David Blankenhorn And The Meaning Of "Bigot"

I’ve read quite a bit today about David Blankenhorn’s lack of bigotry. Blankenhorn, best known for his opposition to same-sex marriage, argues that he can be anti gay marriage without being antigay.

Some of David’s friends — including Dale Carpenter and Jonathan Rauch, both prominent supporters of marriage equality (and gay themselves) — have taken pains to say that David is no bigot. Carpenter lays out the argument:

On the subject of same-sex marriage, I believe David is a man at war with himself. He has spoken publicly, in a forum of anti-SSM conservatives, of the equal dignity of homosexual love. Note the words dignity and love. This is not the language of liberal toleration of some hateful thing, like Nazis marching in Skokie […]

David doesn’t oppose gay marriage because he opposes gay people. He opposes it because he’s worried it would have unintended negative effects on marriage. […]

What I can’t say, as Frank Rich has now repeatedly suggested, is that David is an anti-gay bigot. I don’t see how anyone who has reviewed David’s writings, speeches, and California testimony, could honestly say such a thing.

I suspect that if I met David socially — which seems, put mildly, unlikely — I’d like him. He seems like a pleasant guy, and he’s interested in a lot of the same things that interest me. And he’s able to have friendly discussions about policy with people he strongly disagrees with, a trait I highly value.

Nonetheless, David’s preferred policy harms same-sex couples, harms their children, harms lesbian and gay kids, and makes lesbians, gay men, and their kids into second-class citizens. That David is personally a very nice guy doesn’t mitigate the harms of the policies he defends.

David is obviously not a simple hater of gays. He doesn’t wish gay people harm for the sake of harming gay people.

But is simple, direct hatred the only kind of bigotry that exists?

Decades ago, William F. Buckley argued that it was not; discussing antisemitism, he used the example of a man who genuinely loves his Jewish friends, but also supports his country club’s restricted (no Jews allowed) policy. The point is, even someone who is not personally antisemitic in the sense of rabidly hating all Jewish people, might be antisemitic in other ways — such as supporting an antisemitic policy.

David Blankenhorn doesn’t hate gay people, and that’s good. But he engages in antigay bigotry by supporting a bigoted and antigay policy.1 It’s not unfair to say so. What would be unfair is taking all discussion of bigotry off the table, when moral opposition to bigotry is one major reason to favor marriage equality.

* * *

Further reading: David Blankenhorn responds to Frank Rich; XXFactor; Equality Loudoun; Zack Ford.

  1. Yes, the same thing is true of Barak Obama. []
This entry posted in Same-Sex Marriage. Bookmark the permalink. 

100 Responses to David Blankenhorn And The Meaning Of "Bigot"

  1. 1
    Robert says:

    Is Blankenhorn bigoted? Don’t know – don’t know the man.

    Are you using “bigot” in a way that contributes anything to the discussion? I don’t think so. Basically to you anyone who holds any policy position which is detrimental to some gay person somewhere ever, is bigoted. That might be true, but it isn’t particularly helpful in arguing the policy.

  2. 2
    Myca says:

    Basically to you anyone who holds any policy position which is detrimental to some gay person somewhere ever, is bigoted.

    No, what you’re leaving out is “provided that that policy is a bigoted one,” which is true.

    Supporting changes to the tax code which harm people who make over $250,000/yr (or under 20,000/yr) will be “detrimental to some gay person somewhere ever,” but is not bigoted against gay people.

    Christ, Robert. You’re not stupid. Don’t act like it. You know that this is not a reasonable response.

    —Myc

  3. 3
    Robert says:

    I was taking that as understood, Myca.

  4. 4
    Dianne says:

    I hadn’t really known much about Blankenhorn before reading this post. However, having read his opinion pieces and defense of his position, I have to say that Blankenhorn’s position is so weak and self-contradictory that I almost can’t see it as anything other than an excuse for bigotry. I can’t speak to what’s in his mind, heart, or subconscious, but his actions are bigoted and so he should be treated as a bigot.

  5. 5
    Myca says:

    I was taking that as understood, Myca.

    Then what’s the problem? If you advocate that people with Celiac’s Disease ought not be allowed to marry or adopt children, then you’re bigoted against them, whether you spend all of your free time baking delicious gluten-free brownies or not.

    The thing is, there’s an interesting two-step here:

    1. If someone is called a bigot because they hold bigoted attitudes: “How can you presume to know what’s in his mind? Do you liberals think you’re magical mind readers or something?”

    2. If someone is called a bigot because of their actions (like supporting bigoted policies): “But he’s not really a bigot! Not in his heart.”

    I think it makes more sense to judge people on what they do than how they feel, but I’m sure as hell not going to agree that we can’t judge people on anything ever. I mean, what the hell?

    —Myca

  6. 6
    Hunter says:

    I think the idea that Blankenhorn is at war with himself is the most accurate take, but I’m not sure the reasons that Carpenter seems to subscribe to are in the ballpark. If you’ve read any of Blankenhorn’s articles or OpEds on the subject, it becomes clear very quickly that he finds himself defending a position in the absence of any rational basis and is forced into tortured logic, misrepresentation, and sometimes fabrications.

    My own suspicion is that Blankenhorn is not so supportive of the “equal dignity” of gay relationships as he would like to make out — there’s a certain mileage to be gained by being a liberal Democrat, as he styles himself, in opposition to a liberal Democratic cause (particularly if one’s funding comes primarily from socially conservative sources). He seems to have a fundamental discomfort with actual recognition of that “equal dignity.”

    I don’t think it’s deliberate bigotry, just a carry-over from learned responses that haven’t been deeply examined. His downfall is in making himself a public spokesman for a cause he seems to believe in but can’t justify.

  7. 7
    Robert says:

    Well, Amp seems intent on condensing the two-step into a zero-step. If he thinks a law is anti-gay, then it is, and the people supporting it are automatically bigots.

    I think he’s perfectly entitled to this view, but I also think that people’s sensitivity to being thought of as bigoted goes down as a result of this type of process.

  8. 8
    Vec says:

    I’m not certain I agree that this position, as framed here, is bigoted.

    Assume, purely for the sake of argument, that allowing same sex couples full marital rights would in fact ultimately lead to the erosion and eventual destruction of the nuclear family as an institution. Then allowing those rights would ultimately be massively harmful to society as a whole, including but not limited to the very same sex couples you’re trying to help.

    This sort of scenario is absurdly far fetched, as well as historically unsupported, and treating it as a valid policy consideration is conservative to the point of paranoia, but it’s not really hateful.

    I think there’s a useful distinction to be made between “I support/oppose Policy X because it would help Group Y and I hate/fear Group Y” and “I support/oppose Policy X because I don’t believe the help it would do to Group Y justifies the (real or imagined) harm it would do to Group Z”. The latter can be reasoned with.

  9. 9
    Robert says:

    Careful, Vec. It’s only a matter of time before framing hypothetically non-bigoted arguments is itself proof of bigotry.

  10. 10
    nobody.really says:

    I sense a semantic discussion here.

    The thing is, there’s an interesting two-step here:

    1. If someone is called a bigot because they hold bigoted attitudes: “How can you presume to know what’s in his mind? Do you liberals think you’re magical mind readers or something?”

    2. If someone is called a bigot because of their actions (like supporting bigoted policies): “But he’s not really a bigot! Not in his heart.”

    I think this sums things up well. Arguably, we could resolve this conceptual problem (for purposes of this discussion) be agreeing on a given definition for “bigotry.” If we define bigotry to refer solely to actions taken for the purpose of harming some group, then arguably Blankenhorn does not meet that definition. If we define bigotry to mean someone who advocates a policy that he believes/should believe/has cause to believe will harm/have a disproportionate negative effect on a group, then arguably Blankenhorn meets that definition.

    I don’t see much to debate here; pick your definition, and pick the result. End of discussion.

    Of course, the discussion does not end there; rather, it begins there. I sense the real discussion pertains not to fact and reason, but to emotion. Amp (and others) do not merely wish to convey information about Blankenhorn’s views; they wish to stigmatize Blankenhorn’s views – and perhaps to punish Blankenhorn for expressing those views. To this end they wish to wield the stigmatizing words “bigot” and “bigotry.”

    So I’ll take this opportunity to express my own feelings: I would prefer retiring demonizing words from public discourse. I regret that we can have such little faith in our neighbors that we can’t say “Look at how Blankenhorn’s policies would subject homosexuals and their families to burdens that heterosexuals don’t face!” and rely on our neighbors to generate their own emotional reactions. I regret that we feel the need to tell people what those emotional reactions should be.

  11. 11
    Dianne says:

    I think there’s a useful distinction to be made between “I support/oppose Policy X because it would help Group Y and I hate/fear Group Y” and “I support/oppose Policy X because I don’t believe the help it would do to Group Y justifies the (real or imagined) harm it would do to Group Z”. The latter can be reasoned with.

    In principle I see your point, but I’m not sure that the reality is so distinct. Many times people frame their arguments in terms that don’t require them to admit their bigotry. A person may argue overtly that they oppose gay marriage because it would cause the erosion of the nuclear family. Very well, but many people continue to make this argument after being confronted with massive amounts of data to the contrary. That implies that they’re either not very rational or they have another motivation.

    Blankenhorn’s arguments appear to me to be based primarily in sexual insecruity and hatred of women as much as anything. His web site expresses a massive amount of bigotry against women and anger at the idea that women might be able to get pregnant without having a male owner nearby. Sorry, he may be a nice guy (most likely TM) in person, but he’s pretty clearly a bigot. His bigotry may be more about gender than sexuality, but he’s found a socially acceptable outlet in bigotry against gays and is going with it.

  12. 12
    Vec says:

    It’s more than a semantic difference, and if we want to win support for marriage equality we should care very much.

