Ever since President-elect Obama announced he has invited the Reverend Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration I’ve found myself brooding over what is the best way for those of us who see LGBT rights writ large and particularly who support marriage equality to engage the larger population in ways that actually turn hearts and will lead to this next great civil rights victory.
I recall how a few years ago after I delivered a particularly forceful sermon on the subject a number of members of the congregation I then served challenged my use of the words “homophobia,” “hate” and “hateful” to describe those who opposed full civil rights for LGBT folk. One person specifically said his mother opposed gay marriage and she wasn’t hateful. Her opinion was informed by her religious views.
This encounter has burrowed into my heart and I continue to reflect on it. My goal isn’t to rub people’s noses in what appears pretty obvious to me. My goal is civil rights for the LGBT community.
So, once again, I hear this theological argument being presented. This time in regard to Mr Warren’s position. And to Mr Obama’s decision to invite an individual who was particularly prominent in a recent election in California to rescind marriage equality to a prominent place in his inauguration.
I accept that the President-elect has an agenda to reach out to those with whom he disagrees and to symbolize that he is going to be everyone’s president.
And I wish he had chosen a different way than inviting Mr Warren. Because, in my view, the issue is basic civil rights, and those who oppose this hold hateful and bigoted views. And, and, I remember that encounter in my church and my realization that my unambiguous assertion that this is hateful does not turn hearts.
So, what to do?
I look at Mr Warren’s opinion, to try and understand.
His primary justification for his position is his reading of scriptures. I won’t dwell on this other than to repeat the common observation that the Bible contains a great mix of statements, many of which need to be reconciled, and over the years have been. For instance the many approving references to slavery are now taken as to refer to specific times and places or metaphorically. And, flat out, no normative version of Judaism or Christianity embraces every behavioral code found in Leviticus. Disobedient children are not killed. Also, most religious arguments in support of the homophobic stance do like to point out how many religions share a prejudice against homosexuals. An odd view, I find, for those who believe other religions are false.
Of course, appeal to one’s religion isn’t supposed to be sufficient in a secular state. And Mr Warren doesn’t dwell there in his public pronouncements. Instead he quickly moves to rhetorical devices such as likening homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. I also heard him in a recent interview describe a homosexual “friend” saying he, the friend, should be able to have as many sex partners as he wished. In that interview Mr Warren explained how he too would like to have as many sex partners as he wished, but that it wouldn’t be, and I don’t have the text in front of me, but I believe he said, or certainly implied, it wouldn’t be healthy.
Mr Warren suggested we need some discipline and boundaries in our intimate relationships. He skimmed over the difference in his position for heterosexuals, whom I assume from the context he believes should have single partners, to homosexuals who he repeatedly notes should have none. So, I wasn’t surprised Saddleback houses at least one program that aims to cure homosexuality.
There is in this a mixture of assertions, blending some things about our personal lives that I find admirable enough, self-discipline and a knowledge that what we do privately does indeed affect the larger community, with appeals to an understanding of natural that does not stand up to scientific rigor.
And this is the major point.
Over the course of the twentieth century the commonly held assumptions about homosexuality have been systematically dismantled within the scientific community. At this point it is obvious a significant minority of human beings are going to be attracted to individuals of the same sex, a somewhat larger group appear to stand closer to the middle of the spectrum and can find sexual and affectional connections with either gender, and in recent years a much smaller subset of the population have also been recognized who deeply identify with the other sex and seek remedies up to surgical reassignment. Taken together as LGBT, or GLBT, or increasingly popular BGLT, these people have come to be seen within the psychological sciences as part of the normal variation of human beings.
These positions are separated from other types of human sexuality that do indeed harm the cultural web, such as pedophilia and incest which involve individuals who are not capable of making independent decisions. (Conscious that this is all framed within a slippery slope argument, the questions of plural marriage are difficult. I believe they belong in the not harmful category, as well. But, for this reflection, I want merely to hold up that the subject is complex and can and undoubtedly will go in different directions over time…)
But this is the bottom line. As regards LGBT people, their differences with the larger population are no more significant than handedness or color.
And, there has been continuing closer examination of what it is that causes hostility, violence and persecution against this minority population. And with that, a desire on the part of many to move to full acceptance and full civil rights for LGBT folk.
So how to address this with people?
On the web I found a definition of homophobia as an “individual’s belief that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are sinful, immoral or inferior to heterosexuals, or incomplete as women or men. Such views are always learnt, and they may be shared by lesbian, gay and bisexual people themselves. In this case the homophobia is internalized. When a lesbian, gay or bisexual person has internalized the belief that they are sinful, immoral or inferior they may hide their sexuality, try to make it mean less to them, decrease their expectations of life, or engage in behaviours which are harmful to themselves and others.”
This same website also pointed to the difficulties I have encountered in leaving the issue at this level. “Although homophobia is commonly used to express the full range of anti-LGBT thought and behaviour, as a term it can be seen as problematic. A phobia is an irrational fear that causes one to avoid contact with that which is feared. Expressions of hatred toward LGBT people, however, are seldom completely irrational or inexplicable, and often result in targeting rather than avoiding behaviour. Anti-LGBT bigotry, like other forms of prejudice, is a learned and deliberate condition. Framing prejudice as a phobia pathologises it and removes responsibility from those who hold prejudices for altering their attitudes and behaviour.”
And, in trying to work through this they offered another term, which the authors felt less confrontational. Instead they advised using the term heterosexism. “Heterosexism can be understood as an overt or tacit bias against non-heterosexuals based on a belief in the superiority or, sometimes, the omnipresence of heterosexuality and the notion that homosexuality is psychologically, spiritually, or morally wrong.
“Since this type of intolerance is frequently leveled against those perceived to be lesbian or gay due to gender expression that transgresses societal norms, the word heterosexism—though not a replacement for homophobia—is a broader term that does not necessarily imply the loathing the latter term suggests, and which can describe seemingly more benign attitudes and behaviour based on the belief that heterosexuality is the norm.”
Frankly, this doesn’t seem to do the trick, either. “isim” has become nearly as toxic to people as “phobia.”
But at least it is a start for me as I continue to struggle with the issues and seek ways to help LGBT people attain full civil rights within our culture.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In