Walter Olson needs no help in responding to Mona Charen as she does the best she can to pound a heartbeat into polygamy as an argument against same-sex marriage. But he does leave her an unnecessary opening as she complains that her side is being treated badly sometimes.
Charen is right that there are people and groups who say, sometimes quite openly, that opponents of same-sex marriage are bigots, haters, and worse. Just because Andrew Sullivan, Jon Rauch, John Corvino, Walter Olson, President Obama, David Boies, Ted Olson, Dick Cheney, Harry Reid, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Gary Johnson, Dale Carpenter — you get the idea — and so many others are civil does not mean that opponents of marriage equality are all on the same page.
Name-calling and public insults are an unfortunate part of any public debate, though I have to give it to the Brits for bringing some style to the table, an art we Americans still struggle with. But Charen seems to be worried about more than that. As she says, “The anti position requires more courage in 2013 America than the pro position.”
No one can apologize for all the intemperate people who share a particular position, and no one should have to – otherwise the internet and airwaves themselves would be inadequate to fill the need. Charen shouldn’t have to apologize for the Westboro Baptists folks, or any of the rude and slanderous people who oppose marriage equality, and Walter shouldn’t have to apologize for our sneering and contemptuous supporters.
It is, instead, the middle ground that needs examining. It is not necessary to call our opponents bigots to recognize that they are now viewed by more and more people as unkind, or thoughtless or even cruel. It is that cultural change, not just the extreme rhetoric, that I think, people on the right take offense at.
And I think those who oppose same-sex marriage should set aside personal offense for a minute and try to understand why that is. Chris Christie provides an opportunity.
He has said, like so many before him that his personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But when he was asked what he would do if one of his children turned out to be gay, he said he would “grab them and hug them and tell them I love them,” but add “that Dad believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
If the only point of view you have is that of the parent in this conversation, that might appear sufficient. But what about the child’s position? That’s what Christie, and others who resort to this fantasy, leave out. Discussions along these lines today would not end with the parent’s pronouncement, and it would not only be the gay child who would be bemused if not appalled that Dad thinks Jaye and Ella don’t have any right to get married. Really? And, if the issue came up in an election, Dad could be counted on to vote against the rights of his own child. There’s family harmony.
For those who have honestly never thought about what effects such a parent might have on a child, I can once again recommend Jon Rauch’s e-book. Fortunately, enough of the world has changed so that most children now can take the moral high ground on their own, and have back-up from plenty of others. However this family conversation might go, it will usually be much more complicated than the way Christie describes it.
More important, as Charen fears, the broader society can see the emotional emptiness homosexual adolescents would face – have faced – without even the possibility of marriage in their future. What was once not only thinkable, but the majority view, is now seen as the monstrous sham it always was.
Christie is not a brute. He has supported his state’s civil union law, which was crafted as a façade of equality. But after almost 40 years, this strategic image of equality is less necessary. Americans know what the real thing is, and are willing to stand up for it for their lesbian and gay fellow citizens.
But Americans are also now less willing to be charitable to those who give every appearance of being insensible or even insincere about caring about this most essential relationship of life and how its denial affects loving individuals. It is not necessary to use distasteful rhetoric; if marriage equality opponents wish to be viewed as humane and decent, they have some burden to explain how their position is (as Jonathan Rauch has said in another context) good for gays, good for straights and good for America. Absent that, they do look awfully unkind.
20 Comments for “Unkind”
posted by Houndentenor on
But they are bigots. Telling people it’s okay to be bigots accomplishes what exactly? I don’t care what Gov Christie’s personal views on gay marriage are. That’s none of my business. It does matter what the law is, and he vetoed a bill that would have made gay marriage legal in New Jersey. That’s what matters. He can rationalize that all he wants but in the end he’s either an anti-gay bigot or pandering to bigots in the hopes that he can get the 2016 GOP nomination. Neither of those is good. Like many of you, I have conservative relatives and coworkers. Should I give them a pass for being anti-gay bigots? I don’t give them a pass for being racist and sexist. This is bullshit. Telling people it’s okay to deny other people rights is not how anyone else got equal rights and it’s not how we’re going to get ours.
posted by JohnInCA on
I don’t think the issue is “telling people it’s okay to be bigots”, it’s being more PC while dancing around calling them bigots.
Or, to put it another way… unless you *want* someone to dig in on their position, it’s not productive to insult them. Even if your insults are 100% accurate, it’s simply not productive. Human psychology, ya know? So if it’s someone you want to turn around or you hope will turn around with the course of time, it’s wiser to hold back and use more delicate language. Not because they *aren’t* bigots, but because they aren’t *beyond redemption*.
