Author: Zinnia Jones

Founder of “bridge-building” Christian/LGBT organization refuses to say that being gay isn’t a sin

Zinnia Jones, , , 13 Comments

The Marin Foundation received widespread attention from a back-patting post by one of its members, who wrote “I Hugged a Man in His Underwear” after attending a pride parade (an achievement which, honestly, elicited little more than a “so what” from me). While many people were pleasantly surprised to see Christians apologizing for religious homophobia, a closer look at the Marin Foundation revealed that the organization isn’t quite so innocuous, and the impression that they accept LGBT people isn’t all that accurate. A 2006 story about Andrew Marin in the Chicago Reader reports:

Marin may be more comfortable with homosexuality than the average evangelical, but he shares a belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Which invites the question: does he consider homosexuality a sin?

When I ask it, Marin writes the question down on a piece of paper and studies it carefully. “It’s theologically sloppy to say it’s not a sin,” he replies. But he quickly adds that all Christians are sinners, according to Romans 3:23. “We’re all dealing with something.”

In their FAQ, the Marin Foundation won’t give a direct answer to “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?”, instead dismissing the validity of the question entirely:

The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the Christian or the LGBT community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.

Most recently, Marin himself refused to tell pro-LGBT Christian activist John Shore that being gay isn’t a sin. Some people defended this by claiming that it was impossible for the Marin Foundation to answer this one way or the other, because doing so would alienate either the conservative Christians or the LGBT people that the organization is trying to reach out to and bring together. This is a poor excuse, because refusing to say that being gay isn’t a sin is alienating to LGBT people anyway. Marin’s silence indicates that either he does believe that being gay is a sin, or he doesn’t but lacks the courage to say so outright. Both of these possibilities are disrespectful to LGBT people.

The question is so simple that evading it is a reliable sign of dishonesty. If sin is defined as transgressing a binding moral code that’s defined by a deity, then being gay or having a gay relationship is either a contravention of that moral code, or it is not. It is a sin, or it is not. For atheists, this is an especially easy question to answer, because there is no deity to define such a moral code in the first place. In the case of religious believers, if they make any claim to know the content of this divinely commanded moral code in any other context, then asking them how this applies to LGBT people should be fair game. And Marin’s “whatever, everything’s a sin” approach still uniquely stigmatizes gay people in a way that straight people are not.

He does get one thing right: a yes or no answer to whether being gay is a sin really does make it easy to label and judge people and what they believe. What he doesn’t understand is that this is the point. The answer to the question does tell us what they believe – it tells us whether they believe that the almighty creator of the universe, whose powers extend to rewriting morality itself, has decreed that our lives are contrary to its will. There is nothing wrong with simply wanting a clear answer on whether they believe this is the case, and a direct question is only intimidating to people like Andrew Marin who won’t give an unambiguous reply. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

Founder of “bridge-building” Christian/LGBT organization refuses to say that being gay isn’t a sin
{advertisement}

Being (in)comprehensible

Zinnia Jones, , 16 Comments

Natalie wrote today:

We have a political obligation to present some kind of unified identity. We need to be able to say “this is who we are. This is what defines us. These are our needs. This is what we ask”. We also have a political, cultural obligation to be comprehensible. They won’t see us if they can’t understand what they’re seeing, and they certainly wouldn’t know how to accept us. So we present our simplifications, our “X trapped in a Y’s body” metaphors, and obscure the endless complications and nuances and “well actually it’s not like that at all”s.

You should make sure to read the rest, but it was this part that especially rang true for me. It may not have been her intention, but I recognized that this obligation appears not only at the level of a movement, but also on a personal level. It’s the expectation, usually unstated because there’s no need for it to be made explicit, that we as individuals must exist, present, and explain ourselves in such a way that we can be easily sorted into an understood category. This demand becomes most obvious when we neglect or refuse it.

