Like this account, stolen from Warchol:
If you remember — how could you forget? — an anti-gay-marriage demonstrator confronted openly lesbian Rep. Chris Johnson and told the Salt Lake lawmaker that she is "a waste of a vagina."
To his credit, ex-cop Rep. Carl Wimmer, a leader in the opposition to civil unions, not only met with Johnson, but made a public statement that he would have nothing to do with such crass behavior.
Chris and I don't agree on much — Chris and I don't agree on anything. But I won't stand by and see her mistreated.
The same group of demonstrators, America Forever, crashed a press conference called by Johnson and started aggressively questioning gay rights leaders. Wimmer, himself, stepped in.
I called the state troopers and had them ejected.
5 comments:
Sure, take people's rights away. No problem
Apparently doing actual damage to people is okay if you just "do the right thing"
Gay people deal with those types of insults from the time we were kids. We know how to deal with them
What we don't need is stupid politicians manipulating people so that stopping an insult is "the right thing" but actively engaging in the further marginalization of gay people is okay.
Carl may have done something nice out of guilt. But that doesn't come close to changing the fact that he is actively engaged in mean-spirited, self-righteous bigotry that does ACTUAL damage.
Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Call me a waste of a vagina or a my gay brother a waste of a priesthood holder all you want. Words don't matter. Carl Wimmer's votes do matter. And this is no excuse to let him off the hook for even a second.
Lizzy,
I seriously doubt Carl had the protesters ejected out of "guilt" alone. No, it's smart politics too. Why would Carl allow his allies, albeit his idiot hate-mongering allies, to give his cause a bad name? That's the parlor trick these super-conservatives use to persuade (read "trick")the spiritually inclined into believing their nonsense. Do Carl Wimmer and LaVar Christensen rant and rave about the gay agenda with raised voices?
No, it's much more effective to deny people rights under the guise of compassion, faith and feigned respect. It's much easier to come riding in on a white horse to be Christine Johnson's savior and then kick people down with a smile on your face. Well, if you ask me, Ms. Johnson is a strong woman on her own. She doesn't need Carl Wimmer's help defending herself. She just needs his vote, but rather than using it to help gay people, he's just kicking them down.
It's just too bad that so many people will read this claptrap about Carl Wimmer and actually believe that "compassion" and denying basic rights are somehow compatible.
Defending Rep Johnson is the right thing.
Voting against common ground bills is the wrong thing. Make no mistake.
By saying that we can't compliment the other side for doing something correctly, you're just as bad as they are.
[Intended to be read with a tone of utmost respect, but also seriousness. There needs to be a debate about the ethical reality here, so let's have it.]
Bob,
That's really an unfair equivocation. There's an apples and oranges problem here. Being nice is right. Voting against CG is wrong. But these are hardly equivalent acts. Which is more important?
Nobody is claiming that the act of defending Christine is wrong. I'm saying we can't or even that she shouldn't do that. But focusing on a superficial act of chivalry undermines the very real consequences of Wimmer's actions. He needs someone to treat him as shrewdly as he treats others. When I lose my job for coming out, there are no reporters there to paint me as a heroine, like Carl gets all the time. So I don't have the convenience of "acting" nice. Magnanimity means little where there is no risk or compromise involved.
It's BECAUSE I respect and embrace diversity that I have to respond to Carl's actions honestly, without a smiling guise hiding what my real intentions are. His actions are disingenuous. He doesn't need any help with the self-congratulation. Kicking someone with a smile or with a sneer is still kicking someone. I'm just asking not to be kicked. I'm nowhere near "as bad as they are." I just want people, you and me and Carl, to sit down and think about what is really important in terms of actual consequences.
There are serious moral consequences to this type of equivocation, and we see them every day in this state. There is a huge gap between acting like we do the right things, and actually doing the right things. I care more about reality than appearances.
If we keep praising these guys for offering band-aids for the legs they themselves broke, we will have LaVars and Buttars and Wimmers forever. I'm as much a fan of civility and mutual respect as you are. I just want it to be real, not a ploy. There's a whole spectrum of gray here, and black and white equivocation just won't suffice.
Carl's constituents will forget his voting record. But they won't forget the story of their rugged legislator coming to the rescue of the persecuted. (Nevermind that he is the persecutor). As for me, I won't allow my dignity to be insulted by this type of theatrics-not when I can lose my job just for telling a harmless truth.
Carl can't have his cake and eat it too.
OK, the "just as bad as they are" was WAY out of line on my part.
However, we as (liberals, progressives, Democrats, bloggers, etc) get painted with the "you're only negative" brush. And, what's sad is, it's true. I'm making an effort to give credit where credit is due.
I'm giving some time for the emotions to settle down before I post what I want to really say about Wimmer, Buttars, etc. I also have a post written on ways I, as an "outsider", see the gay rights movement being able to better run the table.
-Bob
Post a Comment