Discrimination by any other name

I made a strong claim the other day: that homophobia is morally equivalent to racism. Not everyone would agree with that. Indeed, black leaders have responded forcefully against it after being criticized for the large number of people of color who voted in favor of Proposition 8 in the recent California election. I’m going to argue systematically that in fact the equivalence is valid. By means of a framework, I'll use a speech from 2001 in which George Yancey, a black Christian college professor, argues against it. The speech is not recent, but it is comprehensive and well argued, and therefore forms a strong counterpoint to my argument.

The argument against the moral equivalence of homophobia and racism has several bases; I will address each in turn.

1. Prejudice of different kinds -- racism, sexism, and homophobia, for example -- have different meanings to the people who experience them because of the different histories of these types of discrimination and the different world views of the people who experience them. It is therefore incorrect to suppose that, because someone understands or has experienced one kind of discrimination, that he or she will automatically relate to those who experience another kind.
2. The victim of racism cannot hide the basis of the discrimination. For example, a black person cannot pretend to be white to avoid discrimination. Homosexuals, on the other hand, can hide their orientation.
3. Black and Hispanic communities are economically disadvantaged relative to white communities. Most surveys of gays, on the other hand, show them to have higher-than-average incomes.
4. Homosexuality, unlike race, is a chosen behavior, not an inborn characteristic. Two pieces of evidence for this proposition are put forward: One, that homosexuality does not promote the passing on of one's genes, and therefore cannot be evolutionarily adaptive, and two, that some gay people have been ceased living as homosexuals and have gone on to have apparently successful heterosexual relationships. Furthermore, as a chosen behavior, there is a moral dimension to homosexuality that is not relevant to membership in a racial group. Specifically, homosexuality is condemned by Christian scripture.

I find the first claim -- that different people experience prejudice differently, and hence do not always understand members of other disadvantaged communities, to be generally valid and agreeable. Professor Yancey presents several strong examples of this claim, with which I find no fault.

However, I am not particularly or primarily concerned with whether the victims of discrimination understand one another or can be viewed as a single community. Rather, I am concerned with the morality and ethics of discrimination itself. Can a society that values fairness, equality, and justice accept pervasive discrimination of any form?

This brings us to the second claim, that gay people can hide their orientation in ways that members of racial minorities cannot. In general, this claim is false. Historically, many blacks and Latinos have passed as white to avoid discrimination and better protect and provide for their families. The emotional scars often left behind are instructive. It is undeniably true that many more -- perhaps all -- gay people can pass as straight than black people can pass as white. But discrimination should not be defended or discounted on the basis that the victim can avoid it by lying about his identity and relationships. If you are able to evade my attempts to discriminate against you, good for you -- it does not diminish the fact that I intended to do so.

The economic argument, ironically, is related to the "passing" argument. Specifically, no study can compare the population of gay people with the population of straight people. A study can only compare the population of those who acknowledge being gay to the population of those who do not. Closeted gay people will, by definition, end up in the wrong column.

Consider the risks that a person takes by leaving that closet. He or she risks alienation from friends and family, workplace discrimination, and physical violence among other things. Now consider whether someone is more or less likely to take these risks if he or she has more financial resources than average or fewer. See the problem?

But all of this discussion is just noise. Now we get to the real issue. Many Americans, in many states, have voted to discriminate against their gay neighbors because they believe those neighbors to be perverts -- and on purpose. Gay marriage will not be accepted until that view changes.

I believe that the "gay choice" view does not hold water, but you don't need to take my word for it. Ask your gay friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Every one of them was raised as a child to assume that he or she would be straight, and every one came to the opposite conclusion. Ask them whether they had a choice.

The genetic argument has a certain logic to it. It's logical, but it's not true. In fact, homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species, including both sex acts as well as pair bonding. Do ducks, sheep, and apes choose to be gay?

Homosexuality is condemned in Christian scripture -- in the book of Leviticus. What other part of Leviticus does any Christian take seriously today? We eat pork and shellfish. We wear clothes of mixed fibers. Paul speaks against homosexuality in Romans and 1 Corinthians; 1 Corinthians also contains rules about how men and women should wear their hair. Those who bring a Biblical argument against homosexuality must be prepared for questions about their consistency.

As a free people, a people that values equal protection under the law, we must oppose discrimination wherever we find it. The experiences of every community are not the same, but the motivations behind those who would divide us are: misunderstanding and fear. We must not allow those baser instincts to separate us, but we must work together past separation to true equality.

Foreclosure

Congress is starting to take seriously tbe idea of modifying mortgage contracts in order to keep homeowners in those homes.

This is a terrible idea.

First of all, government should not be in the business of modifying the terms of private contracts. The enforceability of contracts is one of the linchpins of our economy and of the faith in it that has kept it strong and that will restore that strength in the future.

