03 July 2010
Where Do Rights Come From?
Quite a few, left and other, seem to be partaking generously of a Church Lady moment of smug superiority over Senator Grassley's question to Solicitor General Kagan in the hearings regarding her confirmation to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. Here's the framing by Megan Carpentier at Talking Points Memo:
One doesn't have to agree that rights come "from God" as interpreted by Senator Grassley and by many of our fellow citizens to state that they come with being born; that is, there is a set of human rights that come with human existence, that aren't granted by human institutions like governments, that happen just because one is alive and breathing. To frame those rights as "from God" might be seen as the same kind of shorthand we use when we say the sun comes up and the sun goes down.
Granted, our using the sunrise-sunset description is not tied up with the impacts on our lives that religion frequently presents: As a gay man, I don't have to look far to know and show that religious organizations, in the small at the congregational level and in the large from the top of their various hierarchies (some less formal than others), are quite capable of disregarding the rights that are mine, from being secure in my own person (individually and collectively, clergy have misused their authority and protected one another in that since time immemorial) to not recognizing my right to marry the love of my life.
But seeing our rights as coming with life itself, regardless of one's sense of where that life originates, is, I deeply believe, more important to the establishment of communities where those rights are respected and protected than is thinking that rights are something established by people, even as certainly it is our human institutions that help us secure those rights.
By failing to distinguish between the origin of our rights and the role of governments in securing those rights, General Kagan missed an opportunity to instruct us all in the nuance that "not from man" doesn't necessarily mean "from God," (as convenient a shorthand as that might be), and that the role of governments is to secure those rights, not to invent them.
In the particulars of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, my friends on the left should understand that the right to bear arms stated there is an encapsulation in our Federal foundation of the concepts expressed in the Declaration of Independence that when governments attempt to "reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." While I think my Tea Party friends are totally wack to believe that the U.S. government as it has evolved post-US Civil War, post-WWI, post-Great Depression, post-WWII, post-9/11 is oppressive in that way, let us agree that the people of this, or any other, nation are ultimately responsible for it; that we have the right to change that government should it become truly oppressive (which it most certainly is not). The 2nd Amendment states, as we ought to believe, that each of us has the right to use tools—and tool making is a most human trait—of our own possession to defend our personal and collective liberty. Which is something wonderful, not something to be denigrated.
We didn't make these rights, whether to marry or whether to protect ourselves and those we love and that which we possess. Those rights were here when we got here, when we started breathing. They came from no government, from no other person. Disrespect those who say they came "from God" and entertain the fantasy that they come from man, from institutions of our making, at the risk of your liberty and the liberty of those you love.
During his questioning of Kagan, Grassley asked her not just about her opinion of Heller, McDonald or stare decisis, but about whether the right to bear arms predates the constitution Kagan is seeking to interpret on the court. He wasn't talking about the Magna Carta, or the Hammurabic Code, however: he wanted to know whether the right to carry man-made weapons actually came from a higher power. Kagan, for her part, didn't want to get into litigating whether a higher power gave us rights before we enshrined them in the document she'll be asked to interpret.I think Kagan missed an opportunity.
One doesn't have to agree that rights come "from God" as interpreted by Senator Grassley and by many of our fellow citizens to state that they come with being born; that is, there is a set of human rights that come with human existence, that aren't granted by human institutions like governments, that happen just because one is alive and breathing. To frame those rights as "from God" might be seen as the same kind of shorthand we use when we say the sun comes up and the sun goes down.
Granted, our using the sunrise-sunset description is not tied up with the impacts on our lives that religion frequently presents: As a gay man, I don't have to look far to know and show that religious organizations, in the small at the congregational level and in the large from the top of their various hierarchies (some less formal than others), are quite capable of disregarding the rights that are mine, from being secure in my own person (individually and collectively, clergy have misused their authority and protected one another in that since time immemorial) to not recognizing my right to marry the love of my life.
But seeing our rights as coming with life itself, regardless of one's sense of where that life originates, is, I deeply believe, more important to the establishment of communities where those rights are respected and protected than is thinking that rights are something established by people, even as certainly it is our human institutions that help us secure those rights.
