The Aerie

There are no Gay Rights

Part of the subtle evil of modern propaganda (from any party) is in the "framing of the debate". There's a classic old joke, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" to which there is no answer that does not indict the target of the query. The question has been framed so that the person asking the question cannot lose.

In America, every discussion starts out framed within our cultural obsession that every question have two answers, and those answers must be "Right" and "Wrong". Just as there is no room for "Maybe" in American dialogue, there is also no understanding that some questions only have one answer.

Social conservatives exploit this cultural tendency by framing "Have you stopped beating your wife" style questions. Questions about reproductive rights or gay rights are framed so that they cannot be answered without self-indictment.

The way in which discussion of gay rights is framed in the media is from the outset polarizing. It begins with the premise that human rights can be abridged by morally-judged choices: if one "chooses" to engage in homosexual activity, one has become morally questionable, and morally questionable people are not entitled to the full rights of an American citizen. This clearly abridges the Constitution, but it is accepted without question by those for whom moral judgement is the most important criteria of measurement.

So the question "What about gay rights?", indeed the very phrase "Gay rights" is polarizing. There are no gay rights. There are no black rights. There are ONLY human rights, and the only people able to question those rights are those who are challenging the humanity of their fellows.

The question should not be "Should gays have the right to marry?" because gays ALREADY have the right to marry. This isn't a right granted by government: indeed, the American Constitution is notable in recognizing that RIGHTS ARE INHERENT. "All men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Government does not grant rights, it only recognizes them.

For so many social conservatives, the question "Should we recognize gay rights" actually translates into "Should we grant rights to people we judge morally inferior to ourselves?" But rights are not granted by majority vote or by moral judgement - every person born shares in full human rights.

So the REAL question that should be discussed is this one: "Recently our culture has recognized that the rights of certain persons are being abridged due to oversights based on traditional practice which we now see are improper. How best may existing laws and rules be modified to ensure that these rights are no longer abridged?"

THAT'S a discussion, THAT'S an opportunity for dialogue.

There is no QUESTION of gay rights. Those rights are there. The question is now that these rights are recognized, how will society ensure that they are not abridged in any way.

There is no middle ground here. There are no nuances. You cannot in good conscience fail to choose a stance. And there is only one answer.

You are either for human rights, or you are not for human rights. Since it would be absurd to be against human rights, you must be for human rights. If you are for human rights, then the task at hand is how to ensure that the rights of your fellow men and women are not abridged.

Posted by Albatross at September 6, 2004 9:11 PM