A Lesson in Empathy: Gay Rights are Civil Rights
"The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?... (T)he state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights."
-- Jerry Brown
"Prop 8 Should Be Struck Down"
4 March 2009
A Lesson in Empathy: Gay Rights are Civil Rights
by
Justice Putnam
I am not Gay, but I insist on Gay Rights. I am not Black either; in fact, I am not part of any identifiable minority. I am not Asian, Hispanic or Middle Eastern. I am not physically disabled. I am not too poor, I am not an immigrant and I am not a woman; but I believe that equality for all means just that.
In my youth, a neighbor explained to my dad how he could never feel comfortable with blacks having equal rights. I guess I should mention the repercussions of our family's involvement in the Civil Rights movement; how we had crosses burned on our front lawn, molotov cocktails tossed at the garage, bomb threats called into my dad's office at the university he taught at.
"I was mugged and beaten by some ni##*^s when I was seventeen," I remember the neighbor stating, "I just can't trust any of them anymore."
I recall my dad, in his patient commonsense, explain to the neighbor how it was wrong to condemn a whole race for the transgressions of a few. But I know that neighbor's state of mind, because I had a similar one for years. I found nothing wrong with denigrating Gays at every turn.
Why?
Because I was molested by one as a child.
I hold no secrets. I don't hide behind a nom de plume and I have had a long public life; albeit, one that is minor at best. My life has been an open book and I have not spared myself in the narrative.
I was not particularly traumatized by the molestation. I was also not the only one who was molested at that summer school in 1966; but my family was the only one who took the perpetrator to court where he pled guilty.
I didn't need to go to counseling because my parents were so adept at it themselves. But by high school, a disdain of anything homosexual gripped me anyway. The worst invective, the worst insult was to call someone a fag; if a referee made a dubious call during a football game, he was a fag; if someone made a bonehead driving maneuver, they were fags; if someone didn't measure up to my "exalted values," they were fags.
That temperament changed when I stopped some toughs who attended another school from beating up a guy I knew in my acting class. Mickey later went on to be a regular extra for the entire run of the television show, Happy Days, but I knew little of his personal life when I came to his aid.
I was a five-sport varsity letterman and captain of the debate team. I had also been writing poetry and stories since I was in elementary school and wanted to learn playwriting; I figured some acting classes would help.
The three toughs who were kicking Mickey near the orange grove as I happened by were calling him a faggot. In spite of my feelings at the time about homosexuality, three toughs kicking a guy on the ground was immoral. I didn't hesitate and had no trouble chasing the three away.
I helped Mickey to his feet and could tell he was hurt pretty bad. Being not far from my Placentia/ Yorba Linda, California home, I insisted he go with me so he could clean the blood off his face and my mom could call his mom.
"Why were those guys kicking you?" I asked, "and calling you a faggot?"
"Because I'm Gay." Mickey replied.
By the time we walked the two blocks up Yorba Linda Blvd to our cul de sac, I had an epiphany.
It would never occur to me to call a black man, the "N" word, why would it be ok then, to call someone a faggot and hate them for it?
It just didn't make sense.
I understood then and there, that Gay Rights were Civil Rights. Denying a Gay to just be was as un-Civil as denying equal rights to any group.
I went on to travel and play music. I acted some and have written a lot. I taught briefly and worked many diverse jobs. I married and had a son who then married and had a son and daughter.
Why would Mickey, or any Gay man, or any Lesbian be denied all that? Why would they be denied Equal Protection under the Law? Why would they be denied Due Process, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Only because they are Gay or Lesbian?
I was molested by one man who I understood to be homosexual. I know that not all homosexuals are to be judged by the transgressions of the few idiots.
I also know that the anger and fear any of us may have for any individual or group is not enough to justify the denial of Equal Protection and Due Process.
The denial of these inherent rights, these inalienable rights; yes, these Civil Rights is... well, immoral.
© 2009 by Justice Putnam
and Mechanisches-Strophe Verlagswesen
Life takes strange turns. Such a cliche but so true.
I really did not know what homosexuality was until I was out of high school.
I really felt--as I still do--that a woman's body was the most wonderful thing in the world. And my church told me it was the most sinful.
Even the thoughts broke god's law.
Really a different world. The f word was used a lot when I was a kid but I really did not know what it meant.
I think the reason that people vote against these propositions, is residual bias. I suppose I am naive but I really do not understand it. Unless it just goes back to religion. I still feel a little tug from the RCC from time to time. But at one point in my life it had a real hold on me.
March 5, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leviticus said the crippled should be stoned to death for the result of their sins, in which God made them crippled.
I know it's the Old Testament; but if there are Absolutes in the Universe, that is absolutely wrong.
Because of that and strictures from the Roman Catholic Church, I find it difficult to let Religion guide our paths.
Everyone is equal and afforded due process in a democracy; it is only when Religion has been allowed in the public square that equal protection and due process come into question.
March 5, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so very much for this post.
March 5, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
... and thank you for reading!
