Marc Shaiman, the composer of "Hairspray," has recently made a very popular mini-musical about the controversial gay-marriage ban that was passed in the state of California. It was titled Proposition Eight, and has been oh-so-cleverly renamed "Proposition Hate" by the left. The relatively short 3 and 1/2 minute video is not only hilarious but also a surprisingly accurate depiction of the debate that is going on in the U.S right now, as to whether or not the State should honor gay marriage. While getting my daily dose of conservative news, I came across this article by conservative journalist, Dennis Prager:
Mr. Prager's article is well...stupid. For such a well educated guy (apparently he's a professor at the American Jewish University) he has a really crummy argument.
Shaiman puts hateful words in the mouths of the religious proponents of the man-woman definition of marriage: “It’s time to spread some hate and put it in the constitution.” But no one put hate in the constitution. The only words Proposition 8 added to the California Constitution were: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” What is hateful about that?
Shaiman puts hateful words in the mouths of the religious proponents of the man-woman definition of marriage: “It’s time to spread some hate and put it in the constitution.” But no one put hate in the constitution. The only words Proposition 8 added to the California Constitution were: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” What is hateful about that?
Well, to answer your question Dennis: first of all, the state is defining the parameters of a union between two people by Biblical standards. Right off the bat, that is wrong and oppressive. Secondly, the law is repealing the right of gay people to get married in the state of California. This not only more rigidly defines marriage unnecessarily, but it also outlaws gay marriage. Mr. Prager attempts to make the half-baked argument that the state of California is not oppressing anyone, they're simply restructuring the definition of marriage to suit the opinion of their constituents. Unfortunately, this opinion actively oppresses a certain part of the community. Essentially, when it comes down to it, he's essentially splitting hairs. 'We don't hate gays, we just don't like the act of homosexuality.' 'We're not uncomfortable with the idea of gays, but we are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality being introduced as acceptable in the classroom.' Grow up Mr. Prager. You're an adult and a pretty well-educated one, at that. Don't you see what you're doing? The distinctions you draw are negligible and fail to see the core of the issue. Defining marriage as 'only between one man and one woman' IS the same as passing a 'gays are not allowed to get married' law. Claiming that there is a fundamental difference between the two is the same as viewing a "Whites only water fountain" and a "No blacks allowed water fountain" as two completely different entities. Get a grip man.
The only good news to come out of this article is that Mr. Prager is the first time winner of the much coveted lol-scale rating of:
Rush LMAOgh
One of the most disgusting human beings in the media and political punditry business today, Rush LMAOgh is most famous for his radio talkshow, The Rush LMAOgh Show, where he regularly offends racial minorities, women and gay people. He is famous for coining intelligent phrases on his show, including "Femi-Nazis" and "ChopaDicKoffoMe." (Referring to transgender people.) This award is specially reserved for people who are close-minded, prone to bigotry and just generally assholes.
Congratulations to Dennis Prager! Kevin and I invite you to comment on our thoughts, and tell us where we're wrong (or right!)
2 comments:
While the portion of Mr. Prager's article you quoted "is well... stupid," he is absolutely right about Shaiman's choice to blithely ignore certain key phrases in the Bible, such as "for you." Prager is also remarkably fair in admitting that there are merits to either side of the argument, and that his PERSONAL religious beliefs make one side incompatible with his life. One of the things that struck me most about the musical (thanks to Arbogast, Lou) was when Jesus talks about separation of church and state. In fact, this country was not founded on the separation of church and state. The origin of that phrase is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, but it was never used in a United States legal setting until 1878, 100 years after our founding. It wasn't popularized until 1948. It is my opinion (and that of a lot of people, by the way) that "separation of church and state" does not necessarily mean completely removing religious attitudes from government, but rather not giving preference to one religious belief over another (or even over a lack thereof). This country was based on a republican (little r) system of government, with a slightly more democratic (little d) house of representatives and a more exclusive senate. If the people who elect those representatives overwhelmingly identify with a specific religious belief, isn't it the duty of the representative to accurately represent that belief as something important to his/her constituents? I fear that many people shout "separation of church and state" without realizing that it may, in fact, disenfranchise the desires of one group of people just as excessive missionary zeal can disenfranchise the desires of another. I welcome your inevitable disagreement, and look forward to developing this debate further.
--Chris
While your name is suspiciously reminiscent of a primitive, unevolved-man's hairdo, truly your point was inspired by the American God, Jesus. Since the Year Zero, 1776, the most celebrated country of all time has grown further and further removed from its roots. These roots were planted deep in the ground, watered by the blood of a thousand cheerful Negro martyrs, nourished by eagle tears, and subsequently rendered into delicious tobacco smoke.
What were those roots? The glorious practices of Democraslavery, Democracism, and above all, Freedom. Washington removed every gay cherry tree in greater New England, and found one truth writ in every sap-choked ring: that man shall not lie with man, for it is Abomination. And when Abomination rears his ugly head, we rely on the glorious Levitican Hulk to push his mighty dollar-colored fist through that vile dancing thorax.
We didn't discover America to let this vile, genital minority tear apart the most sacred of all bonds. I married Nicole McHolecaw and plunged deep within her womanly depths, like a sweating plunger, plunging ever forth into eternal happiness. America discovered us during that first, shrieking orgasm, and when I watch Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire and Flavor of Love, I cry blood tears... of joy.
If there's one thing American history has cawed, most mightily, it is that granting civil rights to minorities only results in Obamageddon. Truly, America has fallen off its mighty perch atop the Eastern Seaboard. Let us caw.
Post a Comment