"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more"
It is strange that the voice of equality is coming from a purple clad punter and not someone in the employ of a profitable nonprofit lobbying arm...and it is most refreshing that Chris (and a few other professional athletes) is not only not ashamed to be homo-inclusive...but is willing to be a vocal proponent of those freedoms the "values people" want to deny to any who aren't cut from a narrow mold.
My friends (um, former acquaintances) are positive that: "You're a latent fag", is the perfect description for who I am. The fact that I'm not is irrelevant it seems...just voicing support for the marginalized is reason enough to stigmatize a reasonable position while helping to rationalize their own narrow-mindedness.
I live in a small town and have no public microphone. While I applaud Chris for using his celebrity for a purpose other than aggrandizing his own selfishness ala E style narcissistic "reality" porn...I'm also sure that his supporters are not the only ones weighing in on his open support of those so many irrationally fear...and I hope the comfort we provide offsets the hate I'm sure he's enduring (without public complaint) from the Bachmann Minnesotans et al.
This time Chris does battle with a friend and former teammate, Matt Birk. Birk now plays for the Ravens and decided that it was time to weigh in on gay marriage in his home state of MN. Matt goes above and beyond to make a rational argument for why he believes what he believes. He doesn't fall into the poison traps of invective and hate for hate's sake. Even so, he comes up short and Chris calls him on it.
This time Chris does what so many won't: He stands against one of his friends despite the possibility that it could damage said friendship.
Problem the first – Your argument lacks facts, sources, or statistics.As do so many conservative arguments...belief in what one wants to believe trumps all facts that might upset faith.
Problem the second – Your argument that “government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids”As with Kluwe's last admonition of a more vocal bigot...Chris counters factless assertions with real facts.
Problem the fourth – Marriage has already been redefined multiple times over the years. Marriage used to be one man and multiple women. Marriage used to be a way to exchange property between two families. Marriage used to be between brother and sister to keep the royal bloodline pure. Marriage used to be between children. Marriage used to be only for people that were the same skin color. Marriage used to be a lot of things, many of them oppressive towards women and minorities. I think I’d rather marriage be between two people that love each other and are committed to each other no matter what combination of fleshy bits are hanging off their bodies; not a reality TV show.Posted in its entirety because this is really the core and the crux of the modern definition of marriage: Arguments for "one man/one woman" don't hold water historically. And we aren't just talking hundreds of years ago...we're talking decades. Marriage has always been defined more by the people who seek it than the people who want to legislate it.
Problem the fifth – You’re trying to raise a religious argument in a secular matter. The First Amendment isn’t just about the freedom FOR religion, it’s also about the freedom FROM religion.Nuff said and like last weeks plum, "CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION."...sometimes simplicity is the sledgehammer loud rants can't wield.
Problem the last – The only impact same-sex marriage will have on your children is if one of them turns out to be gay and cannot get married. What will you do (and I ask this honestly) if one or more of your kids ends up being gay? Will you love them any less?These are basic truths and they go far beyond gay marriage. Equal rights shouldn't be an issue in this "exceptional nation". The country was founded on a principle of freedom: Freedom from an oppressive govt that excluded different faiths from the bargaining table; freedom from taxation without representation...etc. When the founders wrote the Constitution they went to great pains to provide the future generations with a framework that would ensure freedom's continuation. We the people have inalienable rights...what right is more inalienable than the right of self-determination? The right to be who you want to be rather than being forced to be who a legislator wants you to be. The right to walk into a mosque without being stoned as a heretic. The right to work at job you chose rather than having that job chosen for you. The right to marry the person of your dreams rather than being forced to marry the person your parents choose...or forced to marry whomever can pay a respectable dowry.
And if your response is “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”, well, for a lot of people that bridge is here right now. They’re trying to cross it, but the way is barred, and I will do my best to tear those barricades down any way I can because I believe that we are infringing on the free will of other human beings by denying them their basic right to live free of oppression. I love my daughters for their minds and their personalities, not for who they love as adults. That’s none of my damn business, and I will support them in life no matter who they want to marry.
These things aren't limited to marriage. Why are we still litigating who gets paid equally? Why are non-whites disproportionately incarcerated? Why are the impoverished treated as contagious lepers? Too often, 'We the people' has become "I the person hold this truth self-evident, that I and I alone deserve what I've gotten".
Don't just say it, do it. Don't just think it, live it. Those are things the modern neocon can't grasp. They are solely focused on self and all their protestations of being "constitutionalists" become moot when they promote self over we.