March 5, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does not take much at all to push a person to be become prejudiced. Homosexuality carries so much of a stigma, that many so called progressives are reluctant to speak up. That is a terrible thing. They are afraid of being thought of as gay.
March 5, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Progressives afraid to speak up, due to fear someone will think they're gay? Think again!
March 5, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were molested by a pedophile. Not a gay man. He may also have been gay. But he was a pedophile. (Few gay men are pedophiles. And few pedophiles restrict themselves to only boys. It's important to say this for the record.)
You were fortunate that your parents took this seriously and took it to the police!
Thanks for a great blog!
March 5, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What TheraP said here is very important, and she is correct. Victims of Pedophilia are usually not targeted because of gender, it is opportunity. If pedophiles' adult to adult sexuality gender preferences is the standard used for determining their sexual orientation, pedophiles are predominantly heterosexual and male when compared to the human population as a whole.
This is important, not just to avoid improperly stigmatising homosexuals, but to increase awareness properly in an effort to decrease the incidence of pedophilia. Another important factor to consider is that pedophiles generally choose victims that they know, not strangers.
March 5, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with being molested by a man at 10 years of age is how my little brain proceseed it.
As I stated in the essay, he was a guy I took to be gay in that I was not the first little boy he had done that to; he never molested any little girls for instance. As I also stated about the neighbor who condemned all blacks for the incident he had gone through, it was wrong to condemn a whole group for the transgressions of a few.
I would put it to you though, that the rate of pedophilia is very much the same in the homosexual community as in any other.
March 5, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
In publications that claim homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, an often found citation is to "psychologist Eugene Abel". A major problem with this citation is that it is nothing more than a respewed misattribution. The respected Psychiatrist who is an expert about pedophilia is actually Gene G. Abel, M.D.
In The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study; Excerpted from "The Stop Child Molestation Book"; by Gene G. Abel, M.D., and Nora Harlow (Xlibris 2001); (Study text revised April 2002) is found:
What is the percentage of men in the total population who are homosexual. Is it more or less than 8%? There is also a very important consideration to make here: the sexual preferences of these pedophiles was self-rated, making it a somewhat dubious statistic to begin with.
March 5, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope I didn't imply that Homosexuals have a higher rate of Pedophilia than Heteros; but somewhere the same ratio as the "general" population. Just as the same ratio of drug use on a sports team ais the same as the "general" population; or ratios of divorce, vegetarianism, etc.
No more and no less.
March 5, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice,
no, you did not imply that there is a higher incidence of homosexual pedophiles than there are homosexuals in the total population. The point I was attempting to get across is that in real studies regarding pedophilia, there seems to be an indication that its rate amongst homosexuals is actually slightly less than the ratio of homosexuals in the total population, but that this statistic is questionable from the git, because it it is derived from the respondents' answers only.
This is not a topic I relish discussing. For me it is utterly alien, incomprehensible to me. My age preferences for physical attractiveness in women has pretty much progressed along with me, and the thought of having a relationship with someone younger than my nieces is distasteful. Pedophilia is not an erotic crime; it is a crime of domination, in which sex is used as a weapon. I did some digging into it back when many right-wingers were claiming that Mark Foley's behavior with Congressional Pages was pedophilia, which is absolutely farcical, unless the right has been doing strange experimentation upon their teen-aged boys. It was while doing this research, I ran into a fixed set of citations that were published exactly the same all over on the net, and further digging discovered that the Abel citation was errant.
March 5, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
March 6, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beautifully written. You should e-mail Andrew Sullivan your story.
March 5, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
March 5, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although a fairly consistent Christian Lefty, I wasn't particularly on-fire for gay marriage, especially since it wasn't a personal issue for me. But when I realized how much it pisses off evangelicals, I began to see some real merit to it. Of course, that's not why gays marry. They marry for love, as does everyone else. Even so, it always warms my heart to antagonize the pious buffoons who do so much to make authentic faith unappealing to this generation.
March 5, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point I was trying to make is that Due Process and Equal Protection are more important than a personal affiliation with an aggrieved party.
But I'm with you on sticking it to these evangelical sychophants any chance I get.
March 5, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My take on why many people are unconcerned with the topic: They feel very removed from the question. It's someone else's concern.
I'm a straight guy. I could be in that position. But...I have gay family members. So their question is my question. And now my other question is this: How do we, as people who do care about this, for whatever reason, make this question relevant to more people?
I don't think street demonstrations and harangues are the answer (to much of anything, really, not just this), I think we need to find ways to personalize it. People don't do things because it's "the right thing to do" nearly so much as they do things because they matter personally to the particular individual.
March 6, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am very discouraged by the Justices questions today in CA regarding Prop. 8, so I actually have a question. If they uphold the voter's decision, as appears likely, can another initiative be put on the ballot to negate the Yes vote in Nov.?
March 5, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm upset as well; the proposition was written apparently, to deny a "counter-proposition," which also seems unconstitutional on its face.
If the "will of the people" is the gauge in which the Justice's are seeming to judge by, will they role back guarantees for mixed-race marriages? Housing for racial and other minorities?
The "will of the people" in those cases were in much greater numbers than Prop 8.