Or, to put it another way, I don’t say “don’t say bigot” because it’s untrue, I say it because it’s (in most cases, especially when applying the term to 45+% of the country) bad strategy.
So… find other ways to say it. Whether it’s “attack the argument, not the person”, simply using less emotionally charged words, or just dancing around it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But Charen seems to be worried about more than that. As she says, “The anti position requires more courage in 2013 America than the pro position.”
Oh, really?
I suppose I should be concerned about her angst, but I’m 66 years old.
I remember all too well when being gays or lesbians were routinely kicked out of college, jailed, fired, run out of business or run out of town, beaten and otherwise harassed, all with societal approval.
I live in a world where gay and lesbian middle-school and high-school kids are bullied and harassed to the point where an “It Gets Better” campaign is a lifesaver. I read the letters to the editor from conservative Christians in our small town papers, full of words like “abomination”. I read about Presidential candidates like Ted Cruz asserting that marriage equality will lead to “the collapse of our nation”.
And so on.
I do my best to keep my discourse civil and reasoned, and mostly (but not always) succeed. I think that’s appropriate. And that’s enough.
I’m not about to start shedding tears for Charen — who seems to have trademarked the term “useful idiots” to describe liberals — when she feels insulted that someone suggested that the anti-equality extremists like NOM’s Brian Brown are “bigots”, or when might have her feelings hurt by someone saying one or another unkind thing to or about her. It goes with the game.
Charen needs to work on developing a tougher hide. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn’t, shrug it off. That’s what I was taught when I was about ten, and it’s worked just fine for me over the course of a lifetime.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Charen shouldn’t have to apologize for the Westboro Baptists folks, or any of the rude and slanderous people who oppose marriage equality …
True. But she doesn’t have to whine when Brian Brown is called a “bigot”, either. And that she does.
posted by Houndentenor on
Especially since Brian Brown IS a bigot and proud of it.
Last week Darrell Issa attended the Log Cabin dinner. Issa is no friend to the gay community but he was there. If people had screamed bigot in his face, that would have been counterproductive. Hopefully some gay conservatives talked to him. Maybe nothing huge came of that but there is a possibility when you have a dialogue of something productive happening.
I don’t think there’s much chance of that happening when someone brags about their involvement in harshly anti-gay laws in Russia. Such a person deserves no defense when they are called out for what they are.
posted by Doug on
I, too, am getting tired of the Right whining because they are finally getting some flack over being bigots. An yes, they are bigots. Look it up. This country is not a christian theocracy. We are a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-sexual orientation and a number of multi’s I can’t even think of at the moment and every single one of us should be treated equally.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Their is indeed a time and a place to call someone out on their bigotry. It is also not necessarily always the best tactic in terms of advancing equality.
Some of the opposition is never going to change, while some can learn the errors of their ways and still others — many politicians I suspect — will eventually go with the electorate.
Chris is almost certainly going to run for President or Vice President and for him his opposition — I suspect — a cold political calculation more then anything else.
Does not make his opposition “OK”, but calling him a ‘bigot’ (while probably true) is probably not going to be terrible effective.
posted by Houndentenor on
Is he a bigot or just pandering to bigots for political gain? In practical terms it makes no difference. He vetoed the gay marriage bill no matter what his reasons. But to me it is less morally defensible to do crappy things that you know are wrong just to pander to bigoted, ignorant people.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I also reject the idea that it is somehow ‘easier’ to be in favor of equality. I think that really depends largely on where you live and who your general audience happens to be.
Minnesota — for example — rejected the anti-gay amendment and passed gay marriage, but their are a large number of places in the state — especially in the western region — where just about the only think said about ‘the gays’ is different degrees of negative and their is zero support for say, gay youth.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I also reject the idea that it is somehow ‘easier’ to be in favor of equality. I think that really depends largely on where you live and who your general audience happens to be.
I think that’s true, and to be charitable to Charen, she probably finds herself isolated in the social/cultural environment she inhabits. Charen’s husband is a partner in a national law firm with a 100% HRC rating, she lives in a major metropolitan area in a marriage equality state, where support for marriage equality runs high, and her co-religionists have the highest marriage equality percentages among the various religions in our country. I don’t imagine that most of her Barnard and George Washington Law School classmates find her views sympathetic with their own.
For her, it probably is more difficult to be anti-equality than it would be to be pro-equality.
But charity aside, the “gays and lesbians are so mean to us” and “we are an embattled, persecuted minority” are garden variety anti-equality memes these days, so she may not be reflecting on her own experience.
posted by Houndentenor on
In a country where 80% of Americans already think ENDA is the law and even a majority of Republicans claim in polls to be for passing it and yet we still can’t get it done, I don’t know how anyone can say that it’s hard to be anti-gay. Here’s my guess. Friends and relatives of gay people and even gay people themselves are calling out these pandering politicos to their face these days. It’s long overdue imho.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Friends and relatives of gay people and even gay people themselves are calling out these pandering politicos to their face these days.