Second of all, it establishes a colossal moral hazard. Those in risk of foreclosure are in one or more of three situations:

1. They were misled by the institution that sold them their home. We already have criminal and civil justice systems for resolving this kind of conflict.
2. They purchased a home they couldn't afford. They may have known that up front, or there may have been a life change or job loss that caused a crisis, but in any case this situation is not unique to the present circumstances. We have the bankruptcy process to resolve these problems.
3. They took out a variable-rate loan, and the rate floated at a time when they were unable to refinance. The technical term for this is "getting caught with your pants down." I'm not sorry for you.

None of us deserves to own a home. Most of my peers have decided they cannot afford one and are renting. If you made a mistake, and lose your home, you will become one of us once more. Welcome; it's not so bad.

The reason that the government wants to keep people in their homes, of course, is not just because it wants grateful voters. It is concerned that a glut of foreclosures will depress neighborhoods nationwide. Needless to say, I have my own solution to offer humbly to you. It follows the same principles as the wider financial recovery plan:

1. Stabilize the financial system by injecting cash and stopping the free-fall.
2. Use taxpayer money to purchase equity in the hopes of recouping that money.
3. Don't bail out people who made bad decisions; wipe them out.

Here's how the system would work.

Suppose Todd and Sarah are behind on their home payments. If they and their bank are unable to come to a modified loan agreement that will keep them out of foreclosure, the government -- at the consent of both parties -- could step in and purchase the home at its current market value. The homeowners lose something: ownership of that home. The bank loses something: it must accept the current market value of that home as payment in full for the debt. But it also gains: it doesn't take ownership of the home either, so it doesn't have to figure out how to unload it again. And because it receives either cash up front or government bonds, it doesn't have to worry about a second default.

The former homeowners also gain something: they are allowed to stay in their home. In return, they pay the government rent in the amount of their previous monthly mortgage payment, as of just before they started to fall behind.

The government would hold the property at least until the value of the home has increased, such that a sale would recoup the taxpayers' money, perhaps with the addition of some minimal amount of interest. At any point after that, the original homeowners, if they are still tenants, would have the ability to purchase the home back again at whatever its market value is at that time. If at any point those first tenants move out, or after some additional period of time has elapsed, the government would be allowed to sell the property to any buyer -- again, at fair market value.

If there's to be a bail-out of any kind, I believe this system has several things going for it: Lendors are able to unload toxic assets and recoup at least a portion of the money owed them. Homeowners are allowed to stay in their homes and avoid bankruptcy. And taxpayers get to invest their money in something that will pay them back, while still feeling good about helping their neighbors. And as important as any of these reasons: it doesn't reward either homeowners or banks for bad or foolish behavior.

Bittersweet

I am conflicted this morning.

Yesterday, my countrymen and -women showed once again why they are a great people. We don't always make the right decisions, but our democracy works. We may not always agree, but we can accept either victory or defeat with grace, dignity, optimism, and the will to work together for our common good. And though as individuals we are no wiser or better than our fellows in other nations, as a people we have an ability to recognize our mistakes and to move forcefully to correct them that is the envy of the world. So when I see the good will and determination that last night carried a historical candidate to victory by the widest margin in a generation, I have hope for the future. When I see states that once blocked the votes of African Americans giving their own votes to an African American, I have hope for the future.

But there is a new Jim Crow program in this country. It seems almost certain that Proposition 8, which abolishes the right of gays to marry in state of California, has passed. The Proposition, which looked poised to go down to defeat several months ago, has since then been the benefactor of large out-of-state donations, many from conservative religious groups. Much of this money has been spent on television advertisements that many have called misleading. They have nevertheless been effective.

Similar anti-gay marriage measures have passed in other states, although California is alone in dismantling an institution that was previously legal.

But I must remind myself that in this case justice denied is justice deferred. Not far in the future, gay marriage will be the law of every land, and no one will take much notice of it. Not long ago, many states forbade interracial marriage. Supporters of those bans called such marriages unnatural and quoted scripture to support their views. Today, they and their views have been repudiated everywhere. Parents who yesterday voted to "protect their children" by denying marriage to gays will one day face the prospect of defending that choice to those children, by then grown, and of facing their outrage, bewilderment, and humiliation.

Kissing Cousins, Redux

In recognition the upcoming election, and of the vote on the historical Proposition 8 in California, here's a reprint of an earlier post of mine from election season 2006.

---

Let me tell you a story. Lauren and Christine have been together for almost ten years and are very much in love. They own a home together, and although they aren’t able to have a baby together, they hope to adopt some day. There’s just one wrinkle: their home state, Minnesota, won’t allow them to marry. They have a difficult choice to make: they can either continue to live without the legal protections and social recognition of marriage, or they can leave friends and family behind and move to Texas to be married.

