Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Enlightened Elites Are Kindly Granting You A Grace Period In Which to Dissent — Merina Smith
What do you think of the public statement signed by a cadre of intellectuals entitled Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both? The statement, signed by supporters of gay marriage, calls for more tolerance in the debate over the issue, pointing to recent incidents like the controversy surrounding Brendan Eich:
We support same-sex marriage; many of us have worked for it, in some cases for a large portion of our professional and personal lives. We affirm our unwavering commitment to civic and legal equality, including marriage equality. At the same time, we also affirm our unwavering commitment to the values of the open society and to vigorous public debate—the values that have brought us to the brink of victory.
It is admirable that the well-respected signatories are calling for tolerance, but I am less than impressed with their statement. First, they repeat that deceptive little slogan “marriage equality” in a celebratory way, as if it really explained or illuminated anything. Can these smart people be unaware that equality simply means treating like things alike? The question, which has never been answered satisfactorily by anyone on that side of the debate, is what is the significance of the differences, particularly for children? Might there be a good reason why sexual unions that produce children should be treated differently than those that can’t? That nasty little question-begging slogan “marriage equality” has in fact been a means of preventing discussion about the real issues at stake.
I do like their next point, that diversity is the natural consequence of liberty. They also say that this entails paying serious attention to the arguments of those they oppose. That’s good. Would that they would do so.
But since they assert unequivocally throughout the piece that they all support redefining marriage and are certain that this course is correct — without ever acknowledging that there might be some good reasons that marriage has always been limited to connecting males and females — one has to doubt that they have taken their opposition seriously, especially when they claim that “free speech created the social space for us to criticize and demolish the arguments against gay marriage and LGBT equality.” Uh, might there be some hubris going on here? The term “marriage equality” demolished no arguments, just avoided them.
Similarly, their use of judges to force their will on people who had voted against their side is not “demolishing” any sort of argument. In fact, Justice Kennedy’s shameful claim that there can be no reason besides animus against gays (read: “hate,” the queen of all delegitimizing words) is similarly a way to avoid dealing with objections and arguments. The myriad questions in this debate about social understandings and processes, fathers and mothers, family, and children and the importance of embedding them as often as possible in biological families have not been addressed. They tout the value of free speech without acknowledging their own complicity in subverting it on behalf of the cause they so self-righteously proclaim.
Then there’s this little gem:
We prefer debate that is respectful, but we cannot enforce good manners. We must have the strength to accept that some people think misguidedly and harmfully about us. But we must also acknowledge that disagreement is not, itself, harm or hate.
Nice of them to say that those of us who disagree with them are not necessarily, per se, causing them “harm or hate”, but we are lacking in manners and are obviously misguided. Yup—that’s a time-honored way to respect the opinions of others and foster debate. Having lived through the run-up to Prop 8 here in California and observed the situation since, I can tell you that the lack of manners is preponderantly on their side.
They end with an appeal for tolerance of opposing views—no one should lose their job (as Brendan Eich did) because they donated to Prop 8‚but there are limits to their patience. Their last passage reads, “we place our confidence in persuasion, not punishment. We believe it is the only truly secure path to equal rights.” In other words, they can put up with us for now, but if we aren’t eventually brought around by their wonderful patient persuasion, well… you kind of get the idea that what they’re asking for is a grace period during which the benighted ideas of their opponents can become so beyond the pale that no one will dare express them.
Don’t get me wrong. I actually do appreciate that they have released this statement, because it is much better than the desired course of the witch-hunting, take-no-prisoners wing of their coalition. But while patronizing statements are better than nothing, it would be far better to finally actually have the debate that they claim is over.
Published in General
Thank you for this, Merina. If I had written something about this public statement I would have been neither as clear, nor as restrained. Well done.
We have a “crisis of anthropology” (a headline in the National Catholic Register recently) and our intellectual betters exhibit such profound moral idiocy that they simultaneously advocate treating unlike things alike (and call it “equality” and “civil rights”) and forfeiting our fundamental natural right to freedom of conscience (and call it “diversity” or “pluralism,” while abetting the totalitarians).
I’m glad you like our chances. I’m less hopeful, as it seems the most ruthless and totalitarian seem to end up on top whenever they’re given a foothold. My disgust comes from some on our side providing the leg up.
