At a conservative conference this week, Marco Rubio repeated a frequent complaint:
Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in the traditional way does not make me a bigot.
The comments of ThinkProgress are full of readers saying “Actually, yes, it does make you a bigot” and similar comments. Meanwhile, right-wing blogger Denny Burk worries that the comment indicates that Rubio “is beating a retreat” on same-sex marriage.
My response:
1) It would be a miracle if any American of my own and Marco Rubio’s generation (or earlier generations) was not a bigot, in the sense of harboring prejudices against lesbians and gay men. We were raised in an enormously homophobic culture, and it’s unrealistic to think that had no effect on us. It would be like living your whole life in an ocean but claiming to have never once gotten wet.
2) Respecting Marco (or anyone else) does not require imagining that they are magically free of all prejudice and all vestiges of the culture they were raised in.
3) I realize that Marco, and other conservatives, may have some other theory of bigotry. I’m willing to discuss this.
4) The implicit demand that we consider Marco (and other conservatives, since Marco is not at all the only person to make this demand) to be completely 100% bigotry-free, or else we are incivil scoundrels who are proven unwilling to have a civil, respectful discussion, is unreasonable. It requires us (“us” in this case being people who think like me) to completely concede to the conservative view of bigotry before any discussion even begins.
5) I do think that opposing marriage equality is a bigoted policy, in that it is a policy that cannot be justified without at least implicitly treating same-sex couples as if their lives, goals, and families are of secondary importance.
But that doesn’t mean that I think those who endorse marriage equality are bad human beings. I think they’re mistaken, but who doesn’t make mistakes? (Indeed, since they disagree with me, they presumably also think I’m mistaken.)
6) None of this is to deny that some folks on the pro-SSM side demonize our opponents. This happens. (On both sides, by the way). In some cases, what’s going on is well-justified anger, especially from folks who are themselves lesbian, gay or bi. In some cases, especially among straights, I think there’s some moral grandstanding going on. (Again, on both sides).
But as a movement, we’d be wrong to write off SSM opponents as lost causes. The coming pro-SSM majority includes many people who are currently opposed to same-sex marriage. When you look at the speed of changing American opinion, it’s an unavoidable conclusion that every year, more SSM opponents become allies.
I think that’s incredibly cheering. It shows that there are lots of same-sex marriage opponents who are not driven by hate, who are not implacably opposed to anything that makes lgb people happy, and who do find our side’s arguments about fairness and equal treatment compelling.
They just need time. They were raised in a homophobic society, just like all of us. Thinking in a new way takes time. Realizing that something that was an unremarked and unremarkable status quo when we grew up is, in fact, unsustainable and unfair, takes time.
The argument is at least somewhat semantic in nature.
you’re using “bigot” to include, by your post, basically everyone over a certain age (you’re not specifically saying they’re all bigots, but you’re acknowledging by your standards they’re quite probably bigots.)
This pisses them off.
Because guess what? Not only does that generation have a different view of gay rights… but they also have a different definition of bigotry and racism. In their generation you were a “racist” if you were an active KKK member, and you might have been a “bigot” if you discriminated against Catholics. In their generation, intent was key: in your generation, intent is irrelevant. So using language that they think is wholly insulting is pretty much doomed to failure.
I don’t know why you could acknowledge that their upbringing would inform their beliefs, and also fail to account for the effect of their upbringing in your word selection.
After all, if half the population is bigoted, then either (a) half the population are really bad people, or (b) being a bigot doesn’t mean that you’re a really bad person.
Neither of those explanations are going to fly to anyone of the generation you’re trying to reach.
I just leave it at, “You may not be bigoted, but you are supporting bigoted policies.”
If this is the only homophobic act in their lives and they otherwise support protections and respect for gay people, then it’s conceivable that overall they’re not bigoted. If this is just one instance in a series of bigoted things they support, then they should look at the pattern of what they’re doing and come to a conclusion.
I think they might say they look at it the way you would a driver’s license, social security qualifications, pension laws (think IRA’s) or the age limitations on being able to serve in the House, Senate, and presidency.
All of those have “ageist” components and, if you support any one of them, you are a bigot. Maybe Amp would agree with that statement, but I think it may demonstrate (illustrate?) well the “disconnect” people, perhaps like Rubio, feel about that word.
