Religion, Homophobia, and Public Schools

A conservative group has filed suit in federal court on behalf of a California high school student suspended for wearing an anti-gay T-shirt and allegedly told to leave his faith "in the car."

The lawsuit against the Poway Unified School District claims that Tyler Chase Harper, 16, was suspended for refusing to change out of a homemade T-shirt that on the front read, "Be Ashamed" and "Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned," and on the back read, "Homosexuality is Shameful" and "Romans 1:27."

According to his lawyer, reports the Christian Examiner, the school's action violated Harper's constitutionally protected freedom of religion because Harper has a "religious viewpoint that...homosexuality is not acceptable." Harper wore the T-shirt in protest of the "Day of Silence," an event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. His lawyer says he "believes the event was school-sponsored in conjunction with a student Gay-Straight Alliance."

I'm all for freedom of expression, but public schools restrict speech and behavior in all sorts of ways in order to maintain civility. Children are minors and public schools are government outposts; the rights of adults in civil society don't pertain here. I don't think there would be an issue about the suspension if Harper was expressing his Christian beliefs by wearing a T-shirt that said "Jews will burn in hell" during an event focusing on religious diversity.

Still, as NBC online reports, even some gay groups grudgingly agree with Harper:

"Those were hurtful comments and they are painful to see, but it's also necessary to recognize the importance of the constitutional protection," said Richard Valdez, a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Association Center spokesman.

The actual nature of the "Day of Silence" event and its sponsorship may be relevant here. Public schools (that is, the government) can't force students to embrace ideas that violate their religious beliefs (unless their religion is far out of the mainstream and advocates criminal behavior). On the other hand, schools rightly should teach the need for those who differ to respect each other's rights and disagree civilly, and justly limit hurtful expressions that denigrate other students (again, "Jews will burn in hell" would not be allowed at most public schools).

Expanding Rights – The American Way.

In this L.A. Times op-ed. "Marriage Can Be Expanded," the mathematician father of a lesbian daughter writes:

Each time the right to vote was extended, those who already had that right were indeed threatened. They could still vote, but their vote had less impact. But permitting two people of the same sex to form a union graced by the word "marriage" does not jeopardize those already married. It does not dilute the strength of an existing marriage...

If we were able to accept the ever-broadening meaning of the vote, which at each stage did threaten the existing order, we can surely absorb the extension of marriage, which will only strengthen the bonds that hold our society together.

An interesting analogy, which reflects how in free societies the nature of rights is to expand.

Of Churches and Politics.

The anti-gay group Focus on the Family is up in arms over the fact that, in Montana, an evangelical church's tax-exempt status is being challenged after the church showed congregants a video simulcast called the "Battle for Marriage" and then circulated a petition at the event calling for a state constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriages. Similarly, an e-mail release from the anti-gay Family Research Council declared:

pro-homosexual advocates want to silence all churches and pro-family groups like FRC who are critical of the homosexual lifestyle. It has already happened in other countries where same-sex "marriage" has been legalized, and tomorrow it may happen to the Church in this country if it does not stand firm today. The intolerance of these left-wing extremists will roll right over our First Amendment rights unless we
respond vigorously. We will respond!

An even more hysterical account, from an evangelical news service, ran under the headline "LIBERAL HOMOSEXUAL RADICAL AGENDA, MAKING ITSELF KNOWN TO BE ANTI-GOD IN MONTANA."

Of course, to be fair, liberals never object to "peace" or civil rights political activism in churches, or when Jesse Jackson and others African-American politicians pass the hat for their political campaigns at Sunday services in black churches. Whether on the left or the right, if religious organizations want to behave like political action committees, they should not retain their tax-exempt status.

Bush's Beliefs: A Response

Commenting on President Bush's remarks cited in yesterday's item, "What Bush Believes," IGF contributing author Rick Rosendall reminded me of what he wrote in a Salon.com article last March:

After calling for a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage without once mentioning the dreaded words "gay" or "lesbian," President George W. Bush ended on a conciliatory note: "We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency." This reminds me of Dame Edna Everage, who, after saying something horribly cruel about her bridesmaid Madge Allsop, habitually adds, "I mean that in a nurturing and caring way."

Love Matters

First published on June 3, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

In his book The Broken Hearth, conservative polemicist William J. Bennett remarks that it is

"important to say publicly what most of us believe privately, namely that marriage between a man and a woman is in every way to be preferred to the marriage of two men or two women."

