Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Corvino: Are our opponents like segregationists?
In terms of gay-rights progress, brace yourself for a difficult year.
This is not because things are getting worse. It’s because the national conversation on gay-rights issues is getting harder.
One reason is that, as cliché as it sounds, we are more polarized than ever. Gone are the days when House Speaker Tip O’ Neill could lambaste President Reagan by day and play cards with him after 6 p.m.It has become too easy to surround oneself solely with like-minded people. (The internet is one key factor.) The result is a bunch of echo chambers, where opponents seem not just wrong, but borderline-insane.
The second reason is that the gay community’s specific goals have shifted. We are no longer asking merely to be left alone, as when we were fighting sodomy laws and police harassment. Our central political goal, for better or for worse, has become marriage.
Marriage is not merely a private contract between two individuals. It is also an agreement between those individuals and the larger community. It requires, both legally and socially, that community’s support. And so the old “leave me alone” script no longer quite works.
A third reason the conversation is getting harder is that the gay community is at a crossroads regarding how we treat our opponents.
On the one hand we talk about reaching out, promoting dialogue, emphasizing common ground. On the other hand we are quick to label our opponents as hate-filled bigots.
This combination obviously won’t work. A bigot is someone whose views, virtually by definition, are beyond the pale of polite discussion.
One sees this contrast in the fracas over Obama’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
Compared to most evangelical pastors, Warren is a moderate, who focuses on common-ground issues such as poverty over the usual culture-war stuff.
But Warren supported Prop. 8, the California initiative that stripped marriage rights from gays and lesbians. (He has since suggested some possible support for civil unions.)
Obama’s camp is taking the “big tent” approach, acknowledging differences but emphasizing shared values. In a similar vein, Melissa Etheridge has opened a dialogue with Warren.
Most gay-rights leaders, by contrast, have decried Obama’s choice of Warren. As one friend put it, “it’s like inviting a segregationist to lead the invocation. I don’t care what other good things the guy has done.”
And there’s the rub: Warren does indeed espouse a “separate but equal” legal status for gays and lesbians (at best). Should we treat him the way we treat segregationists?
Before answering, remember that the majority of Californians, and a larger majority of the rest of the country, hold the same position as Warren on marriage. So does Obama himself (though he did oppose Prop. 8).
So in asking whether inviting Warren to lead the invocation is akin to inviting a segregationist to do so, we are also asking whether the vast majority of Americans are akin to segregationists.
It’s a painful question to confront. And the only fair answer is “yes and no.”
On the merits, yes. For practical purposes, no.
From where I stand, the arguments against marriage equality look about as bad as the arguments for segregation. They commit the same fallacies; they hide behind the same (selective reading of) scripture; they are often motivated by the same fears.
But I’m mindful of the fact that “from where I stand” includes decades of hindsight regarding segregation. The nation isn’t there yet on gay equality.
Today, nearly everyone finds the following sentiments repugnant:
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
The segregationist who wrote that? Abraham Lincoln.
It is easy now to paint all segregationists as hatemongers, waving pitchforks and frothing at the mouth. Easy, but quite wrong.
The fact is that most segregationists were people not unlike, say, my grandmothers, both of whom were wonderful, loving, decent human beings, and both of whom – much to my embarrassment – opposed interracial marriage.
Their reasons had to do with tradition and the well-being of children. Sound familiar?
My grandmothers were not hatemongers. They were products of their time. So was Lincoln, so is Rick Warren, and so are you and I, more or less.
I don’t mean for a moment to let Rick Warren off the hook. He ought to know better. Maybe someday he will.
In the meantime, prepare yourself for a challenging 2009.
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit.
For over fifteen years he has traveled the country speaking on homosexuality and ethics. His writing has been featured in regional and national periodicals, at the online Independent Gay Forum, and in numerous scholarly anthologies. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.
I agree with you Mr. Corvino that from here on out gays and lesbians will have to face some difficult times as we try to gain equal rights in this country, but I don’t think it’s just limited to just the coming year of 2009. Unfortunately, many (straight) people are indeed just products of their time and lack the vision (and desire) to see a better future for everyone.
