Take the Double Standard Challenge
CommentsMore than once in the last several weeks, on Web Sites such as Pam’s House Blend and GaysDefendMarriage.com, I’ve pointed out a double standard held by many of those advocating for same-sex marriage.
Basically, many “marriage equality” activists I’ve spoken to have said that public-school teachers who tell their students that marriage is the union of a man and a woman should be disciplined or even fired for teach contrary to “the facts”; and journalists who describe a couple as unmarried despite their having had a legal same-sex marriage should be subject to libel suits.
However, advocates of “marriage equality” have been completely free to do precisely the opposite for years without fear of punishment. For example, in 1999 the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educators Network published and promoted a curriculum that encouraged public school teachers to instruct their students about marriage using a definition that makes no reference to gender. And I’ve seen dozens of examples in the gay press and even in mainstream publications such as People Magazine and the San Francisco Chronicle in which a prominent gay or lesbian person’s partner who is not legally married to them anywhere in the world is nonetheless called their husband or wife. I am very confident that no gay-friendly teacher or journalist has ever been disciplined, fired, or sued for libel for using a definition of marriage that is consistent with his or her values but not with the legal reality.
So my question is this: why is it OK for gay advocates to use their own definition of marriage without punishment when it doesn’t match the government’s, yet traditionally religious people cannot use their own definition of marriage without punishment when their definition doesn’t match the government’s? Wouldn’t it be better to use a system where everyone is free to live their lives consistently with their beliefs? In the marriage debate, the only position that allows such a system to operate is the old system in which marriage is between a man and a woman.
And saying that it’s unconstitutional to collect damages from a newspaper for saying Del Martin is a bachelorette or to fire a teacher for saying marriage is between a man and a woman isn’t enough. We should all live in a country in which no one has to fear harassment and lawsuits for using their definition of marriage - even if they end up victorious. Where are the fair-minded advocates of “marriage equality” who want to amend gay marriage bills or state constitutions to make it clear that people can continue to run their businesses, perform their jobs, and raise their families using whatever definition of marriage they believe in?
Now, there are some pretty intelligent, completely reasonable proponents of same-sex marriage like Andrew Koppelman and Jonathan Rauch. What is their response to my challenge above? Or the smart, passionate proponents of “marriage equality” who comment at blogs like mine and all over the Web? Do any of them have a smart, clear, fair way to explain why their side gets a free pass to use its illegal definition of marriage but my side doesn’t? If not, do any of them have a lame way to explain it? Because so far, I haven’t even heard that.
So because the other side does something that you find inappropriate, that gives you license to do the same. “He did it first…” is an argument I used frequently when I was 10 and wanted to deflect blame to my brother. My parents were smart enough to see through it then. I learned a lot from my parents…
I would NOT be confident that Gay Friendly teachers have never been disciplined for using a gender neutral definition of marriage. We know that many Gay teachers have been transfered or fired when their orientation became known. Teaching the truth about love and Gay Marriage presents Gay teachers with a serious risk of an Outing and loss of a job. That doesnt’ seem “completely free” to me.
The examples of using Gender Neurtral Marriage definitions occur at the mercy of the community. There is no right to teach Gender Neutral Marriage. Similarly, now that Same Sex Marriage and Orientation protection is the law of the land in California, I suspect there will be many pockets of teachers and districts using the illegal defined gender defintions of Marriage.
Dan-
Am I interpreting you right? It was wrong when gay people did it, so it’s wrong when straight people do it? If so, would you advocate that a teacher in the 48 states where gay marriage is not legally recognize who teaches that marriage knows no gender be disciplined or fired? Should a gay publication who refers to Anne Heche as “Ellen DeGeneres’ ex-wife” have to face a libel suit?
Roger-
I’m really, really good at googling and I’ve found no examples. Maybe you’re better. If you can find an example or two I will modify my argument.
David: ‘For example, in 1999 the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educators Network published and promoted a curriculum that encouraged public school teachers to instruct their students about marriage using a definition that makes no reference to gender.’
Are you referring to “Marriage was traditionally defined as a union of two people of the same religion or the same race, or one in which wives were the property of their husbands.”? Then I think you’re misrepresenting GLSEN, because it seems clear in context that this is not intended to be an exclusive list of attributes, just bits and pieces that particular cultures at particular times have insisted on. After all, the very next sentence is, ‘Those “traditional” elements of marriage changed to reflect the equality of individuals.’
