My friend Zhubin wrote an interesting post Monday. I suggest you read it. Especially since this post is largely a response.) It's all about the recent incident at NYU where a homosexual student asked Justice Scalia if he sodomized his wife. I'm not going to touch that issue here, though it makes for an interesting conversation. Generally, though, I think such a question is in horrible taste and shows a complete lack of respect for a man who deserves a great deal. Setting that aside now...
Zhubin suggests that the student's strategy is a bad idea, that it isn't working, and that the movement needs to stop being so concerned with confrontation. I'd agree with Zhubin, but I think he gives way too much credit to the progressives fighting for gay rights, homosexual marriage, etc.
See, I'm not convinced that there really is a movement to speak of (to Zhubin's credit, he never expressly identifies such a movement, though he does use general terms such as "left" and "progressives" to classify a large group of people into a common thread). Zhubin does an excellent job comparing and contrasting what this student is attempting with the civil rights movement. But I want to suggest that the reason there's such a contrast is because the homosexual movement isn't really about civil rights.
::Gasp!::
Ok, yes, people, go ahead an act with utter horror and what-have-you. But I've yet to see where any fundamental rights - on par with the rights garnered by the civil rights movement - come into play with the homosexual movement (I realize that isn't the best phrase, but for sake of economy and clarity, it's what I've settled on - if anyone can find something better, let me know and I'll be happy to use it).
Yes, there are some noble goals to the homosexual movement, such as the opportunity for equality in the workplace. But there's nothing that rises to the level of access to basic public spaces/services (such as schools). And, most essentially, no one has ever been denied the right to vote - the basic participation in our democratic society - because of their sexual orientation. The civil rights movement fought for fundamental civil rights. The homosexual movement simply doesn't rise to that level.
Moreover, much of what is behind the homosexual movement is contestable - whether or not homosexuals should have the right to marry is a debatable question - both sides put forth reasonable arguments. Whether or not African-Americans should be allowed to get higher education... well, there's simply nothing of value to be said in opposition. I just don't see an accurate parallel to the civil rights movement.
But also, I'd like to look at the idea of "strategy". Zhubin suggested that this student, and those like him, had not chosen a wise strategy. Looking at the landscape of the discussion, however, I don't see any strategy. "Progressives" (though there are certainly progressives who don't favor same sex marriage, etc.) can't agree on a cohesive position, much less a course of action for achieving that position. And I think part of the reason for this is exactly the point I made above - reasonable people can disagree over what, in this context, is a legitimate claim.
I think the lack of a strategy contrasts very directly with the civil rights movement, which seemed to have very cohesive strategies. Yes, people fought over which strategy to adopt, but there were definite camps (MLK vs. Malcom X for example) (my history may be off here, but this seems a reasonable gloss to put on it). The civil rights movement enabled strategies because people knew what they were trying to achieve. The homosexual movement doesn't enable strategies because there isn't a cohesive vision.
Finally, I really get irked when people draw comparisons between the homosexual movement and the civil rights movement, especially when they invoke the name of Dr. King. Interestingly, when the student compared himself to Dr. King, Zhubin took offense to this too. Zhubin is the first "progressive" I've encountered who has balked at the parallel. It was good to see, and I think it indicates a level of awareness. Zhubin's distaste was for stylistic differences, which he was right to see. But I think that there are also differences of substance, and this is why most people are not comfortable with such a comparison.
There simply is something different between the homosexual movement and the civil liberties movement. I'm just not convinced that the homosexual movement is really about civil rights. Or that there's really a "movement" at all. Zhubin closes his post with the line to the effect of "maybe it's time for progressives to sit down and think of a new strategy." I'd like to suggest that maybe it's time for progressives to sit down and reevaluate the issues.
All dressed up in drag inside a Gucci body bag
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Chumbawamba! Jesus in Vegas! I finally got one!
Not to detract from the serious nature of the post...sorry...
Define civil rights. What makes a civil right a civil right?
What is marriage considered?
A privilage?
Josh - I guess when I write "civil right" I mean to reference basic liberties, fundamental rights.
Marriage I don't see as a right - particularly in the legal sense (there's a right to religious practice, which can entail religious marriage, but that's a seperate issue). I've written about this before, how there are privileges that attach to marriage, and that there's probably a legitimate claim to those priveleges for same-sex couples. But even still, do those really qualify as the same sorts of things that the civil rights movement was about? I'm not convinced.
Chris - Um, good job on the artist. Not so good on the song title. The Title is "Coming Out". But "Jesus in Vegas" is a song on the same album, so you're getting much closer at least.