    Opposition to marriage equality out of hatred or fear of gay people is essentially an emotional response. This category of opponents are likely to uniformly oppose things like repealing DADT and employment nondescrimination laws regardless of the rational arguments for them. They are also likely to change their opinions on all of these points together if and when they have some experience that defuses their original emotional reaction, like a kid coming out of the closet or a gay couple moving in next door. These people need to be won over with comfort and familiarity.

    The other major class of opposition comes from the argument that changes to major societal institutions have unintended consequences, and therefore should be approached extremely cautiously if at all. This is a logical response, not an emotional one. These people may be allies in other fights for equality where they feel the stakes are lower or the consequences have been adequately explored elsewhere. They’re also more likely to respond to arguments that Massachusetts hasn’t burned down yet, or that marriage survived the repeal of anti-miscegnation laws without much trouble.

    I’m not familiar enough with his writings to guess which category Blankenhorn falls into, but defining bigot outward so as to antagonize or stigmatize the class of opponents who are most likely to be supportive of your other goals is just bad strategy.

  13. 13
    Robert says:

    Which website is that, Dianne?

  14. 14
    Chris says:

    Here’s my issue: The position that says allowing gay marriage will cause horrible societal consequences, including the complete annihilation of the nuclear family, is based on absolutely nothing. It’s an inherently stupid position. Is it really that much of a stretch to assume that this position, in and of itself, is based on bigotry?

  15. 15
    Ampersand says:

    Robert:

    Basically to you anyone who holds any policy position which is detrimental to some gay person somewhere ever, is bigoted.

    This is so incredibly stupid and ill-thought a statement that it makes it impossible to even consider debating the matter with you as if you were at all serious or engaged in sincere discussion.

    Gay people are everywhere, more or less. Nearly all possible real-world policies are detrimental to some group of people, somewhere, and odds are that at least one or two of those people are gay. If what you were saying was true, it would logically follow that I must consider nearly all policies bigoted.

    When Myca pointed that out, you responded “I was taking that as understood, Myca.” What, we’re supposed to ignore what you actually wrote, make up something that isn’t impossibly stupid, and pretend you wrote that instead of what you actually wrote?

    Careful, Vec. It’s only a matter of time before framing hypothetically non-bigoted arguments is itself proof of bigotry.

    Rob, I’ve done nothing to deserve you coming and pissing all over my thread. Either start taking this seriously, stop acting like an asshole, and leave this crap out of this thread, or just stop posting in this thread. Your choice.

  16. 16
    Ampersand says:

    Amp (and others) do not merely wish to convey information about Blankenhorn’s views; they wish to stigmatize Blankenhorn’s views – and perhaps to punish Blankenhorn for expressing those views. To this end they wish to wield the stigmatizing words “bigot” and “bigotry.”

    So I’ll take this opportunity to express my own feelings: I would prefer retiring demonizing words from public discourse.

    I don’t wish to punish Blankenhorn at all. I’m not advocating that he be forbidden from speaking, that he be fined, or that anything else bad happen to him. If I ever meet the man, I’m not going to punch him or spit in his face; I’ll shake his hand, remind him who I am, and ask him how his trip to Oregon is going.

    The reason I speak so often about homophobia, sexism, racism, anti-fat bigotry, and other forms of bigotry isn’t that I wish to punish others with demonizing words. It’s that I think these are important concepts that explain a lot about how our society’s institutions are organized, and it is therefore important that they be discussed. Furthermore, a rule or expectation that the groups who are hurt most by bigotry never publicly discuss the bigotry seems unfair.

  17. 17
    Ampersand says:

    Vic, let me play a little game of word substitution. The bolded words are words I’ve inserted into Vic’s statement, not words that Vic wrote himself.

    Assume, purely for the sake of argument, that allowing PROTESTANTSfull marital rights would in fact ultimately lead to the erosion and eventual destruction of the nuclear family as an institution. Then allowing those rights would ultimately be massively harmful to society as a whole, including but not limited to the very PROTESTANTcouples you’re trying to help.

    This sort of scenario is absurdly far fetched, as well as historically unsupported, and treating it as a valid policy consideration is conservative to the point of paranoia, but it’s not really hateful.

    If that hypothetical consideration came into play, it would, I think it’s safe to say, be dismissed as a wildly bigoted and idiotic idea. The only circumstance under which it could be taken seriously would be a society in which Protestants (or Christians in general) are generally accepted to be second-class citizens.

    I’d argue that one measurement of society-wide bigotry is which group’s interests it is considered rational and non-hateful to advocate sacrificing.

    David Blankenhorn doesn’t argue that gay marriage alone will bring about the marriage apocalypse. As I understand it, he argues that marriage has been weakened by a great number of things done in society, and mostly done by heterosexual people. But marriage is now so weak, in his view, that we can’t risk doing anything else correlated with weak marriage, such as gay marriage.

    My immediate question is, why are gay people, and their families, the people expected to be sacrificed? There are any number of ways we could make it more likely that children will be raised by married, biological parents through taking away rights from heterosexual people. We could, for example, penalize unmarried heterosexual parents with extremely high taxes, while providing a large tax break for married biological parents. We could say that the state shouldn’t legitimize the marriage of a parent if the person they’re marrying isn’t the other biological parent of their child (with exceptions if the other biological parent is deceased). We could make it illegal for married parents to divorce unless one of the parents is found guilty of criminal abuse. We could make inter-faith and inter-racial marriage illegal (statistically, these marriages are significantly more likely to end in divorce).

    All of these measures are more directly related to David Blankenhorn’s goal (which is to increase the portion of children raised by their two married, biological parents) than banning same-sex marriage. I’d bet that all of them would be more effective measures, for achieving Blankenhorn’s goal.

    But Blankenhorn won’t advocate for any of these measures. Why not?

    You could say “well, those measures are draconian, and Blankenhorn doesn’t advocate draconian measures.” But that can’t be true, because Blankenhorn does advocate draconian measures: The absolute ban of same-sex couples from marriage is draconian, and Blankenhorn himself acknowledges that his policy does significant harm to same-sex couples and their children.

    But in our society, draconian legal measures aimed at heterosexuals are not acceptable in the way that draconian legal measures aimed at same-sex couples are. I’d argue that the reason for the difference is that we live in a homophobic society, in which the “is this reasonable?” bar is set much lower for laws that target gays and lesbians, compared to the “is this reasonable?” bar for laws targeting heterosexuals.

    And I’d argue that this difference is a sort of bigotry, and can legitimately be discussed as bigotry.

  18. 18
    mythago says:

    What Rauch is missing is that Blankenhorn cares less about gays than he does about gender. The problem isn’t that Blankenhorn is primarily homophobic; he’s sexist, and the fallout for gays is a side effect of his sexism.

    It’s not that he wishes LGBT folks ill, by all accounts. It’s that he’s a gender essentialist who believes that men and women have separate spheres and beings, such that any functioning marriage must have one of each. This is why his ‘fatherhood initiative’ doesn’t advocate two-father families, which would be the logical end point if you think that children wither away and die for lack of a father in the home.

    Of course, he could hardly say that in court, because then he would run smack into the law being facially discriminatory based on gender (which is the argument that won the day in Baehr, and I have yet to get anyone I know involved in No on 8 to give me a coherent explanation as to why we dropped this argument).

  19. 19
    Robert says:

    I am not intending to piss on your thread. I merely fail to see the point of it on your end. Every analysis always ends in the same place; you could get there a lot faster with simple prejudice.

    You may have an intention only to discuss the multifaceted aspects of bigotry and prejudice as societal phenomena, but I don’t think the people who hold the views you’re classing as “bigoted” would see it that way. And a thread on “Joe Smith, Bigot” is going to read to the casual observer as being about why Joe Smith sucks so bad, rather than as a discussion of a phenomenon.

  20. 20
    mythago says:

    but I don’t think the people who hold the views you’re classing as “bigoted” would see it that way

    Great Chukulteh on a bicycle, Robert, of course they don’t see it that way. How many bigots do you know who are actually loud, proud and willing to say “Yes, I hate those people”? Instead of, oh, well, I don’t wish them ill but that’s just the way they are, they’re not like us, they’re fine folks but would you want your sister to marry one?

  21. 21
    Mandolin says:

    Vec and Hunter, if you’re willing to say, do you identify as female, male, or neither? I’m trying to run down how many of our comments come from men, and I know most of the other handles.

  22. 22
    Ampersand says:

    What Mythago said; the mere fact that people I disagree with are not likely to share my views isn’t a strong reason for me to not state my views.

    In addition, Robert, I’d add that I don’t think of a post like this as being aimed at “the casual observer.” I’m assuming that most “Alas” readers are coming into the discussion with a more-than-average interest in discussing and thinking about these issues.

    Finally, I haven’t found that 100% of people with what I’d call bigoted views are unwilling to discuss it. Especially in face-to-face interactions (where it’s easier to use vocal tone and body language to make it clearer that I’m not attacking, perhaps?), I’ve met multiple people who are willing to discuss the meaning of “bigotry” while seemingly accepting that my purpose isn’t to attack them personally.

  23. 23
    Vec says:

    Male. I’m also heterosexual and caucasian, if anyone cares.

    Back to Amp’s last post, thank you for clarifying your position, and I think that reasoning is sound. I just feel like we should be careful in how we relate to people who exhibit less extreme positions.

    If opinion polls are to be believed, there is some large fraction of people who are opposed to marriage equality but in favor of civil unions and/or employment equality and/or ending DADT. There exists an inherent contradiction in the ideas that “who you sleep with doesn’t make you a better or worse employee/soldier/person” and “we need to protect the sacred institution of marriage from those people”. Sooner or later, if people are forced to confront it, that contradiction has to collapse. Calling people bigots is a wonderful way to antagonize them to your position and ensure that conflict will collapse against you. In other words calling them bigots is likely to make them bigots, to an even greater degree than they were before.

  24. 24
    Myca says:

    I think that there are some people who would like to read “Frank is a bigot” as roughly equivalent to “Frank is a shithead.” That is, as a generalized insult meant to demonize rather than describe. A pejorative.

    If that’s what you believe, it makes sense that you would argue against using the word bigot. After all, using it in an otherwise polite debate would be inflammatory in the same way that using ‘shithead’ would be inflammatory.

    I don’t understand ‘bigot’ that way. I understand ‘bigot’ as a descriptive term. I think the problem with understanding it as a pejorative is that it makes actual discussion of actual bigotry pretty well impossible. If you think the word has meaning at all, then there are situations in which it must apply.

    Roughly, I think that those situations are as I laid them out earlier … either based on feelings or based on actions. When I use it, I try to use it based on actions.

    Robert:

    If he thinks a law is anti-gay, then it is, and the people supporting it are automatically bigots.

    Well, look. If I were to propose a law that black people (Or Celiac’s patients or Protestants) ought not be allowed by law to marry one another or adopt children, we would all accept it as bigoted pretty clearly.

    If your argument is that Ampersand’s definition of bigotry is bad, I’d like you to offer an alternate definition that’s consistent. I mean, either all three laws (anti gay, anti black, or anti Celiac’s) are bigoted, none of the three are, or your definition will somehow differentiate between them.

    My definition is based on actions, not feelings, and calls all three bigoted.

    —Myca

  25. 25
    Robert says:

    If I were to propose a law that black people (Or Celiac’s patients or Protestants) ought not be allowed by law to marry one another or adopt children, we would all accept it as bigoted pretty clearly.

    Probably, because black people, Protestants, and Celiac sufferers are all groups, either biological or behavioral, that have achieved social acceptance. There are laws that siblings are not allowed to marry one another; are those laws bigoted? How about age-of-consent laws? The point is not that you should be able to marry your sister or a child, the point is that what “we would all accept” as bigotry is quite often temporary and transient according to social mores. 200 years ago, we wouldn’t have all accepted that a law prohibiting black marriages was bigoted.

    “Because that’s icky” is the secret, actual justification for marriage restriction laws. We all know that; all that changes is what is considered “icky”. Homosexuality has gone from extremely icky in the popular view to non-icky and normative. Hooray, for the gay people whose lives are surely much easier and better now, but there’s been no vast shift in the definition of bigotry; it’s just been demographics.

    I hate playing the definitional game, but I’ll play along, at least to the extent of borrowing someone else’s definition and using it as good enough. The Wiki definition requires three elements for bigotry: irrationality, intolerance, and animosity. I think all three are necessary. “I really hate those Pastafarians (animosity) because they go to church at 11 AM instead of 10 AM as Jesus ordained (irrational), but if one applies for the job at my store I’ll give their application a look. They have rights, too.” = Not a bigot. Hates for bad reasons, but doesn’t translate it into action.

    “I really hate those Pastafarians (animosity) because Pastafarian gangs killed both my children and burned down my house, and if one applies at my store I’ll show him the door.” = Not a bigot. Hates and is acting on their hate, but has a reasonable basis for the bad relationship with the group.

    Offhand I can’t think of a reasonable scenario for someone who irrationally shows consistent intolerance, but has no particular animus against the group.

    Mr. Blankenhorn, by this definition, isn’t even close to a bigot. He shows no sign of hatred; “some of my best friends are…” is no defense against racism, but when true it’s probably a sign of non-hatred. Few of us make friends with people we hate. He shows intolerance, in the narrow sense of supporting laws that uphold the status quo; he doesn’t seem to show that type of intolerance in his personal life. Finally, he is rational; his argument is not “gays are icky and we should abhor them” but, explicitly, “this group would be helped by a change in the law, but I believe the net social harm would outweigh that benefit”. (One may argue the facts here – maybe he’s wrong – but he makes a rational argument that can be disproved rather than an emotional argument that can be only rebutted.)

    I’m inclined to go with Vec’s interpretation. Making a moderate like Blankenhorn into an enemy – whether that’s your intention or not – is not smart strategy. 20 years ago someone with his beliefs would have been in the mainstream of the cutting-edge of the gay rights movement. 50 years ago he would have been past the cutting edge – a dangerous anti-marriage radical proposing crazy domestic partnership arrangements! Now he’s a bigoted enemy, because demographics have shifted and young people don’t have the same “eww” training with regard to homosexuality as their elders? It seems…well, disheartening.

    I accept that your intentions aren’t in that direction, Amp, but I don’t think your intentions matter all that much.

    (Finally, in an earlier draft, I used “Frank” as an example name, before deciding to not make the comment (it does happen) and it seriously freaked me out to see you use that name, Myca. I thought “oh crap, did I end up posting that after all?”)

  26. 26
    mythago says:

    Vec @23: it only collapses for people who are willing to see the illogic. The sort of person who clings to “but that’s what marriage IS” or “civil unions are too the same thing legally” is not the sort of person who would be swayed by sweet reason but for your suggestion that they have the slightest animosity toward gay people.

  27. 27
    mythago says:

    Apologies for the cross-post.

    Making a moderate like Blankenhorn into an enemy

    Blankenhorn testified at trial on behalf of social conservatives who believe same-sex couples should not even have civil unions. I’m sorry, but this is a ‘moderate’ and somebody who is not an ‘enemy’ of the LGBT community?

  28. 28
    nobody.really says:

    Amp (and others) do not merely wish to convey information about Blankenhorn’s views; they wish to stigmatize Blankenhorn’s views – and perhaps to punish Blankenhorn for expressing those views. To this end they wish to wield the stigmatizing words “bigot” and “bigotry.”

    So I’ll take this opportunity to express my own feelings: I would prefer retiring demonizing words from public discourse.

    I don’t wish to punish Blankenhorn at all.

    Then I must wonder at the purpose of using the word “bigotry.” As amply demonstrated by the comments, the word obscures as much as it clarifies.

    The reason I speak so often about homophobia, sexism, racism, anti-fat bigotry, and other forms of bigotry isn’t that I wish to punish others with demonizing words. It’s that I think these are important concepts that explain a lot about how our society’s institutions are organized, and it is therefore important that they be discussed.

    Great. And here are the concepts that I understand Amp to set forth:

    1. Amp generally opposes subjecting people – especially people in subordinated groups — to inferior treatment.

    2. Amp generally judges policy proposals based on their foreseeable/likely consequences rather than the subjective intent of the policy’s advocates.

    These concepts seem pretty easy to articulate without resorting to terms such as “bigotry.”

    Furthermore, a rule or expectation that the groups who are hurt most by bigotry never publicly discuss the bigotry seems unfair.

    Oh, I expect people who believe a proposed policy will hurt them to speak up against the policy. I even expect that they will do so in emotion-ladened terms. Indeed, the internet is full of places where people do precisely this.

    For purposes of policy discussions, however, I prefer when people avoid such terms. I prefer that groups that are hurt most a policy that has a disparate effect on them to complain about the disparate effect. And if the group finds it relevant to allege that the policy reflects a policy maker’s group animus, or recklessness, or indifference, or ignorance, or financial motives, I have no objection to allegations about these mental states.

    But exactly NONE of these terms are in dispute here. Amp does not attempt to analyze Blankenhorn’s mental state because Amp attacks no significance to that issue. And Blankenhorn’s defenders do not attempt to dispute that Blankenhorn’s policy proposals would produce a disparate effect on a subordinated group. In short, I find no actual concepts in dispute.

    Then only issue in dispute is whether to use the term “bigotry” for this situation. WHO CARES?

    Well, clearly a lot of people do. But why? Because the word “bigotry” has great conceptual content? Or because the word has great emotional content, because it’s a word used to stigmatize? I don’t find the first theory very persuasive. Consequently I’m left with Door #2, and with the conclusion that Amp’s purpose is to stigmatize – although I acknowledge that he disavows this intention.

    Anyway, that’s as much as I have been able to understand from this discussion. People who conclude that the word “bigotry” really brings more light than heat to this discussion will likely draw a different conclusion.

  29. 29
    joe says:

    Robert Writes:
    June 21st, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Is Blankenhorn bigoted? Don’t know – don’t know the man.

    Are you using “bigot” in a way that contributes anything to the discussion? I don’t think so. Basically to you anyone who holds any policy position which is detrimental to some gay person somewhere ever, is bigoted. That might be true, but it isn’t particularly helpful in arguing the policy.

    Myca Writes:
    June 21st, 2010 at 6:26 am

    Basically to you anyone who holds any policy position which is detrimental to some gay person somewhere ever, is bigoted.

    No, what you’re leaving out is “provided that that policy is a bigoted one,” which is true.

    Supporting changes to the tax code which harm people who make over $250,000/yr (or under 20,000/yr) will be “detrimental to some gay person somewhere ever,” but is not bigoted against gay people.

    Robert Writes:
    June 21st, 2010 at 6:29 am

    I was taking that as understood, Myca.

    So let’s put it all together

    Basically to you anyone who holds any policy position which is detrimental to some gay person somewhere ever because, and only because, they are gay, is bigoted.

    I’ll go with yes to that. I mean it seems like a very reasonable definition. It’s not disparate impact. It’s not institutional. It’s because they are gay.

  30. 30
    Myca says:

    Probably, because black people, Protestants, and Celiac sufferers are all groups, either biological or behavioral, that have achieved social acceptance.

    So you would argue, Robert, that laws against interracial marriage and restrictions on African-Americans voting in the post-reconstruction era were not bigoted, then.

    —Myca

  31. 31
    Robert says:

    No, I would argue they were bigoted. But the point is that the same law would be viewed as bigoted by one group of people (us today) and not by another group at another point of time – and thus that “we all agree that such-and-such is or is not bigoted” is a pretty worthless metric.

  32. 32
    Ailuridae says:

    So because bigots don’t think they’re bigots, and it will hurt their feelings if we call them out as such–thus making them resistant to the idea of not being bigots–we should not call them out for saying or doing bigoted things. It’s “worthless” to point out something that is true because things just magically shift and change on their own. The reason it’s not acceptable to say those things about protestants, blacks, etc, is not because anybody pointed out it was bigoted to do so. No, no, that’s worthless. Everything just shifted on its own. Or perhaps we were all just so nice to people who were bigoted or supported bigoted policies that they decided they really didn’t want to keep oppressing anybody after all.

    It’s so fun being privileged. You get to make up the rules, break them, redefine them, and then not hold yourself to them anyway after everyone has jumped through all of your hoops. Then you get to go back and pretend none of it ever happened.

  33. 33
    Monty says:

    I agree with what I take to be &’s basic point: you can be perfectly polite (as opposed to, say, a screaming pile of Limbaugh) and still be a bigot. Covert bigotry v overt bigotry?

    Disturbing thought: If I’m prejudiced against Nazis –especially Illinois Nazis– does that make me a bigot?

  34. 34
    Motley says:

    @ Myca –

    I think that there are some people who would like to read “Frank is a bigot” as roughly equivalent to “Frank is a shithead.” That is, as a generalized insult meant to demonize rather than describe. A pejorative.

    Thanks; this is something that doesn’t get enough attention. (See: racist, rapist, etc.) I don’t know how much I’d care about this if I weren’t something of a word-geek, but it rankles that certain words get used as a synonym for “bad person” instead of having any actual meaning. (Especially as I’m in one of those groups whose name is generalized to mean “bad.”)

    This pattern, too, is why we get the defense of “But he’s an otherwise nice guy, so he can’t be a _____!” Because anyone who’s not a monster obviously couldn’t be a bigot, a racist, or a whatever, if all of these things just mean “monster.”

    @ Monty –

    Disturbing thought: If I’m prejudiced against Nazis –especially Illinois Nazis– does that make me a bigot?

    Guy I know offers the definition that being prejudiced against a group in which membership is voluntary makes a difference. Hating Nazis is different from hating short people, because a Nazi chose to be a Nazi, and therefore endorses their beliefs. Hating someone on the basis of a choice they made isn’t prejudice.

  35. 35
    Silenced is Foo says:

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the massive hyperbole we demonstrate about bigotry – presenting racist, sexist, and homophobic people as the most horrifying monsters to grace the earth – has done a wonderful job at making it socially unacceptable to do any of those things (or at least it seemed to do that back in the ’90s when Internet anonymity didn’t let people say terrible things for giggles).

    Unfortunately, it means that nobody is ever willing to admit that anybody is racist/bigot/whatever.

    By converting these hurtful personality faults into cartoonish supervillainy, it means that nobody will ever accept that somebody they see as a genuinely decent person (particularly themselves) is a bigot.

    I remember arguing with a man who claimed he wasn’t racist – he merely had his prejudices. Racial prejudices. Because to most people, “racist” means the Grand Dragon of the KKK burning a cross on some poor black dude’s lawn.

  36. 36
    Robert says:

    Hating someone on the basis of a choice they made isn’t prejudice.

    Vegetarians suck! All who convert away from Islam must die! Libertarians are bad! Hmmm, I gotta say, those seem like expressions of prejudice to me.

    Prejudice is one of those lovely words that defines itself if you let it. Pre, before, judice, judgment. Prejudgment. You can prejudge, i.e., be prejudiced, against (or for) people for any reason or none at all, so there really isn’t a born that way vs. chose to be that way test to be applied.

  37. 37
    Motley says:

    Vegetarians suck!

    Not all vegetarians chose to be that way.

    All who convert away from Islam must die!

    That’s not hatred, that’s an attempt to state a rule; it isn’t an emotion. Also it’s worth mentioning that religious (or atheist) people don’t describe their religion as a choice. I don’t recall choosing my own.

    Libertarians are bad!

    I know some libertarians, so I have to support that one. People who decided to call themselves libertarians have some traits in common. Hating those traits isn’t prejudice; there’s nothing prejudicial about hating something you do know about.
    Bigotry, I think, is hating people for something that doesn’t say anything about them as a person (which is slightly different from prejudice). It isn’t hard to spot. (And I think that anything that isn’t your choice, doesn’t say anything about you as a person.)

  38. 38
    Les says:

    The hypothetical country club member in the example probably had a bunch of reasons he thought it was important to keep Jews out of country club. Of course, he wasn’t a bigot, he just wanted to protect an important institution, he told himself and others. I’m sure his justifications sounded very reasonable to him.

    Somehow, we’re willing to accept all the same kinds of rubbish from people against gay rights as we used to tolerate from anti-semites. Indeed, we’re more willing to tolerate homophobia than we’re willing to tolerate the labelling of it as homophobia. It’s very important to protect the feelings of bigots. Much more important than it is to protect the rights of gay people.

    As long as we keep up this ludicrous charade of concern for the feelings of people who want to deny basic human rights to others, then they win. I’m all for politeness in society, but this is a sham of it, designed to protect bigotry from criticism and, as it serves solely to extend privilege, I say we drop it.

  39. 39
    nobody.really says:

    Hating someone on the basis of a choice they made isn’t prejudice.

    You may want to consider both volition and mutability. Some choices can be subsequently un-chosen. Some can’t. At some point in your life you may make a decision that leaves you with sexually transmitted diseases, drug addictions, a criminal record and a child. No matter what choices you make today, you may find it difficult to undo the consequences of those earlier choices. Does that justify making you the object of hatred?

    The more I think about it, the more I’m coming to suspect that hatred may have shortcomings as a basis for decision-making and public policy.

  40. 40
    Motley says:

    The more I think about it, the more I’m coming to suspect that hatred may have shortcomings as a basis for decision-making and public policy.

    Indeed. I assume that I haven’t said anything to suggest the opposite.

    You may want to consider both volition and mutability. Some choices can be subsequently un-chosen. Some can’t.

    It’s a good point, but consider this: Murder. It can’t be un-chosen, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to call a dislike for murderers “prejudice” or “bigotry.”

  41. 41
    nobody.really says:

    I don’t think it’s reasonable to call a dislike for murderers “prejudice” or “bigotry.”

    Call it what you like; I’m not that into the semantics discussion.

    Suffice it to say, one of the books where I stumbled upon the idea about the shortcomings of hatred also offered some ideas on withholding judgment and engaging in forgiveness – even for some pretty bad conduct. Kinda thought-provoking.

  42. 42
    Motley says:

    I’m not that into the semantics discussion.

    I guess we can’t all be semantics-nerds. More’s the pity.

  43. 43
    mythago says:

    Motley @34: guy you know is an idiot. If somebody hates Jews but hastens to qualify that he doesn’t mean anybody who happens to have been Jewish by birth, just people who identify as Jewish and celebrate Passover and all that, are we supposed to pretend that isn’t bigotry?

    There’s semantics, and there’s being an asshole and pretending that it’s not assholery, it’s just semantics.

  44. 44
    Myca says:

    The Wiki definition requires three elements for bigotry: irrationality, intolerance, and animosity.

    Yeah … I’m not really sure where this definition comes from. A little googling shows it as cited all over the net, but all the references seem to point back to the wiki. My best bet is that someone just made it up.

    Which is fine, actually. Nothing wrong with making it up … it’s just that it stops being an authoritative source as opposed to “stuff I made up” or “stuff Amp makes up.”

    I think all three are necessary.

    I don’t.

    I don’t because it’s transparently easy to concoct a ‘rational’ reason, lacking ‘animosity’ to advocate a bigoted policy.

    Think of the literacy tests required to vote in the Jim Crow south. They were clearly and obviously designed to deny the vote to African-Americans, yet they made no reference to race … and of course if any of those VSPs of a previous generation had been called bigots, they could have launched into a whole spiel about how, “no, no, they’ve got nothing against black people, they just believe in an educated electorate, and how can we know that voters understand the issues at stake if they can’t even read, etc etc blah blah blah.”

    Except, of course that they were bigots. Because they were advocating bigotry.

    It seems to me that if your definition of bigotry excludes Jim Crow laws, Robert, then you’re defining language so as to be useless. And yeah, I understand why it would be emotionally appealing for people who propose bigoted policies to be able to say that they’re not bigots, and I guess I sympathize, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to side with the utility of language over their potential for warm fuzzies.

    —Myca

  45. 45
    Motley says:

    @ Mythago –

    I wasn’t assuming that religious/cultural identification is really a choice. The impression I’m under is that most people simply follow the religion they were brought up with. (And that the choice about identification is to lie about it or not to; I don’t think there are too many people out there who are prejudiced against “the honest.”)

    If a guy joined the Nazi party, that decision has predictive value, it tells you something about the person. If a person’s Jewish, it doesn’t, necessarily.
    (Though I know a couple of Jewish people who seem to be quite happy to say that they can’t stand converts to Judaism, and I’m comfortable saying that that doesn’t appear to be bigotry or prejudice.)

    @ Myca –

    (If you’re not interested in the definitional nitpicking, you might want to skip this)

    I think the definition works if we hold “rational reasons” to a stricter standard than that. “Believing in an educated electorate,” while opposing anything that would actually educate the electorate doesn’t meet the standard of “rational reason,” I’d say.

