Exist.
Find some people, and justify your right to exist with the same rights as the majority.
Hopefully, this will end with some of those people deciding that you're right, and you do have the right to exist with the same rights as the majority.
Some of these people will now become allies.
You and your allies find some more people, and justify your right to exist with the same rights as the majority.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The whole premise is based upon needing to demonstrate why you should be allowed to be something more than a second-class citizen, until the good people of the majority grow comfortable enough with you to grant you the rights denied to your predecessors.
The whole premise is based upon making it clear to those around you that you deserve to have access to the same rights and liberties as those who have never had to justify their existence in this kind of instance.
Or, in other words, the minority has to prove that its members are just as good, as human, as full of citizeny goodness as the majority.
Here's my problem with this whole deal. Chances are, large swaths of the majority have had to go through this song and dance themselves. There is only a small sliver of the population who has never had to justify themselves in the "I'm as good as you" way. And yet, we all just keep on dancing.
Here's my other problem with the whole deal. The problem with democracies is that the democratic process does not translate into justice, or equality, or the pursuit of happiness. All it means is that the majority gets their way; and the majority can be, at times, a bunch of assholes. Even when whole huge swaths of said majority also belong to any number of minority groups as well. I love my democratically elected republic government, and I would not trade it for any other form. But a pure democracy (or democratic republic) isn't the sole basis for the just or free society. For that, there need to be safe-guards.
I don't truly know how to articulate it; but luckily, someone else did (in talking about women's rights):
Rights are for all. When only some people have them, they're just privileges. And privileges can be taken away.
Those who don't have to rationally discuss whether or not they should have the right to wed are privileged. That privilege will probably never be taken away. And yet, it isn't a right. Because what those for marriage equality want aren't special rights, but rights to the same damn thing. And the thing standing in their way isn't anything more or less than other people's prejudices. Those prejudices aren't based in justice, aren't based in the philosophy of the American way. They are based in the undemocratic, anti-justice stance that just because this privilege of mine has rarely been challenged or questioned and is simply accepted as matter-of-fact that I have an intrinsic right to decide whether or not you get the same consideration.
That isn't to say that we shouldn't fight injustices by trying to convince other people that our path is the best. But it is to say this: democracy and justice don't just go hand in hand. Sometimes, the democratic process is used to deny justice to groups of people. Sometimes our judicial system does the same thing. But often in American history, it isn't the will of the majority that pushes forward the cause of justice, of equality, of a more perfect union. It is the actions of the few. They are the actions of presidents, of courts, of those who push the unwilling masses forward - because the balance between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority is a tenuous one, and one that must be guarded jealously.
19 comments:
This is a tough issue for me, particularly because I'm strongly in favor a same-sex marriage.
I think that we have roughly the same conception of democracy. I wouldn't want to live in a normative democracy, in which the majority can trample the rights of a disadvantaged minority. It's important to have basic procedural protections for minority groups.
The problem is that, when it comes to gay marriage, we're beginning from scratch. Americans are debating whether marriage is a "right" in so far as it applies to same-sex couples. But your argument implicitly assumes some sort of objective morality.
I think this the main reason why I disagree with you. I don't believe in "natural rights" -- and, even if I did, I don't think gay marriage would be among them.
The concept of "rights" is a social construct -- much like the concept of marriage. If you want to broaden that concept to include same-sex marriage, you have to bring society along with you.
I think the best way of doing this is through the democratic process.
The problem is that, when it comes to gay marriage, we're beginning from scratch. Americans are debating whether marriage is a "right" in so far as it applies to same-sex couples. But your argument implicitly assumes some sort of objective morality.
No, I'm assuming exactly what I quoted, the thing that it has taken me so long to finally find a way to verbalize. I like it so much, I'll quote it again here:
Rights are for all. When only some people have them, they're just privileges.
