"Pro8 = ProH8?" A Critical Reaction to a Recent Proposition 8 Discussion, pt. 2

This entry has no statistics...sorry.


II. The Role of Intolerance in this Prop 8 Discussion

Continuing with my extended response to a note on Facebook discussing Proposition 8 in California, another thing that struck me was what I perceived as a conscious effort to not recognize the stake that homosexuals might have in this situation. I don't mean in the original "20 Arguments", though that is where the tone begins, because this is exclusively a political spin; I mean in the subsequent discussion with several other of Tyson's (Original Poster) friends/colleagues. In setting this tone, all of the original 20 arguments ranging from "Protecting America" to "Protecting Morality" included a very unambiguous proviso that support for Pro8 does not demonstrate a hatred/bigotry/etc. toward gays. Take for instance:

"Speaking on matters of public morality – including gay marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term 'hate speech.' We can express genuine love and friendship for a homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage."

or:

"If gay marriage becomes the law of the land state authorities will be required to treat opposition to gay marriage as 'invidious discrimination,' 'irrational,' or 'motivated by hate [and this is wrong].'"

In addition, this moral dodging by the Pro8 crowd seeks to further caricature the No8 position by saying that this unjust univocation of Pro8 and Hate ("ProH8?") is widely employed to assault "traditional values", "Christianity", "democracy" etc. Of course, there is no systematic attempt to establish this, but rather only single cases that are said to support (via intuition and sympathy) this generalization, like seen in the following:

"The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal [in the city of Oakland] backed up the district court saying administrative efficiency in a government office is more important than free speech, and that municipal employers can completely censor the terms 'natural family,' 'marriage' and 'family values' as hate speech."

So the Pro8 camp has a vested interest in not being categorized as "hateful" in their support for anti-gay marriage legislation. What are we to make of this? When hate becomes manifested in a political position, recent history has shown us (with relief) that such ideas in their most explicit form are almost universally reviled. The history of the USA has had a stormy coming-of-age with this topic in the last century, as seen in the institutionalized hatred immortally portrayed by the Jim Crow laws of "separate equality" and the sometimes bloody struggle to overturn this tradition during the Civil Rights Movement. It looks by and large like hatred on the national level has been expunged by open-mindedness and tolerance for our intrinsic but morally-irrelevant differences; political positions with overtly hateful positions no longer stand as great a chance of being supported by the greater constituency. One could say that this is because of one of two reasons (or sometimes both): (1) People have truly learned that not all differences need be cause for establishing social exclusion or inferiority or (2) The truly hateful have shifted their strategy away from appeal to reptilian passions.

The No8 crowd has repeatedly decried the Pro8 position as openly "hateful" or "bigoted". If Proposition 8 could definitively nailed down as such, then it would almost certainly have faced defeat at the polls. But it won, with a surprising margin. In California, one of the most liberal states in the Union. Either there was an implicit meta-understanding among the yes-voters that garnered to a collective subliminal hatred for homosexuals, or there were other things stirred in their minds that made them react strongly to the gay marriage. I, for one, think that looking for just one reason will lead to few fruitful conclusions, since the reasons were many and the intuitions just as diverse as the No8 side. I don't think there was any universal reason that the Pro8 people had as a group that made them vote for Prop8. The smaller constituencies within this group certainly have their reasons, and exactly this makes it difficult to generalize over them all. Some voted based on their political party's line, others for "religious" reasons, others because of hatred, and still others for other reasons.

Looking at the comments following the note, however, the message was strong and consistent that the Pro8 people in this thread were not speaking from hate:

"In response to [Dan - myself]: Well, there you said it. That's exactly what we are pushing. Hatred. That is the absolute core meaning behind all of us supporting this. And if you read carefully as obviously you didn't, the words you chose were not mentioned once. Just because there are some who support this does not mean that they are homophobic and hate homosexuals."

