Unless I'm missing something, in the 31 states in which voters had a say on whether or not gay marriage was going to be the law of the land, they all rejected it. Every single state.
. . .
[U]nless you're prepared to call more than half the country bigots -- and I have no doubt that many, perhaps most, gay marriage supporters are, and let that self-serving explanation suffice -- maybe, just maybe, you ought to ask yourself if there's something else going on here. And that maybe, just maybe, serious attention should be paid, instead of paying attention long enough to insult people who disagree with you as evil people who deserved to be excoriated and harassed.
Ta-Nehisi Coates responds:
I probably wouldn't use the word "bigot." I don't think, for instance, that half this country thinks hate crimes against gays is a good thing. But I have no problem believing that half the country--maybe more--is deeply prejudiced against gays. This generally fits into my view of all -isms. I think prejudice is part of who we are as humans, and thus as Americans. Following from that, I think prejudice is one of the many forces that influence how we vote. Hence the notion that half this country is deeply prejudiced against gays really doesn't shock me.
I'm sympathetic to Coates's argument. In my experience, people who strongly oppose gay marriage do tend to be animated by some form of prejudice. However, I think this debate is extremely counterproductive. Charging your opponents with bigotry -- or even the lesser offense of "prejudice" -- is a surefire way to lose the argument.
Even some social conservatives would admit that the secular case against gay marriage isn't very strong. Those of us who support marriage equality should be engaging with that argument and trying to expose its tortured logic, not hurling ad hominem attacks at our opponents.
We can accept prejudice as a given, but it doesn't serve our purpose to use it as a trump card when we're in the minority. Instead, why don't we just call on our opponents to defend their position?
It shouldn't be hard to point out the illegitimacy of that position.
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
4 comments:
We can accept prejudice as a given, but it doesn't serve our purpose to use it as a trump card when we're in the minority. Instead, why don't we just call on our opponents to defend their position?
I agree and disagree. I think it is important to point out that bigotry and prejudice remains, and to challenge people to look into themselves and question whether their support for X or Y may have some basis in some (possibly, until that moment) prejudice. That sort of self-reflection is, I think, necessary for everyone, for personal growth and also for the good of the people affected by someone's prejudices.
At the same time, I support the logical arguments for gay marriage, and for making those logical arguments to those whose arguments are not factually based.
But I also think that even when faced with factual arguments, people will still say, "Well, this is how I feel". Which is why I think it is bull that civil rights questions are put up to a majority vote at all.
Frankly, I still like the Jay Smooth way of handling it, which is to say the action is prejudiced or bigoted and leaving the question of whether or not the person in question is a bigot out of the equation.
I think it is important to point out that bigotry and prejudice remains, and to challenge people to look into themselves and question whether their support for X or Y may have some basis in some (possibly, until that moment) prejudice. That sort of self-reflection is, I think, necessary for everyone, for personal growth and also for the good of the people affected by someone's prejudices.
Yes, absolutely.
But I think you're begging the question when you say that it's unfair for "civil rights" issues to be decided by a majority vote.
I agree that gay marriage should be seen as a civil rights issue, but you and I live in a society where the majority of people have a competing value orientation. The answer is not to impose our value system on others through anti-democratic means, but to convince others that we are right.
Certainly, some people will never be persuaded to endorse marriage equality -- no matter how powerful the argument. The goal is simply to persuade a majority of people, one state at time.
Unfortunately, I don't think that Jay Smooth's solution is very helpful. Calling someone's actions bigoted still puts that person on the defensive and stifles the debate. If you tell someone that his or her statement is bigoted, the response is typically, "I'm not a bigot!"
The answer is not to impose our value system on others through anti-democratic means, but to convince others that we are right.
Actually, that's your answer. My answer is that "anti-democratic means", like the whole having a judicial system that reviews contested laws and decides whether or not they violate Constitutional principles, may be the way to go. Because I think one of the strengths of a society is majority rule while simultaneously protecting the rights of the minorities who exist within that society. It's not foolproof (see: Dred Scott), but it does seem to be the best way to go in recognizing that the rights of a minority shouldn't be based on the whims of the majority.
Calling someone's actions bigoted still puts that person on the defensive and stifles the debate. If you tell someone that his or her statement is bigoted, the response is typically, "I'm not a bigot!"
That's typically their response anyway, though. Whether it starts off with "I'm not a ____, but - " or ends with "But I'm not a ____", the person who is making the statement is still the one stifling the debate by turning the thing into a "what I am" conversation instead of a "what I did/think" conversation. And I don't really know another way to argue against someone's expressed bigotry without calling it as such. Like, if someone makes a sexist remark, the quickest way to make it clear the remark is unacceptable is to call the remark itself sexist and explain why. And if the person says, "But I'm not sexist", the easy response is "I don't care what you are; I care about what you said/did. What you are is kind of irrelevant at this point".
The U.S. Supreme Court chooses the cases on its docket, and so far it's refused to grant certiorari in numerous same-sex marriage cases. If it does grant cert, there is of course no guarantee that it will rule in favor of marriage equality.
In most cases, state supreme courts have upheld marriage bans -- and even some of the more liberal state supreme courts have backed down when the voters decided against gay marriage.
Post a Comment