"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
North Country Public Radio ran an interesting piece about Democratic state Sen. Darryl Aubertine and the gay marriage bill that the chamber will hopefully vote on.
Aubertine stated that he was opposed to the bill. This is not that shocking, considering that he represents a conservative district; though it's worth noting that all four of the region's Assembly members (three of whom are Democrats) felt comfortable enough to vote in favor of the bill in that chamber.
Aubertine's opposition matters because the Democrats have a mere 32-30 vote in the state Senate and the potentially tiebreaking lieutenant governor's seat is vacant. So with the opposition of Aubertine and a couple of conservative Democratic Latino senators from NYC, the Democrats will need a few Republican votes to pass the bill.
Aubertine stated that he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But what's revealing is Aubertine's reaction when asked how he came to that conclusion.
He couldn't answer it.
The senator said that his belief was "not necessarily religious" but after several minutes of parrying the question, he never really stated what was the basis of his belief.
He also stated repeatedly that he's always been opposed to gay marriage and wasn't going to change his mind, even if that's what his supporters or constituents wanted.
I think the interview was very revealing. He basically admits that he can't justify his belief in any coherent or rational way but is closed-minded about it anyway... even to friendly persuasion from people who support him.
He admits that he can't really explain why gay couples don't deserve equal rights but that lack of a reason isn't enough to make him reconsider his position (assuming he actually thought about it in the first place).
I can't think of anything that more clearly embodies both the degree to which gut feelings and emotions, rather than rationality, control our political discourse and what exactly prejudice means.
Note: Many people describe their opposition to gay marriage in terms that are vitriolic and/or borderline hysterical. Some can give more-or-less coherent reasons why they object. Based on the interview, Aubertine really doesn't seem to fit into either category. The definition of bigotry I found was "an obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions." He didn't really give a reason for his belief, hence he was unreasoning. He openly admitted that he'd never change his mind no matter what. Hence he was obstinate. He may not be hateful or vile and that's not irrelevant. But the politically incorrect truth is that according to the dictionary, unreasoning plus obstinacy makes bigotry. If he objects to being called a bigot (even a civilized one), then I'd encourage him to stop practicing bigotry.
Update: Bob over at Planet Albany disagrees.
3 comments:
You're right, that was one of the lamest explanations of "beliefs" that I've ever heard.
And then, when asked if he would support Civil Unions, he totally ran from that too.
I love to watch politicians squirm.
The reason people find it hard to defend gay marriage is because it's so oxymoronic that it's obvious why they should be against it. It's actually more difficult trying to explain why the foundation of the family and our society should be altered to accomodate homosexual relationships. Have we lost all concept of mother, father, & family?
Sinclair: the reason people support or have no objection to gay marriage is that, in addition to the obvious fact that gay marriage has benefits to the gay couple while harming no one, people have also seen many other healthy, loving families beyond the singular equation you imply. People have come to realize that animalistic procreation is not the only purpose of a family.
When, say, a widow and widower in their 70s decide to marry each other, there's no possibility of procreation. But I've never heard it suggested that such marriages should not be allowed.
I know some couples who've gotten married and never had any intention of having kids. I've never heard it suggested that a promise to pump out babies should be a prerequisite to approve marriages.
Post a Comment