And challenging the dreck put out by anti-equality advocates at all levels, as well.
Anti-equality memes went unchallenged in our society for so long that any pushback from “good” (i.e. straight) people is shocking to many of those who utter them.
But their claims that they are a “persecuted minority” (as if most of them would know one if they saw one) are vastly self-overrated. Despite all the hysteria, the anti-equality advocates are not being “persecuted”.
Consider: The Catholic bishops are claiming persecution because the government says to them: “If you want our money, obey the law.” Really? Big whoop. Catholics can obey the law like the rest of us.
Consider: A few Christian businessmen are claiming persecution because their state governments are saying to them: “If you are going to be in business serving the public, then serve the public.” Really? Big whoop. Christian businessmen can obey the law like other businessmen.
Consider: A few Christian employees in the private sector are claiming persecution because have been told by their employers to knock off the harassment in the workplace, or lose their jobs. Really? Big whoop. Christian employees can live by the same rules as every other employee.
That isn’t much in the way of persecution. It may be loss of privileged status, but it isn’t persecution. But “we are a persecuted minority” is the anti-equality meme these days.
I suppose we can discuss the wisdom of such laws, and such practices by private employers. But even if the laws and practices are unwise, none of this comes even close to the systematic cultural bias faced by gays and lesbians, historically and, in many parts of the country, today.
If ENDA protection is removed for Christians, then talk to me about how persecuted you are, I’ll listen to you and I’ll tell you how hard it is. If Christians are prohibited from serving in the military, then talk to me about how persecuted you are, I’ll listen to you and I’ll tell you how hard it is. If Christians are banned from marriage or adoption, then talk to me about how persecuted you are, I’ll listen to you and I’ll tell you how hard it is. If Christian kids start committing suicide at rates much higher than the norm because they are bullied for being Christian, then talk to me about how persecuted you are, I’ll listen to you and I’ll tell you how hard it is. And so on.
But, for G-d’s sake, don’t whine at me that you are being persecuted because people are finally pushing back at the dreck you’ve been propagating for years and years without being challenged. That’s nonsense, and it is an insult to anyone who has actually faced discrimination.
And to hear Mona Charen, of all people, someone who comes from a religious/ethnic minority that has faced serious persecution over the course of its entire history, whining about a little pushback just eats my bones. Charen needs to get real.
But whatever the particulars of her situation, the “gays and lesbians are so mean to us” uproar is a tempest in a teapot. It reminds me of a quote from the late Mayor Daley of Chicago: “They have vilified me, they have crucified me; yes, they have even criticized me.” We laughed at him when he came up with that, and we should be laughing people like Mona Charen out of the room when she whines about how tough it is to be anti-equality these days.
posted by Houndentenor on
If religious people are allowed to deny services to gay people, then gay people ought to be able to deny services to people whose religions they don’t like. If one of those offends you and not the other, then you need to stop and think about that.
posted by jared123 on
Houndententor: If religious people are allowed to deny services to gay people, then gay people ought to be able to deny services to people whose religions they don’t like.
No one is saying that a gay baker should be able to refuse to sell bread to a person of faith who comes into his store, or vice versa. But yes, a gay meeting planner should not be forced by the state to provide services to an anti-gay marriage conference.
posted by tristram on
@ David – Trying to make sense of your second paragraph, this in particular – “are civil does not mean that opponents of marriage equality are all on the same page . . . . ” Should “opponents” have been “proponents” there?
posted by Jorge on
But he does leave her an unnecessary opening as she complains that her side is being treated badly sometimes.
That’s a terse way of putting it…
No one can apologize for all the intemperate people who share a particular position, and no one should have to – otherwise the internet and airwaves themselves would be inadequate to fill the need. Charen shouldn’t have to apologize for the Westboro Baptists folks, or any of the rude and slanderous people who oppose marriage equality, and Walter shouldn’t have to apologize for our sneering and contemptuous supporters.
Sorry, but I do not agree.
Just a few days ago this site cited Jonathan Rauch’s article describing how Jerry Falwell and his ilk advanced the gay rights movement. “And our antagonists—people who spouted speech we believed was deeply offensive, from Anita Bryant to Jerry Falwell to, yes, Orson Scott Card—helped us win.” “‘Your guest,’ he said, meaning me, ‘is the most dangerous man in America.’ Why? ‘Because,’ said the caller, ‘he sounds so reasonable.'”