    Or, more precisely, doesn’t meet the standard of actually having that rational reason; because the Jim Crow supporters obviously didn’t believe in an educated electorate. (Evidence: Their perpetual campaign of historical revisionism.)

    By contrast, consider the hypothetical case of someone who favored literacy tests, but actually didn’t know about the racially-imbalanced effect they would have; stupid and profoundly ignorant, but not necessarily bigoted. (And highly, highly unlikely, of course; I don’t believe for a second that any such people existed.)

    To sum up: I disagree with the idea that they actually had rational reasons. Claimed to, maybe, but that ain’t the same.

  46. 46
    Myca says:

    To sum up: I disagree with the idea that they actually had rational reasons. Claimed to, maybe, but that ain’t the same.

    Sure, but then those who oppose same sex marriage also fail this test.

    —Myca

  47. 47
    Motley says:

    Sure, but then those who oppose same sex marriage also fail this test.

    Yup. Somebody saying that he wants to use the law to protect the sanctity of marriage, but doesn’t want to outlaw divorce, increase the minimum age of legal marriage, or criminalize adultery (and/or similar measures) is somebody who is not being sincere.

    You could claim that the institution of marriage is under attack, certainly, but to claim that the primary threat is gay people who want to get married is obviously incorrect.

  48. 48
    mythago says:

    Motley @45: c’mon.Having an “impression” means that religious belief doesn’t count as a choice? If we’re going to play semantics, then clearly people who identify as member of belief-based religions are “choosing” to remain in the faith of their childhood, and adults who have converted to that faith “choose” to be a member of that faith.

    Perhaps for the joy of argument, you’re conflating bigotry with all negative feelings, including a loathing for affiliation with hateful beliefs.

  49. 49
    Myca says:

    Okay. My main objection was to the animosity standard anyhow.

    As Jay Smooth says, when someone takes my wallet, I don’t care whether they ‘felt like a mugger in their heart,’ it was still fucked up.

    Animosity as a standard is just about impossible to prove if the person denies it … which, of course, is precisely how bigots want it. “I’ve got no problem with black people! I think they’re fine! They should just stick to their own kind and not try marrying white folks.”

    Riiiight. No animosity there.

    People like Robert want the standard to be impossibly strict because then any sort bigoted policy may be advocated without it coming back on the person doing the advocating. I think that’s a cop out. I think it’s time for people to show a little personal responsibility and own their shit.

    —Myca

  50. 50
    Motley says:

    @ mythago –

    No. As I stated, explicitly, I don’t think that religious belief is a choice. Hell, I don’t think belief is a choice, period. That’s the impression I get, certainly.

    Which part of that is “conflating bigotry with all negative feelings?”

    @ Myca –

    Yeah, I don’t like the animosity standard just because it’s impossible to know, so it’s useless.

    Though, if somebody (hypothetically) wanted to outlaw gay marriage and wanted to criminalize divorce and adultery, put a five-year waiting period on marriage licenses, and whatnot? Then yeah, maybe they’re not bigots, maybe they actually do just want to defend the institution of marriage. If someone just wants to do the part that hurts gays, though, then they probably just want to hurt gays.

    Guy I know (same guy as above, who I happen to know ’cause he’s my brother) points out that no, there isn’t a religious exemption… for anybody who doesn’t follow all the other rules that get laid out in Leviticus.

  51. 51
    Robert says:

    Yes. The Jim Crow racists were LYING about their reasons. And as Motley notes, there are ways to test lies.

    A Jim Crow law adherent who honestly did think we needed an educated electorate, and was out in his black agricultural worker community teaching literacy and civics, voting for schools for black children, etc., registering blacks to vote, etc. doesn’t seem to be all that bigoted against black people. So “supported Jim Crow” isn’t enough; motive matters. (Granted, the number of Jim Crow adherents who actually behaved in this idealized way was doubtless tiny.)

    Jim Crow isn’t ideal ground to defend the concept (see above note about really, they were mostly just racists), but in general I think it’s a bad idea to work backwards from policy to motive. That rhetorical strategy works in all directions. It’s not a weapon whose use ought to be encouraged. Neither left-wing nor right-wing evocations of it are going to end up being attractive.

    Many people, myself among them, think that gay couples deserve to have their partnership statuses respected by the machinery of the state, whether this is called civil union or domestic partnership or whatever. We don’t think it should be called marriage because in our view marriage is a religious and sacramental institution more than a secular one, and those kinds of institutions should have only the lightest of contact from state authority. The place to fight for gay marriage is within the church sanctifying the marriage, not the temporal political regime. The civil state is the place to fight for equal legal treatment, not linguistic reformation.

    I want gay couples to have the same legal rights as I have, but I want the state to starkly and sharply restrict its shapings of the social fabric concerning these relations to the absolute minimum necessary to achieve the goal of equal civil rights. Thus: civil equality, equal treatment by state authority, combined with deference to the private sphere of religion and tradition in the individual daily life of the nation.

    I and my partner, whomever s/he may be, should be able to live in freedom and security, and have our mutual relationship acknowledged and respected by the government which serves us. Against the state, our rights to partnership are very strong. Among our neighbors, our rights to partnership extend to equality under the law, but do not extend to requiring the neighbors to change their minds. The state is our servant, and must treat us well and alike; our neighbors are our peers, and are not as constrained.

    I submit that this is not a bigoted position.

  52. 52
    Thene says:

    Robert:

    We don’t think it should be called marriage because in our view marriage is a religious and sacramental institution more than a secular one, and those kinds of institutions should have only the lightest of contact from state authority. The place to fight for gay marriage is within the church sanctifying the marriage, not the temporal political regime.

    Great. Let’s ban heterosexuals from calling their legal relationships ‘marriages’ immediately. Civil unions for all, straights and queers alike!

    Oh, you don’t want that? Then I guess you’re a bigot.

    (This is leaving aside all the religious groups which already sanctify same-sex marriages, or which would be willing to if it were legal. I guess they either magically don’t exist or are magically not relevant to Robert-logic.)

  53. 53
    Myca says:

    in general I think it’s a bad idea to work backwards from policy to motive.

    I think you’re misunderstanding the argument if you think we need to involve motive at all.

    —Myca

  54. 54
    Motley says:

    @ Thene –

    I’ve long been thinking that a lot of this is a semantic dispute. The word “marriage” means one of two things; it’s either a legal contract, mostly about tax forms and joint ownership of property, etc, or it’s a religious term meaning whatever the religion in question says it means. Laws only affect the first definition.

    So if we want to replace the legal term “marriage” with some other one (civil unions or whatever), I can’t imagine caring.
    The collective flipping-out over gay marriage seems to be that a lot of people either hate gays, or aren’t well-informed enough to know that changes to the law would only affect the legal-contract definition of marriage, that it wouldn’t do anything to their churches, which would be as free as ever to preach all the hate they want.

    @ Robert –

    The civil state is the place to fight for equal legal treatment, not linguistic reformation.

    The problem is that the two shape each other.

  55. 55
    Robert says:

    Great. Let’s ban heterosexuals from calling their legal relationships ‘marriages’ immediately. Civil unions for all, straights and queers alike!

    Yes. As far as the state is concerned, every permanent partnership is a civil union/partnership/whatever. “Marriage” becomes a word reserved for the religious institutions to grant. “We’re married in the Catholic church”, “we’re Unitarian-married”, etc. Many straight people would get their civil union, just as today they go down to city hall; some straight and gay people would also get a religious sanctification. Some people would probably just get the religious one and ignore the state requirement and cause lots of headaches for innocent clerks, but that’s manageable.

    (This is leaving aside all the religious groups which already sanctify same-sex marriages, or which would be willing to if it were legal. I guess they either magically don’t exist or are magically not relevant to Robert-logic.)

    They exist. As I said, explicitly, the fight for whether a particular church ought to recognize gay partnerships as marriage belongs in that church.

  56. 56
    Motley says:

    Though if I had to pick one, how about the state gets to keep “marriage” and crazy religious groups can pick a new word if they can’t deal with being associated with Those Creepy Gays?
    I’m not interested in having somebody else’s religion dictate my word-choice.

    They exist. As I said, explicitly, the fight for whether a particular church ought to recognize gay partnerships as marriage belongs in that church.

    Absolutely. And that fight within a particular church ought to have nothing at all to do with what the rest of us call something.

  57. 57
    Z.L. says:

    Robert, one point to dispute:

    We don’t think it should be called marriage because in our view marriage is a religious and sacramental institution more than a secular one,

    Um, not quite. For Protestants, marraige is not a sacrament; the only sacraments are Baptism and Communion. Interestingly, Martin Luther believed that marraige wasn’t even a church-related function at all; he said it was something that it’s a concern of the state.

    This view that you’re mentioning might be your own particular view; if so, that’s fine. That said, you shouldn’t use the state to enforce your religious views.

  58. 58
    Thene says:

    Robert:

    Yes. As far as the state is concerned, every permanent partnership is a civil union/partnership/whatever.

    So why aren’t you out there campaigning for this change? Why are you sat here defending people who don’t want this move toward equality instead?

  59. 59
    mythago says:

    “Civil unions for all” is a derail. Yes, in a perfect world where we were designing marriage from the ground up and everybody wanted to include same-sex couples too, that would be an option to put on the table.

    But as Robert knows (c’mon, Robert – you’re a smart guy), most heterosexuals do not want to be “civilized” or “unionized”. They do not want to distinguish their legal relationship from their religious one; “Oh, yes, we’re unionized, but we’re Catholic, so we’re married too.” Insisting that same-sex couples force a total overhaul to civil unionhood for everyone first is the legal equivalent of those quests in the fairy tales: why sure, Peasant Lad Hero, you can marry the princess, right after you complete this impossible quest that has killed dozens of suitors before you.

