All right, so the FCK H8 video on YouTube is a bit shocking, which is unavoidable when there’s a video where young children are discussing California’s Proposition 8 and dropping F-bombs like hot cakes.
However, this small, low budget, two-and-a-half-minute clip makes some pretty great points regarding the fight for equal rights, such as its use of multiple perspectives on the issue.
People often hear the voices of gay couples within the debate, which is invaluable, but this clip does a great job of bringing other voices into the discussion, those of children, mothers, friends and sympathetic straight people. It focuses on showcasing how gay marriage isn’t just about a wedding ceremony, but rather encapsulates a family’s ability to share health care benefits, visit each other in the hospital, have custody of children and own property together.
But is this video merely obscene, or a legitimate presentation of an issue?
Minimal critical analysis of the video has happened thus far, but the public has weighed in quite significantly. Much of the criticism of the video falls somewhere along the lines of this comment from Reddit.com by Mikeey: “I am not against gay marriage and still felt attacked watching that. They are so aggressive to the point of almost being hypocritical to the title ‘fck h8’. But thankfully they do not represent the majority of the gay population.”
The video is certainly abrasive and arguably borderline offensive. Yet it is unfair to say it has no redeeming qualities, or entirely misrepresents the dialogue in gay marriage debates.
One of the key points the performers call attention to is that marriage between heterosexuals is not always the holy and valuable institution that traditional and conservative thinkers imagine.
One gentleman in the video points out: “So it’s cool for Rush Limbaugh to be on his fourth f—king wife, but if Cathy wants to marry Karen, that’s an attack on the institution?”
This is an issue that needs to be resolved if the argument that gay marriage tarnishes marriage as an institution.
What about those already guilty of disrespecting the idea of spending a lifetime with their partner by starting new marriages every other year? How is it that policy is an appropriate medium through which to address the validity of gay marriage but not that of straight couples?
Maybe those who oppose legalizing gay marriage would argue that Limbaugh is a poor example of marriage. That is a wise concession. However, he still has the ability to keep doing it and have it fully sanctioned by policy. If it’s really about the institution, then why is there so little talk of monitoring individuals already crapping on the dignity of an honest marriage?
The clip ends forcefully with the following statements: “So if you hate gay marriage, it’s really because you hate gay love. Get the f—k over it. Some dudes marry dudes. Some chicks marry chicks. Get over it.”
Watch the video on YouTube. Decide for yourself. “Getting over it,” while rhetorically less elegant than other approaches, also captures the attitude that needs to be spread around. There are bigger fish to fry, America.
This is a basic issue of human rights. If you can’t get over it, then look forward to explaining to your grandchildren why you clung so hard to hatred. They will be asking someday for their history report, trying to understand a time when marriage rights were anything but universal.
Send your thoughts about human rights to anna.bethancourt@asu.edu
