Ireland: Economic Liberalization Yields Gay Equality

James Peron, writing at the Huffington Post, explains The Seismic Shift in Irish Values, and One Reason It Happened. He writes:

Historically, the more market-oriented the economy, the more the well-being of LGBT people increases. Politicized markets require political power, something sexual minorities rarely have, but depoliticized economies only need an entrepreneur willing to cater to a minority. …

It was the Financial Times that noted the role of material wealth on social liberalism. They wrote, “Ireland’s apparent willingness to embrace gay marriage is therefore as much a product of the Celtic Tiger years as it is a reflection of the decline of the Church’s influence.” With rising prosperity, Irish voters started embracing socially liberal reforms, matching the economically liberal reforms of a few years earlier: deregulation and more individual choice.

Peron comments, “Similar seismic shifts in cultural values occurred in other nations following periods of economic boom. The relative prosperity of the 1950s in America gave way to the social turbulence of the ’60s, which saw the culmination of not only the civil rights movement but the movements for women’s liberation and, of course, gay liberation.”

He concludes:

With the rise of individualism, it becomes harder and harder to damn those “not like us.” There is no “us” anymore, just many individuals, each with different values and priorities. Depoliticized markets ought to terrify [social] conservatives, for in them social change is born.

I’d add that in the U.S., the term “liberalism” has been co-opted by advocates of statist social engineering, but in much of the world “liberalism” still connotes opposition to economic regulation. Perhaps one reason for America’s polarization between the statist left and the social right—both opposed to individual freedom from government—is the Orwellian corruption of our political language.

More. Tweeted British Prime Minister David Cameron, head of Britain’s Conservative Party: “Congratulations to the people of Ireland, after voting for same-sex marriage, making clear you are equal if you are straight or gay.”

20 Comments for “Ireland: Economic Liberalization Yields Gay Equality”

  1. posted by Houndentenor on

    It’s just as likely that the Irish, home to as many if not more Catholic scandals than any nation, realized they don’t need popes, cardinals and bishops who condone child rape and the abuse of unwed mothers to tell them what to do any more.

    • posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on

      Ah, I just love the smell of zombie Ayn Rand in the mourning.

      Seriously, I say that yes, “capitalism is good for gay”, but what modern democratic nation doesn’t practice capitalism?

      Anarchy ain’t good for gays, and much of what gets sold by the political right is anarchy or corporatist.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        I hate defending corporatism but the majority of Fortune 500 companies have been on board with gay rights since the late 90s. It’s those corporations exploitation of the religious right in a political coalition in the GOP that has made getting any gay rights legislation nearly impossible. The only barrier to equal rights for gays is right-wing religion. I think that’s pretty much true everywhere, not just in the US.

  2. posted by Lori Heine on

    We always want one neat and simple answer that just sums it all up. Most Americans learned to think by watching Sesame Street.

    What’s most likely is a combination of both reasons: economic freedom’s beneficial effects AND the downfall of theocracy.

    Those outside the Church don’t tend to understand what’s happening in it. The revolutionary change going on outside of it is taking place within it, as well. Most people now have loved ones they know are LGBT. That includes most Roman Catholic people. The hierarchy is powerless to stop it.

    The social right around the world is reacting in fear to changes that affect it very directly–that hit it at home, right where it lives. This is why they’re trying for the slam-dunk of getting government to ratify their prejudices. Even the churches can no longer serve as comfortable bastions for their bigotry.

    These people are pee-in-their-pants terrified of what is coming. And they’re angry, like all spoiled children are when their paper Burger King crowns are blown off and they must deal with a reality they can’t suppress or control.

    The winds of change are blowing. And those paper crowns are flying away.

  3. posted by Mark Peterson on

    Businesses attracted to Indiana by the state’s pro-business, “economic liberalization” policies also played a key role in beating back Indiana’s license to discriminate bill a few months ago. As occurred in Ireland, they opposed discrimination, and argued that a state law that allowed public accommodations to refuse service to gay or lesbian customers based on the owner’s religious beliefs would be bad for business. I don’t remember Stephen praising business’ role then.

  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The correlation between economic boom times and expansion of civil liberties has been around for a long time and is supported by significant evidence, as has/is the corresponding correlation between economic hard times and contraction of civil liberties.

    As Peron acknowledges, the relative boom times of the Irish economy is one (but only one) factor involved in the shift in public opinion.

    As always, when reading articles like this, I’m reminded of a caution from a professor I was close to in college many years ago: “Beware the glib explanation.”