-Jut
It can certainly come from bigotry; probably often does. I can see how it could also come from a perfectly sound principle. If you believe the locus for a particular class of decision ought to be at one level of government, then you could think that a decision belonging to that class ought to be settled at that level.
There’s an easy way to check, at least in the abstract. If the governments at the level you favor tend to disagree with your position on that issue, while government at a higher level tends to agree, and you still think that the governments at the lower level ought to control, then you’re making a stand on principle. Give Rubio a Federal government hell-bent on block same-sex marriage, and 48 state houses hell-bent on passing it into law, and see where he wants the decision made.
In this, as in so many things, I turn to Ta-Nehisi Coates:
…and Marco Rubio isn’t a bigot.
Ta-Nehisis writes an awesome follow-up here, which includes this lovely quote from a judge refusing to perform an interracial marriage:
This is the heart of it. This is the heart of the blind, screaming idiot ego-monsters who say shit like this. It’s not enough to be able to discriminate, you also can’t be criticized for it. It’s runaway PC Nazi thought police if you’re not allowed to call gay people disordered, unfit parents, and possible child molesters, but it’s ‘uncivil’ to call you a bigot. They have to take your shit and smile, because, after all, you’re the only thing in the whole wide world that matters at all.
It’s possible to engage in the discussion that Robert does here (It’s not about Rubio’s views on SSM, it’s about his views on federalism), but it’s reasonable to ask whether we’d be having the same discussion if a politician said “I’m not racist, I just think that the citizens of Arkansas ought to be able to disallow interracial marriages.” My suspicion is that there would, rightly, be a massive backlash of, “Yes you are so racist, and that hair-splitting cuts no crap with us.”
—Myca
What Myca said.
Also, time to link to my favorite video about -isms and -igotries.
Grace
If Rubio thinks states should be allowed to define marriage, I trust he’s a co-signer on repealing DOMA, which permits the Federal government to over-ride and ignore state definitions of marriage.
Robert’s hypothetical is actually the current state of play, so we know where Senator Rubio actually stands on states being able to define marriage and not having the Federal government trample on the rights of married people.
What I find interesting is that Rubio’s comments effectively center the conversation about my basic freedoms and those of other queer people around Rubio and the supposed status of his heart and mind. Whether I really and truly love my partner in a way that is worthy of full recognition under the law, and whether it is fair or unfair for me to suffer concrete harm as a result of laws barring said recognition, this is not important, Rubio suggests. Whether Rubio really and truly hates me, and whether it’s fair or not fair to suggest that he does, that’s the issue that he wants us to think of as being the important thing at stake in this debate.
Having an academic discussion about the semantics of bigotry seems to me to be entirely beside the point and in so many ways playing into the hands of the people who want to keep their audience from thinking about the real lives of the real people who their policies adversely affect. I don’t care if the politicians who oppose full legal recognition of my relationship have love in their hearts for me. Rubio could quite literally be the biggest fan of lesbians ever to walk this earth, and he would still be my enemy at this point in time. What is in his heart is immaterial to the reality of my life, whereas his actual policy positions are quite fully relevant to my everyday existence.
His position on same-sex marriage isn’t wrong because it’s bigoted. It could be motivated by the purest of pure feelings and it would still be wrong, because it causes undue suffering for countless people across the country. But of course what Rubio would prefer would be if we would all take a moment and think about him, too, just a little bit, can’t we?
[edited to fix a spelling error because I’m persnickety that way]
Every policy causes some suffering; sometimes the balance is clear, sometimes the balance is not, sometimes the balance is irrelevant because the policy is necessary and the mitigation of suffering an unaffordable luxury.
If every straight person on Earth were homophobic to a psychotic degree, so that the very existence of homosexuality caused them unimaginable trauma and emotional pain, then the balance of suffering would be against gay rights in general, rather than in favor of them as it is now. Yet, the case for gay rights, particularly the right of people to be treated neutrally and equally by the state, would be absolutely as strong as it is now – because the mitigation of suffering is not a primary component of why those rights should be equal.
‘This policy causes suffering and therefore is wrong’ is facially appealing as an argument, but doesn’t stand up as a principle. Sometimes, happy day, we can reduce suffering by choosing a less suffer-y policy, but that’s neither guaranteed nor required.
That said, I couldn’t agree more with you about where the discussion ought to be centered.
Pingback: Refusing to have the “What You Did” conversation. | Alas, a Blog