What's The Matter With Kansas?

April 12, 2005 8:47 AM

An open letter to the Citizens of Atwood. This past week, the residents of the small town of Atwood, Kansas voted 984 to 113 to deny gay couples any rights for their relationships (including hospital visitation). Now, the man who set up the town's newspaper website has not only left Atwood, but taken down the website and posted a (mostly) measured response to the town in place of it. Will putting a human face on those being discriminated against ever change the minds of some people, or is one passage in the bible enough for some people to keep justifying their bigoted ways?
posted by almostcool (111 comments total)

A political adviser to former Sen. Jesse Helms has gotten married. Arthur Finkelstein and his spouse have demonstrated admirable commitment to one another and to family values. They've been together for 40 years and have two children.
But they'd never married until December. By then, Massachusetts had made it legal for men to marry each other.
posted by matteo at 8:54 AM on April 12, 2005

On the one hand, good for him. If Atwood's going to make it legally uncomfortable for him to continue working there, then so be it.

On the other hand, I doubt those 984 people are really at all upset that they're no longer "the 8th city in Kansas to have a world class website and the 5th newspaper in the state to have a website".
posted by Plutor at 8:57 AM on April 12, 2005

I'm afraid a human face is not enough. You have to understand - the advertising forces on the marraige amendment in Kansas were quite brutal. There's a lot of money and misinformation being spread.
posted by Hot Like Your 12V Wire at 8:57 AM on April 12, 2005

Brilliant peice of writing. He dosen't mince words or back off his position at all, while still repecting his audience and not letting his anger overwhelm him. As to whether it will actually change any minds, I don't know, but even if it changes a few for the better, it's worth it.
posted by jonmc at 8:58 AM on April 12, 2005

Poor guy. As we've seen here on MeFi, small town community reaction to queers in their midst can range from horrifying to uplifting.

In my experience, if the town is small and touristy, it seems queers are welcomed more warmly, both as visitors and residents. If the town doesn't attract the tourist trade, it's anybody's guess how it will go.

I grew up in a village of population less than 5,000, and came out of the closet as a senior in high school. The less said about what happened to me, the better. 20 years later, the town is far far more accepting of homosexuals, increasing as it becomes a bigger and bigger vacation spot (there's now casinos on the nearby Indian reservation).

I have a property in the Texas Hill Country, in a town that has a population of less than 100. However, its tourist/antiquing prominence over the last thirty years has always made it somewhat gay-friendly, something you probably wouldn't expect at first glance deep in the heart of Texas.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:00 AM on April 12, 2005

Will putting a human face on those being discriminated against ever change the minds of some people...

Reading it will probably just make them indignant. Unless they knew the guy and didn't know he was gay. That might put a different face on it. But someone's web manifesto on how wrong they are won't so anything.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:01 AM on April 12, 2005

There's a lot of money and misinformation being spread.

Indeed. I've found that almost nobody I talk to -- regardless of their political affiliation -- understands that these amendments invalidate any legal relationship aside from parenthood and marriage. That's the most amazing part, to me; I'm just waiting for it to dawn on people that "palimony" is now an obsolete concept in KS.
posted by lodurr at 9:03 AM on April 12, 2005

I'm afraid the people that need to read this the most are the ones too dumb to operate a computer. (and before someone else says it, yes, I know that liberal condescension is the reason why john kerry lost the election. my b.)
posted by mcsweetie at 9:10 AM on April 12, 2005

If you don't like what's on Television, you change the channel, you don't get the Government to ban the show.

Really? Not lately, not from what I've heard.

What can 2 gay people in love do to the Sanctity of Marriage that hasn’t already been done by the likes of Elizabeth Taylor, Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, Julia Roberts, the city of Las Vegas or shows like “Who Wants to marry a Millionaire", "the Bachelor", "the Bachelorette", "Will you marry my Daddy"...

...and every friggin' self-righteous Senator with a bible in one pocket and his most recent set of divorce papers in the other.
posted by caution live frogs at 9:11 AM on April 12, 2005

Unless they knew the guy and didn't know he was gay.

Sounds like the town was small enough that everybody knew everybody and he was a somewhat prominent citizen, so maybe that will come into play. More likely though, the town is probably full of a certain population of people, who've known the guy all their lives and like him, but continue to spout the right-wing party line on homosexuality. I've known plenty of people like that my whole life and quite frankly they baffle me.

But someone's web manifesto on how wrong they are won't so anything.

He seemed to avoid that approach. It wasn't like he said "You're all idiots! I hate you! I'm leaving!" He showed his anger, but he maintained dignity and showed serious love for where he was from.

(and before someone else says it, yes, I know that liberal condescension is the reason why john kerry lost the election. my b.)

not that it'll stop you or anything.
posted by jonmc at 9:15 AM on April 12, 2005

This really breaks my heart. I grew up in a small town in the Midwest and witnessed, first hand, the effects of bigotry and hatred against "others."

Small communities require people's investment, their time. It looks like this guy gave a lot to his home town, and all they gave him was a disgusting amendment that serves to do nothing but rob him of his freedoms and punish him for being different.

There was a time in this country when the punished, spit-upon "others" stood up and told the self-righteous, hating bastards how we felt about oppression in our own land. There was a time before that when we, as a single nation, stood up and told the self-righteous, hating bastards how we felt about oppression in other lands.

But today, the small, midwestern town is degenerating into a seed-bed of hatred and bigotry. I am furious that we, as compassionate citizens, have let it go on for so long. This is backward, this is so totally wrong.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:35 AM on April 12, 2005

I've known plenty of people like that my whole life and quite frankly they baffle me.

You said a mouthfull, alright.

Tolerance for that kind of logical inconsistency is what lets people get on with their lives, I'm afraid. Sometimes I think that tolerance for very, very deep contradictions is one of the human race's most powerful evolved characteristics. (Watch -- now someone will publish a study demonstrating tolerance for contradiction in parrots...)

