On Leno, the president said,
I’ve been very clear that when it comes to universal rights, when it comes to people’s basic freedoms, that whether you are discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, you are violating the basic morality that I think should transcend every country. And I have no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them.
If this doesn’t send a few chills down your spine, it should. Impatience and intolerance go hand in hand. And in the name of tolerance, the president is to the point of publicly declaring that that those who do not embrace homosexuality as a moral good should not be treated with patience. How long until such people will not be tolerated at all legally? If he is trying to enforce this idea in countries where he has no authority, what do you think he desires and seeks to implement in this country where he has much authority? It will not be long until speaking against homosexuality in any place or way will be a crime in America if we continue down this path.
When basic morality is defined in a way that contradicts nature, we are at a breaking point. We are at a breaking point.
Your interpretation of what Obama meant by “intimidate†and “harmful†is a bit baffling. The context of the President’s remarks is Russia’s abrogation of the civil rights of the LGBT community. We’re not talking about gay marriage or adoption here. This is a rather blatant violation of basic free speech. Russia has prohibited the LGBT community to advocate or speak in support of its interests. This is the harm and intimidation to which the President is referring in this particular instance. To infer that this statement portends future intolerance of any criticism of homosexuality as unacceptable harm or intimidation to the LGBT community is an extraordinary stretch.
Just because I speak out against the persecution of one group, I don’t think it automatically follows that I think that other groups whose interests sometimes clash with that of the persecuted group should themselves be persecuted. For example, let’s change the situation and actors slightly. What if, instead of Obama speaking out against a crackdown on gays, it was George W. Bush speaking out against a crackdown on Christians? The statement would maybe go something like this:
“Well, I’ve been very clear that when it comes to universal rights, when it comes to people’s basic freedoms, that whether you are discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation [though Bush likely would not have included sexual orientation], you are violating the basic morality that I think should transcend every country. And I have no patience for countries that try to treat Christians in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them.â€
Would it have been reasonable for atheists in this country to infer from this that the time was coming very soon when they would be thrown in jail for criticizing Christianity? Despite the fact that a large portion of the country is Christian, that Bush unabashedly identifies himself as a Christian and a staunch supporter of Christian causes, and that Christians all over the country advocate for laws and policies that put prayer in public schools and the ten commandments in public buildings, I think that such an inference would have been ridiculous (though I’m sure plenty of atheists would have thought this way anyway). To speak out against religious persecution does not imply the belief that religion should be shielded from all criticism and that groups criticizing religion should themselves be persecuted.
So why would the case be any different just because the persecuted group is the LGBT community rather than Christianity? There is an underlying accusation in this idea that Christians will soon be persecuted for speaking out against homosexuality, namely that the LGBT community and its supporters will never be content with merely protecting their own rights, but rather will not stop until all US citizens are required by law to endorse them. This is in contrast to the more virtuous Christian community who merely wants the right to worship and live their lives in accordance with their beliefs.
What’s troubling is that this accusation is mostly based suspicion and conjecture. No reputable LGBT advocacy organization has a stated goal of making it illegal to speak out against homosexuality. No group has expressed the belief that freedom of speech and freedom of religion should not apply to the issue of homosexuality. I’m sure there are those out there who do advocate such a position – that children need protecting from such speech or some such nonsense. And I’m also sure that these people get a disproportionate amount of coverage from the media, since that sort of controversy “sells.†But to maintain that this is the “real†goal of LGBT advocacy in general is pure speculation. There is no absolute proof of this and very little supporting evidence.
In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. For instance, the ACLU (not a solely gay rights group, I know, but certainly a “liberal†group that supports and advocates for LGBT rights) has defended Westboro Baptist Church and its rabidly anti-gay speech. And I personally know of an ACLU attorney assigned to the Westboro case who himself is gay. Speaking to my Sexuality and the Law class in law school about his experience, he admitted that he obviously vehemently disagreed with Westboro’s message (as most of us, conservatives and liberals alike, do), but that he also recognized the extreme importance of defending their right to transmit that message. Anecdotally, I can attest that most gays I know (and I know many) vigorously support the right of any church to speak out against homosexuality, even though they morally oppose such a message.
Of course, there is a definite allure to sounding the alarm of impending persecution. It paints a picture of the other side not as a group merely trying to protect their right to live their lives in accordance with their own beliefs, but rather as a sinister organization bent on imposing their will and beliefs on society at large. It is much easier to rally support for one’s cause if the other side can be shown to be “out to get you.†It seems both sides of the liberal vs. conservative divide in this country have been employing this strategy on a range of issues. Conservatives really want corporations to control your life. Conservatives really want to force everyone to become Christian. Liberals really want government to control your life. Liberals really want to ban religion altogether. The list of what liberals and conservatives “really†want for society is a long one.
But I find this strategy troubling. When the other side of any debate is portrayed as nefarious, conversation and compromise between the two groups becomes increasingly difficult. What’s the point in dialogue if the other side is just out to get you anyway? And it seems that the real danger of persecution is actually from the group who is worrying about persecution. After all, if the other side is so evil as to have persecution of their enemies as their final goal, then it’s not much of a moral leap to begin rationalizing all sorts of actions against them, as a preemptive defense. I worry that fear of persecution will lead to a sort of preemptive persecution on the part of the group who originally feared being persecuted against, if that makes any sense.