It is amazing how many politicians claim they support equal rights and oppose discrimination against gays, but then favor a ban on same-sex marriage, oppose allowing gays to serve openly in the military, even oppose adoption by gay couples.
Exactly what is equal about letting heterosexuals marry the person they love, but not gays; letting heterosexuals serve openly in the military, but not gays; and letting heterosexuals adopt children, but not gays--not even let them adopt gay youths?
I don't know about you, but I am getting a little tired of people who say they are for gay legal equality--except when they are against it, or saying they are against discrimination--except when they are for it, and then using all sort of verbal evasions to wriggle out of acknowledging how anti-gay they are.
My favorite evasive phrase is "unjust discrimination." Take outgoing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Please. Romney says, "I've opposed same-sex marriage, but I've also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference."
Romney not only opposes same-sex marriage, he also opposes the Employment Non Discrimination Act and ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Yet he says he is against "unjust discrimination." Romney advisor Barbara Comstock says he defends traditional marriage and opposes "unjust discrimination against anyone" but doesn't see a need for "new or special legislation" on DADT or ENDA.
It is worth noticing that the Pope uses the same phrase--saying he opposes "unjust discrimination" against "homosexuals." And we all know how gay-friendly the Pope is. Clearly people using the phrase hope to sound moderate and tolerant by creating the impression that they think discrimination is unjust--and many gullible people do take them to mean that.
But what they actually mean is that they think only some forms of discrimination are "unjust"--and those are the ones they oppose. But they think other forms of discrimination are entirely just--and those they fully support. And, of course, they get to decide which kinds are which. In other words, the term has no objective meaning. It is utterly empty. It means ... nothing.
Romney is not the only presidential aspirants emitting evasions. Consider the nearly incoherent obfuscation by Arizona Senator John McCain: "I do not believe that marriage between--I believe in the sanctity and unique role of marriage between man and woman. But I certainly don't believe in discriminating against any American."
Asked by George Stephanopoulos if he were for civil unions then, McCain continued: "No, I'm not. But (the Arizona anti-gay marriage initiative which he supported) did allow for people to join in legal agreements such as power of attorney and others." Question: "So you're for civil unions?" McCain: "No. I am for ability of two--I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people who have relationships can enter into."
But signing contracts, exchanging powers of attorney and "other" arrangements are rights that friends, business partners, and every adult already has, so McCain is actually saying that he is not for anything beyond what already exists. But he is trying to seem "moderate" by saying what he is for, even if it is nothing new. Thanks for, literally, nothing, Senator.
Moving to the other side of the aisle, consider former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. Edwards described same-sex marriage as "the single hardest social issue" for him and said he had had a lot of "personal struggles" over the issue. Oh, John, John, we feel your pain! How hard it must be for you to grant others the same right you have to marry the person you love.
Edwards said he favored civil rights for gays but that it was a "jump for me to get to gay marriage … I am not there yet." So Edwards favors civil rights but opposes civil marriage. Apparently a civil marriage is not a civil right. And he has the effrontery to teasingly imply that he might change his position ("I'm not there yet") but suggests no sorts of reasons or criteria he would use in reevaluating his position. Apparently it is all just a mucky ooze of subjective feelings.
And where is the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation? The gay organization that should be monitoring these statements, publicly pointing out contradictions, obfuscations, and evasions, sensitizing the news media to detect them and advising how to ask follow-up questions to force candidates to answer more clearly? GLAAD is off partying with television and film personalities--"Dancing with the Stars."
17 Comments for “Why ‘Just’ Discrimination Isn’t”
posted by inahandbasket on
It’s really pathetic and enraging to see these politicians pretzel bend themselves with this latest form of “I believe in full equality for ALL Americans BUT……..” BS. It is hypocrisy, pure and simple. It is dishonesty. It is cowardice. It is politics at its lowest common denominator.