By failing to distinguish between the origin of our rights and the role of governments in securing those rights, General Kagan missed an opportunity to instruct us all in the nuance that "not from man" doesn't necessarily mean "from God," (as convenient a shorthand as that might be), and that the role of governments is to secure those rights, not to invent them.
In the particulars of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, my friends on the left should understand that the right to bear arms stated there is an encapsulation in our Federal foundation of the concepts expressed in the Declaration of Independence that when governments attempt to "reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." While I think my Tea Party friends are totally wack to believe that the U.S. government as it has evolved post-US Civil War, post-WWI, post-Great Depression, post-WWII, post-9/11 is oppressive in that way, let us agree that the people of this, or any other, nation are ultimately responsible for it; that we have the right to change that government should it become truly oppressive (which it most certainly is not). The 2nd Amendment states, as we ought to believe, that each of us has the right to use tools—and tool making is a most human trait—of our own possession to defend our personal and collective liberty. Which is something wonderful, not something to be denigrated.
We didn't make these rights, whether to marry or whether to protect ourselves and those we love and that which we possess. Those rights were here when we got here, when we started breathing. They came from no government, from no other person. Disrespect those who say they came "from God" and entertain the fantasy that they come from man, from institutions of our making, at the risk of your liberty and the liberty of those you love.
Labels: constitution, Declaration of Independence, god, grassley, human rights, kagan, origin, rights
31 December 2009
What's Love Got to Do With It?
By cultivated nature, I am not one to put things in black and white terms. Perhaps by inclination initially, but also by years of pointed practice, I've developed the habit of looking for commonalities, for points to be shared, for the 99.99% overlap in all our lives rather than the 0.01% differences.
(I know my GOP and righter-wing friends may find that hard to believe, but I also believe in the political utility of demoralizing the opposition—a tactic some of you share—so I'm not beyond portraying your wrongheadedness in extreme terms every so often, even as I try very hard not to forget that we're all in this together, are the same in almost every sense, and ask, almost beg, you to come to your senses and get on the better side of things.)
But on this matter of same-sex relationships, I've about lost my patience with my less than understanding friends who persist in supporting having the state deny my love and me and those like us what are rights given to us by God—yes, by the Creator of this Universe—by the simple fact that we were born into this world, that we are breathing.
That is the right to be considered married by our communities, as represented legitimately and legally in our governments at all levels.
The November 2008 election results in Arizona, California, and Florida hit me like a ton of bricks. I have become so numb since that I could watch what happened in Maine this past November without getting depressed, which is, in its own way, sad.
To have my rights—and this is where I am as sure as I have ever been about anything: these are my rights—voted on by my fellow citizens is insulting and demeaning. It shows a degree of suspicion of gay people as citizens, as humans, that is simply not justified.
The concerns raised by those who oppose recognizing the full human rights of LGBT people are not real.
Please, give this some reflection and thought.
The love Mack and I have for each other is just as real as what you and the one you love have for each other. Just as real. Just as natural. Just as human. Just as blessed. Just as Divine.
Our expressing that love and having it recognized by our governments takes nothing away from you, does not threaten your children, has no impact on whether they are more or less likely to be gay (even as it changes the likelihood that should your child be gay, she or he may express that openly and be more likely to be happy).
As we move forward, please give our love not begrudged recognition as some kind of exception ("well, you two are okay since you're our friends, but the rest of those faggots better watch out"), but give us, all of us same-sex couples now and to come, your blessing with full and open hearts.
Open your heart and see what is real, not your imaginings, not your fears. See the love.
Love's got everything to do with it: Our love as individuals for each other, and our love for other people, regardless of who they love.
Please help us secure the recognition of our rights. If you can't do that, at least please stop helping those who oppose our securing what is rightfully ours. Those rights are ours: I am sure about that. Are you so sure that they're not?
(I know my GOP and righter-wing friends may find that hard to believe, but I also believe in the political utility of demoralizing the opposition—a tactic some of you share—so I'm not beyond portraying your wrongheadedness in extreme terms every so often, even as I try very hard not to forget that we're all in this together, are the same in almost every sense, and ask, almost beg, you to come to your senses and get on the better side of things.)
But on this matter of same-sex relationships, I've about lost my patience with my less than understanding friends who persist in supporting having the state deny my love and me and those like us what are rights given to us by God—yes, by the Creator of this Universe—by the simple fact that we were born into this world, that we are breathing.