People attempt to identify a person’s gender out of sheer reflex, and it’s one of the first things they do when they look at someone. The process doesn’t even become a conscious one unless they can’t immediately reach a clear and binary conclusion of man or woman. On the occasions when this happens, it colors your every interaction with them from the very outset. In person, you might get an odd hesitation, a double-take and a once-over. (If you’re lucky, that’s the worst of it.) Online, people are often more direct, so we get “Are you a man or a woman? Are you a woman who used to be a man? Are you a man who used to be a woman? What’s wrong with your voice? What are you?” And so on.

What are you? Hostile and dehumanizing as it is, this really cuts to the heart of it. With a trait so fundamental as gender – something that’s almost universally treated, rightly or wrongly, as the bedrock of one’s personality and physical presence in the world – people are so accustomed to expecting an unambiguous answer that when this answer isn’t obvious, we now must provide it to them. We’re expected to explain, not who we are, but what we are and why we are this way.

“What were you born as? When did you transition? How do you know? Are you sure? Are you on hormones? How do you have sex? What’s it look like? Do you use it? Did you have the surgery yet?” Many people think these are acceptable, even necessary questions – that they must know these things in order to understand who I am before they’ll talk to me like they would any other person. (Which they won’t, of course.)

Yes, I’ve recognized this obligation to make oneself comprehensible to everyone else. And I’ve often rejected it by omission. With the exception of partners and close friends, I don’t see the need to tell people my assigned birth sex, my childhood experiences, my sexual preferences, the extent of my dysphoria, my medical history, the details of my endocrine system, and anything else you wouldn’t ask a random cis stranger about. I’ll gladly share my pronoun preferences, because those who ask have often seemed to do so out of politeness and sensitivity. But I do not need to explain my personal life, my sex life, my body and my mind as a precondition to the most casual interactions in everyday life. I do see the ensuing confusion, and I see it every day. I see the barrier that’s come between my words and those who think they must know my anatomy before they can listen to me. But it is not a barrier that I erected.

Could it be that this is just an obstinate, contrary reaction on my part? Largely, yes. If this intimate, personal information wasn’t so often made the subject of these prying questions, I’d probably be much less resistant to discussing at least some of it openly. As is, I’ve almost always neglected to describe myself as trans unless asked directly – not because I’m at all ashamed of it, but because what I am is not the totality of who I am, and people will see it as such anyway when they’re handed that information. If I don’t prepend “trans” to each of my roles – trans atheist, trans writer, trans videoblogger, trans parent, trans everything – they’ll just do it in their heads. I’d rather wait and see if they’re capable of simply seeing me as a person like any other. I expect that of people, even if they often disappoint.

There’s nothing wrong with being what I am or saying what I am, but there is something wrong when the absence of this one piece of information poses an insurmountable roadblock to hearing me out, and its presence overshadows everything else about me. Even if confusion is the cost of my silence, I’d almost rather let people wallow in their own self-inflicted incomprehension.

Being (in)comprehensible

A quick Freethought Blogs tour for my YouTube viewers

Zinnia Jones3 Comments

Those of you who know me from YouTube might not be familiar with the Freethought Blogs community, but I’ve been following many of my fellow contributors for quite a while, and they’re some of the most insightful voices I’ve had the pleasure of reading. While the following are only a selection of my personal favorites, I highly recommend perusing everyone’s blogs and seeing who you find appealing. There’s much treasure to be found. Here’s where I would start:

Greta Christina: Greta is a forceful, outspoken, clear-headed and comprehensive writer who’s extensively defended a proud and unapologetic atheism while dressing down overprivileged religions. She’s also written at length on sex, feminism, queer issues, sex work and sex-positivity, and I guarantee she’ll show you something you hadn’t thought about before. You’ll find it hard to put her blog down once you’ve started reading.

Dan Fincke, Camels With Hammers: Dan is an adjunct assistant professor of philosophy whose writings on metaethics and moral philosophy have often aligned with my own views. The difference is that he’s expounded on the details of these theories from almost every conceivable angle. This isn’t just food for thought – it’s a feast.

