Utah Governor: Equal Rights = "Special Rights"

Utah governor: No special rights for gay people

By BROCK VERGAKIS (AP) – 3 days ago

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said Thursday that discriminating against gay people shouldn't be illegal, although he would prefer it if everyone were treated with respect.

In his most definitive comments yet on gay rights, Herbert told reporters he doesn't believe sexual orientation should be a protected class in the way that race, gender and religion are.

"We don't have to have a rule for everybody to do the right thing. We ought to just do the right thing because it's the right thing to do and we don't have to have a law that punishes us if we don't," Herbert said in his first monthly KUED news conference.

In Utah, it is legal to fire someone for being gay or transgender. The gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah has been trying to change state law for several years but has always been rebuffed by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

....

"I agree that we ought to be able to just do the right thing. Unfortunately, the Salt Lake City Human Rights Commission makes it clear that not all employers are doing the right thing," he said, referencing a city report released earlier this summer that said discrimination was rampant.

Follow the link for the whole article.

Equal rights are not "special rights"

The Old Man,

First of all: would you mind please answering the non-rhetorical, earnest questions I posed? They are in italics, towards the end of my last post.

Secondly: I feel like we're talking past each other. I say something like, "Everyone should have equal rights" and you reply, "No one should have special rights". Er, yes, I agree with you, no one is entitled to special rights. I absolutely concede that point to you. Now, can we address the issues I raised?

Thirdly: I mentioned some very specific policies: the Defense of Marriage Act, the many state laws/amendments which outlaw gay marriage, civil unions, and adoption, Don't Ask Don't Tell. A straightforward response to this would be to say whether you A) think these policies are discriminatory, or B) do not. Instead, you point out that everybody is discriminated against. That's true as far as it goes, but as far as I am aware there is no state amendment prohibiting red-haired people or Mormons from adopting children. Just gay people. And if there were such discriminatory policies against so many groups of people -- all the more reason to discuss them, and rally opposition against them.

I am flabbergasted that you have so little to say about these discriminatory policies, and so much to say about hypothetical legislation that might force us to tolerate gay people and give them "special rights". You seem pretty worried about the "victim status" caused by flagrant discrimination, but not too worried about the discrimination itself.

Your response is doubly strange, because earlier your feathers were a little ruffled by words I wrote on this blog criticizing conservative Christians (talk about "victim status"). But critical words are nothing compared to, say, a state amendment prohibiting child adoption passed by 70% of the voters. Imagine if such an amendment was passed, prohibiting Christians from adopting children. Even if it only happened in one state, I think you would be outraged by the discrimination itself. Yet, as we speak, equally outrageous discrimination is being leveled against gay people, in not one but several states. Most of the measures passed recently, they are not relics from the past but new developments. Where is your outrage? Honestly, your concerns about the "victim status" and hypothetical "special rights" of gays and so forth seem like convenient distractions.

Let me make the points where we agree explicit, so it won't be necessary to bring them up again. I, along with most gay people I know, agree with you on the following points:

1. Nobody needs "special rights". Just regular, plain ol' equal rights will do.
   
2. All groups of people should try to move beyond a "victim status". One way of doing this is by changing state policies which flagrantly discriminate against them. This will discourage a "victim status".
   
3. We should not "legislate what people must think and believe". This includes legislating that people must think and believe marriage is between one man, one woman only.

So now let's apply the principles you, me, and most gay and transgendered people agree on to the Defense of Marriage Act; the many state laws and amendments which outlaw gay marriage and civil unions and adoption; and Don't Ask Don't Tell. I reach the conclusion that these measures are attacks on equality and basic human dignity. What conclusions do you reach?

I want to end with a thought-experiment: if the exact same policies were applied to Christians, I would find them equally intolerable and remain outraged. Would you call criticism of these policies a "red herring" and remain as unmoved as you seem to be now? Come on.