"We can love everyone and we should love everyone--no matter what they are about. But that does not mean that we have to agree or accept their lifestyle."

"Love the sinner but never justify the sin."

"I had no idea [an old friend] had chosen [!!] that lifestyle, but why would I ever be embarrassed to have had him as a friend? I’m not! He was always a friend of mine. People make us out to be 'homosexual-haters' because they don’t understand [our Christian beliefs]"

"I think it is shameful that the "hate" argument is used so much because it is simply untrue. In all honesty, the only time that I ever felt anything that resembled hate during this whole campaign was when a group of adults and children (including my wife and six-month old son) had eggs and cigarettes thrown at while being subject to every hateful word (and gesture) and one could imagine. I was beside myself and as I looked around at the group that I was with, I noticed that there was not retaliation, no returned gestures (unless a wave and smile count), and not a foul word uttered about the perpetrators. It was very clear to me that afternoon whose actions were motivated by hate."

"While standing with my Prop 8 sign, on Tuesday night I was called terrible names, given the bird, cussed out, threatened, and have had bottles and trash thrown at me, all by those opposing Prop 8. Just today I had someone try to run me off the road in their suburban because I have a Prop 8 bumper stick on my car.
.
Another man cussed out my wife and I at a red light for having a bumper sticker. A friend of mine has his tires slashed last week because he had a 'Yes on 8' bumper sticker on his car.
Now you tell me Dan and Zach, and anyone else out there who thinks 'Yes on Prop 8' is a matter of hate... who is demonstrating the Hate here? There has been ZERO retaliation.
.
I have always been taught to love everyone. I will continue to do so and to teach those same principals to my future children, but that doesn't mean I have to support something or someone who does something I disagree with. Withdrawing my support doesn't make me a hater."

"Prop 8 is NOT about discrimination, hate, or bigotry.
It IS about protecting parents' right to teach their children morality according to their own values, and NOT to have state-imposed values taught to each child.
It IS about preserving morality in the United States
It IS about protecting clergy members from prison time for practicing their beliefs
It IS about protecting children and their young, malleable minds.
It IS about protecting a sustainable way of life for our country."

"[T]he words "hatred", "bigot", and "intolerance" are being thrown around A LOT and I'm not sure they're being used responsibly......If a person supports Prop 8 does that mean they are a bigot? No...and it's prejudice to assume so." [emphasis added]

This last quote is especially interesting. It claims that it is not only wrong to attribute hate to the Pro8 position, but "it's prejudice to assume so." This strikes me as true in some cases. But a silver bullet against the No8 crowd it is not. It does, however, call on us to explicate why it is that we can so fluidly accuse them of being, e.g. "intolerant" despite their insistence on not being driven by hate. How would something like this look?

I don't want try to offer an exegesis on what "hate" means, mostly because of the connotations that come along with the word's usage. As I hinted at above, it seems to play a dismissive role when used to describe a political position. In any case I have to admit that I am hesitant towards attributing it to the posters in this note's commentary, but some understanding of "hate" doesn't seem to be irrelevant either. Clear cases of hatred for me are connected to the vitriolic speech and motivations of avowed hate groups like those of the white pride movement etc. I don't know the people involved in this discussion personally, and in the absence of such inflammatory rhetorical indicators I think its best to first identify what it is about the Pro8 position that drives people to describe it as "hateful".

That being said, my gut reaction to the original 20 arguments was to slander it:

"Yes, let's institutionalize hate and finally show those faggots that they're inferior to the rest of us. That'll get us to heaven faster.

And yes, that's all that these 'arguments' are pushing. "

Without considering the perspectives of Pro8 more closely, it bears for me an unmistakable resemblance to the kind of matter-of-fact racism of the nineteenth century. At that time, it was not just a trans-cultural truth to speak regularly of the inferiority of other races in comparison to Western white civilization, it was presumed to have scientific and sociological precedence (sociology wasn't really an established science back then, but I think this retroactive label isn't too wrong). For the layman, but also for the professional (think Thomas Huxley and Abraham Lincoln), the natural balance was seen in the established status quo between the [relatively] omnipotent Western imperial powers and the colonized third world of Australia, Africa, and South America, where many people differing most starkly to Europeans in appearance happened to live. For this society, it was perfectly rational, and correct, to speak of the natural hierarchy of worth and merit between the races; that is, it was far removed from "hate".