Oh, and b'balrog -- I'm not sure it's actually changed that much, except in affect. Small towns were always insular and intolerant, under the surface. We've just encrusted them with so much mythology that they look quaint from our distance.
posted by lodurr at 9:40 AM on April 12, 2005

lodurr - I guess you're right. I'm not trying to say to say that the old-timey small town ever measured up to the general nostalgia (I know about the lynchings, cross burning, etc.). Also, that one episode of the Twilight Zone comes to mind, where they all think someone is an alien...or something. Bah.

But Good Lord! They're simply evil little bigots! Putting laws on the books - actual laws! - who's only purpose is to deny rights to a certain group of people. It takes my breath away.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:44 AM on April 12, 2005

Leviticus also prohibits: ...playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!)
Why have I never heard this one before? That's wonderful.

Ditto Mayor Curley that this'll merely make people indignant, particularly the quoted comments at the end. (OTOH I imagine the webmaster has appreciated the 600+ positive comments this brought.)
posted by Aknaton at 9:44 AM on April 12, 2005

"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV) - now you all know they didn’t wear any underwear in those days right?

Haha! This guy rules.
posted by sninky-chan at 9:47 AM on April 12, 2005

I have a property in the Texas Hill Country, in a town that has a population of less than 100. However, its tourist/antiquing prominence over the last thirty years has always made it somewhat gay-friendly, something you probably wouldn't expect at first glance deep in the heart of Texas.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:00 AM PST on April 12

Wolfdaddy, where is your place at? I'm guessing Salado. Or whatever that place is with the big bunnies on the sign. We have a place in a small town outside of Austin (Bastrop), and I think a lot of the people there are "gay friendly" too, in the sense that they are just friendly people in general. My experience is that people can be very friendly to gays and completely respectful and still not support gay marriage. It isn't a matter that people have to be gay-bashers to oppose.
posted by dios at 9:50 AM on April 12, 2005

a simple "fuck you very much" would have been more appropriate.
posted by three blind mice at 9:54 AM on April 12, 2005

Daniel did a nice job with the site.

Given my experience of small towns and people in general, I'm pretty sure that the only consequence will be the president's reelection in '08.

The Good News: The survival and prosperity of the race doesn't depend on the masses of stupid people.
posted by ewkpates at 9:54 AM on April 12, 2005

It isn't a matter that people have to be gay-bashers to oppose.

Well, yeah, I know that not everyone who is against gay marriage beats up homosexuals or anything, but does that even matter, when they're putting laws on the books? I'm glad that they're not BIGOTS, thank god! They just want to deny gay people (and unmarried heterosexuals) certain rights!
posted by 235w103 at 9:59 AM on April 12, 2005

I'm not seeing anything but a redirect to some sort of online car sales place. Does anyone know where there is a mirror of what was written there? I'd really like to read it.
posted by evilangela at 10:04 AM on April 12, 2005

It's a shame Daniel quoted the Bible to people who pick and choose what they take from it. It's tough enough reasoning with people whose hearts are filled with hate.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:05 AM on April 12, 2005

Thanks for posting this, almostcool.
posted by Hildago at 10:07 AM on April 12, 2005

yes, I know that liberal condescension is the reason why john kerry lost the election.

Nonsense. The right won because they had a well-explained sense of right behaviour and wrong behaviour, and the left must stand up for what it sees as right and wrong; and discrimination is wrong, whether it be against women, other ethnicities, or sexual orientation. That's a point that simply can't be discussed -- either you accept others or you don't.

It's no less and no more condescending than trying to force others to live according to some very selective and oft-contradicted bits from a 2000-year-old book.
posted by clevershark at 10:07 AM on April 12, 2005

There was a time in this country when the punished, spit-upon "others" stood up and told the self-righteous, hating bastards how we felt about oppression in our own land. There was a time before that when we, as a single nation, stood up and told the self-righteous, hating bastards how we felt about oppression in other lands.

That's mostly baloney. In fact, I'd say most American idelogical excesses (like the recent anti-gay offense) come from the shared illusion that the country was once "fair" or "just" or something along those lines.

It never was in the first place (except maybe for a few blinks of an eye her and there) and the sooner Americans realize that, the better.
posted by magullo at 10:09 AM on April 12, 2005

It's a shame Daniel quoted the Bible to people who pick and choose what they take from it. It's tough enough reasoning with people whose hearts are filled with hate.

I thought his Biblical arguments were great. Sometimes you have to meet people on their own ground and speak to them in their own language. Daniel's arguments are far more likely to be effective than a "Who cares what your stupid book says?"
posted by orange swan at 10:17 AM on April 12, 2005

a simple "fuck you very much" would have been more appropriate.

If you prize your sense of superiority and specialness more than the possibility of change, pehaps, but some of us don't see it that way.
posted by jonmc at 10:23 AM on April 12, 2005

dios writes "My experience is that people can be very friendly to gays and completely respectful and still not support gay marriage. It isn't a matter that people have to be gay-bashers to oppose."


My experience is that people can be very friendly to Negroes and completely respectful and still not support interracial marriage. It isn't a matter that people have to be Negro-lynchers to oppose.

Why, as long as those Negroes keep to their place and keep away from my daughter and keep amusing us with "Stepin Fetchit" and "Will and Grace" and that singing "Mammy" (ok, I guess that was a Wop in blackface, but you know what I mean) and don't try to vote or anything, I can completely respect them.

I mean, I only lose my "complete respect" for those people when they do things that make me uncomfortable, like asking for full equality and civil rights.

Just like I "completely respect" those "beaners" for their hard work so long as they pick my grapes and clean my house and landscape my lawn for less than minimum wage. I only call them lazy when they want to take a day off to protest.

I love Harry Belafonte and Sidney Poitier and Sammy Davis Jr. I hope every colored boy becomes a star. Well I loved their movies and their singing and jiving, until they married white women.

I just don't understand where some people get off, calling me a racist. That's totally unfair.


