This past week, Governor Paterson urged the NY state senate to finally vote on a gay marriage bill. On Tuesday, when I didn't get any news all day, I wasn't sure what had happened - but after a quick Google News search, I learned that the state senate had, once again, moved the vote to a later date. (Since Tuesday, Paterson says the bill will pass in upcoming weeks)
My Google search also brought me to this article, profiling Rubén Díaz Sr., a state senator representing New York's 32nd District which includes parts of the Bronx. It details how he is a Democrat who is adamantly against gay marriage, and says it's "nothing personal." His religion is what leads him to say he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and he makes it clear that he loves gay people and has lots of family and friends that are gay.
This New York Times article astutely (although in an unavoidably partisan way) points out the incongruities in Díaz's argument, and shows how radical he seems - in saying that the Gay Games would spread AIDS, and opposing the expansion of the Harvey Milk School. He also said that stem cell research is worse than Hitler making bars of soap out of the ashes of Jews - The NY Times obviously uses that to demonize and radicalize Diaz (rightfully so?).
I'm not sure I take issue with the way this story was reported - I understand that a newspaper can't necessarily take sides and say that gay marriage is good and ought to happen - and I understand that the reporter can't just come out and say "The personal IS political!" and throw his hands up. But this senator and his beliefs definitely need more attention and more scrutiny.
Díaz directly points to his acceptance of gay friends and says "So how could I be a homophobe?" As if to say "Look at me! I have gay friends so that means I don't think there's anything wrong with gay people!" But if this was indeed the case, and he didn't think there was anything wrong with gay people and the idea of gayness, there wouldn't be any reason not to support gay marriage. Being cordial and friendly to gay people isn't an excuse for actively lobbying to restrict their rights.
In 1994, when he spoke out against the Gay Games, Díaz said "the games could lead children 'to conclude that if there are so many gay and lesbian athletes then there is nothing wrong, nor any risks involved.'" If he actually had no problems with his gay friends, and loved them (not in that pitying, patronizing 'let me help you' way), this quote would've never been uttered.
I'm not sure it's enough to point out the conflict raised by Díaz excuse of "it's nothing personal" because obviously, it is. Restricting rights is always personal - He might think it's politics or religion, but this is people, people's rights, people's lives, people's love that we're saying is invalid. Of course it's personal.
Here's the article again, take a look - and then comment your opinion!
I have no problem with the New York Time staking a completely pro-gay marriage stance. It is a fact that gay marriage has not had an injurious effect on divorce rates or the economies of the states where it is legal. And it is scientifically proven that gays are human beings. I would not be frustrated if the New York Times reported that black people have the same level of intelligence as white people, or that women are just as capable in the job market as men. Civil rights are not a partisan issue.
ReplyDeleteIt is "scientifically proven that gays are human beings." Really? As opposed to what, undocumented aliens, or people with disabilities who are clearly not?
ReplyDeleteI'm sarcastic. Of course they are human beings! This just shows how problematic our ideologies are that we even question whether or not they are human in the first place?