Non-bigotry

by on

I thought a lot about John Corvino's piece on bigotry while listening to the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on same-sex marriage yesterday. I deeply agree with John that the word "bigot" should be used sparingly so that its very strong condemnatory force is not diluted. Many people who don't support same-sex marriage are not bigots, and it does not help us to use the epithet promiscuously.

John tries to tease out a more helpful definition of "bigot" than dictionaries provide, and moves the ball downfield a bit. But he sets himself a hard task.

That struck home for me when a rabbi (whose name I did not catch) testified against the New Jersey bill, and asked the legislators to think about the fate of an "innocent lonely child" who is adopted by a same-sex married couple. His testimony is at the 8:18 mark in Blue Jersey's live blog. The unadorned words do not capture the rabbi's deep, fearful concern for this hypothetical child.

I obviously can't speak about what moved this man. But listening to him, it is tragically clear that there is no room at all in his world for the simple possibility that such a child might not be lonely in a loving home headed by a gay couple, or that the child could thrive and have a wonderful life. The irony is that by eliminating such a possibility from his imagination, he may be preventing some real child that tangible benefit.

It is this moral editing - this internal censorship of good possibilities - that exempts some people from being called bigots. I can't really imagine how anyone could do that - suppress from their consciousness a fellow human being's decency or happiness or value. But it is something necessary (if not sufficient) for prejudice to prevail. I don't think this rabbi wishes us harm; but it is just not within him to see us as blessed. His cramped view of the world takes something essential away from us.

That is a blindness, but I don't think it is necessarily blameworthy. To my mind, it not as condemnable as the actions of those who can (and do) see us in our ordinary lives, yet intentionally exploit the bias against us for political advantage. The harm to our equality is the same in either case, but there is a moral difference that we should acknowledge.

It is possible this learned man falls into the latter category. But until we know for sure, I don't think we can call him a bigot. We can, though, wish him to see us more generously.

4 Comments

Frank Kameny Bears Witness

by on

The extraordinary Frank Kameny, whose stubborn activism in the face of fierce repression did so much for gay rights, emails movingly about his attendance at the swearing-in of David Huebner, the new openly gay ambassador to New Zealand Samoa. Excerpted with Frank's permission...

I was invited by the White House, and attended, a ceremony on Friday afternoon December 4, which, at the time and even more so in retrospect, left me feeling deeply touched, satisfied and comforted. On two major levels this would have been so utterly beyond even being imagined when I became involved a half-century ago that I felt that comment would be in order. And so I thought I might share it. Unlike the Salahis, I WAS invited by the White House and my name WAS on the guest lists at the doors.

The occasion was the swearing in of David Huebner as Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. Huebner is a 49-year-old prestigious, very openly gay attorney. He is white. His partner of some 20 years, Duane McWaine is a medical doctor-psychiatrist. He is black. Numerous members of both Huebner's and McWaine's extended families were present and visibly cheerfully comingled.

The actual formal swearing-in was done by Vice President Biden. I had been assigned a seat in the front row center. As he came by, Biden recognized me from previous encounters, greeted me effusively, and told the mothers what I was "an important person."

Biden then gave a very nice speech, emphasizing diversity as doubly manifested by Huebner and McWaine. In the course of it, he suggested that since McWaine, like ambassadorial spouses generally, was going to have to put his own professional practice on hold while he accompanied Huebner, perhaps a compensatory salary ought to be paid to ambassadors' spouses.

On both counts - racial and gay - this would have been totally beyond inagining back in the 1960s, when I began agitating. So while we have a way to go - all is certainly not yet aright - we have certainly come a very, very, very long way in what, from an historical standpoint, is a rather short time. I'm sure that I won't be around to see the final resolution of these issues - if they are ever totally resolved, -- but many of you will certainly see us even closer to resolution than we are now. Work hard and be persistent and patient.

Gay IS Good. And the only race is the Human Race. Pound away at those and never compromise, however slightly.

2 Comments

What Bigotry Is

by on

"We all know what bigotry is," a friend said to me recently. But do we?

I mean, most of us have experienced it, and we can point to clear historical examples. But can we define it, articulating what those examples all have in common? Or is it more like Justice Potter Stewart's grasp of pornography: "I know it when I see it"?

As is often the case with controversial terms, the dictionary is of limited help here. The American Heritage Dictionary defines bigotry as "characteristic of a bigot," which it in turn defines as "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Webster's definition of "bigot" is similar: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Now there must be a difference between merely disagreeing with those who differ and being "intolerant" of them. By definition, everyone disagrees with "those who differ"-that's just what it means to "differ." And everyone is "devoted" to at least some of his opinions. That's the whole point of having convictions.

