When the CEO of Mozilla recently stepped down amid anger about his political views, many on the political left and right worried that this was a sign of intolerance, a sort of totalitarian progressivism. Is it?
Philosophers call it the “paradox of tolerance”: defending tolerance may require intolerance of intolerance. Is this liberalism turning illiberal?
Liberal democracies like the United States protect citizens’ freedom of speech, religion, and conscience. So you should be free to argue against gay marriage, right? Absolutely, at least as far as the government and laws are concerned. You are also free to believe and argue that all blacks should be deported to Africa if you like. Being a bigot is not a crime. But that doesn’t mean others cannot be angered by your beliefs and protest against them. Legal rights and protections put limits on the government, not the people. Views the majority in society see as distasteful will be punished in the court of public opinion. You are not protected from the consequences of your speech, only from the government trying to suppress it. That majority may be wrong, of course, but more on that below.
The second problem is when people say things like “isn’t pushing a person out of a job because of his/her beliefs just as bad as doing the same to a gay person?” Frankly, no. Sexuality, like race, sex, gender, physical capabilities, ethnicity, etc. are immutable aspects of identity. They are NOT beliefs. Arguing with someone, pushing them out of a job, refusing them service, etc. on the basis of their identity is discrimination. It is unfair, unjustified, and unjustifiable in most circumstances (you may want a black actor to play a black role in a movie, so there are a few exceptions, of course). Beliefs are changeable and, unlike identities, they may be harmful to others.
The harm caused by beliefs is how we judge where to draw lines. This is highly problematic, however. Throughout history, people have been harassed, cast out of societies, and even killed because they held beliefs that challenged the status quo. This continues today, though in “liberal” countries people, thankfully, are usually not killed for their beliefs. We rightly condemn racist beliefs. We also limit freedom of religion and speech when these may harm others, for example when Christian Scientists deny their children life-saving medical treatment or when fundamentalists incite violence in the name of their god(s).
But people have been treated poorly for all manner of beliefs many in society thought were harmful at the time. Where do we draw the line? The test is harm. Does preventing gays from marrying cause harm? Those effected would surely say so (take me, who was prevented for 10 years from moving back to my home country due to marriage and immigration discrimination). Does believing the sun is at the center of the solar system? Not directly, but if it spread, it would damage the progress of knowledge that benefits humanity. Likewise, creationism is not harmful unless it spreads by being taught to children who are then deprived of a proper education. You are thus free to teach your children creationism, but the government should not teach things for which there is a consensus that they are not true. At the same time, such beliefs should not be “respected” in the sense that they remain unchallenged. This is how a liberal society functions.
What do I mean by “challenge”? The judgment about which beliefs are harmful will always, to some extent, be subjective and relative to current social conditions. Try as we might, we cannot escape the societal context in which we exist and cannot see things completely “objectively.” Harm is a good guiding principle, but it is imperfect. In most cases, the best move is to counter ideas rather than people. The best way to do that is through open debate. This means exercising our right to free speech to call out things we consider harmful. Beyond what the law says, however, we also need to listen and take time to consider.
As for Eich, a gay commentator on the Colbert Report, an American comedy talk show with a large following, recently opined that protesting against and boycotting the state of Arizona for its proposed anti-gay law was OK, but suggested that what happened to Eich was not. In fact, Mozilla customers angry about its CEO’s political views protested and boycotted, exercising their rights to free speech and their economic right to choose. There was nothing illiberal about it. A portion of the United States has come to realize that preventing same-sex couples from marrying is just as wrong as preventing any other two consenting adults from doing so. Saying otherwise is increasingly indefensible (literally: there are no good reasons for it, that side has lost the debate). That is free speech and open debate in action, resulting in intolerance of an intolerant view. A liberal democracy in action, in other words.
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Friday, April 11, 2014
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The Justice Department and Gay Marriage
If you know me, you would probably never expect me to speak out defending the federal government when it defends itself for discriminating against gays and lesbians, but that's what I'm about to do.