Marriage

The point is not that homosexuals cannot be discriminated against, or even that they are not. They are discriminated against, and so is every other group by some people. The point is, when a group has overcome discrimination and that discrimination is no longer an impediment to education, wealth, jobs, home ownership, safety, etc., anymore than the average of other groups, it is time to move on from the "victim" status requiring special rights and trying to legislate what people must think and believe. That doesn't mean that a society shouldn't continue education and values of all people being treated equally.

The Old Man

Response: Marriage

The Old Man,

Let me see if I understand your logic:

1. Gay people have higher income and education;
2. Therefore, they must not be discriminated against in any way;
3. Therefore, the gay marriage issue is a red herring.
   

Hmm, I am not seeing how that logic follows. Maybe it would help to apply it to a specific example:

1. Two lesbian women, who were getting married in a California courthouse the morning after Prop 8 passed, were statistically more likely to have higher education and income than heterosexuals;
2. Therefore, they can never be discriminated against for being gay;
3. Therefore, when a state official barged into the room and halted the ceremony, ruining what should have been the happiest day of their lives in front of dozens of family and friends, specifically because they are gay, that was not discrimination;
4. Therefore, the gay marriage issue is a red herring.
   

Nope, still doesn't make any sense to me.

Moving on, you are mistaken that Christian conservatives are my favorite target. Honestly. I have read how, in Egypt and Saudi Arabi, highly orthodox (and presumably quite conservative) Christians are discriminated against, and I wholeheartedly support their struggle for equality. I am simply against social bullying and legal discrimination. It happens that in this country, so-called conservative Christians are preventing gay people from getting married, not the other way around. Some of the people affected are my good friends, friends who have come to our house and spoken with you and Mom for an hour or more, friends who you have described as a "great kid".

Now look at what you wrote in the fourth paragraph: you speak of a group's culture being "impinged on" and "attacked". This is what I was talking about in my original post: you have completely inverted the situation, you call attack "defense" and defense "attack". Specifically, all of the following constitute attacks on the marriage, beliefs, culture, and families of certain groups of people:

• The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Republicans passed and Clinton signed, serves to (borrowing your words) "impinge on and attack the culture and beliefs of a group ... by telling them that they cannot have a rite or belief that is defined other than how the State tells them to define it". I'm amazed that you described DOMA so perfectly, and then applied that description to those seeking to overturn it. Specifically, DOMA serves to deny many benefits including Social Security benefits to lifelong partners.
  
• Many state laws and amendments deny worthy gay couples the right to adopt children.
• Many same-sex partners are forced to pay legal fees and jump through hoops to get some basic protections, and even then they are still sometimes denied the right to visit each other in the hospital when they are sick and dying; and denied custody of the children.
• Focus on the Family opposes school policies to combat bullying, including bullying based on sexual orientation. Even though gay teens are notoriously targeted and bullied at school.
• Preachers bellow that gays are going to Hell.
  

Again, these actions constitute attacks. These actions cannot be compared to non-violent defenses against them. For example, when I simply write words on a page, and those words criticize the attacks and the homophobic ideology which supports them, I am not attacking anyone or being intolerant. I am defending, without violence or coercion, "the culture and beliefs of a group" (using your words) from state- and church-sponsored bigotry.

Let me make my point clear by using a concrete example: when an Episcopelian priest, in an Episcopelian church, oversees the holy union of two people who happen to be same-sex, according to their beliefs and rites; and furthermore, when this union is treated equally under the law as any other between consenting adults; how is this an attack? Who, specifically, has been attacked here, and how?

Seriously. That's not rhetorical. Who has been attacked? How?

And, to continue with this example: when some stranger steps in, and prevents that marriage from being recognized equally under the law because the newlyweds are gay; and when that person publicly calls it sinful and a danger to children, because they are gay; what is this, if not an attack and an imposition -- on the priest, the newlyweds, gay people, transgendered people, their family and friends? If they have one ounce of self-respect are they not entitled to defend their culture, beliefs and values, through non-violent self-expression?

Again, not rhetorical. Is that not an attack? Are they not entitled to stick up for themselves?

You say you support civil unions. Separate, but equal. So far, that principle has worked out like it did last time: we have the separate part. Just not the equal part.

You ended on a promising note: you said "let's stop trying to legislate beliefs and values". Right. So tell conservatives to stop doing it, then.

Marriage

I see the homosexual marriage issue as somewhat of a red herring. The grad student goes on and on about discrimination against homosexuals in ancient societies, fascist governments, and, of course, his favorite double target, Christian Conservatives (or, as liberals are wont to say, “right-wing Christians”). As an aside, that reminds me of how often supposedly tolerant liberals are indignant about stereotyping unless they’re doing the stereotyping.

The reason I view this issue as a red herring is well documented in the grad student’s diatribe. Homosexuals have suffered terrible abuse and prejudice throughout history, but are better accepted and more successful in current American society than in most societies in history (including our own, if we go back some years). This group has higher education levels than average, as well as above average home ownership, and about the same income levels as heterosexuals. Indeed, one survey noted that “…“status income” levels were slightly higher on average for gays…” The report tried to assign status to different occupations, and noted that relatively more from this group entered the educational profession, which had status, but lower pay than the average college degreed profession. So, there is no statistical evidence that discrimination has limited people in housing, education, wealth or legal status.

Further, nobody stops homosexuals from living together or becoming partners. There are very few restrictions on Wills, powers of attorney, visitation rights, assignment of benefits or life insurance for homosexuals, if those are documented. Civil unions solve the remaining few, and, as the grad student knows, I am for those (as are most Americans).

But marriage is, to me, as President Obama says, “between a man and a woman”. It is a rite, not a right. It is wholly unnecessary to impinge on and attack the culture and beliefs of a group (even the majority group) by telling them that they cannot have a rite or belief that is defined other than how the State tells them to define it. The grad student rails that those of us who want to continue to define marriage as between a man and a woman, cannot adequately prove that consenting to marriage for homosexuals would damage heterosexual marriages or families. But in a late night (for me) debate he couldn’t demonstrate how homosexuals, once allowed legal status of civil unions, would be harmed by not having the rite of marriage attached to that legal position.

The truth is, it is all about legislating acceptance and winning votes by convincing a group that they are victims and need the patronizing politician to protect them. Homosexuals have been discriminated against, and laws should be blind to sexuality. I think they are now in the vast majority of cases. There will always be prejudice against some against all…sexuality, races, religions, you, me…all of us. But this is a pretty free and pretty much equal opportunity society in my view. It’s time to move on from the politically contrived victim industry. My Christianity teaches me to try to love all, and not appoint myself as judge of others. Let’s try to be sure that our laws allow equal opportunity and our education mitigates hatred and prejudice. But let’s stop trying to legislate beliefs and values.

The Old Man

"Mawwiage"

Mawwiage.

For some strange reason, I've been thinking a lot lately about marriage. And that gets me thinking about gay marriage.

Actually, forget gay people for a second: just consider transgendered people / hermaphrodites. I suppose right-wing Christians believe God created intersex people to test our faith--you know, the same reason He created fossils, and Jews. Nevertheless, for some people, the terribly inconvenient facts of biology do not allow them to fit neatly into traditional definitions of male and female. In some cases, a decision was made at birth to assign a person's gender through surgery. If that decision turns out to have been hasty, and a transgendered person ends up feeling an undeniable attraction towards the same (?) sex, who are we to judge?

The ambiguity of some peoples' gender, by itself, should be a good enough moral and legal reason to allow people to choose a same-sex spouse if they wish. (At present, Dick Cheney seems to understand this; President Obama does not.) A common objection is, well, why not let people marry their pets, then? Great question. The common-sense answer is that an animal cannot consent to such an arrangement, can't be the executor of a will, can't make life-or-death hospital decisions, etc. For some reason, these painfully basic considerations hardly make a dent in gay marriage opposition. In fact, in my experience, the strongest gay marriage opponents tend to be the least intellectually curious about the actual facts of biology and sexuality; they cannot articulate concretely, specifically, how gays corrupt straight people, children, and puppies, but they nevertheless feel certain this is the case. Why?

In my opinion, these are the tell-tale symptoms of prejudice. It's interesting to observe the same symptoms in what opponents to inter-racial marriage were saying, decades ago: they were simply defending themselves from black activists who were trying to corrupt white purity, to force us to accept them, etc. Today, after decades of soul-searching, most of us realize that was just a lame excuse for prejudice. The same is true of gay marriage opposition: it's not really about "defending the family", or even defending "marriage". Gently examine, probe, dissect those claims, and they fall apart. The truth is, it is the right-wing that wants to demean and bully other peoples' families, other peoples' marriages. "Defending marriage" is just a lame excuse for what is today a lingering prejudice in most of America, a prejudice that was once part of a strong global tradition of homophobia, a prejudice which has dwindled and retreated under the hammer-blows of ethical and scientific progress. To see this, we have to examine the forms "defending the family" has taken globally and historically.

Like antisemitism, homophobia is symptomatic of authoritarian societies. It is well-known that homosexuals were targeted by the Nazis, to protect the "healthy sensibility" of the German people, Christian civilization, and so on. It probably comes as no shock that these sentiments were shared by their allies, the Italian and Spanish fascists. And of course, as we all know, sexual hysteria and homophobia go back to the Middle Ages, the Church, and ancient Israel. But I was intrigued to discover that homosexuals were also demeaned and bullied in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and Castro's Cuba. In those contexts, homophobia was couched in terms of safegaurding the masculine ethic of the workers from the intrusion of the effeminate tendencies of the evil capitalists. In the McCarthy-era U.S., on the other hand, homosexuality was associated with communism. Today, our planet's most enthusiastic homophobes are the Islamists, such as the Taliban and their ilk. (I hasten to add that many Muslims are bitterly opposed to the Islamists.) North Korea probably ranks highly as well.

So that's a rather charming group we have there. Contrast it with the nations and movements that have been relatively tolerant of gays: Rome, Greece, and China at the peak of their enlightened civilizations; and the modern, Western democracies.

Now, I do not want to exaggerate the similarities between the American anti-gay movement and its analogues in fascist and theocratic regimes. Obviously, there is no equivalence between the right wing in Iran (for example) and the right wing in the U.S. However, in spite of differences in severity and intensity, there are some fascinating common threads.

There's plain ignorance, of course, like when conservatives suggest that gays "choose" to be sexually and emotionally attracted to the same gender. This issue was settled long ago among scientists, heterosexuals do not (and cannot) choose to dilate their pupils, or show other involuntary signs of arousal, when shown provocative photos of the opposite gender; and the same is true for homosexuals, who respond this way when shown photos of the same gender. The funniest (saddest?) example of homophobic ignorance was when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed there are no gay people in all of Iran. Now, ignorance is not necessarily anything to be ashamed of. It can be easily corrected if the facts are available, and if a person is intellectually curious. But prejudice has a way of dulling one's curiosity.

Then there's the idea that gays are boogeymen who will bring about the destruction of everything we hold dear...somehow. The late Jerry Falwell for instance felt sure the tragedies of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina were expressions of God's just wrath against gays (and feminists, etc). This takes on a milder form when mainstream gay marriage opponents speak in abstract terms about how treating gays equally will destroy "the family" or "marriage". How? Somehow.

This leads naturally to the notion that attacking gays is, in fact, defense. I find the thinking behind this notion utterly fascinating. It seems that gay people, like all people, wish to be socially accepted and tolerated, as well as treated equally under the law. This is regarded as a fiendish assault which must be defended against. So for example, when a state official interrupted a same-sex wedding ceremony that was taking place in a California courtroom, the morning after Proposition 8 passed, in front of dozens of supportive family and friends, that was an attack on a family. But gay marriage opponents consider that action to be a defense of "the family" (if they bother to consider it). They consider it to be a defense of religious freedom, too, when in reality it is an attack on the freedom of Unitarians, Episcopelians, and many other religious/non-religious people who believe in the sacredness and worth of same-sex marriage. Presumably, when the Obama administration fired Dan Choi, a West Point grad and fluent Arab speaker who had been to Iraq, because he came out of the closet, that somehow defended our entire nation. These are remarkable feats of Orwellian doublethink, and it takes a well-trained intellect not to notice the obvious contradictions.

Speaking of contradiction -- in anti-gay movements, this sometimes borders on full-blown schizophrenia. It's quite interesting how, among those who preach against homosexuality, so many turn out to be gay, or pedophiles, or adulterers themselves. Maybe they should take counsel from G. W. Bush's favorite philosopher, Jesus, who said "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Boo-yah!

Remarkably, many conservatives excuse homophobia on "moral" grounds, i.e. the Bible (which in my opinion is often morally bankrupt to start with). This claim is almost too funny to be true. Anyone who has glanced at the Bible for a nanosecond will double over with laughter at the idea that the mainstream conservative agenda is Bible-based. If they want gay marriage to be illegal because of what it says in the Bible, then they ought to want all marriage outside the Church, divorce, and military service to be illegal, too. They ought to be liberal bleeding-hearts who give all their belongings to the poor, and who advocate "turning the other cheek" over pre-emptive war. They ought to believe in exorcism and speaking in tongues. Now, some conservatives, like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, are slightly more consistent in these matters than most. But those cases cause one to double over with laughter for other reasons.

And this brings me to, in my opinion, the most universal and most fundamental characteristic of homophobia: its deep connections to organized dogmatism. Homophobia as dogma goes back as far as ancient Israel, continues through the Inquisition, and leads up to the rise of secular religions (like communism) and Islamism today. In Jerusalem, the Holiest place on Earth (not to be confused with Disney Land, which is merely the Happiest place on Earth), about the only thing that arouses the united voice of the Orthodox Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious leaders is their opposition to a gay pride parade.

Why is this important? Because the unstated basis for American conservative opposition to gay marriage, today, is a remnant of this powerful prejudice. It's based on an unquestionable dogma: homosexuality is wrong. Because God says so. Normally, we don't accept that kind of statement. So for example, anyone who claimed today "watching movies is wrong, God says so" would be challenged to back up that assertion. Asking a conservative the exact same question about homosexuality, on the other hand, is unthinkable. That question is declared to be out-of-bounds, and for good cause: you can't justify prejudice.

So this is what it feels like to have a prejudice: it feels like being certain of something, but being unable to articulate good reasons for it; being un-curious about relevant facts, and consequences surrounding the issue.

I think I can say this, because I myself used to be strongly opposed to gay marriage. Like many straight men, I felt some disgust at the idea of male-male homosexuality. I think this can be forgiven. But you know what? I suppose I also feel some disgust at the idea of my parents', or grandparents' sexuality. In fact, I'm not enthusiastic about the sex lives of most people I see walking down the street. A mature person, however, can appreciate the fact that two people love and care for each other, and have committed themselves to another person for life. Personally, I find happiness in the fact that they have found happiness. And when it comes to their sex lives, I mind my own damn business.

The good news is this prejudice has been chipped away at for so long, it is no longer about remotely-plausible goals like defending civilization, or family, or the Bible. In America, it has been reduced to defending a word. The word "marriage". That's like opposing interracial dating in defense of the word "white". So the rational basis for the anti-gay marriage position has never been flimsier. The prejudice is still hanging on by a thread. But I think as more gay people openly demonstrate the dignity and love of their commitments, and how they are just regular people; and as more straight Americans look in the mirror, and forgive themselves for the prejudice they see; and as the younger generation grows up; then that thread will finally snap.