Here is Dan Savage's answer to the question proposed in the title of this blog post and in
Dan's original online article:
When you donate $1500 to a political campaign to strip other people -- people who are not your co-religionists -- of their civil rights. Richard Raddon is, or was, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival. All hell broke loose after it emerged that Raddon, who is Mormon, had donated $1500 to the "Yes on 8" campaign.
Dan writes about how making a large donation to a political campaign isn't a private expression of religion any more:
Bill Condon, the gay guy who directed of Dreamgirls, attempted to get Raddon's back: "Someone has lost his job and possibly his livelihood because of privately held religious beliefs."
No. No. No. Raddon lost his job due to criticism of his public political actions, not his private religious beliefs, and his public political actions were a part of the public record. If Raddon wanted to go to church and pray his little heart out against same-sex marriage, or proselytize on street corners against gay marriage, or counsel gay men to leave their husbands and marry nice Mormon girls instead, that could be viewed as an expression of his "privately held religious beliefs." Instead he helped fund a political campaign to strip a vulnerable minority group of its civil rights.
"Millions of Californians definitely lost their civil rights," says John Aravosis. "But I'm not hearing a lot of concern about any of those victims, only sympathy for their attacker. When you use the power of the state to rip away my civil rights, and force me to live by your 'values,' you are no longer practicing your religion. You're practicing politics."
In the wake of Prop 8 millions of gays and lesbians all over the country have decided that we're no longer going to play by the old rules. We're not going to let people kick our teeth down our throats and then run and hide behind "Nothing personal—just my private religious beliefs!" That game's over.
9 comments:
So when people start losing jobs because they gave money to take away the rights of fetuses in the womb, that's going to be OK with you?
CC
CC,
Last time I checked, fetuses didn't have legal rights under the US and California Constitutions -- at least not until the 3rd trimester (Roe v. Wade and related precedents).
Same-sex couples in California did have a legal right under their state constitution. Unlike the fetus hypothetical example, these rights really did exist for California citizens.
These legal rights were taken away by religious people who didn't engage in private displays of piety but rather in public displays of donating cash to promote injustice.
You're "comparing apples with oranges" here.
So human rights are dependent upon legal status, and not inherent worth?
Joel,
Richard Raddon is in the entertainment industry.
How he is perceived by the ticket-buying public is relevant to his employability much in the same way that Mel Gibson's sexist and anti-semitic rant when he was arrested affects his employability.
As a "thought experiment," let imagine as a hypothetical situation either of the following situations:
(1) An entertainment executive like Mr. Raddon donates $1500 to an anti-semitic charity.
(2) An entertainment executive like Mr. Raddon donates $1500 to a charity that promotes racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.
In both cases, Mr. Raddon has the First Amendment right to take these political stands.
However, in both cases, the ticket-buying public is entitled to speak out against anti-semitism or racism like they did when Mr. Raddon spoke out against marriage equality.
"However, in both cases, the ticket-buying public is entitled to speak out against anti-semitism or racism like they did when Mr. Raddon spoke out against marriage equality." Agreed. No argument. That wasn't the question. The question was,"So when people start losing jobs because they gave money to take away the rights of fetuses in the womb, that's going to be OK with you?"- which you refused to answer.
There seems to be a bizarre conflation of use of one's civil rights with a lack of consequences.
One is free within very broad limits to say what one pleases. The state may not infringe upon that without extreme good cause.
But the idea that one is immune to any sort of social consequences for one's (not-actually-illegal) speech or action is quite odd. Yet it's what is being pushed in this case.
OJ was not found guilty... but was widely ostracized and treated as guilty and unclean. His right to be free as a not-guilty person wasn't infringed, by the state. The society, however....
In the pursuit of privileging those with financial advantages, the Court asserted that the expenditure of money IS free speech, and protected. But that's only a warrant of protection against the state, helping hold back public regulation of donations and the financial leveling of the political field. It has the consequence of making political donations a public speech issue... thereby voiding any claim to their being private matters.
I'm perfectly free to react to the ravings of my neighbor (whether racist, homophobic, anti-semitic... or whatever) as reason not to have dealings with him.
So it is with the "victims" here. They made their speech very public and loud (where amount given is analogous to volume). People have recoiled in disgust and are refusing to have social and economic relations with those whose opinions are noxious (and loud).
Where's the right that's violated?
When "private" religious beliefs aren't private but made very public... the complaint that one's private beliefs are being imposed on is simply specious.
Funny to hear the right complaining about the consequences of their actions, no?
Joel wrote:
-snip-
"Agreed. No argument. That wasn't the question. The question was, 'So when people start losing jobs because they gave money to take away the rights of fetuses in the womb, that's going to be OK with you?'- which you refused to answer."
Joel,
My answer to the question was that it was comparing "apples and oranges" -- a more polite way of saying it's a bullshit question.
Whatever rights our legal system provides to featuses are balanced with the rights of the pregnant woman. Currently, we have Roe v. Wade along with subsequent decisions by our legislatures and courts that have fine-tuned the original Roe v. Wade decision.
However, the same-sex marriage decision involved same-sex couples having equal access to marriage. When the California courts granted equal access to civil marriage, this action didn't harm those who disagreed with equal access.
There was no decision about whose "rights" take priority here like we experience with the abortion issue.
That's why it's an "apples and oranges" comparision.
Or if you prefer - a bullshit question.
Ok, it was a bullshit question- and a weasel answer. Split all the hairs you like about the precise legal ststus- as if the law and right and wrong were the same thing. Which is why I asked the other unanswered question- are human rights dependent upon legal status or inherent?
But no matter where the issue stands in the legal process, people do boycott and lose jobs over their stand on Roe V. Wade, especially here in the Midwest, and so they try to keep their contributions secret. They can and do get fired when outed. So I would call the situation more tangerines and oranges than apples and oranges.
Lol- the word verification is "aliti"- the plural of "Alito"?
(((One is free within very broad limits to say what one pleases. The state may not infringe upon that without extreme good cause.
But the idea that one is immune to any sort of social consequences for one's (not-actually-illegal) speech or action is quite odd. Yet it's what is being pushed in this case.)))
My experience is that almost no one understands this distinction.
CC
Post a Comment