The Leviticus Strawman

Many are quite fond of the following clip:



I am not. I see it as a strawman argument that if anything only weakens the position of homosexuals who still consider themselves Christians (like me).

Humorous yes. Persuasive, no. The big problem is that the whole argument relies on the Old Testament.

Even the Fundies recognize that the Old Covenant was broken, and Jesus created a new one. That's why Paul goes to such great lengths to show that Gentiles may be Christians and that many of the old laws are just not important (in particular I am thinking of a time when Paul argued that it's okay for Christians to eat meat that had been sacrificed). The big problem for homosexuality in the eyes of the Fundies is that while Paul argued that many of the old laws about works were unimportant, he still lumped homosexuality as one of those things that is still bad.

That's why any defense of Christian homosexuality must be functional as opposed to formalist, i.e. consider the themes of Christ's message, such as love and the way that religious legalism ruins faith. The problem is that for the Fundies, that just doesn't cut it. In The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan argues that one appeal of fundamentalism is that it is that it is easy to apply: the Bible says that this is bad, so it always is, and we don't have to think any more about it. That means that functional arguments aren't enough. It might be if the New Testament were silent on the issue, but it is not. Case closed: this satisfies prong one of Chevron. (I can't believe I just made an administrative law joke)

The best that homosexuals can do with the Fundies right now is a "love the sinner, hate the sin" + "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" kind of relationship.

War and individual rights

(Programming note: one of my primary universalized health care sparring partners emailed me to say he will be unavailable for a bit; we shall resume that debate once he returns)

One of the reasons I describe myself as a "small-L libertarian" and am still a member of the GOP (I know, but really, I DON'T think it will change if we abandon it to the fundies) is foreign policy. I don't blog about it much here, but I am pretty Hawkish. I am not out-of-hand opposed to preemptive war (I only wish we had gone after Iran instead of Iraq--just one letter's difference!), and certainly support a defensive one. I am, however, uncomfortable with Wilsonian crusades aimed only at "spreading democracy;" I would like to see a more direct national security interest behind my wars. Now this is not a post about Iraq, but rather whether these principles mesh with my claims of supporting liberty.

Randy Barnett recently published an Op-ed in the WSJ (my favorite NY newspaper!--hat tip to a reader who wishes to retain anonymity) arguing that while many libertarians opposed the war in Iraq a position favoring individual rights is not necessarily incongruent with support (at least at the outset) of the war with Iraq:

Other libertarians, however, supported the war in Iraq because they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack.

However, in short order Glenn Healy posted on Cato-at-Liberty (the Cato blog) has some respectful though critical words in response to Professor Barnett. Among them:

Is libertarianism really a political philosophy that tells you what to think about mandatory recycling and restrictions on the interstate shipment of wine, but has virtually nothing of interest to say about when it might be morally permissible to use daisy cutters and thermobaric bombs?

And while Healy goes to say that "libertarianism and Wilsonianism don't mix;" I'm not sure that Barnett would disagree. Indeed I agree very much with that sentiment. So how do I reconcile my hawkishness with my limited government rhetoric? Let me try.

I have a deep distrust of government; therefore, I prefer less of it in my life. That's where many of my libertarian policy positions on domestic issues originate. That said, I trust foreign governments even less than my own. My own government, at least in some small way, is marginally answerable to me. The Japanese Parliament, for instance, is not answerable to me at all. I suppose that means that with regards to international relations I am something of a realist. Given half the chance I think any state wouldn't think twice about oppressing me if it meant more security, economic or military power for them.

So I happen to think in order to preserve my right to order my daily affairs as I see fit, I need someone to protect my rights of life, liberty and property. So I am no anarchist; i am fine with a police force and court system that punishes people who infringe the rights of others (or perhaps help balance conflicting rights). I think that also includes a government that protects me from other governments that would infringe those rights. So we are still on track when it comes to defensive wars: someone attacks, they have violated the rights of life, liberty or property of citizens, so it appropriate for a government to respond.

