When it comes to LGBT people and their objection to our existance and engagement in the world, far-right commentators can be downright astounding in the way they use their words. Discriminating in civil law becomes "protecting marriage." Attempting to change a person via harmful and scientifically discredited "reparative therapy" methods becomes a spiritual "restoration." And our entire fight to obtain the same basic freedoms and protections that everyone else has—no more and no less—is turned into an "agenda" that seeks "special rights."
A major reason why this whole debate is so overwrought is because these forces that declare there to be a "culture war" (itself a deliberate reframing of language) refuse to talk about these matters the way thinking adults should talk about them. It's all part of a game for these practitioners of a movement that's determined to turn anti-LGBT animus into a "pro-family," "values"-driven cause.
Which brings me to conservative radio host and commentator Dennis Prager. In a new piece for the fringe website WND (formerly WorldNetDaily), Prager takes on the Cheney family spat (backstory here, for those unfamiliar) by throwing all kinds of rhetorical tricks at the wall, in hopes that some will stick. Through Prager's pen, Liz Cheney, who has publicly come out against her sister's marriage, is portrayed as someone who simply holds a certain opinion on a political matter, even though her position is, in fact, a direct repudiation of Mary's life and family (which includes two children, Liz's niece and nephew). And of course to hear Prager tell it, anyone who questions Liz on her public put-down of Mary's marriage is, in fact, a "hater" (his word, which he uses multiple times).
But perhaps Prager's most offensive spinjob revolves around his efforts to place the onus of familial strife not on the family member who takes a public stand against his or her LGBT sibling, but rather against the LGBT sibling who is simply defending his or her life. Prager delivers this view as a direct challenge to commentators like Frank Bruni and Maureen Dowd, suggesting that they and Mary are the ones who are needlessly dividing American families everywhere. Here's a pertinent snip:
Do you believe that it is morally acceptable for all gays to stop speaking to their siblings – one of the worst things a person can do to a sibling and to one’s parents – solely because the sibling believes in the man-woman definition of marriage? Or do you only defend Mary Cheney’s decision to cut off relations with her sister because you hate the Cheneys?
...
I have received numerous emails from parents and siblings of gays who have completely cut off communications with their parents and siblings solely because those parents and siblings oppose same-sex marriage. In my view, this decision to shatter one’s family over this issue is the real immorality here.
The support of [Frank] Bruni, [Eugene] Robinson, [Maureen] Dowd, [Andrew] Sullivan, [Peter] Beinart and [Jeffrey] Toobin for this shattering of families by gay family members is not only morally wrong. It is frightening. Clearly, for them it is not enough for parents and siblings to show their gay family member love – and even celebrate their gay relative’s family – they must also permanently shut their mouths.
FULL: Mary Cheney, Liz Cheney and left-wing hate [WND]
Ludicrous. Nothing short of ludicrous.
By taking a public swing against her sister's marriage, Liz Cheney is telling Americans that her sister's family is not as valid as her own. Period. There is no way to spin out of that. If Liz did see her sister's marriage and family as equal, then Liz would join the rest of her family in supporting full civil marriage equality of the kind that protects Mary, Heather, and their two children (i.e. Liz's niece and nephew). But Liz has instead chosen to side with the far-right forces that are trying to halt or even dismantle such protections.
On just a base level, this kind of public repudiation increases the culture of fear and misunderstanding that can only make life harder for Mary and all other LGBT people. But on a very real and practical level, Liz's stance could bring real world strife to Mary, Heather, and kids as they try to make their way through this world as a productive family unit. Whether she means what she says or if she's simply playing politics, Liz Cheney did far more than simply voice disagreement on a political matter. This isn't something like filibuster reform, on which we can all agree to disagree and then go laugh about it over a beer. These are our lives! These are our hearts! These are our children!
This is especially of note this week, as many of us prepare to head off to our Thanksgiving dinners. Imagine how a straight relative would react if an LGBT or allied relative stood up and announced, "Hi, I'm planning to go to the press and take a public stand against the thing you hold most dear in hopes that it will win me some political support. Please pass the mashed potatoes." First of all, this is highly unlikely to happen, since the marriage equality movement is inclusive and doesn't come at the expense of any other family form. But if it were to happen, in some theoretical realm, just imagine the reaction. Most heterosexual people would greet it first with sheer bewilderment, as heterosexual people, in general, have never had to fight for the right to form families. But once it settled in and this relative realized that this other family member was vowing to launch a direct assault on his or her household, the most likely followup reaction would resemble rage. And who could blame him or her? We all hold our families dear, and when someone threatens our family's well-being, our most human of instincts set in.
But when that someone who does the threatening is a relative? Well, that drive to fight to protect the ones we love, so natural and ingrained, is coupled with the equally strong and equally ingrained element known as pain. The fact of the matter is that it is downright painful to hear that someone who you expected to always be there for you and with you, through thick and thin, is instead turning energy against you and yours. When a relative makes this choice—and to be clear, it's always a choice to embrace civil discrimination and the anti-LGBT culture that surrounds it—it is nothing short of a punch in the gut. This gut-punch may not completely shatter the relationship, but it certainly isn't going to strengthen it. It hurts. A lot.
Yet Dennis Prager thinks that those of us who are at the other end of this interfamilial slighting are to blame for whatever fallout may occur? When someone actively works to shatter our families, he thinks we are supposed to overlook this innate and easily understood combo of rage and pain just so we can keep the family peace? That burden is on us?!
My immediate reaction was to call his view ludicrous, but I'd also add that Dennis's suggestion is a downright hurtful and offensive one. I know the anti-LGBT movement loves to blame us for everything from societal destruction to bad disco (and every hangnail in between), but the idea that we are the problem when a sibling comes out against us is almost too absurd to even take seriously. To remind Mr. Prager, the socially conservative view on marriage, when extended to its (il)logical end, is one that quite literally seeks to somehow divorce people like Mary Cheney or myself from our legal spouses. That is not an overstatement. If this movement was free to fulfill its goals of a federal marriage amendment and a full-blown "remedy" of what they see as the marriage equality "problem," then those of us who are married would be stripped of our unions. That is what Liz Cheney is emboldening here: the idea that Mary—American, citizen, taxpayer, spouse, mother, sister—is living in a wrong way and should, ideally, be put in her place. Liz wants to change our laws so that this happens.
If this aggressive act causes strife within the family, then that is on the aggressor. We LGBT people are not the bad girls and boys if we don't sit there quietly and take our forciblly lowered status. We are part of the family too, just as we are part of the American fabric. You try to rip us out of that fabric and you just might get a reaction. It's likely, even.