But this comparison, too, is wrong, according the Pro8 posters in the note.

Obviously, our civilization moved (mostly) beyond this deep error in observation concerning the races. Nonetheless, speaking of homosexuality as "unnatural" or of homosexuals as "sodomites" implies very strongly either a similar attribution of inferiority to them as a group at one extreme, or a significant deviation from "normalcy" as "trivially" observed in e.g. biology, society, or religion, both of which justify the exclusion of their ability to interact in society in the same way as "straight" people.

One heavy burden that the Pro8 people do have on their shoulders is to differentiate themselves from confirmed hate groups that use the same argumentation that they themselves mobilize. To this point I invited the Pro8 people in the note to read through this story published by the socially conservative website worldnetdaily.com: "Sparks fly as 'gay' activist mob swarms Christians". The language, and the embedded Youtube video included on the page [can't find: please see the source link for the vid] are strongly reminiscent of the Pro8 position exhibited in the original 20 arguments and in the discussion afterward. Here are some excerpts:

""[The gay activists] started saying, 'We're going to kill you,'" she said. "They started taking our pictures and saying, 'We're going to kill you. We know who you are."....Then she said a man jumped through the crowd and pushed her forehead. Just then, a squad of police officers arrived in riot gear, surrounding the Christians and forming a protective human wall...The woman said her group had merely organized a peaceful fellowship and wasn't there to condemn homosexuals. "We hadn't preached," she said. "We hadn't evangelized. We worshipped God in peace, and we were about to die for it."

What I failed to immediately mentioned was that I found the link to this story in the forums of www.stormfront.org, a renowned white supremacist internet platform. Like a number of the quotes above, this article juxtaposes the "hatemonger" label onto the "gay activist" crowd involved (with a degree of justification), and to the No8 position in general. Gays are not the victim, the Christians are! The cited article also refrains from any blatant hate speech (though not so in the thread I found it in), much like the posts above. My point in this little maneuver is to demonstrate that to a certain point, the Pro8 position as described in Tyson's note is in many ways symmetrical to the one discussed among white supremacists themselves. If supporters of Prop8 need an explanation for why some people so easily label them "hateful", it is because of the perceived associations via language and argumentation with real hate groups. Whether or not this is warranted, the association surely inspires feeling that are not easily ignored. I've already said this connection may not be warranted for the people in this note, but it is something to think about.

I am open to the Pro8 people in this note to demonstrate that they do not demean homosexuals in their support for Prop8. They certainly claim not to intentionally do this; But this is exactly where I want to press them now. The most important move for them in establishing this is to remark on something pertaining to the "unnatural-ness" of homosexual behavior or inclinations, thereby isolating it from the person's identity. From this it follows very easily that they are attacking something other than the person his/herself. For both of these points a host of observations and "evidence" is claimed about the nature of what it means to be homosexual, and most often this flood of support comes from purported "scientific" evidence (i.e. homosexuality is a disease, a conscious decision, or is determined by genetics), or from biblical precedent (no comment). The result is always the same: homosexuality is bad/detrimental/unhealthy/dangerous. For now I will further avoid the responsibility of sketching out whether or not one's sexuality is a necessary part of one's identity (I'm inclined to think that it is), and will stave off commentary on the nature of this kind of "scientific" evidence until the next post.