What about preemption? Is it appropriate for us to neutralize a danger with military force before it infringes our rights? That's a tougher question. If I answer yes, how do I distinguish between a government preempting an international threat with one that say imprisons people because they look like they might commit a crime? If I answer no, then I say that I require my government to wait for death of its citizens before it protects the rest? I want to answer yes, so here is my attempt at rationalization (this is well open for discussion, I hope people will participate and even call me out if I am inconsistent!).

First, we do punish people before they commit crimes: we call them attempt crimes. Nonetheless, that is not a satisfying answer even to me. Another option is to take the morally dubious position that a government only owes any protection to its citizens. That takes my premise (a government will care about the rights of at most its own citizens) and normalizes it (a government shouldn't care about the rights of those who are not its citizens). Really it boils down to "Who cares about 'em if they ain't 'MERICAN?" I don't like that much either, and I do not people to think that I am going to that practically sociopathic extreme.

Here's what I am working with now: if the realist paradigm accurately describes the international arena, then each actor in that arena is going to try to acquire more security and power, and unlike economic arrangements those are rather zero-sum. If I am relatively more secure then someone is relatively less secure. And part of securing my rights is ensuring that my government is able to continue doing so, which means it needs to be as secure as possible from international threats and part of that is neutralizing threats before they do damage. Does that work? Really, right now I am just thinking out loud (is there an analogous expression applied to writing?), and I'd appreciate your comments.

UPDATE: Barnett responds to critics here. It must be emphasized that neither he nor I am justifying the Iraq war (I feel the time to do so credibly has slipped away forever), but that he and I are talking about libertarianism and war, using Iraq as a context for showing that libertarians can disagree about war without being intellectually dishonest. However, because none of the points to which Professor Barnett responded came up here, I am only linking it for journalistic purposes.

Prince of India

So having just engaged in a discussion about how sad it is that we in this country care more about celebrities than actual issues, I went over to check out Perez Hilton. We all have our vices (besides I am in the midst of an US Weekly Pool Supplemental Draft--I need ideas!).

However, something of relative import showed up there: The only son of the King and Queen of India is gay, and was disowned by his family when he came out a year ago. (Please note: I linked the source article instead of Perez Hilton's post. It is more illuminating):

Homosexuality is against the law in India, and can be penalized with ten years to life in jail. Singh Gohil has become both the voice and face of those persecuted for their sexual orientation. Not only has the Prince publicly fallen from grace, but his mother has publicly disowned him, and his place as the next King of Rajpipla was in jeopardy.

* * *

Though his coming out was met with disappointment and outrage, Singh Gohil has adopted a noble cause, educating people about homosexuality and HIV/AIDS prevention.

"I came out in the newspapers openly that I'm gay and basically [because] I wanted to show to the world that even a prince can be gay," he said. "I wanted people to discuss homosexuality, which was always considered a taboo and a stigma… it's been existing in India but no one talked about it."

* * *

"There is a lack of awareness," Manvendra [Singh Gohil] explained. "The purpose of my coming out openly is for a cause, for a good cause, for the control of HIV/AIDS."

Anyway, for those of you who may have followed my politics v. policy discussion on DtB, I assure you that I consider opening minds in a homophobic culture and educating people about HIV and AIDS to be very legitimate foci of public discourse--Prince Singh Gohil's efforts have the potential for positively affecting many and hopefully those effects will outlast him, me and you.

The other side of the coin

Smoking bans in bars have a cost that often get ignored by the Mommy crusaders: Smokers stop going to bars, and the entrepreneurs suffer.

Before you say " no one cares about them anyway, those filthy cancer-spewing polluters," think about this: you are going to a bar to drink a poisonous mind-altering substance, and, if you are lucky, to have the shot at contracting a sexually transmitted disease, but you still want to be free from second-hand smoke? Protect those lungs from cancer, never mind the liver and genitals!

As for the "overall results positive" section of the linked article, I don't buy it because it is speculative and vague. Furthermore, even if it turns out to be a good thing for businesses (doubtful), there is no need to use the power of government to help out the bars. I thought lefties were against corporate welfare.

"Gay Pioneers"

My firm's diversity committee sponsored a screening of the short (30 Min) documentary "Gay Pioneers." I went, though I was dreading it. I worried that this film would be the "woe-is-us, we're all victims" whine fest that I despise. I was quite pleasantly surprised. The film was all about the first (pre-stonewall) demonstrations for equal rights for gays and lesbians. The tone of the film was the much more optimistic "we've come such a long way (even if we still have a long way to go)" message that I and I think straight people can better relate to. I actually recommend it highly.

