I've obviously been in a foul mood since Maine, and needed some good cheer. So Karen Ocamb's interview with Charlie Beck, the new chief of the L.A. Police Department couldn't have come along at a better moment.
As Stuart Timmons has documented, L.A. has a long history of pretty brutal police harassment against lesbians and gay men. That has been fading into the dustbin of history, and Beck embodies the view that is slowly but inevitably deflating our opponents.
Ocamb asks him, right off, whether he thinks sexual orientation is chosen or innate. His response is profound only because it's so matter-of-fact: "Sexual orientation is formed long before you have the ability to make a choice. I'm heterosexual and I never made that choice." He comfortably discusses an uncle who'd been with his partner for fifty years ("Imagine what they went through"), and chuckles about whether he should tell her how he voted on Prop. 8, ultimately saying, "I support gay marriage."
Compare those last four words with the hundreds it took poor Melody Barnes to almost confess the same sentiment in Boston. That is Maggie Gallagher's greatest challenge -- an emerging epidemic of common sense. Frank Schubert has been clear how hard he needs to work to create fear in his campaigns against us, and his partner, Jeff Flint, was brutally honest in confessing that even they're surprised at how easy it is for them to win, even when we outperform them, as we did in Maine.
But that's only because they can exploit existing prejudice, and eagerly do. We're the ones who have to fight uphill. Prejudice is what confounds common sense. Once heterosexuals can get past that - can see our sexual orientation as forming in the same way as theirs does ("I'm heterosexual and I never made that choice") the distortions that bias creates melt away.
Charlie Beck seems to have that common sense. Bit by bit, it's breaking out all over the country.
4 Comments for “Common Decency, Common Sense”
posted by esurience on
Prejudice is what confounds common sense.
Yep. I was thinking about this in regards to racism, and it’s application to our struggle.
When I learned about racism in school, our history of slavery, segregation, civil rights violations, violence and hate, the reaction I had to learning these things, and the reaction of my peers, was essentially this:
“Why the hell would you do that to people just because they had a different skin color. That’s so stupid.”
It didn’t make any sense. At all. It was not just horrifying to learn, it was genuinely confusing.
But the rationale advanced for discriminating and oppressing African-Americans was not: “They have black skin. We have white skin. Therefore, let’s oppress and discriminate against them.”
That was of course the reason, and the desire, behind the rationales that were made. But there was always a rationale advanced. Whether it was thinking African-Americans wouldn’t be able to take care of themselves if they didn’t have masters, or whether it was because black men were considered a threat to white women, and couldn’t control themselves, or whatever.
There was always a rationale. Not a legitimate one. Not a moral one. But it was there.
So how has society (largely) moved past racism? It’s moved past racism, not just because the rationale advanced for racism was debunked, but because people lost the desire, the instinct, to want to discriminate against people solely on the basis of race.
Where does that desire — to treat people differently from yourself because of some arbitrary and stupidly superficial thing — come from? Arguably it partially comes of our biology and the instinct towards “tribalism” (seeing people with obvious differences from ourselves as, well, different, and wanting to privilege our own tribe over theirs). But more importantly, I think, because people are born into a prejudiced culture.
Today, especially among young people (although it is regionally dependent), that desire to want to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin has largely vanished. Without a desire to discriminate, the rationalizations to discriminate do not form. More than that, any rationalization to discriminate against a person based on the color of their skin, is rejected out of hand by a person who has no desire to form such a rationalization in the first place.
Racists today often use crime statistics to rationalize their intolerance and hatred towards blacks. But a person who has no desire to discriminate against blacks (because they grew up without that prejudice being planted), responds thusly:
First, they’d probably call the person a racist, white-trash, nazi bigot. But if they wanted to engage the person intellectually, they might say:
“Well, if it’s true that crime in black communities is such a problem, then we have an obligation as a society to help solve that problem and improve those communities”
Similarly, bigoted homophobes of today often use statistics about STDs to rationalize their intolerance and hatred towards gay people. But again, a person who has no desire to discriminate against gay people (because they grew up without that prejudice being planted), responds thusly:
Bigot, blah blah blah — and if they want to engage the person intellectually, they might say:
“Well, if it’s true that STDs are a problem within the gay community, we should help fix that, maybe by more safer sex education” (And of course another way to diminish that problem would be to cultivate a culture a marriage among gay people).
I’m reminded of an experience back in high school. I was socializing with two guys during class (freshman), and during the course of that conversation, I ended up coming out to them (I think I was responding to a question about hot girls, or something).
There was a little bit of smiling and giggling. Then they started to ask me some (good-natured) questions. They were curious — I was the first openly gay person they knew, I think.
One of those questions was: “So are you going to marry a guy when you’re older?”
My response: “Yes, I probably will. But unfortunately it’s not legally recognized.”
Their response: “Why wouldn’t it be legal?”
They were genuinely confused as to why that discrimination would exist. It was quite endearing.
I think we can categorize people into 3 groups, which might be a helpful model for what persuasion tactics we use in the future, and give us an idea of what we’re up against:
1) People who grow up with prejudice against gay and lesbian people deeply instilled in them. These people need no reason to discriminate against us, they simply desire to do so. They will rationalize it in any way that they can. If you knock their rationalizations down, they will be undeterred. The did not arrive at their position through reason, and reason won’t get them away from it. The only exception to that rule is people who are intellectually honest, reflective, and empathetic, and really care whether they are right or wrong about certain things. Such people are, unfortunately, exceedingly rare.
2) People who have received conflicting messages about homosexuality, and absorbed them. These people aren’t really sure what to think. They’ll go where the wind blows. They may have some prejudice against gay and lesbian people, but they’ve also received a strong message that such prejudice is wrong. They don’t really have a desire to discriminate against gay and lesbian people (for it’s own sake), but they aren’t sure that such discrimination is really wrong or unjustified, because they’ve received conflicting messages. These people are persuadable by reason (from both sides of the argument).
3) People who have grown up in an atmosphere that is accepting of homosexuality. These are the people that have no desire to discriminate against gay and lesbian people in the first place. They may be genuinely confused about why such discrimination would even exist. They reject, out of hand, any rationalization for such discrimination as bigoted.
Of course these groups are not static. It’s possible to move between them without having to meet the intitial condition I specified (in the first sentence). But what we can say is: It’s very hard to move people out of group 1, and it’s also very hard to move people out of group 3.
So that’s both good news and bad news for us. The additional good news is that acceptance leads to more acceptance. Our trajectory is obviously headed in the right direction, group 3 is growing, group 1 is shrinking.
But the bad news is that group 1 is still massive. group 2 follows it. And group 3 is mostly young people, who, although on our side, are often apathetic about voting, and often ignorant of the real struggles that are faced by gay and lesbian people due to discrimination (because, in their own youth culture, they don’t necessarily see it).
Anyway, that is my analysis 🙂 Ya’ll can be the judge if it’s crackpotted or not 🙂
posted by David Link on
esurience, this is VERY well analyzed and argued. I’m glad you wrote it and I read it.
posted by Neil D on
God forbid (no pun intended) a gay man like me speak ill of gay marriage, but here goes?
We really should be happy with civil unions that provide the same material benefits of heterosexual marriage. Personally, I despise religion so I would never kneel down before a priest seeking his approval of my love for another man.
I think we could achieve all the benefits we need if we would simply be willing to acknowledge that marriage is a religious thing and, as such, we want no part of it. Now if some poor soul (like Andrew Sullivan) wants to agitate for religious recognition of his relationship, well, that?s between him and his church. I have no interest in such a debate.
I may be wrong in thinking that the right-wing would accept civil unions in exchange for dropping the word marriage. With an argument that honors the religious nature of marriage and our acceptance of a civil definition, I think the moderates would move our way. It?s simply ridiculous to expect the catholic church to ever perform a marriage ceremony for two people of the same sex. Not in my lifetime anyway. So let?s stop reaching for the impossible and get what we really need.
For your reference I submit this link which gets to the heart of the religious objections to gay marriage.
http://www.demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers
posted by esurience on
Neil D,
You’re confused. Marriage is both a civil and a religious institution. You do not need to join the religious institution to be civilly married. There’s no need to “kneel down before a priest.”
Civil marriage is, by definition, not a “religious thing.”