Personally, I’ve always felt that the greatest challenge for gays and lesbians both personally and politically is in how we deal with the “nice and decent” folks who also happen to harbor anti-gay sentiments. I always find myself conflicted in how to deal with these types of (straight) people who are otherwise “good” persons but are against gay rights. I never know whether they’re really worth befriending or just ignoring. The problem is that there a whole lot of them….
I like your writings John, they tend to be nuanced and look at the issues in a clear way. I see way too much of the “our opponents are evil” kind of thought happening in the gay community lately, and I agree, all it does is reduce the chance of dialogue and change. As soon as someone is called a bigot it puts their back up, and gives us an excuse to ignore what they say. Quite frankly, I think it’s the same on the other side when they paint the world as black and white/good and evil. Why dialogue with someone when you think their an unchangeable bigot, or a tool of Satan? If we want to see progress we need to learn to communicate much better with our opponents, and even more so with those who are on the fence or not quite ready to go all the way for something like gay marriage. In many cases these people’s opinions could be changed, but when we paint them with the bigot brush it just hardens them.
Warren is not a good example. Most people who are upset with his choice to give the Invocation at the Inauguration are not upset that he is against same-sex marriage. They are upset that he lies about and defames homosexuals. That is a big difference. He is not a “moderate”; he foments hate. Rev. Lowery, who is to give the Benediction at the Inauguration, also opposes same-sex marriage, but he does not promote hatred against gay people. You, in effect, are letting Warren off the hook by buying into his press releases.
I do agree with this article. Most of the country dont want gays to wedd, so lets just let it be. In the future our time will come but its not just now.
>Most gay-rights leaders, by contrast, have decried Obama’s choice of Warren. As one friend put it, “it’s like inviting a segregationist to lead the invocation. I don’t care what other good things the guy has done.”
It’s like inviting a segregationist to lead the invocation in 1920. The problem is that many in the gay community are responding as if it’s equivalent to asking a segregationist to lead the invocation in 1967…or today. As is pointed out very well in this article, middle America isn’t there yet (give it a generation or so). Until they are “there,” they simply can’t hear the “it’s just like segregation argument.”
And the Lincoln quote was brilliant. Well done.
Sounds like an apologist to me. Are you saying we should just accept things the way they are? No. We have to keep fighting to make the world into what you want it to be.
Passing ENDA and ending DADT are both polling above 60% with the American people (repealing DADT was near or above 70%).
Let’s “go there”…it’s the path of least resistance, and passing ENDA will *really* help our people to be able to come out without fear of losing their homes or jobs.
Comments like David’s below as well as some of the insight in the article infuriate me. Just because the majority do not want us to have equality does not mean that we should not protest loudly nor accept the discrimination and in many cases bigotry. Are all people who oppose us “bad people” certainly not but they are still discriminating and hurting us as a whole and we should not “let them off the hook”. I am tired of my rights being voted on. This isn’t merely about marriage equality – for me, it is about EQUALITY Period!!!!! I can’t stomach the continual apologist attitude towards people who discriminate, push us down, call us names, deny us equality and then get upset when we call them bigots because by definition – that is what they are and for those who don’t know here is the definition: 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
SORRY but if the stiletto fits then wear it! Those that espouse discrimination and are fight to keep us from being equal citizens are bigots by definition. I don’t care if you are using your religion as your reference – this country was founded with freedom of religion, the fact that you want to force laws that uphold what you believe to be right or moral doesn’t mean that we should, nor does it mean you can hide behind that belief as a shield from being a bigot.
>Sounds like an apologist to me. Are you saying we should just accept things the way they are? No. We have to keep fighting to make the world into what you want it to be.
Of course not. I’m saying that you should find a way to keep on fighting without removing yourself from the table (esPECIALLY if we’re talking about a mainstream political movement, like passing or blocking laws).
What the gay community is doing right now is the equivalent of “taking our ball and going home.” It reinforces our own sense of being right (righteousness). Perhaps I could entertain an argument that it kicks up energy that can be channeled. But it doesn’t do a darn thing to correct what went wrong in CA: win the mainstream political battles.
I believe the only things missing from this think-piece are:
1. The generational difference between how older and younger gays and lesbians respond to anti-gay sentiments. Many of the older ones are still willing to ask for our rights, while the younger ones believe it’s time to demand them. As a community we are sending mixed signals. Something similar happened during the Civil Rights era of the 1960s when you had Dr. King on one side asking for rights and the Black Panthers on the other side demanding them. I’m not saying either one is right or wrong — just that it sends mixed signals.