So it's not bigotry merely to disagree with someone: one must also exhibit "intolerance." But what does that mean? That one wishes to silence them? Surely it's possible to be a bigot even while respecting free-speech rights. Thus, for example, those who believe that the races should be separated are bigots even if they believe that those who disagree should be permitted publicly to say so. It seems, rather, that to call someone a bigot is in part to express a moral judgment. It is to suggest that the bigot's views are not merely wrong, but somehow beyond the pale. So the dictionary definition only gets half of the picture: it's not merely that the bigot doesn't tolerate those who differ, it is also that we ought not tolerate him. In a free society we shouldn't silence him, but we should certainly shun him.

In other words, to call someone a bigot is not just to say something about the bigot's views, it's to also to say something about our own. It is to distance our views from his in the strongest possible terms. It is also to suggest that the bigot suffers from a kind of systematic irrationality, a logical blind spot that feeds the moral one.

I have long advocated using the term "bigot" sparingly when referring to gay-rights opponents. It's not that I don't think bigotry is a serious problem. On the contrary, it's vital to identify bigotry for what it is and to expose its tragic effects.

It's also important to learn the lessons of history, including the ways in which bigotry can hide behind religion, concern for children's welfare, and other seemingly benign motives.

But there's a difference between identifying bigotry, on the one hand, and labeling any and all people who disagree with us as bigots, on the other. Such labeling tends to function as a conversation-stopper, cutting us off from the "moveable middle" and ultimately harming our progress.

It's also unfair to the many decent people who genuinely strive to understand us even where, for sincere and complex reasons, they cannot accept our position.

There's a familiar religious saying which teaches "Love the sinner; hate the sin." Applied to homosexuality, the sentiment is mostly nonsense. For one thing, there's nothing "sinful" or wrong about gay relationships per se. Moreover, the distinction draws a sharp line between who we are and what we do, whereas here these things are intimately connected.

But the "love the sinner/hate the sin" distinction still has its uses, and our approach to our opponents may be among them.

Many of our opponents are fundamentally decent people. For both principled and pragmatic reasons, we don't want to saddle them with an identity that suggests their being beyond redemption. In other words, we don't want to label them "bigots" prematurely.

At the same time, we don't want to shrink from identifying the evil of anti-gay bigotry, wherever and whenever it occurs.

And so, we can distinguish. We can point out the sin of bigotry forcefully while using the epithet of "bigot" sparingly (though that epithet, too, has its uses).

Because, in the end, we do know it when we see it.

18 Comments

A Gay Brigade

by on

In a Tuesday prime-time address to the nation, President Barack Obama will announce a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan. Eight years into the conflict, the fate of the central Asian country - which hosted al-Qaeda in the years leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and where Osama bin Laden is still suspected to be hiding - hangs in the balance. Coalition casualties have risen sharply since January, and public support for the war - which was near universal when it was first launched - has fallen to an all-time low. Before a veterans group in August, Obama termed Afghanistan a "war of necessity." Yet the fact that the president has waited almost four months since his handpicked general, Stanley A. McChrystal, entered a request for 40,000 additional troops to make this announcement has earned him a steady current of criticism from conservative commentators, who have accused him of "dithering" and indecisiveness.

It isn't just the right that has accused the president of not fulfilling his promises. Along with finishing the job in Afghanistan, another pledge Obama made during his campaign was that he would lift the military's ban on openly gay soldiers, "don't ask, don't tell." That this too has yet to materialize has earned the wrath of gay activists, some of whom are now calling for a boycott of the Democratic National Committee until the repeal passes.

There's an old saying in politics that you can't please all the people all of the time, yet the dual conundrums of Afghanistan and gays in the military present Obama with a unique opportunity to get further than most in accomplishing just that. To quiet down anger on the right caused by his hesitancy to ramp up America's commitment to Afghanistan, as well as consternation on the left due to the lack of progress on DADT repeal, here's one option for our beleaguered commander in chief: Dispatch an all openly gay unit to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda. With an overstretched military worn out by repeated stop-loss orders and nearly 13,000 gay soldiers discharged from the armed forces since the enactment of DADT in 1994, this proposal attempts to kill the proverbial two birds with one stone. It will not please everyone entirely, but politics, after all, is the art of compromise. So hear this one out.

Many of the people arguing for a troop surge in Afghanistan - Republicans who warn that failure to stabilize the country would inevitably result in another attack on American soil - are also the loudest voices in favor of keeping the ban on openly gay soldiers. If we take them at their word that the safety and security of the American people is their highest priority, how could they oppose such a plan? They may not like the notion of openly gay people serving in the armed forces, but surely it's a better option than retreating from Afghanistan and letting the country fall to anarchy and the possible restoration of the Taliban.