    Likewise, “whether a particular church ought to recognize gay partnerships” is a red herring. The blessing of any religious institution, or lack thereof, has zero to do with civil recognition of that marriage. Shifting the discussion to ‘sacraments’ is, again, an attempt to derail, by ignoring the fact that the government touches not at all on whether a church must recognize any civil marriage as religiously valid. (Seen any lawsuits by interfaith couples trying to get the Orthodox Union to send a rabbi over? Me either.)

    Motley @50: insisting that religious belief is not a choice based on an “impression” does not strike me as good-faith discussion, but as a rhetorical device to avoid the logical inconsistencies of arguing that bigotry is OK when applied to voluntary membership in a group. You’d have to pretend that everybody belongs to the faith of their childhood, that everybody with religious beliefs had a faith in their childhood, and so on.

  60. 60
    Ampersand says:

    Yes. The Jim Crow racists were LYING about their reasons. And as Motley notes, there are ways to test lies.

    A Jim Crow law adherent who honestly did think we needed an educated electorate, and was out in his black agricultural worker community teaching literacy and civics, voting for schools for black children, etc., registering blacks to vote, etc. doesn’t seem to be all that bigoted against black people.

    Similarly, an opponent of the state using the word “marriage” at all, will have a long history of real actions fighting against heterosexuals being “married” in the eyes of the state. The organizations concerned with this will be pushing petitions and legislation to eliminate the word “marriage” from all laws; the people involved will avoid getting getting legally married themselves. I’d say that these people aren’t acting in a way that is antigay.

    What doesn’t make sense is someone who thinks that the state should get out of the marriage business, but is aware that this is unlikely to ever happen, and in the meanwhile the one and only action they take to oppose state-recognized marriage is to vote against equal marriage rights for gays. That’s an antigay act.

    Going back to the country club example, if someone argues that exclusive country clubs shouldn’t exist at all, and who therefore votes in favor of rules excluding Jews from country clubs — while still belonging to a country club himself, and doing nothing at all to eliminate country clubs in general — I’d think of that as an antisemitic act.

  61. 61
    Ampersand says:

    Insisting that same-sex couples force a total overhaul to civil unionhood for everyone first is the legal equivalent of those quests in the fairy tales: why sure, Peasant Lad Hero, you can marry the princess, right after you complete this impossible quest that has killed dozens of suitors before you.

    Amp stands up and applauds. :-P

    Maybe in some far-off future, decades or centuries from now, we’ll have a perfect libertarian state and the government will be out of the marriage business. That’s no excuse for being in favor of legal second-class status for same-sex couples in the here and now.

  62. 62
    Motley says:

    You’d have to pretend that everybody belongs to the faith of their childhood, that everybody with religious beliefs had a faith in their childhood, and so on.

    Pretend? No. State that I suspected this to be the case for the majority? Yes.

    Motley @50: insisting that religious belief is not a choice based on an “impression” does not strike me as good-faith discussion…

    Right. To insist that wouldn’t be, which is why I’m not doing it. I stated (third time, now) that I’m under the impression that people don’t choose their religious beliefs. You claim that this is the same as insisting something, anything, when it isn’t.

    You’re attacking me, repeatedly, for something I didn’t say. I don’t know why. I’ve reminded you of what I did say, a couple times, but you seem to be ignoring it. I’m probably going to ignore further straw-man attacks; if you feel like addressing something, anything, that I actually said, that’d be different.

  63. 63
    Thene says:

    Hm, Amp’s comments just made me think of something. In the WLS thread Robert distinctly referred to his civil partner as his ‘wife’. Why would he be using a purely religious and sacramental term on a blog that’s mostly devoted to the search for equality between people in life’s public spheres?

    It’s not because he’s a total flaming hypocrite, is it? Couldn’t be. Surely.

    Motley:

    I stated (third time, now) that I’m under the impression that people don’t choose their religious beliefs. You claim that this is the same as insisting something, anything, when it isn’t.

    Well, I’m a pagan convert and I certainly found, if not chose, my religious beliefs. There are other pagans who were raised as pagans and who had far less room to come to their own beliefs; why should I be treated differently from these other pagans? Is it okay to be prejudiced against me but not them?

    I’d argue that given that some people had more room to choose their belief system than others, it’s not very useful to classify prejudice against certain religions as being OK or not okay based on whether it’s a personal choice or not. I’d be inclined to avoid religious prejudice entirely and, in those cases where it is appropriate, settle instead for ‘love the believers, hate the beliefs’ :)

  64. 64
    Myca says:

    Re: The whole Civil Marriage/Church Marriage thing.

    I agree with Robert on this probably 90%. My only caveat is that there’s no reason not to call civil marriage ‘marriage.’

    Which is what we do now.

    Which is why civil marriage is a civil right.

    —Myca

  65. 65
    Ampersand says:

    I wouldn’t criticize Robert for using the word “wife” — words like “wife” and “husband” are REALLY useful in day to day life, and not using them would be, imo, a little pointless. The point for me is equal treatment; it’s fine for me to call my wife my wife (if I were married), but it should also be fine for me to call my husband my husband (if I were married).

    And although Churches and individuals should absolutely be free to discriminate between same-sex and opposite-sex couples (if they want to), I don’t think the government should be free to make that same distinction.

    Also, let’s keep the discussion one about positions, not individuals. (Unless the individual being discussed is David Blankenhorn, I guess, since he’s the example used in the OP). Obviously, I’m criticizing Robert’s position too, but I think statements like “It’s not because he’s a total flaming hypocrite, is it? ” aren’t the direction I want this thread to take.

  66. 66
    Dianne says:

    “Marriage” becomes a word reserved for the religious institutions to grant. “We’re married in the Catholic church”, “we’re Unitarian-married”, etc.

    Would you also agree to the caveat that then “marriages” are completely meaningless legally? For example, a couple who has undergone a marriage ritual but has not received a civil union decree from the state is not considered each other’s next of kin, does not automatically have visitation rights in the hospital, do not get any tax benefits (or penalties), do not have automatic paternity assumptions concerning children born into the marriage, etc. As far as the state is concerned, they’re just a pair of individuals and the “marriage” has no more meaning legally than a facebook “marriage”. Agreed? Assuming you agree, do you think this proposal would have a snowball’s chance in Arizona of passing congress or any state legislature?

    Also, I assume you’re ok with organizations (churches, mosques, syangogues, temples, etc) that are willing to peform marriage ceremonies between gay or lesbian couples?

  67. 67
    Thene says:

    Amp:

    Obviously, I’m criticizing Robert’s position too, but I think statements like “It’s not because he’s a total flaming hypocrite, is it? ” aren’t the direction I want this thread to take.

    I hear you, and I’ll take heed of that, but forgive me if I think Robert is not being honest in his statement of his position. I don’t think his words or actions fit his supposed cause.

  68. 68
    Motley says:

    @ Thene –

    Well, I’m a pagan convert and I certainly found, if not chose, my religious beliefs.

    Yeah. Again: I believe we don’t choose our beliefs. I didn’t choose to believe in gravity, I didn’t choose not to believe in a god, I didn’t choose to believe that I like ketchup, I didn’t choose to believe that we don’t choose our beliefs. I’d go so far as to say that belief, by definition, is not an act of will.

    I think I’d agree not with the idea that some people had room to choose their beliefs, but that some people had more room to find their beliefs, or to express ’em. If you think I’m nitpicking here, I’m not gonna argue, though.

    I’d be inclined to avoid religious prejudice entirely and, in those cases where it is appropriate, settle instead for ‘love the believers, hate the beliefs’ :)

    I’m fairly comfortable with “Judge the believers based on the choices they make*, and don’t care what they say they believe.”

    (*I suspect there’re a lot of things that I don’t think are choices that’re generally accepted as such, and that the disagreement comes from that.)

    @ Dianne –

    Would you also agree to the caveat that then “marriages” are completely meaningless legally?

    Isn’t this already the case, though? (Or is that what you’re saying, and I didn’t get it?) Church actions don’t have much legal standing with regards to things like that, far’s I’m aware. When I got my marriage license, I don’t remember ’em even asking if we’d done anything religious about it.

    @ Ampersand – (Or do you go by Amp?)

    What doesn’t make sense is someone who thinks that the state should get out of the marriage business, but is aware that this is unlikely to ever happen, and in the meanwhile the one and only action they take to oppose state-recognized marriage is to vote against equal marriage rights for gays. That’s an antigay act.

    Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking too. Though I think I’d oppose the idea that there shouldn’t be legal marriage, actually on semi-libertarian grounds. (If two people decide they want their property to be handled as a unit rather than separately, they should be allowed to do so. Similarly, if I want to be able to designate someone as the person who makes medical decisions for me when I’m incapacitated, I should be allowed to; likewise all of the other current legalities of marriage. I think there’s a benefit in being able to put all of these into one package deal, and calling it marriage or whatever; though these arrangements should, of course, be able to be made separately.)

  69. 69
    nobody.really says:

    Wow, this thread goes from one semantic discussion to the next! First we were talking about the appropriate use of the word “bigotry.” Then we added “prejudice.” And now “marriage.”

    Robert has expressed a preference for using the term “marriage” for a religious ceremony; others have expressed a preference for using that term for civil unions as well. But is there any larger disagreement here?

    For example, what mechanisms would you propose for enforcing your own preference? I don’t understand Robert to be advocating that people who use the term “marriage” for non-religion-based unions would suffer any legal sanction. Similarly, I don’t understand others to suggest that anyone suffer a legal sanction for refraining from referring to non-religion-based unions as “marriages.” At most, I surmise that people are arguing over the language that would be used in a statute.

