"Why do you need other people's approval?"
The question came from an old (straight but gay-supportive) friend, as we sat over breakfast discussing progress in the gay-rights movement. He meant it sincerely.
"After all," he continued, "if you like rap music, and I hate rap music, you don't need my approval to pursue your tastes. Indeed, even if I think listening to rap music is a mind-numbing waste of time, so what? Live and let live."
That's true. But when it comes to gay rights, "live and let live" may no longer be enough.
The difference between what he describes and what I seek is sometimes described as that between tolerance and acceptance. Roughly, "tolerance" involves leaving people alone to live as they choose, even when you don't approve, whereas acceptance involves somehow affirming their choices.
But even "acceptance" seems too weak here. Acceptance sounds close to acquiescence, which is scarcely distinguishable from tolerance. Gay people don't want merely to be tolerated or accepted, we want to be embraced and encouraged-like everyone else in society.
The shift from tolerance to acceptance is apparent in the movement's goals. When I came out in the late 1980's, we were still fighting to make gay sex legal. As late as 2003, homosexual sodomy was criminal in over a dozen states. That's when the U.S. Supreme Court finally declared sodomy laws unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas, overturning Bowers v. Hardwick. Suddenly, tolerance was legally mandated.
Then things changed-rapidly. Just a few months later, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Gays and lesbian Americans began legally marrying the following year, and marriage became the predominant gay-rights issue in this country. Now California's doing it (despite the threat of an amendment overturning that decision), and a handful of other states have civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Legally speaking, when it comes to marriage, "tolerance" may be enough. A marriage is legal whether people approve of it or not. Socially speaking, however, marriage requires more.
That's because marriage is more than just a relationship between two individuals, recognized by the state. It's also a relationship between those individuals and a larger community. We symbolize this fact by the witnesses at the wedding, who literally and figuratively stand behind the marrying couple. Marriage thrives when there's a network of support in place to reinforce it.
Beyond that, marriage is a life-defining relationship that changes those within it. This is why the claim "I accept you but I don't accept your homosexuality" rings so hollow. When my relationship is life-defining, rejecting it means rejecting me. "Tolerating" it is better, but not by much: nobody wants their life-defining relationship to be treated as one would treat a nuisance, much less "a mind-numbing waste of time."
And so the rap-music analogy falters in at least two ways. First, listening to music doesn't require the participation of others (beyond those who produced it), but marriage does. At least, it does in order to work best. Marriage is challenging, and it needs community support. Second, no one wants their life-defining relationships to be merely "tolerated." Ideally, they should be celebrated and encouraged.
Obviously, not everyone will approve of everyone else's marriage. You politely applaud at a wedding even if you think the groom is a jerk. But the ideal is still one where others' participation is crucial. I've even been to wedding ceremonies-straight and gay-where the minister turns during the vows and asks, "Do you pledge to support Whosie and Whatsit in their marriage?" and the audience responds "We do!"
That's one reason why same-sex marriage is so contentious. We are not simply asking people to "tolerate" something we do "in the privacy of our bedrooms." We are asking them to support and encourage something we do publicly. We are asking them, in effect, to participate.
We should not be ashamed of asking for that. We're social creatures, and it's natural for us to seek others' support. It's especially natural for us to seek it from our friends and family. But insofar as we desire such support from people not ready to provide it, we need to make the case for it.
17 Comments for “When Tolerance Isn’t Enough”
posted by Herb Spencer on
Excellent point! And like so many good ones, it was out there all the time, just waiting to be noticed!
posted by Luculent on
Kudos to the story. Gay marriage is definitely more than just tolerance. So many people that are against gay marriage feel that, by pushing for legalized marriage, we are pushing a ‘homosexual’ agenda. But I truly believe, with everything in me, that legalizing gay marriage is about the ‘human’ agenda. We are not asking for special treatment, but human treatment. Its just amazing at how just wanting to love someone for the rest of your life can be such a political statement.
posted by avee on
Using the state the force “acceptance” rather than simply ensuring equal treatment smacks of totalitarianism. I don’t need my fellow citizens to be threatened with re-education camp if they don’t express their support for who I am.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
John, nice job of drawing a clearer picture of why some gays are pressing so hard to secure marriage equality. A str8 Democrat friend of mine -and no homophobe for sure for the gay hysterics here- put it this way… on gay marriage gays are like Sally Field at the Oscars “You like me, right now, you like me!”. For him, he thinks gay marriage is ALL about validation by the broader society of our sexual identity and life choices. Validation.