In the next election cycle when any non-supporter of marriage equality candidate asks me for $ I’ll just reply, a la John Edwards, “I’m just not there yet.”
posted by John on
I suspect that a lot of this evasion and duplicity has to do with the recognition that any laws protecting gay people make homosexuality respectable by virtue of the respect that the law commands and, worse, recognize homosexuality as an immutable trait, not a behavior. One only has to remember that over the past 35 years or so every and any law that would have acknowledged the mere existence of gay people has been fought tooth and nail. Contrary to what one might assume from current media coverage, it didn’t start with gay marriage. Far from it. Few of our heterosexual allies really believe, however, that homosexuality should enjoy equal status with hetrosexuality, though, they’re disturbed by the hatred and cruelty that our unequal status engenders. The result of this attempt to have it both ways is endless flip-floppery.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
This is tiring, frustrating and a unique affront to contributing, tax paying and productive citizens. Who, it can be noted, have the potential of being MORE independent, contributing and productive if and when married and able to care for their families, WITHOUT state intervention or charity.
This weasley, incoherent way that political candidates discuss gay lives pisses me OFF.
The media, DOESN’T challenge this weak kneed business.
GLAAD, the HRC and GLTF don’t do it either.
Neither does the ADL.
And the ACLU has long lost cred as an advocacy because ANY underdog will do for them, regardless of how objectionable that underdog is.
Hillary Clinton, long ago proved what a duplicitous bitch she was.
She dared to, and gay and lesbians who were charged with producing the Pride parade in NY, let her march with them.
But when it came down to support of gay marriage, her true colors were flown for the DOMA.
There have been few, VERY few serious advocates willing to risk certain public displeasure, to support gay equality.
Like Deval Patrick.
Still, few straight allies have the articulation to invoke not only our nation’s own creeds, but to allow straight people the ability to understand that INVESTING in gay equality works in THEIR favor as well.
I don’t understand why it’s so damn hard for them.
Except that they truly don’t have their hearts in national inclusion for citizens, but selfishly are looking out for their own personal interests.
Regardless of sometimes making a show of having gay advisors or some kind of insider, they STILL aren’t making it known how much symbiosis and shared goals there are for gay AND straight Americans.
I know I could do it. I KNOW I have the articulation, but no one is asking me.
I resent the forgetfulness about the ‘tyranny of the majority’ being anathema to the creed of this country.
Social conservatives know that gays and lesbians are a PERPETUAL minority, there is no other way for the Democratic process to work fairly for this population.
So it is clearly NOT Democratic for the majority to dictate the terms of QUALITY of life, literally life and death issues, for gay citizens.
Being able to burn the flag, or whether or not you have to say ‘under God’ in the pledge of allegience will never bear the urgency of being the custodian for your significant other and children ever will.
I say it often and challenge these anti marriage people every day with this question:
With so many people divorcing and abandoning spouses and children at will and the government having little power to prevent or stop it, how can it possibly make Constitutional sense, to KEEP citizens FROM this very duty who WANT to commit to it?
It IS unjust to prevent or disable citizens from this responsibility.
And as for the canard about men and women being the ‘ideal’ couple to enable such an artificial institution.
Wouldn’t that only be true if the ‘ideal’ man and woman were the only ones legislated to marry?
This is really about moving the goal posts and creating standards for marriage that don’t or never have existed for heterosexuals EVER.
But have clearly been made up as gays and lesbians rightly demand EQUAL consideration, not different consideration.
I’m not fooled by this. And I resent straight people talking to me as if I should be.
I will TELL every straight person I know when they are full of shit on this issue.
And they almost always are. There is no way around it.
On this issue, the anti gay marriage are always and inevitably hypocritical, illogical and irrational on this subject.
Nobody is getting off the hook for this.
And often, they think they don’t have to explain themselves.
Well, they do.
Especially if they either voted for politicians, or expect to hold public office that effect someone’s life and basic human interests.
Gay folks have nothing to justify or explain.
The straight folks do.
Make them do it.
They think they know everything about gay lives and what will happen if gay people marry, and lecture about it.
I’d like to see if come from them face to face,rather than the anonymous privacy of the voting booth.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
It is amazing how many politicians claim they support equal rights and oppose discrimination against gays, but then favor a ban on same-sex marriage, oppose allowing gays to serve openly in the military, even oppose adoption by gay couples.
Yet another slow analysis.
