In California, and the Rest of the US Queers Are Finally Bashing Back!

If same-sex marriage is a right, then it would not be reasonable to oppose a person in securing that right. In fact, people opposing it could rightly be considered to be bigots, and those advocating it would have every right to be angry at any rights being taken away. I, who am not sure on the issue of whether gay marriage is a right, would fight for the right for gay marriage to be secured, if I felt confident that it was a right.

However, in the list of rights that I understood growing up, I never understood same-sex marriage to be a right. That is not to say that it is not a right, it’s just that it would be a new right. There seems to be some sporadic and ancient historical basis for some legal recognition of same-sex couples, but it is not clear to me that those societies considered such a same-sex union to be the same as a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. It is also not clear to me that those ancient societies should be emulated in whole or in part. Given the newness of this alleged right, is it not worth serious reflection to consider the foundational basis for that right? What is the foundational basis for any right?

Is a right born in a document such as the Constitution, the Magna Carta, and/or a religious text such as the Bible or the Koran? Is a right born from a common recognition of the general populace at a particular point in time – a right that the general populace considers worth preserving even if less than a majority recognizes the right? Is a right born from its necessity for human happiness and/or societal peace? Is a right self-evident, and if so, who or what kind of people should the right be self-evident to if the right is not self-evident to all?

I submit that the determination of when a new right has arisen is not always an easy question. There can be disagreements on both sides of the table on the issue of whether there is a right to same-sex marriage. I’m not even sure there needs to be a right to civilly recognized marriage at all. Hypothetically, if marriages posed no benefit to society, or if those benefits were not recognized by the government, there perhaps would not be a right to civil recognition of marriages of any kind. Rather, marriage would be simply performed in church without associated civilly recognized benefits.

That said, I think it is intellectual cheating to merely assert a right, and then proclaim the opposition as bigots and demons, and engage in other ad hominem and physical attacks. If you think you have a right, speak about why. Tell people why in a spirit of mutual respect. The more people believe that you have a right, the more people will see you as patriots, and the less people will equate you with children in the throws of a tantrum. It is critical to articulate why you believe in the right in a convincing way.

That is why the opposition to proposition 8 is criticized. Aimlessly boycotting entire population segments, targeted intimidation of people involved in an honest disagreement with you, throwing an old lady’s cross onto the street and trampling on the cross, breaking windows of churches and temples, shutting down worship services, mailing powder to churches, defacing property of religious institutions with offensive slurs, alienating entire religious communities, are not effective tactics. You may want to rethink your tactics on how to convince people that you have a right as much as you have thought about why you have that right. The right might be self-evident to you, but don’t assume that it is self-evident to all, and please don’t assume that it is only not self-evident to bigots. There are some (I would submit reasonable) people that need more than a bumper sticker and a protest to be convinced.