The whole Chick-fil-A controversy reminds me of a period of time in recent American history when a segment of our society that tried to assert what it believed to be its civil rights and dignity was brutally repressed, particularly in a certain section of the country.
I refer, of course, to African-Americans which is certainly not what they were called back then.
Recently, I loaned our copy of The Help to my young teenage son to watch. He told me later that he enjoyed the movie but was appalled that black people were actually treated that way. I was dismayed, but not surprised I suppose, that he knew so little about what things were like back then.
My son has probably never even heard the word nigger. The thought that a black person was forced to use separation public washrooms, was expected to sit at the back of the bus, was expected to remember her place, was expected to accept second-class citizenship and (perhaps most of all) was expected not get uppity and aspire to being treated equally all of this was beyond the pale of my sons comprehension.
I gave him a very brief history of what it was like, what I remember watching on the news growing up in the 60s. What I didnt go into was the way segregation was viewed by society at large, particularly in the South, which is also the bastion of Chick-fil-A. How in those days, sermons were preached in many pulpits about the propriety of keeping things the way God intended them to be. How those who were trying to change things were called agitators and were routinely intimidated, beaten or even murdered. How most people were simply part of the silent majority who didnt commit acts of violence but who nevertheless to one degree or another agreed with those of their ilk who were committing acts of violence, whether government-sanctioned (e.g., police) or acts of vigilantism.
What I think he would have had the most trouble comprehending, however, is the concept that African-Americans were expected to just accept the order of things as dictated by the racist white majority. Blacks were expected to see themselves as inferior, because of course they were. No amount of agitation could change the religiously-sanctioned (and even promoted) view that blacks were inferior to whites and needed to be treated so. What really enraged certain segments of the white population in the South (as well as elsewhere in the country) was when blacks simply refused to accept this status-quo. How dare they be so uppity!
So, here we are in 2012, and the same thing is going on only this time, its the gays that are being uppity. Certain segments of the population, i.e., those represented by the people that stood in line at Chick-fil-A restaurants around the country a couple of days ago, are perhaps willing at least publicly to accept the existence of homosexuals, but they are enraged that gays presume to aspire to the same degree of civic equality as heterosexuals. They insist that gays accept second-class status and are infuriated when we refuse to do so.
To me, thats what this Chick-fil-A thing is all about. Dignity. Vast swaths of our society expect us to accept their world-view, their beliefs about ourselves and their views as to what we are entitled in the way of civil rights. The fact that we refuse to do so makes some of them practically foam at the mouth.
I wonder, will my grandson, 40 years from now, express incredulity that a minority in our society was discriminated against, suffered acts of violence and was expected to know their place and keep it? Will he find it difficult to comprehend that religious organizations actively participated in this discrimination and fostered this intolerance and hate? Will he wonder why a majority of society simply accepted this situation as being part of the natural order of things?
I hope so.
* Invictus Pilgrim blogs atBeyond-the-Closet-Door.blogspot.com, where the above post was published last Friday.
This sounds so familiar – I guess some things never change. Although I am glad that the younger generation is starting to empathize with gays more – it gives me hope that things will get better.
This visible part of the problem is horrifying enough, but try reading Anne Moody’s “Coming of Age in Mississippi” to get a more complete picture. People put up with an amazing level of humiliation and degradation because if you stepped out of line, or looked the wrong way at the wrong person, some whites might literally kill you without any fear of punishment. Plus, most black people were economically dependent on white employers, hence feared losing their livelihood over as simple an act as registering to vote.
I completely agree that the attitude is the same:
Gay people are lucky that homosexuality cuts across all segments of society, including at the highest levels of power and privilege. It makes it somewhat easier to find a critical mass of people who can and will stand up and say “I refuse to be treated as a second-class citizen” — which is what it takes to make things change.
I think it’s pretty insulting to the black civil rights movement to assert that gays today are facing anywhere even remotely close to the scope, depth, nature and intensity of discrimination that blacks were facing in the 1960s.
@3 Even if the degree is different, the sentiments have the same roots. I think it is instructive to compare and contrast the different types of obstacles that different marginalized groups face.