Similarly, while a majority of Americans support repealing "don't ask, don't tell," the energy for that cause comes from liberals, the vast majority of whom, according to a succession of polls over the past few months, support withdrawal. They may blanch at the prospect of escalating our military effort in that country, but with no immediate repeal of DADT in sight, might they be willing to dampen their reflexive opposition to the exercise of American military might if doing so would allow openly gay soldiers to prove their mettle on the battlefield?

To be sure, the existence of an all-gay unit - and let's call it the "Leonard Matlovich Brigade," in honor of the gay Air Force officer whose fight to stay in the military, the first time a gay soldier ever publicly challenged the ban, made the cover of Time magazine in 1975 - may not necessarily disprove the chief claim against allowing openly homosexual soldiers to serve alongside heterosexual ones.

That argument posits that the mere presence of visible homosexuals would demean "unit cohesion." Ideally, openly gay soldiers should be allowed to fight alongside their straight comrades (in some cases they already do, thanks to more enlightened commanding officers who are willing to overlook the military's counterproductive policy). Such a development would prove the speciousness of this fear, a fear that has already been roundly rebutted by countless straight soldiers like Congressman Patrick Murphy, who has taken the lead on getting rid of DADT. But a half a loaf is better than nothing, and allowing gays to serve openly in any capacity would work to break down this antiquated prejudice.

The existence of an all-gay unit would put the lie to the charge that gays are effeminate and weak, and place supporters of the ban in a very difficult position. With openly gay soldiers risking their lives on the battlefield, and volunteering to do so, how could they persist in their support for keeping DADT intact? But the most satisfying aspect of this policy would be its effect on our Islamist enemies, who not so long ago were burying gays alive, crushing them under brick walls, and throwing them off the roofs of buildings (not to mention throwing acid on the faces of unveiled women and denying the right of girls to go to school). What humiliation, what shame these barbarians would endure if after every successful terrorist assassination accomplished by the Leonard Matlovich Brigade, U.S. Central Command issued a press release announcing that yet another Taliban fighter bit the dust at the hands of warrior homosexuals.

15 Comments

Uganda and Us

by on

Officials in Uganda may be responding to our rhetoric rather than our rationale. Box Turtle Bulletin notes that amendments to the anti-homosexuality bill could replace the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" with a life sentence. That may be why BTB is now only referring to the bill as the "Anti-Gay Bill" rather than the "Kill Gays Bill."

But this is exactly why I was originally troubled by our inflammatory rhetoric that seemed to focus more on the penalty than the problem.

The death penalty is the ultimate government-sponsored punishment, and reveals the vicious and inhuman impulse behind the legislation. But even if the bill included only fixed prison terms, it is every bit as retrograde and malicious. It explicitly carves out homosexuality from the moral and legal universe. It establishes a civil world in which lesbians and gay men have no place; worse than that, it makes us criminals, and attempts to make even our supporters complicit in the crime of our mere existence. Citizens may not even speak favorably of homosexuality, or write affirmingly about equality without criminal sanction.

But to the extent America has any moral high ground on this issue, it is only a matter of degree. Both DOMA and DADT do implicitly what this bill is proud to say it does - invoke the force of the law to treat homosexuals as a different kind of being from heterosexuals, and draw specific rules that apply only to homosexuals, with entirely different rules applicable to heterosexuals. For any heterosexuals reading this, try to imagine a law that would result in your dismissal if you mentioned your spouse. Then imagine what it might be like if you could not publicly even testify before Congress about that law's unfairness, because even that would have the same result. And try to imagine what a law to allow you the qualified ability to speak might look like. Finally, imagine someone telling you this whole scheme is not a violation of your right to free speech.

To be sure, ours are only civil sanctions, not criminal ones, and the penalties are economic, psychological and social. That makes it easier for many heterosexuals to invoke a plausible deniability about the segregation the laws impose. No prison time here.

But irrespective of the kind of penalty, this is the most craven and degraded use of law. Fortunately, after many decades of work, we have the social and constitutional structure in the U.S. to minimize the damage, and fight for something better. I don't see anything like that to protect the homosexual citizens of Uganda.

9 Comments

Silent Majority

by on

While there is no shortage of anger about the result of yesterday's vote in the New York State Senate on gay marriage, there is ample praise for the civil and respectful floor debate. I would agree, except for one thing.

What debate?

A debate requires at least two sides, some exchange and (in a perfect world) maybe even a bit of ground-shifting. But what happened yesterday shows that our opponents have nothing but politics and prejudice on their side, and don't even feel the need to defend them anymore.