Rather, I want to work towards reorienting the discussion towards the issue of whether or not something like intolerance resulting from inequality (rather than e.g. hate) comprises a necessary part of supporting Prop8, and whether or not this is acceptable. Intolerance, for one thing, is tangible, whereas hate is only detectable when attached to something else. Talking about intolerance also slightly avoids the political connotations of buzz words like "bigot" and "hate" so as not to be dismissive. This, it seems to me, is a much better way of discussing this issue in terms of a moral right or wrong. It may turn out that Prop8 discriminates against homosexuals in society and that, being finally insulated from any connections to hate or bigotry, its supporters will find this perfectly acceptable. Neutrally speaking, if something like this is the case, we will have found finally an important chasm separating the two camps where intuition really does have the final word. Where we go from there is another question completely.

Look at the two sides perspective on what this debate is about. For homosexuals, it is the right to marry, for the Pro8 crowd in the note, it is preservation of man-woman marriage. So, what is then at stake for the two sides such that they want these two things? The No8 side desires equality between gays and straight couples regarding marriage, while the Pro8 side claims that such equality would have "devastating consequences", and that "feelings don't trump these consequences".

Consider the fantastic claims of the Pro8 side and the "devastating consequences" that equality between homosexuals and straight people will cause. According to the original 20 arguments, this equality would cause "irreparable damage" to:

"marriage, families, parenting, children, morality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, majority rule, separation of powers, states’ rights, and America."

These things can be organized under two general categories of scope, namely a 'wider'
social/sociological scope, and a more 'local' personal scope. Many of the specific "arguments" for how these things will be affected wanders between these two scopes of in terms of describing the damage that they will endure. Most of the claims in the original 20 arguments have a wide scope, saying, where there is any concrete claim of what the damage entails at all, that the effects will be visible at a societal level if homosexual marriage were to be instituted. I will not review my thoughts on these (which I worked through in the last post on this issue), but I will remind the reader that none of these claims were at all compelling under closer inspection. The methodological problems of the empirical claims (where present) are insuperable, and their interpretations are unsupported by the data. The other claims fall into a black hole of [formal and informal] logical absurdity, or unclear subjective standards that lack any normative interpretation.

Some of these claims, on the other hand, have a transparent local application to the Pro8 individuals themselves (the effect on children, family, parenting, various freedoms). Here a different kind of evidence is required to demonstrate or even characterize their effects (such as medical studies on the quality of parenting by homosexuals). Here I will simply say that the evidence offered for this is at best inconclusive, or at worst not worthy of publication. It does not, in any case, support the claims made in the note nor in the comments. I will deal with these kinds of claims and their supposed evidence in the next and final post on this topic.

More importantly, I want to now consider how the Pro8 supporters perceive the stakes of the No8 side and evaluate theirs as more important. For the Pro8 position, this damage, both societal and personal, is the argument they offer against No8. Here then, is the core of their position:

"The issue over legitimizing gay marriage is not one of equal 'rights'...It is, instead, a question of equal 'dignity'. Proponents of gay marriage do not want homosexuals to feel like 'second-class citizens' as a result of not being allowed to use the familiar and highly favored designation of 'marriage'. (Again, being treated like second class citizens is not the issue – there are plenty of legal protections to keep that from happening. It is the feelings of gay couples that are the concern.)" [emphasis added]

This paragraph needs unpacking. For the Pro8 crowd, the question of equality has nothing to do with "rights" but rather "dignity". "Dignity" according to homosexuals actually amounts to nothing more than "feelings". Gays feel insulted because they feel like they are treated like second-class citizens. "Rights" don't even come into question. So the REAL-REAL issue is whether or not we want to change the nature of marriage so that we don't "hurt anyone's feelings".

These stipulations and sleight of language represents the lever by which the argument gains its traction against the No8 position. For, naturally we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings:

"Virtually everyone would be willing to grant “equal status” – if it did no harm."

Therefore, the primary motivation driving the Pro8 camp is captured in one short sentence:

"We cannot allow this effort [that is, keeping gay marriage legal] to 'not hurt people’s feelings' lay waste to so many institutions, principles and rights."
...