The problem is that, when it comes to gay marriage, we're beginning from scratch. Americans are debating whether marriage is a "right" in so far as it applies to same-sex couples. But your argument implicitly assumes some sort of objective morality.
Also, this is the point of the whole post, the way the conversation is framed, and how we force those who are already marginalized in some way (even if they are powerful in some other way) to justify why they should be accepted as a full citizen, with all of the rights and responsibilities as that entails. How that conversation is fundamentally wrong, because it denies the worth of those who need to logically explain how they are "just as good" or "just as worthy", because it strips from them part of the very humanity that is just assumed on the part of the majority even when that majority isn't acting very humanely.
So, yes. This is the conversation we're having right now. But my real issue is why is that the conversation we're having right now, and how is it morally right to create a system where the ruling majority never (or hardly ever) has to justify their access to "rights" (or responsibilities) but the minorities do? I don't think it is morally right. I think it is a big pile of stink when we try not to step on the majority's feelings, going so far as to not call them out on obvious bigotry, and yet implore those minorities to wait a bit longer, to take a bit more of the crap being thrown at them, and to just suck it up and wait until all those in the majority are comfortable.
Where do rights derive from, if not society? Who says they must be universal?
Your argument rests on a series of moral assumptions about the nature of "rights" and the nature of "humanity."
Your argument rests on a series of moral assumptions about the nature of "rights" and the nature of "humanity."
No, my argument has nothing to do with "natural rights" at all. My argument isn't even for the universality of gay marriage rights, even though I'm all for that.
My argument is simply this: if society is what creates rights and institutionally privileges those who exercise those rights (tax breaks, medical decisions, etc.) and that society also is based on this wacky idea that all rights should be equal and that all are created equal, then the idea that one group has to prove to the majority that (a) their lack of rights hurts them in some meaningful way and (b) that they are worthy enough of those same rights, is wrong.
Either we are a society that believes in equal rights, or we are a society that believes in granting privileges to the majority and denying them to the minority. If that's true, there are some documents we need to edit and some history lessons we need to redo.
Do I believe that gay marriage should be universally accepted? I surely do. Do I believe that marriage is a ridiculous institution that holds far too much power in our society? Again, I surely do. But the crux of my issue is this: we force those who are already in a position of less power to prove to the many who already hold that power they should be granted access to those same halls of acceptability. And, as a group, we don't question why the majority's rights to these privileges are never challenged.
Again, that's not to say we shouldn't fight for the rights denied to the minority. It is saying that I don't accept the status quo as being the way to go, where one side must prove their worth and the other side just has to show up.
You wrote:
My argument is simply this: if society is what creates rights and institutionally privileges those who exercise those rights (tax breaks, medical decisions, etc.) and that society also is based on this wacky idea that all rights should be equal and that all are created equal, then the idea that one group has to prove to the majority that (a) their lack of rights hurts them in some meaningful way and (b) that they are worthy enough of those same rights, is wrong.
Your argument still assumes that marriage is a “right.” Americans are debating whether marriage is a right. Clearly, marriage confers many benefits and privileges on couples, but that does not automatically make marriage a “right.” Entitlement programs also confer benefits and privileges on certain -- relatively narrow -- segments of society. I’m not sure if you view Social Security and Medicare benefits as a “right,” but these programs institutionally privileging one group (the elderly) above all other groups (the non-elderly).
The concept of equality is equally amorphous and debatable. Many libertarians would argue that a progressive income tax is fundamentally unequal, as it (almost arbitrarily) privileges certain income levels over others. I suspect that you disagree with this argument, as I do.
Certainly, marriage in America is restricted in other ways. For example, I couldn’t marry my cousin no matter how strong our love. If I profess a right to marry my cousin, it does not automatically follow that this right exists. Society must recognize that I have this right.
(Actually, my cousin is already married, so this would be even more difficult, as society denies my professed "right" to marry multiple partners.)
Your argument still assumes that marriage is a “right.”
How else is marriage being framed in this debate?
