Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
In the May edition of First Things, R. R. Reno presents an editorial that strikes me as entirely correct--and thoroughly ominous. Excerpts:
Last summer, New York's mayor Michael Bloomberg gave a speech in advance of the close vote in the New York state legislature that decided that men have a right to marry men and women women. He described the fight for same-sex marriage as "the great civil-rights issue of our times...."
[But the]...belief that homosexual acts are immoral is not the same kind of claim as the belief that black people are inferior because they are black. When we deem homosexual acts immoral, we are not stigmatizing a class of persons; we're exercising our moral reason about the rightness and wrongness of actions. Unlike racism, principled opposition to homosexual rights has a firm basis. It's normal to judge behavior, including...sexual behavior. That's why describing homosexual acts as immoral is not at all like calling black men and women inferior.
To merge sexual liberation into the civil-rights movement dramatically raises the stakes in public debate. The Selma analogy [that is, comparing the gay rights movement with the civil rights marches from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama] makes traditional views of sexual morality as noxious as racism, and in so doing encourages progressives to adopt something like a total-war doctrine. The implication is that people who hold such views should have no voice in American society and that homosexuality should be aggressively affirmed in our public and private institutions, while dissent is punished.
Chai Feldblum [pictured here] is an Obama appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission....She sees the future this way: "Positive changes in the moral values of our country--such as moral values that honor the love between two people, regardless of their gender--will inherently and necessarily pose a challenge to those who believe, for religious or other reasons, that such love is sinful...." [W]hen asked her opinion on the conflict between homosexual rights and the moral commitments of religious institutions she insisted that "in almost all cases sexual liberty should win, because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner." It's a frank statement that clarifies how few restraints progressives feel once they are convinced that they are fighting for "the great civil-rights issue of our times...."
I fear that we are entering into a new phase of the culture war...The Selma analogy gives [progressives]...a rationale for deploying the vast coercive power of the civil-rights apparatus to serve their moral vision of sexual liberation. It's a prospect that will give an even more literal meaning to the dictatorship of relativism.
- Comment (118)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Lady Bertrum
Aaron Miller
Gaby Charing
Aaron Miller:
We will not be forced to normalize gay sex and gay unions.
"We" will not be forced. Who is this "we"? You speak as if you own the whole USA.
The majority of Americans — the voters who rejected state referendums across the country (even in California!) which proposed applying the term "marriage" to gay unions. · 6 minutes ago
Aaron, Will you be content with the will of the people if we decide democratically to recognize gay unions as marriage? · 18 minutes ago
Curious question, being that the marriage revolutionaries clearly have not accepted the democratic voice on such matters. The refrain is always "You can't vote on my rights!"... which is, of course silly. Yes, we can. That's how rights are given power in a democracy in the first place.
Apr '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Fred Cole
etoiledunord
We live in a democracy. If the US Constitution hasn't given any special protection to homosexuals, as they have to racial or religious minorities, then your "rights" (as a homosexual) are whatever 51% of the legislature is prepared to give you. That's how our democracy works.
Well, a few things
1. We live in a republic, not a democracy.
2. That's a good thing because that means our system protects individual rights and that the 51% can't enslave the 49%. · 5 minutes ago
We have several specific protections against majoritarianism. The filibuster, electoral college, Bill of Rights, and supermajority requirements for treaties and Constitutional Amendments seem like the most obvious ones. Do you feel that any of these apply to this topic, and if so, how? Do you feel that there is another protection that does? I'd agree, for instance, that it would be difficult to require a higher voting age for gay citizens, even if the majority of Americans wished it, but I have to reach for counterfactuals to find protections.
I suppose discriminatory enforcement of the criminal law might be an example. Is that the sort of thing you mean?
Jun '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Fred Cole
If producing children were the only basis for marriage then we'd administer fertility tests when marriage license applications, it would be limited to people of child bearing age and any marriages that didn't produce children would be declared invalid.
A traditional marriage that doesn't produce children can still have a positive pedagogical role in society. Infertile couples still have friends, nieces, and nephews that will profit from the experience of their marriage.
Apr '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Fred Cole
Ifproducing children were the only basis for marriage then we'd administer fertility tests when marriage license applications, it would be limited to people of child bearing age and any marriages that didn't produce children would be declared invalid. ·
This claim is beneath you, Fred. You know full well that essentially all laws apply to some people who are not the targets of some specific aims of the law, and do not apply to some people who are specific targets. No law is a perfect fit for its aims, and this is particularly true when, as with marriage, the topic is so ancient and fundamentally entwined with civilization as we know it.
