History was made last weekend when Ireland became the 20th country to allow gays and lesbians to wed. Not simply because of this particular fact, but also because it was the first vote anywhere in the world in which same-sex marriage was legalized on a national level via direct vote, in this case an overwhelming vote of 62% in favor. This is especially noteworthy considering that not only was homosexuality in Ireland barely decriminalized in 1993, but some 70% of Irish citizens identify as Roman Catholics at present. This means that a significant majority of the people who voted last weekend were adherents of a faith whose leadership oppose LGBT rights in general and gay marriage in particular. In spite of this, a motion to add language that clarifies, "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex" to the Irish Constitution managed to pass with widespread support from these same adherents. What explains this predominantly-religious nation's liberal attitude, as reflected in this vote, towards same-sex marriage?
Part of it, of course, is the nuanced relationship between religion and homosexuality. Although many religions have historically opposed same-sex activity and actively persecuted homosexuals, growing numbers of believers throughout the West are abandoning such hostility and embracing the cause of LGBT rights. This is because, contrary to the claims of religious fundamentalists and hardline atheists, religion is fluid and prone to change just as much as political ideologies and philosophies. Only the historically illiterate would believe that the form of Christianity, of which Catholicism is a subset, practiced by Westerners today is the exact same as that practiced by Westerners 2000 years ago. Fundamentals might remain in place, but interpretation and implementation of said fundamentals change over time. Such a change is currently taking place within the Catholic laity, and not only in Ireland. As Frank Bruni of The New York Times observes, of the 20 nations that have legalized gay marriage, 10 of them have mainly Catholic populations. Furthermore, according to a study by the Public Religion Research Institute, "about 60% of Americans who called themselves Catholic said they approved of same-sex marriage," indicating Catholics in the United States are more likely to support gay marriage than not. One might point out that the Bible, specifically the Book of Leviticus, mandates that homosexuals be put to death, or that the Catholic Church as an institution still remains hostile to gay marriage and other rights for homosexuals. But the fact is, if the Catholic laity rejects both biblical and papal injunctions against homosexuality and gay rights, then that faith will become a tolerant one in practice, regardless of whether it is homophobic or anti-gay in theory. It is these socially liberal tendencies gaining traction among Catholics that we recently saw at work in Ireland.
But what explains this change in attitudes towards gay rights amongst Catholics, specifically Irish ones? If The Rainbow Project's Gavin Boyd, is to be believed, it is the way supporters of gay marriage discussed the issue with those who opposed it. Rather than insulating themselves from rural, often-elderly folk who were likely to oppose same-sex marriage, gay rights activists went out of their way to discuss and debate it in good faith with them. "...what really swung this in the end were those conversations that people were having in small townlands and villages in really rural Ireland," Boyd explained in an interview with Democracy Now!. He also added that, "This was really about talking to families, talking to parents, talking to grandchildren, and explaining to them why it is important for their children, for their grandchildren to be able to grow up in a society that respected them as equal citizens." What's interesting about this statement is that it assumes good faith on the part of anti-gay people. Boyd suggests that not only do such people have a better nature, but it is also possible to appeal to it. He and many others did this by making SSM opponents wrestle with the question of whether they were able to countenance limiting the rights of family members who might be gay. Rather than insult them from afar and simply tar them as unrepentant Neanderthals, pro-SSM Irishmen made anti-SSM ones really consider the consequences of their stance and whether they could live with them. Considering the landslide vote for marriage equality (a term I hate to use, but that's a post for another day), it was a very effective strategy.
Which brings me to what we in the States could learn from Boyd and other Irish gay rights advocates. As I mentioned before, Irish activists for the most part dialogued with same-sex marriage opponents instead of degrading them. In the U.S., many same-sex marriage supporters do the reverse. Whereas Boyd happily reported that, "...this wasn't a victory for the metropolitan elite, this was a victory right the way across Ireland, not just in big cities, but in tiny villages as well," American liberals will without a second thought write off conservative, usually blue-collar people with anti-gay opinions as backward-minded bigots with no hope of redemption, seemingly wallowing in the righteous indignation they feel at such opinions. There is often an undercurrent of elitism in liberal criticisms of LGBT rights opponents that does nothing to win converts to the cause of equality and everything to harden those who are already opposed and perhaps stroke the ego of true believers. This itself is symptomatic of a larger malaise in the American left: the elevation of the personal over the political. Costly wars and civil liberties are thrown to the wayside (save when they can be used as cudgels against Republicans and other assorted right-wingers) and issues like gay marriage are pushed to the forefront not because the rights of gays lie in the balance but because it allows progressives to draw lines in the sand, to feel they are good because conservatives are bad. I by no means seek to defend homophobia: rather, I seek to defend humanity, and even if one side is ineffably correct and the other side is entirely wrong, there is humanity on both sides. This is what Ireland taught us last weekend, and this is what America should take from that victory for liberty.
No comments:
Post a Comment