IIa. "Feelings", Dignity, and Rights

The Pro8 crowd is exactly right that the core issue here regards equal dignity. However, I take extreme exception to the assertion that human dignity amounts to nothing more than "feelings". Here the Pro8 position slips badly in its conceptual structure, and in its appeal. If human dignity means nothing more than simply some feelings, what does this imply about the value of life in general? Or more rhetorically; "What is life without dignity?"

I'm not going to give a long analysis of the "ins and outs" that dignity entails, but I will claim that my authority in talking about this specific topic is derived from my humanity itself. Dignity is not something that should be thrown around so haphazardly as it is done in this Pro8 note. I do not expect anyone or anything to prop me up, or to make me "feel good", but I do expect that they leave me in peace and allow me to pursue the humble things that I call meaningful.

Human dignity is not just "feelings". It is a sophisticated and complex aggregate of one's sense of well-being, made of emotions, relations with others, relations with society, and who knows how many other factors. It interacts dynamically with our psychology state, and can be the source of misery if injured, or contentment if nurtured. It serves as the basis that our fundamental rights guarantees, not something that tangentially floats nearby. Human rights may be fundamental, but what is the measure of their worth in our moment to moment experience and thoughts if not in our dignity? Both certainly exist, but rights are external to us, and must therefore stand in relation to something. This thing is dignity.

In all of the acute atrocities that humans have enacted upon one another in our history, the first and most important target of the offending party is the dignity of his victim. This thing must be robbed of the victim so that they can truly be defeated, and defiled. The textbook example of this in history is the plight of the Jews in pre-Holocaust Nazi Germany; The systematic dismemberment of the Jews' humanity was accomplished by removing, step by step, the bricks of their human dignity. In the end declaring them Untermenschen was an inert label for an exhausted, weak, and devastated population of homo sapiens. This spiral was also set into motion because of the perceived damage to German tradition, culture, and society perpetrated by the Jews.

For a more contemporary and relevant example, consider this SBS documentary:



Two questions for the Pro8 reader: (1) Was the dignity of these prisoners denigrated in these pictures? (2) How can humiliation occur without first annihilating one's dignity?

By now any Pro8 person reading this must be livid. I will try and direct their anger by saying that I am not directly implicating their involvement with Prop8 with the Nazis persecution of the Jews, but rather pointing out the value of human dignity. If the guarantee to not violate a person's, or a group of persons', dignity is removed, the most basic consequence of this is their debasement in relation to the one removing that dignity; they can never be equal to you. At worst...you know. There is nothing that justifies placing a whole group of people below you in terms of value, whether this is your goal or whether it follows from a position you take. The Pro8 posters in the FB note may not hate gay people, but their complacency in robbing them of their dignity is alarming. To deny your part in this does not subtract from the de-humanizing effect of your actions.

Abu Ghraib, Kristallnacht, and all the atrocities in history that presuppose a bloody hierarchy between those harmed and their violators share a legacy with Proposition 8 - it is the willingness to let ignorant unfounded knowledge justify stripping a group of human beings of their dignity. Contrary to the platitudes of the Pro8 crowd, human dignity is not just "feelings". This is a real consequence - is it acceptable?


I hereby submit that the consequences of supporting Proposition 8 are too devastating to allow to remain in law.


IIb. Marriage

What about marriage itself? Through all of this trollop, surely the prospect of getting married amounts to something more than just "feelings". No, it doesn't, according the the definition of marriage given in the note:

"Prop 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. Marriage is an institution which pre-exists both church and government, and is the foundation of all known civilizations and societies. History shows us that marriage is an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself – which is why the state has a compelling interest in preserving and protecting it. Central to the state’s interest in marriage is the procreation and rearing of children. Marriage advances the state’s interest in ensuring the birth and rearing of children in the setting most likely to ensure their well-being and protection, and providing the next generation the training and attributes necessary to sustain a civilized society. Hence, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special privileges and have been held to important obligations, by force of law, all aimed at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared."