Mark-
Thanks for asking. Does anybody know how to do a link that goes right to the sentence in question instead of the top of a long document? The definition I meant is:
“Marriage is best understood as a relationship of emotional and financial interdependence between two people in love who make a legal and public commitment to each other.”
David: ‘The definition I meant is:
“Marriage is best understood as a relationship of emotional and financial interdependence between two people in love who make a legal and public commitment to each other.”’
Then I think you’re still misrepresenting them because I don’t see any implication that they think these are “the facts”, just the way marriage “is best understood”.
Mark-
Please clarify. What I hear you saying doesn’t sound consistent with what I know about you. It sounds like you’re saying that you don’t have a problem with teachers in California and Massachusetts telling their students that “the facts” are that men can marry men and women can marry women in “our state,” but that “marriage is best understood as a union of a man and a woman.”
Is that right?
David: ‘It sounds like you’re saying that you don’t have a problem with teachers in California and Massachusetts telling their students that “the facts” are that men can marry men and women can marry women in “our state,” but that “marriage is best understood as a union of a man and a woman.”
Is that right?’
Yes. Given when these things were said, or might plausibly have been said, why wouldn’t it be?
Mark-
In that case, I can live with that compromise. Traditionally religious teachers cannot tell their public school students “Marriage is between a man and a woman” but they can say “Marriage is best understood as a union of a man and a woman.” Personally, I don’t see the difference, but everyone has to give in a little to make this work, so the above is perfectly fine by me.
I find the public school teacher example a bit puzzling. (As a preliminary aside, I should say I’m glad you specified public school teacher. I hope we’re all agreed that private schools would be able to say whatever they want about the subject, and in particular, religious schools are free to teach their religion.) I’m trying to imagine an example where it would be appropriate for a public school teacher to say anything at all about marriage one way or another. In elementary school, we learned reading, writing, math, and history. We were not taught about marriage — why would we be? Perhaps in high school, it might arise in some class about constitutional law, or comparative religions, or somesuch, in which case it would be appropriate for the teacher to present various views, but inappropriate for the teacher to be espousing any particular religious or political philosophy. With many of my best teachers, I had no idea what their personal beliefs were. I would say that a teacher in California who tells their class that “gay marriage may have been legalized, but it’s still immoral” and a teacher in Virginia who tells their class that “gay marriage may be illegal in this state, but that’s unjust” are both equally unprofessional, and both should be equally subject to discipline.
The journalist example is a bit puzzling too. A journalist who was employed by a newspaper would be constrained by the editorial stance and style guide of their employer. But a newspaper is perfectly free to choose its editorial stance and style, and could, for instance, always put gay marriage in sneer quotes. And anybody is free to publish opinions that gay marriage is wrong, or that they don’t recognize or respect certain marriages. However, anybody who publishes something false, defamatory, and malicious about someone else does expose themselves to libel charges. Compare and contrast the following statements a newspaper might have made in 2005:
1. “Britney Spears obviously has no idea what marriage means, and we refuse to dignify her latest relationship with the name of that cherished institution.”
2. “Britney Spears and Kevin Federline are only pretending to be married.”
Example #1 is unquestionably protected free speech. Example #2 is definitely fodder for a libel case. (The newspaper may still succeed with a free speech defense, but if the false charges lead to any definite damages — e.g., a hospital refusing to let Kevin Federline visit Britney in the hospital because they read they weren’t really married — the newspaper would be in hot water.)
Depending on how much a journalist’s printed disregard for Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon’s marriage resembled example #1 or example #2 above would determine any exposure to libel. Regardless of a journalist’s opinion of their marriage, it would just be bizarre and stupid to describe an octagenerian newlywed as a “bachelorette”.
David: ‘Personally, I don’t see the difference, but everyone has to give in a little to make this work, so the above is perfectly fine by me.’
Why are you making such heavy weather of this? There are two perfectly simple principles at play here: (i) public school teachers must not be misleading, and (ii) public school teachers must not preach religion. You give the strong impression of manufacturing controversies by playing dumb - taking scenarios that are objected to under one and publicly wondering why the other doesn’t seem to apply.
If a public school teacher says without qualification that Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon are not married, then they’re being misleading because the pair _are_ married according to one very important standard that cannot sensibly be neglected in any discussion in the public square, given as how it’s the one with legal force. (The same would apply to at least some extent in reverse of course: it would also be misleading, albeit less so, to describe my friends A. and N. as not married when they were married in a Reform Jewish ceremony but AFAIK not yet civilly in California.)
