As you may know, I signed the controversial petition, Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both. This has caused an uproar over at Box Turtle Bulletin, where I also blog. If you’re interested in this topic, I suggest you read the post where it was announced before continuing below.
Many people have wondered how I could have signed it. I inadvertently explained that here, before I even knew about the petition. The key quote (“Jim” refers to Jim Burroway, the founder of Box Turtle Bulletin):
Quite often, the most infuriating aspects of another person are simply the flip side of the things you most admire.
In recent days, we’ve seen two admirable sets of values collide. First,
A free and open society works best when all positions are argued clearly and explicitly, along with their rebuttals. This climate of open debate, whatever its bumps and pitfalls, is the best way to try and secure a culture free of ignorance and superstition. It’s important to do as little as possible to discourage such debate because when an orthodoxy is imposed through legal or social pressure, it opens the door to tyranny and corrodes the human spirit.
But also,
A free and open society can only work when it recognizes the humanity, the dignity, and the equality of all its citizens. Movements that stigmatize entire swaths of the population, that declare them to be inferior, that try to rob them of their rights, have no place in such a society. They open the door to oppression and tyranny, and corrode the human spirit.
It’s hard, for me at least, to oppose either of those positions. Gay people have suffered in the past when either one was discarded. They overlap, they reinforce each other, but they can also contradict each other. And when that happens, long-time allies flare at each other and demand to know, How can someone I’ve respected hold such a view?
For instance, some people react to Jim (or me, or Timothy) by wondering, How can you be a defender of, and an apologist for, such anti-gay bigots? But that’s not his intent at all. He’s defending a legal and cultural climate of open and unchilled dialog for everyone, even our most vitriolic opponents. And his critics here, if they’ve ever found this blog valuable, must understand that Jim’s commitment to that ideal is what made the blog possible. It inspires him to devote hour after hour to smacking down the flawed arguments and outright lies of the other side. And the most baffling aspects of what you see in him now are simply the flip side of what you admire most.
Much of the outrage direct against me has been based on things the petition does not say, that I have never said, and that I don’t believe. I know this is of great concern to many of you, so I’d like to open a forum for a frank and respectful discussion of the matter, a respect that I promise will go both ways.
Let me open by quoting something I wrote over at BTB, which was a response to several very specific criticisms:
This letter does not call for silencing critics of bigotry. I’ve spent a good deal of time here criticizing bigotry and have no intention to stop. This letter calls for more speech, not less. Nor does it call for an end to boycotts, protests, and petitions. Rather, it opposes targeting an individual’s livelihood for factors independent of job performance. This is fundamentally different, for example, from correctly firing a teacher who abuses his paid position by targeting students with racist, sexist, or homophobic denigration.
I do recognize that many factors contributed to Eich’s resignation, and that protests from outside the company might not have been the proximate cause for his departure. I also recognize, however, that many people, including some commenters at BTB, did think his Prop 8 donation was sufficient reason to demand his resignation. That’s what this letter addresses.
I’m not worried by an accusation that I might be far more concerned about one wealthy white straight cis man than about the literal tens of thousands of GLBT who are still facing actual discrimination in marriage law, workplace firings, healthcare, and housing. That can be cleared up simply by comparing of how much time I’ve devoted to advocating for the rights of those tens of thousands versus how much time I’ve devoted to Eich.
I’ve worked to make it clear that my major concern is not for Eich per se, but for basic principles that affect all members of society, including LGBT folk who have been harmed again and again when those principles were violated. I’ve also made it clear I understand people of good faith can disagree with my application of those principles without it besmirching their character or requiring me to root through their psychology for hidden motives.
The letter is not an argument from authority. Those signatures are there to indicate public agreement with a statement, and as with any petition, the truth or error of the statement depends not at all on the number or pedigree of the signatories. I don’t have control over who else signs the petition, but I’m not worried Peter Labarbera or Tony Perkins or Maggie Gallagher will sign any statement affirming that opposition to same-sex marriage is wrong.
Finally, my middle name is “John,” not “Oscar Lopez.” I’m not a collaborationist, though I may at times be a dickweed. You’ll have to ask Will.
So there you go. I welcome your questions.