I tried to convince him that society gains far more by bringing about marriage equality -whether that’s marriage in the conventional sense or the equality of benefits enjoyed by married couples- than by restricting gay access to that validation.
I didn’t have you thoughts as a reference. Thanks.
posted by bls on
“Using the state to force acceptance”? Who is being threatened with “re-education camp”?
Good grief. The right-wing rhetoric on this site gets more and more incoherent and hysterical every day.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
bls writes: “Good grief. The right-wing rhetoric on this site gets more and more incoherent and hysterical every day”.
Ummm, bls… that was kind of our side of the preference line using irrational threats like gay internment camps, gay concentration camps being promoted by that very far right wing you like to sneer at… I’m unhappy to have to say that the more radicalized left wing of our community first tried to use that boogeyman to rile up gays against the evil religious right in America.
It wasn’t realistic back then… isn’t now but it doesn’t stop some of your flaming friends from playing that card from time to time on IGF. What was that about the rhetoric being extreme? Ahhh, when we do it to demonize the right, it’s ok… it’s self-defense… it’s political tenacity no less… courage under fire and all that rot.
When the right uses inflamatory rhetoric, they’re constraining your free expression and right to pursue happiness.
I think avee was using re-education camps as a metaphor… the gayLeft uses the threat of concentration camps by others as a viable reality –when it’s nothing but hot air by some bigots. But if we didn’t grab at those opportunities, how could the gayLeft continue to promote the image of our collective victimization by society?
posted by avee on
In Canada the state knows how to force those who won’t express their “acceptance” to toe the line: order them to make contrite public apologies for their views!
“Canada – Pastor appealing order to apologize for anti-gay letter”
posted by Hey Dummy on
There is no free speech in Canada, Avee. There are limits to hate speech in the Northern country. What is your point?
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Unlike race or gender segregation, the issue of being homosexual is obviously across all cultural and family structures. The universality and indigenousness clearly shows that homosexuality ISN’T new, or defined by ANY human situation.
That gives credibility to orientation, instead of the oft repeated word ‘lifestyle’.
And the first family and social connections require having known someone homosexual from their childhood. A childhood in fact with straight siblings, not affected in orientation by having the same upbringing and parents. Life defining is right, and acceptance has more positive outcomes, just as obviously as institutional discrimination has negative outcomes.
This isn’t about interests, which CAN change and ARE fluid and are not enforced by law, but by life and death issues. Those of basic needs and rights being met that all human require and gay people being no exception to them.
But by law, and expectations from religious communities especially ARE made exceptions.
This is an artificial exception, not a spontaneous one.
There’s difference between being treated as inferior, to actually being inferior.
And regardless of what the heterosexual majority in control says about morality, it’s also obvious that heterosexuality doesn’t imbue one with morals, nor superiority in other qualities. Nor are they lacking for being homosexual.
This rationale for supremacy, is as irrational as supremacy by skin color or gender has been before. Yet the entitled attitude is the same, and no less pernicious…and dangerous.
The question to those who reject acceptance is simple: what positive and supportive results have come from the discrimination or hosility towards gay people?
Are we a better world for having had racism or sexism? A better world for the same paranoia about homosexuals?
Is it a good thing that gay children are inculcated with self hatred that puts them at risk for the very pathologies that the anti gay constantly repeat happen, but without admitting the mitigating circumstances that create them?
And AVEE: The powers that be here cite that Canadian situation to scare the public into thinking clerical persecution will inevitably follow gay equality. First of all, the defamation of gays and lesbians IS a liability on society.
The loss of educational opportunity, professional access (such as in the vitally needed military), or family are devastating, but show no justification for such things to happen.
When people of faith, or ANYONE crosses the line into libel and slander and in fact a gay person loses their job, family…or very life, the liability isn’t in the gay person, but the prejudice too free to make unfounded claims on the rights of another.
And when that same strict community has no respect for the very human rights THEY themselves claim from the government…or at the very least, don’t consider the limits of enforcing religious will on those who don’t choose it.
Living as a gay person and being allowed to fully function as a citizen, is very different from MAKING someone gay or required to be religious.
That is to say, it’s quite rational for gay people to want and expect more than acceptance from the logic of who they are asking it of. Their families and friends, especially who love them.
It’s rational to NOT be fired, assaulted on in any way coerced from living openly as a gay person.
But a religion, the followers of it, freely choose it and the government is not involved to what extent they practice it.
And the existence of gay people and THEIR freedoms don’t come at the expense of it for that reason alone.
So it in fact, makes it irrational for gay people to be exclusively compromised, when all other citizens who comprise the long list of religious reprobation aren’t treated the SAME WAY, and gay folks know it.
This is about knowing the difference between civilized and uncivilized behavior. About respecting those who ARE working hard to AND who do want to get along within reasonable aspects.
Gay folks wanting to marry, support their children, engage their families of origin for the purpose of inclusion IS very civilized and SHOULD be encouraged.
Why not?
Uncivilized people WOULDN’T want to, and don’t.
But for a religious person or organization to say that gay people ARE uncivilized and out to destroy marriage and family for wanting to participate in it, is bearing false witness on face, and creating an atmosphere of fear and distrust that isn’t justified by who it really hurts after all.
posted by guapoguy on
John Corvino’s straight-but-gay-supportive friend compared gay relationships to matters of taste, like a taste or distaste for rap music. I differ with that. Some people might reasonably question my lover’s taste in men (i.e., me), but the fact that he and I sought love and a committed relationship with another man is not a matter of personal taste or choice. We are innately programmed for that. I do not seek society’s endorsement, encouragement, or approval, although I will be grateful for those if given. What I seek and expect is social respect and laws that ensure my equal treatment in a free country. Laws can not compel anyone to approve of or like me. Laws can compel others to treat me with respect and as an equal.
This coming October, when we annually move from summers in Michigan to winters in California, I plan to marry the man with whom I have lived for the past 31+ years. The act of marrying him will alter nothing in our relationship or in our commitment to each other, or to the family of three children we raised together, or at least I’m not expecting any change in those matters. We have the love, respect, and encouragement of our families of origin, as well as the family we raised and of the friends in our lives, and I value all that, but those are not the reasons why I will marry him. I will marry him to contribute my small part to the social and political advancement of all gay and lesbian people, and to lay claim to our rightful positions as equals in American society. To some in our society, marriage is a religious sacrament, and perhaps it is, but that is irrelevant to me. To me, marriage is a civil contract that is accorded certain legal privileges. For most of western history, those privileges have had to do with property rights, and it was only in the Middle Ages that the trappings of sanctity (or even romance) were added onto the concept. What is important to me is that I want to be treated on an equal legal basis with citizens who may not be gay. I want no special privileges, but neither do I want straight couples to have special privileges that are denied to me. I want the same privileges as straight couples, no more, no less. If other elements of society accept our relationship, well that’s fine. If they do not, well my acceptance of myself and our relationship is not diminished one whit, but I will not concede to them any justification to deny me legal privileges they may claim for themselves. Dislike me if you so choose, but move over and make room for me at the grownup’s table..
posted by AGAIN, FOR THOSE WHO REFUSE TO HEAR on
Barrack Obama’s Letter to Gay Americans:
As an African-American man, a child of an interracial marriage, a committed scholar, attorney and activist who works to protect the Bill of Rights, I am sensitive to the struggle for civil rights. As a state Senator, I have taken on the issue of civil rights for the LGBT community as if they were my own struggle because I believe strongly that the infringement of rights for any one group eventually endangers the rights enjoyed under law by the entire population. Since 1996, I have been the sponsor or a chief co-sponsor of measures to expand civil liberties for the LGBT community including hate-crimes legislation, adoption rights and the extension of basic civil rights to protect LGBT persons from discrimination in housing, public accommodations, employment and credit.
Today, I am a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Unlike any of my opponents, I have a legislative track record. No one has to guess about what I will do in Washington. My record makes it very clear. I will be an unapologetic voice for civil rights in the U.S. Senate.
For the record, I opposed DOMA [ the Defense of Marriage Act ] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted … .
When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue. …
Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist. While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress. …
We must be careful to keep our eyes on the prize?equal rights for every American. We must continue to fight for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. We must vigorously expand hate-crime legislation and be vigilant about how these laws are enforced. We must continue to expand adoption rights to make them consistent and seamless throughout all 50 states, and we must repeal the ?Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? military policy.
