The annual APSA conference is in New Orleans, LA this year. LA is one of over 15 states in the U.S. to pass a law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, denying politically determined rights to same sex union/marriages/partnerships. A direct appeal has been sent to political scientists all over the country (and apparently all over the globe as it has been received by colleagues in Canada and Europe) to boycott the meeting--arguing that such a law as passed in LA is representative of bigotry and hatred.
My mentor Steve Saideman has blogged about the question of boycotting the meeting. You can read his blog here. I started to simply reply on his blog but decided instead to blog on this topic here on my own blogspot. Unfortunately this blog may be rather long, bear with me if you will. And as always, it is just my two cents.
Bigotry is marked by being obstinately intolerant of others whose own opinions and prejudices are not the same as those you hold. Is then a law that defines marriage bigotry? Possibly if one argues that tolerance of everything is required of everyone. The LA law does not say to do harm to people because they are different, the LA law defines and protects the belief of a majority of the citizens of LA. So, the law is not bigotry, the law is support for the position of a majority of the population (and this is still the majority opinion of the population of the U.S.) believing that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Bigotry would be shown by how individuals act toward people who in the case of homosexuality have chosen to be different (the science on arguments that homosexuality is not by choice but genetic is disputable). The law does not act, the law defines...people act. Does the law encourage bigotry--that may be an unintended consequence worth examining at some point.
The denial of legal rights is predicated upon definitions and placement of people into legal categories. Placement of people into categories for the provision of legal rights has been upheld by courts in the U.S. for over a few decades now. So, rights are not denied by law, they are given by law. This previous statement represents the fundamental difference between right and liberty. Liberty is yours regardless of statement of governing authority. Rights are determined by and granted by legal authority. Arguing that legal rights have been denied is not possible unless a person is in the category as defined by law and has been denied the right in question. Since same sex union/marriage/partnership is not classified by law in LA, there are no rights to be denied to people who chose to classify themselves in this position in LA.
Ok, so I am done addressing legal issues. The next is moral. Appealing to Jesus as the ultimate in telling us to not be bigots is old and cliche and generally based on poor biblical understanding or scholarship. First, we can get out our Bible and find that God commands not tolerance but obedience to His teaching. God's teaching is that homosexuality is sin. God also says to love sinners but not sin. So, morally we should not be bigoted toward those who are sinning. Again, however, I fail to equate legal definition of marriage as immoral given God's own defining of it in His word. I do, however, equate mistreatment of homosexuals as immoral, also based on God's word. So, from a moral perspective I am not caught up in a quandry about the LA law and its intentions or purposes. I am, however, disturbed by potential unintended consequences of the law and whether or not people should intentionally legislate religiously biased morality.
Finally, should an organization boycott a state because of the political beliefs of some of the organizations members. Are these members the majority? If they are, they can control or should be able to control something as trivial as location of meetings. Will I boycott a meeting because of its location? No, heck I went to Montreal in winter to go to a meeting, and I much prefer New Orleans anytime of year to some other locations.
Do you make a statement of moral judgment by deciding to attend a conference? If I go to NY for a conference does this mean I agree with the draconian anti-gun laws of NY? If I attend conference in Washington, DC does this mean I agree with all the laws passed by the U.S. federal government? I do not find this to be a reasonable question or assumption on anyone's part. So, will I boycott--no. I'm going to New Orleans, learn something about what colleagues are researching, present a little of my own work, and enjoy the best coffee in the U.S. as well as a good variety of jazz and seafood in the company of good friends and colleagues (some of whom are homosexuals, by the way).
My mentor Steve Saideman has blogged about the question of boycotting the meeting. You can read his blog here. I started to simply reply on his blog but decided instead to blog on this topic here on my own blogspot. Unfortunately this blog may be rather long, bear with me if you will. And as always, it is just my two cents.
Bigotry is marked by being obstinately intolerant of others whose own opinions and prejudices are not the same as those you hold. Is then a law that defines marriage bigotry? Possibly if one argues that tolerance of everything is required of everyone. The LA law does not say to do harm to people because they are different, the LA law defines and protects the belief of a majority of the citizens of LA. So, the law is not bigotry, the law is support for the position of a majority of the population (and this is still the majority opinion of the population of the U.S.) believing that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Bigotry would be shown by how individuals act toward people who in the case of homosexuality have chosen to be different (the science on arguments that homosexuality is not by choice but genetic is disputable). The law does not act, the law defines...people act. Does the law encourage bigotry--that may be an unintended consequence worth examining at some point.
