Exchange on prison rape
CommentsFrom me to Missouri congressional candidate Kevin Craig:
I’m pleased you chose to quote me at your Web site, given that we agree that marriage must remain between a man and a woman. However, another issue I am very concerned about is prison rape, which many conservatives and Christians have seen as a crisis because people who commit a financial crime or make a mistake with drugs when they are young do not deserve to be sodomized against their will, sometimes contracting fatal diseases.
I am quite disturbed that you would joke about the subject:
It’s humorous (in a sad way) to contemplate the law saying “If I catch you engaging in sodomy, I’m going to lock you up in a federal prison where you’ll be sodomized every day for the next 10 years.”
Excuse me, but there is nothing funny about prison rape. And no one should understand that better than conservatives and traditionally religious people like us. For more information on this terrible scandal, visit spr.org.
Please remove the “joke” from your Web site, or if you won’t, then I insist that you remove reference to my ideas about marriage. I do not want to be associated with anyone who finds anything “humorous” about sexual assault behind bars.
From Stop Prisoner Rape to me:
Thank you for your recent email to Stop Prisoner Rape. We certainly agree that prisoner rape, one of the most neglected human rights crises in our nation, is no laughing matter and appreciate your efforts to spread that message. As you are aware, no one, regardless of the nature of their crime, deserves to be sexually assaulted and it is incumbent upon our government institutions to prevent such abuse. Thank you as well for passing along our website as an educational tool.
From me to Stop Prisoner Rape:
It’s interesting. I would resent, but could live with, a politician uninterested in stopping prisoner rape because he thinks criminals deserve harsh punishment. But a politician who makes jokes about it infuriates me. I almost wish he could be convicted of a crime he didn’t commit and have to spend one day behind bars fearing he’d be raped.
If SPR is open, I’d be quite interested in meeting with your group to brainstorm ways to get the LGBT community to get involved in the fight to protect incarcerated gay and bisexual men and transgender women who are victimized. I’m very happy that you guys are doing the important work you are doing, and I’m embarrassed my fellow gays and lesbians have not understood that this issue should be a priority for them.
From Kevin Craig to me:
Thanks for taking time to write me.
I assure you that in no way did I intend to convey the idea that prison rape was “humorous.” I was probably looking for the word “ironic” rather than “humorous,” which is why I added “in a sad way” to emphasize that there is
nothing funny about prison rape.Your letter jogged my vocabulary and I have replaced “humorous” with “ironic,” and I think this improves the communication of my message.
You mentioned www.spr.org, and I had already linked to this website on my “prison” page: http://kevincraig.us/prison.htm
Again, thanks very much for helping me improve my website. Please don’t hesitate to contact me again with further suggestions.
Is that awesome or what? Not only did he remove the offensive language, but he linked to more information about stopping prison rape! I feel like I made an important difference, and it cost me very little energy and no money. : )
David: both you and Kevin Craig showed class in this. Well done.
How sweat it is that you can bond so nicely with people that would like to see us jailed for what we do behind closed doors and vote against us having any legal recognition.
You’re such a good person!
Um, thanks. I believe I did a good thing, Dan (and remember to use a last initial please) by actually getting him to remove the outrageous comment I thought I possibly could change his mind on. By the way, I think it is more offensive to laugh at a helpless transgender woman being gang-raped by angry prisoners than to state your opposition to domestic partnership laws. If you don’t, then it sounds like you’re another example of why I think the LGBT community is the most selfish American movement since the Hippies. You’re such a bad person!
note: some exceptions apply
Tell me David… Which gay right do you not support me having?
Should my partner be allowed to to get my social security after I die? Should my partner be allowed to live in our house without it be reassessed and taxed after I die? Should I not be allowed to buy him anything valued over 10K without that being a taxable gift?
That’s not selfish! That’s only wanting to live freely and equally like everyone else!