Natalie Reed: Natalie is a prolific writer on transgender issues, feminism, equality and queer theory. While it’s unavoidable that we sometimes cover similar ground, she provides lengthy explanations of the consequences of a transphobic society on an almost daily basis. I consider it required reading.

Crommunist: Crommunist offers insights at the intersection of freethought and racial issues, an aspect which is often overlooked or oversimplified. If race isn’t something you have to think about very often, then that’s a sign you should be reading Crommunist.

Richard Carrier: Richard Carrier has an incredible body of work covering history, Jesus, naturalism and secularism. You may find that this isn’t always light reading, but it’s quite rewarding for anyone interested in the historicity of Jesus and the intricacies of the Bible.

JT Eberhard, What Would JT Do?: JT is a speaker and organizer with the Secular Student Alliance who writes about activism, secularism, polyamory, mental illness, politics, and anything else under the sun. His posts on mental disorders are riveting and utterly humanizing. You really should read them.

Jen McCreight, Blag Hag: You may remember Jen from the Boobquake experiment to determine whether “immodestly” dressed women are responsible for causing earthquakes. The rest of her content is equally awesome, if not more so.

PZ Myers, Pharyngula: Okay, I’m sure you all know who he is, but how could I not mention PZ?

Of course, this is only scratching the surface, and there’s a whole lot more to read. Take a look!

A quick Freethought Blogs tour for my YouTube viewers

Hello, Freethought Blogs!

Zinnia Jones56 Comments

Hi, I’m Zinnia Jones, and I’m very excited to be one of the newest members of the Freethought Blogs network. For those of you who don’t know me, I’m an atheist from Chicago, now living in Florida with my partner Heather and our two awesome kids. I’ve been producing videos on YouTube since 2008, mainly focusing on religion, atheism, LGBT rights, politics, ethics, and common errors in thought. Generally, I take an interest in anything that seems to need a strong dose of clarity in reasoning, whether the topic is political, religious, moral or philosophical. I’ve recently contributed to TheNewCivilRightsMovement.com, the Huffington Post, and The Fight magazine, and I’ll now be joining my fellow YouTubers ZOMGitsCriss, Thunderf00t and Ashley Miller on Freethought Blogs.

For those who already follow my channel, videos will continue to be posted as usual. They’ll just be mirrored on my blog, along with a transcript and additional commentary on a daily basis. You might also see some pictures of our pet rats, and maybe even the occasional post from Heather. In the coming days, I’ll be posting a selection of my past videos so that newcomers can get a sense of my style and approach. As for the all-important commenting policy, I strongly encourage you to call me out and correct me when I’m wrong – with the caveat that trolls and other dishonest people may have their comments highlighted, mocked, and used as a jumping-off point for further discussion.

Finally, I’d like to thank Ed Brayton, Natalie Reed, PZ Myers, and all of my viewers for helping to make this possible. This is an incredible honor, and I’m elated to be writing alongside some of the greatest skeptics and atheists in the movement. Thank you so much for this opportunity. Let’s do this!

Hello, Freethought Blogs!

Governor Bryant, There Is No "Non-Denominational" School Prayer

Zinnia Jones, , , 8 Comments

Last week, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant spoke to a group of high school students at an American Legion Boys State program in Hattiesburg. After telling them that he believed his experience with school-sponsored prayer was beneficial, he explained to the media:

I know it’s difficult when you start talking about denominations and different beliefs, but I think there is a way for us to have a non-denominational opening prayer when the opportunity is available to let people know there is a God. Those children should know that he does care about them, particularly within their classroom.

He then speculated that the federal government might eventually find that school-sponsored prayer is legally permissible. While this may sound pleasantly ecumenical, it’s simply impossible for a prayer of the kind that he envisions to be described as “non-denominational”. Within only two sentences, he’s outlined a religious observance that’s entirely sectarian. The implications of his idea for school prayer make this unavoidable.

First, the statement that “there is a God” is a claim that at least one deity exists, that it’s probably the only deity, and that its name is capital-G God. Bryant further depicts it as an entity that can be described as “he” and takes an active interest in human affairs. His suggestion also implies that it’s appropriate to direct prayers to this god, and that it’s acceptable for the civil government to mandate this worship.