  5. posted by Wilberforce on

    One thing I learned about right wingers from a few people at work is that they just make it up as they go.
    So Stephen tells us that the free market somehow contributes to gay lib. As evidence, he sights the 50s boom. Of course he leaves out the fact that in the 50s taxes were sky high on the rich, and redistributed to the middle class, who made the economy go with consumer spending. That nugget disproves his point.
    But again, they just make it up as they go. They get away with it because the public attention span is shorter than the Lollipop Guild.

  6. posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on

    Yeah, taxes were much more progressive back then, and their was a willingness to invest in infrastructure.

    Granted, the late 1940s- 1950s post war boom was not universally so magical. It generally sucked for black Americans, white Americans who were ‘ethnic’ and (race and ethnicity aside) women.

    It was quite a big deal that (in later decades) a Catholic could be elected president, a Jew could become the CEO of a major, non Jewish firm and that a black man or a woman could be appointed to the highest court in the land.

    • posted by Doug on

      And don’t forget that being LGBT was a diagnosable mental illness and the police raids on gay bars and clubs.

      • posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on

        yeah. but thank goodness the Log Cabin Republicans were able to start the modern gay rights movement by hanging out at Stonewall Inn. right? thats what thr gay conservatives claim

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          I don’t know about LCR and Stonewall (after all, there are many forms of drag, and a Brooks Brothers suit is a form), LCR is a good example of “making it up as you go along”.

          The most recent example:

          Gregory Angelo, executive director for Log Cabin Republicans, said the reported willingness of George W. Bush to officiate over a same-sex wedding is significant.

          “If true, that means all living former presidents support marriage equality with the one and only remaining exception being Democrat President Jimmy Carter,” Angelo said.

          Carter has expressed support for same-sex marriage, but, after once saying it should be a nationwide right, told a local TV outlet in October 2014 the issue should be left to the states and “if Texas doesn’t want to have gay marriage, then I think that’s a right for Texas people to decide.”

          President Carter has, in fact, been on record in support of marriage equality since at least 2012:

          Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things — he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies. – NIV Lessons From Life Bible: Personal Reflections With Jimmy Carter

          By way of comparison, neither President Bush has ever issue a statement supporting same-sex marriage. President G.H.W. Bush evaded the question when asked about it after witnessing a same-sex marriage, waxing on about how dear the couple was to him and Babs, but not directly addressing the issue. President G.W. Bush, when asked about the current story, says that he might have offered to officiate, but doesn’t remember doing so. Uh, huh.

          The only Bush that is clear about his position at present is President-in-Waiting J.E. Bush, who flat out opposes same-sex marriage.

          My husband, a Texas native, says that Texans never lie, but do sometimes tell more truth than there is. I don’t think that DeAngelo is from Texas.

  7. posted by Stuart on

    I am against gay marriage–I think same-sex relationships are a completely different kind of relationship than straight relationships. I think marriage is heterosexual. I don’t think think that gay people honor themselves and their history by aping a social institution which was not designed for them. I support civil unions and the flexibility which comes from them. Gays should use civil unions to create legal arrangements which are based on what it means to be gay, not what it means to be straight. I would have voted “No” in Ireland and I hope the Supreme Court disallows gay marriage but says instead that gay relationships need civil unions which give the same rights to gay couples that marriage gives to straights.

    We can do better than marriage.

    • posted by Fritz Keppler on

      Call commitments between opposite sex couples matrimony, or holy matrimony if you will. Gay couples who want to get married, such as my husband and I, should be able to get married.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I hope the Supreme Court disallows gay marriage but says instead that gay relationships need civil unions which give the same rights to gay couples that marriage gives to straights.

      Civil law marriages are civil unions, a contractual arrangement created by law, distinct from religious marriage. That’s the part that those who conflate religious marriage and civil law marriage don’t understand. Creating another, separate but identical form of civil law marriage under the label civil unions will not change that, and is a waste of government resources.

      I support civil unions and the flexibility which comes from them. Gays should use civil unions to create legal arrangements which are based on what it means to be gay, not what it means to be straight.

      Creating another, separate but identical form of civil law marriage under the label civil unions will not accomplish your goal.

