Repost of my response to a comment at The Barefoot Bum’s blog.
Fear? Politicking? Religion? Ignorance?
Having been raised as a fundie Christian, I’ll go with Ignorance (well, and Religion, obviously, but that’s redundant).
In the church I was raised in, we were not taught to hate¹ homosexuals, we were taught to “love the sinner, hate the sin”. We could genuinely feel kindness and good-will toward someone we knew to be homosexual, while condemning their lifestyle².
But the Bible condemns homosexuality³. It’s a “sin”, and the Bible tells us that temptation can always be avoided, so therefore it must also be a “choice” to be gay. It also goes against nature (never mind that there are numerous observed instances of homosexual behavior throughout nature; bonobos for example routinely use it as a relationship-building means). God created HIV as a punishment for homosexuality (never mind that its first sufferers would not have contracted it in that way; I suppose God hates African hunters, too).
Probably due to Paul’s language in Romans about God giving men over to unnatural desires, “[burning] in lust one toward another”, I believe most Christians associate homosexuality entirely with ravenous sexual desire, and do not realize that deep, unconditional and selfless love, thoughtfulness, and human affection play as much a role in gay relationships as they do in straight ones. This makes it easier to despise. For me personally, I think being exposed to the humanity of homosexual relationships may have played a significant role in my own change of perspective.
I suspect that most proponents of Prop 8, perhaps contrary to expectations, don’t actually support civil unions between homosexuals either, but referred to it as an attempt to placate. “Look, this law (as opposed to our desire) isn’t taking away your rights to a relationship together, just marriage!”
Ignorance really is the rule. But combatting it is difficult, when the biggest root of the problem is the belief that the Bible (or the Church) is the Word (or Voice) of God. Still, it can be eroded through steady exposure to the many evidences that the Bible is the work only of men, that homosexual preference is not a choice, that homosexual relationships can be as loving as heterosexual ones, that there’s no such thing as an engraved definition of “traditional marriage”, etc. It’s an uphill battle, but society is slowly coming around.
A decade ago, Prop 8 would’ve won by a landslide—in fact, a decade ago, no one would have bothered to propose it, because no one would have feared that their precious “definition of marriage” was in jeapordy. It’s a desparation act, and despite the temporary victory, its existence is in itself something of a good sign, I think.
That the proposition was accepted is also no reason to feel that we can’t repeal it in the next election: it succeeded in large part due to heavy financial support from outside the state; it may be that they’ll feel safe enough not to spend so much money in defense of their creation. Either way, we’ll never defeat it unless we remain steady and continue to challenge it at every turn.
¹ By “hate” here I mean intensely negative emotional feelings. I generally prefer to view “love” and “hate” in terms of the actions one takes, and not just emotions; from that perspective Prop 8 is absolutely an act of hatred. Also, I don’t mean to imply that my church experience is universal, or even necessarily usual: there are certainly plenty of examples of church atmospheres where the attitude toward homosexuals is unquestionably hateful.
² in much the same way we would accept unmarried couples but condemn their lifestyle. However, while many churches had unmarried couples the church would try to “love into righteousness”, I know of few to no churches that would admit gay couples under the same terms.
³ Despite having heard arguments to the contrary, I still find this a hard conclusion to escape. Fervently devoted gay Christians continue to fascinate me.
It has been my observation that gays seem to want enforced acceptance.
After a lot of soul searching I have come to believe that homosexuality is indeed a genetic trait and not a “perversion” of choice. After all I don’t think that anyone would choose to be ostracized by society, hated and feared to the point that people feel that violence is justified. I don’t think this is an exaggeration because I used to feel this way.
It is now my belief that gay men and women do indeed have loving and meaningful relationships that deserve the same respect from society as marriage. We can’t always legislate what we want, but if you try sometime you can legislate what you need.(eat your heart out Mick )
While homosexual desire is most likely genetic and not a choice to do something “unnatural” or “perverse”. The gay lifestyle is a choice. It is a choice to act differently from the rest of society. The courage to make such a choice is deserving of much respect by itself. By wanting to get married they are saying that they want to be the same as everyone else, and want the rest of the world to see them that way. Gays should celebrate and take pride in their difference. Even if the rest of the world is against them.
Trying to use the legislative or judicial branch of government to change public opinion is much like the extreme right trying to legislate morality.
I have spent a lot of time over the last 15 years or so changing my philosophy on this subject. It may be that I still don’t have it right, but it’s been an interesting ride.
It has been my observation that gays seem to want enforced acceptance.
Wow, that doesn’t strike you as loaded terminology?
Put yourself in their shoes. If you can’t get it any other way, why not take it through “force”? Or how do you think racial acceptance got done for the better part of the last century?
By wanting to get married they are saying that they want to be the same as everyone else, and want the rest of the world to see them that way. Gays should celebrate and take pride in their difference.
By telling gays they can have an “equivalent” to marriage, but can’t have marriage (“separate-but-equal”, but of course it’s never equal), Californians are saying, “your love isn’t on the same level as ours, you’re not entitled to normal relationships.”
Yes, gays should celebrate their uniqueness. They should also celebrate (and fight for) recognition of their common humanity. Gays are different in that they are gay. Why does anything else have to be different, too? Why can’t we just let them live normal lives, as gays? There is no such thing as “the gay lifestyle”. Why does realizing that you’re gay and choosing not to live a lie have to mean giving up the dream of marrying the man or woman you want to spend your life with?
<Put yourself in their shoes. If you can’t get it any other way, why not <take it through “force”? Or how do you think racial acceptance got <done for the better part of the last century?
