March 9, 2006

OPINION

Snide Show
Rev. Hutcherson, County Exec. Sims “Gay Rights Debate” mistakes carnival for discourse

By ROSETTE ROYALE
Staff Reporter

Sad to say, the recent “Gay Rights Debate,” which pitted Rev. Ken Hutcherson against King County Executive Ron Sims, wasn’t a debate at all: it was a dispiriting spectacle wherein two Black men bellowed their opinions (Hutcherson: “I don’t hate homosexuals, I hate homosexuality”; Sims: “Discrimination is an act of hate and anger”) before a largely white audience that cheered, jeered, and leered in equal measure.

Held on March 2 at Town Hall, this racially charged verbal boxing match-cum-two-ring circus was sponsored by The Stranger. According to Josh Feit, the weekly magazine’s executive news editor, the idea for the debate came about as a dare. Once the men, both ministers, accepted, said Feit to raucous applause, “we decided to get out of the way and let them punch each other.” The punching soon got underway.

Sims noted that life as a Black youth in Eastern Washington had been rife with discrimination, and those experiences had influenced his thinking: “I decided as an adult I would never let [discrimination] happen to another human being.”

Hutcherson said he’d experienced horrible discrimination growing up in the segregated outh, and it taught him that the pains and injustice suffered by Blacks could never parallel that rained upon gays and lesbians: “That which I believe is a choice cannot be equal to that which cannot be chosen.”

The pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, Hutcherson was talking about his belief that people make a “choice” to be gay. What he’s missing, however, is that people make a “choice” to discriminate against others. But to be discriminated against? That, indeed, is the road rarely chosen.

The whole event carried the stench of a P.T. Barnum sideshow, one orchestrated by the The Stranger to pack the house. And packed it was: more than 800 were estimated to have attended, each laying down $5 a pop. Was this really the best way to discuss gay rights? Rarely does arguing prove any one side the victor; more than often, it makes both sides come across as being slightly unbalanced. Unfortunately for us, it was the “debatable” rights of a minority to live secure and free lives that were being paddled back and forth.

Of course, there’s been a lot of this paddling going on in Washington state. Last month, Gov. Christine Gregoire signed a bill that made it illegal to discriminate because of a person’s sexual orientation when it comes to housing, employment, or lending. It took almost 30 years before state Legislature could muster the courage to pass the bill. Not long after its passage, Tim Eyman announced that he would challenge the law by initiative on the Nov. 30 ballot.

Then, there’s marriage equality, though it’s often and erroneously referred to as “gay marriage.” Does anyone ever talk about getting a “straight marriage”? A ruling on a state Supreme Court case, to decide the legality of Washington’s Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, is expected to be handed down soon.

To this topic, the moderator from KING5 wanted to know how the two men defined marriage. For Sims, marriage was “the union of two consenting adults.” Hutcherson called it the union of a man and woman, when “two opposites join to become one. And my definition is right.”

“ I hope your definition is un-Constitutional,” rejoined Sims. Marriage equality-advocates filled Town Hall with whoops and hollers; Hutcherson’s congregation pursed their lips.

Sims pretty much stuck to the tenets of the Constitution, which is fine, to be sure, in a court of law. But Hutcherson wasn’t so worried about what a judge would think. Hutcherson is concerned about what God thinks. Or, more accurately, what he thinks God thinks. To this end, Hutcherson stuck to his interpretation of the Bible, which painted him as a religious demagogue. Sims, who rarely, if ever, used the Bible to defend lesbians and gays (which most certainly can be done,) often looked like a seminary student trying to reason the theology school bully out of stealing his lunch money.

Of course, one could argue that this “debate” is healthy for Seattle. And to see two Black men of high public stature debating is even healthier for the city. But what the Emerald City doesn’t need is for one of those rare “Hey, look, two Black men” moments to carry the stink of a Jerry Springer ratings grabber.

What might have worked better would have been a forum where gays and lesbians and Blacks and religious people could actually meet and talk to each other in a manner where they all — we all – can glimpse the joys and sorrows of each others’ worlds. This requires listening, and listening requires patience. Setting up a carnival where debaters hurl verbal brickbats at each other like softballs tossed at weighted milk jugs requires neither.

Too much time was lost with this charade. Now that the circus has passed, it’s time to get a new and more productive show on the road. n