But if the teacher finesses the first issue with language like “Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon are best understood as not married”, they’re still not out of the woods. One then has to look to see whether they’re making a secular case for this “best understanding” or whether it’s just in the context of preaching religion. GLSEN was putting forward a suggested secular case, which could have been delivered entirely legitimately. It wasn’t a Reform Jewish case, it wasn’t an MCC case, it wasn’t even a generic religious case, it was secular. But while it’s a possibility in principle that a teacher could present a secular case for conventional marriage, in real life it’s just not going to happen. What passes for a secular case is lame and it’s not what gets anybody out of bed. The teacher who first picks this fight in a big way (if it’s not already happening) is going to be as unsubtle as a brick about the religious agenda, probably fired up on “America is a Christian nation” talking points and openly contemptuous of separation of church and state.
Tom-
Obviously some people think it’s appropriate to teach about marriage in elementary school, or else GLAAD wouldn’t have published that curriculum. Marriage is in the news, and many elementary school classes discuss current events. A quick google search found the following 5th grade curriculum that discusses marriage among Native Americans:
http://www.jackson.k12.ky.us/…/Music/5th%20Grade/ 5th%20Grade–Purposes%20for%20Creating%20Music.pdf
Here is an 8th grade health curriculum that deals with marriage:
http://www.norris160.org/curriculum/middle_school/other/8health.htm
The following elementary curriculum guidelines from Vermont wants children to be able to discuss changes in family structures including marriage:
education.vermont.gov/new/pdfdoc/pgm_coordhealth/ publications/curriculum_guide/guide_02_02a_elem.pdf
There are many other examples.
As for the journalist example, I believe all of the following:
1. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin are only pretending to be married.
2. By definition, Lyon and Martin can never be married, because marriage is between a man and a woman.
3. Britney Spears and Kevin Federline’s marriage had much, much more legitimacy than Lyon and Martin’s because it was real, whereas the latter marriage is a farce that four justices authorized the state to make. They deserve no more respect as “wedded” than a “married” dog and cat.
Now, I rarely talk like that, directly, because I’m too polite. But I believe it. And what you’re saying, Tom, is that if I want the right to continue to blog what I believe I simply must fight for initiatives like the ones on the ballot this fall in California, Florida, and Arizona. Why wouldn’t I? Should I support a law that will subject me to libel lawsuits simply for saying what I believe?
And you haven’t dealt with why it was OK for dozens of newspapers, especially in the gay press, to claim that various gay people, especially celebrities, had same-sex husbands and wives when that was factually inaccurate.
Mark-
I complained that I had never heard a justification for this double standard, not even a lame one. Thank you for finally providing a justification, albeit a lame one. What I hear you saying is the double standard is OK because, essentially “We’re secular, and the other side is religious.” Well, of course you approve of such a double standard. You’re secular. But anyone who is religious, or thinks religious people should have the same free speech and free press rights as people who are secular to perform their jobs and run their businesses using their values about marriage instead of the government’s values, needs to support Proposition 8. If the initiative passes, both gay and straight, both religious and secular people will be allowed to continue using their definition of marriage in how they live their lives. If it fails, a large chunk of Americans will have to choose between espousing a definition of marriage their conscience tells them is wrong, or fearing for their assets and their livelihood - and even their freedom - for the “crime” of being open about their beliefs.
Anyone who loves freedom - even if they agree with same-sex marriage - needs to vote yes on Prop. 8.
David–you have a delightfully devious way of deflecting away from the point of my comment. As a debating strategy, I find that the back and forth rhetoric highlighting the hypocritical behavior of individual advocates gets very boring very fast. To be honest, I’ve been guilty of this type of argumentation as well. It’s an easy way to get off point and divert attention when you’re discussing difficult issues. But it’s still boring and adds little to the debate.
Dan-
If there’s any time I should be allowed to “highlight the hypocritical behavior of individual advocates” it’s in a blog post about double standards.
As for deflecting away from the point of your comment, I understod your comment to mean what I said it meant. If I was wrong, it would be more helpful if you would correct me, rather than give a meta-comment about how I’m deflecting.
California’s governor resigned to gay marriage
Associated Press - June 29, 2008 11:03 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says it’s a “waste of time” to try to get an anti-gay marriage measure on the November ballot.
