Such an “either/or” formulation of the situation in Georgia is typical of the oversimplifications abounding in matters involving the civil rights of individuals. For over a decade, I have been maintaining that liberals who were “fighting” for the civil rights of the gay/lesbian community were handling the matter very poorly. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the overturning of a 2,500-year tradition is a very complex matter and requires careful consideration. Lest I be misunderstood at the outset, let me reiterate once again that I have never–please note: “never”–said or written that I was opposed to same-sex marriage in our society. What I have said is that the issue has been poorly framed and inadequately discussed. In my opinion, the issue is multilayered and involves at least the following dimensions: legal, moral, religious, psychological and social. When the Supreme Court acted on the legal aspect, I predicted that a backlash was inevitable. The current situation in Georgia is probably just the beginning, and the measures passed in North Carolina appear to be even more radical.
It is not my intention in this article to defend either the gay/lesbian community or the state legislators. On the contrary, I suggest that both sides suffer from the same malady: the inability to conduct open, rational dialogue with those representing opposing views. Following the Stonewall Riots of 1969, we as citizens of the United States had the obligation to recognize the concerns of the gay/lesbian community and to address its call for change. We should have made distinctions between the moral fabric of society and the religious views of particular groups. We should have distinguished between the psychological question and the social impact. We should have raised questions about possible legal changes and necessary boundaries. But we didn’t. And even now, it is very difficult to raise questions about the issue without being labeled “homophobic”. The coining of this word was a clever, but very unfortunate public relations maneuver that has tended to stifle constructive discussion. So instead of participating in dialogue, we have turned the matter over to the court rooms and legislative halls.
As spectators, we view the “fight”, and we take “sides” as though anything constructive could possibly come out of a fight. We frame the issue in our thinking as an “either/or”, and we think of civil rights as “all-or-nothing”, as absolute claims that we can make on others. When we will grasp that healthy societies are based on compromise–compromise that emerges from respectful dialogue in which each party attempts to empathize with the opposing views of the other? Unfortunately, fighting has replaced compromise in our society. Even the manufacturer of my toothpaste claims to be “fighting” cavities. Why not just “prevent” them? Nor is the combative attitude limited to one political party or to one ideology. Liberals often criticize conservatives for supporting the use of force in international affairs, but they themselves “fight” for social issues and feel quite justified in using rhetorical and legal force in order to advance their agenda on civil rights. If we can’t force a resolution in the Middle East, why do we think that we can force the hearts and minds of fellow citizens?
To further confound the present situation, corporate America has raised its voice. Of course, the modus operandi of corporations is force, and so it is not surprising that major corporations are now “threatening” Georgia and North Carolina with economic sanctions. Such a tactic by corporate America is particularly hypocritical seeing that corporations are not people and don’t have a conscience. Typically, a corporation will express concern about a social issue only in those cases where stockholder profits are not at stake; if this were not true, the coalition of corporate voices in Georgia would be expressing great indignation over the increasing poverty in our country. In short, I think that corporations have no right to intervene in a situation as serious as the one we are now facing.
As a nation, we are now charting new waters with same-sex marriage, and it behooves us to patiently observe how the situation develops. Regarding the situation in North Carolina, I realize that the attitudes of the legislators go much deeper than the designation of restrooms, but for the present, we desperately need some compromise on both sides of the issue. We are facing multiple problems surrounding same-sex marriage, and we will not succeed in resolving them without a considerable portion of goodwill on all sides. Immediately following the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, the Harvard Gender and Sexuality Caucus invited all alumni and students to a conference on the “challenges that remain for the LGBTQ community”, and one of the central issues was the plight of the teens and young adults. “Why is it that LGBTQ teens and young adults face significantly higher rates of homelessness, suicide (and) eating disorders…than their…counterparts?” These are serious problems, and they need to be addressed–not in court rooms, not in angry confrontation, not in name-calling, but in respectful dialogue. Furthermore, these problems, which affect a particular group, cannot be resolved without due consideration of other groups. Focusing on this group or that group in isolation will never lead to a solution for the whole of society. Individual and group rights must always be balanced against the common good. It is imperative, therefore, that we discuss such matters in an open and rational manner. If we continue to think about gay/lesbian rights as an “either/or” and if we persist in “fighting” for one side or the other, we will never resolve the matter in a civilized manner.
Villager Jack Brush is a frequent contributor to Villages-News.com.