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:
Sep '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Is that really true though? Unless my memory has failed me, Gaby, you do not defend the rights of marriage traditionalists to live their lives as they please. Or have you changed your mind since December?
I believe the answer to all those questions for you, Gaby, is 'no'. I think we'll have a richer conversation if you come right out and make your case: You advocate using the power of the state to impose your values on those with whom you disagree.
Jun '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Mack The Mike
Is that really true though? Unless my memory has failed me, Gaby, you do not defend the rights of marriage traditionalists to live their lives as they please. Or have you changed your mind since December?
...
I believe the answer to all those questions for you, Gaby, is 'no'. I think we'll have a richer conversation if you come right out and make your case: You advocate using the power of the state to impose your values on those with whom you disagree. · 2 minutes ago
Why so accusatory? I don't recall any conversation with Gaby since she joined that would merit the assigning of statist impulses. She certainly hasn't given reason to do so in this thread. Why not give her the benefit of the doubt, or at least give her the opportunity to respond, before deciding her opinions for her?
Edited on April 18, 2012 at 6:04amMay '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Fred Cole: Let me add to that:
Marriage is a legal contract between parties.
What makes you third party busybodies think you have the right or authority to stick your nose into my affairs and tell me who I can and cannot contract with and under what circumstances?
Please don't give me any higher purpose communitarian nonsense. · 2 hours ago
Hmmm. I reject your premise, if you mean that marriage is nothing but a legal contract, and I am obviously not a lawyer, but let me play along. I'll grant that you can establish whatever legal relationship you like. But you as a couple/threesome/carpool/bridge club/basketball team or whatever do not get to claim that your legal relationship is a "marriage."
Another way to look at it: let's say I want to establish the legal relationship of a "limited partnership." There would be certain requirements that need to be met to satisfy that designation. I don't get to define them on my own.
Jun '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Casey Taylor
...
I believe the answer to all those questions for you, Gaby, is 'no'. I think we'll have a richer conversation if you come right out and make your case: You advocate using the power of the state to impose your values on those with whom you disagree. · 2 minutes ago
Why so accusatory? I don't recall any conversation with Gaby since she joined that would merit the assigning of statist impulses. She certainly hasn't done so in this thread. Why not give her the benefit of the doubt, or at least give her the opportunity to respond, before deciding her opinions for her? · 1 minute ago
Edited 1 minute ago
Don't all the examples Mack gave follow from the support of SSM? Certainly SSM laws have had those types of effects wherever they have been enacted.
And isn't an essential element of the argument that same-sex couples are entitled to be treated exactly the same as married couples, not merely by the government but by private companies and individuals as well?
Sep '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Casey Taylor
I don't recall any conversation with Gaby since she joined that would merit the assigning of statist impulses. She certainly hasn't given reason to do so in this thread. Why not give her the benefit of the doubt, or at least give her the opportunity to respond, before deciding her opinions for her? ·
There was quite a long thread on this general topic last year. In fact I think it's still the longest thread on Ricochet. If you have a few spare hours you could read the whole thing, but assuming you don't, here's the bit about B&Bs: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Today-Is-My-Anniversary/(comment)/267529#comment-267529
Apr '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Fred Cole
We just see the societal function of marriage differently. You see the function as producing children. The way the laws are written doesn't reflect that as a reality, or else the limitations I noted above would and should be applied.
Also, plenty of children are produced out of wedlock, so the linking of marriage and the production of children doesn't seem to hold up.
I wasn't saying that procreation was the sole reason for marriage. As we've discussed, I believe the English Common Law reasons for marriage (procreation of children, avoidance of fornication, and mutual comfort, aid, and support) to have been essentially unchanged by the Revolution. I agree that much of the social capital of marriage can be extended by SSM to Americans otherwise excluded from it; I find the costs and benefits hard to weigh against each other.
I was objecting only to your suggestion that licensing requires extensive certification for you to extend a good faith presumption, that valid laws are somehow definitionally neither under nor over inclusive. In general, pre-revolutionary institutions necessarily required little bureaucracy, as little bureaucracy existed. Your reasoning, not your conclusion, was beneath you.