That is the right to be considered married by our communities, as represented legitimately and legally in our governments at all levels.
The November 2008 election results in Arizona, California, and Florida hit me like a ton of bricks. I have become so numb since that I could watch what happened in Maine this past November without getting depressed, which is, in its own way, sad.
To have my rights—and this is where I am as sure as I have ever been about anything: these are my rights—voted on by my fellow citizens is insulting and demeaning. It shows a degree of suspicion of gay people as citizens, as humans, that is simply not justified.
The concerns raised by those who oppose recognizing the full human rights of LGBT people are not real.
- Recruiting: The idea that gay people are out there trying to convince children to be gay is a fantasy that opponents of recognizing gay rights whip out all the time, without one iota of evidence for its reality. Currently, there's no settled understanding about why some of us are gay. Clearly we're a small proportion of the populace.
My own thinking is that being gay is an expression of human nature with both genetic and developmental components that manifests itself once societies achieve a certain lack of survival stress (so that whatever genetic factors are involved become expressed). I figure it's likely that nothing anyone does except wiping out the modern world and sending us back to the caves will change some small number of LGBT people showing up in the world on a recurring basis. I'm skeptical that there's any one factor that can be identified to put the kibosh on that nature expressing itself, or that would lead someone who's not gay to become gay.
When it comes to conversion, the fraction of straight people who are actively trying to turn gay people straight is probably larger than the fraction of gay people who are actively trying to turn straight people gay. And it's those same ones who are active in trying to get gay people not to be gay who go around claiming that gay people are trying to recruit straight people. - The gay predator: Most child molesters are straight, with a family connection to the victim. The ones who are gay are almost always closet cases. Instead of worrying about out gay people preying on your children, you ought to be worried about the insecure ones who pretend to be straight: The preist. The Boy Scout leader. The Sunday School teacher. The Republican state representative, Governor, Congressman, Senator.
If the closet persists, that exploitative element will persist with it, because it's harder to grow emotionally into an adult relationship with another adult when the larger world treats same-sex adult relationships as something to be devalued relative to straight relationships. - Lack of monogamy: My own thinking is that this has more to do with whether one has an XY chromosome pair or an XX pair (part of that 0.01%), with plenty of statistical variation regardless. Look: Men, by and large, are horndogs, and straight marriage doesn't change that, only its expression. Those straight marriages are not uniform in how that expression is achieved: There are plenty of married men at titty bars whose wives could care less, and I'd be very suspect if you could show that that group is any less good husbands or good fathers in the long run than the group that never looks at another woman besides their wife. The supposed ideal family promoted by the opponents of recognizing gay rights may be achieved by a few, but it is neither as broadly nor deeply a part of the lives of married straight people as those opponents fantasize. It seems pretty obvious that if it were, there wouldn't be so many divorces.
And, yes, gay men, like straight men, are wired such that more and different seems better, and they might just be in a position to realize fantasies based on those ideas more often than straight men can find indulgent female partners to do so. That doesn't mean that the couple is any less committed to each other than it does for the straight couple, whether they are married or not. - Sleaziness: Again, the idea that all straight people, married or not, are only doing it in the missionary position is just a bunch of bunk. Merle sang that "we don't make a party out of loving," but just about any decent sized city (and lots of smaller ones, too) has commercial outlets to spice up the love life of straight couples, from Victoria's Secret at the mall to any number of coyly-named free-standing outlets like "Indulgences" or "Fantasies" or "The Love Shop."
But if gay people add a little kink to their sex lives, then it's supposedly sleazy. This is a face-value double standard that displays who's got the power in this world: it's okay for straight people, but sleazy when gay people do it. - It's not really love: This is the one that irritates me the most. To tell me that what I feel for the man I love is not really love is just disconnected from what is.
Do not tell me that it's not love when I lay in bed next to him at night, feel my foot touch his, and feel my entire body just unwind. Do not tell me it's not love when we fall asleep holding hands on the couch. Do not tell me that it's not love when we take care of each other when we are sick, when we do our best to take care of our own and each other's families. Do not tell me that it's not love when we do little things for each other that we never tell each other about. Do not tell me it's not love, when one of my few fears is something happening to take him out of my life.
