Guest Post: Right Thing Wrong Reason

The following critical analysis of the recent SCOTUS decision regarding marriage equality is a guest post from my partner. As we celebrate a step in the right direction this July 4, this post serves as a gentle reminder that our rights cannot be bestowed upon us like a gift from the government. They can only be acknowledged and defended. In fighting for equality, perhaps such a fine point seems like a quibble over semantics, but it’s an important one because it is the difference between asking permission and demanding what is legitimately ours.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, love did indeed win. Gay rights movements across the nation were give a wonderful reason to celebrate – LGBTQ now enjoy equality under the law in regard to marriage. This outcome was absolutely required by the 14^th Amendment. If government is going to do anything, it must conduct its business without such unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Yet while the SCOTUS made a monumentally necessary decision, it also provided an observable continuation of a dangerous definitional shift.

We reject anti-gay discrimination because it violates a basic democratic government principle codified in the 14^th Amendment: government must treat its citizens equally under the law. And that is enough. We must protect equality because it is a cornerstone of democracy and liberty.

Women’s rights and aboriginal activist Lill Watson ingeniously reasoned, “If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. But if have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.”

Chinese activist Ai Weiwei, whose online presence has been all but eradicated by the Chinese government, echoed this sentiment: “If someone is not free, I am not free.”

Legal equality for all is prerequisite to personal freedom.

Many historical dictators and fascist regimes absolutely protected their own rights but impinged others’ daily, which resulted in the mere illusion of freedom. This reasoning is rampant in today’s and yesterday’s Conservative arguments. They repackage already discarded arguments from 1960s segregation in their efforts to discriminate against minority groups, all the while claiming their religious freedom is being encroached when they are not permitted to discriminate.

A case in point, this somewhat hilariously self-defeating attempt at claiming oppression from a Catholic group opposing marriage equality. 

Today’s politics would do well to remember Martin Niemöller’s famous and provocative poem:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

The Bill of Rights is not meant to be an exhaustive list, as evidenced by the 9^th Amendment. In its codification, its authors outlined the basis of what makes something an absolute, unalienable right. One should be as free as possible until that freedom abuts someone else’s freedom.

As John B. Finch famously argued in the 1800s, “Your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.”

According to Thomas Jefferson, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

We cannot equate freedom of speech with requiring government to reserve air time, provide a speaking platform, or print pieces of paper validating everyone’s speaking ability. Government should not be required to provide churches in which religious persons can meet. Fundamental or unalienable rights require no government permission or action; they require a lack of government prohibition and interference.

Yet we’ve seen a foundational shift away from this definition of “fundamental right” from meaning an unalienable right with which government must not interfere to meaning a thing that government should give you. The SCOTUS highlighted this change by affirming a fundamental right to marry and be recognized by the government. The idea that government must not discriminate in its issuance of marriage licenses or associated benefits is not the problem. What is insidious is the equivocation on the definition of “fundamental right.” The language changes from protecting unalienable rights to handing out rights, like food, water, shelter, affirmation, and happiness.

Certainly, Obergefell v. Hodges is not the first time that a fundamental right to marriage has been articulated. The 1967 Loving v. Virginia Court quoted the 1942 Skinner v. Oklahoma Court, stating that marriage “is one of the basic civil rights of man.” Justice Kennedy merely employs this foundation to imply the existence of other positive rights, stating an anti-gay marriage law “demea[ns] the lives of homosexual persons [and] works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians.”

This is a true statement; these things likely occur due to such discrimination. Yet this is not solid legal basis for rejecting a law. Each criminal or civil prohibition demeans and disrespects those who violate it, yet violators’ feelings should have no effect on our evaluation of a law’s constitutionality. To be clear, there is no constitutional right to feel good, be happy, be affirmed, or feel supported. The government cannot ensure or grant these things. There is, however, a constitutional right to be free to pursue these things (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), subject only to the equal rights of others.