Believing that one type of discrimination can’t be compared to another can lead to a dangerous complacency. We see this in the comparison between the North and the South of the US. The disenfranchisement black people face isn’t the same in the two regions, but that doesn’t mean that mean that Northerners can complacently rest on their laurels, having conquered their own racism…
Not really.
A black wife and a white wife are interchangeable.
A male wife and a female wife are not.
Dang, hit post too quick.
The point I was making is not just one of scope. The fundamental nature of the discrimination is different. For one thing, being black is just something you fundamentally are.
Homosexual sex and marriage – like heterosexual sex and marriage is simply something you DO voluntarily.
And it’s quite clear that allowing interracial marriage didn’t try to redefine the entire premise of marriage the way gay marriage is attempting.
@3 It’s still legal in the US to discriminate against gays in many ways–in many places, they can be fired or evicted just for being gay, and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell hasn’t been gone for long. We call the form of murder that gays are the target of “hate crimes” instead of “lynchings,” but it doesn’t change the fact that in the same way some people were killed for being black and uppity or black and in the wrong place at the wrong time, people are killed for being gay and uppity or gay and in the wrong place at the wrong time. They’re even attacked for being gay in their own homes.
http://www.examiner.com/article/attackers-carve-dyke-on-ne-lesbian-woman-stomach-burn-her-home
But I understand that it’s necessary for all but the most unapologetic bigots who want to discriminate against the LGBT community to tell themselves and others that their own form of bigotry is not “anywhere even remotely close to the scope, depth, nature and intensity of discrimination that blacks were facing in the 1960s. “
Yes, and no one is denying the discrimination.
It’s just not even in the ballpark of the Civil Rights movement.
Nor is it something that needs to be solved by redefining what marriage is.
Is this the thing you didn’t mean to say by hitting post too quick?
lol, I don’t know what your marriage is like, but my French husband is not interchangeable with, say, a Swedish husband, or even another French husband or, really, any other possible husband on the planet…
Har, har Chanson.
Well, hope the meaning was somewhat clear just the same.
OK, please indulge me, but your comment reminded me of this amusing Onion article. 😉
@7 Holly, thank you for so eloquently addressing Seth’s comments.
I wasn’t surprised that someone one make the comments that Seth has. His attitude proves my point: HE (and others) (who are not gay and therefore do not face discrimination; I also assume Seth is not an African-American) decide what discrimination is and is not, and the uppity gays are supposed to accept his/their judgment of what they (the gays) face in varying degrees in their respective individual and community lives.
Secondly, I was not surprised that someone would leap headlong to the conclusion that I am saying that discrimination that gays face in this country today (let alone in countries where they can be imprisoned or even killed) is the same in “scope, depth, nature and intensity … that blacks were facing in the 1960s.” Nowhere in my piece did I make this assertion.
What I did assert is that there are certain similarities in mind-set of the ruling majority toward the minority which is experiencing discrimination. What I focused on was the attitude by the majority that the minority should calmly accept the way they are being treated and should, ideally, see themselves as the majority sees them. When the blacks started refusing to accept the white majority’s view of them, the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s was born.
My central point was phrased as follows: “[The majority, in this case referring to the Chick-fil-A lovers] are enraged that gays presume to aspire to the same degree of civic equality as heterosexuals. They insist that gays accept second-class status and are infuriated when we refuse to do so.”
Once again, Seth, you have proved my point when you wrote the following: “Being black is just something you fundamentally are. Homosexual sex and marriage like heterosexual sex and marriage is simply something you DO voluntarily.”
I’ve got news for you Seth – and for the millions of other Americans, including members of the LDS Church who believe as do you: being homosexual IS SOMETHING “YOU FUNDAMENTALLY ARE.” Believing that it (and all the “behaviors” flowing from it) is a CHOICE is the heart and soul of the discrimination and prejudice that you evidence.