I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
posted by orthogonality at 10:25 AM on April 12, 2005

I can't help but feel that the people who voted for the amendment are the kind of people who, 50 years ago, would have been turning out against the civil rights movement. Self-righteous small town bigots are nothing new: they've just found someone else to hate.
posted by rhymer at 10:26 AM on April 12, 2005

Oops: looks like someone kind of beat me to it.
posted by rhymer at 10:27 AM on April 12, 2005

As a straight married Kansan, I applaud his efforts. I only wish these arguments were made public and louder before the vote.

The religious right screamed "Attack on marriage!" and the unread masses fell for it hook, line and sinker without bothering to find out what this amendment really was.
posted by Hugh2d2 at 10:29 AM on April 12, 2005

Thanks for the post almostcool.
"I know that Atwood Voters made their decision based on the information put in front of them by the sponsors and backers of the Amendment rather than research on their own. They took the word of people who dedicate 100% of time and resources to oppression of Gay people. Did you know that Sponsors & Backers of this Amendment spent more money on this campaign than the entire budget of ALL the school districts that make up the NWKL. Imagine if they put that money to good use and gave it to education in the first place, we might not be in this mess today."

What are the names of the sponsors and backers. Why aren't they publicised and vilefied for the bigots they are?
posted by adamvasco at 10:36 AM on April 12, 2005

I've mirrored it through my site.
posted by stewiethegreat at 10:43 AM on April 12, 2005

I feel like this could have been written about myself and my hometown.
posted by kjh at 10:57 AM on April 12, 2005

that singing "Mammy" (ok, I guess that was a Wop in blackface, but you know what I mean)

actually it was a heeb in blackface, but let's not get bogged down in particulars.
posted by jonmc at 10:58 AM on April 12, 2005

I thought his Biblical arguments were great

Me too, orange swan - he had a couple there that I can add to the pile I keep in my head for use against the 'Christian' and homophobic. (Not likely to change minds overnight, obviously, but if you can get them to admit that they believe the Bible to be literally true before dropping a couple of quotes on them, it at least makes them blush and stutter.)

As for the rest: a good, well measured and calm bit of writing. Must've been hard not to screech, given the circumstances.
posted by jack_mo at 11:06 AM on April 12, 2005

dios writes "It isn't a matter that people have to be gay-bashers to oppose."

No, not basher in the literal sense, but yes in the sense in which it is commonly used metaphorically, as in, say, Clinton-basher. How else do you explain it? How is prejudice not at issue here? I know reference to the Bible doesn't excuse the prejudice since there are more than a few biblical injunctions that are not followed and not turned into law. I also know that the laws of Moses were explicitly fulfilled by Jesus in love, so we all could have our hamburgers.
posted by OmieWise at 11:06 AM on April 12, 2005

"In my experience, if the town is small and touristy, it seems queers are welcomed more warmly, both as visitors and residents. If the town doesn't attract the tourist trade, it's anybody's guess how it will go."

New tourist industry: Hey, let's all go see what a town full of bigots looks like!
Imagine busloads of tourists come to your town for that reason...
posted by jaronson at 11:12 AM on April 12, 2005

My experience is that people can be very friendly to gays and completely respectful and still not support gay marriage. It isn't a matter that people have to be gay-bashers to oppose.

Nice misdirection, Dios.We're not talking about gay marriage here--we're talking about denying gays couples any legal standing whatsoever. Kansas didn't vote down gay marriage. They voted for straight-only, married-only couples having any legal standing.

There's a big difference. And there's a big difference between not supporting gay marriage and actively supporting the banning of anything that vaguely smells like it. I don't "support" the opinions you tend to post here, but I wouldn't vote to revoke your posting priviliges because of them.
posted by adamrice at 11:17 AM on April 12, 2005

small town community reaction to queers in their midst can range from horrifying to uplifting

The San Francisco Chronicle had an article yesterday, Folksy grandma battles gay marriage, which comes somewhere in the middle. I'd say horrifying, but she's so folksy.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:17 AM on April 12, 2005

singing "Mammy" (ok, I guess that was a Wop in blackface, but you know what I mean)

Al Jolson was not Italian; he was born Asa Yoelson, a Russian Jew in Lithuania.

love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

dios is not liberal; he is a conservative
posted by Cassford at 11:20 AM on April 12, 2005

Given my experience of small towns and people in general, I'm pretty sure that the only consequence will be the president's reelection in '08.
I hope to God not--he's term-limited and done, unless we're attacked again--conveniently.

This made me both want to cry when i first read it, and to thank my lucky stars i grew up not in a small town (it's hard everywhere, but come on). Total Dogville, it sounds like. He knows he's more than welcome in any city--even ones in Kansas are better than were he is now. I've heard of all those towns hemorrhaging young people anyway--it's no wonder.
posted by amberglow at 11:21 AM on April 12, 2005

oop-where he is now
posted by amberglow at 11:21 AM on April 12, 2005

dios is not liberal; he is a conservative

I thought that conservatives believed in minimal government interference. Butting in about who you sleep with would seem to be the opposite of that.
posted by jonmc at 11:22 AM on April 12, 2005

The website wasn't bad - certainly better-looking and more useful than most small town sites.
posted by letitrain at 11:22 AM on April 12, 2005

So who is Daniel, anyway? At the bottom he says:

Anyone wishing to comment may click here to send me an email, but be warned, it may be posted on this website. And since you know who I am, don't be scared to sign your real name.

Well, no, we don't know who he is, except he signed his name Daniel. His WHOIS listing is "L, Daniel". His email goes to [e-mail] -- on dansworld.net there's a nice picture presumably of Dan and his partner, but no further identification. No clues so far.

The WHOIS administrator for dansworld.net is one Daniel Lippold. Presumably that's our man, but he's not exactly making it easy to "know who he is."

Furthermore, what newspaper was this the website of? The only paper I can find listed for Atwood is the Rawlins County Square Deal, a funky little rag, the website for which is alive and well. Via the Wayback machine, it doesn't look like Dan's site was ever a "newspaper website."

