As usual, I'm paying more attention in the Prop. 8 trial right now to the cross-examination than to our case-in-chief, mostly because the decision will depend on whether the other side has reasons for discriminatory marriage laws; as a constitutional matter, at least, equality doesn't have to defend itself, inequality does.
Like so many other people, I am firmly in the camp of San Diego's Republican Mayor, Jerry Sanders. He is one of the few politicians in this country who has actually risked his own political future because he believes we are right about marriage. He did not just change his mind about whether domestic partnership was legally and socially inferior to marriage, he told the world about it -- very publicly -- when he was in the course of a hotly contested reelection campaign. What Democrats (let alone Republicans) have risked their careers in such a direct way? Compare Sanders' action to that of congressional democrats who fret about putting ENDA up for a vote - and ENDA is a whole lot less contentious than marriage. Sanders shows what leadership on a controversial issue really looks like. For the record, San Diego's voters reelected him.
Brian Raum for the Prop. 8 defenders tried to parry Sanders' unambiguous rejection of that last residue of prejudice. He wanted Sanders to say that his newly-enlightened view must mean that people who support only domestic partnership do so out of hatred - and that his adaptation meant he'd turned his back on his own previous bigotry.
Sanders didn't take the bait (and Raum offered him a lot of worms). Instead, he calmly distinguished between hatred and the antiquated mindset about homosexuality that we call, in shorthand, prejudice. This distinction is so important.
It shouldn't be a surprise that people who grew up in a time when homosexuals were commonly described as perverts, deviants and degenerates (when they were described at all which, outside of criminal cases and arrests, and the occasional joke about interior decorators or hairdressers, wasn't often) would find it hard to believe, today, that homosexuals are just ordinary fellow citizens. This is what obviously separates those who most reliably vote against us - seniors - from those who most reliably accept us. People in the 1950s and 60s (and even into the 1970s, as this tape of Richard Nixon illustrates hilariously and potently) took it for granted that homosexuals were not only not normal but not good. Those who grew up from the 1980s onward at least saw that framework for understanding homosexuals challenged, and sometimes fully rejected.
The older view, looked at from today's perspective, is certainly harsh, and can be viewed as hateful. But it can also be seen as something more benign and understandable. Of course homosexuals have to struggle against the misunderstanding, but it doesn't make those who haven't been able to change an attitude they view as so fundamental to morality (however wrongly understood) our enemy, only our opponents.
Sanders captured that when he distinguished prejudice from hatred, and this is a theme we should be relentless in articulating. It's easy to caricature those who are stuck in a time warp on homosexuality - as easy for us to do as it for them to caricature us. We shouldn't get ourselves caught in that trap.
That doesn't mean we should be blasé about the truly vile things some of Prop. 8's supporters have said about homosexuality, both on and off the record. Nor should we be casual in making the case for full equality. But we should recognize, in every possible way, that this is hard for a lot of reasonable people who do not harbor hatred for us, only false or misguided ideas.
It was hard for Jerry Sanders, too. But look what happened to him.
10 Comments for “Jerry Sanders Nails It — Prejudice Does Not Need to Equal Hatred”
posted by BobN on
But look what happened to him.
Now all we have to do is sneak a lesbian daughter into every family in the U.S….
posted by Infovoyeur on
–I reluctantly admit–a very useful distinction. Antiquated prejudice is not virulent hatred. (Good thinking; “Don’t separate what should be joined, and–as here–don’t connect what is really distinct,” as in homosexuals and pedophiles, communism and socialism, etc.)
–But I say reluctantly because the powerful prejudice can splatter out into hateful mistreatment. (1) Never, never forget Time’s Essay of I think January 24, 1966, “The Homosexual in America”–a shining little stinker vilifying with disdain a people. (2) I have seen at early gay-lib panels, the eyes in the audience projecting what I called, not homophobia, not frank murderous hatred, but “bedrock disgust”…
–Still in all, this distinction made here by Link, is very admirably level-headed, and can only promote communication (not CV combat to win victory, but CV communie-icate toward validity…)
posted by Infovoyeur on
Oops, time for my 15-second rant on the “puppet theater.” Like, we are all puppets dancing to the tune of the invisible puppetmaster of the current climate of opinion zeitgeist norms mores folkways today’s truths vs. taboos.” It’s kind of dismal. Know why people are coming around to gay rights? It’s not because (1) they considered the issue and thought pro-actively responsibly independently etc. Nor (2) they are just getting on today’s new bandwagon of the truth [gay equality ain’t there just yet, eh…] It’s because (3) the climate of opinion changed TO PERMIT AND ENABLE FAIRNESS, simply by these changes: 1. gay is no danger, 2. gay is normal variant of sexuality, 3. gay is neither chosen nor changeable, 4. religions can still hold their beliefs, 5. gays are wrongly seen as second-class citizens, 6. we are moving toward more liberation equality anti-discrimination in society generally here as of now.
–That’s what permits these nice more accepting attitudes emerging. NOT independent responsible considering the situation, etc. (*) OTHERWISE, why did not people of like 3-4 decades ago, DO THE RIGHT THING? Because the puppetmaster made them dance to other tunes. Different from the tunes he makes them dance to now…
–[Of course it’s good that today our society has arrived, and we are aware of all the discriminations we formerly overlooked. Oops–“you ate a hamburger, you’re a cannibal.” Eh? Sorry for this seemingly socially-deterministic rant… Bi (sic) for now…]
posted by Amicus on
you know, under some legal interpretations, all they need is a retained, rational prejudice to keep every gay and lesbian for the next 20-30 years (?) from getting married in the USA …
just sayin’
Raum didn’t contest “prejudice” because their side probably intend to own that, 100%.