Fortunately, our judiciary is leading the way, just as it did at the outset of the civil rights movement (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). Just last week, DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in the latest in a string of cases decided across the country and at both the district and appellate level. In the Pedersen case, Judge Vanessa Bryant – a Bush appointee, a woman, an African-American and a practicing Christian – ruled, among other things, that sexual orientation is immutable and that it “should be considered a defining characteristic fundamental to one’s identity much like race, ethnicity or gender”.
So, despite the personal opinions and beliefs of people such as you, Seth, gay marriage is going to happen, it IS happening. And in due course, in due time, all of the legalized discrimination that occurs against members of the LGBT community, as Holly has pointed out, will be swept away.
Thus, 40 years down the road, I hope my grandson will look back at incidents such as the Chick-fil-A appreciation day and all the hateful, homophobic attitudes represented thereby, and wonder how that could have happened in America.
@3 – Chanson, thank you as well for your observations. I think your comment about complacency is accurate, albeit graciously generous. 😉
Chanson, I’ll have to read that article to my wife tonight. Sorry for getting a bit too conceptual on you.
Invictus, I’m already ahead of that objection of yours.
I’ve heard the “homosexuality is what you ARE” concept repeatedly.
Which is why I avoided the issue of homosexuality and specifically talked about homosexual SEX, and MARRIAGE.
Once you acknowledge the distinction, we can move on.
And you can save the triumphalist rhetoric of “it’s going to happen – get used to it” for someone who cares Invictus.
I’m sure when Chairman Mao’s street thugs were rampaging through the streets of Shanghai vandalizing houses and beating Christian nuns, they were also delightedly shouting about how history was on their side.
Having history on your side doesn’t make you automatically right. Nor is taking a cue out of Stephen Sondheim’s nihilistic little ditty “Someone Is On Your Side” work as a substitute for actually having a convincing argument.
@ 15: Your position is the equivalent of saying blacks should not have been granted access to housing, employment, etc., because of who they were. Americans are discriminated against every day because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. I don’t think those who discriminate against them ever get around to asking whether they actually give sexual expression to their identity.
I do not acknowledge the distinction at all. Sexuality and the choice of one’s companion are fundamental manifestations of one’s sexual identity. Once again, this is an example of the majority trying to tell the gays to take what they (the majority) hand them and be happy with it.
This is the argument that says, “Ok, ok, so you ‘struggle with same sex attraction’; just don’t ever “act” upon it. Don’t fall in love, don’t express your innate sexuality in any way that I/we consider inappropriate. Because, all this nicey-nice aside, homosexuality is fundamentally impure and unnatural.” This is the argument that says, as I wrote in my piece, “Ok, so we’ll accept that you’re gay, but don’t expect us to grant you the same civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy; don’t expect us to extend to you the same anti-discrimination legal protections that we enjoy; and certainly don’t expect us to ever give legitimacy to your love and your sexual identity by granting full legal recognition of your marriage.
Altering your words somewhat, once you acknowledge the FALSE distinction, we can move on.
@16 I’m not going to bother responding to this rant.
It’s fine if you don’t respond. I’m sure the debate could have done without your “suck it up – loooser” attempt as well.
And although I realize teenage and college campus hormones may temporarily cause people to lose their heads over this a bit –
No – sexual acts are not a fundamental characteristic of who you are.
Incidentally, I am offering homosexuals all the same civil rights heterosexuals have.
It’s called Civil Unions.
Seth, was there a point in which civil unions weren’t on the table for you either? If so, what made you change your mind?
Edit: Does it have to do with what you said here, that civil unions offer rights, but prevent gay marriage from happening? I think that bus has come and gone, particularly in my home state (WA), where civil unions are merely a step on the way to gay marriage.
Alan, my progression of opinion went like so:
1. ignorant of the issue and pretty much saying “let them do whatever they want – what’s the harm?” I had this take as an undergrad fresh off my mission and prior to Prop 8.
2. Right before Prop 8, I proposed civil unions as a compromise position that both the Church and gays could live with – basically making sure to give gay couples all the protection and treatment they fairly need in society as a matter of fairness. You can read a blog post I did at Nine Moons right before the Prop 8 vote here:
http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=813
I was still ambivalent about gay marriage, but it really wasn’t something I was much concerned about. Back then I was just proposing it as a compromise.
