It's not the first time I've seen a video like this. It's not even the first time I've seen a story like this take a positive direction. With today's technology, we can share these kinds of moments more broadly, more quickly and with greater clarity than ever before. But as I'm watching this video, I'm thinking . . . what's got this guy so mad???
Every time I read a story or hear rhetoric about same-sex marriage destroying the institution of marriage or homosexuality destroying the family, I hear the fear in these voices over the loss of something. Their statements don't really ring true - there is no logic to them, but their passion is undeniable. They never really connect the dots. Their conclusion doesn't follow from their premise, as if it is proven by faith in the statement alone. The reason they can't quite connect those dots is because the argument is a straw man for something else they will not say outright. In short, it's the loss of power.
There are many things that we are individually empowered to do for ourselves, and in some cases, members of our families. Beyond that, our individual empowerment is governed by law, cultural and social norms, and in some cases the environment we act within (the workplace, the church, the classroom, etc.)
Your parents are empowered to teach you that homosexuality is wrong and declare they'll have no toleration for it. They are empowered to personally present "truth" to you, or to lie outright to you if they so choose. They are empowered to choose your church, your school, your entertainment and the degree with which you interact with the outside world. That's the responsibility of the parent - they are empowered to decide "what's best for you". At least, until your 18th birthday.
Now, if the law, culture and surrounding environments support and enforce your parents' beliefs, their jobs are much easier. Little Johnny and little Suzy just need to follow what everyone else does and they'll do fine. If not, then Mom and Dad need to invest more time, effort and money they may not have to keep little Johnny and little Suzy "protected". This is why we see spurious arguments that focus on the "impact on our children":
- Mom and Dad can't very well convince little Suzy that "her decision to be a lesbian" has negative social consequences if they can't show little Suzy how real lesbians suffer in the wild.
- Little Johnny's not going to buy their "destructive lifestyle" argument when next door neighbors Bill and Jim have been married for 15 years (with a fabulous home and yard, by the way!).
- Neither child is going to feel themselves at risk because they are gay when they learn in Civics class they are protected from employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
If Mom and Dad have the dough, maybe they can pop for a private education that peddles their views - or else, wage a culture war to keep the conflicting data out of their public schools. With the law not buying their arguments anymore, they're back to selling these ideas solely on the merits of their source ... which was what, again?
No, the whole sales pitch about evil homosexuality fails the minute any of it can be disproven by positive example - therefore, Mom and Dad need to make sure there are no positive examples. After all, their family is going to fall apart if they have a homosexual child . . . right? So, Mom and Dad need to fight tooth and nail to keep those evil homosexuals down. Better still, send off that big check to Tony Perkins so he can do the crusading for you.
News flash, Mom and Dad! If your child is homosexual, your child is homosexual. Not your choice, not his or hers. They are simply wired differently. Neither homosexuality nor your child is destroying your family - you are! Fear, lack of acceptance, failure of unconditional love, intolerance, rejection and possibly ex-gay conversion therapy-torture programs don't bring families together - they tear them apart.
To be fair, it's not always Mom and Dad. Some families aren't afraid that homosexuals doing well in the world will harm their children, even though the environments they exist within are. While you could reverse the polarity of the argument and posit that bad Mom and Dad are doing the same, the difference is teaching your children that your beliefs differ from those of others versus demanding that others act to reinforce your beliefs.
So, when drunk dude in the Dallas airport tries to explain to someone he expects will be sympathetic that he's entitled to violence because "Queers!", I see a man misguided by the notion that he is empowered to physically and socially denigrate someone he disapproves of. I see a man who expects his actions will not have adverse consequences because he's chosen a target he thinks everyone abhors more than his act of violence. As he wakes up in the drunk tank (and hopefully faces assault charges), you have to wonder where he'll place the blame for his predicament. Is he at fault for physically attacking a "queer" or is the "queer" at fault for just being there?
Nothing makes the limits of your individual empowerment clearer than when your personal will is not in line with the will of the majority. Those of us in California that saw the right to marry evaporate in 2008 understand the term "tyranny of the majority" all too well. Fortunately, our system of government provides for judicial relief when the majority refuses to live up to both the letter and spirit of our Constitution. It's tough to do the right thing, especially when the WRONG THING has the misguided weight of tradition and history behind it. The question has always been whether we have the courage live up to the ideals on which our nation was founded or not.