To which author and columnist Jonathan Rauch, who quotes Bennett's observation in his excellent new book Gay Marriage, responds:

"I have to say, if the reader will permit me a moment of exasperation, that we homosexuals get a bit tired of being assured by heterosexuals that their loves and lives and unions are 'in every way' better than ours."

Indeed. Take love, for instance. One wonders how a person loudly proclaiming his own heterosexuality could possibly know that heterosexual love is better "in every way" than love between a gay or lesbian couple. Gay love might even be better - "in every way to be preferred." But unless someone had experienced both fully he could hardly have grounds for comparison.

But psychologists and theologians have "in every way" sought to elevate heterosexual love and debase, demean, pathologize, vilify or deny love between people of the same sex-reduce it to lust, claim it is fleeting, view it as somehow incomplete, or treat it as strictly self-regarding or "narcissistic." Since these claims are seldom argued, and when "argued" usually start with the desired conclusion built into the assumptions, they smack of a desperate defense of a weak position.

If qualities of love were to be ranked, someone might offer the counter claim that same-sex love is superior to opposite sex love because the different ways that men and women experience the world through their very different bodies and hormonally influenced outlooks means they can hardly reach a degree of sympathetic understanding necessary for love.

No doubt if heterosexuals were a long-stigmatized minority, a homosexual majority would think of heterosexual "love" as based primarily on lust or a depraved desire for exotically produced orgasms ("You do what?"), as shallow and doomed to failure because the partners are "just too different to feel enduring love," as incomplete and lacking empathy, as rooted in a subconscious self-hatred or desire to identify with or become the other sex, etc., etc.

But in the end it is hard to think of any very persuasive reason why love - the emotional and erotic experience of feeling bonded to someone else - between people of the same sex should be different in nature or quality from love between people of the opposite sex. Love after all seems to be a natural human capacity and could hardly be said to differ in nature according to the sex of its object or the person who experiences it.

At its core, love seems to involve not exactly a "bonding to" another person, but a partial breakdown of the barriers between them so that each takes on the elements, concerns, the well-being of the other person and makes them part of the person's own being. Thus the empty feeling when couples separate or a long-term partner dies: part of oneself no longer exists and the person feels suddenly incomplete.

It might seem, and may be true, that gays and lesbians have an initial advantage of interpersonal empathy because of their similar bodies and social conditioning. But even for gays and lesbians it seems safe to say that love, like sex, usually requires a greater or lesser degree of difference between the two people that makes them interesting, stimulating to each other.

What is involved in attraction, and ultimately love, is a desire to incorporate or associate with or "import" the desired qualities in the other person. Those need not be qualities a person himself lacks; they may be ones he already has but admires and desires more of.

Heterosexuals and their apologists used to make two opposite (and mutually contradictory) errors about gay relationships. Mapping gay relationships onto heterosexual ones, they assumed there would be a masculine and a feminine partner. But in fact it is more logical that gay men, most of them reasonably masculine, would be attracted to other masculine gay men. Having eroticized masculinity in the first place, they would reasonably look for it in a partner.

But - and this was the opposite error - that did not mean that gay men were looking for someone exactly like themselves. Masculinity has numerous modalities or "flavors," intensities, and styles, and no man can embody more than a few. So a man may be attracted to someone who embodies other modalities, or ones close to his own but with a different personality or presentation.

As psychologist C.A. Tripp put it in his book The Homosexual Matrix,:

"In less obvious examples, the contrast between partners may appear slight to an outside observer, but it is always there and constitutes the basis of the attraction. Notions to the effect that the homosexual is looking for some 'narcissistic' reflection of his own image are as mythical as was Narcissus himself."

What Bush Believes.

This piece from Christianity Today about President Bush's recent get-together with religious editors and writers shows that he truly is committed to the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), and not just as a political ploy. His conservative religious convictions are deep and guiding. He also seems to realize that the FMA, for now, lacks sufficient grassroots support:

I will tell you the prairie fire necessary to get an amendment passed is simmering at best. I think it's an accurate way of describing it. ... I'm not sure people quite understand the issue yet.

Then he adds:

It's essential that those who articulate the position that defends traditional marriage as the only definition of marriage do so in a compassionate way. I like to quote [from the Bible's book of] Matthew, that you know, I'm not going to try to take a speck out of your eye when I've got a log in my own. You know what I'm saying. And therefore, this dialogue needs to be a dialogue worthy of a nation and worthy of a debate over a constitutional amendment. And it's a very important discussion. And it's one that should not be politicized.

But of course, if you're pushing for a constitutional amendment, it can't help but be "politicized," can it? Bush's position is at best muddled -- not the hate and animus of the hard-core religious right, but still a severely misguided sense of the federal government as defender of traditional morality. (Thanks to IGF's Mike Airhart for the heads up)

The Old Dominion’s Defenders.