It's easy for you to say it's not a civil right when you can get married. What if they passed a law that said no Catholics could get married and thus barring you and Laura from getting married? I know it isn't quite the same, but still you get my point. I sympathise with them. I don't necessarily agree with their tactic. But who am I to judge. I certainly am not in their position. And because of that find it hard to not grant them similar benefits.
Hey, I'm not too far from your position. I agree that we should grant them the same benefits. But I think that's all anyone is entitled to ask for.
Well, my position is more nuanced than that, but you can check out what I've written before. http://mbnovak.blogspot.com/2004/11/some-thoughts-on-homosexual-marriage.html#comments
and http://mbnovak.blogspot.com/2005/03/same-sex-marriage-and-methodology.html#comments
Anyways, I wanted to say that there might be legitimate reasons to draw a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples (and therefore a reason to give marriage to one group and not the other), but there's no reason to make a similar distinction between Catholics and Protestants, etc.
But also, the fact that I can get married has nothing to do with the idea that it's not a civil right. I mean, I can't get a senior citizen's discount, but I wouldn't call that a civil right. And I think in some ways, that's a more accurate parallel for the whole movement - it's about social privileges, not fundamental liberties.
The point of my analogy wasn't whether or not marriage is a civil right. Basically that marriage accourding to you is a privilage and one that is granted to one group(heterosexuals) and not to another(homosexuals). Which to me sounds a lot like discrimination, otherwise what would you call it? In any case discrimination is against the constitution. Basically thats how I see it. But then as the saying goes, "The devil is in the details." Which of course is the whole problem.
As an aside your analogy doesn't work for me. You can get a senior citizens discount when you are of age, which consequently is allowed to everyone that meets this requirement (regardless of age, sex, religion, sexual prefference, etc.). However, there is no age requirement on marriage just a sexual preference that by all acounts has no merit.
Matt you keep saying that there may be legitimate reasons for not allowing homosexual marriage but have yet to communicate such reasons. I'm interested in hearing them. As I do not see any legitimate reasons. Consequently I'm confused as to where you sit on the situation. I get mixed signals suggesting that you're more on the fence then anything. Which is fine now, but don't get into politic as it doesn't fly.
More than anything, I haven't gotten into the reasons for prohibiting same-sex marriage because I've just been too busy. That's a huge post (on the lines of the abortion one I'd guess), and so I'll get to it eventually. But, that being said, you miss the mark horribly when you say that the sexual preference requirement of marriage "by all accounts has no merit." Oh, there are strong arguments to be made. And, if there are reasons to draw the line at sexual preference, then it precisely like the senior citizen example - on one side of the line you get benefits, (and with good reason), on the other side you don't.
Also, discrimination, per se, isn't prohibited by the Constitution. And, frankly, it isn't wrong. There are two types of discrimination - just and unjust. Just discrimination bases things on meaningful differences which warrant different treatment. We don't let people under 18 vote - that's discrimination, but it makes sense. Unjust discrimination is different treatment based on a trivial or non-existance differences, like the color of a person's skin. That kind of discrimination is wrong, the just kind makes perfect sense.
Finally, with regard to marriage, it seems to me that homosexual preferences are meaningful differences which give rise to legitimate discrimination. But only in the context of marriage - I don't think it warrants denying them insurance benefits or job advancement, etc. That's the trick of this situation - only some discrimination is justified on the basis of this difference, and much is not justified by it.
The problem is that you don't see sexual preference as a trivial or non-existant difference. Sexual preference is no different then the color of ones skin. It is NOT a legitimate excuse to discriminate. One could liken it to the choice of religion. It is wrong to discriminate someone because they are jewish, yet it is not wrong to discriminate someone because they are homosexual? I'm not buying it and probably never will.
I'll leave you with this in regards to your talk of marriage not being allowed for homosexuals but allowing certain privileges such as insurance benefits, job advancement etc. "A horse called by anything else is still a horse."
Josh - I'd argue that the problem is that you don't see how homosexuality is a meaningful difference (at least with regard to marriage). I'm not proposing open discrimination against homosexuals - far from it. I'm advocating that we taylor our discrimination as narrowly as possible - to only that area where there is a meaninful difference - in the institution of marriage.
This is nothing like discriminating against someone for religious reasons or color - this is like not allowing someone to vote because they are underage. There are reasons behind the discrimination (which is limited). I'll get to those reasons in another post eventually - probably this summer - but I'm sure if you thought about it you could come up with some obvious differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples. There are real, meaningful differences, and from those spring appropriate discrimination. You seem to reject discrimination simply on it's face. But if that's the case, then you need to be opposed to the voting age and senior citizen benefits too. I doubt you've got a problem with those. If you want to just say you don't see meaningful differences, then say it. But please don't tell me that I'm wrong for seeing them before we've even gotten around to discussing them.
