In response to “The Marriage Minute” videos produced by the other side, I produced “The Marriage Discriminate” — interviews on video with people who want to ban gay marriage — from the Minnesota State Fair. Prepare for a little shock and awe.
Our Tweets
- The Marriage Discriminate: Shock-and-awe conversations from the #MinnStateFair. @MN4allfamilies #VoteNo 8 months ago
- A gay Methodist minister, an atheist-turned-Presbyterian and a nun walk into the Pride Festival ... wp.me/p20EWQ-45 #tcpride 10 months ago
- Mormons, married parents and rockers Sparhawk and Parker of the band Low talk marriage equality. wp.me/p20EWQ-3X #marriage #LGBT 11 months ago
Our Facebook Page
Categories
Archives
Oh this is hilarious!!!!!
WOW!!!!!!!! It’s amazing how you cut out half of a statement I started to make and then the part that I explained you completely left out! I remember at the beginning of your interview I felt a little nervous being in front of a camera and you said “it’s ok, we have editting.” It really IS amazing what you can do with editing! You can make it seem like somebody said something COMPLETELY illogical, hateful and bigoted, which I made a great deal of effort trying to avoid by giving an explanation to every single question you asked backed up by history, philosophy, and logic. You said you were doing a documentary on the faith movement by the amendment and really you were doing a documentary on what you believe is pure hate and discrimination. In case you’re wondering which of the poor people in this video I’m the relatively young blonde curly haired guy next to the red head. I see you’re not an honest journalist, but a tabloid journalist. You are simply trying to get an agenda across without properly representing both sides. I think you and I can agree that we were both very respectful to one another during the interview, but now to see what you’ve done, you must be shameless. I have a friend who listened to almost the length of our interview (which was roughly 35-45 minutes if I’m not mistaken) who plans to Vote No (I spoke with her minutes afterward) but she found your approach of trying to put us in a box, trap us in our words, and obviously skew our interview, to be absolutely tasteless. We don’t have to agree on the issue. That is our choice, to disagree. But you can at least have the integrity to properly represent those you oppose. I hope you don’t discriminate against my freedom of expression and speech to delete this comment and instead choose to have the honesty and integrity to reply to this and answer WHY you tried so hard to make my words mean something they don’t. And know that my prayers go with you.
-Jonathan
Btw, within the next few days I will be making a video response to this video. I won’t stand by and allow cheap tactics to dishonor the opinions held in good conscience by these wonderful people who stand for what they believe in.
Jonathan, thank you for writing. I’ll explain a bit about what I thought my process would be going into the day and what it turned into once I sat down to edit. I know I wanted to produce video that was engaging, reflected what you and others told me and had some humor. Initially, I’d hoped to produce “The Marriage Discriminate” as a series of videos between 1-2 minutes each that would run over the course of X number of days, each one featuring a different person. I’d hoped to drill beneath the hollow, deceptive, ill-informed, misinformed, fear-driven arguments that I’d heard and read from the pro-amendment side—or at least expose them for what I see them to be—and that’s where the humor would come in.
I thought this video would be both scary and funny to a large audience simply by airing the views from people on your side of the fence. You were my first interview of the day and, by far, the longest one. There was no way I was going to be able to reflect the entirety of our conversation, nor was that my goal. Much as I appreciated the conversation we had, it was difficult finding whole/clean pieces of video that expressed any cogent sentiment—there were five seconds here, 10 seconds there, and we went in circles as our conversation got unwieldy, repetitive, frustrating. This isn’t your fault as much as mine as an interviewer, to not do a better job of reeling you back in and moving the conversation forward. Still, I didn’t script anything, I didn’t splice two unrelated segments together to make it seem like you said something you didn’t, and I didn’t put words in your mouth. I don’t know what you think you said during our conversation that would have cast a better light on your sentiments. You and your friend based your arguments on pseudo studies and the primacy of procreative relationships. If I turned out our entire unedited conversation, I’m afraid you wouldn’t come across any better for it. It would just be boring and unwatchable, and rather than 20-30 seconds of video that doesn’t cast you in the best light, it would be 45 minutes of it.
I want to address one other thing in your note. You mention “opinions held in good conscience by these wonderful people who stand for what they believe in.” On this issue, your opinion and “good conscience” are an oxymoron. You know what? You shouldn’t have the right to have your “opinion” dictate the rights of other people—plain and simple—just as I would never countenance anyone else’s opinion dictating your rights. Our constitution is built on equal rights for ALL citizens. So, did I edit your video to highlight the absurd logic coming from your side of the fence? Absolutely. So, by all means, create a video in response. I will warn you, though, that every second of tape you put in the public sphere that supports limiting, withholding or banning the rights of gay and lesbian Americans will only make you look worse.
Jonathan, you seem like a really nice guy, and I really did appreciate the conversation we had and the time you and your friend took. I didn’t want or expect to speak that long. But on this issue, you’re simply backwards on it, and I hope that, in time, you’ll learn to accept gay and lesbian people as just as “ordered” as you and anyone else.