Even when they’re trying to be gracious, they just can’t help themselves:
“To their discredit?” Really?
WC, I join you in pessimism, but I know you have faith in the final outcome, as I do, because we are people of faith. We just hate to see our children and grandchildren suffer the terrible things that inevitably accompany the kind of totalitarian regime we see developing. Don’t you think, however, that such regimes always ultimately fail or moderate? Most totalitarian regimes in the 20th century failed miserably. Only China has endured, and then only by changing significantly. Even so it is not really doing very well right now. This totalitarian regime isn’t going to work, but sadly it will likely take a long time for that to become clear. I agree, though, the stupidity of our “elite” has been astounding.
I know–they set themselves up as wiser that all the wise people who have ever lived and wiser than the wisdom books. They think they are super-duper wise.
I’m not going to defend Adler and his ilk but I don’t see any evidence that those opposed to SSM are somehow being bullied into submission. There’s certainly no shortage of opposition here in Ricochet or any of the other conservative outlets. Indeed, other than abortion, I don’t think there’s another issue in contemporary politics that has generated the quantity of rhetoric that SSM has, on both sides of the issue.
And spare me the tales of woe about wedding cake bakers. That person was in clear violation of state statutes in place far in advance of the whole SSM issue.
Cloaking yourself in the mantle of victimhood is ripping a page out of the leftist playbook and it’s just about as convincing as when they do it.
Nonsense, FD. Good grief, no evidence? The way they have manipulated the courts and slimily overturned democratic elections? Kennedy’s stupid “animus” claims, which were clearly intended to marginalize those who disagree with him? Really? He can think of NO REASON besides animus to support what marriage has been from time immemorial till a nanosecond ago? None? Looks like evidence to me. Additionall, as I point out in the OP, the term “marriage equality” is a way of circumventing debate, as some of the originators of the term admitted at a conference my husband recently attended as a token conservative. If you don’t see this stuff, you aren’t paying attention.
Just because we have had conversations here does not mean the left has not done everything they could to stifle a real debate and it shows. Most people are not part of a site like this. Their bullying has made people afraid to speak. But they don’t control everything, just most of the media, the universities, Hollywood, numerous companies and other elite culture. I’m not crying victim, just making factual points. If you can’t see it–well, that doesn’t mean it’s not so.
@36,
Claims of manipulation of the courts and electoral fraud are profoundly unconvincing. Do you pay attention when Democrats claim Bush stole the election in Florida? And, yes, the Left will try to monopolize the terms of debate. Get over it, that’s what they do. It’s not bullying, however.
Rhetorical shenanigans and marginalization by the cultural elite are not the same things as bullying.
Well, FD, what do you define as bullying? Apparently bullying has a very high bar for you. Dishonesty in debate is manipulation and bullying. And what do you call people losing jobs because of donations to Prop 8? That doesn’t need to happen too many high profile times before people are afraid to speak.
Claims of manipulation of the courts is convincing to a whole lot of law professors that I know. Do you understand the legal system better than they?
A person lost his job because of a donation. Are you saying a private organization’s individual employment decision constitutes “bullying”? I don’t agree with what they did but I’m not going to claim that my free speech rights are somehow being stifled.
Everything I know about the law could be stuffed into the navel of a Barbie doll and you’d still have room left over for a Raisinette and a list of my accomplishments. That said, all we have to go on is your appeal to authority.
FD–I live in CA. I saw the bullying that went on during the run up to Prop 8. You cannot call it anything but bullying–mobs, defacing churches, jobs lost, intimidation, people being pushed around. Yes–I call forcing someone out of a job because of a donation they made 5 years ago, at the behest of an online mob calling for his head, bullying. People notice these things. They become afraid to speak.
Similarly, I call one judge in CA overruling what was duly passed by the electorate in CA bullying. And I call one SC justice calling people “hateful” for supporting marriage bullying. That is as powerful as it gets in marginalizing a group, because no one thinks that people whose only motivation is hatred deserve to be listened to. It is unconscionable and unprecedented for a SC justice to behave this way. Has all of this escaped you?
Merina, I’m pretty sure I got bounced out of one gig in part because I was an outlier politically. (I also called into question some of the assumptions that went into the business plan, which curiously didn’t survive me by a whole lot.)
