I OFFER YOU A CHOICE between two hypothetical worlds. Neither of them has ever existed or is likely to exist as far as I can see into the future. But thinking about them as alternatives sheds some light on this enterprise called the gay civil rights movement.
In the first hypothetical world, imagine that we have eliminated every last bit of legal discrimination against gays. We have ended the ban on gays in the military, eradicated anti-gay sodomy laws, and passed laws protecting us from discrimination. Every state has tough hate-crimes legislation. We can legally marry and adopt children in every jurisdiction. We have, in short, secured the entire legislative wish list of most of the movement.
There's only one problem. In this first world, we still face widespread moral condemnation and, hence, social disapproval for being gay. Most gay kids still grow up in families where homosexuality is considered shameful. That shame still translates into unusually high suicide rates for gay youth. Most religions still teach homosexuality is an abomination and that gays are going to hell. Walking down the street holding your lover's hand is still guaranteed to get you nasty stares, maybe ugly insults, possibly physical assault. The law welcomes us, sure, but our families, neighbors, and associates don't. The reigning moral view is that we're deeply wrong.
In the second hypothetical world, imagine that we have erased the moral distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Families think nothing of having a gay kid. They celebrate our relationships as they would any straight child's. Friends regard sexual orientation as unimportant. Most major religions welcome us as God's children and teach that our love is not a sin any more than heterosexual love is. Few look twice when we walk hand-in-hand down the street.
Yet the second world is not perfect, either. It retains legal discrimination. Some states have anti-gay sodomy laws. We have no protection from discrimination. There are almost no state hate-crimes laws. We can't serve openly in the military and can't marry or adopt children. The reigning legal view is that we're second-class citizens.
Which would you choose - the world of pure legal equality or the one of full moral and social acceptance?
Gay civil rights organizations at all levels are almost entirely focused on achieving legal equality. That's understandable. After all, organizations rely on verifiable achievements to raise money. Either this good piece of legislation passes or it does not; either that anti-gay bill is blocked or it is not. We know where we stand with laws. We can look them up in books.
It's a lot harder to measure how we're faring in the hearts of the people around us. The victories and defeats there don't tend to be up or down, black or white. They oblige us to examine how we are doing on the moral plane - the plane on which people actually live and make judgments about others.
Are we or are we not fully part of the society around us? Are we or are we not really wanted and welcomed there? These questions are a lot harder to answer than: Did the civil rights bill make it out of the subcommittee on judicial affairs yesterday?
Partly for that reason, ultimate success in the moral dimension also matters more. If we were equally accepted in the lives of the straight people around us we wouldn't need a law to protect us from discrimination in employment or housing or education. We wouldn't need a hate-crimes law because criminals wouldn't target us for being gay. The sodomy law might remain on the books, but at least no one would ever think to enforce it, much less use it as a public argument against us. Marriage discrimination at the legal level might remain, but our relationships would be as celebrated and supported as any straight marriage.
On the other hand, does anyone really think we'll feel that much more secure in a world soaked in anti-gay hatred just because some legislature passes a hate-crimes law? Will our co-workers respect our worth as equals just because Congress passes a non-discrimination bill? Will anyone respect a marriage they see as founded on abominable sin? Legal victories can seem significant on paper but be almost worthless in practice.
Further, a world characterized by social and moral equality leads more directly and naturally to legal equality than the reverse. You can imagine that a world devoid of sodomy laws would nevertheless retain a lot of bigots. It's harder to see how a world largely free of bigots could retain sodomy laws.
It's not that legal equality is unimportant. It is terribly important. For one thing, it grants some security against a still-hostile world. It can also help to fuel social acceptance. But legal equality by itself will never substitute for the equality we must win in the hearts of the people we live beside.
In June 1963, at the height of tension over black civil rights, President Kennedy said that the country must begin to see racial equality as a moral issue. If gay men and women are to be fully a part of the life of this country our struggle, too, must be seen foremost as a moral one.