Terrance Heath

Heart Rob

Filed By Terrance Heath | June 04, 2009 6:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment, Marriage Equality
Tags: gay marriage, gay rights, marriage equality, Rob Thomas, same-sex marriage, separation of church and state, sexual orientation

OK. Rob Thomas was never all that hard to like. (At least not as far as I’m concerned. He’s easy on the eyes, and many of his songs work quite well for my voice, on the occasional karaoke night).

But then he goes and writes stuff like this, and makes it even easier to like him.

I am a person who believes that people are born gay. I don’t think you have any control over what moves you or to whom you’re attracted. That’s why it’s called an attraction and not a choice.

I believe that America is a great nation of even greater people. I also believe that anyone who says that this is a “Christian nation” has RHS, or revisionist history syndrome, and doesn’t realize that most of our founding fathers were either atheist or at least could see, even in the 1700s, that all through Europe at the time, religion was the cause of so much persecution that they needed to put into their brand new constitution a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE so that the ideals of a group of people could never be forced onto the whole. (I also find it funny when people point out to me that it says “one nation under god” in our pledge of allegiance, not realizing that this was an addition made in 1954 during the communism scare of the McCarthy era. It’s not surprising, however, knowing that these same people would punch me in the mouth if I called Jesus a Jew.)

I believe the fact that an atheist, who doesn’t believe in God at all, is allowed to enter into the holy land of marriage while a gay Christian is not, shows that this law is arbitrary. Are we to believe that anyone who doesn’t live their life according to the King James Bible isn’t protected by the same laws that protect those who do? Using the same argument that I’ve seen on the 700 Club, that would mean that Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim weddings are also null and void.

I believe that to deny this right to the gay population is to say to them, “this god is not your god and he doesn’t love you.” There isn’t one person who is against gay marriage that can give me a reason why it shouldn’t be legal without bringing God or their religion into it. Still, I’m amazed at the audacity of a small, misdirected group of the ultra-conservative Christian right wing, to spend millions of dollars, in a recession, on advertisements to stop two men or women who love each other from being able to be married, but when you present any opposition to them, they accuse you of attacking their religion. Isn’t it funny that the people who are the quickest to take someone’s basic rights to happiness are always the loudest to scream when someone attacks their right to do so?

But this isn’t a paper about religion. How could it be? Since we clearly have a separation of church and state, how could a conversation about laws have anything to do with religion at all? I’m writing about basic civil rights. We’ve been here before, fighting for the rights of African Americans or women to vote, or the rights of Jewish Americans to worship as they see fit. And, just as whites fought for African Americans or Christians for Jewish Americans, straight people must stand up and be a voice for gay people.

Talented, good looking, and a straight-guy-who-gets-it?

I long ago gave up getting serious crushes on straight guys. But guys like this one have my respect and admiration.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I've always thought Rob Thomas was hot, but knowing that he's also gay-friendly makes him even sexier. :)

I don't understand why we're so hung up on whether or not gay is a choice. So what if it turns out that it might be, for some? Do we excommunicate them to the outskirts, to forage on bugs and earth while the rest of us sashay around smug in the knowledge that we are the chosen ones because we think we're hard-wired gay? And what do we mean by choice, anyway? Isn't this one of the reasons bisexuals get stigmatised, because we think they're just choosing to be with one or the other gender, flip-flopping because they're not really as pure as the rest of us?

I think the whole it's a choice-no-it's- what you're born with "argument" is a waste of time, a ridiculous way to argue for rights, and ultimately a dangerously slippery slope. Surely the point should be that everyone has basic entitlements to the obvious things like health care, visitation rights, adoption, retirements etc. regardless of whether or not they're Gay 4 Ever or slutty creatures who can choose to be gay one day, straight the next. Those last few words alone demonstrate the absurdity of even hanging so much on this choice-not-choice peg.

I found the last paragraph quoted here unbelievably condescending. There's no sense, in those words, of a common and unified struggle that affects all people but, rather, the supreme condescension of someone who thinks that those in positions of privilege have an obligation to fight for others.

Yasmin, would you please clarify your last point? How could Rob Thomas revise his statement so that it meets with your approval?


I'll put aside my slight (and perhaps entirely erroneous) suspicion that you're being sarcastic about him needing my approval and simply say that a statement like: "The struggle for X affects all of us, and requires us all to unite against X" would be a lot less condescending than phrases like "straight people must stand up and be a voice for gay people."

I think we have our own voices and can use them freely, thank you, Rob. Even if we use them in asking for the wrong things, like gay marriage. And even if a lot of our voices are being silenced by the gay powers that be.

Good points, Yasmin, but the main group that spreads on-going lies about gay people are the Christian fundamentalists, and those arguments will not stand when you get outside religion. The fundamentalist mindset is that they hold all the answers, and they influence so much of our American (i.e. Western) culture. I'm glad Rob Thomas has made this statement.

And as far as crushes go, if Terrence can have a crush on straight-guy Rob, I can certainly crush on Adam Lambert. :)


Yes, of course, you're right, and raise an important point - he's responding to right-wingers. My ongoing concern is that in defining ourselves only in reaction to the wacko views of the Right, we end up neutralising our own politics and lose our ability to forge a vision of the world that's truly more radical than that envisioned by, oh, straight people who are just as invested in the retrograde politics of marriage as the conservatives they criticise.

Then i have a right to have a crush on Terrance.

Yasmin, thanks for your reply and clarification. I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Frankly, I believe you've entirely misunderstood Rob Thomas' point of view. And, in fact, instead of simply stating your position on the issue (x, y, or z), and allowing others do the same, you have taken the position of those whom you explicitly castigate. So, would you now please clarify these "gay powers that be," which you refer to as silencing "our voices"?