Mar '12
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
James of England,I wasn't trying to say African Americans should hold a particular view on the matter. It's just amusing that for all the parallels the left is trying to draw between the homosexual debate and the civil rights movement, the African American community in large part is not convinced. Maybe they don't see interracial marriage and same-sex marriag as equally worthy of recognition as some would like.I haves question for you. What did you mean by the liberal form of an ad hominem? I don't quite understand the reference and I'm fairly sure I did avoid what you warned me to avoid. Maybe poor communication is my sin. Anyways, an explanation and maybe an example would be helpful.
Oct '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Except marriage does affect the rights of others, specifically, the rights of children born to socioeconomically disadvantaged parents the opportunity to grow up in intact homes and an environment of high social capital. Now, I don't think gay marriage and straight marriage are related. But if gay marriage is used by social nihilists to attack the family, as part of a broader attack on values, it becomes relevant.
Thus, I support gay marriage, passed by referendum, preferably with a general ban on no-fault divorce to send a strong signal to nihilists that gay people aren't their puppets.
Oct '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
I'm a little sick of these stupid proxy wars. People fear gay marriage because nihilists use it as a proxy to push their agenda. I guarantee that if social conservatives used gay marriage to push an anti-free-love moral agenda of two-person monogamy, the left would be uncomfortable with it, and might even outright oppose it.
Dec '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Fred Cole: Let me add to that:
Marriage is a legal contract between parties.
What makes you third party busybodies think you have the right or authority to stick your nose into my affairs and tell me who I can and cannot contract with and under what circumstances?
It isn't a contract though. It is a recognition and blessing by the community at large on a pre-existing relationship, which bestows some metaphysical goodness upon the relationship(as your belief system dictates). It is the communities to bestow, and not anybodies to demand or extort.
If the government has a role here, it is for the legislature to decide the conditions by which it will bestow such a blessing, and to put down any condition at all is to be discriminatory. Since everybody acknowledges that the legislature can in fact set down discriminatory conditions, excluding polygamy for instance, everybody is acknowledging that the legislature can in fact discriminate, and we are having the appropriate discussion on what those conditions should be, and we can vote accordingly. Vermont said gay marriage was cool, and california said it wasnt for them, this is proof the system works.
Apr '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Joseph Stanko
Lady Bertrum: The problem is in what isbehavior and what is theauthentic self. Conservatives try to make the distinctions about behavior. Gays (most) don't believe homosexuality is a behavior; they believe it is who they are and how they were born.
Conservatives will lose this agrument as long as they persist in trying to seperate the sin from the sinner. · 4 hours ago
I'm confused by your conclusion. Are you suggesting we would win the argument if we would instead condemn both the sin andthe sinner? · 11 hours ago
No. I'm simply stating the tactic (or should that be strategy ?-not sure) of condeming the behavior not the person - hating the sin not the sinner - is a losing one because gays and most other Americans don't accept the premise that homosexuality is a behavior or a decision to act on certain impulses. They believe, much like Lady Gaga, that they were born this way, that sexual orientation is a genetic characteristic - the authentic self.
Mar '12
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Here's the way I look at it:
1. Marriage is a status, not a contract. My husband and I didn't make a contract to share our stuff, we transformed ourselves from single people INTO married people. I could have the same contract with two different people at once, I can not be married to two people at once. In this sense, it's like citizenship.
2. The primary purpose of marriage is to create a home with a mother and father. Obviously, in some cases, the home will never be used for children, due to age, fertility problems, or lack of inclination. That's not the point. It's also beside the point that single people have kids all the time. We legitimize marriage BECAUSE it is the best way to raise children and the community at large has an interest in that. We give people privileges upon marriage BECAUSE we want people to enter the state, not because we're generous.
(cont.)
Mar '12
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
3. Gay marriage assumes that men and women are interchangeable, so there is nothing unique about a household with a man and a woman vs. a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It assumes mothers and fathers are interchangeable. I reject this as absurd.
4. Love does not make a marriage. I did not become married because I loved my husband. If we cease to love each other, we do not cease to be married. Love is very nice, but it is distinct from marriage and should remain so.