The Tyranny of a bare majority is alive and well, I guess.
We'll find out for sure in around 90 days when the Court hands down its ruling.
March 5, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, thanks, that just ruined my day, re: counter-proposition. So the only turn around would be the US Supreme Court, someday. How depressing.
March 5, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
On another issue of equal importance; the initiative process is broken and has been taken over by anti-tax, racial bigots. Prop 8 now and Prop 13 in the 70's shows that.
I'm no fan of Jerry Brown, but he put it well in the following:
"... (F)undamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that "all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights" and "among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."
These fundamental premises of a free people were declared when the constitution was first adopted. The initiative process came much later in 1911, when the immediate concern was to give the people power over the railroads, which were seen as having a stranglehold over the legislature. In creating this initiative process, there was no discussion or any evidence of intent to permit a simple majority of voters to take away the pre-existing rights deemed inalienable by Article I."
Federalist Society Judges seem to weigh more to the Majority than to protect the Minority.
As great as Felix Frankfurter was, the Supreme Court really only addressed the protection of the minority over the tyranny of the majority from the Warren Court up to the Rehnquist Court.
The current Roberts Court seems to to be even more recalcitrant than the Rehnquist.
Maybe we here in California can start an initiative to deny marriage, property and inheritance rights to home-schooled Pentacosts.
I mean, hey! According to these Prop 8 proponents, lifestyle choices have consequences.
I'm sure that the Kennard and Roberts/"Scalito" would concur.
March 5, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think ballot initiatives are horrible, and should not be allowed. I am in CA, and I swear, just trying to decipher them is ridiculous. I am fed up with this whole process. Jerry Brown has been right on the mark with this one. I would hope the Judges today asked the questions to subdue the outrage, and then will come back and say this violates equal protection, not to mention it bypasses the Legislature in respect to changing the state constitution, if I have my facts straight, which is also illegal.
March 5, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "revision" to the state constitution is a much higher hurdle than an "amendment." A revision needs a 2/3 majority in both the state senate and assembly, plus, it goes to a general election and requires a signature from the governor.
This initiative does indeed revise the constitution in taking away constitutional guarantees.
The Birchers have had control of this state for some time now; that's why our bond rating is worse in the nation and a budget can't be passed...
... and gays are denied property and inheritance rights.
March 5, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice, thank you for so eloquently and personally taking a stand for civil rights.
One of the major points of manufactured contention regarding sexual orientation (and homosexuality in particular) is the equating of sexual orientation with sexual activity. The argument is that sexual activity is a "choice," and that people who are gay or lesbian or bisexual are therefore making "immoral" choice. Further, as "Takisha" demonstrates, one can pit oppressions saying that race is more important because homosexuals are choosing to engage in sin.
However, sexual orientation is NOT sexual activity or "lifestyle." If those who are heterosexual were forced into a homosexual "lifestyle" it would not make them homosexual. Likewise, those who are homosexual who are forced into (by social pressure, engrained self hatred, or other reasons) into a heterosexual "lifestyle" are not heterosexual.
I am a lesbian, and I am convinced that one's sexual orientation is an inherent part of oneself. This is not to say that I think that sexual orientation is totally biological, but that as it emerges it is an integrated and relatively fixed component of "self." This is true whether one is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. We ALL have a sexual orientation and it is an integrated and significant component of who we are.
I did not "choose" to be a lesbian. I did make a choice however. I want to stress that this was the my personal choice and that others face this dilemma in their own personal ways. The way the dilemma of my sexual orientation presented itself for me was one of survival of my "self." I could choose to be who I was and save my "self," or I could choose to deny my "self" and be who everyone thought I should be. That denial of "self" for me would have meant a killing of who I was. Given my life and circumstances, I could not choose to kill my "self." There have been very high costs in my life for making that "choice."
I would hope that we can eventually move away from the rhetoric about sexuality and try to understand sexual orientation. Everyone is being demeaned by treating orientation as sexual activity. The framing denies us all (regardless of orientation) the right to understand and integrate our whole selves. It also means that non-heterosexuals are mono-dimensionally defined by their orientation.
If civil rights only apply to specific groups, then they are privileges not rights. This has been the ongoing struggle in the United States - to take the privileges and protections of citizenship and expand them to cover all citizens. Regardless of the basis of unequal protection under the law (race, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion, nation of origin, gender, social class, ownership of property ...) the fundamental protections and privileges should not be given to part of our population while denying them to others.
March 5, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being in rock and roll when I was younger; with all the travel and partying that was involved, I experimented with many substances and many "lifestyle choices." One thing I learned is that I was born a heterosexual; I'm naturally affectionate, but I just don't find men attractive to me sexually.
I was born a hetero; and no matter how much I might have tried to be otherwise, I remain and always have been a hetero.
I figure it's the same with gays and lesbians.
And why would I want someone to be other than they are? It just doesn't seem very democratic or fair.
March 6, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if we are born with a sexual orientation or not, but it is certainly a durable and deeply rooted part of us.
I agree with you 100% on fairness.
March 6, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink