Are Gays and Muslims the Final Frontier in Civil Rights?
When we examine the election of 2008 and the makeup of government across the nation today, it seems that a few previously-uncomfortable questions have finally been answered. We have elected a black man as president. His chief rival in the primary was a woman who many analysts and poll results estimate would have beaten John McCain by an even wider margin. A gentleman of Hispanic descent is the Governor of New Mexico, was a serious contender for the White House and is widely being hailed as a highly qualified candidate to be Secretary of State. In 2000 we saw a Jewish man in the VP slot on the Democratic ticket which won the popular vote across the nation. In this environment are there any serious thinkers left who find the idea of an Asian candidate for President out of the question?
The point of all this is not the questions we’re asking, but the questions we are no longer asking. Are these people equal? Do they have the same rights and opportunities as “the rest of us?” In almost every case the good news is not that the answer is “yes,” but that we’re no longer even asking the question. These things are accepted as a given. No, I’m not so foolish as to think that racism and intolerance have completely disappeared from our shores. But at this point it is at least increasingly-restricted to some backward holdouts in comparatively small numbers who are primarily engaged in developing a time machine so they can go back and take one more crack at Pickett’s Charge or rescue some of Hitler’s DNA to be stored until cloning techniques improve. Given this heartening news, though, I find myself wondering whether anyone was left behind in these advances? I’m afraid that the answer is still yes.
The current spate of demonstrations against California’s decision on Proposition Eight should be the first indicator of Something Being Rotten in Denmark. Allow me to tie this point in with the two preceding paragraphs. We aren’t asking a question along the lines of whether or not a gay or lesbian American could be elected as president here. We’re holding an allegedly serious national debate as to whether or not gays and lesbians even have the same basic rights as everyone else, or whether it is proper for the majority to pass legislation limiting their rights based solely on their sexual orientation. Opponents – primarily found in the so called “social conservative” band of the political spectrum – are quick to point out that of course they aren’t homophobic, and of course gays have the same rights as anyone else. That’s why we’re going to provide them with these shiny new civil contracts which are pretty much just as good as a marriage, see? (Astute readers who have studied the civil rights movement in America should, at this point, be nodding their heads and reminding us of exactly how well “separate but equal” worked out for black Americans.) It is not the struggle for “marriage rights” which should capture our attention, but the fact that we are even debating the question at all which should sadden us.
The second group of Americans who seem to have missed the Hope and Change Bus are Muslims. For evidence of this, one need look no further than the campaign of our President-Elect. Right wing supporters were running around the nation making hay out of Obama’s middle name, Hussein. His supporters on the left were equally involved in accentuating the divide. While loudly proclaiming that all religions are equally welcome here, they were quick and vocal in attacking those who invoked the H word when speaking of Barack. If the fact of being a practitioner of the Muslim faith were really not an issue, why would you work so hard to establish Obama’s Christian bona-fides? It’s something that everyone knows, but nobody wants to talk about.
The election of Keith Ellison, a Muslim, to Congress sent shockwaves through the Right wing. CNN’s Glenn Beck went so far as to show up on national television and challenge Mr. Ellison, saying, “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.” What should be automatically shunned in a real nation of religious freedom is still taken as a matter of fact. Today you can be an atheist, a Jew, a Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan or any species of Christian and get by just fine. Others may raise an eyebrow at you or smugly mutter about how you will get your “reward” when you wind up roasting in hell, but you’re still part of America’s tattered religious tapestry. Muslims, however, are seen by too many has having “something to prove” by default, even if they were born and bred in the U.S.A.
These are the questions we are left with, representing the rotten dregs of sour grapes at the bottom of a rancid barrel. In the America most of us envision – that shining beacon of hope, opportunity and equality standing out on the hill – we shouldn’t be looking for answers to these questions. We need to be examining why anyone is still asking them at all. Should we ever reach the point where such queries are no longer taken seriously, then we may finally be getting close to the finish line. Until then, roll up your sleeves. The election of Obama sends a fine message to everyone, but there’s still plenty of work left to be done.
12 Responses to “Are Gays and Muslims the Final Frontier in Civil Rights?”
I would like to point out to Mr. Shaw that he overlooked a group, a group that is working very hard to get to where gays and Muslims are today. I am refering to atheists, of course. When people insinuated that Obama was a Muslim, Colin Powell stood up and pointed out that even if Obama was, it should not be considered a slur. When Libby Dole accused Kay Hagan of being godless, no one stood up for atheists. Donna Brazile made excuses for Hagan's attendance at the Kaplan's home event by quipping “That's how you convert them.” That's from Donna Brazile, a proud liberal. When Mitt Romney hypocritically made his plea for tolerance for his religion (while insisting that the State should be allowed to support religion), he stood beside George H. W. Bush, a man who, in August 1987 while Vice President, said atheists should not be considered citizens because we are “One Nation Under God.”
From an atheist's viewpoint, gays and Muslims have it good. Although James Madison wrote that no man should have to contibute as little as threepence to a religion he doesn't support, I get taxed by George Bush to support religions he approves of, and I can't even sue to stop it. Since Hein vs FFRF, SCOTUS says I don't have standing. A right that can't be enforced isn't a right, and mine have been taken away. Meanwhile, even Democratic candidates stumble over each other in a rush to placate the believers. Non-believers make up 16% of the nation, but some would deny us even citizenship, much less rights.