Seriously, I've heard no one on the anti side of the debate saying, "Marriage is a privilege, and that's why you don't get it". What I'm hearing is "Marriage is a right us straight people get, and you over there don't".
And I'm saying, if straight people get it and gay people don't, it is a privilege and not a right.
I’m not sure if you view Social Security and Medicare benefits as a “right,” but these programs institutionally privileging one group (the elderly) above all other groups (the non-elderly).
Firstly, I don't; but secondly, your argument falls short, because once we all reach 65, we fall into the group that gets Social Security or Medicare. Voting is a right, but you have to be 18.
For example, I couldn’t marry my cousin no matter how strong our love.
Actually, you can. Most states allow you to marry your first cousin once removed and beyond, and NJ (and CT) has no restrictions on marrying your cousins, no matter how closely related.
The secular arguments against same-sex marriage typically rest on the proposition that marriage is not a right, but a social institution. Opponents of same-sex marriage contend that states have a compelling interest in fostering the institution of marriage only insofar as it promotes families with a mother and a father and children who are biologically related to them. Many conservative thinkers are downright hostile to the notion that marriage has anything to do with “individual rights” as opposed to social responsibilities. In my experience, this is the position most commonly articulated by right-wing policy institutes and “traditionalists.”
I probably shouldn’t have invoked Social Security. There are many other programs targeted at narrow interest groups. But I think that Social Security actually provides an interesting example. We don’t all have an equal chance of receiving Social Security benefits. Many of us will not reach the age of 62 (the minimum age for eligibility). Thus, the Social Security system privileges those who are born with good genes and realize good fortune, while discriminating against those who face shorter life expectancies. (Those with shorter life expectancies are also disproportionately likely to be poor.)
This may sound like a frivolous argument, but I actually think it’s instructive. Many opponents of gay marriage argue that all Americans have an equal opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex. But, of course, this “equality of opportunity” is meaningless to gay couples . . . just as the idea that we all have an equal opportunity to receive Social Security benefits is meaningless to people who die before the age of 62. Neither of these situations provides for genuine equality because people are fundamentally different.
I didn’t realize that you could marry your first cousin in New Jersey. That’s awesome. My mistake. But I think this is kind of skirting my point. There are still a number of states where you cannot marry your first cousin. Most states still prohibit siblings from getting married. And, as far as I know, polygamy is still illegal throughout the United States.
I think this is kind of skirting my point. There are still a number of states where you cannot marry your first cousin. Most states still prohibit siblings from getting married. And, as far as I know, polygamy is still illegal throughout the United States.
Here's the difference I see:
No one can marry their sibling, so that doesn't go against my "some people have the privilege and others do not" basis".
If one were to want to marry someone already legally wed, then that already married person is looking for an extension of rights beyond what anyone in this society has - the ability to marry two people at one time. No one has that privilege under the law, so not granting that legality is not denying the same protections/benefits others enjoy. The problem isn't the person marrying for the first time, but the person marrying for the second.
Many of us will not reach the age of 62 (the minimum age for eligibility). Thus, the Social Security system privileges those who are born with good genes and realize good fortune, while discriminating against those who face shorter life expectancies.
Numerous members of my family have never made it to the age where they could receive Social Security benefits. But the law didn't discriminate against them any more than the marriage laws would be discriminating against me if I wanted to marry and could find absolutely no one to walk down the isle with.
The secular arguments against same-sex marriage typically rest on the proposition that marriage is not a right, but a social institution.
See, here is something I actually agree with, except that society is the arbiter of rights. America has the right to free speech; the Canadians to our north don't have the same type of expansive right. And yet, I doubt those secular arguments would shift their focus to why speech isn't free (I could be wrong).
My argument for marriage equality is an America-centric one. It isn't that I don't have an argument for marriage equality other places, but it pretty much boils down to "Why do you care?" and "You're mean!!!"