The denial of legal rights is predicated upon definitions and placement of people into legal categories. Placement of people into categories for the provision of legal rights has been upheld by courts in the U.S. for over a few decades now. So, rights are not denied by law, they are given by law. This previous statement represents the fundamental difference between right and liberty. Liberty is yours regardless of statement of governing authority. Rights are determined by and granted by legal authority. Arguing that legal rights have been denied is not possible unless a person is in the category as defined by law and has been denied the right in question. Since same sex union/marriage/partnership is not classified by law in LA, there are no rights to be denied to people who chose to classify themselves in this position in LA.
Ok, so I am done addressing legal issues. The next is moral. Appealing to Jesus as the ultimate in telling us to not be bigots is old and cliche and generally based on poor biblical understanding or scholarship. First, we can get out our Bible and find that God commands not tolerance but obedience to His teaching. God's teaching is that homosexuality is sin. God also says to love sinners but not sin. So, morally we should not be bigoted toward those who are sinning. Again, however, I fail to equate legal definition of marriage as immoral given God's own defining of it in His word. I do, however, equate mistreatment of homosexuals as immoral, also based on God's word. So, from a moral perspective I am not caught up in a quandry about the LA law and its intentions or purposes. I am, however, disturbed by potential unintended consequences of the law and whether or not people should intentionally legislate religiously biased morality.
Finally, should an organization boycott a state because of the political beliefs of some of the organizations members. Are these members the majority? If they are, they can control or should be able to control something as trivial as location of meetings. Will I boycott a meeting because of its location? No, heck I went to Montreal in winter to go to a meeting, and I much prefer New Orleans anytime of year to some other locations.
Do you make a statement of moral judgment by deciding to attend a conference? If I go to NY for a conference does this mean I agree with the draconian anti-gun laws of NY? If I attend conference in Washington, DC does this mean I agree with all the laws passed by the U.S. federal government? I do not find this to be a reasonable question or assumption on anyone's part. So, will I boycott--no. I'm going to New Orleans, learn something about what colleagues are researching, present a little of my own work, and enjoy the best coffee in the U.S. as well as a good variety of jazz and seafood in the company of good friends and colleagues (some of whom are homosexuals, by the way).
Stanton,
ReplyDeleteI have always appreciated your views, and have taken a liking to your blog in recent months. It's kind of nice to hear your thoughts outside of the Grove City Bubble, to hear you say the things which would otherwise be frowned upon in the classroom. Not that that really stopped you in the first place; which I found great amusement from on a daily basis (I still think my favorite comment came in '08 following the election of President Obama, when someone asked you how you felt about it. Your words were "Honestly I don't care either way. They both suck."). Anyways, as someone who is gay, I was particularly curious to read your latest entry. I think by the end of my time at GCC people assumed I was a crazy "liberal" who only wanted liberty and justice for gay individuals-and ultimately screw over Christian straight people and their Bible thumping beliefs. Naturally, the slightest bit of leaning toward a bluer shade of politics-or thinking really- bred contempt. Likewise, as a gay person, the leaning of myself towards any shade of red was equally condemned. Either way I was (am) made out to be betraying someone.
Reading through your post, however, and though I may differ with you on some points, I wonder why people can't see things the way you described. Even though the APSA is made up of what I assume to be well renown intellectuals, I can't help but feel that a boycott is too trendy, too "bandwagony." I personally would like to get married, to a female, and am one step closer considering that I am engaged, but I don't condemn states that aren't in favor of my doing so, nor do I stop my visitation. There are 6 states, plus Washington DC, which allow same sex marriage. Simple math tells us that 44 do not, and as you said 15 states have laws that strictly prohibit it. All in all, my travel schedule, in terms of boycotting opposing states, would be VERY limited.
Planning a boycott, refusing to go somewhere, setting up tents outside of the offices of "corporate America" and refusing to leave until the "99%" are heard....All of it seems too trendy. Do people really know what they are boycotting, what they are protesting? So many times I hear the words thrown around and I wonder if people really have any idea what they mean, or if the followers they accrue really believe in the cause. I think people get so caught up in a "movement", or caught up in opposing a "movement" that they lose sight of reality and the facts of...life.
Long story short. I'm gay, and while I'd love for all states to allow myself and my fiance to get married, I respect that states don't. I don't have to like it, but I don't have the authority to deny them their opinion either-which I think APSA 'boycotters' are doing. Disagree until you're blue in the face, but do it in person. Boycotting it, staying away, is in my opinion, a cowardly move. If they are as pissed about it as they seem they should show up and make noise,because really their absence isn't going to make a difference to anyone.
And, honestly, if you're going to New Orleans don't stop at coffee and crayfish--eat a beignet--or ten!! :)
-Jesy Littlejohn
Thanks Jesy, I appreciate your comments. Particularly interested in how some of my colleagues would take to the boycott being called "cowardly"? I also appreciate your thoughts about being caught up in a "movement" which I believe many of my colleagues should consider--particularly those who engage in ethnic and minority politics.
ReplyDelete