    Talk about the defense of marriage: In my state we have no legal provision for divorce! Cool, huh? Instead, the legal term is “dissolution of marriage.” And guess what? EVERYONE CALLS IT DIVORCE ANYWAY. (Attorneys that practice family law attend a week-long Continuing Legal Education class that they lovingly call “Divorce Camp.”) Bottom line: the language of the statute in no way constrains the language people use to describe this social institution.

    As people debate whether or not to use the term “marriage” to refer to unions entered into outside of a religious context, I would find it helpful if people also clarified what sanctions you would propose to assess on people who do not conform to your preferences. Absent the discussion of sanctions, I suspect we already know the outcome of this discussion: Some people will use the word “marriage” to have one meaning and others will use it to have a different meaning, just like any other word of the English language, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

  70. 70
    nobody.really says:

    Even if we can agree that the stakes here are merely over what term to use in a statute, we confront a more general question: To what extent should the state consider the symbolic consequences of decisions?

    Generally I’m not fond of the state promoting values, and generally I see symbolic speech as a vehicle for promoting one set of values over another. Yet I sense my point of view is pretty thoroughly rejected in practice. I sense courts have rejected gender-segregated social institutions that may be equal in substance but distinct in prestige – the desegregation of the Jaycees, or of the Virginia Military Academy – largely based on the idea that everyone should have an equal opportunity to symbols of social approval.

    I generally share Robert’s view that the state should not involve itself in telling people how they should FEEL about same-sex unions. That said, even accountants ascribe value to an ephemeral, reputation-based quality called “good will” that is associated with the ongoing operations of an institution. Here, the state has arguably played a role in investing the ongoing institution of marriage – and the word “marriage” — with good will. State action has rendered the word a valuable asset.

    If the state wished to accord equal recognition to same-sex and male/female unions, but assigns labels to these unions that have unequal good will, that sure looks like disparate treatment to me. The state would need to identify some narrowly-tailored justification related to a bona fide state interest. I can’t think of what that justification would be.

    Thus, I grudgingly conclude that statutes should use the term “marriage” to refer to both male/female and same-sex unions. Religious institutions will doubtless develop their own modifiers to serve their own interests: “traditional marriage,” “REAL marriage,” “holy matrimony,” etc.

  71. 71
    Robert says:

    Would you also agree to the caveat that then “marriages” are completely meaningless legally?

    Sure. If you are one of the (relative handful) who reject the power of the state altogether in this area, why would you want any of the state-sponsored benefits?

    Also, I assume you’re ok with organizations (churches, mosques, syangogues, temples, etc) that are willing to peform marriage ceremonies between gay or lesbian couples?

    What possible rationale would there be for me having a voice in the private lives of any group of third parties? It is immaterial whether I am “ok” with it. It’s none of my business.

  72. 72
    Robert says:

    That’s no excuse for being in favor of legal second-class status for same-sex couples in the here and now.

    How is what I’ve proposed second-class status for same-sex couples?

    It’s second class status in the eyes of many religious people, and in the eyes of many churches, I will grant you. (“You’re not really married, whatever you got those phonies at the UU to say.”) But that is the case now, and will be the case regardless of the secular state of marriage law. (“You’re not really married, whatever those phonies in Sacramento say.”)

    As long as the tax deduction is the same, the visitation rights and inheritance and all the rest is the same – whence the status difference, in the eyes of the state, which are the only eyes we can direct?

  73. 73
    mythago says:

    Motley @62, the nice thing about the Internet is that people can go back and read what you’ve actually said. You don’t believe religious belief is a choice. Using that kind of, well, you call it ‘nitpicking,’ I guess I could argue that people choose their race because they self-identify and hey, if people with as much European as African ancestry call themselves ‘black’ then it’s OK to be bigoted against them because it’s not as though it’s over some immutable characteristic, like a physical disability.

    Amp @60: exactly. At your request I’ll stop picking on Robert, but I’ve heard the argument “the government should get out of marriage but of course I’m legally married myself” umpty times, normally with a sorrowful face about how the speaker has no choice but to get married because the mean gubmint makes not-marrying all but impossible.

  74. 74
    Ampersand says:

    That’s no excuse for being in favor of legal second-class status for same-sex couples in the here and now.

    How is what I’ve proposed second-class status for same-sex couples?

    As I understand it, you favor a theoretical future time in which government gets out of the marriage business.

    However, until the government does get out of the m.b., do you vote in favor of, or against, same-sex couples being treated equally? As I recall, you said on a public forum that you voted in favor of banning gay marriage. That’s second-class status.

    That said, it’s possible that you’ve changed your view since 2006, and would not vote the same way today. I certainly hope that’s the case.

  75. 75
    mythago says:

    Even if we can agree that the stakes here are merely over what term to use in a statute

    Those are very high stakes. Words mean things, especially in the law.

  76. 76
    Robert says:

    As I recall (and I’m fuzzy, I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to the state referenda, there are so many), I voted in favor of the “marriage is a man and a woman” bill (because I think it is), and voted in favor of the civil partnerships for gays bills (because while flawed, it was a step in the right direction of legal equality for all adult partnerships).

    I don’t know which one(s) passed, which is pretty embarrassing. I should pay less attention to the national and more attention to the state scene.

  77. 77
    mythago says:

    Robert @76: yes, you should, given that marriage is determined by the states.

    The “marriage is a man and woman bill” is really the “civil marriage, as recognized by the government, can only happen between a man and woman” bill. But you’re already married, so I can see why you might not pay much attention to the rights of people who aren’t yet.

  78. 78
    Robert says:

    It is interesting that this has become about me. Why, other than the love and admiration you all have for me, does it matter whether I personally am perfectly sincere, or a poisonously anti-gay sneak-thief ballot-buster?

    The question is, is there an argument against gay marriage that isn’t anti-gay bigotry. I presented one, and asked what was bigoted (or second class) about it – and rather than answer that, people have been trying to show me not to live up to that argument’s idealistic premises. No doubt I don’t measure up – but it isn’t about me. You can ask Hitler the time of day, and judge his answer on its own merits.

  79. 79
    Ampersand says:

    But in the real world, no one is facing the question “should the government get out of the marriage business?” The government getting out of the marriage business is not on the menu. It’s not a real option.

    If that was the actual question anyone was facing, then it would be a relevant answer. But in the real world, the question that’s actually on the menu — the question we’re actually voting on, very often — is whether or not the existing civil institution of marriage should be available equally to same sex couples, or whether same-sex couples should have a secondary status. There’s no way you can pretend that how people answer that question is irrelevant.

    As you yourself wrote earlier, it’s possible for someone to put forward a facially pro-equality argument, but for them to actually be anti-equality when you look at the other things they do or don’t do. Why shouldn’t this approach also apply to those who say they want government out of the marriage business?

  80. 80
    mythago says:

    Robert @78, people have answered your question; you don’t appear to like the answer.

  81. 81
    Robert says:

    Another argument, anti-gay marriage but motivated by (and aiming towards) maximum benefit to gay people.

    Straight adults’ partnerships ought to be validated and recognized by the civil authority.

    Gay adults’ partnerships ought to be validated and recognized by the civil authority.

    Right now the civil authority recognizes straight partnerships, but in most places does not recognize gay partnerships. In fact, many states have passed laws or constitutional amendments mandating, well, a variety of things, but basically that there won’t be gay marriage here.

    These laws are newly passed; they reflect, not a legal status quo, but a (sometimes anticipatory) reaction to the passage of gay marriage laws (and, I think to a lesser extent, civil union laws) in more liberal states.

    I do not think that this conflict will end up resolving well for gay people, especially couples. I think it will be legalistic and antagonistic as an incremental process, and catastrophically divisive if nationwide gay marriage is achieved through a judicial act, which seems the only likely way a national solution would be imposed. Gay couples in states with marriage benefit; gay couples in all states, however, also suffer from increased contention and public unhappiness. This effect might be minimal or nil in states where gays are widely accepted; I think the impact will be worse in West Bedstead, OK.

    Civil unions, implemented state by state, would provoke a much less antagonistic response. The word means so very much to people on both sides of the debate; avoiding it also lets a lot of feeling out of the debate. Civil unions also seem to provide all of the legal, insurance, governmental, etc. benefits of marriage, which from discussions with gay friends on and offline seems to be a very important concern.

    Looking at all this, I – wanting the maximum happiness of everyone, gay and straight alike, and seeing everyone’s adult partnership choices as their own business and to be honored and respected – compute that we’d be better off collectively with less social dissonance and civil unions, than with more conflict and gay marriage. I bow to the greater good – civil unions, equal to marriage, decided state by state! People get their rights – not as fast or as ideally as we would all like, but they get them by hook or by crook. The principle of choice is upheld. Those who really just can’t stand the gayness of it all can self-segregate to Montana or wherever and just be VERY BUTCH.

    So is this hypothetical person, wanting civil unions to spread everywhere, but not favoring outright gay marriage, a dreadful anti-gay bigot? Does s/he want gays and lesbians to be second-class citizens? It doesn’t seem so to me.

  82. 82
    Monty says:

    There’s a huge difference between being rational and rationalizing.

    Looking at all this, I – wanting the maximum happiness of everyone, gay and straight alike, and seeing everyone’s adult partnership choices as their own business and to be honored and respected – compute that we’d be better off collectively with less social dissonance and civil unions, than with more conflict and gay marriage. I bow to the greater good – civil unions, equal to marriage, decided state by state! People get their rights – not as fast or as ideally as we would all like, but they get them by hook or by crook. The principle of choice is upheld. Those who really just can’t stand the gayness of it all can self-segregate to Montana or wherever and just be VERY BUTCH.

    For the most part I assume rational arguments are prima facie intended to be honest (in the sense of being truth-directed)…yet I understand why ppl rationalize any and every kind of self-supporting bullshit.

