The same sex marriage bill [Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill] passed in the NZ Parliament last night, to much jubliation from its supporters. Like many others, I watched the debate with members of my family live on Parliament TV. It was history in the making.
Lew Stoddart, blogging at Kiwipolitico today (see: Recognising the enemy) quoted from Green MP Kevin Hague’s third reading speech wherein Hague described the vitriol and tactics deployed by some opponents of earlier homosexual law reform and this latest ‘marriage equality’ bill (soon to be legislation).
In a quietly-passionate speech (video here) Hague breaks it down to “[opponents of the bill] believe that we gay and lesbian people are morally inferior. They don’t want to include us as as full participants in New Zealand society.” (about 5’00 in the video) Lew offers his own analysis (please read it), parts of which line up so neatly with my own dismay at hatred-of-the-other/outsider views I thought I’d cherry-pick him (emphasis in original):
Kevin Hague’s measured words and calm delivery obscure a stark and clear-sighted analysis: This is war. The enemy does not regard us as human, and they never will, so we must defeat them utterly. When it comes to GLBTI people, adherents to this creed of brimstone will be satisfied with nothing less than extermination and erasure: they are an existential threat. Although it is often couched in those terms, beneath the veneer theirs is not a rational objection founded in philosophy or pragmatism, in science or honest assessment of tradition; it is simply fear and hatred that burns like the fires they preach. This is not confined to the religious sphere — variants of the brimstone creed exist within secular society, and across a broad ideological spectrum, but they share extremism in common. Much of the discourse around marriage equality, and much of the discourse around related matters, rests on ignoring, minimising or mocking those who stand up for the brimstone creed, but the brilliance of Kevin’s analysis is that he meets them — and it — kanohi ki te kanohi, staring it in the face and recognising it for what it is.
Let me be clear: I supported that proposed legislation and have been pleased by my local MP Maurice Williamson’s outspokenness on the issue. I made a point of discussing it with him in person and encouraged Maurice in his stand (not that I detected he needed any confirmation from me). I also largely agree with Lew in his analysis of the ‘battles ahead’ (read his blog post). And I’m not being argumentative for the sake of it, I promise.
That said, something does not sit right in me with Lew’s declaration of war: We must ‘defeat them utterly’:
All of us who believe in a just society, and an equal society, who believe in a place where ancient prejudices, cultural inertia or the maintenance of privilege cannot justify erasure must fight these battles too. The brimstone creed isn’t just an existential threat to “teh gays” — it is an existential threat to a free and decent society, and we will not have won until we defeat them utterly.
Hmm, Lew, hang on, … can’t those comments be seen as pretty closely resembling the very hatred of the out-group you complain about? Labelling ourselves as ‘believers in a just society’ is a good thing (yay!) but setting a goal to stamp out any opposition to our ‘enlightened views’? What?
They’re sincere believers of another stripe, some of those opponents. They’re fellow citizens, good people. They’re not all raving bigots. There’s always a vocal hard core, on any side of a controversy, and one can’t reliably generalize, tempting as it may be to do so.
It’s one thing to complain about another group’s enmity or lack of empathy … quite another to ourselves display similar levels of the very same qualities, doncha think?
I like Lew — like him a lot — and I respect his views, but (kindly) are we seeing an example of this phenomenon?: “Choose your enemies carefully, because you will become like them.”
– P
UPDATE: Just for context, this video, which I stitched together from hate-merchant Andrew Breitbart’s trailer, is what I hear in the background when I hear people say ‘This is war!’ about political debate:
from my post Warnings of militancy. Not just an ultra-right thaang.
Peter,
Karl Popper’s Paradox of Toleration is what I hold to here: we must not be so tolerant as to permit the growth of intolerance to undermine our society.
I should be clear that it’s not the ordinary opponents of marriage equality, civil rights, and so on who I consider an existential threat — most people can be reasoned with, and of course dissent and difference must be welcomed. The Borrowses and even the Bakshis are not “the enemy” as I have defined it.
But others are not amenable to reason, or discourse, and simply wish to prevent or roll back any form of social change that lies outside their narrow creed.
L
Cheers Lew, thanks for clarifying, here and on Twitter (below), who it is you’re wanting to ‘utterly defeat’: ‘Fundies’. (Sorry, mate, some of my best friends etc etc…)
We (they) can disagree, but the neat thing about democracy — and with the evolution of Parliament i.e. with MMP, list MPs giving better representation — is that religious extremists (no-one likes being called that, but sometimes the cap fits) are out-voted.
