A Simple Logic

The following conversation was had between Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann and an Iowan high school student:

BACHMANN: Well, No. 1, all of us as Americans have the same rights. The same civil rights. And so that’s really what government’s role is, to protect our civil rights. There shouldn’t be any special rights or special set of criteria based upon people’s preferences. We all have the same civil rights.

JANE SCHMIDT: Then, why can’t same-sex couples get married?

BACHMANN: They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man.

JANE SCHMIDT: Why can’t a man marry a man?

BACHMANN: Because that’s not the law of the land.

Now, let's break this logic down. The beginning of this exchange is my favorite, mostly because I believe it is almost 100% correct.

The role of government is to ensure our civil rights. All full citizens should have the same civil rights without special exceptions. Therefore, in America, all citizens should be given the same civil rights despite belonging to certain groups, such as gender (i.e. being a man versus being a woman).

Alright, that was easy! Way to go Bachmann. We actually agree on the role of government. I was a bit surprised. Let's keep this ball rolling.

Civilly, marriage is when two citizens are joined together in legal union. A citizen has the civil right to get married.

Now, we can't say that a man's civil right is different than a woman's civil right, because that would be special treatment. No citizen should have different civil rights than the other. If a woman can marry a woman, for instance, then a man should be able to marry a woman as well. A woman should no be disallowed from having the same right to marry a specific gender because of her gender.

Usually it's best to simply say "citizen." That keeps us from tripping up on that pesky special groups thing. For instance, I would not want to say that Latino citizens have a right to vote on Tuesdays. Or that old citizens no longer have the right to free speech. By specifying a specific subgroup of citizenship one rhetorically excludes others. Instead, it is proper to say "American citizens have the right to vote for their elected officials," or, "American citizens have the right of free speech."

Ok, so, American citizens have the right to legally wed other American citizens. Excellent. We're on the same page here.

Now, as Bachmann then continues, since we all have the same civil rights as citizens, gays should not have the right to marry.

Huh? Please, explain.

"Ok, so, you're a guy," Bachmann might answer, "You have the same right as any other guy to get married to a woman."

"Correct, but as a guy, I should have the same rights as all citizens, including women, right?" I would probably inquire.

"Yes, because, as I said before, 'all of us as Americans have the same civil rights... There shouldn't be any special rights or special set of criteria...' While I intended this to be a gay thing, logically it would have to apply to women and men as well." She would be forced to reply.

Ok, let me get this straight. All American citizens should be given the same rights. I am a man. I, as an American citizen, should have the same rights as a woman despite being a man. Women have the right to marry men. Therefore...

Now, here is where Michelle Bachmann and I differ on our logic.

JOHN'S ANSWER: Therefore, I, as an American citizen, should have the right to marry a man. Legal and civil marriage is based on my status as a citizen, not my gender or status as a separate group.

MICHELLE'S ANSWER: Wait, can you repeat the question?

If faced with copying test answers from someone during a big final, I would put my money on the high school student rather than the presidential candidate from Minnesota. Well, actually I'd just use my own brain. I am getting my doctorate, you know. I'd hope those few extra years of schooling are good for something.

Now, for your next logic assignment, try to figure out the line of reasoning on this.

In case you want to see more about the exchange between Bachmann and Jane Schmidt, the Iowan high school student, check it out for yourself.

Drawing Blood: Proposition 8

I've just come back from a lecture on the Francoist Spanish State at the University of California, San Diego. This project is meant to catalog and preserve the oral history of those who suffered under the fascist regime after the Spanish Civil War. The religious and conservative Francoist civil war toppled the elected government of Spain in a military strike fueled by Nazi and fascist Italian support. Europe escalated towards global war and many Spanish citizens paid the price.

The Francoist regime ordered the execution of countless civilians, including school teachers who were associated with a secular governmental enterprise: education. The first city bombings and use of mechanized warfare shocked the world with their brutality. After three years of pure destruction, the fascist government emerged as the central power in Spain. I sat there before big-screened, personal recount of this conflict. It was painful to hear the voices of those who opposed the regime and those who suffered under the loss of life and liberty. I sat there as an old man cried for his lost wife and child. Brutal slaying in the name of tradition and order. Those who fought for their freedom were met with death. Wholesale, unyielding death.

I'm sat in the lecture hall and thought about my own history. My grandmother recently told me about our family's migrant circuit: Texas for cotton, California for grapes, Wisconsin for cranberries. I've had a similar, yet more nuanced trail. Texas circumvented my civil rights as a gay man in 2005. Wisconsin halted my pursuit for equality in 2006. Now I am in California, the golden state. Days ago, I was finally a first-class citizen. My long searching for a place where I could be equal (in my own land) had come to a close.

Those same days ago, I was converted back into a second-class citizen as my civil rights were stripped away. This denial of personal liberty was written into the constitution, the very fabric of what makes this state. It's a profound message and I've received it as it was intended. To the Francoist regime, I would have been seen as a lion stalking the traditional, conservative view of society. In California, I must similarly be a horrible threat to challenge such a fundamental thing as a definition of "family" that has existed for only little more than 100 years.

On my side of this fight, I have seen the murder, psychological torture, and crucifixion of gay men and women like myself. People I have worked with have been brutally stabbed and died because of their sexuality. Countless more individuals suffer under the current governmental structure that rebukes them. Many of these young people would rather commit suicide than live with such violence and hatred. I speak about all of this from both scholarship and personal experience.

So, I have an imminent question to pose those who decided to purposefully create a government that strips my personal freedom. I have an honest question for those who voted yes on proposition 8: when is it alright to defend yourself and your loved ones with force? If an innocent person were to be threatened with brutal crusifiction, am I required to defend this person by whatever means necessary?

I'll let you in on my perspective on that question. Lean in close. I'm willing to die to defend my freedom. I can only wonder if those who voted yes hate so much that they are willing to die to take it. What does it cost them to give me liberty? Nothing. Yet, they cannot imagine what it costs for them to take it away.

Now, I'm not advocating assassination or violence. The system changes when blood is drawn; political force is converted into its true nature, violent force. However, we are the ones who have played nice. We are the ones who have loved our neighbors. Blood has already been spilled. That blood has been from people just like me. Believe me, I don't want to be next and I'll do whatever is in my power to make sure that doesn't happen.

Perhaps, one day, someone will record the countless voices who have suffered the brutal beatings by bigots. Someone will save the "yes on 8" hate speech that condones and indirectly promotes this violence. Our suffering may not be as overt as the Madrid bombing, but it's there. It's the same Death. Silent Death.