I agree with Gov. Schwarzenegger (and by implication Rusty). It is a waste of time to try to get an anti-gay marriage measure on the November ballot. There already is one - it’s called Prop. 8, the California Marriage Protection Act. Getting another measure on the ballot would confuse voters and would be a waste of time; lets’ just pass Proposition 8 and that will take care of the threat of gay marriage in California for a generation, at least.
I do not believe that Schwarzenegger’s position is that getting another measure on the ballot would be confusing. I believe Schwarzenegger’s position is better stated in his own words:
“I think the Supreme Court made a decision there. It was apparently unconstitutional to stop anyone from getting married. It’s like 1948, the interracial marriage, when the Supreme Court of California has, you know, decided it was unconstitutional and then later on the Supreme Court of the United States followed, I think 10 or 12 years later. So I think it is, it’s good that California lead–is leading in this way. I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time I think that my, you know, belief, I don’t want to force on anyone else, so I think we should stay with the decision of the Supreme Court and move forward. There are so many other more important issues that we have to address in California. So I think to spend any time on this initiative I think is a waste of time.”
I doubt that Benkof agrees with Gov. Schwarzenegger, after all.
David: ‘Thank you for finally providing a justification, albeit a lame one. What I hear you saying is the double standard is OK because, essentially “We’re secular, and the other side is religious.” But anyone who is religious, or thinks religious people should have the same free speech and free press rights as people who are secular to perform their jobs and run their businesses using their values about marriage instead of the government’s values, needs to support Proposition 8.’
Oh, _do_ pay attention! The context was public school teachers, who are government employees. The government may _not_ promote religion, and neither may its employees on government time. It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law. Government employees have rather restricted free speech on the job. Public school teachers are particularly tightly constrained. If you think that that gives an unfair advantage to the secular over the religious, too bad - that’s the way it is. It’s the principle of separation of church and state as enshrined in the First Amendment and interpreted in many Supreme Court decisions.
At the same time, _none_ of this applies to non-government employees. Private citizens can endorse religion as much as they like. Not only is the LGBT movement not proposing to have the government restrict this, we couldn’t if we tried because the principle of free speech works in your favour. To the extent you blunder from talking about one situation to talking about the other you’re making a spectacle of yourself - ignorantly misrepresenting everything in sight, from the law to the opinions of gay people. Focus. Please.
Timothy-
I don’t have a problem with Gov. Schwarzenegger’s statement. I think Ah-nold is the best governor California has had since Ronald Reagan. Note that his concern is that the man-woman marriage laws were unconstitutional. Well, when we pass Proposition 8, they’ll be constitutional again, because constitutional amendments are by definition constitutional. I doubt he’ll be complaining, especially since the laws will then match his preferences.
Mark-
You write as if you’re exasperated that I refuse to accept the “fact” that a public teacher saying marriage is between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. But that’s not a fact. That’s your opinion. I hold the opposite opinion. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such an issue, and I think given its current composition it would agree with me. Until it does, we can only speculate.
But I hear you saying that until “marriage equality” is implemented, teachers can say marriage is between a man and a woman, because that’s not just the religious definition, that’s the legal definition. Therefore, under your theory, how should each of the following groups of voters vote?
A) Voters who sympathize with “marriage equality” no matter the costs
B) Voters who sympathize with “marriage equality” but want people, including teachers and marriage clerks, to have the freedom to use their own definition of marriage in how they perform their jobs
C) Voters who oppose “marriage equality”
If your theory is correct, it will be quite easy to win this debate. All I have to do is convince group B that the only way everyone will be able to use their own definition of marriage in how they perform their jobs is if we defeat “marriage equality.” Given your statements, that’s a breeze.
And with groups B and C, I can surely get a majority. You might get a majority of A in San Francisco, but not statewide.
I would actually prefer it if we could agree to find a way under “marriage equality” that everyone can use their own definition of marriage in how they run their businesses, perform their jobs, and raise their families. But if you refuse to even try, that just makes passing Prop. 8 easier to do.
David: “You write as if you’re exasperated that I refuse to accept the “fact” that a public teacher saying marriage is between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. But that’s not a fact. That’s your opinion. I hold the opposite opinion.’
It’s not my opinion - you’ve stripped off the qualifiers I put on it, blended several different reasons and circumstances why it might be objectionable, and reduced it to mush.
‘But I hear you saying that until “marriage equality” is implemented, teachers can say marriage is between a man and a woman, because that’s not just the religious definition, that’s the legal definition.’
Yes. They can still say it after, they’ll just need more words to be clear: “Orthodox Jewish marriage is between a man and a woman” or the like.