For such a structure of beliefs to be considered “non-denominational”, every religion would have to agree on these points, and every person would have to follow some version of religion. This is absolutely not the case, and anyone who believes that no faith group would take issue with any of these tenets obviously doesn’t have much experience with religion as a whole. Gov. Bryant seems to have forgotten that there are religions and beliefs other than Christianity.

Not everyone believes in just one god – billions of people believe in many gods, or none at all. And not every monotheist believes their god is a “he” or bears the name “God”. Some people don’t believe that a god would concern itself with human activities. Even Christians who share Bryant’s theology might still disagree with the exact text of the prayer or take issue with the government telling them when and how they should pray. Ultimately, Bryant’s outline for school prayer would be “non-denominational” only to those who completely agree with him.

If it were acceptable for the government to endorse and promote these specific religious beliefs, then it would be equally acceptable for public schools to institute daily Islamic prayers toward Mecca. Would it matter that not everyone is Muslim, or prays to Allah in the same way, or believes that the government should lead people in prayer? No. Such considerations would already have been ignored in order to allow the promotion of Christianity as Gov. Bryant sees it. Disregarding the Establishment Clause doesn’t just permit your favorite religion to insert itself into public schools. It permits all religions to do the same.

But when the civil government decides that a certain faith should be honored in schools and other public institutions, it positions itself as the arbiter of which religious beliefs are true or false. The state’s approval and promotion of Christianity necessarily means denying that promotion to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Scientology, Satanism, Unitarian Universalism, the Jedi, atheism, and every other viewpoint pertaining to religion. It isn’t the job of judges, executives and lawmakers to decide whether a certain god exists or a religious belief is valid, and there are no grounds for imposing a particular religion upon the populace at large.

Whenever the government says that one person’s religious views are better than another’s, somebody always loses, and anyone who seeks state promotion of their faith will only avoid this as long as their religion is in vogue. The First Amendment doesn’t only protect the government from the influence of religion. It protects everyone, of any religion or no religion, from state interference in their personal beliefs.

Without school-sponsored prayer, students are still free to pray on their own while in school. But where school prayer is mandated, students from all walks of life have often been required to acknowledge an “Almighty God” or “Heavenly Father”, whether through regulation or just social pressure. Such an arrangement is clearly antithetical to genuine religious freedom in schools.

The only truly “non-denominational” prayer is the one that isn’t imposed upon everyone else. As the leader of an entire state, Gov. Bryant should understand this, and it’s disturbing that he either doesn’t know enough to keep his personal faith separate from the government, or he just doesn’t care. He may feel that school prayer is harmless, but the Bill of Rights would beg to differ.

Governor Bryant, There Is No "Non-Denominational" School Prayer

Governor Bryant, There Is No “Non-Denominational” School Prayer

Zinnia Jones, , , 8 Comments

Last week, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant spoke to a group of high school students at an American Legion Boys State program in Hattiesburg. After telling them that he believed his experience with school-sponsored prayer was beneficial, he explained to the media:

I know it’s difficult when you start talking about denominations and different beliefs, but I think there is a way for us to have a non-denominational opening prayer when the opportunity is available to let people know there is a God. Those children should know that he does care about them, particularly within their classroom.

He then speculated that the federal government might eventually find that school-sponsored prayer is legally permissible. While this may sound pleasantly ecumenical, it’s simply impossible for a prayer of the kind that he envisions to be described as “non-denominational”. Within only two sentences, he’s outlined a religious observance that’s entirely sectarian. The implications of his idea for school prayer make this unavoidable.

First, the statement that “there is a God” is a claim that at least one deity exists, that it’s probably the only deity, and that its name is capital-G God. Bryant further depicts it as an entity that can be described as “he” and takes an active interest in human affairs. His suggestion also implies that it’s appropriate to direct prayers to this god, and that it’s acceptable for the civil government to mandate this worship.