“Texas?!” you say? Oh, did you think Lauren and Christine were gay? (Did you perhaps think that those two sultry ladies in the picture were Lauren and Christine? Tune out the lipstick lesbians, please, and try to focus on the topic at hand, if you can. If you must know, Lauren is a man, and Christine, like many figments, is infertile. Not that it’s any of your business.) No, they’re first cousins. Minnesota, like Mississippi, New Hampshire, and many other states, does not permit cousin marriage. Texas -- like Florida, California (and you were about to be smug -- well, stop it), and many others, does allow it. Each state makes its own laws in this area, and not many people pay cousin marriage much attention. It’s not what you would call a Wedge Issue.

For reasons I don’t fully understand, many people in this country consider going to the family reunion to pick up chicks perfectly acceptable -- so long as you’re not a chick yourself. Perhaps this is because cousin marriage, unlike gay marriage, goes way back. (Gay relationships go way back; gay marriage does not.) If you live in a primitive village of 200 people and have no internal combustion engine to carry you more than a few miles from home, your options may be limited. ...Not that that was necessarily an excuse. Cleopatra, queen of all Egypt, consort to generals and kings, and renowned looker and sharp cookie, had a family “tree” that looked more like a ladder. But I digress.

In particular, the Bible doesn’t have anything to say against kissing cousins. For goodness’ sake, the hero of the Sodom and Gomorra story got with both of his daughters. Bible or no Bible, no state would give that the green light. And there are plenty of things in that Good Book that we don’t much mind today, like rules against cutting your hair or eating shellfish. Striking a parent used to get you the death penalty; no more, much to the dismay of many modern parents, I’m sure.

Let’s be honest: You don’t want a dude to marry another dude because the idea of getting with a dude just seriously grosses you out. It’s no more complex than that. But unless you’re a CousinCouples member (and you know who you are -- Lauren), I’ll bet the idea of getting with a family member pretty much grosses you out, too. In order to explore these feelings a little, the remainder of this essay may be read as being either about cousins or gay people. The next time you pick up an article on gay marriage, you might try making similar verbal substitutions. The results may give you something to think about.

For the record, I agree with you all: the idea of kissing [a man | my cousin] is not appealing to me. Fortunately, regardless of which state I live it, no one is likely to compel me in this matter. The thought of someone else kissing [a man | my cousin], on the other hand, bothers me not in the least. It doesn’t bother me intellectually, it doesn’t bother me to hear about it, and it doesn’t bother me to see it (I said kiss -- get your mind out of the gutter). There may even be men working in the public schools who are attracted to [a man | my cousin]! Who cares; get over it.

In some parts of the country, it would be legal for me to marry [a man | my cousin]. In other parts, it would not be. In some parts, such a relationship would be given some legal protection but would have additional restrictions placed on it that don’t apply to other marriages. I have some thoughts on this situation:

One: More loving, committed people should get married. More people who are not loving or committed should refrain. Marriage does not need to be defended from my efforts to marry [a man | my cousin]. There are plenty of couples who are legally allowed to marry anywhere they like who are doing a fine job of messing up The Institution on their own, thank you very much. Defend marriage from them.

Two: Regardless of what I think, however, the decision of who can marry in a particular place is the business of the people who live there and none of mine. Massachusetts will let me marry [a man | my cousin]. Are you from Massachusetts (and this includes you, Federal Government)? No? Then mind your own business. Wyoming will not let me marry [a man | my cousin]. If you live in Massachusetts or Wyoming and disagree with your fellow citizens, then get together some like-minded individuals and try to change some minds. Just such efforts are ongoing in both pro and con states, and are to be applauded.

Three: Whatever our differences state-to-state, we live in one nation. Contracts made in one state are, in most cases, still in force when the parties move to a different state (although disputes may have to be settled in the original locale). A marriage contract between [my manly lover | my incestuous paramour] and I should be no different. If we’re married in Massachusetts and later move to Wyoming, we are certainly still married; the law should recognize that fact. The state of Wyoming has no more power to dissolve a contract made in Massachusetts than the people of the Commonwealth have to force those of Wyoming to allow such a contract in the first place.

It’s time to breathe deeply and recognize that it is not the State’s business -- nor yours, nor mine -- to tell people whom they may love or with whom they may be in relationship. Apart from the obvious ridiculousness of such a thing, do you really want that responsibility? Do you really want to grant it to someone else?

By the same token, and to the extent that the State is of, by, and for the people, it is not the business of one group of people to tell another the laws by which they must govern themselves.

Somewhere in between these two truths, things get messy. What a blessing that we have 50 opportunities to get it right! Let’s use them wisely.

---

That about does it for the abstract political reasoning. Now for the practical: if you are a Californian, please vote No on Proposition 8.