Intolerance: The March of Equal Rights

August 6, 2012 by Peter Kelly in Some Thoughts with 13 Comments

Before you stand against gay marriage think about whether you are in a minority, whether that be religion, ethnicity, place of birth, being left handed, of different skin or hair colour, and how if you are one amongst them maybe you would have been swinging from those ropes as a result of intolerance.

This week it was announced that Scotland, Vietnam and New Zealand are beginning the walk towards equal rights for all sexualities to be married. The Catholic and Anglican Churches of England are in full rout, barely able to take a stand for more than days at a time. President Obama of the US has come out in support of equal marriages as state after state brings their laws up to date. What began with a leak in the wall of Church-lead prejudice in the Netherlands has turned into a tidal wave as the Christian Churches fold yet again.

And yet even as Christian opposition in the developed world collapses, driven by falling numbers in church attendance crippling their political clout, Muslim states are upping the public violence and persecution of homosexuals across the Islamic world. The line is being drawn between the developed world and the developing, the secular and the Islamic, and the voices either side of the line are becoming louder. Championed by the lobbying site “www.allout.org” LGBT allies are creating a global lobbying clout with which to pressure states into pushing through progressive reforms or dropping conservative ones. On the other side of the line Saudi and Iranian public executions are becoming a public declaration that homosexuality is never to be tolerated in the fiercely Islamic states, and ex-Soviet and sub-Saharan African states legislatures are actually pushing further towards the illegality of homosexual acts to the point of death sentences and banning the word “gay”.

The lines are drawn. Ten states list homosexual acts as grounds for the death penalty or life imprisonment. Ten states recognise marriage equality. It’s a tie. But when only ten years ago only one state was in the second category, the tides are clearly turning.

In 1948 a black man could only marry a white woman (or vice versa) in under half of US states. By 1967 only the American south was holding out. On the 12th of June, 1967 these last states were forced to stand down by a court decision branding inequality of marriage between races as unconstitutional. That was only 45 years ago, and yet now the concept of a white man being able to marry a black women as being illegal is a concept which only bears serious consideration in a few lonely farms hundreds of miles from civilisation.

In 1913 many suffragettes were locked behind bars for their protests to grant equal rights to women to vote. In the 1950s and 1960s equal rights for blacks in the US to escape discrimination and regain the right to vote shook America just as in 1967 homosexual acts were no longer threatened with criminality in the United Kingdom. Now lies one of the last major fights for equal rights in the developed world after a century of progress.

It is with this background the next step is being taken. Equality laws enforcing a lack of prejudice is already commonplace in developed states so that companies and governments cannot discriminate based on colour, creed or sexuality. Marriage is simply a facet which was left untouched due to a deference to religion which is swiftly fading.

This progress, which has come across in leaps and bounds through the last century, is the true clash of civilisations which Huntington attempted to theorise in the 1990s. As a battle between modern liberal secularism and equality of all before law, and the forces of conservative prejudice and violent tribalism it has in some way or another defined politics of the last several hundred years. First the English civil war, and the collapse of absolute royal power in the state which would go on to spread its ideas across the world. Then the revolutions of the 1700s cracked the divine right of Monarchies over the rights of their subjects, a cause Napoleon spread by musket across Europe, breaking the tyranny of the European dictators as he marched. The idea of master race rose its ugly head with the Empires of Europe: European slavery and white supremacy leading to conclusion with the gas chambers of Nazi Germany where all minorities shared the same fate. With the collapse of empires in the 1950s and 1960s came the collapse of white supremacy and the first signs of a coffin for institutional tribalism.

The fight continues today as the beginnings of intolerance towards intolerance, of entire societies in which intolerance is banned by law and intolerant societies are no longer respected. It is in this atmosphere that the rulers of Europe began the second decade of this millennium declaring multiculturalism dead and integration as the way forward. This was not a declaration that other cultures were not welcome, quite the opposite, it was a welcoming of others into the fold, but only as long as they showed an equal welcome to those cultures they joined. No longer would the Islamic subjugation of women and hatred of other faiths be tolerated, no longer would hard-line Christians be able to push for the illegality of homosexuality, no longer would nationalists be able to call for the ejection of immigrants, but in turn those immigrants would have to play by the rules of the societies they joined.