Dan-
Seriously, I’m not trying to control your life, but it will be far less confusing for everyone if you used a last initial. Please?
Your questions are completely fair, and I’m glad you asked them. I would be comfortable with a law, depending how it was written, that gave you all three of those rights, as long as it did not take away any freedoms away from me - such as the freedom to run my business and do my job as a journalist or teacher using my own beliefs and values about marriage instead of being forced to use yours.
The fact is, the initiative in California takes nothing away from you but the word marriage, yet it protects millions of people like me from lots of potential harms to our freedom. People who want everyone “to live freely and equally” should vote for the California Marriage Protection Act, because in the past, no gay person was fired or fined or jailed for behaving consistently with his belief that marriage knows no gender. But some gay and lesbian activists have supported precisely those punishments for traditionally religious people in “marriage equality” states who have the chutzpah to continue to run their lives as if their beliefs about marriage are true instead of yours.
If you have any questions about what I mean specifically in the above paragraph, I would be happy to answer them and give you as many links and explanations as you need. Some supporters of gay marriage honestly don’t know about the ways their cause severely restricts other people’s freedom.
However, if you are fully aware of the ways “marriage equality” limits my freedom, and you don’t care and you plan to oppose the California initiative because you prefer the word “marriage” to “domestic partnership,” then you are proving me right when I say the American gay and lesbian community is the most selfish domestic movement since the Hippies.
David,
I would personally be OK with domestic partnerships/civil union arrangements, however that does not exist on the federal level, so marriage is the most logical path. The problem I have with you is that you are against domestic partnerships (not fighting it now that it’s a fact, I know) and also cozy up to people that would deny my partner and I any legal recognition!
It was the religious conservatives who got upset when sodomy laws were ruled unconstitional. It was the religious conservatives who wanted to ban gay teachers from having the right to be teach.
It is the religious conservatives who want gays out of high security and military positions.
It is the religious conservatives who want the right to fire me on that basis.
Would you agree with the right of a religious christian to fire someone for being a jew if that is justified based on that christian’s chosen interpretation? Nobody is going into Rev Fred Phelps church and telling what he can or cannot preach, however when it comes to governmental public policy we all should be equal.
Dan B-
My question was not about domestic partnerships, but about what the law should be after marriage equality passes if traditionally religious people want to run adoption agencies and fertility clinics using their values about marriage rather than yours.
It is true I prefer mutual beneficiary arrangements like the one in Salt Lake City, and I’d like to see them on a federal level (that actually makes me a liberal in this debate compared to most of my allies). I can live with domestic partnerships as part of a compromise that protects the freedom of traditionally religious people.
As for cozying up, it’s quite complicated. Are you willing to work with the Nation of Islam? There are some issues you both support, but probably not every issue. There are other examples, it’s not simple, and I’d appreciate you recognizing that. There is one prominent marriage-defense organization that I once worked with very successfully, until I found out the appalling extent of their bigotry. I will never work with them again. Once I gather all my information, I will blog about their hidden attitudes and maybe publish a major expose in one of the publications I’ve been working with. There are other groups that do annoying things like call themselves “pro-family” (I blogged about them) but I’m willing to work with them nonetheless. It’s a balancing act, and I’d appreciate some slack because unlike some people on my side I do draw lines in the sand.
I did none of the things “religious conservatives” did in your post, and I’m a religious conservative. I hate it when religious Christians fire Jews, but the fact is an many, many positions having nothing to do with practicing religion, an exception to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does allow people to discriminate on the basis of religion.
As for “when it comes to governmental public policy we all should be equal.” The only way to keep that so is to vote for the CMPA. Right now, nobody is proposing firing teachers and suing journalists who use their own definition of marriage, even if as in 48 states, the gay definition is not legal. But gay advocates have said they expect to punish such people if they don’t adopt the gay definition of marriage in a marriage-equality state. So everyone is no longer equal. For everyone to be equal, the CMPA must pass.