May '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Lady Bertrum
Aaron Miller
Gaby Charing
Aaron Miller:
We will not be forced to normalize gay sex and gay unions.
"We" will not be forced. Who is this "we"? You speak as if you own the whole USA.
The majority of Americans — the voters who rejected state referendums across the country (even in California!) which proposed applying the term "marriage" to gay unions.
Aaron, Will you be content with the will of the people if we decide democratically to recognize gay unions as marriage?
Currently, most Americans, contrary to popular perceptions and the demographics of online communities, do not support the legalization of gay unions. I expect that balance to change. If it does, I will acknowledge that legislation as legitimate... but legitimate and foolish, like the will of the majority to maintain entitlement programs and so doom us all to financial ruin. I will still condemn it as foolishness.
Marriage is the most primitive act of human society. It is the cornerstone on which any society is founded. Any society which attempts to alter its foundation without shaking everything built upon that foundation is in for a rude awakening.
Jan '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
"[W]hen asked her opinion on the conflict between homosexual rights and the moral commitments of religious institutions she insisted that "in almost all cases sexual liberty should win, because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner."
In other words, our views should win because we're right.
Guess what, Ms. Feldblum? Everyone thinks they're right.
Maybe she just doesn't understand the question, or realize what freedom means. Being right isn't the issue in democracy. Politics is a means of resolving the conflict between people ... who are just as convinced as you are that they're right.
The authority of the government doesn't come from being right; it comes from the consent of the governed. You're not allowed to exploit the power of the state to impose your views simply because you have unlimited confidence in yourself.
The progressive side of the culture war simply dismisses opponents on the grounds that ... you know ... it's just so obvious that progressives are superior. And, because they're superior, the consent of their opposition doesn't matter.
That's not an argument. That's just arrogance.
Jun '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Fred Cole
etoiledunord
We live in a democracy. If the US Constitution hasn't given any special protection to homosexuals, as they have to racial or religious minorities, then your "rights" (as a homosexual) are whatever ***** 51% of the legislature ***** is prepared to give you. That's how our democracy works.
Well, a few things
1. We live in a republic, not a democracy.
2. That's a good thing because that means our system protects individual rights and that the 51% can't enslave the 49%. · 16 minutes ago
Note the highlighted part above.
Apr '12
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Fred Cole:
If you TRULY believe what you're saying, then you wouldn't call a man with one leg human. Definitions are based on the norm, not specific incidents of exception. The concept of marriage was designed for the creation of a family, which is only possible between a man and a woman. Homosexual "marriage" cannot share this goal in any circumstances, let alone the norm.
Further evidence is the requirement for monogamy. If marriage were created as a means of expressing love, or deriving pleasure, then there would be no need for monogamy; in fact it would be destructive to that end. Multiple marriages would only be a problem in the case of raising a family.
Edited on April 18, 2012 at 1:40amDec '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
The problem is that marriage is a condition bestowed on you by someone else. It is not something innate or inherant to the individual. As a marriage is a recognition or blessing by the community at large, it is subject to the discretion of the community, and this is represented by a vote of your duly elected representatives. Assuming, of course, the government has any involvement in the institution.
Apr '12
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
James of England:
I agree with you that in terms of enforcement of the statute, it must only apply prospectively.
However, if voting is a natural right of women, it must have always existed. Otherwise you find yourself in the terrifying situation where your only rights are those granted to you by the whim of the state. Philosophically anyway.
Do you have a degree in law btw? Your writing reflects sophisticated thinking.
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Paul A. Rahe: A friend recently told me that a Roman Catholic Cardinal whom he knows remarked to him a year or two ago that he expects to be the last Archbishop of the city wherein he is Archbishop to die in his bed. Chai Feldblum and those who stand with her mean business.
It is in this context that we should consider the Hosanna-Tabor case and the HHS mandate. · 2 hours ago
Edited 2 hours ago
Jun '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Liberty Dude: James of England:
I agree with you that in terms of enforcement of the statute, it must only apply prospectively.
However, if voting is a natural right of women, it must have always existed. Otherwise you find yourself in the terrifying situation where your only rights are those granted to you by the whim of the state. Philosophically anyway.
Do you have a degree in law btw? Your writing reflects sophisticated thinking. · 0 minutes ago
A woman's (or anybody's) right to vote is only a right because we have a written constitution that says it's a right. And, as happened before the 1960s, if the reality doesn't live up to the constitution, there are remedies. But, the constitution has to define it before it's a right. I might like a constitutional right to pee in the bushes when my bladder is full, but it's not there.
