Opinion
Pragmatism needs voice in debate over gay rights
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Jason Smathers:
- Earth to Dems: If in doubt, just run (November 11, 2009)
- From the Desk of the Editor: A qualified but sincere apology (October 29, 2009)
- Edgewater mess calls for diplomacy (October 21, 2009)
- Are you pro-legalization? Tell potheads to shut up (October 6, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Well, Proposition 8 finally brought the circus to town. The religious right treated their victory, which banned the previously legal marriage of same-sex couples, like a World Series walk-off home run while the LGBT community has now branded themselves with oppression, declaring this their relegation to second-class status.
And now it’s a full-fledged culture war. If the 40 states that have now banned same-sex marriage seemed like an unanswered siege of gay rights, the protests and threats lobbed by those in the LGBT community seem primed to be a retaliatory strike.
And I understand where they’re coming from. When you’ve had what was a previously guaranteed right stripped from you by your neighbors and friends, history and common sense seem to dictate immediate action.
But I implore you: be pragmatic. Symbolism isn’t what we need right now; legislation for civil unions is. Everything else has the potential to escalate this conflict far beyond the strife we’ve seen as a result of Proposition 8.
First, take the stance by some in the LGBT community refusing to pay taxes. In the eyes of many, Proposition 8 made them second-class citizens and, as such, they should not pay for services they don’t receive. It’s not protest; it’s just morally justified.
Unfortunately, if there is one body of government to which symbolism means nothing, it’s the IRS. LGBT individuals would band together in a symbolic show of resistance. Then the months would turn, more pressing national controversy would occur, and most would just bite the bullet and pay taxes. When April passes and a slim minority still have their W2s sealed, they’re arrested for tax evasion and end up either as a caricature in Bill O’Reilly’s talking points memo or as a footnote in the gay rights movement, which goes marching along without them.
But while those who protest by burning 1040 forms are always a bit short-sighted, those who want to radicalize the protest and take the issue directly to the religious right could do far more damage to their own concerns.
If the gay rights movement were to escalate to the level of intense antagonism that the civil rights movement witnessed, it would likely become a far more organized movement — a civil rights union, if you will. And when it does, LGBT couples and their allies will likely demand recognition of gay marriage, reject civil unions as separate but equal and point at those trying to set marriage in heterosexual terms as bigoted fools. As a time of “change,” it’s now or never, right?
The problem with Proposition 8 and other state bans, however, is that it’s not the state telling them they cannot do this: It’s the people. These are still the people they have to convince at the end of the day. And when that confrontation between opposing camps happens, it’ll be one person’s faith in their God against another person’s faith in their love. And that is an irresolvable conflict.
Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard — or rather, one of his pseudonyms — once posited the only thing that can be said about faith is that nothing can be said of faith. It cannot be explained from one person to another, because it is of a plane beyond the ethical realm.
This could also be said of love. After all, true love is a type of faith, that occasionally painful, but altogether human dismissal of what we would label rationality. Just as no one can truly understand one Christian, Jew or Muslim’s relationship with his creator, no one can truly understand one individual’s love for another individual.
So it’s no surprise that when those adhering to religious and romantic faith are forced to justify their beliefs, no one will accept the other’s lament because it cannot be translated into words.
But civil rights are understood by all. If we focus on pushing for civil union legislation for same-sex couples, we can start to guarantee rights and benefits — if not all of them, at least some — while still pushing for further acceptance on a cultural level.
But we have to stop trying to make our individual faiths fit together. The religious right cannot force their version of God’s will onto the public any more than homosexuals can demand the populace recognize or understand their love. Especially when public policy — which both camps are appealing to — doesn’t understand love. And it doesn’t understand faith. It only — and rather occasionally — understands justice. And right now, we should be focusing on that definition first. Civil unions are just for all. Leaving private institutions to define marriage is just for all. Once we separate the ethical from the emotional and spiritual, people may redefine their own faith.
But that change will only come when our reality changes. And gradual change eventually does make an impact.
Jason Smathers (jsmathers@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
IP hash: d59c084e
“escalate to the level of intense antagonism”
Would that be like pushing an old lady around, ripping a cross out of her hands and stomping on it?
I’d like to see them pull this kind of thing at a mosque or a black liberation church, but that won’t happen since they are cowards.
IP hash: 3567608b
The issue is not “love”. The issue is legal recognition. While it may seem pragmatic to compromise on the title of civil unions, the fact of the matter is that the legal term “married” has a very specific meaning; it may not necessarily be the legal equivalent of “civil union”. In fact, the recent band in Wisconisn is worded such that there is now legal justification for divided these two terms. Even if they can be legally equivalent, judicial precident already states that “seperate but equal” is unconstitutional. While one’s faith may drive them to believe against gay marriage, it is cold, faithless law that matters. It is only a matter of time until the law corrects this legalized bigotry. And I can’t wait to see it happen.
IP hash: e6ee8467
Your definition of pragmatism is a little skewed.
First of all, this country is not a theocracy. No ideological group has the right to take away rights. If you disagree, go to Saudi Arabia or any Muslim theocracy, or even Malta, which is de facto a Christian theocracy, and fucking stay there, because the United States does not welcome theocrats.
Second of all, this country is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic. There is a principle called ‘tyranny of the majority’, which is precisely what the fundies are trying to exercise. If the majority ruled in every situation, blacks wouldn’t be citizens. By dint of this principle, the frightening mass of conservative idiots in certain states does not have the right to take away the rights of homosexuals because their imaginary friend said so.
Marriage is a legal concept. I think the fundies and the H8ers are confusing legal marriage with their own definition of marriage, and what they’re doing is dangerous.
IP hash: 1546540a
The religious right cannot force their version of God’s will onto the public any more than homosexuals can demand the populace recognize or understand their love.
Seems to me like the religious right and small-to-moderate majorities are doing a whole lot of forcing.
IP hash: 0383428b
Flamin’ Naimon.
IP hash: 41e8294a
1) If we look at statistic from the state of california, we can see that the “fundies” are not the majority and therefore the logic that it’s the “fundies’ forcing their “inmaginary” fried down the throats of everyone is ridiculous. From a number of differnt polls, only 42% of CA resident consider themselves to be religous, and of those religous folk 10% are of the Muslim faith making the fundies 32%. Just because it is the easy target to point the finger at God seeking individuals doesn’t mean it’s the right assumption. Maybe you should take a look at your fellow liberal friends who say one thing to you and then vote another way. the LGBT community has noone to blame but themselves for making idiotic assumptions and not targeting the right poputalion in thier efforts to spread their gospel of “love”. 2) “First, take the stance by some in the LGBT community refusing to pay taxes. In the eyes of many, Proposition 8 made them second-class citizens and, as such, they should not pay for services they don’t receive. It’s not protest; it’s just morally justified.” SEcond-rate are you serious? Can a member of LGBT go to school, get a job, own a car, live in a comfortable place, eat at a place of thier choosing? If so get off the “poor me” train and be thankful that you are not being treated as second-rate citizens. I mean if you want to take that road, I will ont object to not having to sit by you in class or walk on the same sidewalk as you. But if you so chose to not take the route, I wouldn’t mind having to eat in the same place as you or work at the same place as you. Just because I do not agree with the life-style choices you make doesn’t mean that I cannot be civil and reside in the same neighborhood as you. And that my friend is the difference between you and the actual life of a person who had to live a second-rate life.