3. I got more and more enthusiastic about the idea of civil unions as a way to protect gays’ place in society and ensure fairness. At this point the Prop 8 vote hit and then the backlash started in. I was completely appalled at the rather vicious and undemocratic behavior (a lot of which seemed to be fueled more by opportunism and good old fashioned anti-Mormonism rather than really giving a toss about the gays one way or the other). For the first time EVER in my life I saw small time private citizens targeted for harassment and public abuse for donating to a political campaign. It was an unprecedented piece of douchebaggery that seemed to pretty much go applauded on all sides. More and more, I was souring on the pro-gay marriage movement.
Keep in mind, at this point I was equally mad at the LDS Church for how poorly they handled the Prop 8 thing. I didn’t agree with their strategy of protecting the family, I felt they had unfairly put all the burden on the members, while providing them with almost zero support. It seemed almost criminally irresponsible to me.
But at the same time, I was seeing some pretty unhinged speech against Mormons. Not just LDS Inc., but private Mormons. I was treated to blog posts with people bragging about how they were going to gang-rape the next Mormon missionaries who showed up on their doorstep (to almost universal cheering from the comments sections). The rhetoric was just so utterly one-sided. No attempt whatever to understand the other side. Gradually, after trying to debate as a moderate on the issue and repeatedly getting the sort of hateful responses I’d expect on a neo-nazi forum, I started to sour on the pro-gay marriage movement.
Maybe if I’d dealt with more people like you Alan, things would have been different.
Unfortunately, the people I encountered on the pro side tended to be not so civil. I couldn’t believe how polarized and unbending the online world had gotten (and I’m under no illusions that the anti gay marriage side is not just as bad).
The more I debated the issue, the less and less compelling the arguments became.
At this point, I’m still pro-civil unions. But I’m completely over the idea of gay marriage ever being a good idea or warranted as a solution to the problem we face with homosexuality.
@6
“Homosexual sex and marriage like heterosexual sex and marriage is simply something you DO voluntarily.” – so is Mormonism. Imagine a situation where Mormons could be arbitrary fired, denied housing, asked to leave businesses, refused service, etc.
@19
Fine, the government ought to, if it is to be involved in a private contract at all, perform the civil unions (which must be open to the public) and churches can do their voodoo and call it marriage, the everlasting covenant, spirtual wifery, etc. However no church (or government) ought to be able to prevent another church from performing a wedding and the participants from calling themselves married, agreed?
Daylan, none of those issues – being fired, evicted, refused service, etc. have anything to do with the issue of gay marriage.
I’m in favor of all sorts of anti-discrimination laws.
Just not gay marriage. Because I don’t consider denial of gay marriage to be discrimination in the first place. Unlike firing a gay person – which I emphatically DO consider to be reprehensible discrimination.
Also, if you follow the link I provided to the article I wrote in the summer before the Prop 8 vote, I proposed exactly that.
To get government OUT of the marriage license business altogether and have civil unions for everyone.
I still think this may be the best practical solution to the problem available.
However, lately I have come to feel that it is right and proper for the government to favor marriage between male and female – because the relation between genders is something that society needs to treat specially.
However, as a practical matter, I’m still willing to consider settling for a comprehensive civil union code for everyone.
Seth@24- There we go. Make civil union available to everyone. Remove the legal and government sanctioned status of marriage and make it strictly a religious ceremony/status. That way, everyone is on equal footing legally. If gay people want to still get married, then they just need to find and attend a church that sanctions such marriages and get married, if not they still have the same legal rights as any other civil union, and marriage is merely symbolic anyway. I actually like that idea.
Chris, I repeat – I’m willing to live with that.
But my experience has been that the pro-gay marriage movement is not in the mood to compromise about much of anything at the moment.
Their current stance seems to be:
We want “marriage,” not civil unions, we are GOING to redefine this social concept, and there is nothing you can do to stop us, history is on our side, so suck it up losers.
I don’t think they’re showing much sign of compromising on this.
