“This is the position in which social conservatives find themselves: they don’t want to think of themselves (or have others think of them) as bigots, but the only arguments they can offer against marriage equality sound a lot like simple prejudice. They’ve changed a lot on the issue of gay rights — they’re more accepting, understanding, and generous than they once were — but they haven’t yet crossed the marriage line.”
-It’s Not Me It’s You, Paul Waldman on The American Prospect
This was written about the Perry v Schwarzenegger case. But it illustrates how social shifts and ensuing shifts in self-conception make the real change. More than the law does. After How Do I Look comes How Do I Feel?
True, and it reminds me of Jeff Jarvis’ piece on oversharing that I posted the other day - specifically this section:
…I think that when we hear such disapproval of our publicness, we need to turn it around and look at what it says about the critic, not the criticized. I’ve just been writing that section of my book, arguing that when gays had to hide in the closet because their behavior was deemed unacceptable, that was a commentary not on their lives but on society. The solution was to come out in public and dare the bigots and prudes to continue their disapproval. The bigots’ behavior is what is becoming unacceptable.
Publicness for the LGBT community has moved them up to - and hopefully soon to be completely over - the marriage line. But continued illumination of the critics, and not just the issues, is what’s needed.
Donors to the pro-Prop 8 camps didn’t want their names and contribution amounts listed publicly. Defendants in the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial didn’t want it televised. They also wanted to keep some of their witnesses shrouded in anonymity. It’s the push for publicness that was putting the pressure on these areas though - something you can also see a pre-trial motion for the defendants to produce internal documents that showed the purpose and intent of Prop 8.
And now, we have this decision from the Supreme Court case John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, and Protect Marriage Washington v. Reed:
A state law that would make public the names of people signing a petition for a voter referendum against greater rights for same-sex partners has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
At issue in this free speech and privacy dispute was whether officials in Washington state properly decided there was a “compelling public interest” when opting to release the names of gay rights opponents who voluntarily signed a statewide petition. The court by an 8-1 vote on Thursday decided in favor of the state.
Eight to one. Eight to one in favor of the state and in favor of publicness.
One more block quote. I give you Chief Justice John Roberts:
“Public disclosure promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. “Public disclosure of referendum petitions in general is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process.”
Let me say this: I believe strongly in anonymity across many, many mediums and environments. But this isn’t an Internet message board, this is public policy, this is law, this is equality and people’s lives. Defend your prejudices in the public.
Feel ashamed? Well, then you should.