One thing that struck me: in the first Mattachine demonstrations (1965-1968) they had a strict code of dress and conduct. At the time they were fighting the misconception that gays were only a bunch of weirdo queens. Instead men had to wear suits; women had to wear dresses. They had to lower their signs when they played patriotic songs. They had to be respectful but firm. The message they wanted to convey was "we are upstanding citizens just like you." Contrast that with Pride today.

What does this say about us? It could go either way. On the one hand you might say our pride events that resemble gay Mardi Gras are doing nothing more than perpetuate the stereotype that we are weirdos. On the other, you might say, how great it is that we can be so visible, campy, and celebrate our differences without the (great) fear of people throwing stones at us. One could argue that the pride events of today have lost the message in favor of a week long party. Others might argue that Pride is more of a celebration of who we are than it is about gaining recognition, so a party is appropriate.

Not sure yet where I fall. I did enjoy my first "out" Pride this summer. But I do understand the importance of demonstrating that gays are just like ordinary citizens. Nonetheless, coming out of the closet is all about being honest instead of conforming to the requirements of society. These Pioneers in the 60s paved the way for social change that ALLOWS us take a weekend, week, or even whole month in most major cities to celebrate our progress and work towards even more. Then back on the first hand, I know that lots of people look at Pride as a prime example of the "decadence and immorality" of our community, making progress even harder. I don't have an answer here, and I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.

I still feel sorry for Tyler

I have gotten a lot of comments about my Tyler Whitney post, and I thought I should address some things publicly, rather than let them get lost in the comments. Also, it's clear that I am in the minority, so I want to better explain myself (not defensively, but just so everyone knows exactly where I am coming from).

First, I am not sure Tancredo is the most hostile to gays candidate (hostile to immigrants certainly, but we aren't talking about a story exposing Tancredo of employing an undocumented gardener). He opposes gay marriage using the same tired procreation argument, and doesn't vote for any pro-gay federal legislation (there could be a legitimate federalism reason for this, though I doubt it). Now, do I think Tancredo would make even a passable president? No. I'd vote for Obama over him (A Hills v. Tom race might send me to a third party again). Tancredo is certainly not a gay-friendly politician, but I'm just not sure a gay kid working for him is exactly like a back kid working for George Wallace.

Secondly, It's true that I may have glossed over Tyler's own exercise of extremely poor judgment. Perhaps some of the things he did were awful. Apart from various connections a la six degrees from Kevin Bacon, the only thing I can find that Tyler actually SAID or DID was hold a sign that was is in extremely poor taste. (You'll notice that some of the more outrageous things in the article are attributed to associates, but the author is obviously making an attempt to connect them to Tyler). For that, he deserves to be outed? If you think so, I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Third, do I want to give him a free pass? No, had the story been that in addition to working for Tancredo, Tyler had been convicted of a hate-based assault against gays, my opinion would be different. Matt is quite right to point out the personal responsibility aspects of this situation, and I have to agree with Matt up to a point. I'm just concerned that this punishment is not commensurate. Basically, from what I can tell, Tyler's sins are: holding incorrect beliefs, expressing them in poor taste, and having acquaintances who are even more evil. If that's all he did, sure he should be called out, but there's no reason he should be called out in such a way that I should ever have heard about it. (Please ignore the fact that even by trying to take his side, I am continuing to call attention to Tyler's situation, making his outing even more widespread). It seems like instead of washing his mouth out with soap, we are throwing acid in his eyes.

Fourth, you may think I am overreacting. "All that happened to him is that he was outed, and now he can live a more honest and fulfilling life. Plus now he doesn't have to go through the agony of doing it himself; the band-aid is already off," you may say. But it's more than that. At 18 he's finished in public policy. Pro-Gay groups (including also the libertarian leaning groups I align myself with) wont have him for what he did before he was outed. And conservatives won't have him because he's gay. Even if, as I expect (hope?), conservatives give up this anti-gay nonsense, Tyler will not be welcome as a reminder of the movement's dubious past. Furthermore, should Tyler see the light, any attempt to look rehabilitated ("I was a very misguided youth, and I deeply regret some of the things I have done") will be met with a jaundiced eye from both sides. This kid will be lucky if anyone from a city councilman up will talk to him again. That HAS to matter to him. People with only a passing, cocktail party interest in policy and politics do not go to work for congressmen running for president.