Fail to disown the radicals and progress will stop faster than it might otherwise. That doesn’t mean you have to let your more narcissistic opponents manipulate you into giving an apology for other people every single time they ask. You do it ONCE: in your heart, every time something offensive occurs. What you think, what you say, how much time you devote to it, and why is your personal business to share however much and however little you like with strangers, acquaintances, friends. It is your own character that counts, and people will smell it from a mile away, so don’t avoid the issue, and don’t refuse to listen to other people’s concerns.
Oh, really?
I suppose I should be concerned about her angst, but I’m 66 years old.
I remember all too well when being gays or lesbians were routinely kicked out of college, jailed, fired, run out of business or run out of town, beaten and otherwise harassed, all with societal approval.
And I’m sure you remember the days even before marriage came on the radar. That is, you speak of an issue unrelated to this one.
posted by Jim Michaud on
I read Mona Charen’s column and fought the need to break out the world’s tiniest violin. Great response, Tom Scharbach!
posted by Don on
Privileged people with white skin of the heterosexual variety rarely understand how tilted life is in their favor. Couple that with the fact that I have yet to meet any human who could not relate to the phrase: You’re not going to believe what I am enduring right now. Everyone feels a bit of a victim from time to time. It should be a moment of reflection on the golden rule, but it rarely is.
This is why social conservatives feel so put upon. They simply cannot see how what they have done to others is barely being done to them. I remember hearing during Miami’s transitional period from white dominance to Cuban dominance: “They’re taking over!” and giving all the contracts and business to their friends.
Unconscionable. To think that one ethnic group of people would take care of its own to the detriment of other groups. Wow, it’s such a good thing white people didn’t do that to the Cubans first. If they had, they might retaliate.
My brother saw the movie Falling Down (1993) and immediately seized upon it saying “see! that’s what I have to endure now that everyone else has taken over!” Nothing could be further from the truth where he lived. The only other ethnic group around were blacks and they couldn’t have gotten more powerless if it had been their only goal.
I laughed and said “that’s what the rest of us live every day. i’m glad it’s your turn to see what it feels like.” He was completely baffled. He was used to applying for jobs and getting them. He had never been followed in a grocery store to make sure he didn’t steal. And he’d never been beaten up walking in or out of a bar by a stranger.
It is extremely hard for them to see this. Even when it is explained to them. I’ve done it dozens of times. And for those who do get it, it is frequently an unpleasant reality that they tend to suppress with denial. Because in its uglier forms, it is too much to bear seeing their own selfishness and cruelty that they never considered before.
I believe, and it is just a belief, that it is this ugly process we are experiencing yet again. Decent people recoil in horror when they realize that they are the people jeering and throwing rocks at Christ as he climbs the hill with his cross.
My brother, when he briefly went through a born again phrase, begged me to see The Passion of the Christ. I did and dutifully reported it with a phone call. His pastor had hoped to save me. He asked me what I thought. I told him “it reminded me of going to some of the gay pride parades I’ve been to with the vicious Christian contingent screaming and throwing things at us.”
Not the report he was hoping for. And he refused to believe that there was any connection whatsoever. “That’s totally different.”
Some will make the turn, but mostly when the crowd makes it more palatable to be pro-gay rather than anti-gay. Mobs have a power for good as well as evil. And people will always seize upon how life mistreats them as a special victimization. Few, if any, will get a glimpse at their own privileges and cruelties toward others.
Much like the whites in Miami who pleaded that they should be respected after shutting out Cubans from most opportunities in favor of their fellow Caucasians, Charen wants mercy and understanding for her contempt of others.
Today, I’m not particularly charitable. In fact, I believe that being on the wrong side of the mob is exactly where she belongs. Not out of revenge, but out of the simple fact that some only learn the need for compassion by having it withheld from them when they needed it. I believe this is where she would say something about “reap what you sow.”
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
“criticism” does not necessarily equal censorship. Sometimes — and I seen folks on the left and right-wing do this — people seem to equate the First Amendment as a shield from any sort of criticism or social consequences (i.e. people thinking less of you, and not wanting to be around you).
As far as ‘religious exemptions’ to equal opportunity policies by opinion is that they should (1) apply generally — not just to the Conservative Christian who believes that Jesus Christ is a Tea Party-Ayn Rand Republican (2) only be an option for a small private business and (3) only be an option when the services in question are not essential and not the only other option in the area.
A Christian refusing to provide wedding pictures is a bit of a different game then a Christian refusing to perform CPR or a Christian hospital refusing to offer life saving medical treatment to a gay man.
If this Christian small business owner is (a) no longer a small business or (b) the only option for the services, then his right to a religious exemption would need to be looked at.
posted by Elaygee on
If you try to make civil laws so other people must live according to your stone age book of fairy tale and its rules, you’re a bigot. Pretty simple logic.