Seth, if there were enough heterosexual Christians interested in taking “marriage” out of the civil code and that was the direction this conversation was going nationally, then personally, I’d be okay with marriage being a non-civil code concept. But as it stands, the main argument I’ve been hearing from those opposed to gay marriage is that “marriage is between a man and a woman [ultimately because God says so], and the government should keep that true for everyone.” But it’s simply not the case with 6 states that allow same-sex couples to wed. So, the “civil union” argument has come and gone (at least from where I’m standing on the West coast). At this point, I don’t think it’s a lack of compromise so much as the terms of the debate.
Unfortunately Alan, I have to agree with you that the other side (the “Christian Right”) is just as uncooperative and intransigent.
But it’s not uniformly negative – after all James Dobson from Focus on the Family was willing to advocate for the civil union option here in Colorado a few years ago. Sure, he did it opportunistically as a way to keep gays out of marriage by offering CU as an appeasement. But still, it indicates there might still be a way to sell it.
“I gave him a very brief history of what it was like, what I remember watching on the news growing up in the 60s. What I didnt go into was the way segregation was viewed by society at large, particularly in the South, which is also the bastion of Chick-fil-A.”
I wonder why you refrained from a more complete view of how the African-American community was treated by society at large but especially in the South, home of the bisquit bigots chic-fil-a family, particularly, since efforts at disenfranchisement of minority is once again a growing problem?
I think the comparison with Chick-fil-A supporters and images of angry whites watching the end of school segregation is utterly ridiculous.
A CfA exec said she supports traditional marriage.
Out of this, the pro-gay media completely wets themselves and tries to paint it as a case of blantant bigotry. Two mayors of major cities make outrageous statements about how they are going to unconstitutionally discriminate against the business in zoning and Time magazine blatantly fanboys all over the mayors – while news reporters who are supposed to be acting like unbiased professionals start tweeting like they’re standard fare idiots in the Huffington Post’s comments section.
In BACKLASH against a blatant case of government discrimination and media demonization and bias, people line up to buy chicken sandwiches.
No – it ain’t even remotely similar to the aftermath of Brown vs. Board of Education.
Drawing the comparison at all is an insult the first black kids entering those segregated schools.
Oddly enough, so are voting, riding in the front of the bus, eating in restaurants, drinking at water fountains, going to school, being within the city limits after sunset, buying or renting a home, applying for a job, and every other aspect of daily life that was regulated by Jim Crow. Not one of those laws made it illegal to be black; they made it illegal to be black and do certain other (“voluntary”) things.
Yeah, and oddly enough Kuri, having homosexual sex is allowed in the USA and not illegal or prohibited.
Imagine that.
My point is that (non-violent, legal or quasi-legal) discrimination against people very rarely acts in terms of what those people are. Instead, it acts in terms of what they are combined with what they want to do. So saying that same-sex marriage is somehow different from historic discrimination against blacks because it’s “voluntary” is rather a silly argument, frankly. Everything blacks were prevented from doing under Jim Crow was “voluntary” too. The voluntary nature of marriage is obviously not the question.
@30
Well, that little error shows just how closely Seth pays attention to the news he consumes. The name of the person in question was Dan Cathy, not Cathy Dan or some such thing, and he was and is a he.
@32
it’s illegal as of LESS THAN A DECADE AGO. Google Lawrence v. Texas. Before that, as late as 1986, the Supreme Court had ruled that states did have the right to criminalize gay sex. Google Bowers v. Hardwick. And ever anxious to be in sync with the most backwards parts of the planet, the Texas GOP made criminalizing sodomy part of its 2010 platform.
Which makes the comparison to the civil rights movement all the more apt, since the struggle was against the states’ attempts to limit activitiies black people were legally entitled to: to vote, use public transportation, use drinking fountains, etc. “Oh,” the south said, “they can do those things. Just not the same way as whites. The races (or orientations) are separate–separate but equal in all fundamental ways.”
That argument didn’t hold then and it’s not going to hold now.
Though of course you’re not making the argument that gays should be separate but equal. You’re arguing that it’s OK to discriminate against them in the realm of marriage because marriage is this special status thing that society has an obligation to protect.