As this doctrine of integrated melting-pots of Europe has begun to take hold, so have the liberal and equality values spread. The north-eastern and western US states, South America, South Africa, the Pacific Islands and South East Asia have all begun to push in the same direction. Northern and Central Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia are becoming increasingly isolated in their rhetoric and acts of intolerance. The Arab Spring was the cumulation of escalating pressure on established elites immune to the rule of law to concede power, and the results have refuted the most critical of observers. In Libya liberal parties have seized elections as in Tunisia and Egypt moderate Islamists have confronted fears of a tumble into the intolerance of Saudi Arabia of Iran by promoting liberal reforms, strong constitutions and working with liberal parties to ensure freedoms for women in the newly democratic states.

Gay rights are a symptom of something deeper and more permanent than simply a happily married gay couple moving in next door. It is a symptom of a success in the fight for equal rights and liberal values we have been battling towards for centuries. It is a sign of the collapse of intolerant ideologies and the march of freedom before law across the world, from the Netherlands towards the Islamic World. It is a step by step process and everywhere you look there is conflict marking the battle for every step.

So before you stand against the image of two porcelain men holding hands on top of a wedding cake, rewind to the beginning of the process and scroll to the top of this page. Go back far enough and those men were blasphemers, blacks who disobeyed their masters, women who were raped, Jews, adulterers, barons who stood against the dictatorship of kings and peasants who could not afford to give away their wheat. Before you stand against gay marriage think about whether you are in a minority, whether that be religion, ethnicity, place of birth, being left handed, of different skin or hair colour, and how if you are one amongst them maybe you would have been swinging from those ropes for a petty crime. Those are the values you would have stood for decades and centuries ago, the values where those unlike you do not deserve to stand at your side as an equal.

Then look to the places where gays swing from the gallows, and see that intolerance must be met with intolerance.

Originally published at A Third Opinion.

Tagged Christianity, Equality, Gay, Homosexuality, Intolerance, Iran, Islam, LGBT, Marriage, Netherlands, New Zealand, President Obama, Samuel Huntington, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Vietnam

Share this post

About Peter Kelly

Peter holds an MSc in International Security from the University of Bristol and a BA in Philosophy and Politics from Durham University. His focus is on security and conflict issues in the western world, Middle East and Africa. He runs the site A Third Opinion at http://athirdopinion.net and www.facebook.com/AThirdOpinion

View all posts by Peter Kelly →

IsaacAugust 6, 2012 at 10:41 pmReply

Homosexuality is not conducive to life. Nature precludes procreation from two of the same gender. Sir, if either your mother or father was a homosexual you wouldn’t even be here to write this article. Think about that. Your life would have never been.God is about life and procreation. A mother and father having children. This is wholesome and natural. Life is Gods greatest masterpiece and we need to respect it, cherish it, perpetuate and nurture it.

Peter KellyAugust 8, 2012 at 1:47 pmReply

@Isaac The choice not to have children isn’t conducive to life either, but we don’t prejudice against those who make that choice. BMX riding hardly helps either, I’ve known plenty of men to have had their chances of having children dramatically reduced by the sport, but no hangings for BMX riders in Iran.God isn’t exactly a fantastic argument when no one knows what God you’re referring to. Jewish? Christian? Islamic? Hindu? Sikh? Greek? Norse? Native American? Even if you do pick the same one as whoever you’re talking to, what on earth makes you think that you have the right to enforce your perception of what God is onto the way of life of others, who most likely believe in a different God or no God at all. Homosexuals do not harm life. Nothing they do reduces the chances of others to reproduce or in any way harms life that already exists. Killing them or persecuting them will not increase birth rates. If you want to truly cherish life, leave them alone. Harming their way of life or even going as far as killing them will not create more life, it will not convince people to have more children, it will not protect any ones lives. If you truly cherish life, and believe in a God which created all life, you would understand all life, homosexual or heterosexual, is worth protecting, and that your God does not make mistakes. If God created man, he created homosexuality, who are you to judge him wrong to do so?