The population of Atwood is only 1280, so a vote of 984 to 113 in the town looks impossible -- is impossible, in fact; these are numbers for the whole county of Rawlins.

Not questioning Dan's sentiments, but just nitpicking.
posted by beagle at 11:34 AM on April 12, 2005

This subject matter always makes me want to ask, in ALL seriousness, these bigoted/gay-hating/small-minded people, "How, how, how does a gay person being gay negatively affect your life? Please give me an example." In my mind I cannot imagine anyone being able to give a legitimate response to this question, but I suppose therein lies the problem. Ignorance is not founded in legitimacy.
posted by crapulent at 11:34 AM on April 12, 2005

Step 1 - Disagree with vast majority in a given community

Step 2 - Refuse to admit that maybe there's a reason why the vast majority in this community feels a certain way

Step 3 - Throw hissy fit

??

Step 5 - Profit.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:40 AM on April 12, 2005

Anyone wishing to comment may click here to send me an email, but be warned, it may be posted on this website. And since you know who I am, don't be scared to sign your real name.

Well, no, we don't know who he is.


He is speaking to the people of Atwood, beagle.
posted by longbaugh at 11:44 AM on April 12, 2005

FREE LAND!

Where else can you enjoy a cup of coffee at the local cafe, and everyone there is your friend?!!!!!
posted by mrgrimm at 11:47 AM on April 12, 2005

Refuse to admit that maybe there's a reason why the vast majority in this community feels a certain way

Really, thedevildancedlightly... and what would that reason be?
posted by clevershark at 11:50 AM on April 12, 2005

Refuse to admit that maybe there's a reason why the vast majority in this community feels a certain way

I'm curious to hear a reason that doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:52 AM on April 12, 2005

Step 2 - Refuse to admit that maybe there's a reason why the vast majority in this community feels a certain way

Does it matter whether there's a reason? If there is a reason, does that make it all right? People have reasons for justifying all sorts of bad behavior.

In any case, I suspect that the vast majority in that community haven't given the issue that much thought. I've met lots of people who are perfectly ok with discrimination as an abstraction, but don't care much for it when they see real examples and their effects.

Step 3 - Throw hissy fit

Yeah, it's a hissy fit when people object to having their rights stripped from them. What a bunch of wusses. They should just take what they're given and shut up.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:54 AM on April 12, 2005

Step 1 - Disagree with vast majority in a given community

Step 2 - Refuse to admit that maybe there's a reason why the vast majority in this community feels a certain way

Step 3 - Throw hissy fit

??

Step 5 - Profit.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:40 PM CST on April 12 [!]

Is this one of those self-referential Strange Loops Hofstader talks about?
posted by COBRA! at 11:57 AM on April 12, 2005

bigoted/gay-hating/small-minded people

What a keen grasp of the opposition you have.
posted by iwearredsocks at 11:59 AM on April 12, 2005

Refuse to admit that maybe there's a reason why the vast majority in this community feels a certain way

Where did anyone - either Daniel or any MeFite in this thread - do that? On the contrary, I thought Daniel L. quite respectful in addressing these "reasons" he probably doesn't share. And if you know of any other reasons besides the ones already addressed for the Atwood majority to oppose gay marriage, please do share them. The best way to begin working towards change is to understand exactly what needs to be overcome.
posted by orange swan at 12:00 PM on April 12, 2005

iwearredsocks: Please characterize "the opposition" in a way that seems cogent and useful to you.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:03 PM on April 12, 2005

He is speaking to the people of Atwood, beagle
Well, excuse us for paying any attention to this, then.

Anyone wishing to comment looks like anyone, anywhere, to me. The point is, a guy who is rather pointedly suggesting that people should sign their messages to him, should rather openly identify himself.
posted by beagle at 12:04 PM on April 12, 2005

I apologize iwearred socks. I meant to say those "enlightened/fun-loving/compassionate" people (yourself included, I'm sure).
posted by crapulent at 12:15 PM on April 12, 2005

thedevildancedlightly: to quote Lenin's wife, "One must not lull oneself into the belief that the majority is always right." Even a shallow look at U.S./world history makes that point obvious.
posted by katherine at 12:19 PM on April 12, 2005

I'll just let a far better writer express my opinion of small towns:

"Good heavens!” I cried. “Who would associate crime with these dear old homesteads?”

“They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.”

“You horrify me!”

“But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard’s blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going, and there is but a step between the crime and the dock. But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser.
--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Copper Beeches"
posted by bitmage at 12:23 PM on April 12, 2005

And if you know of any other reasons besides the ones already addressed for the Atwood majority to oppose gay marriage, please do share them.

It's worth pointing out that this is about more than just gay marriage:

The Amendment, as passed by the Kansas Senate, could deny all unmarried couples, regardless of sexual orientation, the right to enter into private agreements that might "resemble" marriage. The implications of this are far-reaching and are just being felt in other states with similar Amendments. You could be in danger of losing your medical power of attorney, access to protection from abuse orders, special child care arrangements, hospital visitation, employee health insurance benefits, and more.

...

Paragraph B is an unprecedented attack on the rights of Kansans. It takes away your right to enter into any private relationship that doesn't meet the extremists' definition of marriage. Independent legal scholars have said that Paragraph B will leave Kansas courts unable to enforce any agreements between partners, including heterosexuals, who are unmarried. This ban on all relationships other than marriage is a dangerous attack on the basic rights of all Kansans, gay or straight.

posted by me & my monkey at 12:26 PM on April 12, 2005

I think it is very likely he did intend those remarks for the residents of Atwood, particularly those who might send flaming messages back. It is a small enough town that they all do know who he is, and he thinks they should have the courage to sign their emails.
posted by jb at 12:26 PM on April 12, 2005

Speaking of the Constitution...and with reference to the points that Daniel, I and me & my monkey have made regarding the very, very broad nature of this amendment....

... wouldn't this amendment constitute an unconsititutional hindrance to interstate commerce?