Do not tell me it's not really love.
Do not tell me what I am feeling.
When I tell you that I love him, do not tell me that I don't feel that way. When your child tells you that she or he loves someone of the same sex, do not tell then that they don't, that it's a phase they'll grow out of, that no child of yours could ever feel that way. Believe this report as surely you believe the sun comes up in the morning, for it is just as real, just as natural, just as much a part of the way this Universe works as your or my breathing is. As your or my kissing the one we love is.
Do not tell me that this is not love.
Please, give this some reflection and thought.
The love Mack and I have for each other is just as real as what you and the one you love have for each other. Just as real. Just as natural. Just as human. Just as blessed. Just as Divine.
Our expressing that love and having it recognized by our governments takes nothing away from you, does not threaten your children, has no impact on whether they are more or less likely to be gay (even as it changes the likelihood that should your child be gay, she or he may express that openly and be more likely to be happy).
As we move forward, please give our love not begrudged recognition as some kind of exception ("well, you two are okay since you're our friends, but the rest of those faggots better watch out"), but give us, all of us same-sex couples now and to come, your blessing with full and open hearts.
Open your heart and see what is real, not your imaginings, not your fears. See the love.
Love's got everything to do with it: Our love as individuals for each other, and our love for other people, regardless of who they love.
Please help us secure the recognition of our rights. If you can't do that, at least please stop helping those who oppose our securing what is rightfully ours. Those rights are ours: I am sure about that. Are you so sure that they're not?
Labels: gay, gay marriage, gay rights, lgbt, marriage, rights, same-sex marriage
19 January 2009
A Small Rant (Number 492,696)
Yeah, I know, I've been quiet when I should be getting all excited about tomorrow's inauguration of President Obama.
I am excited, but my lingering disappointment in the LGBT movement—both in terms of moving forward after the November losses and in terms of not being able to move past focusing on distractions like Rick Warren—has just left me a little fried. I wish I could make more of a difference in moving LGBT rights forward, but I'm unclear how to do so. And I'm easily distracted by the day-to-day fulfilling of my family, personal, and professional obligations.
The only LGBT leaders who seem to me to have a clue are the actual politicians: the Barney Franks and Tammy Baldwins. The rest—activists, media/blogger types, and much of the community that I see online and in person—seem clueless. Anger seems to count for action, and the only action happening is anger.
We got our butts kicked here in Florida, and the local LGBT leadership goes on with their heads up their asses acting like nothing happened. Like November 4 doesn't deserve some kind of response beyond "we have really big plans for this year." The usual suspects—The Human Rights Campaign and Equality Florida, in particular—continue down their merry path in the delusion that they're going to be effective lobbying the reactionary Florida legislature (even more reactionary after November, since the local Democratic party gives the GOP a bye in just about ever district in which there's not already a Democratic legislator) for items like domestic partner benefits. The same people who led us to defeat in November are still running the show, but I see individual after individual on Facebook keep signing up as a supporter of the Human Rights Campaign. They may even think I'd want them to do so.
I certainly don't mean to declare "game over," but there is a time to actually take the safety, hunker down, and figure out what to do next. I don't see much of that happening. Instead, there's either Obama euphoria (Gene Robinson!), Obama disappointment (Rick Warren!), or floundering activity on an LGBT rights agenda that's going nowhere in the Florida legislature.
So, that's the report from Florida, 19 January 2009.
p.s. I am thrilled about President Obama, because I realize how far we've come as a nation in my lifetime regarding matters of race. But I remain dejected and irritated about my LGBT community, a community that seems not to have the slightest clue how to secure the rights that flow to its members as naturally as breathing air.
I am excited, but my lingering disappointment in the LGBT movement—both in terms of moving forward after the November losses and in terms of not being able to move past focusing on distractions like Rick Warren—has just left me a little fried. I wish I could make more of a difference in moving LGBT rights forward, but I'm unclear how to do so. And I'm easily distracted by the day-to-day fulfilling of my family, personal, and professional obligations.
The only LGBT leaders who seem to me to have a clue are the actual politicians: the Barney Franks and Tammy Baldwins. The rest—activists, media/blogger types, and much of the community that I see online and in person—seem clueless. Anger seems to count for action, and the only action happening is anger.