To more perfectly highlight his meaning, Sander’s might have been better with “irrational prejudice”, “unfortunate prejudice”, or “fear-based prejudice” or “unexamined animosity”.
posted by Lymis on
While we are making distinctions, though, lets make sure that we keep in mind another one.
There is a very distinct difference between a grandmother who privately will recognize that her hairdresser is okay and that those “nice girls down the street” aren’t so bad, but she just isn’t comfortable with the whole idea…
and the people who form national organizations for the express purpose of raising millions of dollars to suppress their fellow citizens based on known lies and distortions.
Grandma, having felt so uncomfortable about the whole issue, while likely being gracious to individuals, may be somewhat excused about not knowing the truth about things.
NOM, Focus on the Family, and the leaders of the LDS and Catholic Churches cannot be excused. They have been repeatedly confronted with the truth and have deliberately chosen to continue to lie.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
The level of hatred doesn’t have to be reached to have far reaching and damaging results to real lives.
People who are passively prejudiced rarely are in positions to have that prejudice truly tested.
And how that prejudice betrays honesty and opportunity for it.
The people who think they should go about their own lives, never feeling any sense of obligation to explaining themselves or showing results if any, of THEIR lives being hurt by the REACTION to their prejudice don’t want to know just to what degree even passive prejudice can leave ruins.
Gay people are held responsible, I think very unfairly, for the anti gay prejudice that has prevailed for centuries.
Well why?
This is a rare occasion before a court of law, where the anti gay are held responsible.
And quite obviously, they don’t like it one bit.
It’s almost comical to see people like this fear having to take what they dish out.
It doesn’t seem to occur to them to not do it in the first place.
That ESPECIALLY goes for people of certain avowed faiths.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Kudos to bringing up Mayor Sanders! Yes, he did make a very principled stand for same-sex marriage. It truly was a real political risk for him. I still remember when the story broke that he had changed his mind in his stance to it. I remember how emotionally-charged his public statement was and I gained a lot of respect for a man I knew nothing about before. So much so I gave him a nod on my blog.
At the time I thought about how encouraging it was to see someone come around to the side of equality, especially a politician, and especially a Republican politician! My next thoughts were: this guys political career is probably toast. I’m glad that hasn’t been the case.
Well said, too, Mr. Link, in bringing to our attention that there are distinctions between prejudice and hatred. Also, that we should recognize same-sex marriage is hard for a lot of reasonable people who do not harbor hatred for us, only false or misguided ideas. It really cannot be overstated.
But make no mistake, the gay-haters are out there. In fact, there are a few at this forum.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Lymis ânailed itâ pretty good too. There is a difference between grandma who just isn’t quite ready to accept same-sex marriage vs. political groups which actively organize, fund raise, knock on doors, and engage in a patently dishonest, hyperbolic propaganda campaign to enshrine government discrimination into their constitution.
And lest we forget, this process was repeated in Maine, and may be in Iowa before long, too.
No, these people cannot be excused. Like the gross injustices leading up to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, there is no excuse in what these groups are promoting. Most of these folks should know better. The only reason they don’t act on such knowledge is due to willful prejudice.
posted by Chairm on
David Link,
What is the actualy difference between hatred and the mindset that, in shorthand, you would call prejudice?
* * *
Prejudice is prejudging something favorably or unfavorably without proof or competent evidence but based on one’s subjectity or feelings.
This case is about the marriage amendment and not the subjective criteria or the feelings of the trial participants and Judge Walker, right?
Your blogpost deals with something that came up in Sander’s testimony, prompted during cross-examination, and so it is fair game for commentary, of course.
You see the marriage issue through your own gaycentric bias. That’s hard not to do and so it is not a fault all on its own. But it is a bias and it has produced a prejudice of your own.
The people who defend marriage discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage. They begin with the question, what is marriage?
SSM supporters on the other hand, begin with a list of things they believe marriage is not. They do not begin with what they believe SSM actually is. So they don’t so much build SSM as tear down marriage.
Marriage law does not license heterosexuality. But to hear the SSM side, they believe that SSM would license heterosexuality — or at least gay identity.
If we are to see SSM the way you see it, must we peer through your gay identity filter?
Or can you give objective criteria for differentiating SSM — as a type of relationship — from other types of relationships (or kinds of arrangements) that comprimse the nonmarriage category?
No, I am not going to settle for the trite “SSM is the same as marriage”. First say what SSM is, objectively.
Then we can discuss if it is different, in fact, from the rest of nonmarriage, in a way that merits special treatment.
And, then, we can assess the ways in which SSM might be like marriage, but not like nonmarriage, such that the two might be treated the same.
But it is prejudicial to declare that SSM is something of such merit that it must be merged with marriage. Begin at the beginning rather than at a predrawn conclusion that can only be seen through the gaycentric filter.
posted by Chairm on
Apologies for the typo:
. But to hear the SSM side, they believe that SSM would license homosexuality — or at least gay identity.