Of course, that argument was applied to sex–even sex between fully consenting adults–as the Court’s justification for allowing the criminalization of gay sex in 1986.
To people who are living the present, the argument sounds as prurient and silly when applied to marriage as it does applied to sex.
and for a bit more perspective on the whole behavior thing: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150352177136275&set=a.180479986274.135777.177486166274&type=1&theater
Fair point Kuri. But it also renders the common protest among the gay movement of “this is just who I am” beside the point as well.
Who you are isn’t the question. The question is what you want to do and how that should be dealt with.
If what you want to do is something we agree is worthwhile (like visiting your sick partner in the hospital) then we all can agree you should be allowed to do it and not prevented from doing it. If it is something that falls within the ambit of things we consider human rights (like voting) then we all can agree you ought to be able to demand it from government.
Which makes the question of the actions gays are demanding/requesting more complex than in Brown vs. Board of Education.
Just about all the rights the gay movement is demanding here are satisfied by civil union laws (or reforming these laws or instituting them where necessary). The only way marriage even becomes something needed in the case of gay couples is if you can argue that it is the only or even the best way for gays to secure things they ought to be able to demand from government.
Not only that – but you need to argue that government cannot provide incentives or increased convenience for certain things to other classes without equally incentivize-ing gays.
In the case of gay marriage, you have to argue that male-female unions are no more deserving of incentives than male-male unions, or female-female unions.
I would simply state that the inherent biological inequality of men and women is one of the most crucial and volatile imbalances in our society. And it is crucial that this relationship be regulated and properly taken care of. As such, the government has more of an inherent interest in the regulation and management of male-female unions than it does in the regulation and management of same sex unions. Same sex unions simply don’t have the same things at stake and the same imbalances – and they never will.
This translates into a coherent argument for keeping heterosexual marriage and leaving homosexual unions at the civil union status. They simply don’t have enough compelling claim on the government to demand the same support. Especially not when all the rights gays ought to have can be obtained via civil unions. It’s not analogous to ending segregation because the actual differences between a white man and a black man (or between women) were artificial and largely made-up.
The differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality are not contrived, and they are not made up.
That said, I repeat, I’m willing to compromise by removing government from the marriage license business. I consider the trade off of losing government encouragement of what I see as something rather important in exchange for the benefit of putting the equality argument to bed for good, as worth it in this case. More importantly, taking government out of the marriage license business may be the only way to preserve the right of religions to promote the sort of society their social consciences demand.
This argument might hold up if marriage law had traditionally been used to protect women and promote their rights. Whereas instead, for most of human history, marriage law has been used to strip women of their rights, properties, identities, and even their legal existence, as in coverture. Marriage was, in fact, one of the primary ways to oppress women.
This makes Seth’s opposition to divorce all the more interesting. Here he asserts that heterosexual marriage is fundamentally unequal, and if he’s honest, he’ll admit that women typically get the short end of the stick. But he also asserts that straight marriage should still be encouraged (even though “inequality” is built into it, apparently) and that ending straight marriages should be discouraged. http://mainstreetplaza.com/2012/06/27/put-on-your-own-oxygen-mask-first/
Interesting also that he thinks sex is something too potent to engage in unless you’re safely and monogamously married–provided you’re straight. But if you’re gay, marriage is something too important for society to let you do it–so you have to settle for cohabitating, which he says only “selfish” “jerks” engage in.
So at the root, Seth feels entitled to deny people in gay relationships the right to be anything but selfish jerks.
Nice.
Holly, this objection is largely irrelevant.
Marriage laws even in medieval Europe were considered to be offering protection to both women and men by those who drafted them.
You and I may agree that they were deeply flawed in how they did it – but that doesn’t remove the fact that protection is what they were attempting. You’re also ignoring that marriage historically has also oppressed men as well as women. Not in the same way – or to the same degree, but it still did.
@38 is complete and utter nonsense. Of course it matters if attempts to protect someone one were both completely flawed in conception and inadequate or detrimental in execution.
