| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
The Railroad of Irrelevance
Cross-posted at California Independent Voters' Project.
Proposition 8's opponents seem to be quite intent on riding the Alienation Express all the way into the last stop on the railroad of irrelevance. However, it may be instructive to reflect on the reasons for their behavior before condemning their most recent antics. By that I do not mean the question of what they hope to achieve (they obviously want the bill overturned), but rather why they have chosen these specific tactics.
The answer seems self-evident on one level. In reading a recent article about Proposition 8's opponents, one has difficulty not being reminded of the actions of two notable lobbies; one historical and the other contemporary. To see which groups I am referring to, think of the tactics Proposition 8 opponents are using: Engaging in mass boycotts so as to bankrupt the organizations that are intent on denying them their so-called "rights", while simultaneously producing lists of businesses and private individuals who have donated money to the pro-Proposition 8 cause. Obviously, the boycotts are meant to invoke the Civil Rights coalition of the 1960s, and the Montgomery bus boycotts specifically, but what might the publishing of names and addresses signify? Intentional or no, this behavior is reminiscent of anti-abortion groups that publish the names of abortion-providing medical professionals on their Web sites.
Leaving aside the irrelevant question of whether one agrees or disagrees with either of these movements, they both have one thing in common. They are (or were) both dedicated to the idea of expanding civil rights for previously disenfranchised groups. It would be unnecessary to dredge up quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. proving as much, but if articles like this are any guide, the pro-life movement considers itself very much to be part of the same legacy. Even as Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece has joined the pro-life cause because she sees it as part of her uncle's struggle, the idea that pro-life activists see themselves as heirs to the Civil Rights movement is beyond question.
I shall not consider the question of whether such a comparison is unnecessarily self-indulgent. That is irrelevant and up to the reader to decide. What is relevant is that whether the comparison is accurate or not, the fact remains that if such a comparison were accurate, it would provide the group utilizing it with a great deal of rhetorical firepower, as well as some level of license to take more extreme protest measures. (After all, whoever stands in the way of the heirs of civil rights will almost certainly end up on the wrong side of history). As such, an incentive clearly exists for all sorts of groups to try and frame themselves as continuing the fight for civil rights.
This incentive is not a bad one, rhetorically, but it becomes dangerous at the point where a group such as the pro-life movement (or the opponents of Proposition 8) believe so strongly that the comparison is true that they mistakenly believe that everyone else also believes it is true. If such a belief enters the collective unconscious of a political movement, then a very dangerous implication also begins to grow, which can best be laid out in the following syllogism (with Movement X signifying the group who believes the comparison):
Proposition 2: Movement X = The Civil Rights movement
Proposition 3: Therefore, Movement X is on the correct side of history
Such a syllogism is logically correct, but morally dangerous because most activists who believe themselves to be on the "right side of history" therefore believe that whatever excesses they go to can be excused by virtue of the fact that they are, a priori, on the right side of history. Such a belief can and often does lead to ruthlessness, political tone-deafness and alienation of one's allies, all of which appear to dominate the current anti-Proposition 8 movement. This is unfortunate, because whatever ideological vision one holds, Proposition 8 is not a settled question and should not be treated as such. The seeds of backlash are being sowed, and the opponents of Proposition 8 should take some humility before it is too late and they are crushed.
Perhaps most dangerously for their cause, the proponents will then have the authority to write the history books.
- Mytheos_Holt's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
I think you've lost the culture war
young folk do not believe that marriage is all that big of a deal. when everyone wants to give gay folk civil unions instead of beating them to death (or locking them up on sight), I think you've already lost the war to ostracise them.
Excesses to the point of assault should always be condemned.
Dear Non-Grownups: Families and Marriage Matters
Of COURSE young people care about different things from older people.
young folk do not believe that marriage is all that big of a deal.
When they are older and married, they will understand and appreciate the difference. They will realize it IS a big deal. They will realize parenthood is a bigger and harder deal then when they were kids.
As a society, we ignore the importance of marriage, family and good child-rearing at our peril. Most of the ills of society in the US today are related to the breakdown of the family. The fact that young people may not see it or care about it says more about their ignorance and lack of full perspective than anything else. But I can certainly understand it, as these issues/points are a LOT clearer to me now as a parent than when I was 21 years old.
We need a letter to the kids ...
