Nothing infuriates an American more than being told what he or she is allowed to think or feel. The unfortunate truth is that this sentiment is ignored more often than it is followed by our politicians and political leaders. Civil debate is often drowned by a cacophony of voices, all attempting in one sound bite or another to tell us that we are bigots if we think this, or stupid if we think that. The free exchange of ideas has been replaced by the notion that some ideas are too "offensive" or "outside the mainstream" to be exchanged. If you believe "X," for example, you shouldn't have a voice. You should be shouted down, shamed, ridiculed and made to shut up. It is a sorry development, and its proponents lack historical perspective. It is neither progressive, nor does it indicate progress as a nation. In fact, quite the opposite is true, and more often than not, being called a bigot or stupid tends to make one fight harder. It does not end the debate.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage, social media has erupted in a torrent of decidedly uncivil discourse. Any one of us would be hard pressed to look at his or her Facebook page (although I seem to be the exception) and not see a wall filled with "gays vs. bigots" posts. The issue would seem so black and white. On one side, you have the "hate filled bigots" who are accused of wanting nothing short of a deprivation of all rights for homosexuals. On the other, you have a complete insistence that the total collapse of morality in America is at hand. Most Americans, somewhere in the middle, will tolerate the proverbial bomb-throwing while the initial emotions associated with the issue slowly subside. And they will subside. What Americans will not tolerate, however, is being told what to think.
Justice Alito's dissent touched on this issue:
“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers and schools,” he wrote. “By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”
Justice Alito's concerns, however, have not been borne out by history. For example, decades after Roe v. Wade, Americans still vigorously and publicly debate the morality of abortion. It is a principal issue in every election and, most importantly, polls have been trending against abortion since the decision. Abortion, as a popular individual rights issue, peaked with that decision and has been waning ever since. The discussion now trends more towards the limits or the rights of the unborn, an analysis avoided in the original decision. There have been few if any restrictions on the rights of Americans to publicly object to the practice or demonstrate in opposition. Churches are not yet being forced to perform abortions or pay for abortions. Public funding for abortions has been limited. In short, the debate is alive and well and no one has been relegated to "whisper[ing] their thoughts in the recesses of their homes," unless they choose to do so.
Another example is the debate over the Confederate Flag. To some, it is a symbol of hatred and racism. To others, it is a symbol of Southern heritage. To most, it's just a flag some folks put on their trucks or their hats or that may show up at a NASCAR race or in a fraternity house. The supporters of the flag are labeled "bigots" by the opponents of the flag, but that hasn't stopped a vigorous debate. You can find good, well thought out opinions on both sides. You will find rallies from advocates on both sides. It is generally accepted that people are entitled to their views, without regard to the liberal bomb-throwers or conservative firebrands. The debate will continue until there is a consensus, but even then, every American will have a right to his or her point of view and to express that view in public.
That said, being entitled to publicly express your view on any issue is not the same thing as having your view accepted by the majority. There is no entitlement to that. So, for example, if you despise Black people, you probably are not going to receive a warm welcome when you express that view in public. Justice Alito may be correct in his analysis, but only to the extent that the public at large decides that supporting traditional marriage is bigoted behavior. Unless or until that happens, it is doubtful that the moral issue has been settled by this single Supreme Court decision.
The debate is not over and, if anything, it has become more intense. It will be played out in state legislatures, elections and courts for a long time to come. The Supreme Court will also have a role to play. It will have to determine the extent to which the law will elevate gay rights above the right of Americans to object based on conscience. As I wrote yesterday, the gay marriage decision is unremarkable. It did little more than restate the fundamental principal that all Americans, including gay Americans, are entitled to equal protection under the law. And as an aside, to my conservative friends I say this: The government should never have been in the business of marriage. There are laws governing sexual behavior, like age of consent, marriage of relatives, rape, incest, and the like. But those issues are fundamentally different from marriage between two consenting adults. Outside of the health and safety context, it just isn't the government's business to say who can marry and who can't, and the laws passed for that purpose invited the Court's intervention.
What may be remarkable is what comes next. Will the wedding cake maker or the photographer be compelled, against his or her conscience, to provide services to gay couples? In the states that have considered that issue, the answer has so far been yes. Of course, that issue hasn't been addressed by the courts in Georgia, Texas and Mississippi. Something tells me that the answer will be quite different and it will not take long for the Supreme Court to once again have to intervene. Most Constitutional scholars seem to agree that the Court will not compel anyone to provide services against their will. That would violate both the First and Thirteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Using state power to levy a fine against an objector is "compulsion" (in case you were wondering).
Admittedly, nothing is certain. Perhaps the Supreme Court will rule the way those state courts did. What is certain is this, Americans will demand to be allowed to exercise their consciences. If the Court holds otherwise, it would be truly remarkable, and would do nothing more than rally even neutral Americans to the traditional marriage cause.
What it will not do is end the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment