Ignorant, hateful jerk becomes less hateful, ignorant. News spreads like wildfire.

[naamah_darling]

I've been seeing this link thrown around a lot in the last few days:

National Organization for Marriage tour coordinator Louis J. Martinelli comes out in favor of gay marriage.

I am really happy to see someone change his mind about this issue, especially someone who has - or had - some clout with a hate group like NOM.

I don't think he deserves

Comments

[dorei]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. If homosexuality is against a religion's mores, then they are entitled to be as stupid as they'd like about it. I'm a firm supporter of separation of church and state, both ways across the aisle. I don't want the church telling me my gay son can't get married to another man, but at the same time, I don't want the government telling the Catholic church that they have to perform the ceremony.

[flewellyn]

I agree, up to a point. That point is when religious organizations run care facilities like hospitals, nursing homes, adoption agencies, and the like.

If these groups don't agree with certain relationships or practices, should they be allowed to refuse to treat people who have such? I would argue that no, they should not. By taking up the mantle of providers of public health, they become responsible for following public health rules, and that includes non-discrimination.

[ashbet]

I agree with you on this -- when a religious group is performing a *public function which receives government funds of any kind*, they need to stop discriminating

[flewellyn]

I'm not sure how I feel, to be honest. I used to agree with the "if it's completely private money, they can do as they wish" line of thought, but lately I've been reconsidering.

Consider: we can and do regulate what private businesses that are not religiously affiliated can do, as far as health codes, right to refuse service, discriminatory hiring practices, and so on. We do so because it's in the public interest. Why should religious groups have an exemption for that?

[ashbet]

I'm very much in agreement with you. His conversion now is only newsworthy/praiseworthy because it shows that minds and hearts CAN (to a certain degree) be changed, that it's not an impossible task . . . but it doesn't make him a fucking saint for having suddenly realized that Gays Are People Too (Even If They're Filthy Diseased Fornicators

[zoi_no_miko]

Agreed.

This, like any other historical struggle for equality, will take time, and I think people expect that the world will do a sudden about-face just because we want it to. In reality, it will be a gradual realization that spreads slowly but eventually takes root just like this has.

[metalfatigue0]

This is why I believe that I will see full legalization of gay marriage in my lifetime.
Even as abortion is well on the way to being outlawed again. Ironic.

[staysonpaper]

I don't know. As someone whose husband, lovely and generally openminded as he is, keeps accidentally falling back ideologically into the gender binary, girls-wear-pink-and-boys-wear-blue trap in little ways despite his intelligence and the fact that he doesn't act like that at all in daily life, I'm not especially surprised that a big change like that takes a guy several passes to make. And it *is* hard to admit fault in the ideological premises on which one has based one's life, especially if one has been very public about them. I was opposed, for myself, to the concept of marriage at all. I obviously felt like other people should be allowed to do whatever they wanted on the subject (gay, straight, group, whatever), but I was very outspoken on the reasons I felt like the whole thing was a sham and a scam and unnecessary. When I met my husband and realized, with a shock, that that was what he was going to become, it was hard to say to everyone, "yeah, I was wrong about that, oops." And I hadn't been telling anyone else what to

[syncopated_time]

I think the important lesson to take away here goes something like this:

If this ideologue has the ability to re-examine his position, to listen to the opposition and to change his mind about a very public and very controversial stance that he once held, it sets a precedent that people can change. Even if they have to eat a lot of crow to do it.

That's what gives me hope -- when people in the public eye who hold dangerous and hurtful views can stand up and say, "Yes, you know what, I was a dick and I was wrong."

I don't think he's a saint, but I can't speak about the praise the internet is showering because I really haven't seen it one way or the other. But Rome wasn't built in a day, and I'm hopeful that if he can rethink his stance on marriage he can rethink his stance on other issues too.