A recent article in the Advocate, a GLBT news magazine criticizes the Justice Department for defending the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which defines marriage on the federal level as between a man and a woman. Gay rights activists see this as betrayal. This is overly dramatic, but may just be a good rhetorical tool for calling attention to inequality. Although I would consider myself to be a gay rights activist, too, and I also vehemently oppose the DOMA for some very personal reasons (it's blocking my boyfriend and myself from being able to move to the States, as he can't get a green card for the States yet), this is not really a betrayal.
Activists point out that Obama claimed to be against the DOMA. But this position is reiterated in the brief from the Justice Department. However, whatever Obama would like, it is up to Congress to change the law by passing a bill, which he would then presumably sign into law, overturning the DOMA. In the meantime, it is only natural that the Justice Department would defend the DOMA: that's its job. It's part of the executive, which means it is charged with enforcing laws, not interpreting them or deciding if they are fair or constitutional (that would be the courts' job) or deciding if they should be replaced by other laws or changed in some way (that's the job of the legislature, in this case Congress). Furthermore, it is right that there is currently no federal legal precedent that would in any way suggest that the DOMA is unconstitutional (unfortunately). It is possible that the Supreme Court would simply decide otherwise, but it is unlikely to even hear the case, choosing to leave the can of worms closed. Again, this is a legislative issue, not an executive or even judicial one.
That said, if this is a rhetorical weapon, it may just work. I think Obama will now know we're watching. More importantly: Congress will know this, too. They are the ones that must make the first move. The move would be very controversial, and tantamount to allowing gay marriage throughout the 50 states. Though they would not all have to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in their own states, federal recognition would mean they would all have to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. There are many constituents in conservative states, even ones who vote democratic, who would not be happy about this. It would be a risky move. It is therefore unsurprising that Congress is taking its time.
In the end, of course, I hope they find the courage to do the right thing and get rid of the DOMA, but it's going to be a BIG deal if they do. In the meantime, neither the Department of Justice nor Obama himself have proved themselves to be traitors. If you want to bark up the right tree, call your state senators and representatives and tell them to get on it!
A recent article in the Advocate, a GLBT news magazine criticizes the Justice Department for defending the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which defines marriage on the federal level as between a man and a woman. Gay rights activists see this as betrayal. This is overly dramatic, but may just be a good rhetorical tool for calling attention to inequality. Although I would consider myself to be a gay rights activist, too, and I also vehemently oppose the DOMA for some very personal reasons (it's blocking my boyfriend and myself from being able to move to the States, as he can't get a green card for the States yet), this is not really a betrayal.
Activists point out that Obama claimed to be against the DOMA. But this position is reiterated in the brief from the Justice Department. However, whatever Obama would like, it is up to Congress to change the law by passing a bill, which he would then presumably sign into law, overturning the DOMA. In the meantime, it is only natural that the Justice Department would defend the DOMA: that's its job. It's part of the executive, which means it is charged with enforcing laws, not interpreting them or deciding if they are fair or constitutional (that would be the courts' job) or deciding if they should be replaced by other laws or changed in some way (that's the job of the legislature, in this case Congress). Furthermore, it is right that there is currently no federal legal precedent that would in any way suggest that the DOMA is unconstitutional (unfortunately). It is possible that the Supreme Court would simply decide otherwise, but it is unlikely to even hear the case, choosing to leave the can of worms closed. Again, this is a legislative issue, not an executive or even judicial one.
That said, if this is a rhetorical weapon, it may just work. I think Obama will now know we're watching. More importantly: Congress will know this, too. They are the ones that must make the first move. The move would be very controversial, and tantamount to allowing gay marriage throughout the 50 states. Though they would not all have to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in their own states, federal recognition would mean they would all have to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. There are many constituents in conservative states, even ones who vote democratic, who would not be happy about this. It would be a risky move. It is therefore unsurprising that Congress is taking its time.
