Although I am skeptical about the particular example that occasioned it, I agree with Eugene's general point that some aspects of the gay rights agenda may pose dangers to individual rights that are important even to people who do hate gays or oppose the gay rights movement as such.
This poses a dilemma for libertarians (and some conservatives) who support the principle of equality for gays but worry about some of the potential slippery slope effects of victories for the gay rights movement. For example, I personally support gay marriage and the abolition of antigay discrimination by government. At the same time, I would oppose imposing similar antidiscrimination laws on the private sector, particularly on religious and civil society groups. And there is a nontrivial danger that those elements of the gay rights agenda that I support will, if adopted, lead to the enactment of those that I oppose.
However, I doubt that the right approach for those concerned about the civil liberties of people with antigay views is to oppose the gay rights agenda across the board. If you do not oppose A in and of itself, but are just concerned that it might lead to B, the right strategy to adopt will sometimes be to make a deal with the pro-A forces, pledging support for A in exchange for safeguards against B. This is an especially attractive approach if A is likely to be enacted sooner or later anyway, but the advocates of A need your backing in order to win sooner.
We seem to be in precisely this position with respect to the gay rights movement, which is highly likely to continue gaining ground, but cannot succeed quickly against determined and united opposition from the right. If conservatives and those libertarians who care more about the civil liberties issues than about gay rights oppose the gay agenda root and branch, then the gay rights movement will owe them nothing and will have no incentive to take conservative or libertarian concerns into account. The fact that most conservatives and libertarians either opposed the civil rights movement (as the National Review conservatives did) or were indifferent to it (as were many libertarians at the time) is one of the reasons why that movement took on such a left-wing statist cast. It is also one reason why most African-Americans support liberal statism even now. The conservatives (and to a lesser extent libertarians) of today are in danger of repeating the mistakes of their predecessors.
If, on the other hand, libertarians and those conservatives whose primary concern is the civil liberties impact rather than opposition to gays for its own sake support gay rights but make that support conditional on providing safeguards for civil liberties, there is a much better chance of a positive outcome for all concerned. In addition to the straightforward quid pro quo bargaining involved, homosexuals and their supporters are more likely to take conservative and libertarian concerns seriously if they do not regard the latter as implacable enemies.
Note that there are two distinct causal mechanisms at work here. One is pure interest-group bargaining: conservatives can persuade gay rights advocates to prevent B in exchange for support for A. But there is also a psychological dynamic under which gays and the political right could develop a more positive (or at least less negative) image of each other over time, thus making it easier to take each other's concerns seriously.
None of these points are likely to persuade those conservatives (and perhaps a few libertarians) who simply oppose gay rights across the board on the merits. But they should provide food for thought to those who generally support gay equality or are indifferent to it, but worry about its slippery slope effects.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Is there Enough Libertarian and Conservative Support for Gay Rights for it to Matter?
- Why Ever Fire Public Officials for their Views?:
- The Racism Analogy:
- Conservatives, Libertarians, and Slippery Slope Concerns about the Gay Rights Movement:
- Firing a Washington Metro Board Member for Anti-Gay Speech:
- Washington Metro Board Member Dismissed for Anti-Gay Remarks in Same-Sex Marriage Debate:
I beg to differ. No one with any sense will attempt this approach, because there is no reason to trust the other side and no way to enforce any such agreement that might be made. It is a trademark of all political factions, from any part of the political spectrum, that each successive advance in their cause is considered a base for new advances. The concept of "this far and no further" does not exist in politics.
You say "For example, I personally support gay marriage and the abolition of antigay discrimination by government. At the same time, I would oppose imposing similar antidiscrimination laws on the private sector, particularly on religious and civil societ groups."
Is your opposition to sexual orientation antidiscrimination laws for the private sector based on a belief that there is something different about being anti-gay than being racist (see the EV post above), or a general conservative/libertarian view that such antidiscrimination laws (those based on race, religion, sex) are generally undesirable?
Thx.
A redundancy.
I don't think so. A "liberal statist" is a left of center person who favors a very extensive role for government in society. Conservatives and moderates can be statist too. And some (though relatively few) left-liberals are antistatist. For example, there are left-wing anarchists.
-An interesting question. Far more the second reason than the first one. For complex reasons that I will not even attempt to explain here, I'm willing to support laws against private sector discrimination against blacks and perhaps a few other racial or ethnic groups. Subject to that important caveat, I do indeed believe that antidiscrimination laws that regulate the private sector are "generally undesirable."
Of course, not everything the gay rights movement wants can really be categorized as "civil liberties." But you're still missing the point that many gay rights are civil liberties.
Of course, not everything the gay rights movement wants can really be categorized as "civil liberties." But you're still missing the point that many gay rights are civil liberties.
I don't think I missed that point at all, and in fact I agree that many demands of the gay rights movement are civil liberties. That's why I support most of them!
I can see how the post may be confusing on this point. But if you read the post carefully, you will see that in warning of dangers to civil liberties, I always refer to "the gay rights movement" or the "gay rights agenda." That movement and that agenda, although promoting may laudable goals, also includes items that you yourself say cannot "really be described as 'civil liberties.'"
Perhaps we need a better term than "gay rights movement" to avoid this kind of confusion. Unfortunately, I am not aware of one that is widespread use.