But for America:
Marriage is a social institution; marriage is an unequal social practice that privileges some groups over others and allows for prejudice when dealing with those denied access to it.
We live in a society where one of the social tenets is equal rights under the law.
One of those things is not like the other.
The issue I have with comparing it to Medicare or Social Security or even Medicaid is that there are sweeping requirements to each that does not actively discriminate against any social group. We all get older; and even though some of us may die before reaching the magical age of eligibility, death before that age is less discriminatory. If I get hit by a bus and die tomorrow, the government hasn't discriminated against me when I don't make it to Social Security; it just means I have - through no fault (hopefully) of my own - failed to meet the requirements everyone has the opportunity to reach.
Marriage is different. Sure everyone could get married, but there are restrictions beyond "reach legal age". Those restrictions are more discriminating, do lessen the scope of the law, and actively deny marriage rights to a portion of the population.
You wrote:
No one can marry their sibling, so that doesn't go against my "some people have the privilege and others do not" basis.
If one were to want to marry someone already legally wed, then that already married person is looking for an extension of rights beyond what anyone in this society has - the ability to marry two people at one time. No one has that privilege under the law, so not granting that legality is not denying the same protections/benefits others enjoy. The problem isn't the person marrying for the first time, but the person marrying for the second.
Like I said, you're making exactly the same argument that some opponents of gay marriage make. They say, "No one has the right to marry a person of the same sex, and everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so this doesn't violate the 'some people have the privilege and others do not' equality argument."
I think if you want to be consistent, you have to support every form of marriage between two consenting adults. People should be allowed to marry their siblings.
There's even more of a reason to support polygamy, since it's a religious obligation which should be protected by the Free Exercise Clause.
Unless, that is, you believe that the state has a compelling interests in promosting families with one father and one mother and children who are biologically related to them.
I think if you want to be consistent, you have to support every form of marriage between two consenting adults. People should be allowed to marry their siblings.
I don't really think I do. The issue with familial marriages is genetically motivated. That's the reason a number of states require genetic testing for first cousins who want to marry instead of banning cousin marriage outright. Practical rules in dealing with things like genetic maladies should be taken into consideration, just like eyesight is taken into consideration when one goes to get a license. Everyone has a right to get a license, but there are certain restrictions for the safety of the driver and the other people on the road as well. Those restrictions aren't ideological, but pragmatic.
They say, "No one has the right to marry a person of the same sex, and everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so this doesn't violate the 'some people have the privilege and others do not' equality argument."
Everyone who is straight has the right to marry someone they are attracted to. Everyone who is gay is denied that right.
If you're in love with your sibling, chances are you could find someone else to fall in love with and legally marry (assuming your sibling is of the opposite sex). If you're Dan Savage, you're pretty much screwed on that front, because anyone you fall in love with is subject to the same restrictions.
There's even more of a reason to support polygamy, since it's a religious obligation which should be protected by the Free Exercise Clause.
There are plenty of people who live the polyamorous life free from religious tenets, and who do so because that is how they roll free from any religious obligations. I'm personally not against their engaging in polyamorous practices, and would hope someday a committed threesome could, in fact, gain legal rights binding them to each other.
However, as it stands now, if a man with a wife or a woman with a husband wanted to marry a second person, that would be an extension of the rights in place.
My objection to religious polygamy is related to my feminism, and regarding how both men and women are treated within the polygamous societies. Young men being forced out of their communities because those church elders don't want to lose out on the women and women only being multiples and not being allowed to take on second or third husbands of their own are all definite problems that makes polygamy's internal structure in religious communities more or less a bad thing for those who aren't Church Elders or who are powerful and/or rich within the community (and those people are, as far as I can tell, never women).
By the way, why do you have two profiles?
Also, none of this goes to the heart of my post, which was supposed to be more about why the majority gets the veto power, and how the debates are framed so that those who already have rights (and in many cases, the power) get to decide what is right and what is wrong without being questioned about those same things themselves.