For such a structure of beliefs to be considered “non-denominational”, every religion would have to agree on these points, and every person would have to follow some version of religion. This is absolutely not the case, and anyone who believes that no faith group would take issue with any of these tenets obviously doesn’t have much experience with religion as a whole. Gov. Bryant seems to have forgotten that there are religions and beliefs other than Christianity.

Not everyone believes in just one god – billions of people believe in many gods, or none at all. And not every monotheist believes their god is a “he” or bears the name “God”. Some people don’t believe that a god would concern itself with human activities. Even Christians who share Bryant’s theology might still disagree with the exact text of the prayer or take issue with the government telling them when and how they should pray. Ultimately, Bryant’s outline for school prayer would be “non-denominational” only to those who completely agree with him.

If it were acceptable for the government to endorse and promote these specific religious beliefs, then it would be equally acceptable for public schools to institute daily Islamic prayers toward Mecca. Would it matter that not everyone is Muslim, or prays to Allah in the same way, or believes that the government should lead people in prayer? No. Such considerations would already have been ignored in order to allow the promotion of Christianity as Gov. Bryant sees it. Disregarding the Establishment Clause doesn’t just permit your favorite religion to insert itself into public schools. It permits all religions to do the same.

But when the civil government decides that a certain faith should be honored in schools and other public institutions, it positions itself as the arbiter of which religious beliefs are true or false. The state’s approval and promotion of Christianity necessarily means denying that promotion to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Scientology, Satanism, Unitarian Universalism, the Jedi, atheism, and every other viewpoint pertaining to religion. It isn’t the job of judges, executives and lawmakers to decide whether a certain god exists or a religious belief is valid, and there are no grounds for imposing a particular religion upon the populace at large.

Whenever the government says that one person’s religious views are better than another’s, somebody always loses, and anyone who seeks state promotion of their faith will only avoid this as long as their religion is in vogue. The First Amendment doesn’t only protect the government from the influence of religion. It protects everyone, of any religion or no religion, from state interference in their personal beliefs.

Without school-sponsored prayer, students are still free to pray on their own while in school. But where school prayer is mandated, students from all walks of life have often been required to acknowledge an “Almighty God” or “Heavenly Father”, whether through regulation or just social pressure. Such an arrangement is clearly antithetical to genuine religious freedom in schools.

The only truly “non-denominational” prayer is the one that isn’t imposed upon everyone else. As the leader of an entire state, Gov. Bryant should understand this, and it’s disturbing that he either doesn’t know enough to keep his personal faith separate from the government, or he just doesn’t care. He may feel that school prayer is harmless, but the Bill of Rights would beg to differ.

Governor Bryant, There Is No “Non-Denominational” School Prayer

What Peter LaBarbera Will Never Understand

Zinnia Jones, , 5 Comments

In a recent post on his website Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera criticizes so-called “pro-family leaders” for focusing on issues such as gay marriage while neglecting to oppose homosexuality itself. Citing the need to emphasize “WHY homosexual and transgender behaviors are always wrong”, “how homosexual sex is fraught with health risks”, “why homosexuality violates Natural Moral Law, the teachings of Judaism and Christianity”, and “the inordinate drug and porn use among homosexual men, and ‘gay-on-gay’ assaults and abuses”, he says:

Simply put, we as a movement must conquer whatever timidity, fear and political correctness we have in NOT wanting to debate the morality of homosexuality – because our fanatically-driven LGBT opponents will never relent in their audacious campaign to “sell” homosexuality to the public. Notice that while many conservatives shrink from the homosexuality debate, self-described out-and-proud “queer” activists never back-track in their misguided, indeed, pathological quest to compel society to approve of their aberrant “lifestyles.”

LaBarbera gives little thought to why this might be the case, but the answer should be obvious to anyone who isn’t consumed with self-righteous loathing for gay people. There certainly is a reason why the mainstream anti-gay movement does its best to avoid openly attacking us for being drug-addicted rapist sinners, and that’s because most people just don’t want to hear it.

