How a red square with a pink equal sign became the new icon formarriage equality
You've probably already seen it on Facebook or Twitter: Two parallel pink lines splashed on a red square background, appearing where your friends' selfies usually go. It's become the de facto logo of supporters of gay marriage as the Supreme Court considers the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8. And it ticks all the requisite checkboxes an effective symbol needs: It's simple, instantly recognizable, and, well, everywhere.
But where did it come from? Well, the logo was created by marketing director Anastasia Khoo of theHuman Rights Campaign, a group that trumpets itself as "the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender organization," and "envisions an America where LGBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights."
The pink and red meme blanketing social media is a derivative of the HRC's everyday logo — a yellow equal sign on a blue background. Why the new colors? As Khoo told the New Yorker, the organization "decided to tinge it red because it's the color of love."
HRC first posted the timely new symbol to its Facebook page Monday afternoon, where it managed to attract a few big-name net denizens, namely former Star Trek actor and gay marriage advocateGeorge Takei (who has 3 million Facebook "likes" and over 600,000 Twitter followers). Things took off from there.
The symbol, unsurprisingly, has spawned more than a few meme-y offshoots. One includes two horizontal strips of bacon. (Everyone loves bacon, get it?) Another has famous person Paula Deen mounting the symbol like two sticks of her beloved butter. Yet another splices fangs between the two equal signs; says the HRC: "Vampire marriage lasts for all eternity."
You can take a look at a few more at the HRC's Flickr page.
The culture war was never a fair fight
"Most modern liberals, at their most consistent, want a situation in which as many individuals as possible can realize as many of their ends as possible, without assessment of the value of these ends as such, save in so far as they may frustrate the purposes of others. They wish the frontiers between individuals or groups of men to be drawn solely with a view to preventing collisions between human purposes, all of which must be considered to be equally ultimate, uncriticizable ends in themselves." — Isaiah Berlin
I've written a lot lately about how conservatives lost the culture war. Some of my socially conservative friends were upset when I argued that at least part of the reason for this was that "pro-family" activist groups aren't as effective as fiscally conservative groups. I still believe that to be true, but I also believe that the culture war wasn't a fair fight. It has always been rigged.
Social conservatives are greatly outnumbered (a byproduct of having lost the culture war argument). We hear a lot about the supposed "three-legged-stool" of the conservative movement, but in fighting the culture war, social conservatives are on their own. In fact, it's wrong to think of this in terms of a left versus right paradigm. It would be better understood as part of the continuing struggle between virtue (as social conservatives define it) and liberty (defined by our modern secular society to mean the freedom to do whatever we want). In that light, liberty is murdering virtue.
Let's take a step back for a moment first. Many prominent conservatives, like anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, argue that conservatives just want to be left alone. In fact, Norquist has dubbed conservatism the "leave us alone" coalition.
Cultural conservatives see this as naïve. The state, they reason, will never leave us alone. We either win or we lose the culture war, but you can't opt out. In this regard, they are like Winston Churchill, who said of his predecessor: "Mr. Chamberlain can't seem to understand that we live in a very wicked world … English people want to be left alone, and I daresay a great many other people want to be left alone too. But the world is like a tired old horse plodding down a long road. Every time it strays off and tries to graze peacefully in some nice green pasture, along comes a new master to flog it a bit further along.'"
Since the state will never really leave us alone, social conservatives reason that the state should encourage ordered liberty. That means that the state should incentivize behavior that has served Western Civilization well over the years. In other words, as Dylan said, "you're gonna have to serve somebody," so social conservatives reason that a virtuous society should encourage behavior deemed virtuous by traditional Judeo-Christian culture, and discourage behavior at odds with that.
This, of course, is unpopular in the modern world — not just amongst liberals, but also with libertarian-leaning conservatives, and the general public. In today's America, there is huge value placed on people being able to do what they want and be who they want to be. Trying to deny them those "rights" has become something of a taboo in many circles.
Of course, there has always been a tension between virtue and liberty. But at some point, America ceased emphasizing community values and began valuing extreme individualism. More and more, Americans — including many conservatives — now believe that individuals should do whatever they want so long as it isn't hurting anybody else.
But the cultural conservative says that there is a "tragedy of the commons" problem with this — that the "if it feels right, do it" mentality will eventually hurt society collectively.
And while social conservatives attempt to argue this point on purely secular grounds, the truth is that it makes little sense without God. As Dr. Benjamin Wiker writes in his new book,Worshipping The State, "For liberalism to make sense, we would have to live in a world without ends — to put it in technical philosophical terms, in a non-teleological universe (telos means "goal" or "end in Greek), where, since there are no ends written into nature (including human nature) by God, we are free to create them ourselves."
Absent a higher purpose, laws are arbitrary. Never was this spelled out more clearly than in the Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
In a moral relativist world, aborting an unborn child becomes "giving a mother the right to pursue happiness." Making divorce easy becomes "unburdening individuals to pursue happiness."
Almost every hot-button issue we wrestle with can fundamentally be traced to the struggle between what traditional conservatives deem to be virtue (based on tradition and Judeo-Christian teaching) and the desire to satisfy the individual's desire for extreme freedom.