What amazes me is the continued criticism that politicians receive for their views, given that the only reason they have a platform for such views is that those very same views are what enabled them to win office. If the thing that Paul Varnell decried didn’t have such massive support in the electorate, then the politician would get voted out. If politicians started supporting gay marriage, then they wouldn’t win office and anti-gay politicians would replace them.
The problem is not “stupid” and “bigoted” politicians. The problem is the anti-gay culture we live in.
The way forward is for gay people and especially gay men to integrate with every aspect of straight society, especially the church.
posted by kittynboi on
So you’re saying gays should become religious even if they are not?
posted by Novaseeker on
No I think the point, which is a good one, is that we can’t expect politicans to be “out there” on gay marriage when the population, as a whole, is not. Politicians and parties exist to win elections, after all.
So the solution is changing people’s minds about gay people by integrating ourselves into the mainstream world while still being openly gay. And if we choose to ignore the churches in that effort, we’re not going to be that successful at changing people’s minds, because the churches are the main place where many people take guidance on these kinds of issues, and, as it relates to marriage, the primary way that most of the straight world relates to marriage.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The way forward is for gay people and especially gay men to integrate with every aspect of straight society, especially the church.
Oh yes, because straight society is enviable in its soaring divorce rates, increasing rates of abandoned children, and increased financial irresponsibility (all of which correspond directly to the increase of religious superstition’s grip on the population).
McCain and other politicians will say whatever it takes to stay in office. That means embracing gays in one venue (such as post-9/11 remembrances commenting on Mark Bingham) and then blasting them as sick, diseased weirdos in another (such as a Republican campaign rally).
Rather than desperately hope that we can force their hands through condemnation or “win them over” by embracing ridiculous religious sky-fairy mythology, we should be focused on reducing the role of government in our lives so that we can build the sort of lives that we want to live without needing licenses to live together. At that point, politicians’ (and religious nuts’) opinions about our way of life is about as directly relevant at the drunken ramblings of the bar bigot at the local honky-tonk.
posted by Conor on
This article has the seeds of a really big and important idea, particularly as regards the Church. It alludes to the fact that the Catholic doctrine calls for all Christians to oppose “unjust discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation.
The irony of course is that it would seem that the Church considers all discrimination “just.” Gay Marriage? Oppose. Civil Unions? Oppose. Gay Adoption? Oppose. Consensual sexual relations, even committed and monogamous? Oppose. And, most recently and insulting, ordination of gay men to the priesthood? Oppose.
The question becomes not what isn’t permitted, but what is. That’s true not just for the Church, but for all folks that claim to oppose “unjust” discrimination. There needs to be a dialogue about how people define what’s just and unjust. Right now, the silence is oppressive.
posted by Novaseeker on
Well, the Catholic position is that discrimination against *active* gays and lesbians is “just”, yes. The Catholic hierarchy wouldn’t view the various situations you describe as being different, because the underlying reason for discrimination (active, unrepentant LGBT-ness) is itself a “just” basis for discrimination, because they see our situation as akin to mental illness (“fundamentally disordered” is the rhetoric of the current Catholic discourse on gay people). For the Catholics, all those kinds of discrimination against active gays and lesbians is justified on the basis of how they view homosexuality. Nothing is permitted when it comes to homosexuality, only celibacy (and apparently not even ordination any longer for celibate gay men) and keeping quiet about one’s orientation.
It’s a draconian view and one that I find deeply offensive and wrong, as someone who grew up as a Catholic. But the Church would distinguish between discrimination on the basis of homosexuality (which they would say is “just”), and discrimination on the basis of race (which they would say is “unjust”).
posted by Alan down in Florida on
Unfortunately until our kind is in the majority (difficult without reproducing) or the judicial system finally grows the balls to live up to the “all men are created equal” credo we are forced to depend on the good graces of Breeders for our continuing progress.
No matter how urgent we may consider our issues, we are still behind women and African-Americans on the priorities list [which is what makes a Hillary-Obama confrontation so interesting].
Despite all our hard work, anger and everything else our biggest ally in this is time. Definitely one, possibly two more generations will have to die off for the tipping point to be reached. All demographic studies show that anti-gay feeling is less the younger the respondent. When these kids grow up things will be different.