Over 50% of Americans personally know someone who’s gay, and this figure holds true among liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Those who do know someone gay are more likely to support gay marriage and the legality of gay relations. Knowing gay people puts a human face on what would otherwise only be an abstract concept of what gay people, their relationships and their “lifestyles” are like. Without any actual firsthand experience, their understanding of us remains foggy and vulnerable to rumor, suspicion and distrust. Familiarity serves to ground this in reality – a reality which LaBarbera and his colleagues have dedicated themselves to fighting against.

What is it that makes these personal connections and interactions so effective at humanizing us in the eyes of the public? Many in the anti-gay movement seek to diminish our struggles in a historical sense by asserting that sexual orientation is nothing like one’s race or color. But in one crucial respect, this is absolutely true.

The fact of our sexuality does not visibly manifest itself in an easily recognizable way, with the unfortunate side effect of the superstitious marking of certain appearances or mannerisms as “gay”. While this has often resulted in plenty of anti-gay abuse being directed at young children and anyone who strays even slightly from established norms, it has also deprived people of any certainty about who among them might be gay. Our sexuality does not afford them the opportunity to recoil from our very skin the moment they lay eyes on us. It’s something they must come to learn.

In no small part because of a pervasive history of societal homophobia, many of us have been reluctant to share the truth about ourselves with anyone but those we trust the most: our good friends, neighbors, co-workers, and hopefully our families. By the time we feel comfortable enough to come out to them, this can spark an extraordinary shift in perspective, because these people have already come to know us, appreciate us, and love us for who we are – not what we are. When faced with the fact that the wholesome and upstanding person they respect and care deeply for also happens to be gay, this goes a long way toward dispelling any misconceptions, including the vulgar lies of anti-gay activists. Our own lives testify to the truth.

So how do you think our families and friends will react when Peter LaBarbera’s partners in homophobia such as pastor Patrick Wooden claim that gay men use gerbils and baseball bats sexually and “die in diapers”? What will they think about the notion that our very love should be subject to criminal sanctions and we’re going to burn in hell? How will they feel about baseless accusations that gay people are pedophiles and even orchestrated the Holocaust?

These wildly hateful confabulations may serve to rile up the anti-gay base, but this is utterly repulsive to anyone who knows us. Does LaBarbera really expect people to believe that their loved ones are actually child-molesting Nazis? If he thinks his moralistic bloviations can take precedence over our humanity, then we can only hope that even more anti-gay groups will follow his lead. He’s just given them a lesson in how to drive their movement directly into a brick wall.

What Peter LaBarbera Will Never Understand

Bristol Palin: Not a Victim, Just Acting Like One

Zinnia Jones, , 5 Comments

I hate to keep revisiting Bristol Palin’s remarks about gay marriage and same-sex parents, but she actually did take notice of my last article about this, and I feel she deserves a response. In her latest post, she claims that she was not “playing ‘the victim card'”, and was really only saying two things:

1. Those who claim to be loving and tolerant certainly are hateful and bullying.

2. But despite their efforts at name-calling and even their threats, I won’t be deterred from speaking out.

So, let’s recap. Bristol, here’s what you did:

  • You falsely implied that President Obama only chose to support marriage equality because of his daughters’ opinions, and you ignored everything else he said on the matter.
  • You cited “thousands of years of thinking about marriage” as a reason why gay marriage is wrong.
  • You claimed that “in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home”, contrary to actual studies about same-sex parenting.
  • After people reacted to your statements, your only response was to quote a selection of rude comments and threats you’ve received, and accuse people of “hate and bullying”.
  • You then said that they had no arguments against your views.

And here’s what you did not do:

  • You did not acknowledge that you blatantly mischaracterized Obama’s support for gay marriage.
  • You did not provide any explanation for your use of tradition as an argument against marriage equality.
  • You did not offer any evidence that “kids do better growing up in a mother/father home” or that same-sex parents are inferior.
  • You did not explain why that would mean they should be deprived of the right to marry.
  • Throughout all this, you gave no further defense of your position on gay marriage.