Wiker says it best:
Americans have been formed by two distinct streams of influence, Christianity and Enlightenment Liberalism. That's a rather combustible and uncomfortable mixture, given that the essence of Liberalism is its embrace of life in this world as the highest good, and its consequent hostility to the Christian emphasis on the next. Historically, Liberalism (true to its name) seeks to liberate society from the moral burdens of Christianity, so that we may be free to enjoy this world without guilt or obstruction — without worrying about the demands of virtue. The great modern Liberal thinkers, Hobbes and Locke, therefore replaced the Christian goal of virtue, with the Liberal goal of individual rights — rights being defined in terms of individual desires, so that "I have a right to ________" merely means "I want _______.
How gay rights tipped so quickly
Scott Coatsworth (left) and Mark Guzman (right) embrace during a rally in support of marriage equality on March 26 in San Francisco. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
In some ways, today's Supreme Court arguments over California's Proposition 8 were overshadowed by the decision of several Democratic senators from red or purple states to openly and actively support marriage equality. Actually, even that pales in comparison to Richard Land, the key Southern Baptist political evangelist, who just said, basically, "never mind," when it comes to the next generation of evangelicals being uncomfortable about gay rights. To be sure, he still opposes gay rights, still thinks that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, and believes that anti-gay leaders are being ostracized from polite society. On that last part, he's kind of correct. The zone of tolerance for acceptable viewpoints has narrowed very quickly.
Why has the structure of the gay rights debate shifted so quickly? The Week's Peter Weber has found six reasons. I have some guesses, a few obvious ones, and a few not-so-obvious, and I'm going to try to put them in order of importance.
First: Harvey Milk had it right. All politics is personal. Self-identified gays make up about three and a half percent of the population. That means that almost everyone with a social life in America knows someone who is gay. In fact, nearly 60 percent of Americans surveyed say that someone close to them is gay. (Sarah Palin's best friend is gay.) Of those who've changed their minds on the issue, the plurality say that they expanded their circle of empathy simply because their circle came to include gay people.
But here's the important point: In order for this to happen, gay people had to take risks and come out. So: The pressure within the gay community to stigmatize "the closet," a pressure that can be pretty intense at times, has paid off.
It follows that people still won't come out if the social and personal penalties for doing so are high. But concerted efforts by gay rights activists and by Hollywood, working separately, have made the environment everywhere more hospitable for gay people, even in places where anti-gay prejudice remains high. Hollywood's pro-gay tilt is not a conspiracy. It is, just like Hollywood's pro-military tilt, an indelible fact driven by personal political orientation as well as economics. In conjunction, gay politics got smarter after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court instituted gay marriage in that state, which provoked a revanchist backlash in a number of states.
From here, the 2008 presidential campaign plays a pivotal role. Yes, Barack Obama didn't support marriage equality at first. But the prime movers of his electoral success, the Obama generation, strongly supported complete civil and social equality for gays. Obama activated this generation. And once in office, Obama took some risks and proved his chops as a leader. The synergy between gay activists and the government will be studied for years to come, as it ought to be. Gay money bankrolled Obama's re-election; I am not overstating its impact.
Then the anti-bullying campaign, another half-grassroots, half-organized political crusade, focused attention on, specifically, anti-gay bullying of young people. It Gets Better videos apply to everyone, but the real target was (and is) gay youth. That so small a segment of the population could be the beneficiary of such widespread and popular grassroots encouragement is sort of amazing. It's also not an accident of history. Those who tend to support gay rights the most and those who have the resources to do something about it joined together in a concerted manner to lend legitimacy to the cause. One of them is Ken Mehlman, the former RNC chairman, who has devoted his life since coming out to persuading those within his party that equality's time has come. Republicans have come a long way in a short period of time, and Mehlman ought to get credit for it. (He doesn't want credit, but he'll get it.)
Once the barrier to gays serving in the military fell, and...nothing apocalyptic happened, and once a few states began to experiment with gay marriage, and...nothing apocalyptic happened, the only remaining arguments against same-sex unions are religious and provincial. They're small. They're associated with bigotry. No one wants to be a bigot.
And so, here we are
Government should get out of the marriage business
T
his week, the Supreme Court will hear two cases that could lead to decisions changing the traditional definition of marriage. That definition, let's remember, is based on thousands of years of Western culture in which such a union has been between one man and one woman. The justices might change that definition to a union of any two adults.
Polls show that the acceptance of same-sex marriage in the United States has rapidly increased in just a single generation. Politicians in both parties have begun jumping on an expanding bandwagon, beginning last year with Joe Biden in the middle of a presidential campaign (which momentarily left his boss twisting in the breeze). Barack Obama later "evolved" from his previously stated opposition to same-sex marriage to support of it, though at the time, Obama declined to provide any direct action to change the definition of the institution.
Before the judiciary settles this question — or perhaps leaves it unsettled — it would behoove us to pause in this rush, and ask what purpose the institution of marriage serves in our society.