By which I mean, haven't Federal courts upheld the portability of marriage and divorce across state lines on the grounds that refusal to honor them would constitute an unlawful abrogation of the Fed's right to regulate interstate commerce?
posted by lodurr at 12:34 PM on April 12, 2005

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed by public stoning.

If one uses the bible as a reason to outlaw gay marriage, clearly that makes sense as well. And you better be sure you don't eat any pork.
posted by grouse at 12:34 PM on April 12, 2005

And you better be sure you don't eat any pork.

Don't forget to also stay away from shellfish, boy.
posted by clevershark at 12:38 PM on April 12, 2005

bigoted/gay-hating/small-minded people

What a keen grasp of the opposition you have.
posted by iwearredsocks at 1:59 PM CST on April 12 [!]

They are not bigots because they are my opposition, they are my opposition because they are bigots.

Pretty simple.

People need to learn that the word bigot is an actual, well defined term and descriptor, and not an ad hominem attack.
posted by Ynoxas at 12:51 PM on April 12, 2005

By which I mean, haven't Federal courts upheld the portability of marriage and divorce across state lines on the grounds that refusal to honor them would constitute an unlawful abrogation of the Fed's right to regulate interstate commerce?
Well, that's still to be determined--in states that have passed state Anti-gay-marriage amendments, they don't legally have to recognize marriages performed in Massachusetts (until those amendments are repealed as un-USconstitutional). So who knows? There will definitely be Supreme Court cases on this soon. Too many out-of-staters have already gotten married in Mass.
posted by amberglow at 1:11 PM on April 12, 2005

It will be interesting to see what happens when those cases come to court. Personally, I think it's a crap shoot whether or not we still have a judicial branch in a few years time...
posted by lodurr at 1:21 PM on April 12, 2005

The site before the current revision.
I was going to ask how a small town benefits from a nice website anyway, but it looks like it's about attracting tourists and businesses.
Even earlier versions were in flash, which don't get properly archived by the wayback machine.
posted by nobody at 1:26 PM on April 12, 2005

I always find myself asking questions.

Like, why is it when a pharmacist withholds a drug because they're morally opposed, some people say "well, the person can always go get drugs somewhere else" -- yet when a gay newspaper man leaves a town after discovering that most of the town believes he should have fewer rights, it's called a hissy fit?

Or, why is it when "Liberals" (whatever they are) don't agree with "Conservatives" (whatever they are), it's called condescension and arrogance -- yet when "Conservatives" don't agree with "Liberals", it's not?

And finally, why is it that some people on MeFi try really hard to convince other people that they're wrong -- yet when presented with a solid case that those other people might actually be right, these same people seem incapable of saying "oops, I might be in the wrong here"?
posted by davejay at 2:38 PM on April 12, 2005

Paragraph B is an unprecedented attack on the rights of Kansans. It takes away your right to enter into any private relationship that doesn't meet the extremists' definition of marriage.

Where are your long-haired anarchists now, Kansas? God damn all of you. :)
posted by mrgrimm at 2:45 PM on April 12, 2005

Anyone wishing to comment looks like anyone, anywhere, to me.

beagle, I think the title of the article "An open letter to the Citizens of Atwood" clearly indicates his intended audience. Who knows if he ever even expected anyone anywhere else to visit his tiny, local website? It's perfectly reasonable for him to address his audience in a familiar way, given the size of the community and their likely acquaintance with him.

almostcool, good on you for posting this.

WolfDaddy - hey, and you're not too far from Austin, which is like a little pocket of sanity in this great big red state.
posted by blendor at 3:46 PM on April 12, 2005

It's easy to see how the producer of the old atwoodkansas.com would be galled by this low-mindedness. The poor guy had once written (apparently even believed):

a community that is rich in heritage, culture and values. Today's Atwood residents still preserve these early traditions, and continue to add to Atwood through their community involvement and determined spirit. ... The list of Atwood's attractions go on and on, and one thing is for sure…You're invited!

And look at this loving tour of the town with its evocation of Atwood's Amicable Country Charm.

He wanted people to know about his old hometown, that Atwood and Rawlins County is the perfect location for your business!

And he wanted Atwood's "homesick" native sons & daughters to stay connected.

And mrgrimm above already quoted this page: IT IS STILL A WONDERFUL PLACE! ... Each of the communities in Rawlins County is also a wonderful place to retire! There are many retirees choosing to move to small rural communities. Retirees report they enjoy the relaxed atmosphere of "Small Town Living". They also report many have started small businesses they can now afford to own in our less expensive rural areas. Where else can you enjoy a cup of coffee at the local cafe, and everyone there is your friend?!!!!! For more information, please contact Rawlins County Economic Director... lots available. Welcome home!

SAD.
posted by Zurishaddai at 4:39 PM on April 12, 2005

It kind of looks like this was the website of the old newspaper. Err.. I should say... is.

He liked the town a lot. And I'm sure he knew how people felt, at least the loud-mouthed ones. Dios is right, really. There are people who can be as pleasant as anyone face-to-face, and still vote anti-gay.

I don't think dios was saying it was the right and proper way to think...just that that is the way some people do think.
posted by graventy at 4:45 PM on April 12, 2005

I think that there's this weird disconnect that a lot of people have between how they deal with people individually and how they deal with people collectively, especially when it comes to those designated "other." I know people who behave in civil, freindly even loving fashion towards individual "others", but lose all rationality when dealing with groups. I'm not defending it, and I don't quite understand it, but I suspect it has to do with fear of being overwhelmed on some level. And this disconnect seems to cross all boundaries, racial, sexual, ideological.
posted by jonmc at 5:03 PM on April 12, 2005

What's the Matter With Daniel? How Human Beings Lost the Heart of America.
posted by shylock66 at 5:12 PM on April 12, 2005

I grew up in a small town in Missouri (2-3000 pop.) Our small towns becoming more bigoted is a result of enlightened people (gay or otherwise) leaving for more tolerant urban areas. There is not one person that i respected in my graduating class that still lives in my hometown, everyone else has left (most refer to this as escaping.)

It seems apparent that despite the shortcomings of his hometown, this man still cared about the town, the people, and their future. The townspeople, blinded by "red state bloodlust", don't care about the real impact this legislation has on their lives...just that the homos lose. Sorry, Atwood KS, you've lost your way.

I also like the rebuttal quotes from the bible...i need to remember those for future use (not that i get into too many theological arguments in LA! Heathens!)

/rant

Good luck Daniel.

Could this be the one thread where dios says something i completely agree with? In the two-faced environment of rural life, this sort of backstabbing is ubiquitous.
posted by schyler523 at 5:24 PM on April 12, 2005

Reading that was so painful. amber, what you've heard is true: Kansas is hemorrhaging its youth, wealth, and future, because aside from a pocket or two it's exactly as Daniel describes.

I've already said what I wanted to elsewhere and there's nothing much that I've got left. I just want to get out of here.
posted by melissa may at 6:10 PM on April 12, 2005

Not sure if someone posted this already and I missed it, but here's some self-info on Daniel:

http://www.dansworld.net/oldsite/mind.htm

"Although I live in the city now, I'm somewhat of a country boy at heart. I was born and raised in a very small Northwest Kansas town called Atwood. Most of my family still lives there and I love to go back to visit. It's a great little place where you can really unwind and relax (just don't drink the water! It's got this nasty mineral taste to it). I even created a website and donated it to my hometown as a Christmas gift to the community. "

posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 7:21 PM on April 12, 2005

I'm afraid the people that need to read this the most are the ones too dumb to operate a computer.

What confounds me about Americans is the mixture of sophistication and ignorance. These people are smart enough to operate a computer. They just choose ignorance over rationality. I think ultimately they will regret driving out gay people, but that's cold comfort.

Re: My experience is that people can be very friendly to gays and completely respectful and still not support gay marriage. It isn't a matter that people have to be gay-bashers to oppose.

Sure it's nice to get along, but a smile doesn't get you in to the hospital to see your partner. Nor does not hitting me really my respect. Lots of people don't hit me. I'm actually worried about civil rights.

Am I alone in saying 'You don't have to hate conservatives to think dios is a raving asshole and an idiot'?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:56 PM on April 12, 2005

Or, why is it when "Liberals" (whatever they are) don't agree with "Conservatives" (whatever they are), it's called condescension and arrogance -- yet when "Conservatives" don't agree with "Liberals", it's not?

A hypothesis:

1. For conservatives that like logic:
Morality is derived from the Bible. Anyone who tries to make up their own morality is trying to be god-like, which is arrogant.

2. For conservatives that do not like logic:
My opponent is using complex dialog and big words that I don't understand. He must think he's better then me. What a condescending SOB.
posted by catachresoid at 8:04 PM on April 12, 2005

catachresoid: that has a flipside, that a liberal must be thinking "my opponent has a different worldveiw than me, therefore he must be either superstitious or stupid."

We tend to choose explanations that flatter us.
posted by jonmc at 8:11 PM on April 12, 2005

Gay - the new black.

Seriously, why is it that the same, feebly accepted arguments used to deny gay and lesbian rights are castigated as extreme racism when applied to, for example, African Americans or Native Americans? Think about it - what would the reaction be if the quote was:

My experience is that people can be very friendly to blacks and completely respectful and still not support interracial marriage. It isn't a matter that people have to be Klansmen to oppose.

It's not meant to be a Godwin-esque argument - if dios had said this, not a soul would've mistaken that for anything but racism. So, why is it OK to use this argument with gays, but not with others? Why is it different?

And why in the hell is it still acceptable?
posted by FormlessOne at 8:13 PM on April 12, 2005

And before anyone gets "confused", I view marriage as a secular arrangement. If you want to get married in a church by a priest/rabbi/shaman/whatever, that's your privilege - if you want to get married by a justice of the peace, that's your privilege as well.

Those using the argument that "marriage" is a religious institution are fogging the discussion - as far as the state should be concerned, it should be just a licensed contract with legal repercussions, and that's it. If the Catholic Church then decides not to perform marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples, that's great - they can have a secular or non-Christian official perform their ceremony. Christians can keep their belief system intact, and gays & lesbians can get friggin' insurance. Each religion can be as selective and exclusive as their belief system wants, expects, or demands, and any two compatible people can actually take care of each other.
posted by FormlessOne at 8:22 PM on April 12, 2005

Naturally, jonmc. Or to break it down along the same lines...

1. For liberals that like logic:
My opponent is using arbitrary, Bible-based premises. No one would choose to be illogical in that way, so he must be stupid.

2. For liberals that do not like logic:
My opponent supports methods that are contrary to love and kindness. They must be evil.

FormlessOne saith:
So, why is it OK to use this argument with gays, but not with others? Why is it different?

The difference is that we're in the transition period between rejection and acceptance as a culture. That doesn't make it OK. But in the confusion of the transition, it will see various levels of tolerance.
posted by catachresoid at 10:07 PM on April 12, 2005

And we're back at square one, catachresoid.

Now, to my eyes, the townspeople who voted thos law in obviously did the wrong thing, and people should work to counteract that, but the question is how do we do that effectively. Which is what I was trying to address in my two earlier comments but nobody seemed much interested. It's basically the age old question of why people who may be in many ways fundamentally decent and good, support policies and laws that are indecent and not good. To investigate that may not be as emotionally satisfying as (justifiable) raging but I think it needs to be investigated. We crack that code and we can solve a lot of problems.

Now obviously, legal manifestations of homophobia need to be removed, but there's a deeper battle going on for hearts and minds. The argument could be made that removing those legal manifestations is part of that battle and there's some truth to that. I don't doubt that removing the most egregious legal manifestations of racism, progress has been made in race relations simply because white have become used to interacting with blacks on a more (but by no means completely) equal level.

But there's more to be done and we need to keep our rage in our pocket and think about how to channel it effectively.
posted by jonmc at 6:45 AM on April 13, 2005

I've mirrored it through my site.
posted by stewiethegreat at 10:43 AM PST on April 12 [!]


Thanks, stewie. I have been looking for some time for that second batch of bible quotes - can't wait to return them to my sister when she throws her bible at me.
posted by yoga at 7:33 AM on April 13, 2005

My experience is that people can be very friendly to blacks and completely respectful and still not support interracial marriage. It isn't a matter that people have to be Klansmen to oppose.

It's not meant to be a Godwin-esque argument - if dios had said this, not a soul would've mistaken that for anything but racism. So, why is it OK to use this argument with gays, but not with others? Why is it different?
posted by FormlessOne at 8:13 PM PST on April 12

Why force the analog to anti-miscegenation? Why not just deal with the real question we have here? The two aren't exact analogs.

I would submit that there is no basis to be against inter-racial marriage beyond a fear of a race. Can you at least concede that there might be biological reasons to think that same-sex marriage isn't natural or whatever you want to call it?

Even on the most rudimentary level: put a man and a woman nose to nose, then put a same sex couple nose to nose. The parts don't match up. Now, it could be entirely possible for a person to say, "I like gay people. I enjoy their company. I think they should have the rights to engage in whatever sexual practice they want. I think they shouldn't be discriminated against for things that they are qualified to do. BUT, they shouldn't be considered married because they can't fulfill the basic function of a marriage---the parts don't match up."
Now whether the logic is right or wrong in that formulation isn't my point. My point is, people can be entirely accepting of gay people, not have an ounce of hatred in their bodies, and still just think that marriage is between an man and a woman. They don't have to be anti-gay to hold that belief. So don't reflexively resort to the "if you oppose gay marriage you must think blacks should be slaves" nonsense.
posted by dios at 8:16 AM on April 13, 2005

It doesn't matter whether or not married people do it, dios, and you should stay out of their bedrooms. The issue is legal recognition of de facto marriages, and there is no rational reason (that I have ever heard) to deny such.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:21 AM on April 13, 2005

[long]

I apologize iwearred socks. I meant to say those "enlightened/fun-loving/compassionate" people (yourself included, I'm sure).

Puh-lease. Don't insinuate what you can't substantiate. You don't even know how many gay numbers aret stored in my mobile phone.

iwearredsocks: Please characterize "the opposition" in a way that seems cogent and useful to you.

In the spirit of "seek first to understand, then be understood" I present . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------
Homemade Guide to Understanding Anti-Gays

[I can't believe I'm adding this caveat -- understand these aren't my positions, but they are my understanding of the positions taken by "the opposition". If I were trying to pick a bar-fight I could do it at the Dew Drop Inn on Saturday night.]

Concerned and a Little Indignant (3/5 ths). Motivated by a longing for what is morally right and just (usually based on their understanding of God). These folks believe homosexuality is unconscionable in the same way other folks find rain forest destruction or sexism totally unacceptable. A few people being gay isn't good, but it isn't the end of the world either. But if gayness gets too vocal or too prominent, then the character of the nation is affected (much the same way a few people driving SUV's is no big deal, but tons of people raping the world for oil is a stain on the country). These people don't usually want any gay friends. Their solution is to allow the mores and the cultural norms of a community to prevail. No one should get beat up or hurt, but if a community decides gays aren't welcome, that's fine.

Out to Save Them (1/5 ths). Motivated by compassion and a desire to help. These folks love gays. No seriously, they do. In the same way they love anyone who is misguided (or would want to help a drowning man). They believe homosexshuls need saving from their own choices and lifestyle (similar to how the some think the ignorant rubes who voted for Bush need saving from their own poor decisions). Of course this salvation comes through God/Jesus/Xianity. These people often want gay friends so they can witness to them. If a child grows up and "turns gay" these folks won't reject that child, but will pray for them every night. The solution is for Xians to accept gays as people (without accepting the gay behavior) and win them over with loving relationships.

Revolted (1/10 th). Motivated by a feeling of disgust. These people feel a visceral reaction when they imagine anal sex. It seems like it must be un-natural, painful, invasive and (therefore) wrong. Anyone who would want to go in the out door is, by extension, wrong. I picture these folks as hill-country people and rednecks, but have met many educated folks who also have this horror reaction. Of course they can't explain why lesbian porn is such a turn-on, and they probably just need to get in touch with their anuses . . .This group provides the fodder for the ultra-revolted who want to beat up fags (or much worse). I think the epithet "gay-hating" applies here in the same way they might hate someone with leprosy (yes there is an undercurrent in their thought that gayness might be contagious, too) -- just get away from me. The solution is to stay away from fags and keep them away from me.

Not Sure Why (1/10 th). Motivated by the unknown. These are the ones who haven't examined their thoughts and feelings. Small-minded applies in the sense that they don't think too critically. I think most of these people are probably operating with shadows of one of the other motivations. Though they may deserve more contempt for unexamined lives, they seem the most likely to accept a gay friend or family member (but not know why either). There is no solution, just a feeling of ambivalence.


To most of the opposition, the "I was born gay" argument doesn't hold any water. So what if you were born gay? Lot's of people are born with physical and character defects. -- now it's time to overcome them.
------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an attempt to understand those I disagree with rather than just caricature them. Input from you would be helpful!

Suppose someone you care about is in one of these groups. (You can care about people who adamantly disagree with you, right?) Now suppose you were going to try and convince her that the "right to be gay" is as fundamental and basic (they would say god-given) as the right to be physically free. How would you approach it?
posted by iwearredsocks at 8:25 AM on April 13, 2005

Can you at least concede that there might be biological reasons to think that same-sex marriage isn't natural or whatever you want to call it?

