General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI just called my sister's right-wing bigot "friend" out on his hypocrisy and hate.
Next week Minnesota voters will be deciding whether or not to write bigotry in to our Constitution when we will be asked to decide on an amendment which would restrict marriage to one man and one woman. It is a ballot question that has deeply divided our state and brought the bigots out in full force, over the past couple of days I have confronted one of those bigots.
My sister and I both strongly oppose this amendment and for my sister her opposition is especially personal. My sister is the mother of a beautiful six year old boy, he is an absolutely adorable kid that any parent would envy. He is extremely smart, he is one of the most compassionate little kids I have ever met, and he says the funniest things I have ever heard come out of a kid's mouth. He is not your typical little boy however, he has no interest in trucks or sports he would much rather play with kittens and take care of his baby sister. It is hard to find a pair boy's shoes that he likes, he would prefer to wear pink shoes and glitter every day if he could. At six years old there is no way to know his sexual orientation, but he defies gender stereotypes at this young age. While that does not necessarily mean that he is gay, my sister has certainly thought about the possibility that he might be and she views this marriage amendment as a direct attack on her children. Just considering the possibility that her son might be gay makes her want to protect him from bullying and bigotry and she has become extremely concerned about creating a society where all people are treated equally.
My sister also has a couple of old "friends" from high school whose views are very different than her own. These "friends" of hers are extreme right-wing Evangelical bigots and they love to post their crap on her Facebook page. For the longest time I would bite my tongue and not respond to them when they posted because I did not want to launch into a big political debate on my sister's Facebook page. This week however I could not restrain myself, this week the hypocrisy and bigotry were just too much and I had to call them out.
When my sister made a post encouraging people to vote NO on her Facebook page one of the bigots responded and as soon as I saw his response I knew I had to make sure that he was not going to get away with posting bigotry on my sister's Facebook page, this is our interaction.
There are few things that grate me more than theocratic authoritarian types pretending that they are for small government while they try to use government to prevent people living outside their narrow world view and I could not let this hypocrisy go unchallenged.
My sister jumped back into the debate and made it clear that he was not doing anything to convince her and after some back and forth the bigot said this:
There is so much hypocrisy to challenge here that it was hard to know where to begin, but this is what came out...
The bigot did not like what I said...
We're really only touched on the amendment, but there are quite a few reasons I'm against homosexuality. That also plays into my view against expanding the government's definition of marriage.
To be honest, Minnesota's definition of marriage is already between those of the opposite sex.
At this point my sister had made another post making it very clear how hurtful the bigot's words were to her, yet he kept posting this bigotry. It was time to take him down good.
The bigot has not been back to post anything else since that call out, I may have potentially caused my sister to lose a "friend" but she has already told me she is glad I challenged him. I thought I was taking somewhat of a risk going after someone my sister has known for years, but when someone posts hurtful bigotry on my sister's page I could not be silent, and in the end I think this is going to bring me and my sister closer together. Bigotry needs to be challenged, and sometimes the only way to make people stop spouting their bigotry is to shame them for their bigotry. I am not going to put up with this guy's shit any more.
calimary
(81,267 posts)"No one chooses to be gay, but you did choose to speak bigotry."
It's that "freedomy-freedomy thing." Freedom to be an inconsiderate, loutish, hypocritical and yes - RACIST and BIGOTTED asshole!
GentryDixon
(2,950 posts)that type of friend. You did well standing up to the bully.
patrice
(47,992 posts)one calling for less government.
If two people love one another just as much, or maybe even more than lots of married couples, including, or not, or to whatever degree that is relevant to their relationship, as is appropriate with any other married couple, the sexuality of their effect upon one another, and those two people happen to be of the same sex, it is an expansion of intrusive government to tell those two people, who have all of the other traits of married couples that they may not marry.
No one is mandated to marry anyone else of the same sex, so marriage is not redefined. If one wants to marry the opposite sex, the government does not intrude in that and say it isn't a marriage. It is the two people involved in the relationship who define it as a marriage by their vows to one another. The government intrudes and its powers are expanded when it tries to limit the adults who have reached their majority whom are allowed to marry.
patrice
(47,992 posts)who OWNED a certain amount of PROPERTY, INCLUDING OTHER PERSONS.
There was plenty of government interference in the lives of people that culminated in The Constitution. Indeed the original authors of The Constitution FORGOT about the Rights of We the People entirely, until the product of their Constitutional Convention was taken back to lesser propertied males in the colonies, at which time the people said, TTE, "What about our Rights?" and the founding fathers had to take the document back and finally appended a Bill of Rights to it almost 2 years later after its original passage WITHOUT THOSE RIGHTS.
Freedom for whom?
Not for the Indigenous Persons who lived on the real estate that the White Males decided, all by themselves, that they owned, so the American Indians were murdered and hunted and hounded into government compounds.
Not for the African Slaves who were first brought to this country in 1619, who, for the purpose of the votes in the Constitutional Convention, were counted as 3/5 of a person each as the property of those who "owned" them and the economic value of whose labor was transferred from them to the propertied white class for 244 years before they were freed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 and whose right to vote went for 177 years from the signing of The Constitution before it was recognized in 1964.
Not for women who went for 133 years from the signing of The Constitution before their right to vote was recognized in 1920 and whose economic freedom to this day is still counted as only 75% as valuable as a man's and whose bodies are still under attack and invasion by male reproductive fascism.
"They'd rather wage class warfare and pit one party against the other rather than embrace what our country was initially founded on, freedom without government interference."
It is to laugh! Class warfare is encoded into the identity of this nation; our bi-cameral legislative branch clearly manifests the dichotomy between more or less direct representation in the House of Representatives, compared to indirect aristocratic representation in the Senate.
All of the things sketched above were made possible by The Constitution our country was initially founded on and every bit of it illustrates "our"/the people's government interfering with lives and in it we see manifest the processes of LEARNING and HUMAN ADAPTATION which CHANGE that interference and which are more authentically what America is than The Constitution ever was.
IVoteDFL
(417 posts)I've been wanting to post something on my facebook page about voting no on the marriage amendment. I don't have many friends on there but every vote counts.