In a posting on his Overlawyered.com site, Walter Olson (who is also IGF's webmaster and a contributing author) takes aim at the new Virginia statute that declares null and void not only civil unions but also any "partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage"

Taking issue with National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru and other conservative pundits who defend this indefensible statute, Olson writes that couples who have a Vermont civil union "might be in for a very rude surprise after their I-95 accident when Virginia treated them as legal strangers for purposes of hospital visitation and the like." Moreover, since at least one of the measure's sponsors has said he hopes the law will invalidate guardianship arrangements:

children who had lived uneventfully for years with the surviving female partner of their deceased mother in New Jersey or California might be subject to being seized and handed over to the Virginia social service/foster care bureaucracy because the family was so ill advised as to attempt a vacation trip to Williamsburg or Mount Vernon.

Olson also reminds us that "Virginia is the only state where companies not large enough to underwrite their own insurance policies are prohibited from offering domestic partner benefits," and that "it is perhaps needless to add that Virginia's powerful religious-right lobby has vocally supported that prohibition." Yet supposedly mainstream conservatives still refuse to condemn these dangerous and damaging statutes that erode fundamental contractual rights.

They Can Have Mississippi.

This isn't new, but it's a hoot. A reader points out a website, www.christianexodus.com, is from a group of fundamentalists preaching secession from the United Sates to oppose the nation's embrace of gay marriage and abortion, banning school prayer, and other abominations. They note on their "Plan" page
that the three states under consideration, due to their relatively small populations, coastal access and Christian-conservative citizenry, are Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina. Guess they never heard that the civil war kind of settled the issue of whether states can secede. And how in the world did they overlook Virginia?

Fundie to Fundie.

A column by anti-gay pundit Pat Buchanan, published in Saudi Arabia's Arab News newspaper, is titled "What Does America Offer the World?" Buchanan writes:

When Bush speaks of freedom as God's gift to humanity, does he mean the First Amendment freedom of Larry Flynt to produce pornography and of Salman Rushdie to publish The Satanic Verses, a book considered blasphemous to the Islamic faith? If the Islamic world rejects this notion of freedom, why is it our duty to change their thinking? Why are they wrong? ...

A society that accepts the killing of a third of its babies as women's "emancipation," that considers homosexual marriage to be social progress, that hands out contraceptives to 13-year-old girls at junior high ought to be seeking out a confessional -- better yet, an exorcist -- rather than striding into a pulpit like Elmer Gantry to lecture mankind on the superiority of "American values."

Somehow, echoing back to the Arab world the view that American liberty is merely an excuse for corruption and decadence seems a new low, even for a genuinely vile pig like Buchanan.

More Recent Postings

5/23/04 - 5/29/04

True Evil (2)

As to the Islamic mullahs' remarks about gays, quoted in the post immediately below, Andrew Sullivan comments in his 5/26 blog:

What staggers me is how silent the gay establishment is about these obscenities. If a religious right figure had said them, there would be hell to pay. But the multi-culti left still has a stranglehold on official gay discourse and won't condemn Islamist bigotry. Why not? These mullahs are fanning the flames of anti-gay violence with literally incendiary rhetoric. Burn gays? Yep, that's what the cleric said.

Staggering, indeed. But that's exactly the mindset of "our" movement's leaders.

The End of Gay Rights

The movement for gay equality in America has come in four basic stages. Each of these stages made a distinct contribution. Each was marked by its own missteps. Each provoked stiff resistance. Each suffered stinging defeats. But each ultimately advanced the cause and prepared the way for the next stage. With the recognition of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts - the first time a state has done so - we have entered the final stage of the gay rights movement.

Stage 1: Emergence

The first stage of the movement covered roughly the middle of the twentieth century up to the time of the Stonewall riot in New York in June, 1969. We might call this stage "Emergence," since it's when homosexuals began to emerge from the closet and to organize politically for the first time.

The atmosphere in the country during the Emergence period was harshly repressive. Homosexuality was considered not just sinful, but a mental disorder. All 50 states had sodomy laws directed and enforced primarily against gay sex. Raids on gay bars were common. Known homosexuals were forbidden in many states to obtain professional and business licenses. Same-sex marriage was unthinkable.

In the face of repression, a few extraordinarily courageous individuals declared that homosexuals were perfectly normal. They formed the first gay political and educational groups like the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis. It was during this period that the American Law Institute recommended eliminating sodomy laws, and Illinois became the first state to do so, in 1961.