Again, while death threats are clearly intolerable and repugnant, this is unfortunately par for the course for anyone of even slight notoriety online, let alone the daughter of a vice presidential candidate. Practically any discussion could be diverted from the issues at hand to how hostile some people are, and you’ve seized that opportunity shamelessly. You say, “Those who claim to be loving and tolerant certainly are hateful and bullying.” Really, all of them? Would that happen to include yourself? I’m sure you can see how misleading it is to accuse literally everyone who supports gay rights – or just love and tolerance – of being “hateful and bullying”, and this argument certainly doesn’t make you any more right.

Do the rude comments you’ve received mean that gay marriage is actually wrong? No. Do they prove that same-sex parents are worse at raising kids? No. Do they justify your misrepresentation of Obama’s position? No. Are they grounds to dismiss any disagreement with you as mere hostility? No. You’re just using them to reorient the conversation from your position on marriage to how mean people are.

Do you really think that does justice to the question of equal rights? Gay marriage is a significant issue that affects millions of people, and you even described it as “a policy position that could affect the entire nation”. Yet you’ve shown curiously little interest in treating it as an important concern that ought to be addressed seriously. Doesn’t this deserve critical analysis and debate beyond how rude people have been to you?

While your perseverance is admirable, it would be better directed toward actually supporting your views and engaging in genuine discussion on these matters, instead of coming up with so many irrelevant distractions. I may not be the “professional pundit” you seem to think I am, but I’m willing to focus on the real issues here. Are you?

Bristol Palin: Not a Victim, Just Acting Like One

Bristol Palin the Victim? I'm Not Buying It

Zinnia Jones, , Leave a comment

It wasn’t hard to tell what direction things would take after Bristol Palin’s recent statements about President Obama and his newfound support for gay marriage. Where the Palins are involved, the sequence of events is firmly established and completely predictable: one of them will say something ridiculous, everyone else will react, and the Palins will proceed to make the entire episode about themselves and how “victimized” they are. Bristol Palin’s latest post is a textbook example of this. After being widely criticized for falsely suggesting that Obama only supports gay marriage because of his daughters, and claiming without evidence that “kids do better growing up in a mother/father home”, she now says that the response to her remarks has been “a lot of hate and a lot of bullying”.

Ironically, she accuses everyone of failing to make any arguments, and then proceeds to spend several paragraphs talking about how mean people have been. Maybe she would have received more serious responses if she had actually presented any arguments of her own in the first place, rather than misrepresenting what Obama said and disparaging families with gay parents for no justifiable reason. If she’s looking for a real debate on the issues, she has a strange way of showing it. Instead of providing any explanation of her earlier statements, she claims that a generic monolith named “Hollywood” is uniformly intolerant of any dissent on the issues of gay marriage or abortion, and “anyone who disagrees is stupid, hypocritical, hateful, or bigoted”.

Not once did she consider that it might actually be hateful to assume that same-sex couples must be inferior parents when all studies indicate otherwise. And she doesn’t seem to think there could be anything bigoted about expecting people to teach their children that same-sex parents don’t deserve to be married. That’s because not being hateful and bigoted just isn’t her concern here – this is all about people calling her names and making her feel bad.

In that vein, she presents a selection of comments from people wishing for her death and generally being rude. While this is obviously unacceptable, it’s definitely not a unique occurrence. We could just as well gather up all of the violent and hateful comments made about Obama and his family, same-sex parents, and the LGBT community as a whole. But it would be incredibly dishonest to focus the entire discussion on hostility, incivility and tone in order to ignore any substantial criticism of what we’ve actually said.

This is what Palin has done here, and it’s practically guaranteed that we’ll soon see a torrent of op-eds using the latest incident to make sweeping statements about how hostility and threats are never an acceptable mode of discourse, no matter the target. But this, too, only serves to make the entire event about Bristol Palin the Victim, rather than what she actually said about our relationships and our families. Palin may or may not be aware of this, but when you try to make yourself the center of attention here, you’re just running away from your own remarks. If she’d prefer to back away from her arguments – insofar as she has any – then she should issue a retraction and apologize to President Obama and the countless same-sex couples whose parenting skills she insulted.

