Recently in Homosexuality Category

Andrew Sullivan suggests that gays should go hard-negative on their opponents in marriage campaigns. He cites this passage from a Rex Wockner post as creditable:

We are fools to have spent all this money and time and not have defined the opponents. It's not enough to answer their charges. We need to hit them back and not let up on it until voters don't buy their lies anymore. Malpractice in my opinion.

Sullivan adds:

A campaign that in future took on the Catholic hierarchy for its tolerance of child abuse while denying grown people marriage rights would be a promising start. Ads reminding people of the Mormon church's long, long history of racism would also be salient. We're new to this, and we're learning.

Dropping the "Bigot" Bunker-Buster doesn't seem like a promising strategy to me in a country in which 49 percent of the people think homosexuality is immoral, and in which a Mr. Nice Gay approach is slowly but steadily winning. But we'll see. If that's the way they go, the anti-SSM groups ought to make ads out of this footage of the way an enraged mob of No More Mr. Nice Gays chased peaceful Christians out of the Castro district; the Christians had to be accompanied by police officers for their own safety:

Ah, now we're getting somewhere interesting. Jamelle says that Ta-Nehisi Coates is right and I am wrong about whether or not Americans are "bigots" about homosexuals because a majority don't support same-sex marriage. (Read Ta-Nehisi's remarks here). What's interesting, and illuminating on both sides, is the definition of "bigot" that each of us is working with. Jamelle points to Pew survey data showing that 49 percent of Americans think homosexuality is immoral, only 9 percent view it as "morally acceptable," and everybody else is in the mushy middle. That, according to Jamelle, confirms Ta-Nehisi's view that most Americans are "deeply prejudiced" against gays, and that drives their political views on gay marriage.

I'm not sure that Ta-Nehisi and I disagree, actually, on the basic data. That is, I would have agreed with him from the get-go that a large percentage of Americans, probably a majority, disapprove morally of homosexuality. What I dispute is whether that counts as "bigotry" as we generally use the term in our political debate.

I don't count moral disapproval as "bigotry" on its face, because the word "bigotry" connotes malicious, unthinking prejudice. Is it really the case that someone who morally disapproves of a particular behavior is therefore a "bigot"? Are people who are vegans therefore anti-meat bigots? Do we really want to think of pacifists -- that is, people who object on moral grounds to war -- as anti-military bigots? Are those who oppose the death penalty on moral grounds in some sense bigoted against murder victims?

I'm allergic to deploying the word "bigot" against those who disagree with me because I think it's usually both untrue and unfair, and is almost always used in popular discourse to shame one's opponent into silence, or, more frequently, to avoid having to grapple with moral arguments one would rather not confront. In any case, being quick to resort to the "bigot" concept makes discussion and debate in a pluralistic society difficult, because it delegitimizes one's opponent's views from the get-go. You cannot argue with a bigot. Here's an e-mail I received today:

You point out how proponents of same-sex marriage are quick to label their opponents bigots. It is not that we do not have counter-arguments; we do. But what this comes down to is simply right vs. wrong. There is no argument against same-sex marriage that is just, ethical or worthy. You can tart up your language with false piety, traditional moralism and what passes in some circles for intellectual argument. But always, your starting point and your end point are rooted in bigotry and hatred. You are a bigot. All those who oppose same-sex marriages are bigots. I cannot state it more clearly than that. There is no point in argument or debate, because there are not two sides with merit. There is right, and there is wrong. You are wrong.

So you see, according to my correspondent, there's nothing to discuss, because anything my side would say that disagrees with him comes from pure, irrational hatred. It's all about power. Is this really the kind of society we want? If I told this guy that there is no argument for same-sex marriage that is just, ethical or worthy, and that his starting point and his end point are rooted in bigotry and hatred for God, traditional morality, heterosexuality, or whatever, I would not only be wrong, I would be embarrassed to make such a pitiful and cowardly statement.

What it comes down to, I think, is the concept of a rational prejudice. I think that some, and perhaps many, supporters of same-sex marriage are anti-Christian bigots, in that they have a fierce and unthinking hatred for all Christians, but I think by no means do they constitute all SSM supporters. I don't believe everyone who finds my religious and political convictions objectionable are therefore bigots. I think it's entirely possible to find certain beliefs and behaviors immoral without being bigoted in the matter, or bigoted toward the people who hold those views. Because see, if I started from the same first premises that motivate someone like my friend N., a pro-SSM secularist, of course I would have deep and sincere moral objections to Christianity, in particular its teachings on human sexuality. N.'s prejudice against Christianity is rational. Now, should he start to treat Christians abusively, or to develop lurid theories and a nasty disposition towards Christians, then I would start thinking about the b-word. But as regrettable and ill-informed as I find his view of Christianity and those who espouse it, I don't think he's remotely a bigot. In fact, he's unfailingly respectful and kind, and a generous fellow whose company I enjoy. I believe most people who want gay marriage see it as a moral good, and are decent folks who happen to misunderstand or to wrongly reject some important truths. I don't think they are bigots, and don't want to think they are bigots, because then I stop listening to them, stop trying to see the world through their eyes, and finally stop caring about what they think or feel or suffer.

There are many people -- seemingly everyone who has a blog or works for the media -- who have decided that homosexuality is either morally neutral or morally good -- and who cannot comprehend why anybody would disagree. Therefore, because these folks do not understand why anyone could object to homosexuality, anyone who doesn't share their view could only be motivated by irrational hatred of the most odious kind. It's a peculiar thing, to impute bigotry to half the people in one's own country, because they happen to hold a negative viewpoint about the moral licitness of the sexual practices of a tiny minority -- a viewpoint that has been thoroughly and overwhelmingly mainstream in Western culture from, say, 1,500 years ago up until the day before yesterday.

Understand that I'm not making the argument here that the traditional, Biblical view of homosexuality is morally wrong; I'm saying that to ascribe all opposition to homosexual behavior to irrational, malicious prejudice is an extremely parochial and ahistorical stance. Given what most people in the West have long believed about homosexuality and the Biblical basis for sexual ethics and morality, it is completely unsurprising that so many people take a dim view of the morality of homosexuality.

What I'm saying is that I believe people can be morally wrong in their prejudices without being bigots, a strong word that I think should be reserved for knotheads and thugs (of which both sides in this debate have more than a few). Ta-Nehisi and I would agree that some degree of animus against homosexuality, either visceral or formal, drives most of the opposition to same-sex marriage. Where we'd part, it seems to me, is how to regard that opposition, both in their views and in their person. If you believe deep down that I am a bigot, that tells me that, like the letter-writer above, you have no respect for my point of view or me at all, and that you will do your very best to run over me the first chance you get. Bigots exist, but I think it's dangerous to look for them behind ever tree, because the temptation to self-righteousness can be overwhelming. If one's opponents can all be written off as bigots, then one relieves oneself the duty to see them as human beings who can be talked to, reasoned with, treated with respect even in defeat, and, finally, loved, despite it all. They become an abstraction, and less than human. Again, is that really the kind of society we want to live in?

UPDATE: Of course, this is impossibly naive.

And I forgot to point out that very many of us simply do not agree that homosexuality is morally neutral, like race is. If you don't believe that it's morally neutral, then arguments for same-sex marriage that depend on comparing gays today to blacks in the pre-civil rights era simply don't work.

UPDATE.2: To clarify, I'm not saying that if somebody is raised in a culture in which a particular prejudice is mainstream, then that person's prejudice is beyond moral judgment. If one's Alabama grandfather believes racial segregation was just and right, it's perfectly legitimate to judge his view as immoral, even though he had been formed by a culture that taught segregation. Indeed, I would describe Granddad's view as bigoted, because I see no basis, neither in reason nor in the Christian religion, to uphold Granddad's segregationist views. On the other hand, unless he was a malicious jerk, knowing Granddad's background would make me reluctant to apply the word "bigot" to him, even if I thought privately that he was exactly that. Why? Because I would have an appreciation for the world that made Granddad's conscience, and how it distorted his moral lens; I would know how much he has to overcome to see things rightly, and would extend him understanding and mercy, even as I judge him to hold immoral views, and would feel morally bound to challenge him on those views if they came up, and I would certainly believe that Granddad's segregationist views should not be enshrined in law.

I know I'm splitting some hairs here, but this is the kind of moral exercise many, many white Southerners born and raised in the post-civil rights era have to do all the time when relating to the older generation. It teaches you how to love and respect folks who believe something you know to be profoundly immoral, by teaching you to discern their own flawed humanity, and perhaps to be careful issuing blanket judgments because you don't want young folks 50 years from now damning you as a malign Other for believing things today that are uncontroversial. This is, I guess, another illustration of what Jamelle meant here:

This exchange between Rod Dreher and Ta-Nehisi Coates on the basis of opposition to same-sex marriage is interesting, if only because it provides another striking example of how ones identity has an incredible impact on how one views the world and other human beings. That is, it's pretty easy to believe that bigotry drives political action against same-sex marriage when you yourself belong to a minority group that was a regular target of disenfranchisement (or worse) for more than a century.

The WaPo interviews gay marriage activist leaders, who say they won't change their strategy going forward, despite the Maine loss. How is it they lost given that they had the media and the political establishment on their side? Well might they ask. Meanwhile, Maggie Gallagher speaks the truth. Excerpt:

Here's the first thing this victory means: The $4 million spent to pass gay marriage in Maine was wasted. Even Americans in liberal states do not believe that two guys pledged to a gay union are a marriage. Politicians can pass a bill saying a chicken is a duck and that doesn't make it true. Truth matters.

Americans have a great deal of goodwill toward gay people as friends, neighbors and fellow citizens. Most of us do not want to hurt them or hate them or interfere with anyone's legitimate rights to live as they choose. But we do not believe gay marriage is a civil right; we think it is a civil wrong. And we do not appreciate the increasingly intense efforts to punish people who disagree with gay marriage as if we were racists, bigots, discriminators or haters.

Case in point: Don Mendell, a school guidance counselor at Nokomis Regional High School in Maine, now faces ethics complaints for his decision to appear in a TV ad for the Yes on One campaign in the closing days of the contest. If substantiated, the ethics complaint could lead the government to yank his license as a social worker and, therefore, threaten his livelihood. What kind of movement spurs people to act like this? Meanwhile, a teacher of the year who campaigned for gay marriage faces no such threat to her livelihood. Is gay marriage really about love and tolerance for all?

The people of Maine are certainly entitled to wonder.

I have said privately to Maggie that I think the pro-marriage forces are going to lose in the long run, because younger Americans have internalized the emotivist logic of our culture, regarding the meaning of marriage (meaning that they accept that marriage is a contract between two consenting parties who agree that it means nothing more than that they love each other; it has no essential meaning beyond that). I still believe that Andrew Sullivan is right about the inevitability of gay marriage, but after the results of Maine and California -- neither of which are culturally conservative states -- I'm beginning to think that perhaps I was too pessimistic.

Pro-SSM folks love to believe that only bigots and "Christianists" oppose them, but when people think of states in which conservative Christians live in significant numbers, Maine isn't among them. I wonder to what extent some variation of the frustration James Howard Kunstler voices in the 2004 post at the bottom of this long string. Keep in mind that Kunstler, the peak-oil apocalypticist, is a man of the secular left who thinks religious conservatives are nuts. But he thinks cultural leftism and its obsessions are a destructive distraction from more serious matters of economic inequality, resource destruction, and suchlike. Maybe it's the case that people who are culturally and religiously moderate are simply deeply suspicious of this kind of radical change, especially when there is so much economic uncertainty, and don't appreciate being slammed as "bigots" over what they regard as simple prudence. This Kunstlerian passage is startling coming from the left -- and I've put it below the jump because it's so long:

Maine voters reject gay marriage -- and the vote wasn't all that close, either. From the NYT:

In a stinging setback for the national gay-rights movement, Maine voters narrowly decided to repeal the state's new law allowing same-sex marriage.

With 87 percent of precincts reporting early this morning, 53 percent of voters had approved the repeal, ending an expensive and emotional fight that was closely watched around the country as a referendum on the national gay-marriage movement. Polls had suggested a much closer race.

With the repeal, Maine became the 31st state to reject same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Five other states - Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont - have legalized same-sex marriage, but only through court rulings and legislative action.

