2/4/11

This week, I added the term "gay rights" to my Google Alerts, but I didn't get as many hits as I did for "gay marriage."  I think this is because gay marriage has recently been such a hot-button topic and issue, more so than the more general "gay rights."

One of the big pieces of news this week (well, not necessarily big, but big in the gay rights world I think) was that Utah State Senate Minority Leader Ross Romero said in a YouTube video that gay rights is the civil rights challenge of our generation.  Romero said this on Human Rights Day, and his purpose is to prevent suicide in the gay community.  Some of his remarks were: "Remember, you are not alone and it gets better."  (http://qsaltlake.com/2011/02/03/romero-gay-rights-the-‘civil-rights-challenge-of-our-generation’/)  While not making an 'argument,' per say, Romero calls on specific people (the Utah governor and other legislative leaders) to join him in his effort to stop suicide among gay teens.  This relates to the ad we looked at in class for wecansolveit.org.  The We Can Solve It ad partly uses an innovative argument by saying that it's time for Americans to come together to fight climate change.  I think that Romero's comments fall under this category as well: he has a nagging dissatisfaction with the existing order of inequality but yet faith in underlying norms and values.

I also found an op-ed article in The Baltimore Sun online which gave reasons for opposing gay marriage.  The article's main question: Do children matter in Maryland?  The author bases his entire stance that marriage should be left for a man and a woman off of this one question.  The author argues that gay marriage has nothing to do with equality or even sexual orientation.  Instead, the author argues, the issue is about whether "the birth and nurture of children remains a priority in this state." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-same-sex-marriage-20110201%2C0%2C2030527.story).  The response, published in the same online newspaper, says that "nothing could better expose the utter emptiness of the anti-gay marriage position." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-gay-marriage-letter-20110203,0,3576861.story)
Although this is nothing groundbreaking and the original op-ed's argument was obviously very old and weak and easy to refute, I found it interesting that this argument is still being made as if it's new and that a counter-article was written in the same paper in direct response.  The original op-ed definitely uses a Retentive argument, because he says in the beginning of the article that everything could take a turn for the worst if Maryland decides to "radically change" the definition of marriage in the state.  The author wants things to stay how they are.