Do you really believe that racial acceptance was moved forward by force? Perhaps you have a point, after all the Freedom riders could have used a bigger stick. But in my view that would have been a defensive measure. My main concern is that taking acceptance by force will be counter productive, and battle lines will be drawn.
<By telling gays they can have an “equivalent” to marriage, but can’t <have marriage (”separate-but-equal”, but of course it’s never equal), <Californians are saying, “your love isn’t on the same level as ours, <you’re not entitled to normal relationships.”
I can’t disagree with you there. I don’t live in CA but I imagine that most people that voted against proposition 8 did so out of prejudice, but do you realize that what your asking people to do is throw away the concept of marriage that has been ingrained in them for their entire lives, and ingrained in society for several thousand years. So instead of introducing something new and ask people to accept it, you change something very old and sacred and force them to accept it. It’s not so much that I think the idea is wrong, it’s just that I think it has disaster written all over it.
You can’t always legislate what you want i.e. make everyone believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable. The first step is getting them to say, OK I think it’s wrong but respect your right to make that decision for yourself and I won’t hold it against you. But if you try sometime you just might find you can legislate what you need i.e. protect the rights of gay couples with a legal union. (sorry, I’ll stop offending Mr. Jagger.)
<”separate-but-equal”,
I had to really think about this. I thought perhaps that you unmasked my ugly bigoted face. Maybe it’s just because of my backward conservative upbringing but I don’t believe that “separate but equal” is the same thing as different but equal. I do think it would require a lot of vigilance to make sure it stayed equal.
I hope my ramblings haven’t offended anyone. Thanks Micah, I like your blog.
<I don’t live in CA but I imagine that most people that voted against <proposition 8 did so out of prejudice,
Oops, I meant to say for proposition 8
Do you really believe that racial acceptance was moved forward by force?
I’m honestly shocked that you would question it. The instances where enforcement of racial tolerance (in action, if not in mentality—though that seems to have followed) proved necessary defy enumeration. Could it really take more than a few seconds to bring some to mind? Little Rock Central High School in 1957 certainly leaps to mind. Not to mention the presence of numerous anti-discrimination laws (and cases of enforcement) in both federal and state code.
My main concern is that taking acceptance by force will be counter productive,
It hasn’t proved to be in the instance of enforced racial acceptance.
and battle lines will be drawn.
We are already well into war, and have been for many years. Tolerance has never resulted from complacent acceptance of the status quo, nor liberty.
but do you realize that what your asking people to do is throw away the concept of marriage that has been ingrained in them for their entire lives, and ingrained in society for several thousand years.
“You can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.”
…Aside from that, being “ingrained in society for several thousand years” ain’t quite so.
…Aside from that, we’ve certainly had no problem eschewing quite a number of marriage traditions, many of them quite recently. Arranged marriages, the dowry, the color white reserved only to virgins, swapping out rice for more bird-friendly matter, not seeing the bride in her gown before the wedding (for some folks), viewing a dropped ring as an ill omen, wives as property… I’ll note that those who argue that same-sex marriages violate “tradition” aren’t so quick to complain when the groom’s friends opt not to throw a “traditional” bachelor’s party. 🙂
An argument from tradition is not an argument at all. It’s a very thin excuse.
You seem to have very strong convictions on this matter, so I will confine myself to clarifying my earlier points.
<The instances where enforcement of racial tolerance (in action, if not <in mentality—though that seems to have followed) proved necessary <defy enumeration. Could it really take more than a few seconds to <bring some to mind? Little Rock Central High School in 1957 certainly <leaps to mind. Not to mention the presence of numerous <anti-discrimination laws (and cases of enforcement) in both federal and <state code.
I am aware of the many times force was used in cases of racial discrimination. I was questioning its wisdom and its effectiveness in many cases. e.g. mandatory busing, affirmative action, hate crime laws. Anti-discrimination laws I view as a defensive measure, protecting individual human rights is not what I mean by forcing acceptance.
<We are already well into war,
I Know, That’s what concerns me.
<Tolerance has never resulted from complacent acceptance of the <status quo, nor liberty.
Good point. I’ll have to consider that for awhile.
<…Aside from that, being “ingrained in society for several thousand <years” ain’t quite so.
Are too. I was talking about marriage not same sex unions.
<…Aside from that, we’ve certainly had no problem eschewing quite a <number of marriage traditions, many of them quite recently. Arranged <marriages, the dowry, the color white reserved only to virgins, <swapping out rice for more bird-friendly matter, not seeing the bride in <her gown before the wedding (for some folks), viewing a dropped ring <as an ill omen, wives as property… I’ll note that those who argue that <same-sex marriages violate “tradition” aren’t so quick to complain <when the groom’s friends opt not to throw a “traditional” bachelor’s <party. 🙂
<An argument from tradition is not an argument at all. It’s a very thin <excuse.
I did not use the word “tradition”, and I’m a little confused about the comparison between marriage and such things as clothing fashion, throwing food at the bride and groom and naked girls jumping out of cakes. To make myself clear. I was saying that marriage is an institution that has been held sacred by many cultures under its current definition for thousands of years. I think that out ranks “tradition”.
Anti-discrimination laws I view as a defensive measure, protecting individual human rights is not what I mean by forcing acceptance.
I wonder what it is that you think we’re discussing now, then, if not “individual human rights”.
If a church consistently “convinces” their congregation to vote a certain way I would think their tax-free status would be taken. I mean thats obviously a violation of seperation between church and state.
I worked at a gay restaurant as the executive chef in downtown Sacramento when the election was going on and let me tell you they werent exactly dissapointed with the outcome. As you said before they realized that they can try again and eventualy it WILL be succesful. Funny thing about people though even the ones that are being persecuted for their beliefs persecute others for their beliefs.