Are you gay? Have you driven a Ford lately?
So the American Family Association, which claims a membership of 2.2 million, has set its God-fearing sights on Ford for -- according to its website -- "redefining family to include homosexual marriage," "giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to support homosexual groups and their agenda," and "sponsoring Gay Pride Parades". "Ford leads the way," it claims. To Gomorrah, apparently. Thankfully, Ford isn't backing down. Yet. We'll have to wait and see. Previously, the AFA (beware of any organization with the word "family" in its name) went after Disney, but it ended that nine-year boycott last week. Maybe Mickey Mouse isn't as gay as he used to be.
This is sheer idiocy, obviously. Anyone who's read The Reaction for any extended period (see the archives, right) knows my views on gay rights, not to mention my loathing for those fanatical right-wing religious organizations that claim to represent the so-called "family" and to defend it against what they contemptuously call "the homosexual agenda". Now, I don't even know what that agenda is. I know enough gays and lesbians to know that there isn't any such thing. But homosexuality is the new communism, the new "Other". It's different, and it's vaguely threatening, yet strangely enticing, so it must be inherently wrong. It's the politics of fear -- fear of the "Other," fear of the "Other" within oneself -- and yet to millions it's still somehow acceptable, because their regressive religion tells them it is, to lash out at sexual "difference" as the great evil of our time, if not of all time. Forget some anonymous "Other". Homosexuals are the new Jews, the new blacks, the new... well, the new whatever persecuted group you want to name. No, they're not being rounded up and slaughtered, that much is true, but many out there want to deny them their basic rights as human beings and citizens. In today's America, that's the form mass persecution has taken. They, and America, deserve better.
This is sheer idiocy, obviously. Anyone who's read The Reaction for any extended period (see the archives, right) knows my views on gay rights, not to mention my loathing for those fanatical right-wing religious organizations that claim to represent the so-called "family" and to defend it against what they contemptuously call "the homosexual agenda". Now, I don't even know what that agenda is. I know enough gays and lesbians to know that there isn't any such thing. But homosexuality is the new communism, the new "Other". It's different, and it's vaguely threatening, yet strangely enticing, so it must be inherently wrong. It's the politics of fear -- fear of the "Other," fear of the "Other" within oneself -- and yet to millions it's still somehow acceptable, because their regressive religion tells them it is, to lash out at sexual "difference" as the great evil of our time, if not of all time. Forget some anonymous "Other". Homosexuals are the new Jews, the new blacks, the new... well, the new whatever persecuted group you want to name. No, they're not being rounded up and slaughtered, that much is true, but many out there want to deny them their basic rights as human beings and citizens. In today's America, that's the form mass persecution has taken. They, and America, deserve better.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
9:46 PM
7 Comments:
Michael,
You are right that it's fear-fear that the society is moving toward accepting homosexuals. With all the talk about gay marriage bans, etc., it's pretty clear that the country is, for the most part, moving toward greater acceptance. Gays are now a growing part of the culture and the religious nuts recognize that they are losing the battle. Personally, I think the movement against gay marriage is as much, if not more, a movement against rapid social change, as it is about homophobia. Most people, I dare say, couldn't care less who someone else sleeps with, but can't come to grips yet with the idea that this is a family relationship. Give it time; when I grew up, most whites would have been appalled at the idea of interracial relationships; now these are common and, while I'm sure there are still people that object, it's not that big a deal anymore.
I think liberals make the mistake of expecting social change to happen without any complications or pushback. That's unrealistic.
Please don't take this to mean I don't find these idiot "pro-family" groups to be appalling, but you have to put them in context. When I was a kid (ancient history I guess), if a boy crossed his legs at the knees, he risked being called a "homo."
By
Anonymous, at 12:10 PM
Schneider, I think you have something on the anti-gay movement being a representation of the reaction against rapid social change. because, quite frankly, as a liberal, NY Jew living in canada, I cannot comprehend the aversion to homosexual marriage at all. although, I realize that even in my own liberal mindset, I still have found places of resistence to the extreme limits of such legislation. I find that I am uncomfortable with the idea of children growing up in a polyamorous household. I am not sure why? social programming? my own chunnel vision. there are other such examples.
As for Ford. Well, Ford is not stupid and I suspect that the company has less an interest in "pathfindering" social legislation than it does in the bottom line -- pink dollars are as green as the ones sent to the 700 club.
although, you never know.
By
Anonymous, at 1:50 PM
Interesting comments. I agree that many social progressive expect immediate social change and that it's inevitable that more conservative forces in society will resist. Look how long it took women to get the right to vote (or even to be treated as something other than property). Look at the civil-rights struggle in the U.S. What's amazing, actually, is how quickly the U.S. is accepting homosexuality -- which likely explains the intense backlash. Indeed, it could very well be that the speed with which homosexuality has entered mainstream culture and been accepted there has somewhat hurt the gay-rights movement. I know this might be a fairly controversial thing to say, and I'm not suggesting that activists back off, but, for example, pushing marriage so quickly, and through the (undemocratic) courts, is not necessarily the best way to win support even from mainstream Americans (who are likely quite comfortable with homosexuality, but not with it so prominently shoved into their lives). In response, activists might say that they're just fighting for their basic rights and that they shouldn't have to wait just because many Americans aren't ready. Fair enough. In the end, that's the position I take, too. But it is still worth noting that we've come a long way in a rather short period of time. So, Marc, you're right (as you often are!). It's easy to get angry at these "family"-based organizations, but they're increasingly on the periphery of American society, at least in terms of gay rights.
