone to do Spanish-language versions of these videos? One major source of support for Prop. 8 was Hispanics, so it would make sense to target them specifically.
Great video! You’ve presented a well-reasoned argument. Thanks!
You should listen to a horror-themed podcast called “night of the living podcast”, they included the audio of this video in the last ten minutes of the show – they support you.
- Zac
Great job again, Rob!
Rob,
I just saw Part 1 of your Equality Talking points video. It is brilliant, sincere, humble, and articulate. Thank you for such a good model of how our conversations can and should be.
I was wondering if you had any talking points for the hyper-liberal critique of same-sex marriage. I have a very close family friend who is a straight male activist working on a variety of progressive causes. Whenever we meet, he spends a great deal of time telling me why same-sex marriage is wrong because all marriage is wrong and that the LGBT community should be dismantling the institution of marriage in its entirety and not spending time and money trying to get the same rights as married straight couples. His second criticism is that marriage is a less important cause than immigrant rights or death row advocacy and that we’re being selfish in asking for equality now.
In the past I have been so hurt and startled by his arguments that I have not been able to answer them adequately. Your work is so measured, articulate, and persuasive. I was hoping that sometime you might turn your intellect and insight on this other side and the anti-marriage argument.
Thanks again for your work.
Awesome, great work, your counter points are excellent. Credibility is fine for me, but might be improved for the general public if legal, religious and academic scholars were interviewed to address each one of the points you make. Develop a list of folks to interview perhaps with a few same sex couples raising their families to help win a few hearts and minds – to go with the facts that are being presented.
You are awesome.
Could you please find a way to get on the O’Reilly Factor and annihilate him in a debate? It would be child’s play
All the people who oppose marriage equality need to realize that, at some level, homophobia is the only true justification for their views
Also, when you make your argument on why civil unions aren’t enough, I’d like to see you include some of the information from the NJ Civil Union Commission’s Final Report.
They have a ton of factual reasons why civil unions don’t afford gays/lesbians the same rights as married couples. People I think will be less likely to dismiss these arguments versus the ones you made about young gay children growing up and not feeling that their lives have the same meaning.
the PDF and all their factual findings can be found here : http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/CURC-Final-Report-.pdf
Hey,
Just wanted to let you know that your videos are being picked up globally (or at least here in the UK) via Ed Brayton’s blog (Dispatches from the Culture Wars).
No real comment except to say keep up the good work and have you through about putting the videos under a creative commons license so that people can re-mix them?
Hi -
I just saw your video “Talking equality Part One” at “Dispatches from the Culture Wars” (please see for further comments/criticisms). My only ‘helpful hint’ is put the cue cards above the camera. This means you don’t have to flick your eyes to the left to read them. It makes you look shifty and untrustworthy (I’m sure your not), and kinda undermines the creditability factor.
Anyway that’s my two-cents, I’ll get outta your way. – DJ
Great video! I have one small criticism about your presentation. There was something off camera to your left that you continually shifted your eyes to see. I suspect it was your cue cards. An example can be found at 1:25 in the video.
Your shifting eyes undercut your message. It is the literal “shifty looking”. Humans interpret the eye movements as meaning that you were thinking about something else while you were talking, possibly lying.
Other than that, I like your delivery. It’s emphatic, clear, and to the point.
Well,I read your PDF,I read all the comments from people who agree with you,and I am still totally opposed to same-sex marriage.I believe the government has a responsibility to guarantee preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships under the General Welfare clause.I believe that same-sex sexual relationships are an inherently bad idea,and no one’s desire for such a relationship,or the reason for it,is remotely germane.If something is wrong,you don’t exempt those who want to do it from rules against doing it,and you don’t define those who want to do it as a protected class against whom it’s “discrimination” to in any way discourage doing it.
Skin color doesn’t affect your ability to sit on a bus seat or drink from a fountain,but what sex you are most definitely DOES affect a sexual relationship,and promoting male-female relationships is THE reason marriage exists (I speak of civil marriage,I have never subscribed to any religion).
The restriction on my driver’s license that I must wear lenses that correct my nearsightedness to the only kind of vision people ought to have does not represent “discrimination” against my “equal right” to “see differently” that should be remedied by separate roads with large-type signs,but an appropriate acknowledgement that my vision is inferior and defective…and calling a flaw a flaw does not make me subhuman…none of us are infallible.
Neither are homosexuals dehumanized by admitting that their sexuality is inferior and defective…it does not detract from any other attributes they have.Homosexuality is nothing but a weakness for a bad habit that people are capable of rejecting.Only bigots would insist that all gypsies are thieves,all Jews are usurers,all Irish are drunkards,by nature…why then are those who insist that homosexuals can rise above their flawed impulses accused of hating them,when it is those who insist that they are helpless slaves to their hormones who are in fact selling them short?
Nice work! You may also want to include the fact that “traditional marriage” meant women were considered as property. There are lots of references to marriage in the bible – to multiple wives, not to mention what should happen to a couple should they not wait til death do they part.
Another thing is that whole bestiality thing. It takes two people to sign a marriage contract. How is a dog (or any animal, for that matter) going to sign a marriage contract?
Good luck with everything,
Steven
Good morning – just saw your video on supporting gay marriage (through reddit, you’ll probably be getting a lot of hits today). I have to say, very insightful, and well spoken. I hope that people who need to see it (those who don’t agree with gay rights) will be able to, and understand it.
And to the gentleman who posted previous to me, do yourself a favor and actually go read the “general welfare” clause of the constitution. It reads thusly:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We the People. Not We the Straight People. Not We the White People. Not We the People Who Don’t Like Those People. Just We the People.
Gays and lesbians are People too.
Get government out of marriage
Secular ceremonies are symbolic
Religious ceremonies are religious but symbolic in the eyes of gov’t
Legal contracts for issues of health, wealth & bequeathment
Eliminates all discrimination
Does not favor one religious view over another nor imposes religious view of marriage
Churches continue to define marriage as they wish
Equality – equal access to all who wish to get married, can do so and no individual freedom, ideology or choice is infringed
If someone is looking for “acceptance” or “endorsement” they will need to get it outside of their government
No tax credits, subsidies or entitlements for a personal choice to get married
I loved your video and I will share it with as many people as I possibly can.
<3