La Presse en Rose

Corvino: Whom should we call a bigot?

By John Corvino, columnist, 365gay.com

“We all know what bigotry is,” a friend said to me recently. But do we?

I mean, most of us have experienced it, and we can point to clear historical examples. But can we define it, articulating what those examples all have in common? Or is it more like Justice Potter Stewart’s grasp of pornography: “I know it when I see it”?

As is often the case with controversial terms, the dictionary is of limited help here. The American Heritage Dictionary defines bigotry as “characteristic of a bigot,” which it in turn defines as “one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” Webster’s definition of “bigot” is similar: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”

Now there must be a difference between merely disagreeing with those who differ and being “intolerant” of them. By definition, everyone disagrees with “those who differ”—that’s just what it means to “differ.” And everyone is “devoted” to at least some of his opinions. That’s the whole point of having convictions.

So it’s not bigotry merely to disagree with someone: one must also exhibit “intolerance.” But what does that mean? That one wishes to silence them? Surely it’s possible to be a bigot even while respecting free-speech rights. Thus, for example, those who believe that the races should be separated are bigots even if they believe that those who disagree should be permitted publicly to say so.

It seems, rather, that to call someone a bigot is in part to express a moral judgment. It is to suggest that the bigot’s views are not merely wrong, but somehow beyond the pale. So the dictionary definition only gets half of the picture: it’s not merely that the bigot doesn’t tolerate those who differ, it is also that we ought not tolerate him. In a free society we shouldn’t silence him, but we should certainly shun him.

In other words, to call someone a bigot is not just to say something about the bigot’s views, it’s to also to say something about our own. It is to distance our views from his in the strongest possible terms. It is also to suggest that the bigot suffers from a kind of systematic irrationality, a logical blind spot that feeds the moral one.

I have long advocated using the term “bigot” sparingly when referring to gay-rights opponents. It’s not that I don’t think bigotry is a serious problem. On the contrary, it’s vital to identify bigotry for what it is and to expose its tragic effects.

It’s also important to learn the lessons of history, including the ways in which bigotry can hide behind religion, concern for children’s welfare, and other seemingly benign motives.

But there’s a difference between identifying bigotry, on the one hand, and labeling any and all people who disagree with us as bigots, on the other. Such labeling tends to function as a conversation-stopper, cutting us off from the “moveable middle” and ultimately harming our progress.

It’s also unfair to the many decent people who genuinely strive to understand us even where, for sincere and complex reasons, they cannot accept our position.

There’s a familiar religious saying which teaches “Love the sinner; hate the sin.” Applied to homosexuality, the sentiment is mostly nonsense. For one thing, there’s nothing “sinful” or wrong about gay relationships per se. Moreover, the distinction draws a sharp line between who we are and what we do, whereas here these things are intimately connected.

But the “love the sinner/hate the sin” distinction still has its uses, and our approach to our opponents may be among them.

Many of our opponents are fundamentally decent people. For both principled and pragmatic reasons, we don’t want to saddle them with an identity that suggests their being beyond redemption. In other words, we don’t want to label them “bigots” prematurely.

At the same time, we don’t want to shrink from identifying the evil of anti-gay bigotry, wherever and whenever it occurs.

And so, we can distinguish. We can point out the sin of bigotry forcefully while using the epithet of “bigot” sparingly (though that epithet, too, has its uses).

Because, in the end, we do know it when we see it.

***********

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.

Best. Gay. Week. Ever. (December 04, 2009

by Michael Jensen, Editor, AfterElton.com

Monday has a new How I Met Your Mother and a new Gossip Girl. Eric is definitely up to something so hopefully we'll see more than just a couple of brief scenes with him. Bravo has a new episode of Million Dollar Listing and last week's teaser promises something more about Madison's sexuality. And TNT's new series Men of a Certain Age has absolutely nothing gay about it, but I've seen the pilot and it was not only hilarious, but who knew Ray Romano was such a good actor?