I'm sure you can think of some real meaningful reason for you, but I can't. I just would really like to hear them. I've never heard a good arguement that has held merit. I guess we will just leave it at that till you post your reasons.
I'm going to have to agree with Josh here. What, exactly, are the "meaningful differences" between a homosexual and a heterosexual couple? What is it about being gay that should compel the state to deny equal benefits to same-sex couples? Because that's what the marriage argument boils down to: gay people want the same access to marriage and its legal benefits as straight people currently enjoy. I'd be interested in hearing just a summation of your thoughts that make that discrimination just.
And I agree with you that the gay rights movement doesn't carry the same sense of moral righteousness as the Civil Rights movement. Asking Justice Scalia if his wife likes butt sex isn't on par with "I Have a Dream." But you're wrong in saying that the gay rights movement isn't at all about civil rights. What is marriage, exactly, if not a civil right? What is nondiscrimination in the workplace, if not a civil right? What is equal protection under the law, if not a civil right? I agree that they're not as important as the fundamental disfranchisement of an entire ethnic group, but I do think they are important rights that you as a heterosexual automatically enjoy, and that I as a homosexual do not.
But you note that you're not in favor of employment discrimination or insurance benefits discrimination. So what is it about marriage that sets it apart in our civil society from these other rights?
Joel -
You've obviously read my old posts on the topic, so you know that I don't feel we should deny legal benefits to same-sex couples. I only feel we should deny an institutionalized form of marriage. And marriage, I think, is not a civil right - it is a particularized recognization, a governmental affirmation of a certain fundamental status (the status of being wed). In this way, it is much like the senior citizen example, where the government is engaged in a particularized recognition and affirmation of a certain fundamental status (that the individual has reached a certain age). Surely it isn't a fundamental right that once we reach a certain age we are given this status. Marriage is the same way - we can draw the line wherever we decide fit, because there is no universal fundamental claim to governmental recognition of marriage. Equal protection, workplace discrimination - those, on the other hand, everyone has a fundamental claim to. Always, in every society. We can't concieve of a just society where workplace discrimination isn't illegal. But we can conceive of a just society where the government doesn't recognize marriages. It doesn't rise to that fundamental level.
Finally, with the whole "meaninful differences" issue, I'm going to have to take a pass here. Sorry. Things are pretty crazy for me right now, but the post will appear here sometime this summer. Keep an eye out for it. And besides, I'm sure if you think real hard, you can come up with some obvious differences between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple. And those obvious differences are a great starting place for exploring meaningful differences.
Marriage may not perhaps be a "civil right," but I disagree that it is similar to the "senior citizen" example. There's a legitimate reason to give seniors a discount: many of them are living on a fixed income. But I fail to find a legitimate reason not to extend government recognition of marriage to same-sex couples. Yes, there are obvious differences between the same-sex and different-sex couples, but I don't think you can equate them to "meaningful differences." I simply fail to see an important distinction between the two.
Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm not just equating obvious and meaningful differences. They just happen to be co-extensive in this context. And if you think real hard about the purposes and origins of marriage, I think you'd find at least some meaning to the obvious differences. Keep an eye out for the post where I lay it all out though.
Wow Matt, the logical holes in your argument(s) are big enough to drive a truck through. Let's start with:
"We can't concieve of a just society where workplace discrimination isn't illegal. But we can conceive of a just society where the government doesn't recognize marriages. It doesn't rise to that fundamental level."
Hmmmm...a society where workplace discriminatoni isn't illegal...how about...I've got it - our society! We don't allow 5 year olds to work, nor do we allow people with no arms to have jobs that require one to have arms.
You find distinctions and absolutes when they fit your argument, and ignore them when they don't.
You want to give gay people all of the civil rights associated with marriage, but you can't bring yourself to call it "marriage." How about if we call it arriagemay? Would that make you feel better?
Actually, good observation anonymous. Workplace discrimination, where it is well-founded, is legal in our country. I guess I was just trying to seperate out fundamental rights from non-fundamental rights. I picked a bad example. I guess maybe it's just the 1st Amendment rights that rise to that level - speech, religion, etc.
I don't think your criticism about distinctions and absolutes is in any way fair however. I'm not ignoring any distinctions, I was just chose a bad example.
And, finally, you're wrong in a sense about your last point. I want to give all the same civil privileges to same-sex couples, except that I don't want an institutionalized form of same-sex marriage to be recognized. It's not just the name - it's the concept.
Post a Comment