Mar '12
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
I will also point out that sexuality being genetic is beside the point--gender IS genetic.
No one has been able to point to a cluster of genes and say, "this is what makes a person white, black, Asian, etc." We know that there are plenty of places where racial mixing has occurred for a long time, and left people who do not easily fit into any of the familiar (white, black, Asian) categories. Race as a biological entity is concrete.
Gender as a biological entity is not. Absent a tiny handful of people who are XXY or similar, we know very well what makes a man different from a woman biologically, in a way that we don't know for race.
My husband is Asian and I am white. Genetically, one of us is obviously a man and one of us is obviously a woman. Genetically, I am not obviously white and he is not obviously Asian. That's a big difference. Furthermore, all men can perform the social function of being fathers, as all women can perform the social function of mothers.
Apr '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Madcap:
4. Love does not make a marriage. I did not become married because I loved my husband. If we cease to love each other, we do not cease to be married. Love is very nice, but it is distinct from marriage and should remain so. · 2 minutes ago
Well there is the problem like I have pointed out on other threads...modern society views love as the only factor that is necessary and sufficient for the establishment of a legitimate marriage. As long as that is the prevailing view there can be no (in my opinion) sufficiently strong arguments against gay marriage. If all marriage is is a societal affirmation of love, gay people are entitled to it as much as any couple in love. You may argue gay people don't have true love, but I don't think that seems very credible.
The best solution right now is for governments to not bother recognizing or giving privileges to any relationships. Then once this is settled culturally all will be well with the world again.
Apr '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
"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."
This statement is just alarming.
And I don't even oppose gay marriage.
Dec '11
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Valiuth
Madcap:
4. Love does not make a marriage. I did not become married because I loved my husband. If we cease to love each other, we do not cease to be married. Love is very nice, but it is distinct from marriage and should remain so. · 2 minutes ago
Well there is the problem like I have pointed out on other threads...modern society views love as the only factor that is necessary and sufficient for the establishment of a legitimate marriage. As long as that is the prevailing view there can be no (in my opinion) sufficiently strong arguments against gay marriage. If all marriage is is a societal affirmation of love, gay people are entitled to it as much as any couple in love. You may argue gay people don't have true love, but I don't think that seems very credible.
The best solution right now is for governments to not bother recognizing or giving privileges to any relationships. Then once this is settled culturally all will be well with the world again. · 9 minutes ago
As long as the society get to choose what they affirming, and in what context I agree.
Feb '11
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. · 15 hours ago
Edited 15 hours ago
Unless we thought such things to be to needlessly intrusive, expensive, ineffective overall, and inefficient. The point is for our free society to reap the benefit of such relationships by providing a formal structure; it's not necessary to impose a police state shooting for 100% accuracy when we can derive the same benefits with a scattershot approach. No intrusion or testing is needed with same sex couples - it's an obvious impossibility. Also note that the current marriage scheme doesn't prevent anyone from living their lives as they wish.
Dec '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
James Of England ...
I do think that democratic republicanism is a much better system than any other, and feel horror when I imagine the withdrawal of women's suffrage, but can find no evidence of a divine mandate for either. · 14 hours ago
Allow me to comfort you, James. Democrats would never win another election if women lost the vote.
There's a case to be made that nothing has contributed more to the sissification and decline of Western Civilization than women's suffrage. It occurs to me that a vast majority of our intrusive laws are an attempt to make someone feel good about herself in some way. Soft tyranny is the result. You can't spell "smother" without "mother."
Dec '10
Re: Civil Rights, Gay Rights, and a New Phase in the Culture War
Mack The Mike
Is that really true though? Unless my memory has failed me, Gaby, you do not defend the rights of marriage traditionalists to live their lives as they please. Or have you changed your mind since December?
I believe the answer to all those questions for you, Gaby, is 'no'. I think we'll have a richer conversation if you come right out and make your case: You advocate using the power of the state to impose your values on those with whom you disagree. ·
Spot on. SSM is tyranny of the minority. It isn't a demand for rights. It is, as Chai herself said, a demand for affirmation. The Left is never satisfied with tolerance when equality demands more state intrusiveness.