It may not have been clear in the post, but this is as much an intellectual exercise as it is a real problem. It stems from my activism and my constant wonderings why not-X has to prove itself to X, and X gets to stand there proving itself to nobody. Chances are, not-X is at some point or another part of group X on an issue (white, male, straight, able-bodied, American, etc.), and yet not-X almost always strives to prove itself to X.
It doesn't allow for the acknowledgement that X may very well be f-d up, and it doesn't attack the point where we hold X as the standard and every not-X as deviations from the norm.
Yeah, I’m sorry about the second profile. I have two Gmail accounts, and sometimes I sign in using the wrong one.
I think prohibitions against incest are entirely ideological. There is barely any increase in the risk of congenital birth defects in children whose parents are first cousins. These “restrictions” aren’t based on hard science; they’re based on cultural taboos. If genetic maladies are really the issue, why don’t states require genetic testing of all couples who wish to get married?
The idea that people who are in love with their siblings should simply “find someone else to fall in love with” isn’t quite as absurd as saying that gay men should simply find a female partner, but it’s not far off. You’re justifying one form of discrimination and decrying another.
I think this does get to the heart of your post. Given your concerns, why should the majority be able to place restrictions on incestuous relationships and prohibit polygamous relationships, but not be able to prohibit gay relationships? Aren’t incestuous relationships and polygamous relationships also “not-X”?
The idea that people who are in love with their siblings should simply “find someone else to fall in love with” isn’t quite as absurd as saying that gay men should simply find a female partner, but it’s not far off. You’re justifying one form of discrimination and decrying another.
First, unless you can only fall in love with one person in your entire life, it is a bit different. Secondly, I'm not justifying anything, but I do think the difference in the two is like if I am in love with someone in England and will never get to actually be in the same country as that person, or if I am not allowed to marry anyone in America. If I can just never marry that one person I'm attracted to, it is a rather different set of circumstances than not being able to marry anyone I'm attracted to. I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying that the second situation is a bit worse.
Also, I didn't say "should". I said "could". Just like I could be utterly in love with you, you could have absolutely no interest, and I have the option of going out with some other guys and eventually get over you and fall in love with one of them. And I would be able to do that and have that relationship (a) fall under my sexual attraction, and (b) be legally recognized. If I were a gay girl and was in love with a straight girl, if I went out and found a gay girl to share my life with, I wouldn't have that second option.
Given your concerns, why should the majority be able to place restrictions on incestuous relationships and prohibit polygamous relationships, but not be able to prohibit gay relationships? Aren’t incestuous relationships and polygamous relationships also “not-X”?
My point with gay marriage is simply this: Under our system, a man can't marry two women, so having a man come up and say "I should be allowed to do this, because that guy over there is allowed to have one wife!" doesn't quite hit on that "all are equal" point. A gay man (or woman) can say, "I should be allowed marry my significant other, because that guy over there is allowed to!" does.
I think polygamous relationships based on religious tenets are generally based in some fucked up gender and societal hierarchies, and thus shouldn't be allowed because of their direct negative impact on men and women within that community - and possibly beyond. "Secular" polygamous relationships, I'm cool with. How one could differentiate between the two, I'm not sure.
Incestuous relationships within like-members (siblings, cousins), I don't care about. Meaning, unless the relationship has inherent power differentials (parent-child, for instance), and if you're right about the genetics (which I have not heard about, but then again, I don't often find myself looking into sibling marriage), then I don't care.
My personal squick shouldn't be used to deny other people rights.
Yeah, I’m sorry about the second profile. I have two Gmail accounts, and sometimes I sign in using the wrong one.
Oh, also, it doesn't bother me; I was just a bit thrown the first time. I was like, "Who the hell is Jeremy?" And then there was the "Oh! Jer's Jeremy!" moment. And then I felt a bit silly.
Post a Comment