Well over 1/3 of Congressional Democrats voted against the 1964 civil rights act, but only about 1/5 of Republicans did.
In a bizarre, but telling incident ten years earlier, in 1954, Arkansas Governor Francis Cherry spent the campaign season insinuating that Orval Faubus was a communist, or a sympathizer, or a fellow traveler. Faubus made increasingly less plausible denials about his personal history in communist circles. Faubus won the election in spite of his implausible denials, but he hardly became known as an exemplary civil rights supporter.
Which ones are you against?
Which ones are you against?
I covered this in the orignal post, where I said the following:
I doubt this very much. The fact is, most conservatives are against gay rights "on the merits" as you say (where "on the merits" includes finding gay behavior disgusting, or whatever), so if a few conservatives/libertarians support gay marriage, it really won't make any difference. Even if all the conservatives who fall into the category you mention support gay rights, most gays will associate conservatives with anti-gay bigotry, and simply will not care about libertarians because they have no political importance.
That's the way it is in Washington state - our civil rights legislation exempts all religious organizations and all non-profits, sectarian or secular.
Ilya, would you please explain that a little bit at least.
I can see one distinction between blacks and other groups - the U.S. government was complicit in slavery, the effects of which are still seen today.
I can also see why you would not want anti-discrimination laws applied to religious groups, but can't going beyond that create a slippery slope the other way? Perhaps there are distinctions that I don't see. Examples:
1) The guys in Joe's poker night club don't want blacks there. OK, so they don't invite any.
2) The guys in Anytown Country Club don't want any black members. OK, so they put a sign out front "No blacks allowed"; or they allow blacks to apply and never accept any.
3) The homeowners association in Anytown Acres does not want blacks living in their neighborhood. OK, so they put a sign at the entrance "An all white community"; or they have the rule that nobody can sell their home to a black family; or they have a rule that the association must approve all sales and never approve a sale to a black family. (I'm not even sure this would be considered the private sector, which is part of why I am asking.)
Or...
1) The proprietor of Joe's bike shop doesn't want either of his two positions filled by a black person.
2) The board of a fortune 30 company doesn't want any blacks working for them.
Substitute any group in the examples above.
So there are two questions there:
1) Why limit the antidisciminiation laws to "blacks and perhaps a few other racial or ethnic groups"?
2) Where do we draw the line with antidiscrimination laws in the private sector?
Because while from a theoretical standpoint everybody but the government ought to be free to discriminate racially as well as on the basis of geneder, weight, body odor, and so on, after a while you get tired of the rocks being thrown through your window, and your car being keyed, and give up on being principled.
So it would seem that the most significant part of the gay rights movement that you oppose is private sector employment discrimination protection. Why is that?
This is true. The lingering effects of the American slavery are that the "victims" of that legacy grow up in America and have at least some chance to do well for themselves. The "unvictimized" grow up in Ghana or Côte d’Ivoire and die of famine or AIDS if the warlords don't get them first.
That's not to say that slavery is at all justifiable nor that the lot of the actual slaves was acceptable in the least. But the lingering effects on the *current* black American population, taken as a whole, leave them better off than they would have been otherwise.
discrimination protection. Why is that?
Because there is no fundamental right to work for someone who does not want to hire you: Freedom to associate must necessarily include freedom not to associate, and the right to own property must include the right to exclude others from that property.
Guess there is a basic philosophy difference - I don't work 'for' someone, I work 'with' someone, its a mutually beneficial relationship and we both have implicit rights and responsibilities in it. One of these would be we give each other our American rights, an important one being recognition of each citizen's right of personal autonomy in the areas outside our contractual relationship. Employer shouldn't penalize me for personal features not related to my job, I won't give them less than a full work effort because of theirs.
Similarly with the property - want to keep me off have at it. But run a business interacting with fellow citizens for remuneration then the same implicit contract exists between us with the same basic level of mutual respect American citizens owe each other.
Civil rights laws are about the tolerance we owe our fellow citizens as Americans - the laws only help define some basic limits - most give them and more just out of mutual respect regardless of any legislation.
That's a conclusion, not an argument. In fact, in pretty much every other industrialized democracy, employment is not at-will and employers must show some good reason to fire somebody -- in other words, there is a widely established right to work unless there is good cause for discharge in much of the world. You may not approve of that, but that's not the point.
And the rights of businesses -- corporations and other forms of business associations -- that get various benefits from government have long been treated differently than the rights of, say, private homeowners.
Managers at IBM or Microsoft may in fact dislike blacks, or jews or muslims, but they cannot hire or fire them on the basis of sex, religion, race, age, and so on. Charles E. Smith (a large landlord here in Washington) may not want jews, blacks or muslims living in their buildings, but refusing to rent would violate our laws.
So yes, their rights are curtailed in favor of these minorities. Any one object? Hell, I see most employers and landlord trumpet the fact that they value such diversity! Why can't sexual orientation be added? How would that be an added burden? I don't see it.
Probably from people like Andrew Sullivan, who has argued eloquently in his many books why gay marriage benefits society as a whole. Or perhaps Martin Luther King, who argued eloquently that injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. Or perhaps M. Ghandi, who invented nonviolent protest to promote his own 'naked self-interest' of liberation. Or maybe -- just a thought -- our own founding fathers, who valued liberty while pursuing their own 'naked self-interest' in independence from Britain?