You could argue that the constitution’s framing of black people as 3/5 of a white person were attempts to assert their basic personhood and not make them a completely separate species. Doesn’t change the fact that it was fundamentally degrading and a stain on our history.
The same goes for marriage law.
Oh, do tell.
If marriage was so oppressive, then we probably would be better off to get rid of it and just have people cohabitate, wouldn’t we?
My son cleaned his room incorrectly last night.
So I guess we should abolish cleaning rooms in my house. Obviously, it’s a flawed institution, and if done wrong once, that automatically means it cannot be improved and will always be wrong.
Of course, the point is – if marriage is flawed improve it. If it’s not adequately taking care of the imbalance between the sexes, then reform it.
The correct response is not to say “oh it was horrible in the past – which means it always will be horrible.”
Which brings up an interesting question Holly.
If marriage is always a flawed tool of oppression, why are you so keen to put gays in it? Do you have a grudge against them or something?
@29 In response to this comment, I would simply suggest that you go back and re-read the piece, particularly the third and fourth paragraphs.
@ 30 – You have used the word debate several times during the course of this discussion, but I see little evidence of any debate. But, in point of fact, the purpose of my piece was not to launch a debate on same-sex marriage. In fact, marriage wasnt even mentioned in my piece. It was only after you brought it up that I responded.
Let me review. The main point of my piece was to say that there are certain similarities between the civil rights movement of the 50s-60s and the way members of the LGBT community are treated today by certain segments of the population IN THAT in both cases, the majority was incensed that the minority would DARE assert its rights and view itself in a positive, affirmative way contrary to the views of the majority. THIS was the point of my post. And, as I have mentioned several times already, you have abundantly proved my point.
You immediately latched on to the subject of same-sex marriage, when it wasnt mentioned in my piece. You have made it abundantly clear that you are opposed to same-sex marriage, but you to use your words are offering homosexuals all the same rights heterosexuals have. Its called Civil Unions.
Aside from the substantive issues I take with this statement [which are many], how dare you presume to offer other citizens of the United States what you deign to offer them. This is precisely the attitude of majority to which I have been referring. The majority decides what the minority is entitled to, and they [the minority] should be grateful for your benevolence. The crux of the black civil rights movement was African-Americans standing up and saying, No, thank you, I am not dependent on you white folks for my rights.
You also seem to have a fixation with homosexual sex, in that you have mentioned it several times in your comments. Anti-discrimination laws, in the relatively few states where they exist, focus on discrimination based on sexual orientation, not with whom and how certain individuals have sex.
This fixation on sex is another way in which the majority seeks to control the debate by de-humanizing homosexuals. Your own words: homosexual sex is allowed in the USA and not illegal or prohibited [emphasis added]. This is apparently yet another way in which homosexuals should be beholden to the majority, in that, lordy be, they dont have to worry about being arrested and put in jail for expressing themselves sexually with a consenting partner.
You have also mentioned Brown v. Board of Education a couple of times since I first brought it up. You completely ignored the context in which I mentioned it, which was that in the civil rights movement of 50-60 years ago, the courts were in the vanguard of doing away with discrimination. Period. True statement. Today, the courts are also in the vanguard of doing away with discrimination in our legal systems against members of the LGBT community. True statement.
And why is this so? Because our Founders and the philosophers who inspired them – realized that there was such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. As Holly would say, Google it.
Which brings me to the points you raise in #36. You are entitled to your opinions and views, obviously. But growing segments of American society, as well as a growing number of Federal courts, are beginning to see these points as specious arguments. Im going to leave it to Holly or someone else to speak to your whole male-female regulation argument (which I see she has done while Ive been writing this).
Ill simply say that it is apparent that you have no grasp of what marriage means to gay people, on any level, be it emotionally, spiritually, legally or any other basis. You presume. You decide what they should and shouldnt have. Which again is precisely the point of my piece.
Finally, I have to address your assertion about Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-fil-A. Obviously, Cathy is entitled to be just as big a bigot as hed like to be. He has proven that with the contributions he has made to anti-gay groups. See, e.g., here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy.