One has to pick one’s fights, and the First Amendment doesn’t mean there will be no consequences, just no governmental ones. The stakes have been raised, and if the folks responsible for the statement are successful in reining in some of the more irresponsible of their fellow travelers, that would be nice.
Don’t hold your breath.
Been away for a day, but will try to clarify my (and possibly Floppy’s?) underlying thinking.
First: activism. There is a broad acceptance among many on the right that most of the changes in acceptance of homosexuality (and/or gay marriage) over the last decade have been the results of activists and their underhanded tactics.
I think those of us under 35 or who have spent most of our lives in close friendships with non-conservatives recognize, however, that most of the drastic changes we are witnessing today are actually the consequences of attitude changes which have been subtly taking place since we were very young. And those subtle changes have been mostly organic – not the result of deliberate activism.
Of course pro-gay activists exist and have been, err, active. Many of them use tactics ranging from unethical to illegal to unconstiutional. But that type of activism doesn’t change hearts: no one becomes pro-SSM because a baker refused to cater a gay union ceremony. They become pro-SSM after decades of slowly coming into more contact with the homosexuals around them.
I agree with that Percival. I hope they can rein in some of the nastier people on their side. But I nevertheless think that we have to stick with the truth. We ought to know by now that we can’t negotiate much with these people. They want to destroy us. It’s like Mark Steyn in Canada. If everybody just allows themselves to be pushed around, pretty soon no one will be able to speak the truth.
This whole thing has been ridiculous. Can it really be that 10 years after this whole move began in MA, while many states still have not legalized genderless marriage, to argue for actual marriage is beyond the pale? That is ridiculous on its face. And yet that is what the crazies on the left are saying. It is nice that these people want to rein them in, but they essentially agree with the position. They take the logic of their position from the CR movement, which is wholly different from this case. Even if their hearts are in the right place, they just want to give us a little grace period before we are silenced. Not too comforting and not tolerant.
Well, Mendel, as in the 60’s, the “wisdom” of youth, who know nothing about marriage and can’t even tell you what it is, is a poor reason to make this sort of change. Anyway, I don’t think the demands for this have come from the youth for the most part. They are just pawns. Being youth, they are eager for a “cause.” It would have gone nowhere but for the aggressive tactics of a virulent lobby. Look, you can’t tell me otherwise. My husband has heard this from the mouths of the perpetrators at legal conferences in his role as token conservative.
Second: the “level playing field.”
Somehow high school civics and the internet have lulled us into thinking that American society should be like a debate club, with a moderator, ground rules, and sanctions for those who don’t play fair. But that’s never been the case – as Percival points out, we’re only promised that the government won’t interfere, not that we won’t interfere with each other.
For that reason, I find the notion of players accusing their opponents of rigging the game pointless. Of course they’re rigging the game – it’s what everyone does, whether they know it or not. There is simply no way to have a balanced equilibrium in American discourse – the table will always be tilted. Before it became a career killer to disclose objections to homosexuality, it was a career killer to be homosexual.
We live in an incredibly tolerant society, but it will never be as tolerant of differing opinions as any of us wish it were.
I will concede the point regarding mob behavior surrounding Prop 8.
As for Eich/Mozilla and legal decisions I do indeed hold a higher standard for bullying then simply anything I don’t agree with. Mob behavior, yes, bad legal decisions and cowardice in the face of on-line pressure, no.
Appreciative of the gracious act of noblesse oblige our elite betters have condescended to grant us in their letter I suppose I should simply knuckle my forehead in obeisance and shut up.
However, I cannot help but wonder if they support the right of a business to refuse to serve same-sex nuptials? Must bakers who object to same-sex marriage be required to bake a cake to celebrate the event? Must photographers who object to same-sex marriage be required to photograph the event? Must churches/pastors who hold hetero-sexual marriage to be the biblical requirement to which they must adhere be required to let their property for/officiate at the event?
Inquiring minds would like to know what the signatories have to say about this.
Neither of us know the actual answer because we can’t run the counterfactual.
But I think it’s worth remembering that “youth” don’t exist in a bubble. Certainly they have rebelled against the wishes of their elders since Cain, yet somehow we have yet to see a generation which embraces homosexuality as much as this one – and I think our parents have a lot to do with it. Certainly for me, growing up in the 80s, we kids were taught by our parents and teachers that homosexuality was okay and that we should respect gay people – even though nobody would have conceived of SSM.