Higher visibility, churches included, is the best offense. Statistically again, the more gay people a person is exposed to, the more likely they are to support gay rights. And I am not talking about the Mark Foley’s of the world.
I know it’s hard to be patient and I want all of you to continue your work and, most importantly, live your lives openly and be exemplary. Don’t dwell on losing skirmishes and individual battles. Ultimately the war will be won – and you will help make that day come sooner rather than later.
posted by jomicur on
For the record, there is one Democratic presidential candidate who is foursquare in favor of legalizing gay marriage: Russ Feingold. (Well, there’s Kucinich too, but does he even count?) He hasn’t actually announced yet, and he may not. And it seems wildly unlikely he’d get the nomination (he’s pro-gay AND a Jew–horrors!). But gay people looking for a candidate to support would do well to keep him in mind next year. Of course the fact that he is more solidly pro-gay than any other national politician won’t stop Steve Miller from sniping at him, but you have to expect that.
posted by eleutheria on
Across the pond, predominantly Christian groups are lobbying against extending antidiscrimination legislation for gay people from employment to the new area of the provision of goods and services. They want it to be legal to discriminate against gay couples in hotels because they disapprove of the behaviour they think goes with it. It’s a way of wriggling out: they’re not homophobic, you see, but they think it’s an infringement of their religious freedom not to be able to express their beliefs by denying gay people room at the inn.
Of course, this view makes religious freedom completely arbitrary. Some Christians would say gay people’s ‘sin’ was between them and Jesus. How can law decide on which is the correct interpretation?
But goodness they’d bridle if you suggested that gay people should be able to refuse services to Christians on the grounds that they might get up to praying or some such. And interestingly these Christians aren’t campaigning to be allowed to refuse service to those who are committing the sin of worshipping the god of Mohammed or the Hindu or Sikh gods – or not going to Mass or being proud, which are mortal sins alongside the carnal ones…. After all, doesn’t the Bible come down hard on tolerating the worship of false gods?
They make many other errors, too, including the belief that religious freedom trumps any other, and the belief that, though sexuality and religion aren’t things people are born with (which is debatable), religion is different.
Naturally, they nonetheless believe in religious equality before the law but think of homosexuality (not heterosexuality) as a special case that can be restricted.
Their ideas are risible, but they have a veneer of respectability that may take some people in, and our UK government is kowtowing to religious groups, talking up the value of ‘faith communities’ and so on. If Christians wanted to be able to treat black people differently, there’d be hell to pay, but there’s a chance they could get away with this.
posted by raj on
jomicur | January 6, 2007, 11:55am |
For the record, there is one Democratic presidential candidate who is foursquare in favor of legalizing gay marriage: Russ Feingold.
True. There is also one Democrat who is not a presidential candidate, but who was recently elected as the Governor of a state who is for-square in favor of gay marriage. I am referring to Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, of course. He expressed his support of gay marriage in early 2006 during the primary, and has been unwavering in his support ever since.
What is interesting is that he is a Black American, and he was obviously going against the expressed opinions of many of the religious leaders of the Black community, even here in Massachusetts.
posted by Timmers on
I thought I’d comment on the last paragraph re: GLADD. Welcome to the world of “big politics”. I don’t expect GLADD or any other “major” gay organization to take on these sorts of issues anymore. They’ve become part of the establishment and are content to take on the “low hanging” fruit rather than ask the hard questions that need to be asked. They don’t get my money any longer. I personally feel they lost their way quite some time ago…back in the Clinton years when everything was a lovefest between the larger GLTBQAXYZ organizations and the politicos. There are many other organizations far more worthy of our attention and that are doing good work.
posted by raj on
Timmers | January 8, 2007, 8:13pm |
I thought I’d comment on the last paragraph re: GLADD. Welcome to the world of “big politics”.
The same thing was noted regarding HRC some time ago.