Let's start by refining the argument. Supporters of same-sex marriage talk of "legalizing" gay marriages, but that's not an accurate depiction of current law. No U.S. state, regardless of its definition of marriage, will prosecute same-sex couples who call themselves "married," nor should they, outside of an intent to defraud — which is a crime regardless of the sexual circumstances. In fact, the government has a very limited legitimate interest in sexual or living arrangements. Especially after the Lawrence v. Texas case, the government has no role in regulating sexual activity with the exceptions of consanguinity (close blood relations), use of force and victimization, commercial trafficking of sexual favors, and exploitation of minors.
No one wants the government to dictate who may or may not share a bed, outside of those exceptional circumstances. Those who choose to cohabit in non-traditional relationships have ample options for formalizing their arrangements through the private contract process, which government enforces but does not sanction. That leaves adults free to choose whatever sexual arrangements they desire outside of the actual prohibitions that are objectively applied to everyone. That is actual freedom and equality.
Marriage, however, is a unique status even apart from religious concerns, which I'll address later. Marriage licenses exist as government recognition of the unique procreative potential of heterosexual relationships. The government takes a special interest in that potential for good reason — because a failure of the procreators to act as proper guardians forces the government to build safety-net systems for children whose parents either cannot or will not provide for them. Marriage provides a structure for assigning responsibility for children potentially produced by heterosexual relations. Put simply, it fixes responsibility for paternity on the husband, regardless of who may have fathered the children during a marriage — a fact that more than a few cuckolded husbands have discovered during divorce settlements. That structure ensures that the state can enforce responsibility for the care of its most vulnerable citizens, even to the extent of criminal prosecution for neglect.
In Western societies, including the U.S., marriage has always been a forward-looking institution aimed at protecting and nurturing the next generation of children, not a love license for the adults of the present.
Most states, until relatively recently, provided incentives for marriage and disincentives for divorce. Social experimentation undermined both, and safety-net programs accelerated the process. Thanks to no-fault divorce laws that put the whims of adults over the needs of children, the results of devaluing marriage for heterosexual unions have produced heavy social costs for the past few generations that have fallen outside of the traditional family structure.
That being said, marriage recognition is a government policy just like all other statutory and regulatory policies. In a democratic republic, government policies are open for debate and change, either through direct democratic mechanisms like referenda or through legislative action by elected representatives of the voters. In a few cases, states have legalized same-sex marriage through those channels. While many disagree with those changes, few would argue that the process or the outcome was somehow illegitimate.
However, one case in particular presents a contradictory question to the Supreme Court. In pushing to overturn a referendum passed by a large majority in California that enshrined the traditional definition of marriage into the state constitution, the opponents of Proposition 8 argue in essence that both the process and the policy chosen by the voters are entirely illegitimate. Voters used a direct-democracy mechanism that has existed in California for decades to amend the constitution no differently than other such propositions, and affirmed the definition of marriage that has existed during the entire history of this country. The challengers don't like the outcome, and argue that nine justices should only accept as a legitimate result of that referendum a definition of marriage that until the last few years few would have accepted, and negate a legitimate outcome in an election. That's an argument for an oligarchy or an autocracy, not a democracy.
Tolerance, it seems, works only in one direction — and that brings us to the religious argument, but not in the manner one might think.
While as a practicing Catholic my definition of marriage involves its sacramental character, I understand that others may not share my faith and perspective on its meaning or value. That, however, will not work both ways, as recent examples have made plain. For example, a baker in Oregon faces potential criminal charges for refusing to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs. What happens when churches refuse to perform such ceremonies for the same reason?
Most people scoff at this question, but religions have partnered with the state on marriages in a way that bakers have not. Priests, ministers, rabbis, and imams act in place of the state when officiating at wedding ceremonies, and states that legalize same-sex marriage are eventually going to be forced by lawsuits to address that partnership, probably sooner rather than later. In similar partnerships, that has resulted in pushing churches out of business.
Massachusetts demanded that Catholic adoption agencies, which handle private adoption in an arrangement that is less of a stand-in for government than officiating at weddings is, place children with same-sex couples. The Boston diocese opted to drop its adoption services rather than fight the state in court. Most recently, the federal government imposed a requirement on religious organizations and individual business owners to provide and/or facilitate free birth control and sterilization services even though doing so conflicts with their beliefs and doctrine. Part of the argument put forward in favor of this policy is that these religious organizations — especially Catholic health-care providers — partner with the government to deliver those services, and therefore have no right to stand on religious-liberty grounds. It's not difficult to see the writing on the wall when it comes to the ability of churches to perform a core sacrament in any meaningful sense once the government changes the definition of marriage.
The best outcome would be for Americans to recall the limited state interest in marriage and preserve it as a forward-looking institution, and return to incentivizing families rather than lowering barriers to failure. While society increasingly places no value on marriage except as a government love license, the best outcome would be to have government get out of the marriage business altogether, restricting itself instead to enforcing contracts. People that want to change the definition of marriage should use the proper methods in our form of government to address government policy rather than suing to overrule the will of the electorate. The worst outcome for both society and democratic processes would be for the Supreme Court to invalidate a fair election result to impose a new definition of marriage in California that voters made clear they didn't accept, and force the rest of the country to accept that outcom
e
e
No comments:
Post a Comment