The commenters on Non-bigotry made some very good arguments. Lymis is right on point that the rabbi is a textbook example of someone who is prejudiced (whether or not that is bigotry). In contrast, Pauliji has no doubt the rabbi is a bigot. Joe Perez has a lengthy post at his blog that I think John Corvino is more qualified to respond to than me. I think this topic is worth more time, and I'd like to devote a few posts over the next week to examining arguments made by some specific people who oppose marriage equality.
Senator Paul Sarlo was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and was a No vote from the start. However, he ran the very controversial hearing well, and the explanation of his vote is respectful:
Yes, I am opposed to the bill at this point in time, but their (Garden State Equality) advocacy has come a long way, and I am quite certain some time in the near future, I believe the tide has turned a little bit, and they will win with their issue. I am still opposed personally because of my religious beliefs as a Roman Catholic, and as senator of the 36th District, which is mostly made up of Irish and Italian Catholics, and Orthodox Jews.
Two things seem important to me about this statement. First, while I can't speak for New Jersey's legislature, I have worked in and with California's for over a decade. It is rare here for any legislator voting in a public hearing to cite his or her religion as the (or even a) reason for their vote. While particular religious arguments may be made (biblical passages about charity, for example, to support public welfare programs), outside of gay rights (and the very rare bill these days in California about abortion) an individual's religious beliefs are simply not used as a political argument. That is a consistent anomaly in the debate over gay rights.
Sen. Sarlo's concern about the religious beliefs of his constituents is a slightly different matter, but actually intensifies the inherent problem. While the Orthodox Jews in his district would probably strongly support his vote, only about half of his fellow Catholics would, if they are like Catholics in the rest of the nation. And I assume he has Jewish voters in his district who are not orthodox and support same-sex marriage. Moreover, this explicit appeal to specific groups quite obviously leaves out all of his constituents who are nonreligious, or belong to other religions. This may not be a political problem in his district, but as a general public policy matter, it is certainly unfair, if not unwise.
But he says something else that is even more telling. He is sure that "they" (Garden State Equality and by extension, lesbians and gay men) will win "their" issue. Equality is certainly our issue by virtue of the fact that we don't have it and must fight for it. But the concept is a constitutional one, and as such, it does not "belong" to any minority, but to all citizens. "Equal Justice Under Law" is carved into the entrance to the United States Supreme Court, not for any particular "us," but as a guiding principle for the laws that apply to the nation we all share.
Sen. Sarlo separates himself from this foundation when he assigns the fight for equal laws to us. The stunning success of the gay rights movement has been to help heterosexuals see exactly this point. They have as much stake in honoring the constitution as we have battling not to be excluded from it.
To be fair, Sen. Sarlo does understand this. His state's supreme court ruled that same-sex couples did not have equal rights in New Jersey, and told the legislature they must resolve that discrepancy. Sarlo believes that comprehensive civil unions satisfy the command of equality. But the religion he cites as authority for opposing our equal marriage does not support laws that grant us civil unions. He does not explain how he resolves that inconsistency.
I don't think Sen. Sarlo is a bigot. Unlike some of our most vocal opponents, he is comfortable articulating that we are entitled to equality, and differs only on the means of achieving that. That seems to me an important factor in deciding whether to level a charge of bigotry. What do you think?
9 Comments for “Non-bigotry (Cont.): Sen. Paul Sarlo”
posted by Arthur on
I think, as a Catholic, he is afraid to give up his churchâs stranglehold on the word ‘marriage.’ One can have a civil divorce and still be married according to Romeâs rules. There is no ‘divorce’ in his church. His church will not allow him to grant us marriage civil rights because the church loses control over more of the population.
posted by Rock City on
I think he’s a religious bigot. Look, stop making excuses so everyone can be friends, it makes you seem unserious. This guy’s ostensibly good intentions are a very thin veil (though perhaps not a deliberate ruse) over his bigotry. He voted against equal rights for gay people based on his religious teachings and the those of the majority of his constituents – teachings that are inherently bigoted. He did this because a. he really believes gays are an abomination, or b. he wants to keep his job and so he’s throwing gays under the bus (in which case, yes, maybe he isn’t a bigot, he’s just an asshole). If his religious beliefs are such a legislative concern, why hasn’t he proposed a law requiring parents to stone their children should the children disobey them? I mean COME ON, man!
posted by Arthur on
It goes beyond just simple bigotry. The Catholic Church does not want America to be more like Europe. If SSM goes through, the Church loses any authoritative voice on all matters of sexuality. After SSM is ruled Constitutional, would any US Senator listen to the group of Catholic Bishops who went to the Hill about abortion in the Health Care Bill(s)?
posted by Mark on
The question of evaluating Sarlo’s alleged bigotry comes down to the issue of how we treat his excuse for voting against marriage equality. He says he did so because of the teaching of his church on marriage.