Only a single senator, Ruben Diaz, Sr., stood up to champion a No vote. Everyone else on his side was silent in the chamber. Diaz's oratorical contribution did not bother to include any explanation of what might be wrong with equality. The first six minutes of his speech were an appeal to Republicans. He is a Democrat, and wanted to stir up resentment among his colleagues on the other side who don't get much gay support (e.g., in Diaz's pretty naked words, money). He then launched into a lengthy recitation of the obvious fact that there are religions that oppose homosexuality, and offered a complete roll call of the 31 states that voted gay marriage down. Finally, Diaz urged his fellow popularly elected senators not to "do away with the people's will."

Amidst all of this, there was no argument against same-sex marriage (procreation, preserving the state's economic resources, supporting heterosexual families), and it is telling that Diaz felt no need to do so. As Senator Tom Libous (another No vote) said afterward, "I just don't think the majority care too much about [gay marriage] at this time. . . " If you can rely on the majority not caring much about the rights of a minority, why go out of your way to stir the pot?

Yes, Republicans should feel grieved that gays support democrats (who support them), and yes, there is a long and storied history of religious persecution of gay people, and yes, a majority of Americans still continue to oppose gay marriage. The question before the house was "Why?" Why is it good or fair, or sound public policy to favor heterosexuals over homosexual couples?

Compare that to the speeches - pretty much all of them - in support of equal marriage rights. While some of them did invoke political tropes, they all actually engaged the issue before them: should gay people be treated differently under the law than straight people? If not, why not? They came at the question in different ways, but all of them actually addressed the public policy issue. I loved the speeches of Diane Savino and Ruth Hassell-Thompson, myself, but there are a lot of fine, substantive speeches to choose from.

The silence in the senate reaffirms how the tide is shifting. It used to be us who had to remain in the shadows. Now, we and our supporters can take pride in publicly articulating our arguments, while the other side - whether it's in the New York Senate or the precincts of Washington state - seem a little bit embarrassed at their lack of real, civic, credible arguments, and just want to be left alone.

Because existing law already incorporates anti-gay discrimination, our opponents have the considerable force of inertia on their side. But just because you have a majority doesn't mean you have an argument.

***

And I have to add this (kind of) snarky note: Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership law goes into effect today.

43 Comments

All or Nothing in New York?

by on

Equality lost in the New York Senate 38-24. It wasn't even close.

Again, I hope our folks back there know what they're doing. Perhaps the Senate would reject even domestic partnership rights. But we don't know because, here on the verge of 2010, they've never even tried.

And in the meantime, New York state's same-sex couples have pretty much nothing.

10 Comments

Learning from Maine

by on

James Oaksun, a Maine-based libertarian activist and analyst, has published what strikes me as an astute analysis of what went wrong for same-sex marriage advocates in Maine. It's available, in PDF format, here.

Like me and others, he argues that the pro-gay-marriage side must get beyond defensiveness and evasion on the schools issue, and he offers an interesting suggestion for taking the bull by the horns."Perhaps the framing is to talk about what modern society asks the schools to do. Educate, yes. But also prepare the leaders of tomorrow to function collaboratively in a diverse society. The reality of life is, yes, there are gay people and they are not going away."

Not bad. My own first-cut thought about a non-defensive message was "teaching kids that discrimination is wrong and that everyone deserves a family."

Time for some focus-group research?

In any case, it's good to see recognition spreading that, like it or not, we can't talk about same-sex marriage without also talking about teaching same-sex marriage.

Memo to the anti-SSM right: having picked this fight on education, be prepared to lose it. Sooner or later, teaching about gay marriage won't seem so scary. Your ads may even help normalize it.

6 Comments

Not Cool

by on

Lots of gay news sites and blogs, and not just the skanky ones, have recently been repeating rumors that a certain seventeen-year-old movie hunk is gay. Rolling Stone Magazine practically badgered the kid about his sexual orientation in an interview.

Am I the only person who thinks this is reprehensible? This is a kid we are talking about. Yes, he looks like he just stepped out of an Abercrombie and Fitch campaign, but he is still a kid. He is probably living with his parents, he is dealing all of the drama that comes with being a star, and I am fairly certain he would rather not have to deal with this.

We are not talking about the famous middle-aged socialite son of a renowned designer who invites the press to cover every element of his life but inexplicably refuses to answer simple straightforward questions about whether or not he is gay, giving rise to the implication that being gay is a deep, dark, shameful thing (as a purely hypothetical example). We are talking about a seventeen-year-old.

To the actor's credit, he dealt with Rolling Stone's obnoxious inquires really well. There were no freaked-out denials or feigned indignation. He pretty much just ignored the questioner, which was a classier response than was deserved.

Gay people should know better than to indulge in this sort of thing. We all had to deal with coming out. We know how traumatic it is. If the actor is gay, this is just the kind of thing that makes coming out more difficult. Any gay blogger or journalist who tries to drive up traffic with this "story" should be ashamed.

19 Comments