Ted Allen's Chopped has a holiday-themed ep on Tuesday, So You Think You Can Dance has performances from the top eight, and there is a new episode of Melrose Place. But given that Caleb didn't show up this week, I'm not not exactly holding my breath that he'll pop up this week.

In much better news, the insanely gay-friendly Scrubs is joined by Better Off Ted on ABC's Tuesday night line-up. Despite having no regular gay characters both shows manage to incorporate gay storylines and gay humor without ever resorting to gay panic.

So what if we play Tonto and Lone Ranger at night? Naked. Don't most friends?

--more--

Gay-marriage opponents welcome NY bill’s defeat

By The Associated Press

(Albany, NY) A bill that would have allowed same-sex marriage was rejected by New York lawmakers, a bruising outcome for national advocates in a state that was the site of one of the gay rights movement’s defining moments four decades ago, and a huge victory for opponents who said it could influence votes elsewhere.

“It’s just a huge win,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to protect marriage. “It’s going to help cement defeat for gay marriage in New Jersey, and I think it’s going to get a whole bunch of politicians in New Hampshire who voted for gay marriage this year pretty nervous when they come up for election.”

So far this year New Jersey failed to schedule long-expected votes on bills to legalize gay marriage, Maine voters rejected a measure and California voters rescinded their law. Supporters, however, point to Vermont and New Hampshire, where lawmakers adopted gay marriage bills this year, while the city council in Washington, D.C., is expected to legalize gay marriage next month.

Iowa’s Supreme Court also recognized gay marriage this year. Gay marriage was already legal in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont.

Richard Socarides, who was former President Bill Clinton’s senior adviser on gay rights issues, called New York “clearly the biggest prize in this effort.”

“Not only will it affect a lot of people because New York is a big state,” he said, “but symbolically New York is the country’s leader in finance, the arts and culture. It’s a bellwether for the country.”

Across the Hudson River, New Jersey was watching.

“Here in New Jersey, many of the legislators would rather not vote on it,” said Gregory Quinlan, of New Jersey Family First, which opposes gay marriage.

He said New York’s action underscores that reluctance and bolsters his group’s position.

But Steven Goldstein, CEO of Garden State Equality, countered that the demographics of New York and New Jersey are very different.

“If Democrats in New Jersey don’t lead the way, as they promised, to pass marriage equality in 2009, there could be a mutiny against the New Jersey Democratic Party the likes of which this state has never seen,” he said.

On Wednesday, New York’s bill was defeated 38-24 in the Senate led by liberal New York City Democrats holding a single-seat majority. It was the last hurdle for passage for the measure passed three times by the Democrat-led Assembly and strongly pushed by Democratic Gov. David Paterson.

Gallagher said she never expected such a lopsided margin. She said the supporters of the bill hurt their cause by equating opponents of gay marriage to slave owners and Nazis.

“The gay marriage movement usually looks very smart,” she said. “Now it looks flat-footed.”

Evan Wolfson, director of the national gay rights group Freedom to Marry, said the vote stung. He and other national advocates blamed in part the fractured dynamics of the New York Senate, where Democrats won a slim majority this year after a half-century of Republican control, only to face defections from its ranks and a Republican-dominated coup that gridlocked the chamber this summer.

The Senate’s Republicans who were expected to cross the aisle to support the measure had a scare put into them in November. The state’s Conservative Party reasserted its power in GOP politics when the Conservative candidate in a special election for an upstate congressional seat attracted so much support he forced a more moderate Republican to end her campaign.

But advocates say there were victories in the loss and New York – site of the 1969 Stonewall Inn riots, considered the birth of the modern gay rights movement – may have provided a model for success.

The “cause of inclusion” has gained, said Wolfson.

“Most striking was the eloquence and the passion and the details of what people had to say in this very personal and rich way,” said Wolfson, who like thousands nationwide watched the Senate’s webcast of the more than two-hour debate.

Democratic Sen. Liz Krueger, of Manhattan, talked about her grandparents who escaped discrimination against Jews and were steeped in religion.

