In terms of gay-rights progress, brace yourself for a difficult year.
This is not because things are getting worse. It's because the national conversation on gay-rights issues is getting harder.
One reason is that, as cliche as it sounds, we are more polarized than ever. Gone are the days when House Speaker Tip O' Neill could lambaste President Reagan by day and play cards with him after 6 p.m.
It has become too easy to surround oneself solely with like-minded people. (The internet is one key factor.) The result is a bunch of echo chambers, where opponents seem not just wrong, but borderline-insane.
The second reason is that the gay community's specific goals have shifted. We are no longer asking merely to be left alone, as when we were fighting sodomy laws and police harassment. Our central political goal, for better or for worse, has become marriage.
Marriage is not merely a private contract between two individuals. It is also an agreement between those individuals and the larger community. It requires, both legally and socially, that community's support. And so the old "leave me alone" script no longer quite works.
A third reason the conversation is getting harder is that the gay community is at a crossroads regarding how we treat our opponents.
On the one hand we talk about reaching out, promoting dialogue, emphasizing common ground. On the other hand we are quick to label our opponents as hate-filled bigots.
This combination obviously won't work. A bigot is someone whose views, virtually by definition, are beyond the pale of polite discussion.
One sees this contrast in the fracas over Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
Compared to most evangelical pastors, Warren is a moderate, who focuses on common-ground issues such as poverty over the usual culture-war stuff.
But Warren supported Prop. 8, the California initiative that stripped marriage rights from gays and lesbians. (He has since suggested some possible support for civil unions.)
Obama's camp is taking the "big tent" approach, acknowledging differences but emphasizing shared values. In a similar vein, Melissa Etheridge has opened a dialogue with Warren.
Most gay-rights leaders, by contrast, have decried Obama's choice of Warren. As one friend put it, "it's like inviting a segregationist to lead the invocation-I don't care what other good things the guy has done."
And there's the rub: Warren does indeed espouse a "separate but equal" legal status for gays and lesbians (at best). Should we treat him the way we treat segregationists?
Before answering, remember that the majority of Californians, and a larger majority of the rest of the country, hold the same position as Warren on marriage. So does Obama himself (though he did oppose Prop. 8).
So in asking whether inviting Warren to lead the invocation is akin to inviting a segregationist to do so, we are also asking whether the vast majority of Americans are akin to segregationists.
It's a painful question to confront. And the only fair answer is "yes and no."
On the merits, yes. For practical purposes, no.
From where I stand, the arguments against marriage equality look about as bad as the arguments for segregation. They commit the same fallacies; they hide behind the same (selective reading of) scripture; they are often motivated by the same fears.
But I'm mindful of the fact that "from where I stand" includes decades of hindsight regarding segregation. The nation isn't there yet on gay equality.
Today, nearly everyone finds the following sentiments repugnant:
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
The segregationist who wrote that? Abraham Lincoln.
It is easy now to paint all segregationists as hatemongers, waving pitchforks and frothing at the mouth. Easy, but quite wrong.
The fact is that most segregationists were people not unlike, say, my grandmothers, both of whom were wonderful, loving, decent human beings, and both of whom-much to my embarrassment-opposed interracial marriage.
Their reasons had to do with tradition and the well-being of children. Sound familiar?
My grandmothers were not hatemongers. They were products of their time. So was Lincoln, so is Rick Warren, and so are you and I, more or less.
I don't mean for a moment to let Rick Warren off the hook. He ought to know better. Maybe someday he will.
In the meantime, prepare yourself for a challenging 2009.
14 Comments for “Are Our Opponents Like Segregationists?”
posted by James Clark9 on
Good grief.
Who exactly are you trying to win over? Apologising for homophobia and racism in one post…
Yeah, segregation was commonplace once upon a time. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t barbarian.