Until then, we’re not going to forget this quite so easily. Sure, Palin can talk the talk about “hate” and “bullying”, she just won’t admit who the bullies actually are. But it really is bullying to use your platform as a national celebrity to deny the equality of our love. It’s bullying to dismiss our rights simply by uttering the word “tradition”. It’s bullying to assume that excluding us from marriage demands no more justification than merely vomiting out your opinion. And pretending to be the victim after you’ve attacked our families is unquestionably the act of a bully. Is this who you want to be, Bristol Palin?

Bristol Palin the Victim? I'm Not Buying It

Bristol Palin the Victim? I’m Not Buying It

Zinnia Jones, , Leave a comment

It wasn’t hard to tell what direction things would take after Bristol Palin’s recent statements about President Obama and his newfound support for gay marriage. Where the Palins are involved, the sequence of events is firmly established and completely predictable: one of them will say something ridiculous, everyone else will react, and the Palins will proceed to make the entire episode about themselves and how “victimized” they are. Bristol Palin’s latest post is a textbook example of this. After being widely criticized for falsely suggesting that Obama only supports gay marriage because of his daughters, and claiming without evidence that “kids do better growing up in a mother/father home”, she now says that the response to her remarks has been “a lot of hate and a lot of bullying”.

Ironically, she accuses everyone of failing to make any arguments, and then proceeds to spend several paragraphs talking about how mean people have been. Maybe she would have received more serious responses if she had actually presented any arguments of her own in the first place, rather than misrepresenting what Obama said and disparaging families with gay parents for no justifiable reason. If she’s looking for a real debate on the issues, she has a strange way of showing it. Instead of providing any explanation of her earlier statements, she claims that a generic monolith named “Hollywood” is uniformly intolerant of any dissent on the issues of gay marriage or abortion, and “anyone who disagrees is stupid, hypocritical, hateful, or bigoted”.

Not once did she consider that it might actually be hateful to assume that same-sex couples must be inferior parents when all studies indicate otherwise. And she doesn’t seem to think there could be anything bigoted about expecting people to teach their children that same-sex parents don’t deserve to be married. That’s because not being hateful and bigoted just isn’t her concern here – this is all about people calling her names and making her feel bad.

In that vein, she presents a selection of comments from people wishing for her death and generally being rude. While this is obviously unacceptable, it’s definitely not a unique occurrence. We could just as well gather up all of the violent and hateful comments made about Obama and his family, same-sex parents, and the LGBT community as a whole. But it would be incredibly dishonest to focus the entire discussion on hostility, incivility and tone in order to ignore any substantial criticism of what we’ve actually said.

This is what Palin has done here, and it’s practically guaranteed that we’ll soon see a torrent of op-eds using the latest incident to make sweeping statements about how hostility and threats are never an acceptable mode of discourse, no matter the target. But this, too, only serves to make the entire event about Bristol Palin the Victim, rather than what she actually said about our relationships and our families. Palin may or may not be aware of this, but when you try to make yourself the center of attention here, you’re just running away from your own remarks. If she’d prefer to back away from her arguments – insofar as she has any – then she should issue a retraction and apologize to President Obama and the countless same-sex couples whose parenting skills she insulted.

Until then, we’re not going to forget this quite so easily. Sure, Palin can talk the talk about “hate” and “bullying”, she just won’t admit who the bullies actually are. But it really is bullying to use your platform as a national celebrity to deny the equality of our love. It’s bullying to dismiss our rights simply by uttering the word “tradition”. It’s bullying to assume that excluding us from marriage demands no more justification than merely vomiting out your opinion. And pretending to be the victim after you’ve attacked our families is unquestionably the act of a bully. Is this who you want to be, Bristol Palin?

Bristol Palin the Victim? I’m Not Buying It