We got our butts kicked here in Florida, and the local LGBT leadership goes on with their heads up their asses acting like nothing happened. Like November 4 doesn't deserve some kind of response beyond "we have really big plans for this year." The usual suspects—The Human Rights Campaign and Equality Florida, in particular—continue down their merry path in the delusion that they're going to be effective lobbying the reactionary Florida legislature (even more reactionary after November, since the local Democratic party gives the GOP a bye in just about ever district in which there's not already a Democratic legislator) for items like domestic partner benefits. The same people who led us to defeat in November are still running the show, but I see individual after individual on Facebook keep signing up as a supporter of the Human Rights Campaign. They may even think I'd want them to do so.
I certainly don't mean to declare "game over," but there is a time to actually take the safety, hunker down, and figure out what to do next. I don't see much of that happening. Instead, there's either Obama euphoria (Gene Robinson!), Obama disappointment (Rick Warren!), or floundering activity on an LGBT rights agenda that's going nowhere in the Florida legislature.
So, that's the report from Florida, 19 January 2009.
p.s. I am thrilled about President Obama, because I realize how far we've come as a nation in my lifetime regarding matters of race. But I remain dejected and irritated about my LGBT community, a community that seems not to have the slightest clue how to secure the rights that flow to its members as naturally as breathing air.
Labels: gay rights, lgbt, obama, president, rights
16 November 2008
JoinTheImpact: Orlando, Saturday, 15 November 2008
We went to the JoinTheImpact demonstration in Orlando yesterday. The Orlando Sentinel said (here) that the crowd was over 1000 people. Some good speakers, particularly Patty Sheehan, out Orlando City Commissioner, and Michael Vance of the Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Community Center of Central Florida.
The full set of my pictures are on Flickr here, but below are a few of my favorites.
Please. Speak out against the hate. Engage your friends, regardless of where you are, of who you are. You don't have to be gay to speak out against hate, and you don't have to be out to speak up for equality.
The full set of my pictures are on Flickr here, but below are a few of my favorites.
Please. Speak out against the hate. Engage your friends, regardless of where you are, of who you are. You don't have to be gay to speak out against hate, and you don't have to be out to speak up for equality.
Labels: gay, gay marriage, gay rights, human rights, jointheimpact, marriage, orlando, rights
05 November 2008
Proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution, Revised
Proposed changes in italics:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.This is the steady-state endgame for which we have to strive.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Labels: amendment, equal, rights
16 December 2007
Our Pursuit of Happiness Trumps Your Marriage Amendment
Check out Fairness for ALL Families. Send money.
Florida resident? Sign the pledge.
Florida resident? Sign the pledge.
Labels: amendment, gay, marriage, rights
04 July 2007
Independence Day, 2007
1. Happy Independence Day!
Let's hear it for a free country.
2. Today, I just made the last EFT to pay off our credit card debt, several months ahead of schedule. I declare Independence from revolting credit. Still have to deal with car- and house-related debt, but that's a little more bearable and sensible.
Let's hear it for freedom from debt.
3. Every 4th of July, my dad used to say, "Today is Independence Day: The day I left my first wife."
Let's hear it for freedom from bad relationships.
4. I have proto-thoughts, have had for a long time, about this whole idea of "self-evident" truths. About these "unalienable rights" being "endowed by their Creator." I'm not trying to provoke an argument about matters of belief, about cosmology: rather, it seems that rights start as ideas, maybe held by one, maybe held by some, and that the expression of those ideas, the eventual putting those ideas down in writing and having them shared by many, creates a context where those rights exist, at least as ideas. But those rights/ideas, without the use of some kind of force—physical, by individuals, by a government based on similar shared rights/ideas—remain just ideas. Not necessarily rooted, maybe not made extant.
At some point, if we advocate our rights, we have to be willing to stand up for them, to fight for them. Otherwise, it's only talk. In a civil society, talk may be a means of fighting for them, but it's probably well advised to keep in mind other means.
Keep your powder dry.
I have little doubt that philosophers have talked this framing out, and that I ought to educate myself about it. I'm open to references, if you care to share.
Let's hear it for freedom. For human rights. For independence.
Labels: 4th of July, debt, freedom, Independence Day, rights
