[Gay Rights] The Sutherland Institute, Utah's conservative think tank famously known for explaining to conservatives what a conservative actually is, has just posted on their website a fascinating document.
The document is a compilation of correspondence between think tank captain Paul Mero and former legal director of the ACLU Stephen Clark, the discussions were during the summer of 2003, private correspondence, but the two have agreed now to publish them.
The debate is actually very civil, intellectual, well argued and sadly, likely to be ignored by many. But for anyone who would like to see how to engage gay rights issues from marriage to hate crimes to defining 'orientation' in a way that doesn't spiral into an incensed shouting match, this is one hell of a read. I'm quite impressed for example, the way Mero reduces the marriage issue to being a struggle of atomistic individualism vs the family, for which same-sex marriages are but a part of that assault.
In fact I'm always impressed by the communitarian tone of many of Mero's thoughts, but I also have to give Clark props on the rebuttal to that issue for pointing out that same sex couples seeking equality isn't really some 'selfish' manifestation of hyper individualism just as it wasn't selfish for individuals who bucked society by seeking interracial marriages in the past--or not to mention the actions of black Americans' cries for equality during the civil rights era.
Its very much a good read for anyone who is interested in such a polarizing issue but has also grown sick and tired of hearing the same debate barked out in a nauseating mix of extreme rhetoric and soundbite platitudes.(Eric S. Peterson)
The document is a compilation of correspondence between think tank captain Paul Mero and former legal director of the ACLU Stephen Clark, the discussions were during the summer of 2003, private correspondence, but the two have agreed now to publish them.
The debate is actually very civil, intellectual, well argued and sadly, likely to be ignored by many. But for anyone who would like to see how to engage gay rights issues from marriage to hate crimes to defining 'orientation' in a way that doesn't spiral into an incensed shouting match, this is one hell of a read. I'm quite impressed for example, the way Mero reduces the marriage issue to being a struggle of atomistic individualism vs the family, for which same-sex marriages are but a part of that assault.
In fact I'm always impressed by the communitarian tone of many of Mero's thoughts, but I also have to give Clark props on the rebuttal to that issue for pointing out that same sex couples seeking equality isn't really some 'selfish' manifestation of hyper individualism just as it wasn't selfish for individuals who bucked society by seeking interracial marriages in the past--or not to mention the actions of black Americans' cries for equality during the civil rights era.
Its very much a good read for anyone who is interested in such a polarizing issue but has also grown sick and tired of hearing the same debate barked out in a nauseating mix of extreme rhetoric and soundbite platitudes.(Eric S. Peterson)
Thanks for the plug, Eric.
ReplyDeleteBest, PTM
So tolerant. So understanding and inclusive.
ReplyDeleteBut what of us lonely, horny sheepherders in Rich County? When will we be able to come out of the corral and be accepted with such magnanimity?
We're not tools, we're just into wools. Get use to it!
10/28/2008
ReplyDeleteMero says that as a lawyer we must define our terms. Mero needs to define what male and female mean. Biological science tells us that sex is a continumn. An individuals sex is not black and white. It is not male or female. Yes, we have an individual with xy chromosome and an individual with xx; but, what about xxx, xxy, xyy, plus others. Has Mero never heard of an aphrodite? Discovery magazine in the Jan/Feb issue of either 2000 or 2001 said that there are 100,000 babies born every year
where the physical appearance of the sex is not evident. Is it blue booties or pink booties?
Duane Jefferies, BYU professor, has given a lecture on the development of a fertilized human egg. It is female by default unless hormones kick in to change it to male. Thus, it could be half female developed and change to male or vice a versa. Some females do not have a uterus. They have gonads since they started to develope as a male. Later, because of a non normal hormone change, the individual will develope as female and have the outward appearance of a female. Physically, the individual appears as female and is not fertile. We could apply this same type of development to the brain even though it can not be physically measured and observed in the brain tissue as we can in the cited male/female development. Thus, we have same sex attraction that is biologically developed.
Thus, we are all individuals and our sexually is on a scale of 1 to 10 with respect to both mentally (same sex attraction) and outward (same physically).
The conclusion: The California prop. 8 has no meaning and should be thrown out of court since when you define male and female biologically, we are all individuals and male and female are not absolute. Thus, restricting marriage to between a male and female has no meaning.
Mike Calder