Quite frankly, the phenomenon that you are noticing is rampant, and is not only characteristic of GLADD and HRC. (NB: There is a gay-rights operation in New England, GLAD, that is different from the national GLADD, and the two should not be confused.) It is also characteristic of more than a few operations, including, but not limited to public radio (NPR and PRI), public television (PBS and CPB). Despite their fund-raising among individual donors, they are largely beholden to funding from corporations, foundations, organized interest groups, and the like. They would like to vacuum up contributions from individual contributors, just to show that they are beholden to the “public” in some way, but they aren’t really.
posted by thom on
Prior Comment: The way forward is for gay people and especially gay men to integrate with every aspect of straight society, especially the church.
Integrating into straight society to help our acceptance by straights ? that?s a good idea. Trying to integrate into church ? an utter waste of time.
Let me say this clearly for all of you struggling to accept this fact: THE CHURCH DOESN?T WANT YOU. Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews, all of them, are indoctrinated to believe that homosexuals are evil sinners doomed to Hell. And please spare me responses that note the doctrinal exceptions, like Catholicism?s ?hate the sin, love the sinner? nonsense. Any supposed spiritual guidance that denies you the ability to act out your feelings of love denies your right to exist. And the ?exceptions? are overwhelmingly dwarfed by the ?rule.?
I think the more interesting question is why so many gay men want to be accepted by the Church. Why do they beat their heads against the doors of the church again and again and again, begging to be let in by an institution which actively campaigns against them?
I suspect the answer is twofold. First, fear motivates this debasing behavior. Fear that there really is a Hell, and that we gays will be condemned to it when we die. Fear of letting go of something that we were raised to believe was in the ?ideal? category of life, like owning a home. Fear motivates conservative behavior (see http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20061222-000001.xml), and nothing is more conservative than being told how to live your life by men dressed in robes, who claim to interpret gibberish written by the uneducated fearful a millennia ago, in order to secure your happy place in the afterlife.
Second, church-longing gays have yet to accept themselves (no matter how much they think they have), so they desperately seek out validation and acceptance from society. ?If only the Church will accept me, then finally, then all will be right with the world.? They have probably assessed the acceptance equation correctly. Since organized religion is without question the greatest source of societal hostility towards homosexuals, getting the Church to reverse its condemnation of us should go a long way to gaining acceptance.
It is disheartening to me to see gay men, who have overcome so many internal fears to live truly, struggle with religion. They yearn for Church acceptance, even though they need look no further than their own lives to know that Church doctrine is wrong, and therefore fallible. (Ask yourself: when you feel love for another man, does it feel like a sin?)
So powerful is the sway of religion, however, that atheists are even more despised than gays. In our society, even moderate religious followers are outraged when one openly criticizes an organized religion. It?s just not done. And look what our long years of religious tolerance have gotten us, and the world. Enough.
Want to make a real difference in the world? It takes courage. Live your life in the open, and reject the hocus-pocus of religion.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
we are forced to depend on the good graces of Breeders for our continuing progress
What a disempowering thought — one I disagree with completely.
Gay men and women and our families are capable of amazing things. We live our relationships every day, raise kids, do incredible work, save up cash, and make contributions in every possible walk of life.
We are not dependent on the hand-outs of “breeders” (sic) — society is dependent upon the contributions that gay people make to the economy, culture, and social dialogue. We should use this free market power to our advantage.
In the cases of heterosexual people demanding more benefits for their children from government — benefits denied to our children — we should be morally indignant and point out that we’re better parents and don’t need the handouts for our kids, so neither do they.
In situations where individuals blame their divorces on gays or other external factors, we should march out the quietly together gay and lesbian couples of 40, 50, or 60 years of duration to comment on the fallacy of a divorcee commenting on “family values.”
In situations where a particular municipality or jurisdiction takes a swipe at gay people, we should leave, calculate the economic costs of our departure, and oppose all efforts to bail out the city or state in question while pointing out that they induced their crisis themselves.
We are influential and we have natural allies in all walks of life, if we choose to transform our perspectives from victims in need of government help and handouts into proud people with amazing achievements who can show the way forward out of many of society’s problems — and who won’t be transformed into a cowed, unipolitical special interest group trading votes and campaign cash for feeble crumbs of “moral support” from duplicitous politicians.