Stage 2: Liberation

Stonewall marked a new and more radical stage in the gay rights movement. We might call this stage "Liberation," since the gay movement appropriated the rhetoric and methods of other "liberation" movements for women and racial minorities. Liberation is also an appropriate moniker for this second stage because the movement emphasized separation from mainstream American society and institutions through unbridled sexual freedom and revolutionary critiques of existing customs and ways of living. For many activists of this period, fighting for marriage would have seemed like a surrender to heterosexual norms.

During the Liberation period, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders, many more states eliminated their sodomy laws, gay publications and organizations mushroomed, the first openly gay officials were elected, and a few localities banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Yet this second stage engendered a ferocious backlash, led by a newly self-conscious movement of social conservatives now known as the religious right. Anita Bryant infamously led successful drives to repeal gay rights ordinances in places like Miami and St. Paul.

Stage 3: Tolerance

The heady and optimistic second stage of the gay rights movement ended with the onset of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s. AIDS soon sapped almost the entire energy of the movement. Gay advocates shifted from emphasizing freedom and separation to emphasizing caring, responsibility, community, and commitment - the preconditions for the development of a marriage ethic. At the same time, the brutal process of dying from a disease identified almost entirely with gay men brought many homosexuals out of the closet for the first time. The protest group ACT-UP, whose antics were sometimes childish and counter-productive, transformed the American medical establishment to be more responsive to patients' needs for care and life-saving drugs.

While some Americans responded to AIDS by calling for quarantines, the predominant reaction was one of sympathy and support. We could call the third stage of the gay-rights movement "Tolerance," since Americans now opposed many forms of discrimination yet a majority remained convinced that homosexuality was morally wrong.

During the Tolerance period, many more civil rights laws were passed, corporate America led the way to the equal treatment of gay couples, and sodomy laws were finally vanquished. Gay couples began to demand benefits, leading to the creation of private and public domestic partnerships and, toward the end of the third stage, civil unions in Vermont. Still, there were reverses, including the codification of the military's gay ban and a federal ban on recognizing gay marriages.

Stage 4: Acceptance?

On May 17, 2004, the day Massachusetts began recognizing same-sex marriages, we entered what I expect will be the end stage of the gay rights movement.

As in each stage of the gay rights movement before this one, gay advocates will be guilty of excesses and will suffer serious setbacks. Beginning this November, we are going to be plastered in a series of anti-gay-marriage initiatives on state ballots around the country. Gay marriage will temporarily win a battle here and there in a few courts, but will overwhelmingly lose. For a time, legislatures will bottle-up or defeat gay marriage bills even in gay-friendly states, like California.

Gay marriage may even lose its toehold in Massachusetts come November 2006, when citizens there may vote on a state constitutional amendment. But I doubt it, and even if we lose in Massachusetts gay marriage will resurface somewhere before long. Having seen that gay marriage causes no harm and brings much joy, Americans will allow it, by fits and starts, to sweep the country.

By the time that happens, perhaps 30 years from now, the need for an organized gay rights movement in this country will be gone. There will still be bigotry and ignorance to fight, in America and around the world, but the heavy political and legal lifting will have been done.

History can't be written before it happens, and there is nothing inevitable about progress. But, if it turns out as I expect, this final phase should be called "Acceptance," since it will end in gays' full inclusion in the nation's legal and social life.

True Evil.

From JohannHari.com, here's an interesting look at gays and Islam (brought to our attention by Walter Olson). An excerpt:

Dr Muzammil Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of North America, says "homosexuality is a moral disease, a sin, a corruption... No person is born homosexual, just as nobody is born a thief, a liar or a murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education."

Sheikh Sharkhawy, a cleric at the prestigious London Central Mosque in Regent's Park, compares homosexuality to a "cancer tumor." He argues "we must burn all gays to prevent pedophilia and the spread of AIDS," and says gay people "have no hope of a spiritual life." The Muslim Educational Trust hands out educational material to Muslim teachers - intended for children! - advocating the death penalty for gay people, and advising Muslim pupils to stay away from gay classmates and teachers.

But some gay people like Ali have begun to contest this reading of Islam. There have been a small number of groups for gay Muslims over the past 20 years, and their history is not encouraging. A San Francisco-based group called the Lavender Crescent Society sent five members to Iran in 1979 after the Islamic revolution there to spur an Iranian gay movement. They were taken straight from the airport to a remote spot and shot dead.

Meanwhile, "progressives" flock to Michael Moore's demagogic propaganda and congratulate themselves for their insight into how the U.S. is the source of evil in the world.