Finally, true confessions: the Tyler Whitney situation is scary to me because I see how EASILY I could have been him. I have said here before that back deep in the closet I associated with groups and supported politicians who could legitimately be criticized for being being anti-gay. I rationalized at the time "I support 75% of what they say, and I don't really care that much about social issues, anyway." (My current, continued affiliation with the GOP, certainly the more anti-gay party, is different. I no longer turn a blind eye to their anti-gay policies, and hope to help change the party from within). I am ashamed now of those affiliations and have severed them completely, but they still exist in my past. It grieves me to think that I contributed, even indirectly, to some of the pain and prejudice that I and many others are experiencing now.

Thankfully even at 18 I had the good sense to know that holding a sign in such poor taste would not only be ineffective for my cause, but could also come back to bite me. However, a few years ago I worked for a policy organization and wrote two op-eds. One was about education policy and the other was a criticism of a prominent leader in the gay community. Can you guess which one still shows up when I google my name? Though I was never mean spirited and tried to focus my criticism on legitimate problems, someone could construe the op-ed as anti-gay. (I remember at the time I wrote it, I had a paragraph along the lines of "even if he is right that XYZ," and was told to take it out, because it "ruined my argument and gave [the leader] too much ground.") I wouldn't say I am haunted by the op-ed the way I am some of my former affiliations, but I would prefer that it could recede back into history just so I don't have to deal with it if it ever does come up.


Update:
North Dallas Thirty found a few more folks who are, well, sympathetic to Tyler.

That's nice!

As I'll bet any casual reader of this blog will guess, I'm not likely to move to Massachusetts soon. Nonetheless I, like every single other gay blogger in the country, am pleased that the state legislature voted against an amendment to the state constitution to limit marriage to people of the opposite sex. The vote was more than 3 to 1 against the amendment. (The picture to the right comes from the link--I happen to like it).

Again, it's nice. It's a good thing. But was it necessary?

I FULLY support equal civil rights, and any constitutional amendments, plain Jane every day laws, or even regulations, state or federal, that limits certain civil benefits to couple of the opposite sex and denies them to couple of the same sex are anathema to me. ANATHEMA (I like that word and can't believe I haven't used it yet). But I never jumped onto the "civil unions aren't enough" bandwagon.

However, the fight for gay marriage seems to be as much about language as rights. But even without equal civil benefits, many committed gay couples call their partnership a marriage, refer to each other husbands (or wives) and so forth (I personally prefer "partner," maybe because I work in a law firm). So once you have equal civil benefits in the form of a civil union or domestic partnership, how does the quality of your life change once the state starts officially calling it a marriage, even though you have been doing so for years?

Sure it's a victory, and sometimes even symbolic ones are important. But were substantive rights really in danger in Massachusetts? If not, maybe we should focus our energy on other states, like Virginia, where they are.

Addendum: This is the kind of story that is really important for gay rights. Sure it's in Australia, not the U.S., nonetheless, it's both encouraging and heartwarming. Read the birth grandmother's lovely comment here.

More fun from IGF

On John Corvino's information page at Independent Gay Forum, there is a link to this set of videos of a lecture he gave entitled "What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?" In the lecture Dr. Corvino goes through 4 major objections to homosexuality: 1) the Bible says it's wrong, 2) it's not universalizable, 3) it's harmful, and 4) it's unnatural. Dr. Corvino argues against each of these objections, but it is his final point that I found most worthwhile. He stated that he is not arguing in favor some permissive sort of moral relativism, but that the objections to homosexuality on moral grounds are not sustainable. Instead the moral judgment should not be whom or how a person loves, but whether a person loves.

Dr. Corvino's lecture is about an hour long, and then there is a period of questions and answers following. I found most of the questions difficult to hear and gave up on them. But the lecture itself is worth a look if you can find the time.