Like last night: Inclusiveness won. – P
PS We agree more than disagree about most things, Lew. I’m certainly NOT accusing you of hate speech — I just winced when I read your thought-provoking piece. Thanks for writing and posting it.
https://twitter.com/LewStoddart/status/324717253188780034
Are you serious Peter. you have just disgustingly back tracked.
What do you mean? – P
It’s a culture war, and some of the combatants do want to destroy. There are some compelling quotes from a few in the gay lobby wanting to totally destroy the concept of monogamy and marriage, for example.
However, without getting distracted by a range of different objectives, it’s obviously worth making a point:
I don’t like that society is creating far too many single parent families. Aside from all of the “good” reasons to put up with family breakdown, I’m still left with the impression that this is a bad thing and maybe we aren’t as committed as we should be, as giving as we should be, and as self-sacrificing as we need to be. Because single parent families are less than optimal.
But if anyone decided that made me bigoted against “single parent families” or that I would treat the people involved as “unequal” or that I “do not regard [them] as human, and they never will, ” then they are assuming way too much, and they need to spend a bit more time finding out a bit more before jumping to that conclusion.
Thanks for your comments ZenTiger.
So you agree with Ian Wishart on the debate as ‘culture war’?
That’s important, because I don’t see social/democratic reform in those terms, although I’d be a fool to ignore the fact that some do.
My one time next door neighbour Fran Wilde was the sponsor of the Homosexual Law Reform bill which ‘decriminalised’ male homosexuality in NZ in the 1980s. I was politically aware but, like today, not a member of any partisan group.
The hate-filled debate (were you there, ZenTiger?) — one side seeking desperately to be recognised as NOT CRIMINALS by the very nature of their feelings, and the other side wanting to KEEP THEM CLASSED AS CRIMINALS — was torrid. It was ghastly.
The right side won, in my opinion. The law needed to be changed. It was unjust and absurd to engage the state’s Justice system in an issue of personal morality, where no harm was done. Sexual predators of all stripes exist, in all contexts. The predation is the wrong act, not the sexual ‘orientation’.
Do you see that differently? If you do, with respect, we have a gulf between us on that issue.
Slippery slope arguments aside, I could see as a teenager that it was WRONG and EVIL to maintain a society which subjected homosexual men to persecution — official and unofficial — condemning to them to a life in the shadows, subject to all manner of nasty, vile predations and abuse, and in many cases, beyond the reach of the law or Justice system when they were poofter-bashed or robbed or raped.
I went to a single-sex school and in my class were two boys Glen and Neil who were unmistakably effeminate. They were called names — ‘fairies’ and ‘poofters’ and worse — and had all manner of indignity (to my knowledge, not physical violence, but I’m not certain of that) and some vulgar bullies *talked about* getting them to engage in oral sex etc … but hormone-adled, braggadocio-loving teenage boys talk a lot of crap.
Those two classmates did me a huge favour by just being in my class — in my circle, and interacting with me. I could see they weren’t ‘acting’ as they did, their effeminate ways and manner wasn’t a put-on. God knows there was plenty of social pressure on them to act differently, to ‘man up’.
They were just who they were, they contributed, and, by being ‘seen’ as that by me, accepted as that, they added to my mental picture of the world.
Put that in context of my comments yesterday about the challenge to the then-existing prejudice and order that people like David Bowie presented
http://www.thepaepae.com/david-bowies-influence-on-acceptance-of-gay-lifestyle/29562/
and you may realise that as I understand it, the social revolution — the ‘culture war’ of which you and Ian Wishart speak — was, for me, far more a journey of discovering our empathy for our fellow human beings.
– P
I realise that I’ve shared what Ian Wishart dismissed on The Nation as ‘cuddly anecdotes’.
That’s honestly how I came to my conclusions. Rather than coldly, legalistically refer to dogma (religious or otherwise) which classed homosexuality as ‘wrong’ or ‘unnatural’ etc, I just considered those whom I met, got to know them a bit, and experienced their humanity. (Empathy.)
Yes, some of them were desperately unhappy — but no more so than other people with ‘normal’ conflicts in their lives.
– P
It is indeed “kulturkampf” and i dont think many realise how far it goes or will go in the future.
We are living in the equivalent of the 20’s and 30’s and we are going to repeat the past ….
The ‘flappers’ and hedonists of this new golden age are going to become part and parcel of the cause of the next great conflict.
And the giant thing called the world will hit the “re-set” button.
If you thought you had values that you had inherited – be prepared to see them stripped from you and made a laughinstock of …
Then see what happens.
Human nature is nothing if not predictable ….
Hi Peter, there is no question the treatment of homosexuals back then (and still now around the world) was a gross violation of human rights, and I am with you on that. I’d add we have a lot further to go in this area – as I said in one of my posts, I’m not impressed with people like Matt McCarten who professes to speak up for LGBT whilst simultaneously mocking a priest for being a “man in a frock”. If he thinks he’s scored points with that insult, I’d like him to repeat it with a smile on his face in front of a room full of transvestites.
However, as much as those injustices are to homosexuals, I don’t see it as a gay problem. The problem lies with the attitudes of the people who act in that way, although they each have their targets. That is the real problem we need to deal with, in a more holistic way. Having a fundamentally sound moral code would mean that all people are treated with respect and dignity, irrespective of any variety of factors. Even with growing acceptance of homosexuals, I still see the same kind of intolerant behaviour aimed at other groups by people on all sides of the spectrum.
I’ll come back when I have time to respond to your queries and points about “culture war”. In short, when I use that term, I’m talking about a small part of the entire cultural context I think you are working with, and I use the term in a far more positive way than “war” implies. That’s in part because changing words illustrates perfectly that words then lose their meaning. We should do so lightly, although that is not the way of the progressive elements of our western culture.
Thanks. Sure, yes, please do come back and help me understand what you mean by ‘culture war’.
Two quick responses from me:
1) I’m appalled at the anti-Catholic vitriol that some deploy — including the ugly bigotry routinely published and hosted by Cameron Slater on his website.
It’s offensive to exercise sectarian prejudice against a group on the basis of their membership of a religious organisation like the Catholic Church — which, hyperbole aside, while a conservative force in some areas, also has lent its weight to social justice reforms and charitable ends.
I personally see Matt McCarten’s dumb joke in the same vein as Maurice Williamson’s dumb joke about someone practising celibacy being somehow unqualified to warn of ‘unnatural acts’: crowd banter rather than Mein Kampf stuff.
It’s foolish to judge a ‘side’ by its extremists, as I’m sure you agree.
A beehive staffer I follow on Twitter reported her Minister received an
2) Yes, written communication and argument is very limited and terribly open to ambiguity and misunderstanding.
For reference: that clip of Andrew Breitbart above (“War!”) disgusts me. Hateful, hateful stuff. The opposite of empathy.
Talk soon. – P
Before I get to my updated perspective of the Culture Wars, here’s a post I did back in 2007 when before I could even go to war, I had to prove I had a culture: Culture Quota Club The first link in my post takes you back to the accusation.
And maybe this is relevant: Making Civilisation Civilised.
..I’ll get to your question… 🙂
OK thanks. Funny.
So that’s Fundy Post. I was introduced to him in person recently as if I should know who he was but at that stage hadn’t read anything he’d written. Cheers. (I hope it doesn’t offend you to say I enjoyed reading what he wrote about you more than your rather tight defensive response.)
It seems Fundy Post, and you in reply, were there talking about culture as artistic, creative endeavour. Works of art, however one defines those.
While it can be amusing to watch a bourgeoisie duel of wits … (and who wittier than Clive James in your second link? I love his writing anyway, but the layers in that passage you quoted run very deep. Thought-provoking. Thanks) … I’m pretty sure that’s not what ‘culture wars’ has come to mean in this context.
And it’s not what Ian Wishart meant when he referred to “a culture wars issue” during his The Nation interview lamenting ‘da media’s’ role in the same-sex marriage debate — which I referred to here: http://www.thepaepae.com/david-bowies-influence-on-acceptance-of-gay-lifestyle/29562/.
As I see it, we’re talking about a clash of world views & societal values which expresses itself in arguments between ‘progressives’ and ‘reactionaries’ about community standards, laws relating to non-financial ‘morality’ and attitudes to criminal sentencing, even seeking control of scientific research (stem cell research etc) beyond conventional ‘medical ethics’ standards.
In the US the ‘moral majority’ has used tactics in defence of ‘traditional values’ such that they expended their social capital. They were exposed as bullies and bigots, notwithstanding that some had a history of being on the receiving end of religious prejudice and bigotry.
We may not see this the same way, you and I, but for instance, is this a recent example of ‘culture wars’?:
The attempts by “a nonprofit family interest group” ‘One Million Moms’ to rally a boycott against JC Penney department stores in an effort to get them to drop Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson: http://www.christianpost.com/news/one-million-moms-moving-on-from-jc-penney-ellen-degeneres-protest-86178/
… where the campaigners are reported as admitting that ‘they did not have any objections to the content of the new JC Penney ad, but that it was simply DeGeneres’ appearance that was at issue.’
They’re also offended by the depiction of ‘non-traditional family lifestyles’.
Is that it?
– P
[…] I mentioned last year, I encouraged Maurice in his ‘stand’ for gay marriage — not that he needed […]