So according to the Pro8 position in this note, marriage is nothing more than a mechanism of society for creating babies. PERIOD. NOTHING MORE. Marriage is hence important to the state only insofar as it fulfills this function. This is radically different from the vision of gay marriage shared by proponents of gay marriage, apparently:

"Advocates of gay marriage tend to see marriage as a ceremony between individuals, primarily to ratify their affections. Contrary to what gay activists assume, the state does not endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn for society. Society gets no benefit from redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships -- only harm."

Just a quick note, the remark that homosexual marriages cannot produce children is squarely false. As far as creating children goes, these people are not sterile! Gay women can accept artificially implanted sperm or zygotes and raise them quite effectively. Gay men on the other hand are perfectly capable of fertilizing an egg if they find a donor, and a willing surrogate to carry the child to term (think about Phoebe from the show Friends hosting her brother's and wife's fetus - there's no difference). As far as rearing children, these options are expanded to include adoption (ill-informed claims of the quality of this rearing will be dealt with in the next post).

Anyone that subscribes to this definition of marriage is a cold, cynical individual. If this is the basis of their marriage, then they should not be married. I'm not sure there is much more to say to this.

For other people, marriage has significant personal meaning attached to it (duh). Wedlock is not only a contract between two people and a baby-factory for the state, it is the recognition of a bond between two people by the most powerful and universal of human institutes, i.e. Religion and/or the government. To deny a couple from marrying is to deny it the highest external recognition. Within the external eyes of society, marriage then becomes a means of denigration for those whose relationships have been confirmed by their society, and in this way opens up yet another moral avenue of hierarchical differentiation.
...


Keeping the content of this post in mind, I think my actual comments to the Pro8 crowd may have a different effect now:

"I think it's easy to support Prop8 when its content deals with something completely external to your life...If enacted, this law will not affect in any concrete way the lives of its supporters. As for the peace of mind you get knowing that whatever sanctity you subjectively place in "marriage" is safe from "decay", I'd say the lengths your motivations have to stretch reality to make this appear true are the issue here, but no one is going to seriously question their own motivations here, unfortunately.
.
There is a lot of clammer about this proposition supporting "morality" "sustainable way of life" etc. but the more you deny that you re dealing with REAL people, the more dehumanizing the effect of YOUR rhetoric has on this debate. Trying to make this an issue of morality etc shows a willful blindness in acknowledging that this law could have CONCRETE consequences for REAL people. This is where the hate develops from; it's surely not from the intention to discriminate, but from the unwillingness to acknowledge other peoples' stake in this.
.
Where is the human element here? Well, not in the motivation for Prop8; the relevant values and world views it supports are FAR from universally supported; there are many others who are arguably just as good or better. What arrogance motivates one to tell me what constitutes a sustainable society on this level?...Though the intention may be good, its effect is intolerant because the force of its authority comes from something where NO ONE can claim any authority over one other."

"[I]f you don't deny that [intolerance] can subtly develop even in the absence of intention on one's part, then you can't deny that support for P8 -could- be like this; it's like making a drug to cure AIDS that also happens to cause terminal cancer - the intention is good, but has unintentional consequences that necessarily follow. Again, this is very different from idiots throwing bottles on the street."

"I've said several times now that the perceived hate or intolerance seen BY SOME in supporting P8 can have a subtle origin, and may have nothing to do with your intent at all. Human behavior is so complex that we would be fools to claim we could see all the consequences they can have. In fact, if intolerance were an unintended consequence of your position here, then it might [MIGHT(!)] actually be beyond your control to expunge from your position, regardless of your feelings toward gays. This isn't a knockout argument against P8, but in fact it creates a point of dialogue; both sides are talking past each other, and this is a plausible way to progress in the conversation. There is still the question of e.g. whether this unintended consequence is actually -intolerance- but maybe that's just the next step."