Your grandmothers were completely deluded if they believed that interracial marriage had anything to do with the wellbeing of their children, and you’re completely deluded if you think the status quo for gay people in America is acceptable today.
posted by Terry Wolfe on
I deny that people “are products of their time.” The time is the product of the people, and the individual beliefs and choices and actions held and taken by each person. Each man is accountable for the things he says, does and believes. I absolutely agree that the nation “is not there yet on gay equality.” Segregationists, or heterosupremacists, whatever their political affiliation, are not “wonderful, loving, decent human beings.” By definition, they are people who seek to keep one group up, and the other down. They must be challenged and resisted in this, at every turn, or “liberty and justice for all” is just an empty slogan.
posted by mademark on
I think the article is well stated. What benefit is it to me to be vitriolic in the face of ignorance? What does it do to me, let alone say of me, if I call everyone who voted for these constitutional amendments a hatemonger and a bigot?
Many people are deeply conditioned by their religions and their upbringings. When my late mother found out I was gay in high school she lashed out in the ugliest ways and basically told me to leave home at 18. But years later she invited my partner and me into their home. He was dying at the time. She kissed him in his fever, and when he died she told me she could not imagine my loss. She apologized to me for what happened all those years before, saying she didn?t know any better, ?it?s how I was raised.? I think of this when I see all the shouting and condemnation. Many of the anti-marriage voters are people like my mother, especially the older ones, people who do not yet know better, but may learn. What I hear most in the cry of ?hatemonger? is hatred. While it may be called anger, there?s a fine line between the two.
posted by TS on
“It has become too easy to surround oneself solely with like-minded people. (The internet is one key factor.) The result is a bunch of echo chambers, where opponents seem not just wrong, but borderline-insane.”
Yikes! You make it sound as least as terrifying as it is.
Once again, I have a shortage of replies because you’ve basically said it all.
“Yeah, segregation was commonplace once upon a time. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t barbarian.” Clark9, you miss the point. One thing I love about John is that he isn’t an uncompromising relativist, despite being able to use a relativistic perspective to help describe reality. With positivistic moral logic, one can deduce that we are better off today with contemporary moral attitudes than we were in the past. One can also craft a convincing argument for what ideal moral attitudes we should aspire to in the future. But it is invalid to devalue the people of the past because they “failed” to have contemporary moral attitudes. Without the social environment, physical resources, and intellectual resources we take for granted in the present, a person would have been extremely eccentric to develop contemporary moral attitudes.
“I deny that people ‘are products of their time.’ The time is the product of the people, and the individual beliefs and choices and actions held and taken by each person. Each man is accountable for the things he says, does and believes.” Well Terry Wolfe, it’s a good thing the process of holding someone “accountable” only goes in reverse through time. Imagine if the people of the past got to hold us “accountable.” They might not even bother holding us accountable; they would glimpse at our incredible “decadence” and “self-indulgence” and despair that Western society in the care of their descendants would be rotted through by “perversion.”
posted by Jorge on
You know I’ve had people call me a right wing religious nut on the internet just because I happen to be neutral on aboriton and I will cite with respect the view that life begins at conception to defend the rationality of people who oppose abortion and Plan B.
I’ve been called a right wing religious nut just because I will say I am a proud Catholic and because I will correct people who make false statements about my religion’s actions and views on homosexuality.
And they’re wrong. I mean it’s just amazing to me the kind of world some people live in, and the sheer ignorance that a lot of people’s and a lot of gay people’s human existance encompasses valued relationships with people who are socially or religiously moderate on gay issues.
And, while I’m no spring chicken in love with curiousity at diversity, I see very little of people (over the internet) actually being interested in who I am and where I am coming from, just what I am.
Oh, and people asking if I really am gay. Real smart, bite the hand that’s helping you.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I feel you Jorge. North Dallas Forty is convinced I’m a violent, homophobe that exploits gay people for my own ends
What, he nevers specified. He continued to make accusations, completely ignoring my actions at a situation I attended and he didnt.
That I was eyewitness too and he wasn’t.
My friends and fellow advocates that I’ve served with for decades would consider NDT considerably stoneheaded for such a notion.
And THEY would be right. Even though NDT must know how long I’ve been posting here and he didn’t think that before. Not even years ago that I recall.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Oops, I meant to say North Dallas Thirty.
What. Ever.
posted by TS on
I don’t understand why people blabber about who’s more conservative than whom rather than engage with the writings in these comments.
posted by Lorenzo on
The “products of their time” notion obscures as much as it informs. It is obviously true that, at any given historical moment, the state of opinion is a certain way. It is also true that people’s outlooks are layered, with some values being very deep-seated and hard to shift and others more contingent. It is not that they are deterministically “products” it is that they are likely to think in particular ways.
So, there is the issue of, given where people are, how do we reach them? The trick is to connect what one is arguing for with things that resonate for them. Telling folk they are evil, or they will have to give up their religion, etc is so not going to work.
The problem is that, opposition to equal protection of the laws almost always rests on some notion that the excluded group are not “full” people. And that is a deeply noxious idea. So, part of the trick is to establish the “no, we really are just folks”. There is something deeply insulting about having to do that. But, still, it has to be done.
There is the extra difficulty that many people believe that opinions-maketh-the-person. Only evil people have bad opinions. Sadly, that is simply not true. Trying to convince good people that some of their opinions are wrong–are, in fact, not worthy of them–is slow work. But necessary work. And shouting at them about how evil they are is so NOT going to work.
posted by Pat on
I am a proud Catholic and because I will correct people who make false statements about my religion’s actions and views on homosexuality.
Jorge, this is my understanding of the Roman Catholic views on homosexuality. While there is no official doctrine on homosexuality, the Church explicitly states that homosexual activity is a sin. They don’t regard the attraction as a sin, as gay persons are welcome provided they are celibate. The current Pope and his predecessor have made it clear that they are opposed to homosexuality, and believe that homosexuality (and same sex marriage) would lead to social decline. The Pope refused to sign a UN resolution decriminalizing homosexuality, using some God awful pathetic excuse (unfortunately our country also sided with Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al on this resolution). On the other hand, individual Catholics are mixed. In fact, many are gay supportive, and many of them support same sex marriage. Even a significant percentage of clergy are gay supportive. In fact, I was having a discussion with a few people, mostly Catholics, including a nun, about the resolution and same sex marriage. Even the nun supported same sex marriage. No, she’s not some young, fresh out of college nun, but at least into her 60s.
Let me know if I’m wrong about any of the above.
posted by TS on
“It is not that they are deterministically “products” it is that they are likely to think in particular ways.”
Yes. To which I would add that everyone’s attitudes are the product of the mental hardware they have and the environmental input they recieve. For someone to develop an attitude based on neither of these isn’t just unlikely; it’s impossible.
“Products” may not be the best word. This may imply that the times are some kind of assembly line turning out people who all have the same attitudes. This is a fallacy on two counts: not everyone has the same mental hardware so the same environmental stimulus doesn’t always have the same effect, and not everyone gets the same stimuli from their corners of the environment despite the “times” being a uniform construct.
And really it’s even more complicated than buzzwords like “times” and “products” and “stimuli” and “nature” and “nurture.” I can’t think of a way to state what I think about how attitudes about homosexuality and gay people are going.
“But necessary work. And shouting at them about how evil they are is so NOT going to work.”
I contend that many political activists are not thinking about their effectiveness; they’re thinking about their own needs. Gays took to the streets and threatened to burn Mormon temples because they were MAD as HORNETS. Animal rights activists make fools of themselves every day because their gives them something to get rowdy over. Black civil rights activists endured jeering and water cannons because they were SICK and TIRED of waiting. Nazi rallies were successful because they gave the people something to look forward to.
posted by Carl on
“Compared to most evangelical pastors, Warren is a moderate, who focuses on common-ground issues such as poverty over the usual culture-war stuff.”
I don’t see what’s moderate about this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/warren-endorsed-nigerian_b_153412.html
posted by TS on
Carl,
“Compared to” are the operative words. He’s still an opponent of equal rights, but not to the extent of those he is compared to.
posted by laptop power battery supply on
Good grief.
“It is not that they are deterministically “products” it is that they are likely to think in particular ways.”