‘All I have to do is convince group B that the only way everyone will be able to use their own definition of marriage in how they perform their jobs is if we defeat “marriage equality.” ‘
You’re welcome to try. I think I can defuse most of the effect by pointing out that however affected teachers and marriage clerks try to sell it, it’s not a religious free speech issue. When a marriage clerk refuses to hand over a certificate to a same-sex couple, they might like to convey the message that the resulting union would not be a valid religious marriage, but they can’t actually convey that because there’s no suggestion that civil marriage is identical to religious marriage. All they’re conveying is that they don’t want to be associated with same-sex couples getting civilly married, and I think I can sell that as pretty nasty homophobia because that’s all it is.
‘I would actually prefer it if we could agree to find a way under “marriage equality” that everyone can use their own definition of marriage in how they run their businesses, perform their jobs, and raise their families.’
But your freedom is pretty much unchanged. There is no sentiment that you can express in the absence of SSM that you can’t express with it. You may need an extra word or two or some scare quotes to make yourself clear, because SSM civil marriage will set a new default meaning for unqualified “marriage”, but there’s nothing you can’t convey. Even where speech is restricted, such as (I continue to claim) in the case of the public school teacher promoting traditional marriage with explicitly religious arguments, the argument that it’s constitutionally objectionable does not depend at all on whether SSM is actually in effect.
Moreover, and I’m flabbergasted that you don’t seem to haven’t realized this yet, there’s pretty much nothing you can _do_ in the absence of SSM that you can’t do with it. California domestic partners are already explicitly specified to have the same non-discrimination rights as spouses. So if you’re a swimming pool owner and you don’t want to give a family discount to a same-sex couple in the current regime because their marriage is not religiously valid, Prop. 8 is not going to help because same-sex couples will go back to having domestic partnerships and you still won’t be allowed to refuse a family discount. Your own argument bites you in the butt: marriage vs. civil union or CA-style domestic partnership _is_ largely symbolic.
The man-woman criterion of marriage is not a purely religious criteiron, Mark.
A vote for Prop 8 is a vote for liberty and freedom of conscience.
Furthermore, on the religious aspect, government interfering with freedom of conscience — attempting to marginalize the man-woman criterion as a religious feature of marriage — could not help society benefit from the social institution’s influence. Indeed, it woud detract by placing the government directly at odds with civil society.
Nope, government does not own marriage.
Neither do the peddlers of identity politics.
In a pluralistic society the government would not promote the sectarianism espoused by the irreligious or that brand of secularism which puts government at odds with religion and freedom of conscience.
Mark-
You say I’m welcome to try to pass the CMPA, and that’s all I’m asking to do. If the law fails, my choices are limited - urge compliance with an immoral law, or urge civil disobedience against it. I could of course call for violent resistance, but I don’t think it’s warranted in this situation. I could also choose not to live in California because of that state’s deep moral confusion, and I just might do that.
You claim that under “marriage equality” my freedom is “pretty much unchanged.” Of course you feel that way - you’re the one restricting my freedom. This issue is symbolic on your side. On my side, it has severe consequences in the limitation of the freedom of people like me to run our lives, raise our families, perform our jobs, and operate our business according to our own values instead of your values.
David: ‘On my side, it has severe consequences in the limitation of the freedom of people like me to run our lives, raise our families, perform our jobs, and operate our business according to our own values instead of your values.’
You keep using these euphemisms. What you actually want to do is express your moral disapproval by taking low level vigilante action against same-sex married couples, through actions such as shunning them or withholding service in your business. We’re not even under an obligation of politeness to put up with that, let alone a moral one. Nor are our many sympathetic straight allies. You’re behaving like jerks and we intend to treat you like jerks.
Mark B.-
It’s not about my moral disapproval. It’s about my values. I am certain that a lesbian marriage is not a marriage. I don’t want to hurt anyone, I simply want to use my own values in running my business rather than be forced to use yours. In states where same-sex marriage is illegal, pretty much everywhere every single person can use their own definition of marriage in running their business. I have never heard of a lesbian who was punished for treating non-legal same-sex “marriages” completely the same as actual legal marriages. But under same-sex marriage there is quite a bit of evidence - and you back that up - that gay people will fight and sue and use the government to stop people from using a traditional definition of marriage in running their business. Thus, if freedom is very important to a voter, even if she sees no problem with same-sex marriage, she needs to support Prop. 8, because that is the only way everyone will be able to use their own definition of marriage without government interference.