Was Ethan McNamee manipulated by pro-GLBT lobbyists?
Posted by Mathew | May 27, 2009 | 3 Comments
While researching my earlier article on the pro-gay marriage rally speech performed by nine year-old Ethan McNamee, one thing I noticed on the various GLBT blogs were comments that conservatives claimed Ethan was manipulated.
I don’t really know if this claim is substantiated; I couldn’t even find a conservative blog or news article that covered the event in which this view was apparently put forward. Perhaps I didn’t delve deep enough into the Google search results? Or I just didn’t read through the many comments left by people on the news sites and blogs that had articles on the subject?
While I don’t personally ascribed to the notion that Ethan was manipulated, I believe it is perfectly fair to say that he was very much influenced by those around him. But who isn’t?
Influence and manipulation can be totally different things. Influence can be used well or not so well. Influence can simply be defined as the prevalent thought, the most dominant thought, or the only stream of thought available to an individual; whereas manipulation has a stronger bent for specific maliciousness and is undertaken solely to benefit a third party individual or group, who performs the manipulation on an unsuspecting individual or group who likewise is not likely to profit from being manipulated.
Much like many millions of people the world over, conservatives and liberals alike, I very much doubt Ethan was manipulated – but he has certainly been influenced.
So the questions is whether Ethan had good or … not so good influencers.
Ethan’s own mother, rightly so, is an influence on him. “We constantly talk about how everyone is equal,” said Tracy Edwards, Ethan’s mother. Which is a healthy conversation, on the outset. Part of the reason why Ethan was so determined to organise and host the gay-marriage rally was because he witnessed denigrating remarks concerning gays and lesbians in his own school-yard. Out of a sense of standing up for what is right and for defending others, instilled by his mother, motivated Ethan to organise the event that he did.
And, yes, anti-gay remarks, those designed to belittle and hurt certainly do deserve to be opposed and should be. No one’s denying that from either the left or the right.
Kyle Kimmal was also an influence on Ethan – naturally so, being Ethan’s class teacher. Mr Kimmal encouraged and supported Ethan in his project, going so far as to lodge a permit application in order that Ethan may legally hold the rally in the public setting.
Ethan’s lesbian neighbours had an influence on him. They had told him that because they are both women they could not legally get married in the state of Colorado. Which, according to Ethan, is discriminatory and unjust and further spurred him on to coordinate the event.
The Director of The GLBT Center of Colorado, Mindy Marton, would have been a further influence on Ethan, helping him organise some of the additional speakers for the rally, perhaps providing him with other accounts of same-sex couples who likewise cannot legally wed and maybe informing him of nation-wide resistance to same-sex marriage across the country.
Yes, there can be no denying that Ethan McNamee was influenced. He was not, so far as I can tell, maliciously manipulated – and this is why: his own mother sincerely believes in what she does and teaches her son those values; his teacher, Kyle Kimmal, also, sincerely believes that gays and lesbians are treated unjustly and that such attitudes should be changed; Ethan’s lesbian neighbours, perhaps, really do believe they are being denied a right that straights have.
But Mindy Morton, Director of the GLBT Center … well, I’m sure she does what she does because she also believes in it. But she also runs a politically active group – and perhaps this is where the main concerns of “manipulation” arise. Yet, for the sake of argument, let’s give Ms Morton the benefit of the doubt.
I am trying to be fair-minded here – not to skirt around a sensitive issued nor to avoid a conflagration – because I believe the benefit of the doubt should courteously be extended in this situation. And now having said that, my real contention for this article is to question whether or not the basis, the core values and the beliefs of these various influences on Ethan’s mindset are correct/well-founded.
Because that is – partially – what should be debated. If all the parties involved in Ethan’s life sincerely believe they are doing what is right, what makes them believe it is right? And why don’t they believe it is wrong?
I have said elsewhere before, borrowing from a fine argument of Christian apologist Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason, that our marriage laws do not discriminate against gays and lesbians because these marriage laws apply the exact same freedoms and restrictions to both gays and straights alike: both groups can marry anyone of the opposite sex; neither group can marry someone of the same sex. The fact that gays and lesbians and liberals might not find this response satisfactory is beside the point: marriage laws are not discriminatory on the grounds of sexual-orientation. And nor should they be treated that way. Period.