  83. 83
    Monty says:

    To be clear:

    My position is that gay people should enjoy all the rights & privileges afforded to heterosexuals.

    It should be obvious that Mr Blankenhorn has an anti-homosexual bias. That his homophobia is of the polite/covert variety doesn’t mean he is any less prejudiced than than anyone who goes out queer-stomping.

    That is all.

  84. 84
    Chris says:

    Robert,

    One could, in the past, make a similar argument that integrating schools would cause more harm to black people, due to the reactions of the anti-black community, than leaving them integrated would. Is this person a bigot? More importantly, are they supporting a bigoted policy?

  85. 85
    Robert says:

    If you really believed it to be true, then no, that isn’t bigotry.

    Counterquestion: You have a choice. Imagine that for some weird reason, 99% of white southerners would be OK with integrated education, as long as everybody says that the black children are attending “schoole” and not “school”. Everything else is the same – mixed classes, same resources, same teachers, same standards.

    Your choice: you can make that deal in 1901, and every black child from 1901 on goes to “schoole” – nothing will stop you from lobbying those white southerners to drop that extra “e”, it just won’t be done that way from the start.

    Or you can have the status quo, with black school kids mostly confined to their own dreadful school until the 1960s, and once they’re in they’re in, with no more “e” silliness.

    Are you a bigot for thinking the first option might be a better approach? For thinking that, what, 10 or 15 million black children from 1901-1964 getting a decent education that they’ll otherwise be denied, is more important than a linguistic point?

  86. 86
    La Lubu says:

    As long as we keep up this ludicrous charade of concern for the feelings of people who want to deny basic human rights to others, then they win. I’m all for politeness in society, but this is a sham of it, designed to protect bigotry from criticism and, as it serves solely to extend privilege, I say we drop it.

    THIS. (Les @ #38)

  87. 87
    Thene says:

    Robert:

    If you really believed it to be true, then no, that isn’t bigotry.

    I suggest you read Intent! It’s fucking magic! over at QT.

    Also, please explain how the state by state idea is meant to help those of us who live in states where the majority of voters are extremely homophobic and who aren’t rich enough to move at the drop of a hat.

  88. 88
    Chris says:

    Are you a bigot for thinking the first option might be a better approach? For thinking that, what, 10 or 15 million black children from 1901-1964 getting a decent education that they’ll otherwise be denied, is more important than a linguistic point?

    But no one is saying that gays should sacrifice marriage-like benefits in order to make their linguistic point. AFAIK, most gay rights activists accept civil unions as a stepping stone toward equality, rather than completely rejecting them because they aren’t the whole enchilada. So I’m not really getting what you’re trying to critique with your scenario; it’s pretty much exactly how gay rights activists have been handling this whole issue from the beginning.

  89. 89
    Charles S says:

    Robert,

    You weren’t being asked to vote on whether black children and white children could attend schoole together. You were being asked to vote on whether school would be restricted to white children. Claiming that it would be okay to vote to put the ban on black children going to school into the state constitution because you favored changing the legal word for school to schoole would be an obvious absurdity.

    When you voted to put the ban on same-sex marriage into the constitution, because personally you think the phrase for civil marriage should be changed to civil unions, which should be open to both same and opposite sex couples, you were not voting to change the term or allowing same sex couples equal rights, you were purely voting to exclude same sex couples from civil unions (not the second class kind, but the kind you have with your wife).

    Additionally, given that you claim to believe that the word marriage should be excised from the law, to be replaced by the word civil unions, in what possible way is voting to enshrine the word marriage in the constitution a step in the direction that you want?

    Are you a bigot for thinking the first option might be a better approach? For thinking that, what, 10 or 15 million black children from 1901-1964 getting a decent education that they’ll otherwise be denied, is more important than a linguistic point?

    And what are you for voting to exclude same sex couples from critical legal rights in order to serve a linguistic point?

  90. 90
    Ampersand says:

    Robert, just to clarify:

    Is your hypothetical person actually opposed to full legal equality for same-sex couples?

    Or are they in favor of full legal equality, but convinced that as a matter of tactics, the best and least painful path to full equality lies through advocating civil unions for now?

  91. 91
    Charles S says:

    Civil unions as they are currently being instituted do not equal marriage with a name change.

    Your second argument against marriage equality and for civil unions is basically the “go slow” argument against the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s (which, come to that, I’ve seen you make). I don’t think I’ve ever seen any actual argument in retrospect for the “go slow” argument (other than “it stands to reason” arguments).

    A supreme court decision in favor of marriage equality is unlikely to happen any time soon. We currently have a conservative majority made up of justices with plenty of life left in them. I will bet that we will have civil unions or legal marriage in 30 states before we get a SC decision establishing marriage equality.

    However, I will agree that (for example) the people who argued against a Federal appeal of measure 8 on the grounds that losing the case before the SC would be a set-back that will delay the possibility of eventually winning a case were not making anti-gay arguments or practicing anti-gay bigotry. When Equality California decided not to put a repeal of measure 8 on the ballot in 2010, but to continue organizing to put it on the ballot in 2012, that was not an anti-gay act nor an act of anti-gay bigotry.

    If you actually believe your go-slowism, then that is not a mark of anti-gay bigotry. It still doesn’t justify or excuse your vote to enshrine your religion’s concept of marriage in the Colorado state constitution.

  92. 92
    Elusis says:

    Just to the issue of whether religion is a choice….

    More than thirty-three million American adults, about 16% of the total U.S. adult population report that they have changed their religious preference or identification.

    From this report, part 4 on Religious Switching.

    So, there’s a lot better success at changing your religion than at changing your sexual orientation.

  93. 93
    Robert says:

    Amp – I had in mind the latter, but there could be people in both camps.

  94. 94
    Ampersand says:

    Robert, if it’s the latter, then that’s not a difference in goals. It’s just a difference in tactics. So it’s really not what I’m talking about.

    Working to keep same-sex couples and their families in a second-class status is inherently antigay. Working for equality — even if one favors “go slow” tactics — is not inherently antigay. It’s really not complex, imo.

  95. Robert:

    As I recall (and I’m fuzzy, I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to the state referenda, there are so many), I voted in favor of the “marriage is a man and a woman” bill (because I think it is), and voted in favor of the civil partnerships for gays bills (because while flawed, it was a step in the right direction of legal equality for all adult partnerships).

    So why wouldn’t recognizing marriages between two men or two women, under that term (i.e., without having a different, parallel — one might even say separate but equal — system) be a further step in the right direction? How is the less equal option better than the more equal option if equality is the goal? Particularly since if they’re two distinct measures, they’re not even mutually exclusive.

    I don’t mean to make this about how Robert voted, I’m a little uncomfortable scrutinizing that, even if he’s the one who announced it. But he seems to be saying that not only should we work for civil unions (te “go-slow” argument as I understand it) but we should work against same-sex marriage, and even change the law to prohibit same-sex marriage, until some unspecified time in the future, and that doing this will, somehow, achieve same-sex marriage.

    I can, in fact, think of an argument for different-sex- but not same-sex marriages that isn’t anti-gay, but, Robert, you’re not remotely making it.

  96. 96
    Motley says:

    So, there’s a lot better success at changing your religion than at changing your sexual orientation.

    No, there’s a lot better success at declaring a change of religion. Seriously: Do you remember choosing to like one kind of food more than another? Publicly espousing a religion is a choice, but the actual beliefs that dictate that choice aren’t.

    I do not remember choosing not to believe in anyone’s god; I simply don’t believe. Similarly, your political party. Whichever one you’re in (or none at all) you chose to join or not to join; but I don’t think you chose whether or not to have the beliefs that led you to make that decision.
    Beliefs may change over time, but I don’t buy the idea that it’s a conscious or volitional process.

  97. 97
    mythago says:

    AFAIK, most gay rights activists accept civil unions as a stepping stone toward equality

    I’m curious as to how you “K” this. “Most gay rights activists” will accept the benefits of civil unions if they exist, because it’s better to be able to see your partner in the hospital than to refuse that right to score political points, but most also recognize that they are a second-class status and used as an argument to shut down equal rights: you people HAVE civil unions, why do you need marriage?

    Robert @81: civil unions do not provide all the legal and contractual protections of marriage.

  98. 98
    Chris says:

    mythago, I’m not sure I understand your issue with what I posted, as we seem to be in total agreement. Civil unions are not full equality, and they still uphold second-class citizenship, but they are better than nothing at all, which is why I referred to it as a “stepping stone” toward full equality. Can you clarify what you found problematic in my post?

  99. 99
    mythago says:

    Chris, my disagreement is twofold; with the idea that most LGBT activists are in favor of civil unions as a way to get acceptance for same-sex marriage, and the idea that civil unions are a “stepping stone” to full equality.

    As Robert’s comment makes clear, civil unions can be a bar to full equality. People assume they are just like marriage without the actual word, or have all the same rights as marriage; neither of these things are true. But how likely is somebody to support same-sex marriage if they think it’s unnecessary?

    Most LGBT activists, based on my totally unscientific sample of “knowing a lot of them and being peripherally involved in No on 8 and LGBT groups”, is that the current opinion is very much against civil unions, although if that’s all you’ve currently got available better to take them and keep fighting than cut off your nose to spite your face, as it were.

  100. 100
    Chris says:

    Most LGBT activists, based on my totally unscientific sample of “knowing a lot of them and being peripherally involved in No on 8 and LGBT groups”, is that the current opinion is very much against civil unions, although if that’s all you’ve currently got available better to take them and keep fighting than cut off your nose to spite your face, as it were.

    At first I thought this was what I was saying, but now I see the difference. I will concede that you are most likely right about how the majority of LGBT rights activists perceive civil unions, as well as in how these might be a bar to full equality.