2. The difference between how those of us who already have (some) rights respond and how those who have none respond.
The problem is that in order for us to be able to talk with our opponents with hope of making some progress, they need to have a genuine interest in our issues and solutions to them.
That interest, sadly, is almost completely non-existent. The overriding interest among them seems instead to be one of thwarting “homosexual ambitions” at almost any cost.
As for Warren eschewing the culture war, I don’t buy it. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
That is just nonsense. It was groups like ACT UP in the 70’s and 80’s that moved our rights forward. They did just what the name conveys – they acted up. Laying in streets, sit-ins, loud, vocal, visible protests. I don’t condone violence in the least – but I am very very proud of our community for getting angry and finally doing something about it like marching in front of the Mormons. Boycotting the business where the owners, CEO’s etc contributed to prop 8. etc. etc. I am not saying that we shouldn’t have dialogue, I think we should, but I am saying that we need to aggressively combat the discrimination and demand equality and to do it loudly. We have passively stood by for far too long accepting the bread crumbs of progress that we’ve been given hoping that the bigots will change their prejudicial views. We cannot politely ask for equality – we must demand it. Again, read the definition of what a bigot is – if they don’t want to be known as bigots, then they shouldn’t act like ones.
The Great Wet-Noodle has spoke and here comes the rest of the wet-noodles to support him.
Nicely said to calm the waters a bit. It is just that for some of us this is STONEWALL 2.0…and we feel LOUDNESS is good. Eventually of course, we must wait way, way beyond 2009. We must wait until those over 65 die.
Sorry, for the bluntness but those are who you mean, the ‘born before WWII’s’. …We know that in California 70% of the under 30’s of all educations, backgrounds voted for gay marriage..so once their generation and following are really in the majority… VOILA!
To me, the problem boils down to our community trying to deal with two distinct groups of ‘opponents’, using the same methodology.
On one hand, you have a group of people that could probably be brought around to our side of the debate through calm, rational and polite open discussion. This is the group that Obama is hoping joins him under the big tent.
On the other hand, you have a group of people that are deep in the trenches of hate and irrational fear. Calm, rational, polite discussion does not work against this group. In their mind, they are the “good” side, and we are the “bad”. No matter what we do, we will not be able to change their minds or their hearts.
If only the people from the first group were the ones invited to come under the big tent and be part of the discussion, we’d probably be ok. We’d all sigh with a sense of communal relief as there would be hope that the group discussion would resolve itself by leaning towards freedom and liberty. Of course, the real world doesn’t work this way and it was only a matter of time before someone we all perceive to be in that second group got invited to participate. The fact that it was Warren, just made it harder to swallow and understand.
To many of us, the thought of inviting that second group to the table at all seems destined to lead towards continued discrimination against our community. The pick of Warren to participate in the discussion, a man who actively works to remove our freedom and liberty, has inflamed our fears of continued discrimination and persecution to epic proportions.
My own fears on that front stem from my belief that while it’s ideal to try and include all side in the discussion, there comes a point when freedom must prevail and that second group has to be dealt with in a clear way.
For example, when segregation ended the US had to roll armed forces to protect black children who were just trying to go to school in the morning. This was the only way to send the clear message that in America, freedom is the law of the land and will be protected from evils both foreign and domestic.
Given that example (and others), how likely is it that open discussion is going to prevail against the same mindset that has time and time again, required brute force to get them to back away and accept that freedom prevails in this nation?
Now, as for Warren swearing in Obama?
Anyone who crafts something as anti-American, as anti-liberty as Prop 8, should never have been picked as the guy to swear in the person the people elected to preserve and protect their freedom. It sends a very clear message that I think makes us all quite a bit uneasy.
Warren may be a product of the times, and I think we should keep in mind that he’s also a product of himself. He made himself what he is today. There are plenty of people out there who are a product of the times and who work towards freedom, equality, liberty. He opted not to be one of them.
For whatever times we are in the choices he himself made make him unfit to swear in the next leader of the ‘free’ world, and make him an unfit participant in any rational discussion about freedom and liberty under the big tent.