So the roots of the acceptance of SSM today goes back at least 3 decades – and more, if you consider why the generation of my parents was so much more accepting of gays than their parents.
Indeed. And often worse.
Did anyone else notice that Richard Epstein, Christina Hoff Summers, and Charles Murray are all signatories, as well as other AEI and right-world folks?
Mendel, we are not talking about respect for gay people. I respect all people. We are talking about marriage and it’s meaning and purpose.
Bullying? Nothing so mundane, in the People’s Republic of California they have most likely engaged in criminal activity due to their actions.
FD and Mendel–attitudes toward homosexuality have changed, but that is no reason that marriage should be changed. I’m and historian and work on a marriage topic–polygamy. Marriage is one of the most stable institutions the world has ever known. It does not change easily or lightly and with good reason–because men and women together produce and raise the next generation. Married heterosexual couples and their kids are consequently the key to the future. It doesn’t matter that all men and women can’t produce children, it just matters that marriage be restricted to the type of people who produce children so that it is as likely as possible that children will be raised by the married mother and father who produced them and that they be connected to a whole chain of family. That is what is best for kids. What adults want is unimportant compared to what is best for kids.
Now–the type of change that the left has tried to foist on us is utterly unimaginable given the stable history of marriage without some powerful bullying of all sorts. It just is. There is no way this would have happened without it.
Hi Merina – it’s the logic of ‘if gay people can marry each other then fewer straight people will want to marry each other because…??’ that escapes me still. But on the whole, civility is a good thing to practice and should be encouraged : – )
Hi Zafar–we’ve been through this all before, so there’s no reason to reiterate it. Law always limits and restricts, sometimes with good reasons and sometimes not. There are very good reasons for this restriction that have nothing to do with gay people and everything to do with children, which you already know is what I think.
Check out the link about the anti-bullying campaign in Minnesota that I mentioned earlier. This type of thing is a direct result of genderless marriage. You do not make this kind of tidal wave change without a whole lot of collateral damage.
Of course civility is good. I think you and I have always had civil conversations. I even say at the end of my OP that I agree with that part. I just take issue with the condescending way the post is written. Condescension is not good, not tolerant and not civil.
It’s not necessarily bullying to push your own opinion as hard as you are able, or to be obnoxiously self-righteous when you are wrong, and stupid. Gay marriage does not derive from the truth that gay people are as valuable as anyone else on the planet. Gay marriage derives from the lie that there is no important difference between men and women, nor any special bond between biological parents and their children. Our fellow citizens can’t see the difference. They also re-elected our current President.
Not necessarily, Jojo, but there is a lot of bullying in this case. Of course we all push our opinion as hard as we can, but it is when people use tricks to avoid having the debate, manipulate the media and judiciary, pretend that hate motivates their opponents and do everything in their power to marginalize the other side that it moves into bullying territory.
But determining exactly what qualifies as bullying isn’t very important. What matters is that there is a lie at the bottom of this debate. I totally agree with you there. As I said in the OP–what bothers me is that the signatories of this statement are not stupid, at least the ones I know about. They are very smart, respected, and some of them are very thoughtful. And they are trying to be people of good will. And yet the tenor of their manifesto is so self-righteous, smug and condescending that it belies the thing they actually intend to do. That’s why I argue that it appears to only ask for a grace period for those of us who support marriage, for which I do not feel inclined to thank them.
A few thoughts:
The irony of my attempt to referee the refereeing is duly noted.
And you don’t consider the mass push to make Eich unemployable to be mob behavior?
I think there’s an important distinction to be made here between whether it’s ever permissible to organize and/or agitate against a company’s hiring choices and whether it was appropriate to do so against Brendan Eich.
Had, for instance, Eich donated to a virulently anti-Semitic organization five years ago I think it would have been at least defensible for Jewish groups to organize a boycot/two-minute hate against him and Mozilla, even if Eich had no history of personally mistreating anyone Jewish at Mozilla.
The issue, though — and here the Left is entirely wrong — is that Prop 8 is not in anyway comparable to anti-Jewish hate groups.