The natural progression of this shift has resulted in in the application of supposed unalienable rights to a redefined idea of personhood that includes corporations. The ramifications of this theory are piling up in the wake of Citizens United v. FEC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

Let’s be clear: the government can and should do all sorts of things, for various reasons. Yet what the government taxes, on what the government spends money, and how the government operates is only the SCOTUS’s business insomuch as it violates fundamental, unalienable rights. The SCOTUS might find a law to be bad or ineffective or failure-doomed, yet their job is to evaluate the law for constitutionality, not quality.

The SCOTUS has strayed from an understanding of basic rights that deals with individuals’ equality under the law. By equivocating their definitions, they have gradually and pervasively moved towards a quite different definition, one that redefines both liberties and to whom those liberties apply. They have redefined terms like “individual,” “freedom,” and “justice.” And liberal America has applauded and supported this evolution. Yet while liberal America intuitively knows it’s wrong to discriminate against LGBT, they largely fail to provide a legal foundation upon which to argue for fundamental rights. Claiming the moral high ground is only helpful as long as your group is in power. After having granted the government the power to decide moral issues for its people, this power becomes a tool to oppress even those who originally granted government that power. As race and gay rights activist Audre Lorde argued, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.” 

Facebook Turned Red and Heterosexism Came Out to Play

When Facebook turned red for marriage equality, I had a lot of friends change their profiles in solidarity to LGBT rights. Many of them shocked conservative friends and family members with their stance, which isn’t surprising since, even as an out and vocal bisexual woman, I still shock people with my support of marriage equality.

It was a little annoying to hear about some of the rude questions my friends faced as a result of their stand. I don’t really know what it is that makes people feel like they have the right to nose into your personal life or judge you simply because they disagree with you, but I thought I might take a moment and remind others of a few general tips of politeness with regard to the sudden awareness of those who support marriage equality.

First of all, the fact that someone reveals their personal stance on marriage equality is not an invitation to ask them, “Are you gay?” If they haven’t made a point to inform you of their sexual orientation, it’s none of your business. You are not entitled to additional personal information about someone else based on the publicity of their political views.

I’m not saying we should all assume everyone is straight until told otherwise. There is a polite and respectful way to ask about someone’s orientation. If you’re meeting a new acquaintance, it’s actually nicer to ask if they have a partner as opposed to a boyfriend/girlfriend. You’re opening the door for them to talk about themselves without making a heterosexist assumption or (as I’ll talk about below) stereotyping them as gay.

However, politely giving someone the space to reveal something about themselves as you get to know them is not the same thing as accosting someone you already know to question them about their sexual orientation because they revealed a political position of which you were previously ignorant. The former is a courtesy; the latter is just the opposite.

Secondly, if they feel comfortable answering such an obviously rude question, it doesn’t give you the right to shove your more conservative beliefs in their face. Again, if you’re not close enough to them to know their sexual orientation, you’re probably not close enough to them to tell them how to live their lives. If someone feels comfortable asking for your opinion on an aspect of their life, THEY WILL ASK YOU. If they don’t ask you, keep your mouth shut. Simple as that—and that goes for parents too!

Thirdly, don’t assume someone’s orientation based on how they look or who they’re with. If your “gaydar” is based on stereotypes, you’re going to make a lot of mistakes. There is no such thing as a “gay look” or a “dyke look.” Femininity or masculinity are not clear-cut indicators of someone’s orientation. Saying someone looks or doesn’t look gay shows you up as a bigot who can’t think outside of clichés.

Furthermore, just because someone is dating or married to a member of the opposite sex doesn’t mean they are straight. Many people feel trapped in a false identity out of fear or have been sucked into unfulfilling relationships under the lie that marriage can “fix” their same-sex attractions. And if you’re the type of person who would break any of the above courtesy rules, you can’t expect a closeted person to feel like trusting you. In fact, you’re probably contributing to them feeling like they need to stay closeted.