Unless I'm missing something, in the 31 states in which voters had a say on whether or not gay marriage was going to be the law of the land, they all rejected it. Every single state. Even California, the national bellwether state on liberalizing social trends. Even Maine, in the most liberal region of the country.

You can come up with all kinds of theories about why this is, blaming the voters for being bigots, accuse the churches of playing dirty, whatever. The plain fact is, every single time it's been put to a popular vote (as opposed to allowing a tiny number of elites to vote on it), gay marriage has been a loser.

Do I think it always will be? No, I do not, in part because homosexuality is far more accepted by young Americans, and in part because heterosexual America has already conceded the philosophical grounds on which traditional marriage was based (which is why younger Americans are more comfortable with gay marriage). Nor do I believe that the voters are always right. But unless you're prepared to call more than half the country bigots -- and I have no doubt that many, perhaps most, gay marriage supporters are, and let that self-serving explanation suffice -- maybe, just maybe, you ought to ask yourself if there's something else going on here. And that maybe, just maybe, serious attention should be paid, instead of paying attention long enough to insult people who disagree with you as evil people who deserved to be excoriated and harrassed.

UPDATE: Linda Hirshman, no doubt speaking for millions of liberals today, is so sick and tired of what the people think about gay marriage that she doesn't think the people should have a say over the definition of marriage. See? If the pro-SSM left can't convince people of the rightness of their cause, they're perfectly prepared to see their views imposed from on high. Honestly, folks, I understand the case for same-sex marriage, though I don't agree with it, but look, if you're reduced to having to tell the public that they have no right to be consulted about the radical redefinition of a bedrock social and cultural institution, then you have a big, big problem.

Andrew Sullivan has been ripping and snorting about what a do-nothing Obama is on gay rights, and approving quotes this from Glenn Greenwald:

"It's often forgotten or obscured, but the central political fact now is that the Democratic Party controls everything in Washington -- from the branches of government to favors doled out to lobbyists to the policies that Congress and the President enact. Wars that are fought and bills that are or are not passed and policies that are maintained are, by definition, Democratic actions. The dreaded Right can't dictate or stop anything. That's the burden of having massive majorities in all areas -- everything that happens is the result of what the Democratic Party does, and that's why the divisions and conflicts that truly matter are ones with the party itself. The "right v. left" and even "Democrat v. GOP" drama dominates most of our discourse, yet at this point it is a distracting and largely irrelevant food fight. It's the Democrats who have won the last two elections by large margins and wield all the power, and increasingly the defining conflict is between those whose overarching allegiance is to Obama and the Party as ends in themselves, and those who see those things as mere means to more important ends."

It's true, isn't it? I can't say that I'm all that surprised over Democratic foot-dragging on gay rights. The Republicans did the same thing when they held all the power in Washington. Back when they held the Senate and the White House, it was the best chance they'd ever have to pass out of the Senate and to the states an amendment to constitutionally define marriage as one man and one woman. The GOP pretty much ran on this in 2004, but when they had their best, and probably last (given the demographic shift in the pipeline) chance to protect traditional marriage in the Constitution, they balked. The president, an Evangelical Christian and social conservative, only gave it half-hearted support, and the Federal Marriage Amendment died in the Senate. The Republican Senate.

And now Democrats who care about this issue are discovering what their Republican counterparts on the other side found out: that deep down, neither party establishment wants to deal with this thing. It involves forcing them to make choices they'd rather not make. But the truth is, Washington is probably closer to where the American people are, all things considered, than convinced partisans on either side. I believe a majority of all voting-age Americans don't believe in same-sex marriage. But I believe the momentum is in the opposite direction, and I believe there's a meaningful difference between those who oppose same-sex marriage, and those who want the government to do something about it.

UPDATE: If you're going to leave a comment that amounts to some version of the by now classic "Somebody explain to me how my marriage to my same-sex partner threatens heterosexual marriage," just don't. We've been over this a million times before on this blog. The topic here is not gay marriage, but political support for gay marriage in Washington, and among Democrats. Anybody who wants to repeat the legitimacy of gay marriage argument will find their postsunpublished on grounds that you're boring me to death.