When I was in high school, I remember seeing some footage of George Wallace yelling about segregation, and how it would be forever. As a teenager, I was kind of incredulous. "People actually believed that shit?" I thought. I knew that history was full of lots of nasty beliefs, but to actually see a person from more or less the modern era yelling about something that seemed so retro was odd to me. Watching Wallace made for quite the effective lesson, it was a weird lesson in the existence of prejudice.
A few days ago, I had a similar feeling of disbelief when I saw this video that's been making the rounds on the internet- an anti-gay marriage ad by a right-wing political group. When I first saw it, I thought it was very dry satire, until I got to the end and there was no punchline.
The various people in the ad complain about having their rights violated because would have to, potentially, recognize the validity of gay marriage. This is an argument with no intellectual legitimacy whatsoever. None. I'm confident in making that bold a statement. Try this fun little exercise: Every time someone in the ad says "gay" replace it with "black."
Wasn't that fun? You may think it's unfair to equate race with sexual orientation. I do not. Both are determined at birth, unalterable by the individual who possesses them, and have nothing to do with the inherent worth of a person.
I am completely comfortable with denying bigots legal quarter to practice their bigotry. Rights of belief are absolute, but the old standard holds that the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. So it is with gay marriage. Bigots are free to resent and seethe as much as they want, but they cannot seriously ask for a right to enact their prejudices. A doctor who claims special exemption to the treatment of gays as equals is no more legitimate, or less bigoted, than a doctor who claimed infringement upon their rights because they had to treat and interact with Asians.
In a weird way, though, the ad makes me very happy. The fact that bigots are so pissed off and vocal means that real progress is being made. I think that the loudest arguments against gay marriage have already been made. Eventually, only the hard right will be ranting against it, and the general public will be either indifferent or accepting of the issue. Until then, whimpers of discontent will accompany news of progress.
And how exactly does this infringe on your rights?
ReplyDelete"It makes me feel ooky inside to think about two dudes kissing."
Right, but that infriges what right exactly?
"I'm pretty sure all of them."
Sir, I'm going to need a specific example.
"Right to privacy. I have a right to know that they're not doing anything privately that I wouldn't wouldn't do."
Wow, I'm not even going to touch that. But actually, that is not how privacy rights work. In fact, right to privacy supports their position.
"Well then, right to happiness. Ooky is not happy."
Sir, that isn't a right.
"Yes it is. It's in the Constitution."
No sir, it's in the Declaration of Independence. While that is an important framing document, it doesn't actually convey any legal rights. Try again.
"Search and..."
Try again.
"Um, habeas corpus?"
Nope.
"Um... God's law!"
Oh lord...
You know, Sydney, you should write a book called "Sydney Sternly Reprimands Idiotic Straw Men And Then Gets Exhasperated: Vol 1." It would make for an awesome humor book/rhetoric primer. Get on that!
ReplyDeleteThat would be an awesome book. And knowing Syd, she should be ~90 pages into it by now.
ReplyDeleteAs an intellectual exercise, I have tried to construct an argument (despite my personal feelings) as to how same-ex marriage actually injures the constitutional rights of the individuals opposed to it. I have failed. Even the "state's rights" argument embodied in the Federal DOMA law falls flat when scrutinized.
Here is the best I can do: "My right to free exercise of religion (somehow) includes the right to control the definition of the civil institution of marriage. And I want you to ignore any potential Establishment Clause issues this may raise..." As you can see, it is not a persuasive argument.
Weird. For some reason or another, Blogspot's text-input box keeps on deleting my posts. I had a lengthy post up arguing that I don't think people feel gay marriage infringes on their /constitutional/ rights so much as their moral rights to instill in their children whatever moral values they see fit. It took me a while to write and I don't want to bother rewriting that beast, so I think I'll just leave this comment at that.
ReplyDelete