In the end, of course, I hope they find the courage to do the right thing and get rid of the DOMA, but it's going to be a BIG deal if they do. In the meantime, neither the Department of Justice nor Obama himself have proved themselves to be traitors. If you want to bark up the right tree, call your state senators and representatives and tell them to get on it!
Sunday, June 14, 2009
How same-sex marriage destroys opposite-sex marriage, and what we can do about it.
By Charles P. Kirchofer, Oct. 29th, 2008
The religious right is always telling us that same-sex marriage destroys marriage for everyone else. I just couldn't wrap my head around that, but today I figured it out. The religious right has simply had problems with the word "destroy." The following are a series of questions and answers that lead me to the correct definition of destroy that the religious right must be using. I then offer a solution as a sort of compromise.
Does the marriage of a same-sex couple cause your marriage no longer to be recognized by the state? No.
Does the marriage of a same-sex couple cause your marriage no longer to be recognized by god? No.
Hmm, still seems fairly undestroyed. Maybe it's the "fabric of the American family" itself that is somehow damaged.
Does same-sex marriage make you more likely to divorce your husband or wife? No, unless you're gay too, I would imagine, but then we need to be having a different conversation.
Does same-sex marriage make you beat your kids? No, I don't see a connection there. If same-sex marriage has led you to beat your children, please feel free to describe the incidents in the comments section and explain what led you to the beatings. Please don't forget to include your real name and home address (note, comment postings are not made in confidence).
Does same sex marriage make you love your own family less? I assume not.
Hmm, that must not be what they're talking about either. If you went to court and told the judge your neighbor destroyed something of yours, you'd have to show that it was indeed destroyed and if and how your neighbor did it. Let's try an example that will get us closer.
Plaintiff: Your honor, my neighbor destroyed my car.
Judge: The evidence I have here shows your car looks to be in mint condition. Is it in some way damaged?
Plaintiff: Yes!
Judge: ...how? Does it no longer run?
Plaintiff: No, it still runs.
Judge: Then what is the nature of the damage?
Plaintiff: Yeah, it's destroyed, the car is worthless!
Judge: Why is the car worthless? It looks fine and still drives. I fail to see the problem. How did the defendant destroy or damage your car? What exactly is it that the defendant has done?
Plaintiff: He bought one just like it, your honor.
Sound familiar?
I remember that when Cabbage Patch dolls were first introduced, they were extremely valuable, because they were rare. The destruction unleashed upon heterosexual marriage must therefore be a reduction in its exclusivity! That means the rarer marriage is, the more it's worth! Marriage is a commodity for the religious right, and the religious right is a cartel! Now I understand.
So what can we do to solve this? I propose we make an exchange as a compromise. We allow gays to marry, but provide divorce lawyers free of charge. That way the number of divorces will rise, ensuring that marriages remain as valuable a commodity as the religious right would like them to be. Then they can continue life with the knowledge that they belong to an exclusive club of owners of a rare good: marriage. That must be why divorce rates are so much higher in red states:
Sources: http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html
and http://electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Info/red-blue.html
Notice also the results when I removed the swing states (Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania) and Nevada (with the volume of weddings in Las Vegas, it would be unfair to include Nevada (divorce rate 9.0) in the mean). The result: the red states still have a significantly higher rate of divorces. I guess the religious right's plan for marriage exclusivity is well under way!
The religious right is always telling us that same-sex marriage destroys marriage for everyone else. I just couldn't wrap my head around that, but today I figured it out. The religious right has simply had problems with the word "destroy." The following are a series of questions and answers that lead me to the correct definition of destroy that the religious right must be using. I then offer a solution as a sort of compromise.
Does the marriage of a same-sex couple cause your marriage no longer to be recognized by the state? No.
Does the marriage of a same-sex couple cause your marriage no longer to be recognized by god? No.
Hmm, still seems fairly undestroyed. Maybe it's the "fabric of the American family" itself that is somehow damaged.
Does same-sex marriage make you more likely to divorce your husband or wife? No, unless you're gay too, I would imagine, but then we need to be having a different conversation.
Does same-sex marriage make you beat your kids? No, I don't see a connection there. If same-sex marriage has led you to beat your children, please feel free to describe the incidents in the comments section and explain what led you to the beatings. Please don't forget to include your real name and home address (note, comment postings are not made in confidence).
Does same sex marriage make you love your own family less? I assume not.
Hmm, that must not be what they're talking about either. If you went to court and told the judge your neighbor destroyed something of yours, you'd have to show that it was indeed destroyed and if and how your neighbor did it. Let's try an example that will get us closer.
Plaintiff: Your honor, my neighbor destroyed my car.
Judge: The evidence I have here shows your car looks to be in mint condition. Is it in some way damaged?
Plaintiff: Yes!
Judge: ...how? Does it no longer run?
Plaintiff: No, it still runs.
Judge: Then what is the nature of the damage?
Plaintiff: Yeah, it's destroyed, the car is worthless!
Judge: Why is the car worthless? It looks fine and still drives. I fail to see the problem. How did the defendant destroy or damage your car? What exactly is it that the defendant has done?
Plaintiff: He bought one just like it, your honor.
Sound familiar?
I remember that when Cabbage Patch dolls were first introduced, they were extremely valuable, because they were rare. The destruction unleashed upon heterosexual marriage must therefore be a reduction in its exclusivity! That means the rarer marriage is, the more it's worth! Marriage is a commodity for the religious right, and the religious right is a cartel! Now I understand.
So what can we do to solve this? I propose we make an exchange as a compromise. We allow gays to marry, but provide divorce lawyers free of charge. That way the number of divorces will rise, ensuring that marriages remain as valuable a commodity as the religious right would like them to be. Then they can continue life with the knowledge that they belong to an exclusive club of owners of a rare good: marriage. That must be why divorce rates are so much higher in red states:
| Red States | Blue States | |||
| State | Divorce Rate | State | Divorce Rate | |
| IA | 3,9 | MA | 2,4 | |
| NM | 6,0 | RI | 3,2 | |
| OH* | 4,5 | VT | 4,0 | |
| NV | 9,0 | NY | 3,3 | |
| FL* | 5,9 | MD | 3,5 | |
| CO | 5,1 | HI | 4,2 | |
| MO | 4,9 | IL | 3,7 | |
| VA | 4,6 | CT | 2,8 | |
| WV | 5,0 | CA | 4,3 | |
| AR | 7,1 | ME | 4,4 | |
| AZ | 5,8 | DE | 4,8 | |
| NC | 5,1 | NJ | 3,0 | |
| TN | 6,6 | WA | 5,6 | |
| LA | 3,6 | OR | 5,3 | |
| SC | 4,2 | MN | 3,6 | |
| GA | 5,2 | MI | 4,1 | |
| KY | 5,8 | PA | 3,3 | |
| MS | 5,7 | NH | 4,4 | |
| MT | 4,9 | WI | 3,4 | |
| IN | 6,4 | Mean | 3,86 | |
| SD | 4,2 | |||
| TX | 5,4 | w/o OH, FL, PA, NV | ||
| AL | 6,2 | Red mean | 5,3 | |
| KS | 4,7 | Blue mean | 3,89 | |
| ND | 3,4 | |||
| AK | 5,5 | |||
| OK | 6,7 | |||
| NE | 4,0 | |||
| ID | 6,2 | |||
| WY | 6,5 | |||
| UT | 4,7 | |||
| Mean | 5,4 | |||
and http://electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Info/red-blue.html
Notice also the results when I removed the swing states (Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania) and Nevada (with the volume of weddings in Las Vegas, it would be unfair to include Nevada (divorce rate 9.0) in the mean). The result: the red states still have a significantly higher rate of divorces. I guess the religious right's plan for marriage exclusivity is well under way!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)