Sometime in the near future, I pray, there will be a vast and difficult undertaking of Truth and Reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian people. I look forward to that day. Mostly because it would mean that there is some measure of peace between them and an end to the conflict. In so far, as there is ever an "end" to anything.
But I do not know when that day will come.
Instead, let me talk about one such undertaking, which many people think has yet to come but I believe is already underway and will continue for many years to come. To be more specific, one side in this struggle has given in and has begun to sue for peace, truth, and reconciliation. To be even more specific, that side is the anti-gay rights faction.
To be clear, I do not believe that the fight is in fact over. Mostly because it isn't. The signs and facts are so many and obvious that I do not need to list them here. However, I think we can all agree that the majority of the US conservative "intelligentsia" have finally and quietly thrown in the towel. Those who continue to rail against gay marriage for instance have lately been looked upon by their conservative peers as if they were repairing an old house on a beach, when a mile or so off the coast there is a tsunami approaching. Which is to say, "that's a beautiful house and I'd love to help, but that's not just the daily tide and it is soon to drown us all if we don't GTFO." These are the ones who have begun to sue for peace.
Ross Douthat being the most recent example, with his post in the NYT, conveniently (for me) named The Terms of Our Surrender. I will admit that Ross' article gave me the impetus for this post but this is a topic I've had to think about for a few years now. I do not pretend that there is not still years ahead of us in this fight and many hearts/minds to win over but sooner or later the gay community is going to be faced with the question all civil rights movements are forced to ask themselves. What is to be done with those who stood in our way? Even after this is over, we will continue to be a small minority so our "power" to exert some penalty or fine on those who continue to oppose gay rights will continue to be only as large as the straight community allows it to be. Perhaps even less so, since in progressive circles a group's "influence" tends to be in direct proportion to how much "oppression" it appears to be under. So at least in that sense, our victim card will be severely diminished as more time elapses. But what we do after winning will define our movement and the growth of our community for the next generation or two. So it requires some thought.
This topic of "what is to be done" has been explored in depth by Andrew Sullivan here and with links to other ideas here. The consensus being that the conservative intelligentsia want to "carve out" some space for religious protections and the gay activist community is just as eager to deny them that space. I won't rehash their arguments here, you can follow the links for the full stories. And before I give my own opinion I want to tie this into a larger strategy that is happening and will become even more obvious as we approach/reach equality: the all-mighty backpedal.
It comes in stages and this one is no different. As we've already seen, it starts with the qualified peace-offering of support: "I believe all states should be allowed to vote on this issue however they wish." And let's be honest, anyone who says that they always held this view is going to have to completely white-wash over the fact damn near all of them supported a constitution amendment that would have, theoretically, taken the choice away from many many voters/states. (Since it did not need 100% of states to approve it for it to be ratified.) It continues with a tepid offering of slight support: "I believe same-sex couples deserve the same rights as other couples." It follows with an outright declaration of support: "I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil marriage, so long as the rights of religious believers are protected." And finally, the day will come, as it always comes in these situations, when the stage is set for the final act: "I have always had nothing but respect for the rights of LGBT Americans and a belief in marriage equality."
Who here doesn't believe that we will all hear those words come out of the mouths of many current politicians in the years to come. Hopefully delivered in the most awkward gay pride/celebration setting as possible. Many of our current politicians who are against gay rights will most likely be dead or retired (hopefully due to being fired) before things like marriage equality are universally praised. But the rates on incumbent re-election and the youth of some of our current representatives correlate sufficiently, so many of them will live to prostrate/humiliate themselves by trying to ingratiate themselves to "the gays." Frankly, I can't wait to see Paul Ryan awkwardly holding a rainbow flag and, oh, I don't know.....hugging an equally uncomfortable gay intern while trying to connect how "awesome" gay marriage is to how awkward tax reform is. Make no mistake, not only will they come out in support of it one day, but they will deny in no uncertain terms that they have EVER been against same-sex marriage. There will be a period where they will use words like "evolve" or whatever but much like our most famous "evolve-er", President Obama, it will quickly be shucked aside and replaced with a revisionist, eternal support. The difference being that I think President Obama has perhaps the much better case for it actually being true.
You can already see shades of this every time a "moderate" like Christie or Rand Paul says something to the effect that "I have no problem with gay people in general and I have nothing but support for those in committed same-sex relationships, I just think it should be left up to each state to decide." If you take out most of the middle and replace "gay people" and "same-sex marriage" you can hear the future being spoken right now.
How does this tie into a discussion of SSM v. religious protections? To be honest, how we fight against one is going to directly influence how we fight against the other. And here is my opinion: we shouldn't.
Let me be clear: in the pursuit of full rights and full equality, we must not stop fighting until every ounce of denied liberty has been gained. This will not be given to us. Despite my "optimism" on the surrender of the conservative brain-trust, I know that the rank-and-file conservatives of this time will not be so gracious and will fight us tooth and nail. The House of Representatives and the Senate will fight us tooth and nail. When we win it will be because we fought for every inch of ground. And victory should not be accepted as anything less than total and complete recognition of our dignity as citizens and human beings in the eyes and laws of our government. Any who stand in our way must be confronted and called out for who and what they are until they are made as irrelevant as their policies.
But after that? We must be gracious and we must be forgiving and we must be respectful. Even if it means accepting that there will be those who will re-write their own histories or hold into their old prejudices.
I understand the yearn to see justice for rights denied and to see those who denied those rights to have to pay some price. But we must fight this impulse at every turn. To do otherwise would be to lead our movement away from a long and noble history of fighting for the rights of others and plunge it the tragic and predictable dead-end of "settling scores."
There are more people in this country and in other countries who will continue to have their rights denied, and every ounce of effort we make trying to punish those who have wronged us is one less ounce of effort we make towards more worthy causes. Also, there is an important debate that needs to go on in our country. In fact, in every country. Between conservative and progressive. Between spending more, spending less, more government, less government, higher interest rates, lower interest rates, more isolationism, less isolationism. Neither side is ever completely right, because facts do not stay facts for long. Our world grows and sheds its skin and changes. We find ourselves coming back to these same arguments for a reason. None of them generally stay true for very long. These fights are important and when they are shut down because of old fights and old positions, we all lose out.
We will not forget those who stood with us and those who stood against us but that doesn't mean we need to devote more of our lives to seeing our opponents punished. And once they support us and our movement, we accept it, hope that they have truly learned something, and get on with the real work of progress. And for those who will continue to fight us and deny us equal rights in whatever small ways they can, for whatever reasons they claim, we must accept them as well. We do not need to sue or attempt to bring the sword of civil power down on them. We need only turn our backs and encourage our friends/family to turn their backs and leave them behind. It should be enough that history, the law, the government, and their own children will most likely become so strange to them that they will indeed feel as if they are alone in the wilderness.
And, yes, we should be ready to accept them as well with open arms if/when they should tire of the solitude.
No comments:
Post a Comment