RachelAugust 8, 2012 at 1:52 pmReply

@Isaac Peter has already said most of what I’d add below me so I won’t add much.”Sir, if either your mother or father was a homosexual you wouldn’t even be here to write this article. Think about that. Your life would have never been.”I fail to see why that suggests homosexuality is wrong in some way. Gay couples can adopt and give a child a loving home. Conversely, two straight married people may not have children, through choice or otherwise.Suggesting that being gay is wrong because there is no opportunity of natural procreation between them is like suggesting that being an author is wrong because the world needs doctors. There’s room for both, and both may perform great work.

NatAugust 8, 2012 at 2:47 pmReply

@Isaac What about those disgusting heterosexuals who marry and #gasp# don’t want children? They are not conducive to life either. For future reference, God is also about detesting shellfish and not wearing mixed-fibres, so take off that unnatural (yet fabulous) jumper right now.

Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 7, 2012 at 12:41 amReply

With reference to the second-to-last paragraph, the one where ‘Jews’ is a perpetual category of victimhood, lumped next to ‘adulterers’ for some reason, and opposing gay marriage is a bit like supporting rape and slavery: is it possible the hyperbole isn’t quite justified?

Peter KellyAugust 8, 2012 at 1:52 pmReply

Matt Wahnsiedler I do not believe it’s a hyperbole at all. Prejudice is prejudice. If you wish to show intolerance and discrimination against one minority group, why not involve the rest? It’s hardly fair that one group gets all the suffering. If you believe that you can show prejudice against one group without looking just as hateful as aiming at the whole group you are simply blinkered to the reality of your beliefs. The reason I highlighted adulterers is that the apparently death-sentence worthy crime of adultery is commonly punished across the Islamic world, and was in the Christian world throughout much of our history.

Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 8, 2012 at 2:17 pmReply

Peter Kelly To be clear, I have no particular objection to gay marriage. Neverthless, I do object to conflating those who peacefully oppose gay marriage with rapists, slavers and murderers. I’m surprised that requires any explanation.

Peter KellyAugust 8, 2012 at 2:27 pmReply

Matt Wahnsiedler I don’t think I ever made that comparison. I did however lay out groups of people who have faced discrimination in the past, including raped women, slaves and various minorities who have been murdered in their thousands for that identity. I don’t think that meant I was comparing the acts against them to the acts of peaceful demonstrators, but I will certainty compare the mentality involved.

Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 8, 2012 at 2:37 pmReply

Peter Kelly Yes, and after you listed them, you wrote: ‘…if you are one amongst them [targeted groups] maybe you would have been swinging from
those ropes for a petty crime. Those are the values you would have stood
for decades and centuries ago…’How is a mentality that was, ‘decades or centuries ago’, prepared to murder in any way comparable to a mentality that holds that the fundamentals of marriage shouldn’t be altered? Bearing in mind that, as we are all aware, people are still willing to commit acts of violence in support of their beliefs, why this artificial comparison between past murderers and the modern day’s petitioners?

Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 8, 2012 at 2:42 pmReply

Peter Kelly Yes, and after you listed them, you wrote: ‘…if you are one amongst
them [targeted groups] maybe you would have been swinging from
those ropes for a petty crime. Those are the values you would have stood
for decades and centuries ago…’How is a mentality that was,
‘decades or centuries ago’, prepared to murder in any way comparable to a
mentality that holds that the fundamentals of marriage shouldn’t be
altered? Bearing in mind that, as we are all aware, people are still
willing to commit acts of violence in support of their beliefs, why this
artificial equivalence between past murderers and the modern day’s
petitioners, unless to make a comparison?