But the hypocrisy in certain quarters of the traditional marriage movement is stunning. Sure, NOW and Million Moms and who knows how many other organizations can call for boycotts of Starbucks and threaten to fight them in foreign countries. They can call for a boycott of JC Penny because OMG they hired a spokesperson for their company who happens to be a lesbian. They can call for a boycott of Amazon and Microsoft because those companies founders have contributed to the effort for marriage equality in Washington. They can call for a boycott of General Mills because they dont think that company is bigoted and discriminating enough.
But, the minute that the gays object loudly to Cathys statements and a number of allies agree, the Christian ultra-right-wing yells What about freedom of speech? What about freedom of religion? As I say, the hypocrisy is stunning, but not surprising.
Which gets back to the fundamental point of my piece, which is that the majority becomes incensed when the minority doesnt view themselves as the majority does, and heaven help them if the minority actually tries to assert its rights.
@40: It’s good to know that you think that a small child cleaning his room is an apt comparison for attempts by those in power to craft law to “protect” large segments of society. It helps people understand how to read your comments, and also how to assess what type of legal advice you offer in your professional capacity.
One way to reform it is to let gay couples marry. We straight people might learn something about equality and fairness by seeing how they conduct marriages.
Did I argue that marriage is always a flawed tool of oppression, Seth? Did I? Or did I suggest that it had historically been used by men to oppress women?
Yeah, the latter–that’s what I did.
And that problem goes away if men marry men and women marry women. Doesn’t it, now?
You were the one who said marriage historically also oppressed men. I think you have no real support for that assertion. We’ll see if you manage to provide any.
“Just about.” Your own words seem to be rebutting your argument.
I’m sorry, but WTF are you talking about? “Biological inequality”? Like what, men on average are bigger and stronger than women, therefore no gay marriage? Huh?
You have that exactly backwards both legally and (imo) morally. Non-discrimination (i.e., equal rights) is the default position. It is a compelling claim in itself. You need a compelling reasonto discriminate, not to not discriminate. And so far, no one seems to have come up with one, in or out of the courts.
I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean, but I honestly don’t see any significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships and marriages other than the risk of unintended pregnancies.
Kuri, the physical strength inequality wasn’t the main thing I had in mind. There are also emotional differences and differences in perspective that are just as important as that. However, the big one is the biology of child-rearing. Women get stuck with the baby, and the men have no inherent biological reason to stick around (well, a bit – but it’s pretty weak).
You see this abundantly today with the sexual revolution and the “freedom” it supposedly offers. Largely the freedom it offered was one-sided in the favor of the guys – who decided they had even less reason to stick around and care for the kids than they historically had when restrictive marriage traditions were in place.
That is a continuing societal imbalance that deserves additional care from our society that gays don’t really need.
And Kuri, non-discrimination is only the government default in cases on Constitutional rights.
In all other instances – discrimination is actually the default position.
Does a government contractor who submits a higher bid on a highway project have an equal right to get the project than a contractor who submits a lower bid?
Does a non-student have an equal right to claim the education exemptions on his tax returns as a student does?
Likewise, same sex couples don’t have the right to all the same government concern that different sex couples do. The only way they would is if marriage was a constitutionally established right.
Which it isn’t. Nor should it be.
Incidentally Invictus, if you think I’m threadjacking, I’ll stop if you want. It’s your thread and your rules as far as I’m concerned.
That’s pretty weak sauce. There’s no reason to think that letting gays marry will erode child-support laws.
It doesn’t just erode child support laws.
Child support laws only come into play when the paradigm is broken in the first place.
And as someone who actually deals with women entitled to child support, I can tell you that non-payment of child support is common as dirt. It’s a horrible ad hoc replacement for true child care and family structure. It doesn’t work, more often than not, and the system is already extremely overburdened with enforcement demands.
In any case, child support laws are only the symptom anyway. I’m talking about undermining the fundamental premise of the social contract between genders in society. There’s no way anyone here can predict just how far the shockwaves from that will go.
Equal treatment under the law is constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. And the instances you cite are cases of “rational discrimination,” which is allowable under the Constitution. And you ignored the moral dimension of discrimination.