Despite my heartache, I know that the rest of the world is continuing with its business -- bastards. Given my self-obsession over the past few days, I hadn’t been thinking too much about the impending vote on Texas’ constitution. For those who don’t know, the governor proposed an amendment to the state constitution that would outlaw gay marriage. My first-ever blog entry even mentioned this. True, the state legislature has already passed hateful laws like this. But why miss an opportunity to harass gay folk? If people don’t vote “no” on proposition two, the state constitution will have an explicit measure designed to deny folk of their rights.
Last night I was cycling through a period of numbness over my personal woes when the phone rang. Rather than a well-wisher or a concerned family member, this caller identified himself as an automated political message. His text went something like this:
- Hello – I am Reverend Hick McHick and I am calling to tell you to vote no on proposition two. I fully support this measure’s intention. Gay people threaten traditional marriage and the safety of our families. The constitutional amendment, though, puts at risk straight people! It has sloppy wording and it is not explicit enough about naming gay people. Real families might suffer. Remember, vote no.
What the fuck? If this is a message from the right, who is doing their market research? I couldn’t be on more gay, pro-choice, anti-hate mailing lists if I tried.
Because the message suggests to vote no on the amendment, however, I fear that this is something actually coming from the left. It has the end-result (voting “no”) we want, but it goes about it in a hateful means. To convince people to vote no, they side-step the impact on gay people, and try to frame it as something that threatens the most important people in our society: happy, married, straight folk. If this does come from the left, have they simply decided that people can’t be convinced that gay people deserve basic human rights?
It reminds me of the local battle for the U.S. House of Representatives during the 2004 election. Our district fell under DeLay’s master
The Democrat’s response to Arlene's campaign of hate? He began running ads with ministers who testified that he, also, despised gay people. Just like Arlene, the Democrat promised he would never vote for anything that protected gay people.
I understand political expediency, but do they have to sacrifice us? How badly has the left deteriorated if they don’t even take basic principal stands on human rights anymore? If our only goal is to win elections, even if it means tossing out equal levels of hate, are we actually accomplishing anything?