Peter KellyAugust 8, 2012 at 4:32 pmReply

Matt Wahnsiedler Because such comparisons are valid. Forty years ago the battle was over black rights and the rights for homosexuals to escape hanging for sexual acts. One hundred years ago it was the women’s right to vote. Two hundred and fifty years ago it was slavery. The mentality is the same, that those that are different from the majority do not deserve the same rights. Because they are different, they are unworthy and wrong, they are in some way less than human in a way which affords them rights. The right to be seen as equal, to be equally able to show love in a ceremony given equal standing to the majority is simply one of the final battles of this process.Just because I make a comparison of the mentality does not mean I am calling opponents the moral equivalent of rapists and murderers.

Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 10, 2012 at 9:25 amReply

Peter Kelly ‘Just because I make a comparison of the mentality does not mean I am
calling opponents the moral equivalent of rapists and murderers.’ True, you are just saying the mentality is the same. As you said:’The mentality is the same’ Look, if you really think that saying someone has the mentality of a rapist or murderer isn’t making a comparison, we can probably leave things here.

Peter KellyAugust 10, 2012 at 9:30 amReply

Matt Wahnsiedler I note you completely ignored the rest of it. It is a comparison, I said it was, but not of present day. I’m not saying those opposing gay marriage may as well be rapists and murders, or would defend them today, but they may well have defended them in the periods I mentioned.

13 Comments

IsaacAugust 6, 2012 at 10:41 pmReply

Homosexuality is not conducive to life. Nature precludes procreation from two of the same gender. Sir, if either your mother or father was a homosexual you wouldn’t even be here to write this article. Think about that. Your life would have never been.God is about life and procreation. A mother and father having children. This is wholesome and natural. Life is Gods greatest masterpiece and we need to respect it, cherish it, perpetuate and nurture it.
- Peter KellyAugust 8, 2012 at 1:47 pmReply
  
  @Isaac The choice not to have children isn’t conducive to life either, but we don’t prejudice against those who make that choice. BMX riding hardly helps either, I’ve known plenty of men to have had their chances of having children dramatically reduced by the sport, but no hangings for BMX riders in Iran.God isn’t exactly a fantastic argument when no one knows what God you’re referring to. Jewish? Christian? Islamic? Hindu? Sikh? Greek? Norse? Native American? Even if you do pick the same one as whoever you’re talking to, what on earth makes you think that you have the right to enforce your perception of what God is onto the way of life of others, who most likely believe in a different God or no God at all. Homosexuals do not harm life. Nothing they do reduces the chances of others to reproduce or in any way harms life that already exists. Killing them or persecuting them will not increase birth rates. If you want to truly cherish life, leave them alone. Harming their way of life or even going as far as killing them will not create more life, it will not convince people to have more children, it will not protect any ones lives. If you truly cherish life, and believe in a God which created all life, you would understand all life, homosexual or heterosexual, is worth protecting, and that your God does not make mistakes. If God created man, he created homosexuality, who are you to judge him wrong to do so?
- RachelAugust 8, 2012 at 1:52 pmReply
  
  @Isaac Peter has already said most of what I’d add below me so I won’t add much.”Sir, if either your mother or father was a homosexual you wouldn’t even be here to write this article. Think about that. Your life would have never been.”I fail to see why that suggests homosexuality is wrong in some way. Gay couples can adopt and give a child a loving home. Conversely, two straight married people may not have children, through choice or otherwise.Suggesting that being gay is wrong because there is no opportunity of natural procreation between them is like suggesting that being an author is wrong because the world needs doctors. There’s room for both, and both may perform great work.
- NatAugust 8, 2012 at 2:47 pmReply
  
  @Isaac What about those disgusting heterosexuals who marry and #gasp# don’t want children? They are not conducive to life either. For future reference, God is also about detesting shellfish and not wearing mixed-fibres, so take off that unnatural (yet fabulous) jumper right now.
Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 7, 2012 at 12:41 amReply

With reference to the second-to-last paragraph, the one where ‘Jews’ is a perpetual category of victimhood, lumped next to ‘adulterers’ for some reason, and opposing gay marriage is a bit like supporting rape and slavery: is it possible the hyperbole isn’t quite justified?
- Peter KellyAugust 8, 2012 at 1:52 pmReply
  