Dear Non-Grownups: Families and Marriage Matters
The anti-prop-8 agitators are thugs on many levels. And one level is their denigration of marriage, just like your comment. IN DOING SO HOWEVER YOU PROVE THE PRO PROP 8 PEOPLE CORRECT. The vote for Prop 8 WAS a vote to protect marriage, since the reason not to support it is "do not believe that marriage is all that big of a deal"
PS. "instead of beating them to death" - That is a thuggish slander.
Harvey Milk ring a bell?
I'm certain I could point out some other people, but I'm not going to be the one to trigger Godwin today ;0-)
If you weren't so busy jumping to conclusions to let me apologize -- well, I'm going to take this opportunity to apologize ANYWAY. I did not mean that marriage is not an important part of life. I meant that younger people do not see gay marriage as a problem.
Now, if you truly want to go all WHAA WHAA and play the victim card on the decline of the generations, I can truly say that every single blasted generation has said that since the dawn of time. It doesn't mean that it is right.
And if you wish to ressurrect that hoary old conservative marriage institution, you can start by working to abolish all marriage laws that say a parent may not allow their child to be married under a certain age. For you see, Marriage is a very different institution than it used to be, and if you want to be conservative, you should begin by destroying the institutions that made premarital sex, and not adultery the norm (you didn't think that two twelve year olds would actually not have sex like rabbits with other young kids, did you? I've got the geneologies to prove it). Like, say, college.
I believe in a newer form of marriage, where people are not constrained by economic reasons to stay together in bloodless marriages where adultery is commonplace. I believe that marriage should be born out of love, and nourished through love alone. And when that love passes, that it is time for a new marriage. Then again, I myself am a product of a loveless marriage, so you might say that i'm biased.
I do not believe that marriage should be seen as your ticket into a better life, nor into someone else's priviledge status or power.
I consider the adultery that more than 50% of men in this country indulge in, to be a much worse problem than a divorce.
Abandonment of Women was commonplace in the early 1900's. They put out bounty on the men because they would flee before they could sign a get, and the woman would not be officially divorced, though she was in reality abandoned.
fallacies and irrelevencies
1) Harvey Milk? We are talking about this month - violent attacks by anti-prop-8 forces, done for explicit political purposes. A killing 30 years ago by a nutjob is irrelevant in this context, and its like blaming all Democrats today and calling them violent because Hinkley tried to kill Reagan. It doesnt make any sense.
Or blaming all muslims for the murder of Mr Van Gogh in Holland ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4057645.stm
2) "Now, if you truly want to go all WHAA WHAA"
Huh? not a victim at all, just explaining why youth might lack wisdom on the matter
I can truly say that every single blasted generation has said that since the dawn of time. It doesn't mean that it is right.
True but it doesn make them WRONG either. I think its more right than wrong. As we age, we mature and see the context of things better, and we worry about the next generation, not realizing that we each re-learn the same lessons, again and again.
3) Marriage is a very different institution than it used to be, and if you want to be conservative
strawman alert.
Like, say, college.
Uhhh, no. Boy you are chock full of logical fallacies today. Something has a bad influence on X, therefore since I want to change X, I would abolish that something. Howabout a gentle pullback from stupid behavior? Probably just undoing the 'innovation' of multi-sex dorms and dormrooms would suffice, and other things college does that let things get out of hand. etc.
I believe in a newer form of marriage, where people are not constrained by economic reasons to stay together in bloodless marriages where adultery is commonplace.
??? The law for many decades and more has allowed divorce to be easier than marriage. Your comments make no sense, except as an attempt to attack a strawman form of marriage that neither exists nor is what I am talking about.
okay.
1. no, that is what you were talking about. I am making the point that we don't kill gay people today, instead we argue about civil unions versus marriage. Therefore, the "gays are teh evil" or "gays need to be fixed" people have lost the culture war. Obviously attacks are wrong. Assault continues to be wrong.
2. I prefer to believe that life isn't that hopeless. Also, that life has changed significantly in the past thousand years, and that each generation sees somewhat different things than the medieval generations did (where life truly didn't change). Society has the morals that we can afford, and they do change.
3. To take the contrary view, enforcing a separation of the sexes is likely to lead to more "temporary homosexuality" (okay, i don't remember the sociological term. if you don't get it, ask). But I'm sure that's more than you're suggesting.
4. When you talk of marriage as an inviolate and sacred (really? not in my religion) thing, I think it is important to consider context. And the context is how marriage has changed.
Because only then can I ask you "which marriage do you want to preserve?"