      • posted by Stuart on

        Historically, heterosexual marriage was based on paternity rights. Historically, homosexual relationships (David and Jonathan, Achilles and Patroclus, Sts. Serge and Bacchus) were based on loyalty and self-sacrifice. In heterosexual marriage, men could have sex with whoever they wanted–he didn’t have to love his wife, all he had to do was make sure she wasn’t having kids by someone else. Homosexual relationships, the men were committed to each other as blood brothers. Heterosexual marriage does not honor the depth and quality of same-sex relationships. It is as if black culture, after creating the brilliance and intricacy of jazz, gave all that up for country pop since that was more popular.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Historically …

        The nature of marriage has changed over the years, and, history aside, we deal with civil law marriage as it exists today, not as it existed 100, 500 or 1,000 years ago.

        Homosexual relationships, the men were committed to each other as blood brothers. Heterosexual marriage does not honor the depth and quality of same-sex relationships.

        You posit a legal structure in which state-defined civil unions under the name of “marriage” exists for straight couples, and state-defined civil unions under the name of “civil unions” exist for gay/lesbian couples, the two forms of civil union being legally identical (same rights, same responsibilities). If the two forms of civil union (one under the name “civil marriage” and the other under the name “civil unions”) cannot distinguished legally, what, exactly, have you accomplished in terms of differentiating the two forms?

        It is as if black culture, after creating the brilliance and intricacy of jazz, gave all that up for country pop since that was more popular.

        You are posing a mutual exclusive, and by doing so, suggesting that allowing gay/lesbian couples the choice to enter into civil marriage will somehow deprive the couples of the ability to define their relationship in terms of “loyalty and self-sacrifice”. That makes no sense. Married couples define their internal relationship as they choose now, and that will not change when gays and lesbians are allowed access to the institution.

        In any event, Stuart, leaving aside the question of whether your conception of homosexual relationships is romanticized (homosexual relationships are as unique and individualized as heterosexual relationships), the question of civil unions is irrelevant. Civil marriage is the only form of civil union on the table, and that is not going to change.

        • posted by Stuart on

          In the same way we can’t imagine Billie Holiday or Duke Ellington singing “I’ve Got Friends in Low Places” without completely stripping themselves of who they are, same-sex couples can’t assimilate themselves into a tradition which is not rooted in their culture or experience. There is nothing more “straight-face” than two little men in tuxedos on a wedding cake while those who invented the tango, the samba, and house music attempt to do the chicken dance. When men celebrate their bonds, they should slice open a vein, exchange blood, grab each other’s thick biceps, and shout while they throw their axes in the air. . .(I better stop there–I’m getting the vapors–oh, my!).

          The legal forms need to be different because the relationships are different.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          In the same way we can’t imagine Billie Holiday or Duke Ellington singing “I’ve Got Friends in Low Places” without completely stripping themselves of who they are …

          I can’t speak to country pop (to which I don’t listen) but I’ve seen and heard singers like Mahalia Jackson, the Staples Singers, Sister Rosetta Tharpe and similar African-American greats transform classic white hymns coming from outside the African-American experience into expressions of enormous power, coming out of their own experience. I’ve seen and heard Johnny Cash reinterpret African-American gospel hymns through his own white trash coming up, and the experience transmitted is equally remarkable in its power and beauty.

          I’ve followed the music of Leonard Cohen for years, because his dark lyrics capture the pain of North American Jewish experience in the post-Holocaust era in a way that speaks to me, but I have never heard Cohen’s song “Hallelujah” transformed beyond that context (most the the other artists, like Rufus Wainwright, who attempted to do it bowdlerized what Cohen created) until I heard K.D. Lang sing it at the Canadian Olympics. And transformed it was. Her rendition, that night, brought me to tears.

          The critical factor seems to be that none of the artists attempted to assimilate themselves into the culture from which the music sprang, but instead took the music and transported it into the culture from which they sprang, giving new life and new meaning to what was already something powerful.

          … same-sex couples can’t assimilate themselves into a tradition which is not rooted in their culture or experience.

          I think that you are falling into black/white, either/or thinking about marriage and the culture of marriage. What happens in music happens in culture in general, and will happen in cultural understandings of marriage. Gays and lesbians will not, for the most part, assimilate into the straight culture through marriage, but will subtly transform the institution through our own experience.

          Wait and see. It is all you (or I) can do. Marriage is rapidly becoming a fact-on-the-ground for gays and lesbians in Western culture, and there is no going back.

          • posted by Stuart on

            OK, you win–you had me with k. d. lang. 🙂 (who also transformed country pop)

            But I still want to see muscular men throwing axes into the air.

Comments are closed.