Maggie Gallagher at the National Organization for Marriage-producers of the unintentionally hilarious "Gathering Storm" ad-has been mentioning "footnote 26" of the Iowa marriage decision quite a bit lately.
For example, she tells conservative blogger Rod Dreher that same-sex marriage requires "the rejection of the idea that children need a mom and dad as a cultural norm-or probably even as a respectable opinion. That's become very clear for people who have the eyes to see it. (See e.g. footnote 26 of the Iowa decision)."
Elsewhere she describes the footnote as "the most heartbreaking sentence" of the decision.
What is this ominous, heartbreaking footnote? The offending bit is here:
"The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else."
So too says the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychological Association-in fact, every major health and welfare organization that has examined the issue. The Iowa Supreme Court has mainstream professional opinion solidly on its side.
But to say that the opposing view is based on "stereotype" attacks our opponents' last remotely plausible-sounding secular argument. No wonder they're getting defensive.
The use of the word "stereotype" is a large part of what irks them. Those who rely more on stereotype than evidence are being unreasonable. And in the extreme, those who cling to unreasonable views are bigots. Elsewhere in the Dreher interview Gallagher states,
"Same-sex marriage is founded on a lie about human nature: 'there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex unions and you are a bigot if you disagree.'"
Indeed, Gallagher uses the term "bigot" and its cognates no fewer than five times in the short interview.
A bigot if you disagree? Neither the Iowa Supreme Court nor most marriage-equality advocates make any such sweeping statement. On the contrary, footnote 26 is attached to the following:
"On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies."
"Reasoned opinions" which are "thoughtful and sincere." That's about as far from "you're a bigot if you disagree" as one can get.
Marriage-equality opponents are increasingly complaining that we're calling them bigots. This leads to a kind of double-counting of our arguments: For any argument X that we offer, opponents complain both that we're saying X and that we're saying that anyone who disagrees with X is a bigot.
Then, instead of responding to X-that is, debating the issue on the merits-they focus on the alleged bigotry charge and grumble about being called names.
I don't deny that some of us do call them names (sometimes deserved, sometimes not). Yet even those who call them "bigots"-such as Frank Rich in his New York Times op-ed "The Bigots' Last Hurrah"-often engage the substance as well. Increasingly, our opponents ignore the substance in favor of touting their alleged persecution.
Personally, I think the term "bigot" should be used sparingly. Many of those who oppose marriage equality are otherwise decent people who can and sometimes do respond to reasoned dialogue.
To call such persons bigots is not merely inaccurate; it's a conversation-stopper. It says, "your views are beyond the pale, and I won't dignify them with discussion."
But let's not pretend that any one side in this debate has a corner on conversation-stoppers. There are plenty of people on Gallagher's side who consider us "deviants" or "perverts," and those terms don't exactly welcome dialogue either. Neither does Gallagher's calling us "liars"-as in, "same-sex marriage is based on a lie about human nature."
There's a more general problem here, and it's hardly unique to the gay-rights debate. Suppose you've reflected on some controversial issue and adopted a particular position. Presumably, you've decided that it's the most reasonable position to hold. How, then, do you explain the fact that seemingly reasonable people deny it?
There are several possibilities, most of them not very flattering. Perhaps your opponents are inattentive, or not very bright, or have logical blind spots, or are swayed by superstition.
Or perhaps they're just being bigots. It happens.
(Interestingly, some philosophers have suggested on this basis that there's no such thing as a "reasonable disagreement," strictly speaking. If you accept P but think that denying P is "reasonable," then you should either switch to not-P or become agnostic about the issue.)
I don't pretend to understand why seemingly reasonable and decent people adopt what strikes me as an obviously wrongheaded position on marriage equality. I think the reasons are various and complex, though they typically involve a distortion of rationality caused by other commitments, such as religious bias.
But I also recognize that my opponents do, or should, wonder the same thing about me-and the ever-growing number of reasonable and decent Americans who support marriage equality.
Which leaves us with a few choices.
(1) We can call each other crazy and stupid, or bigots, or deviants. This is generally not helpful.
(2) We can pretend that we're above all that, but complain that the other side is doing it. This, I fear, is what Gallagher is doing, and it strikes me as equally unhelpful. It would be akin to my saying that Gallagher's position is that you should oppose same-sex marriage, and if you don't, you're a liar (or a heathen or a pervert or whatever).
(3) We can actually engage the substance of each other's positions.
I can understand why those with poorly supported positions would want to avoid (3). That doesn't necessarily make them bigots, but it doesn't reflect very well on them, either.
9 Comments for “The ‘Bigot’ Card”
posted by Bart on
I think it is worth stressing that when opponents of Gallagher’s caliber are framing their arguments, they are specifically choosing their battleground and trying as much as possible to rig the outcome. Specifically, Gallagher is choosing to obfuscate the issue.
Gallagher states,
?Same-sex marriage is founded on a lie about human nature: ?there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex unions and you are a bigot if you disagree.??
With this single statement she puts forth 3 lies in an attempt to derail the issue and move things into territory more amenable to her. First she states that “Same-sex marriage is founded on a lie about human nature.” She should be taken to task over this statement as erroneously false, regardless of context. While I am sure opinions vary, I firmly believe that Same-sex marriage is founded squarely on the “truth” of civil rights and equal protection. Just because Gallagher does not want to deal with that is no reason to accept her terms.
Next, she states “there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex unions” which is a falsehood because it is completely without context. The statement, as it stands, is patently false because there is at least one (and it isn’t hard to find more) difference–namely one involves same-sex partners and one does not. Because the statement is without context, she immediately sets up her next statement “you?re a bigot if you disagree” to rig her fight because it would of course be silly to call her a bigot for disagreeing with a seemingly false statement.