OK, then: why hasn’t he been a fighter (he’s been chairman of the senate Judiciary Committee, after all) for repealing NJ’s law allowing civil divorce? There’s no record of Sarlo introducing a bill to ban civil divorce, or even a record of him using his chairmanship to hold hearings on the question.
So it seems like the question for Sen. Sarlo (and, indirectly, for David) is: why does Sen. Sarlo feel the need to follow his religious beliefs on marriage when voting on same-sex marriage, but not on banning civil divorce? If his vote on marriage issues is dictated solely by his religious beliefs and those of a majority of his constituents, shouldn’t he be as fierce an opponent of civil divorce as he is of marriage equality?
posted by David Link on
Arthur, I think the Catholic church lost its authoritative voice on matters of sexuailty in the 1960s. When the US Supreme Court ruled that heterosexual couples have a constitutionally protected right to use birth control, it kicked the pillars out from under the church’s entire thinking about sexuality — that if it isn’t for procreation, you shouldn’t be doing it. Over the years, the church’s stubborn reluctance to accept this has left its leaders out of touch with their parishioners, who still fondly tolerate the old fuddy-duddies, if they remain members of the church at all.
Homosexuality is only the latest challenge to the Vatican’s prideful insistence on the virtue of its (all male, theoretically celibate) earthly decisionmakers. None of us can or will change that, and don’t need to. The 50% of Catholics who support marriage equality are the natural result of (a) our efforts and (b) the church’s mulishness.
I’m not afraid of bad arguments against equality, because they can be refuted, and because (for the first time in history) heterosexuals are listening and engaging us.
To Rock City, I can only say that I’m not trying to be friends with anyone, but my style (and it is not everyone’s) is to try to engage those who are willing to engage me. Unlike New York’s Senator Diaz Sr., who has no interest in talking with us, NJ’s Senator Sarlo seems like someone who is really thinking about a problem facing him. If he’s willing to offer up arguments in public, I think it’s worth my time to give his effort some time and thought.
I certainly disagree with him, and many others. But in the spirit of real debate, I think that if I criticize someone’s arguments, I have an oblitation to say why — just as, if they are willing to argue against me publicly, they have an obligation to present arguments that will withstand scrutiny. If my arguments in favor of equality are wrong, I’d like to know why — and by the same token, I trust that people who argue against equality will accept, or at least think seriously about, criticism of their rationale.
posted by Amicus on
There are upcoming votes tomorrow, Thursday. I will wait until after then to offer 2-cents.
posted by Jorge on
What do I think? I think you’re wrong.
An explicit appeal to some constituents and not others is politics.
Equality is certainly our issue by virtue of the fact that we donât have it and must fight for it. But the concept is a constitutional one, and as such, it does not âbelongâ to any minority, but to all citizens.
I’ve never been convinced legal recognition of gay marriages is a constitutional right and I think framing it as such at the expense of framing it as a human or family issue has done a lot to trivialize gay marriages. It’s a political fight.
posted by Jorge on
To say something a little more on-topic.
Marriage is and will be one of the later holdouts in a string of gay rights causes.
I think there is a strong possibility that the GLBT community may be historically wrong, and even objectively long, about several of its goals and methods. The fact that there is such strong opposition to gay marriage suggests the need to examine whether legalizing same sex marriage is one of the issues the gay community is wrong about. If so, then by definition oppostition to gay marriage is not bigotry.
It behooves us to recognize the core reasons most Americans oppose gay marriage in the polls, let alone the polling booths. It’s not because they think the gay Safe Schools Czar of Massachussets is going to teach about gay Penguins to Kindergarteners. And yes, there is a difference between the authority the Vatican has on contraception and the authority it has on same sex marriage.
It has nothing to do with religion. It’s about certain core values and assumptions that people are not willing to question or change, and that they have not been successfully challenged to doubt.
posted by Rock City on
David, I appreciate your good intention, and I’m sure you’re a sweet guy. I just disagree. Thinking people can still be bigots, and I don’t think it helps us to let them off the hook. Sen. Sarlo’s arguments against marriage equality are actually bigoted, and if he is offended by being called out for that, sorry. He is hurting gay families, he is sending a destructive message to gay children, and there’s simply no excuse. I’m not suggesting we yell “bigot” at him as our manner of discourse, but we shouldn’t tip toe around the fact. Maybe he’ll think about why he’s a bigot, decide he doesn’t like being a bigot, and change.