The Elkhart Truth has a strong and well written editorial defending its decision to print a wedding announcement for the son of an Elkhart family and another man who were getting married in Iowa. Bilerico documents some of the ensuing batshittery (Mr. Browning’s term) from right wing groups generally, and Rep. Jackie Walroski specifically.
From the Truth editorial:
We published an announcement Sunday that two men, one a former Elkhart resident, plan to marry this month in Iowa. For more than 48 hours, readers barely uttered a word. We received four e-mails — two against, one for and one that misspelled “disgusting” — two phone calls, and no letters to the editor and roughly 10 comments on eTruth.com.
Readers either didn’t notice the announcement among the other engagements Sunday or they made their peace with it. No big deal. That is, until a pair of family advocacy groups, abetted by a local AM radio station, organized a protest against The Truth.
People wrote and called from throughout Indiana. Many expressed their sincere belief that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman. Others quoted straight from the Fred Phelps playbook, excoriating “fags” and “perverts.”
The truth seems to be that there isn’t a large group of people who actually oppose gay marriage strongly enough to do anything about it. Plenty of folks have opinions, but, by and large, if their day-to-day lives aren’t affected, it’s not keeping them up at nights. There is, however, a loud and well-organized subset of the population who will raise holy hell over reporting the news of this marriage. After being dormant for a period of time, the machine kicked into gear. I’m happy the Truth didn’t feel the need to buckle under the barrage.
I’ve mentioned it before, but it seems worth repeating. Growing up, I believed myself to be anti-gay. This was nothing more than ignorant bigotry on my part. I hadn’t met anyone I knew to be gay. (I have come to learn that I knew several gay people, as it turns out.) In college, I finally met someone who was openly gay. He seemed like a good guy, and I realized I had no good reason to treat him any differently than anyone else, so my opinions quickly changed.
Similarly, not too long ago, I was uncomfortable with the notion of same-sex marriage for no particularly good reasons. The more it got discussed, the more I recognized that refusing to legalize same-sex marriage is unjustified discrimination.
Unexamined, opposition to same-sex marriage seems reasonable, but as soon as purported justifications are advanced, they seem to fall pretty quickly. “Because the Bible says so” doesn’t carry a lot of water — we eat a lot of shell fish and no longer require menstruating women to go to the edge of the village, among other things. Following any injunctions against homosexuality while rejecting the injunction against shell fish, for example, requires further explanation. The “we want to promote human reproduction” relied upon by the Indiana Supreme Court when upholding the local variation of the “Defense of Marriage Act,” also seems disingenuous. There is no effort at all to limit marriage to fertile heterosexual couples. Etcetera.
To me, therefore, opposition to same-sex marriage seems like an emotional, largely unreasoned, position. I’d be happy to examine any other rationales that are out there, but the two I mentioned are the ones I see most often. Anyway, good on the Elkhart Truth for its stance on wedding announcements.