Thursday, November 13, 2008

Prop 8, gay rights, and civil rights

From Boston Globe colulmnist Jeff Jacoby in Jewish World Review...

It has been widely noted that black voters put California's Proposition 8 over the top last week, with nearly 7 out of 10 voting in favor of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As the magnitude of black opposition to same-sex marriage became clear on Election Day, blogger Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay-marriage champion, reacted bitterly:

"Every ethnic group supported marriage equality," he wrote, "except African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly against extending to gay people the civil rights once denied them."

Well, let's see. The civil rights once denied to black Americans included the right to register as a voter, the right to cast a ballot, the right to use numerous public facilities, the right to get a fair hearing in court, the right to send their children to an integrated public school, and the right to equal opportunity in housing and employment. Have gay people been denied any of these rights? Have they been forced to sit in the back of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries? Subjected to systematic economic exploitation?

Plainly, declining to change the timeless definition of marriage deprives no one of "the civil rights once denied" to blacks, and it is an absurdity to claim otherwise. It is also a poisonous slur: For if opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing civil rights, then voters who backed Proposition 8 are no better than racists, the moral equivalent of those who turned the fire hoses on blacks in Birmingham in 1963.

Which is, of course, exactly what proponents of same-sex marriage contend....

A modest defense of the slurrers could be offered in that homosexuals have endured various forms of discrimination that are significant, albeit much more minor than that experienced by African-Americans.

Thus, supporters of same-sex marriage regularly referred to the California ballot measure as "Proposition Hate," while a group calling itself "Californians Against Hate" launched a website to publicize the names and addresses of donors to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Yet it was the foes of Proposition 8 whose hatred and intolerance were vividly on display....

For sheer hatefulness and bigotry, however, nothing surpassed the anti-Proposition 8 television ad that depicted two Mormon missionaries forcing their way into the home of a married lesbian couple.

"Hi, we're here from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," one of the Mormons says. "We're here to take away your rights," says the other.

The missionaries pull the wedding rings from the women's fingers, then proceed to ransack the house, looking for their marriage license. When they find it, they triumphantly tear it up.

"Hey, we have rights," one of the women protests.

"Not if we can help it," one of the missionaries smugly replies....

Classy!

If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what real bigotry looks like....Perhaps it is because they are not impressed by strident condemnations of "intolerance" and "hate" by people who traffic in rank anti-Mormon hatemongering. Or perhaps it is because they understand that a fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for same-sex marriage....

Prop 8 tries to avoid the redefining of "marriage". If it's the extension or inclusion of certain rights and privileges, that can be accomplished through "same-sex unions". Moreover, a redefinition is nonsensical. To borrow from Chesterton, it would be akin to describing a short-necked giraffe that eats other animals.

4 Comments:

At November 13, 2008 at 7:24 PM , Blogger William Lang said...

The discrimination against African-Americans was severe and pervasive, as Jeff Jacoby summarizes. But, as you suggest, the discrimination suffered by homosexuals was by no means insignificant. In fact, in some ways, it was worse: same-sex sexual contact was a felony in many states (and still illegal in several states until several years ago when the Supreme Court finally struck down the remaining laws against it). It was common for homosexuals to be subjected to unfortunate and damaging psychiatric treatments, such as aversion therapy using electric shocks or treatment with hormones. Homosexuals were denied security clearances and barred from employment in the military or in intelligence agencies. Openly gay persons still cannot serve in the military. Discrimination against homosexuals in public accomodations and in employment is still permitted in many states. Homosexuals are the target in a significant proportion of hate crimes. Anti-gay slurs are pervasive throughout society, in particular in schools. Roman Catholics and other major religious groups still teach that same-sex sexual activity is always morally wrong and bar homosexuals from serving in the ministry.

If the Mormons spend tens of millions of dollars to take away the right to marriage gay people had just achieved, they can't really complain if gay people react with anger. It is not anti-religious bigotry to express anger at Mormons for their efforts against gay marriage. (No one is depriving the Mormons of the right of expressing their opinions or practicing their religion. However, some gay activists have tried to retaliate by getting Mormons fired from jobs in gay-friendly environments; this clearly crosses a line.)

 
At November 13, 2008 at 8:56 PM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

I assume you would disapprove, but some of the complaints against Mormons have gone beyond the emotion of anger to other inappropriate expressions of anger.

The right to "marry" had been won through the courts-- and for better or worse, a legislative "remedy" is both unsurprising and constitutional.

As we said previously, the bottom line should be the pursuit of "civil unions" with all of the relevant opportunities and responsibilities entailed.

 
At November 19, 2008 at 7:55 PM , Blogger JC said...

I struggled with this one. As a christian with a libertarian persuasion, I initially was against Prop 8. I don't think enforcing morality from a state level is helpful to promoting the kingdom of Christ. And actually I think it might be harmful. However I now have a child who will be entering public schools in 4-5 years. Once I saw the video of the mormon couple in boston, I was changed. The fact that they could not know when "homosexuality and the family" was going to be taught nor have the right to opt out, is outrageous. So I thought this was my only weapon against that onslaught. I would have prefered a referendum that gave parents the right to opt out of any type of teaching. However I don't believe the government would allow that. And many people complained that referendum had nothing to do with education. But the justification the educators used was that it was a matter of law and not an individual's choice. What are you thoughts on this? I appreciate your insight.

 
At November 19, 2008 at 8:27 PM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

That's a great, related point. If we had choice/competition in the schools, we would not face the tyranny of the majority, the minority-- or more to the point, the monopoly-- but would have choice.

The easiest, most-palatable way to accomplish this would be for school funding to follow the student instead of going to the govt-run entity in that student's neighborhood.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home