Again, she should be taken to task by putting the statement back into context, namely that in cases of child-rearing there is no difference between same- or opposite-sex marriage. Now, with context, the statement is patently true (there is not one single reputable study to contradict it). Finally, her wrap up, “you’re a bigot if you disagree” is still too prejudicial, because simply disagreeing with something does not make you a bigot. However, putting her argument back into context, specifically that she disagrees with the statement because of her own opion completely divorced from any facts whatsoever, it can readily be seen from the definition of a bigot (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot – “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”) that she is not a bigot for simply disagreeing but because her disagreement is wholly unfounded.
I don’t have a problem, per se, with calling her a bigot since it appears from a straight forward analysis that she is. But allowing her to obfuscate why I did so is unacceptable.
posted by Bobby on
“I don’t have a problem, per se, with calling her a bigot since it appears from a straight forward analysis that she is.”
—You should have a problem with that because it makes her a victim and a martyr which helps her become more popular, raise more money, convince more people that gays are evil, etc.
This is what gays and progressives don’t get, when we attack the argument, we win, but when we attack the person, we lose.
It’s the reason I have come to respect Perez Hilton, after seeing all the personal attacks against him, people ridiculing his weight, ridiculing his masculinity, ridiculing his sexual orientation, his right to hold controversial views, I’ve come to the conclusion that maybe he’s not such a bad guy. That maybe it’s the people who ridicule him the scum of the earth.
posted by TS on
“(Interestingly, some philosophers have suggested on this basis that there?s no such thing as a ?reasonable disagreement,? strictly speaking. If you accept P but think that denying P is ?reasonable,? then you should either switch to not-P or become agnostic about the issue.)”
Egad! This has injected my day with a bout of scary thoughts.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
While I am sure opinions vary, I firmly believe that Same-sex marriage is founded squarely on the “truth” of civil rights and equal protection.
Then, since marriage is a “civil right” and you cannot deny anyone “equal protection”, you should also support polygamist, incestuous, bestial, child, and other marriages.
Or why do you seek to deny civil rights and equal protection to people whose sexual attractions and desires for preferred marriage partners are different than what YOU think is right or with what you’re comfortable?
posted by JayP on
NDT
With respect the only argument you MAY have is regarding polygamy. However, I believe protection of civil rights is for people to make decisions about how they live their lives without interfering with others lives. Incest does not respect a child’s rights, and to be as technical as possible, without going into a slew of other issues, doesn’t protect the animals rights either as they have no way of clearly communicating their needs to us in a human language.
In reality you have no real argument since your last statement, and I quote, “why do you seek to deny civil rights and equal protection to people whose sexual attractions and desires for preferred marriage partners are different than what YOU think is right or with what you’re comfortable?”
tries to attack us for doing exactly what you are doing. Obviously, if you feel comfortable doing it, then why should you have a problem with us doing it, And for the record, we really aren’t at the point of denying other people’s rights yet, we are just fighting for our own.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Obviously, if you feel comfortable doing it, then why should you have a problem with us doing it,
Because you allegedly OPPOSE doing it. I’m merely holding you accountable to your own principles — or lack thereof.
Incest does not respect a child’s rights, and to be as technical as possible, without going into a slew of other issues, doesn’t protect the animals rights either as they have no way of clearly communicating their needs to us in a human language.
And how does that interfere with your life? Are you a child or affected animal? Or has the argument suddenly changed to recognize that there are societal impacts that affect you based on other peoples’ sexual relationships, which is exactly counter to what you’ve been arguing previously when it comes to your own?
Aside from the fact that the gay community, given its endorsement of teaching gay sex to five year olds, its opposition to age-of-consent laws as homophobic, and its insistence that taking children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs to “show off” for adults is an “educational experience”, obviously doesn’t think sexualizing and having sex with children for adult entertainment in any way interferes with children’s “rights”.
posted by JayP on
NDT,
Your logic confuses me, on so many levels. and I wish that I had time to go into every detail of what you have written on countless other posts. Dr. Corvino has already explained the PIB argument, and with great eloquence and rationale I might add, that I will not get into a discourse about what has already been said. You can try and call us out on something that doesn’t yet really exist if you want, but the fact is that Civil rights does require protecting others that may not have the ability to do so. To that degree, there is absolutely no hypocrisy taking place.
As to your left field argument about teaching sex to 5 year olds, you are delusional (not meant disrespectfully, just my observation). I have not ever heard of anything like that and if you believe that, then what can I say. The other side (me, and many others) are telling you that we have no desire for that nonsense. If you choose to be deluded and not believe that, it no longer becomes a discussion that we can have sensibly because it wouldn’t matter what we say, you wouldn’t believe us. What you are being told, or taught, is all lies. Period. If that day came and sex was being taught to 5 year olds, you and I will be on the same side fighting. That, you can take to the bank.
posted by JayP on
Also, to make a point, just because there are ignorant and stupid people taking their kids to the Folsom Street Fair, does not reflect on the gay community as a whole. As a whole, I think we are fair minded people who just want to live our lives. Just because there are straight people who sexually abuse kids doesn’t mean that heterosexuality is wrong, does it? Just because there were some religious men, who like to marry underage women and multiple wives, should we also condemn heterosexuals then? Please try to use some restraint and not throw the baby out with the bath water. I also, beg of you do not put me in the same boat as those at the Folsom street fair, I do not support those actions.
posted by David on
John, I love your work, but I think you’re wrong here. The Merriam Webster definition of a bigot is “one obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.” How do opponents of same sex marriage fail to fit this definition?