I would go a step farther and say that opposite-sex marriage isn't natural. Marriage is a human institution; it doesn't exist in the state of nature. Somebody, somewhere, thought it up and created it out of nothingness.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:01 AM on April 13, 2005

Well, romantic/sexual pair-bonding (goy or straight) seems to be an innate natural impulse of the human species. Marraige is a man made ceremony to signify that bond.
posted by jonmc at 9:13 AM on April 13, 2005

Well, romantic/sexual pair-bonding (goy or straight)

Gay or straight, dammit. let's leave the shaigetz and shiksas out of this one.
posted by jonmc at 9:14 AM on April 13, 2005

You don't even know how many gay numbers aret stored in my mobile phone.

There are gay numbers?
posted by graventy at 9:24 AM on April 13, 2005

well, I was always suspicious of 7. Look at that elegant downstroke, It's gay I tell you! Gay! It hangs out with negative integers and polynomials.

But maybe that's just to shock the square roots.
posted by jonmc at 9:29 AM on April 13, 2005

Daniel's page over at www.atwoodkansas.com has been taken down but it is still available via Google cache, fyi.
posted by vhsiv at 9:43 AM on April 13, 2005

It really doesn't matter whether people hate others or not or which out of multifarious reasons have inspired them to vote for a measure like this. They may be as loving and dedicated to the greater good of humanity as the late Pope, that doesn't matter. What matters is the consequences of their actions: in this case things like a gay person's partner being barred from next of kin status in a medical emergency. That sort of thing is hard and damaging for gay people and just because some hypothetical 'nice folks' have voted for it, it doesn't make its effects any less bad for those on the receiving end.
posted by Flitcraft at 9:44 AM on April 13, 2005

For shame. Literally.
posted by vhsiv at 9:44 AM on April 13, 2005

What matters is the consequences of their actions

Agreed. But the alter those consequences, some investigations into motivation (or the process by which people come to embrace bigotry) are warranted, is what I'd argue.
posted by jonmc at 10:15 AM on April 13, 2005

Dios - "...put a man and a woman nose to nose, then put a same sex couple nose to nose. The parts don't match up....they shouldn't be considered married because they can't fulfill the basic function of a marriage---the parts don't match up..."

That would be assuming that the sole purpose of marriage is for fucking and having children which it never has been. People fucked and had children long before marriage ever existed, marriage is just a social contract between two people who love each other that nowadays happens to have financial and social advantages.

To deny it to people on the basis that someone was issued with unmatched parts seems to be a teensy bit pointless, possibly it could even be skirting the boundaries of being mean.
posted by longbaugh at 10:17 AM on April 13, 2005

or to draw a parallel: would you say that it dosen't matter what motivates terrorists to hijack planes and kill people since what matters is only the consequence of their actions?

Probably not, since you realize that investigating (not condoning) their motivations is part of combatting those consequences.
posted by jonmc at 10:18 AM on April 13, 2005

Dios: Is your point that you only have to be a moron to work against gay marriage, instead of having to hate gay people? I suppose that's true. But I don't think it's too much to ask to be allowed to tell people that they're morons, and to imply that if they're that dumb, they shouldn't be voting on things like this. Just because they can vote, doesn't mean they have to.
posted by klangklangston at 10:30 AM on April 13, 2005

"Today, the Lawrence Journal-World ran a story about it after interviewing me yesterday and let's just say the end result of the interview which was positive doesn't really come across in the story."

Webmaster posts gay-marriage ban rant on town's home page [Lawrence Journal-World | April 13, 2005]
posted by ericb at 10:58 AM on April 13, 2005

put a man and a woman nose to nose, then put a same sex couple nose to nose. The parts don't match up.

Hmm. What about back to front? Do those parts "line up [in either case]"?
posted by yoga at 11:13 AM on April 13, 2005

dios writes "Can you at least concede that there might be biological reasons to think that same-sex marriage isn't natural or whatever you want to call it? Even on the most rudimentary level: put a man and a woman nose to nose, then put a same sex couple nose to nose. The parts don't match up."

Even on the most rudimentary level: put a man and a woman nose to nose, then put six-foot-five jonmc and little tiny Specklet nose to nose bellybutton. The parts don't match up.

<small-minded> And you know, them Oriental wimmens got them slanty eyes and them little tiny slanty coochies and them big black bucks got them those giant "mandingos", and you just know God intended that to keep the races suppurate just like it says in the Good Book.</small-minded>
posted by orthogonality at 11:32 AM on April 13, 2005

I think all coochies start off little, tiny, slanty
posted by iwearredsocks at 11:38 AM on April 13, 2005

I'm six foot one, orthogonality, but otherwise the arrangement is intriguing.
posted by jonmc at 11:53 AM on April 13, 2005

Good breakdown, iwearredsocks.

dios:
So don't reflexively resort to the "if you oppose gay marriage you must think blacks should be slaves" nonsense.

I think the analogy is best used as a tool to show people how the injustice in one case is also injustice in the other case. Not as a accusation of racism because someone opposes gay marriage. But as your example points out, the analogy is perhaps insufficient without addressing the definitional disagreements.

jonmc:
Marriage is a man made ceremony to signify that bond.

The secular versus the sacred definition of marriage is almost certainly at the crux of why liberals are traditionally "hey, why not!" about pair-bonding, and conservatives are more resistant to change.

How in the hell does one go about convincing people that their definitions are wrong? Especially when the great majority of people are rather hostile to semantic arguments?
posted by catachresoid at 12:01 PM on April 13, 2005

or to draw a parallel: would you say that it dosen't matter what motivates terrorists to hijack planes and kill people since what matters is only the consequence of their actions?

I'm saying that the other side having holy intentions doesn't make it any better if you're on the receiving end, you're still damaged whatever their motivation was. People still have a right to object to ill-treatment even if the people doing the ill-treatment are nice folks doing it for what they think are very pure reasons.
posted by Flitcraft at 12:04 PM on April 13, 2005

Again, I'm not disagreeing flitcraft, merely offerring supplemental thoughts.
posted by jonmc at 12:35 PM on April 13, 2005

It's why the anti-marriage folks will lose. All loving stable relationships should be encouraged and welcomed. Most normal human beings understand that.
posted by amberglow at 12:40 PM on April 13, 2005