  Matt Wahnsiedler I do not believe it’s a hyperbole at all. Prejudice is prejudice. If you wish to show intolerance and discrimination against one minority group, why not involve the rest? It’s hardly fair that one group gets all the suffering. If you believe that you can show prejudice against one group without looking just as hateful as aiming at the whole group you are simply blinkered to the reality of your beliefs. The reason I highlighted adulterers is that the apparently death-sentence worthy crime of adultery is commonly punished across the Islamic world, and was in the Christian world throughout much of our history.
  - Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 8, 2012 at 2:17 pmReply
    
    Peter Kelly To be clear, I have no particular objection to gay marriage. Neverthless, I do object to conflating those who peacefully oppose gay marriage with rapists, slavers and murderers. I’m surprised that requires any explanation.
    - Peter KellyAugust 8, 2012 at 2:27 pmReply
      
      Matt Wahnsiedler I don’t think I ever made that comparison. I did however lay out groups of people who have faced discrimination in the past, including raped women, slaves and various minorities who have been murdered in their thousands for that identity. I don’t think that meant I was comparing the acts against them to the acts of peaceful demonstrators, but I will certainty compare the mentality involved.
    - Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 8, 2012 at 2:37 pmReply
      
      Peter Kelly Yes, and after you listed them, you wrote: ‘…if you are one amongst them [targeted groups] maybe you would have been swinging from
      those ropes for a petty crime. Those are the values you would have stood
      for decades and centuries ago…’How is a mentality that was, ‘decades or centuries ago’, prepared to murder in any way comparable to a mentality that holds that the fundamentals of marriage shouldn’t be altered? Bearing in mind that, as we are all aware, people are still willing to commit acts of violence in support of their beliefs, why this artificial comparison between past murderers and the modern day’s petitioners?
    - Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 8, 2012 at 2:42 pmReply
      
      Peter Kelly Yes, and after you listed them, you wrote: ‘…if you are one amongst
      them [targeted groups] maybe you would have been swinging from
      those ropes for a petty crime. Those are the values you would have stood
      for decades and centuries ago…’How is a mentality that was,
      ‘decades or centuries ago’, prepared to murder in any way comparable to a
      mentality that holds that the fundamentals of marriage shouldn’t be
      altered? Bearing in mind that, as we are all aware, people are still
      willing to commit acts of violence in support of their beliefs, why this
      artificial equivalence between past murderers and the modern day’s
      petitioners, unless to make a comparison?
    - Peter KellyAugust 8, 2012 at 4:32 pmReply
      
      Matt Wahnsiedler Because such comparisons are valid. Forty years ago the battle was over black rights and the rights for homosexuals to escape hanging for sexual acts. One hundred years ago it was the women’s right to vote. Two hundred and fifty years ago it was slavery. The mentality is the same, that those that are different from the majority do not deserve the same rights. Because they are different, they are unworthy and wrong, they are in some way less than human in a way which affords them rights. The right to be seen as equal, to be equally able to show love in a ceremony given equal standing to the majority is simply one of the final battles of this process.Just because I make a comparison of the mentality does not mean I am calling opponents the moral equivalent of rapists and murderers.
    - Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 10, 2012 at 9:25 amReply
      
      Peter Kelly ‘Just because I make a comparison of the mentality does not mean I am
      calling opponents the moral equivalent of rapists and murderers.’ True, you are just saying the mentality is the same. As you said:’The mentality is the same’ Look, if you really think that saying someone has the mentality of a rapist or murderer isn’t making a comparison, we can probably leave things here.
    - Peter KellyAugust 10, 2012 at 9:30 amReply
      
      Matt Wahnsiedler I note you completely ignored the rest of it. It is a comparison, I said it was, but not of present day. I’m not saying those opposing gay marriage may as well be rapists and murders, or would defend them today, but they may well have defended them in the periods I mentioned.