I watched the clip, and I’m voting yes, and I am a Christian, however, I did not see a reasoned response to your question from any yes advocates, so let me try to explain as concisely as I can… 1) NO ONE is telling gay people that they cannot get married. It is a gay person’s choice not to marry a person of the opposite sex. No one is forcing them to marry someone of the opposite sex. 2) Marriage has always been understood as a sacred bond between a man and a woman before God, not the government. What the government does is recognize this bond, not authorize it. Redefining marriage dilutes the term into something other than what it is. 3) The definition of marriage, as it stands, is not bigoted or hateful. I’m not sure why gays who desire to spend their life together in a monogamous relationship need to impose their free choice (which I would vigorously defend) on the sacred bond of marriage. Why can’t they make that choice and be happy with it? Why does the imposition of a redefinition of marriage add to their relationship? 4) To mention tax benefits… I don’t believe it is our government’s job to grant special privileges to anyone, married or not married, unless it is in the best interests of society as a whole. Our government’s job is to keep us safe, and protect our freedoms (like speech, due process of law, ect.). 5) Lastly, (and this is where it always gets heated…) I (or anyone else) do not have the right to speak for God. God has already spoken for Himself. It saddens me that the misunderstanding of His Word causes so much pain, but the answer is not to try and reinvent what He has said, but to be diligent to understand what He has said clearly, When we speak of marriage, we are speaking in terms of a family unit. The Bible makes what constitutes a family unit very clear: one man… and one woman. I don’t believe this is bigoted or hateful, nor do I think we need to convince the government to change it.
Jake, thank you for writing. Let me address each of your rationales for voting yes.
1) By voting yes, YOU are telling gay people they can’t get married to each other. In your yes vote, you’re refusing to accept that homosexual love is objectively equal to that of heterosexual love. By suggesting anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, you’re diminishing and mocking homosexuality. Why does gender play any role in legal marriage? What would you do about transgendered people?
2) Just because something as “always been understood” as something doesn’t make it right. You need only look at the Civil Rights movement and the Women’s Rights Movement as examples of fundamental changes to what has “always been understood,” and there are many others. You say marriage is a bond before God, not the government, yet it’s the government that grants privileges based on marital status. You mention “dilution” of the term of marriage. Dilution is subjective. Some might see it that way, many do not, and the government has no role in playing favorites here among its citizens.
3) You use the words “impose” and “imposition.” I would suggest it is amendment advocates such as yourself who are imposing your will on others, because through your yes vote, you’re deciding the rights of others. How is the marriage of two men or two women any imposition on you, your marriage or anyone else’s? You ask “Why can’t they make their choice and be happy with it?” The answer is obvious—you’re not allowing them to make a choice. All advocates of same-sex marriage want is for the rights of marriage to extend to all.
4) Tax benefits. If, as you say, it isn’t the government’s job to grant special privileges to anyone, then the government shouldn’t recognize marriage at all, for anyone, for the purposes of taxation. As it stands now, the government is granting this “special privilege” only to heterosexual married couples.
5) You say you and nobody else has “the right to speak for God,” yet you also say “the answer is not to reinvent” God’s word. In order to reinvent, you’re assuming that one person or faction has the corner on what God invented. Who says you’re right about God’s word? Theologians from across the faith spectrum differ wildly on Biblical interpretations, and while it’s your right to choose which interpretation to believe, it’s not your right—or at least shouldn’t be—to have your interpretation become the basis for determining the rights of other people. What if you were in the minority and, by a twist of politic, the way you choose to live your life—without any harm to anybody else—is blocked or denied by a popular vote of the majority? Would you then say “Well, I guess my interpretation of God’s word is wrong?” Of course you wouldn’t. Outside of agnostics, there isn’t anyone in the world who considers him/herself a person of faith who will call ANOTHER faith God’s true word. Every person of faith thinks he/she has the corner on God’s word—or, at minimum, lives a life in faith that at least works for them as individuals. So here we get back to the central founding document of this country and the separation of church and state: Leave religion out of all laws and allow everyone equal access to rights and privileges overseen by government.
So, you may not want to see yourself as bigoted or hateful, but the constitutional amendment you’re supporting is, without question, discriminatory. So at least be intellectually honest and admit that, through all your reasoning, you’re simply uncomfortable with homosexuality and want to deny any legal recognition of it.
Thanks for your heartfelt response, Matt. I really appreciate the time you took to explain. I agree, by voting, yes, I am saying that someone cannot decide to marry a person of the same sex, but that is not the same as saying yes advocates are denying homosexuals the right to be married. Gay people have the right to marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose. I understand why that seems to mock homosexuality, but I mention it because it is important that people understand no ones rights are being denied or taken away. Keeping the definition of marriage as it stands does not preclude a meaningful, monogomous relationship as it is defined by the couple. A couple can choose to be committed to eachother without entering into the covenant of marriage.
I conced that the fact that something “has always been understood” a certain way is not a legitimate argument to keep it that way. I couldn’t agree more.
You made the satement “All advocates of same-sex marriage want is for the rights of marriage to extend to all.” I’m having a difficult time understanding why. Why is a commitment to a religious sacrament necessary for a lasting and fulfilling relationship? I’ll refrain from throwing slippery slopes at you, but I assure you my interest in this issue is more religious than social. It isn’t based on your allegations of homophobia or bigotry.
My relgious interests stem from your last statement concerning biblical interpretation. We do have the corner on what God has said, but not just me, all of us. We have the Word of God, which has been preserved for us throughout the centuries that tell us about the Messiah who was sent to redeem the world. No passage in the Bible is a matter of one’s own interpretation. When the Bible is read plainly, grammatically, and historically, as a person would read any other ancient document, its meaning becomes very plain. The reason we have so many interpretations is because people have presuppostions that they want to protect, or presuppostions they want to claim the Bible supports.
A plain reading of everything the Bible says about marriage and the family describes that relationship between a man and a woman. I don’t believe the government has the right to determine a definition for marriage with something other than what the Bible says. I would prefer the government stay out of it to be perfectly honest, but as long as they insist on being involved in religious sacraments, I will defend a plain reading of Scripture because I know only what the Bible teaches corresponds with reality.
thanks for your time, Matt. You are very engaging (on your video), and clearly a very talented and energetic journalist.