You may at this point argue that it is discrimnatory against same-sex sexual practices – and I’ll agree. But how is that a bad thing? Not all discrimination is bad – you can discriminate for good and for ill (we socially don’t allow men in women’s bathrooms, nor vice versa, for example). The issue in so far as sexual practice then begs the question: what is marriage? What is its purpose?
Marriage is something that is very specific. Not defined by culture, but described by culture – there has been no civilisation in which marriage has not been the primary unit, the basic building block, for propagating society. Marriage, between one man and one woman, provides the best environment – by design, by definition and as a rule – for the upbringing of happy, healthy children who go on to become the next generation within society.
Sociologists support this stance. There have been decades of studies performed that demonstrate that kids grow up best in households where they live with their married biological father and mother. (I say “married” because there is even a distinct difference between kids living with married vs cohabitating biological parents.)
All this is to say that Ethan, and those supporting him in his pro-gay marriage advocacy, do not address the real reasons why conservatives advocate retaining the traditional definition of marriage: the union between one man and one woman for life. Marriage is not about the union of two people loving each other (the State doesn’t care if you’re in love or not and it is not, strictly speaking, a pre-requisit for getting married. The State just doesn’t check this); marriage is not about creating a gender neutral union; nor is marriage about extending equal civil rights to same-sex couples; nor is marriage about sex. You can get and have these things without marriage – and people frequently do.
No. Marriage is about families and families are what the State is interested in and this is the sole reason why marriage should remain State sanctioned and defined as between one man and one woman: after all, the State has a vested interest in supporting marriages, especially those that create families, which go on to create the next generation for which the State is dependent upon for its own existence.
This is why we protect, argue for and advocate the traditional view of marriage: for the good of society. And if you want to call that discrimination, then call it good discrimination, because it benefits everyone in society – gays and straights alike.
Same-sex marriage advocates, even those as young as Ethan, have been influenced by incorrect ideas of what marriage is and of what it’s purpose and function is in society. Standing up against the same-sex marriage movement is not bigoted, religiously motivated or homophobic. Standing up against same-sex marriage protects the children of society and allows parents within families like that of Ethan’s to cultivate strong moral values and beliefs of righting wrongs and seeking justice.
We just hope that along with these good intentions from Ethan, his parents and the wider community, that they temper their zeal with the larger, broader picture and not succumb to the furfies often touted by the GLBT political movements – which are manipulative … emotionally and aggressively.
Related Thoughts out !oud posts
Tags: Christianity > culture > Ethan McNamee > family > Greg Koukl > homosexuality > same-sex marriage
Comments
3 Responses to “Was Ethan McNamee manipulated by pro-GLBT lobbyists?”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to my thoughts!
May 28th, 2009 @ 7:11 am
But marriage HAS changed over time, and in other times and places is or has been polygamous. It is indeed defined by the culture.
There have also been historical instances where partnerships between two people of the same gender have been blessed by religious institutions. That continues to be the case, and is an example of religious freedom.
By the way, what did you mean by furfies?
May 28th, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Marriage has not changed. It has always been what it is: a union between opposite sexes. The “trimmings” of marriage may have changed but even in polygamy one thing remains the same: it consists of a union between men and women. Never has marriage been referred to as the union of two or more people of the same sex and never has a society or culture been built upon such unions.
So the core meaning of marriage has not changed at all: it has always and still does involve unions of those of the opposite sex.
Greg Koukl has a multitude of resources and articles regarding the meaning of marriage and the same-sex marraige debate. One good summary article can be found here: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&...
“Furfies”, also spelled as “furphies”, is an Australian colloquialism meaning “half-truths” or “rumours”.
May 28th, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Marriage has not changed. It has always been what it is: a union between opposite sexes. The “trimmings” of marriage may have changed but even in polygamy one thing remains the same: it consists of a union between men and women. Never has marriage been referred to as the union of two or more people of the same sex and never has a society or culture been built upon such unions.
So the core meaning of marriage has not changed at all: it has always and still does involve unions of those of the opposite sex.
Greg Koukl has a multitude of resources and articles regarding the meaning of marriage and the same-sex marraige debate. One good summary article can be found here: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&...
“Furfies”, also spelled as “furphies”, is an Australian colloquialism meaning “half-truths” or “rumours”.