The other point is one that is tough for liberals and was well-treated in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? (the Sidney Poitier, Katherine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy film). Liberals like to think of themselves as, well, liberated -- accepting of "difference". But it's tough to be accepting of all "difference". You have to draw the line somewhere and it's only human nature to love one's own (one's own self, but also one's own kind). I have no problem at all with gay rights, including gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I haven't thought about the social upheavals brought about by the breakdown of the traditional family and about new social arrangements once different conceptions of "family" are legalized. No, I'm not blaming anyone -- don't misunderstand me. But there is the question of what society will look like once the family, which is its essential building block, is radically transformed. Those opposed to gay marriage (and gay families) argue that this is good reason to defend the existing conception of marriage (and the family). For those of us who support gay marriage (and gay families), what it means is that we need to think through the implications of such a radical transformation.
Anyway, the point of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? is that liberal white parents are uncomfortable that their daughter is dating a black man. It's easy to support "difference" in others, much harder in those you love. This, too, is worth thinking about. It's easy to be for something in theory, much harder in practice.
Furthermore, rl raises the the spectre of the "polyamorous household". Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, a right-wing moron, argued not long ago that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to the legalization of incest and bestiality. Truly idiotic. The relationship between two individuals of the same sex has nothing in common with sex between family members or with animals -- except that all are outside of Santorum's narrow sense of right and wrong. I don't think that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to such extremes. But what about, say, "polyamorous" marriages? Why does marriage have to be limited to two people? I'm not talking about polygamy, which is different. I'm also not saying that marriage should be expanded to include such relationships. But it's interesting that the argument used to defend gay marriage is that it's very much like traditional heterosexual marriage: a committed, monogamous relationship between two people. The question is, why stop there? Would it be a problem to expand the conception of marriage (and the family) even beyond monogamous hetero/homosexual relationships?
This isn't necessary being discussed at the moment -- and it certainly should be an argument against extending marriage rights to homosexuals -- but it's something worth thinking about.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 5:26 PM
It might make sense for the government to get out of the marriage business (as it's gotten out of the abortion business in Canada). The problem is that it can't. And it's not because it has a duty to promote responsible relationships, but because marriage carries with it a certain legal status, that is, it carries with it certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities. One of the arguments for same-sex marriage is that homosexual couples should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. Now, one option -- often suggested by liberals who support same-sex marriage but are too afraid to do so publicly (like John Kerry) -- would be to have so-called civil unions. But that's just marriage by another name. In my view, homosexual couples should enjoy the same legal status in terms of marriage as heterosexual couples. It doesn't matter to me if, say, the Catholic Church refuses to acknowledge same-sex marriage. What matters to me is that the state recognizes the equality of heterosexual and homosexual marriages.
Here's another reason why the government can't get out of the marriage business. Although we live in a liberal society, there does need to be some restraint on individual behavior. For example, would it be acceptable for a man to marry his pet iguana? Would a state that isn't in the marriage business be required to recognize that relationship as a legal entity? Or what about polygamy, obviously a more serious problem? Ultimately, the state does need to draw the line somewhere. It's just a question of where that line is drawn.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 9:08 PM
Yes, civil unions represent a sort of "separate but equal" compromise (if you can call it that). Of course, I understand why national politicians are reluctant to come out and defend same-sex marriage, especially when they're running for president, but it's still a cowardly cop-out.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 11:37 PM
Let's face it, the problem we all face is trying to take a position that says government can legitimately legislate against some forms of lifestyles but not others. We all favor gay marriage but not polygamy or bestiality. You can make distinctions, but ultimately it comes down to what is accepted by the culture. You could make the argument that government should not legislate at all with respect to lifestyle, but I think few people would really accept that.
I think Michael is right that everyone has some limits on what they will accept. Plenty of liberal Jews want their kids to marry other Jews, even though one could argue that's a form of tribablism. The point is, it's human nature for people to make distinctions and to prefer others with their same background. I think that liberals often expect too much from people.
Michael, thanks for the compliment. I think this is a great blog--you are a very thoughtful and respectful observer, not something often found in the blogosphere.
By
Anonymous, at 11:15 AM
Thanks, guys. Your compliments are much appreciated. The Reaction is now just over two months old, and it's nice to see that some it's got some intelligent and perceptive readers willing to engage the issues and toss ideas around in a friendly way. I hope we'll continue to have more of it, and, if I may be a bit self-serving, I hope you invite your friends and acquaintances to come on over, check it out, and join in.
I'm certainly learning a lot from the two of you (not to mention all the others who have contributed), and I'm doing a lot of rethinking before I respond to your comments. On this, I'll try to respond to your comments as quickly as possible to keep the conversation going.
Otherwise, I think it's too often overlooked that politics involves limits. This, to me, is the great teaching of the ancients, notably in Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics, and it's why utopianism inevitably fails. Human nature is what it is, and it sets limits on what can be accomplished politically. Although certain limits (such as those involving toleration) may be pushed back, expanding our horizons of moral acceptance, there's only so much that any of us are able to take. I know many liberal Jews, for example, who aren't observant in any significant way and yet, as Marc suggests, want their children to marry other Jews. I know may heterosexual liberals who support gay rights in theory yet would worry if their own children were gay or lesbian, or who would even find bisexuality to be somewhat troubling. Or how may liberal Christian parents would openly support, let alone encourage, their children to marry a Muslim? I'm sure we can all name countless other examples. Some might call it hypocrisy -- and it is, on some level -- but more accurately it's just human nature. We tend to stick with what we know and to develop "us" and "them" sensibilities. Sometimes this can be truly dangerous, as when nationalism turns virulent or when individual preferences become full-fledged prejudices, but more often what emerges is softer.
This isn't in any way to justify narrow moral horizons. It's more to say that identity necessarily involves inclusion and exclusion. As large as the circle of inclusion may be -- and that's the great thing about liberalism -- someone or something will always be excluded. As when Nate says that he'd be against a McDonald's opening up across the street.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 3:28 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home