Apr '12
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Etoiledunord,
So if the constitution was modified such that women no longer have the right to vote, would you consider that legitimate?
Or do they have the right to vote as a consequence of being human? Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say man is born with "certain unalienable rights?", and that our constitutional rights are based on those natural rights?
Your post implies that majority rule could invent any right it wished, and that we should respect it.
Edited on April 18, 2012 at 1:46amApr '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Aaron Miller
Lady Bertrum
Aaron Miller
Gaby Charing
Aaron, Will you be content with the will of the people if we decide democratically to recognize gay unions as marriage?
Currently, most Americans, contrary to popular perceptions and the demographics of online communities, do not support the legalization of gay unions. I expect that balance to change. If it does, I will acknowledge that legislation as legitimate... but legitimate and foolish, like the will of the majority to maintain entitlement programs and so doom us all to financial ruin. I will still condemn it as foolishness.
Marriage is the most primitive act of human society. It is the cornerstone on which any society is founded. Any society which attempts to alter its foundation without shaking everything built upon that foundation is in for a rude awakening. · 23 minutes ago
Interesting. I object to ssm being judicial granted a civil right, but could accept it if it was legislated into being. I'm not quite so sure that it would rock the foundations of our civilization, though. We may very well live to see the results.
Jun '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Liberty Dude: Etoiledunord,
So if the constitution was modified such that you had a right to sacrifice your second born to Paladine, would you still believe that's a legitimate right?
Or are there some rights we have inherent as human beings? Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say as much, and that our constitutional rights are based on those natural rights?
Your post implies that majority rule could invent any right it wished, and that we should respect it. · 1 minute ago
The alternative is sharia law. These constitutions don't arrive from Heaven. Actual human beings have to argue them out, propose things, and vote. But if your conscience, or mine, is offended, we have the opportunity of engaging in civil disobedience. There's nothing holy about a constitution. It's just the best of all the various less than perfect options. The unique thing about the US Constitution is that we actually follow it. There are many fine-sounding constitutions around the world, but nobody follows them.
Apr '12
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Etoiledunord,
You present a false dichotomy. The alternative to being "granted" rights by the whim of the legislature and the mob (or perhaps a king) is not Sharia law. Instead there is another option - recognizing that human beings are entitled to rights as a consequence of their humanity. It is a logical derivation of the "ought" from the "is." Majority rule cannot LEGITIMATELY vote away my right to life or property.
Edited on April 18, 2012 at 1:59amJun '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Liberty Dude: Etoiledunord,
So if the constitution was modified such that women no longer have the right to vote, would you consider that legitimate?
Or do they have the right to vote as a consequence of being human? Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say man is born with "certain unalienable rights?", and that our constitutional rights are based on those natural rights?
Your post implies that majority rule could invent any right it wished, and that we should respect it. · 9 minutes ago
Edited 6 minutes ago
If it was legitimate to add it by amendment, it's legitimate to subtract it by amendment, just as with Prohibition. The Constitution exists to protect the natural rights that it defines. That doesn't mean that we don't have any other rights. It just means that we'll have to protect those rights ourselves. My "right to happiness" is on me.
Jul '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
So why does she restrict marriage and it's defense to two people? Do not polyamorous people deserve their love recognised and civil rights protected? Are there not religions that support polygamy? Would that not make it a freedom of religion issue? Why have I not heard our freedom loving administration defending them? Then there is sologamy, because sometime the only person good enough for you is you. Are the rights of these individuals going to be ignored? If so why? The administration seems very closed minded about its open minded ness.
Apr '12
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Etoildunard,
Just so I understand - you would think it legitimate to deny a group their right of representation just because an amendment stating the same was somehow passed?
Edited on April 18, 2012 at 2:07amJun '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Liberty Dude: Etoiledunord,
You present a false dichotomy. The alternative to being "granted" rights by the whim of the legislature and the mob (or perhaps a king) is not Sharia law. Instead there is another option - recognizing that human beings are entitled to rights as a consequence of their humanity. It is a logical derivation of the "ought" from the "is." Majority rule cannot LEGITIMATELY vote away my right to life or property.
Take away the US Constitution, and yes they can. Mob rule happens every day around the world. Our structure of law is all that stands between us and the mob. If it (our legal system) works, it works because there's muscle behind it. Not because criminals have any respect for your rights or mine. They don't.