Also, don’t forget about the middle. Sexual orientation is not black and white. Most people fall somewhere along a continuum, and a good number of them fall close to the middle, meaning they are attracted to multiple gender expressions. That also means that there are a good number of people in heterosexual, monogamous relationships who do not consider themselves strictly straight. I’m one of them. Just because I don’t happen to be in a relationship with a woman right now doesn’t mean my attraction to women ceases to exist. In the end, judging someone’s sexual orientation based on their relationship status is just another form of heterosexism.

Lastly (for now), supporting marriage equality DOES NOT mean that you are gay. Straight allies exist, and they can be as vocal for marriage equality as any LGBT person. It’s not a hard concept. White people have been allies in the fight for racial equality. Men have been allies in the fight for women’s rights. Christians have been allies in the fight for religious freedom. Pretty much for any struggle, you’ll find members of the power group lending their support to the oppressed. Stop assuming that only gay people support gay rights.

Conversion Stories: Happy Eternity in Hell!

I must say, this is one of the more unusual and amusing conversion attempts I’ve ever had! I was “blessed” with the opportunity of having a political conversation turn to the Bible. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly expressing any political opinion outside of a conservative one will bring out the Jesus freaks.

In this case, I was discussing marriage equality. Interestingly, it didn’t start out with the usual pro- versus anti- marriage equality for lgbt. In fact, no one was really disputing the fact that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. The deeper question, instead, was whether polygamy should be legal.

I probably take a more radical approach to marriage equality, believing that the government really doesn’t have any business defining or determining what a legitimate marriage is. If someone wants to marry fifty consenting people, that’s their business. If another person wants to marry as a contractual agreement to get health insurance or gain access to citizenship, also their own business.

We didn’t actually get that far in the conversation though. I had barely expressed my support for marriage equality for polygamists when new guy jumps on, calling me a witch.

I didn’t assume it was serious. I thought it was a joke at first, perhaps a petty attempt to shame me. Since an insult first requires a negative view of the label, I wasn’t insulted. I responded with a light-hearted comment about being proud to be a witch if that meant standing for marriage equality.

After a few more random and incomprehensible comments, this guy asked, “Have you read your Bible lately?”

I love that he assumed I have a Bible (or want one), but I let that go. “No, I’ve had enough of that for one lifetime.”

Then he said, “And you guys will lose . . . Bible prophesy, actually Bible code!”

I can only assume he was talking about the election here. Still trying to keep things light, I joked that I might win if I hexed him. I even pulled out the big guns and dropped a few names of people I know in high places. “I’ve got a pretty good relationship with Santa. We met under the Christmas tree a few times last year, and he owes me some favors.”

By that time, I was practically wetting myself laughing because this guy was taking me seriously! It was like a mouse being handed to a cat. I just couldn’t resist the play.

“I’m not afraid of you!” he cried back.

Seeing an opportunity to end the conversation somewhat amicably, I replied, “Nor I of you. That’s the point.”

But did he take the point? No, or course not. That would have been too boringly easy.

“No,” he admitted, “but you are afraid of my God.”

I suppose he felt he was making one hell of a zinger, but in what universe does my scoffing translate to fear of his god? If I were afraid of his god, I would still be a Christian. I really shouldn’t have had to point out the obvious, but I did.

Then this oh-so-kind-and-godly Christian told me, “Happy eternity in hell!”

Looking back at the exchange now that the election is over, I have to smile at the fact that his predictions proved false. I wonder if he thinks I really did hex him or if he’s still trying to convince himself that his god didn’t somehow fail him. I’m sure he’s able to comfort himself to some extent with the idea that I’m still going to hell for all eternity.

And I can comfort myself with the promise of peace and happiness down there while all the Christians like him are safely contained up in heaven where they can eat each other alive over their doctrinal differences. I get the feeling that God might come down and join us heathens just to get away from the snarling piety. The tolerant Christians are welcome to join us too. But hell doesn’t put up with conversion attempts, so leave the proselytizing at the gate.