“My religion, I believe, teaches me I must vote yes today,” she said.

Sen. Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat and black civil rights activist, said gays are now in the position of the Irish, Italians, blacks and other oppressed groups.

“I am hoping New York state comes out of the closet and understands that all Americans deserve the right to marry who they love,” Adams said. “This is about love … we have no right to deny that.”

During debate, Sen. Ruben Diaz, a conservative minister from the Bronx, led the mostly Republican opposition.

The Secret of Harry Potter

Is Harry Potter gay? From a show called "The Soup". So I did not make this. I'm a huge fan of HP and have the utmost respect for JK and her work. That said I find this clip hilarious! (sommrit.com)

How Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Impact the Workplace*

It might seem that a person's sexual orientation or gender identity has little to do with their job or career. But unfortunately, many people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender have experienced discrimination in the workplace in the form of dismissal, lack of promotion, etc., as have people from particular cultures, religions, groups, and communities.

Society and responsible employers are recognizing diversity and addressing discriminatory attitudes and behaviors that are based on misinformation or lack of information which can create fear of people who are perceived as different. Communication is vital to good business and consistent quality. People's fears and lack of knowledge, can significantly impede effective communication.

If you are a married heterosexual, it would probably never occur to you to keep that information about yourself a secret from the people with whom you work. You might wear a wedding band and refer to your spouse often enough that people know his/her first name and what he/she does. People at work might get to know them, and refer to them in conversation, or inquire about them. If your spouse, or an inlaw is ill, or dies it is likely that. your co-workers will offer you support and comfort; also workplace policy may allow you to miss work to take care of your spouse or attend the funeral of a relative on your spouse's side of the family. If you are bisexual, gay, lesbian, or transgender, you may not get the same kind of accommodations because you are not legally related to your partner or your partner's family.

Those of us who are heterosexual generally don't worry about our co-workers or supervisors knowing whether we are married, single or divorced, who our spouse or partner is, who we are living with or dating. We might even have a picture of this person on our desk at work, or have them accompany us to a company party or on a business trip.

It's not uncommon to hear conversations like this one on a Friday afternoon at work:

"What a long week. I'm so glad it's Friday! Do you have plans for the weekend?"

"Yeah, my wife and I are going up north to go cross-country skiing and hiking."

For those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, a simple conversation like that one can create internal anxiety, if we do not want to disclose our sexual orientation to people with whom we work. Simple conversations can also be difficult for those of us who have gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender children, relatives, or friends. We may experience a great deal of painful anxiety when we hear hurtful jokes or discriminatory comments directed at people we love.

Why do some of us keep this important part of our lives a secret? Probably out of fear- fear of rejection from our co-workers even fear for our personal safety. We may also have internalized homophobia that keeps us from being open with others about our lives.

Based on our past experiences we know that there can be serious costs to pay if people know about our sexual orientation or gender identity. We want to be treated like everyone else at work, given a fair chance to succeed and be rewarded based on our merit, skills, talent and performance. We don't want our sexual orientation to hold us back or to interfere with how people interact with us at work.

When we are afraid this will happen, we tend to keep our personal lives a secret and live in fear of being found out. It wastes time and energy to maintain the image of a false personal life, or no personal life whatsoever. It is important that bisexual, transgender, gay or bisexual employees and our friends and family members have the freedom to share as much about our lives as heterosexual employees and their straight friends and family members with the assurance that it won't affect our job or our relationships in the workplace.

If we were all robots, none of this would matter. We would just perform our jobs without verbal interaction, and we would just shut down at the end of our shifts. But we are human being's and much of our work involves communications with other human beings in order to get a job done. The fact of the matter is that communicating with others in a professional situation involves social and personal interaction as well.

"Whenever it is necessary to engage in deception in order to keep a secret, you are engaging in a behavior that is damaging to the human heart and soul. Silence becomes shame."

*Material adapted from: 'Honeywell Pride: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Workplace'

La Press en Rose ©, 2009, The Wizard of 'OZ'