While I agree in principle that there is an often overlooked bias against atheists, I would strongly argue against the position that “gays and Muslims” have it good” compared to atheists. It's absolutely true that an atheist would have a very hard time of it in a national election because such a large majority of the country is religious in one fashion or another and generally view that as a positive in terms of the candidate's character. However, nobody is talking seriously about rounding up atheists in reeducation camps or immediately questioning whether or not they are “working with our enemies” or targeting them for physical violence the same way that you see with gays and Muslims. Also, there are not, to my knowledge, any efforts underway to pass laws or amendments specifically restricting the rights opportunities or abilities of atheists. Do atheists face challenges and hurdles in politics? Absolutely. Are they commonly targets of hatred, violence and coordinated campaigns of legislative discrimination to anywhere NEAR the levels seen by gays or Muslims? I say no. It's not even close. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about “religious freedom” for those who choose no religion at all, but let's not put it on the same level of persecution faced by the two aforementioned groups.
My thoughts exactly.
In addition the opponents of equal rights for gays work hard to deny any study that indicates a strong biological component in sexual orientation, insisting that it is a choice that homosexuals make in terms of lifestyle. It doesn't matter how many studies contradict this belief, they hang onto it in order to justify their prejudice.
[...] Shaw at The Moderate Voice says that the protests should be a signal that something’s not right: I’m not so foolish as to think that racism and intolerance have completely disappeared from our [...]
Jazz, thanks for making this thought provoking post.
The protestors are for the most part just being silly Fellow Travelers on the much-hyped Cause du Jour. There is silly overdoing of all these dumb demonstrations, which the rest of us begin to question by wondering why can't they wait until Obama is in office and the Dems have estaliblished control of Congress and they're “cleared for takeoff”; the children are impatient and blind in their current choice of tantrum-throwing.
And when mentioning Obama, let's let the silly protestors start being not only grown up but logical and consistent in choosing the objects of their wrath. Obama is on record as firmly being opposed to altering the definition of marriage while being in favor of civil unions, which is the mainstream American position. Why don't the silly protestors not only a) wait for Washington to be more in their obvious favor; and b) begin by directing their statements to the person at the top?
Or are there other goals or motives really at work here?
There is no merit in the morally defective and subversive desire to see a judge overthrow Prop 8 because it's politically incorrect, because people don't want it and want to abuse something like the Fourteenth Amendment to paper over their subversion. If the proposition legally cannot be a mechanism to change the state constitution, then a legal challenge should be mounted on that basis. If it changes the constitution legally, then begin work to _legislate_ a change to the constitution more to your liking. End of issue.
Never mind that anyone protesting outside California, or the other states where other constitutional changes were passed, or anyone protesting specifically against Prop 8 but doing it outside California, where it is irrelevent, is simply choosing to be an idiot.
What is the legal status of Prop 8 and constitutional change that it establishes, or does not establish, in California? That is the principal issue (and the only truly legal issue) here.
DLS: Your response to the protests isn't off the mainstream. Seems that most people consider protesters to be “whiny children” who need to “grow up.”
Yet, was it not large-scale protests that contributed to the civil rights cause for blacks? I'm sure people then considered them silly children who needed to grow up and live with their situation.
Seems to have worked for them, though.
And Jazz, I've gotten some flack for it before, but I've always seen Obama's Muslim problem. The best case I can remember was when two Muslim women were barred from sitting behind him after all the “he's a Muslim” hysteria from the right.
His handlers had a near case of paranoia, at least during the primaries. Problem is, Obama never spoke to say what it took Colin Powell to say months later.
Jazz:
You say: “Are they commonly targets of hatred, violence and coordinated campaigns of legislative discrimination to anywhere NEAR the levels seen by gays or Muslims?” I know of two incidents of violence against gays: 1) the celebrated Matthew Shepherd case, and 2) the recent case where a gay middle school student was shot by a fellow student. In both of these cases, the violence was inexcusable, and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Is there a spate of other unreported or underreported cases? Your statement would imply as much.
As for the instance of Muslims, immediately following the Sept 2001 attacks, there were a handful of attacks on Muslims, but since then, very few. In fact, as far as I can tell, in neither the case of gays nor Muslims have they been “commonly targets of hatred and violence,” as your post suggests. The United States is an incredibly tolerant society, by-and-large. That is why most of us will be very happy when soon-to-be President Obama shuts down Guantanamo, since it and Abu Ghraib highlighted instances of intolerance that cut across the grain of our national concern for human rights. That being said, what we saw in Proposition 8 was the African-American community, at least 70% of it, joining together with others to say: “We can and should tolerate a lot, but a redefinition of what marriage is and means, we should not tolerate.” President-elect Obama himself would not come out in favor of gay marriage, a telling fact. The arguments the proposition's proponents used were well-presented and carried the day. You can try to paint that as bigotry, but to do so is to say that the majority of citizens in 30 states are bigots, since 30 states have now defined marriage as between one man and one woman. In the end, whether sexual orientation is genetic – an hypothesis yet-to-be scientifically established – may be a moot point. A growing social consensus is being reaffirmed, namely, that for all it shortcomings, a traditional family with one mom and one dad is the societal norm that our marriage laws should reinforce and not undermine.
“I know of two incidents of violence against gays.“
One of the saddest things I've ever read. Please see:
Robert Hillsborough
Harvey Milk
Terry Knudson
The Upstairs Lounge arson attack in New Orleans
Julio Rivera
Brandon Teena (person behind the movie “Boys Don't Cry”)
Jason Gage
and of course, it goes all the way back to the riots at the Stone Wall and long before. Also, you've clearly never spent any time in a high school in a rural area where any of the students are even perceived to be gay. If you honestly think there have only ever been two gay people in America in the modern era who were the targets of violence, I can't imagine that world view that spawned that.
Thanks, Jazz, for the info, even if your tone was less than gracious. I haven't read much about the topic, and your post will give me a good place to expand my knowledge. For that, I'm grateful.