I know how important the issue of equal rights is to the LGBT community. I share your sense of urgency. If I am elected U.S. Senator, you can be confident that my colleagues in the Senate and the President will know my position.
posted by avee on
It seems that we are to be forced to read campaign propaganda on behalf of the Chosen One Who Is Without Blemish. That it would be posted where it clearly has no bearing is simply rude and borish.
posted by jake on
avee, how dare you
you are an unbeliever who is unfit to read the message of the savior of gays and the free world, nay the universe immemorial
recant, repent and redeem yourself or be prepared to be called gay-loathing by all gays who rightly know the truth
maybe we should gather together and brand a mark into your forehead so all true gays will know of your treachery in disputing the savior has arrived
recant, repent, redeem yourself before the one true savior
posted by pfjo on
What’s interesting here is the desire for acceptance… which strikes as very odd and kind of pathetic. When the gay community talks about being encouraged and accepted like everyone else I can’t help but wonder who their talking about? Because I don’t, nor do I know anyone else, who live in that world.
The support and love and care that we all experience comes from our community of like minded people, just like yours does. In that sense, their is nothing unique about the gay community, it’s just smaller than the straight community.
All people in differing communities ever do is tolerate one another while acceptance only comes from like groups. Sorry, but the only way the gay community is going to be accepted is if everyone’s gay. Just like white people, women, hispanics, the mentally handicapped, Jews, dog lovers, people with foot fetishes, and country music fans.
That’s the world. The best you can ever do is find a small community to accept while the greater world just puts up with you and you put up with them. Anything else is childish utopianism.
posted by Pat on
What’s interesting here is the desire for acceptance… which strikes as very odd and kind of pathetic. When the gay community talks about being encouraged and accepted like everyone else I can’t help but wonder who their talking about? Because I don’t, nor do I know anyone else, who live in that world.
Pfjo, this reminds me of the cliche, “sex isn’t a big deal, unless you’re not having any.” It’s not the same thing, but desire for acceptance may seem odd and pathetic to those who don’t need to desire for acceptance, because they already have acceptance. I’m 25 years into my adulthood, so I personally don’t need acceptance of my sexual orientation or validation of my relationship with my partner. But I believe things would have been very helpful when I was a young adult.
If this still seems pathetic and odd, imagine there was a law that said a small ethnic group, say Armenians, could not marry*. I imagine the following type of conversation.
Armenian: I love my girlfriend, but it sucks that I can’t marry her.
Other: Why? What’s the big deal. All you need is acceptance from your fellow Armenians. Or better yet, you don’t need acceptance from anybody to validate your relationship. That’s just odd that you would want acceptance. Besides, marriage is only a piece of paper.
Armenian: Really? So I guess you and your girlfriend have done all right despite the fact that you aren’t married.
Other: What are you talking about? Of course I married my girlfriend. You think her parents would let us live together if we didn’t get married?
Armenian: (now confused more than ever about this acceptance from others thing) Wait a second? Why do you need acceptance from her parents? Isn’t that odd?
Other: Well, er, you just, um er, don’t, um, get it.
Armenian: Um, okay. So where are you heading?
Other: To the courthouse to get a copy of my marriage license. I want to make sure we don’t lose the rights and protections that we automatically got from our marriage.
Armenian: Gee, I thought it was only a piece of paper. I’m trying to save $10,000 or so to try to get half of those protections. But at least I got acceptance from my community.
*For those who counter with that gays can marry someone of the opposite sex and can’t get past what was obviously meant here, then change “could not marry” to “can only marry someone of the same sex” and assume that the couples referred to above are heterosexual.
All people in differing communities ever do is tolerate one another while acceptance only comes from like groups. Sorry, but the only way the gay community is going to be accepted is if everyone’s gay. Just like white people, women, hispanics, the mentally handicapped, Jews, dog lovers, people with foot fetishes, and country music fans.
Only tolerate? I don’t think I’m far from alone when I say that I accept people from all the groups mentioned above. I’m also happy that many of them accept me in return.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Gay people don’t want merely to be tolerated or accepted, we want to be embraced and encouraged ? like everyone else in society.
Bleh. I want to put John Corvino over my knee and spank him with a hardbound copy of Anthem.
posted by Greyhill on
Approval of the people is must.Without the approval of the people,no one can attain high level.
—————————————-
[url=http://www.drugaddiction.net/michigan]Michigan Drug Addiction[/url]